http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: M. C. GUPTA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A. K. GUPTA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1978

BENCH:

ACT:      Indian Medical  Council Act,  1956, S.  2(f) read  with General Regulations,  R. 4,  "Medicine", includes specialist branch of  cardiology -"Research  experience",  computation, holding  of   specified  post  whether  pre-requisite  while conducting   research-"Teaching   experience"   in   foreign institutions when can be taken into account.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  Dr. M. C. Gupta and the sixth respondent Dr. R.  N. Tandon,  were appointed to the post of ’Professor in medicine  in State  Government    Medical  Colleges.  The appointments were  made by  the  State  Government,  on  the recommendation of  U.P. Public Service Commission, which had earlier  with   the  assistance  of  four  medical  experts, selected them through an interview. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3  who were  also candidates  for the  post filed a writ petition in  the High  Court, challenging  the selection and appointment of  Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon, though no mala  fides were  attributed to  the Commission. A Single Judge  of   the  High  Court  issued  a  writ  quashing  the selection, on  the ground  that neither  of the two selected doctors had  the  requisite  teaching  experience  and  that neither of  them was qualified for selection as Professor of Medicine. In  appeal, the  appellate Bench of the High Court confirmed the  order quashing  the selections,  and  further quashed the  order of  appointment, remitting  the matter to the Commission,  directing it  to make  fresh  selection  in consonance with  the interpretation  put upon  the  relevant regulation, by the court.      Allowing the  three connected appeals, one by Dr. M. C. Gupta, and two by the State of U.P., the Court ^      HELD .  I. Medicine  includes cardiology.  The  Medical Council of  India, a  body composed  of experts, have in the regulations clearly manifested their approach when they said that cardiology is a specialist branch under medicine. Where general subject  such as  medicine or surgery is being dealt with, in  a regulation, the specialist branch under it would be covered,  though not  vice versa, because if one wants to hold a  post in  the specialist branch, he must of necessity have teaching  experience in  the specialist branch. [859 G, 860 D, 861 E].      II. If  general regulation  4 is  properly analysed for the  purpose   of   computing   research   experience,   the prerequisite  is  that  the  research  must  be  done  after obtaining the  requisite post-graduate qualification. It has no reference  to the  post held  by the  person  engaged  in research at the time of conducting the research, and, to say that holding  of the  post specified in the regulation, is a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

pre-requisite while  conducting  research,  is  to  read  in regulation 4, what is not prescribed thereunder. [862 D-F].      III.   Teaching    experience   in   foreign   teaching institutions can  be taken  into account,  but, they must be some  recognised   institutions  of   repute  and   not  any institution outside the territory of India. 865 G, 866 C]. 854      State of  Bihar &  Anr. v.  Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 894; followed. Vade Mecum :      In view of the twilight zone of Court’s interference in appointment to  posts requiring  technical  experience  made consequent upon  selection  by  Public  Service  Commission, aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high  academic   qualifications  in  the  specialist  field, probing teaching/research  experience in technical subjects, within the  framework of  Regulations framed  by the Medical Council of  India, under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956  and approved  by the  Government  of  India,  the courts  should   be  slow  to  interfere  with  the  opinion expressed by  the experts,  unless there  are allegations of mala fides against them. [857E-G].      University of  Mysore &  Anr. v.  C. D.  Govinda Rao  & Anr., [1964] 4 SCR 575; applied.      State of  BIhar &  Anr. v.  Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 894; explained.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 357/77 and 1142-1143/78.      Appeals by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated 28-8-75  and 17-9-75  of the  Allahabad High  Court in Special Appeal Nos. 233, 254 and 264 of 1975.      L. N. Sinha, Santosh Chatterjee, Vineet Kumar and P. P. Singh for the Appellant in CA 357/77.      S. N.  Kacker, Sol.  General, M.  V. Goswami  and Rajiv Dutt for the Appellants in CA 1142-1143/78 and RR 4 and 5 in CA 357/77      A. K. Sen, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for Respondent No. 1 in All the appeals.      V. M.  Tarkunde, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 2 in all appeals      G. L. Sanghi, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 3 in all appeals.      Rajiv Dutt and P. C. Kapur for R. 6 in CA 357/77.      Santosh Chatterjee  and Vineet  Kumar for  R. 6  in  CA 1142/78.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  Respondents Nos.  1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 357/77  filed writ  petition No. 5462/74 challenging the selection by  U.P. Public  Service Commission  (’Commission’ for  short)   and  subsequent   appointment  by  U.P.  State Government of  appellant and respondent No. 6 to the post of Professor in  Medicine in State Government Medical Colleges. A learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the selec- 855 tions.  Four  appeals  came  to  be  preferred  against  the judgment quashing  selections. Special Appeal No. 232/75 was filed by  Dr. R. N. Tandon, respondent No. 6; Special Appeal No. 233  of 1975  was preferred by the present appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta; Special Appeal No. 264 of 1975 was preferred by the State  of U.P.;  and Special  Appeal No. 256 of 1975 was filed by  respondents Nos.  1, 2  and 3  in Civil Appeal No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

357/77 against  that part  of the  judgment of  the  learned single Judge  by which  appointment of  appellant Dr.  M. C. Gupta and  respondent No.  6, Dr.  R.  N.  Tandon,  was  not quashed.      The appellate  Bench partly  allowed  the  appeals  and while confirming  the order quashing the selection of Dr. M. C.  Gupta   and  Dr.   R.  N.  Tandon,  also  quashed  their appointment  and  remitted  the  matter  to  the  Commission directing it  to  re-examine  the  relative  merits  of  all candidates in  the light  of the interpretation put upon the relevant regulations  by the Court. Arising from this common judgment, three  appeals by  special leave  are preferred to this Court.  Civil Appeal  No. 357/77 is preferred by Dr. M. C. Gupta  and Civil  Appeals Nos.  1142 &  1143 of  1978 are preferred by the State of U.P.      To focus  the attention on the contention raised at the hearing of  these appeals,  a brief resume of facts would be advantageous. The  Commission invited  applications for  two posts of Professor of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges as  per   its  advertisement   dated  8th   September  1973, subsequently  extending   the  last   date  for  receipt  of applications to  30th March 1974, Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon  (referred to  as the ’appellants’) along with Dr. A. K.  Gupta, Dr.  Brij  Kishore  and  Dr.  S.  N.  Aggarwal (referred to  as ’respondents  1, 2  and 3), applied for the post.   The    advertisement   set    out   the   prescribed qualifications for  the post under Regulations made under s. 33 of  the Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  (’Act’  for short). They  were in  respect of  the academic attainments, teaching/research experience,  upper  age  limit,  etc.  The Commission was  assisted by  four  medical  experts  in  the matter  of   interview,  selection   and  recommendation  of suitable candidates  satisfying the requisite qualifications for the  post. The  Commission selected  Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R.  N. Tandon for the two posts of Professor in Medicine and  recommended   their  names  to  the  State  Government, Respondents 1,  2 and  3 who  were also  candidates for  the post, presumably  came to  know about the recommendation and moved the High Court on 13th September 1974 by way of a writ petition  questioning   the  selection.   The  petition  was admitted and  rule nisi was issued. An ex-parte interim stay restraining the  Government from making the appointments was granted but sub- 856 sequently it  was vacated. The State Government accepted the recommendations of  the Commission  and appointed  Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon as Professors of Medicine on 30th October  1974.   The  petition   was  subsequently   amended questioning the  order of  appointment.  As  already  stated above, the  learned single Judge held that neither Dr. M. C. Gupta nor  Dr. R.  N.  Tandon  had  the  requisite  teaching experience and  that  neither  of  them  was  qualified  for selection as  Professor of  Medicine and accordingly allowed the writ  petition and  quashed the  selection. By  a common judgment in  the appeals  arising from  the judgment  of the learned single  Judge, the  appellate  Bench  confirmed  the order quashing  the selections and further quashed the order of appointment  and remitted  the matter  to the  Commission directing it  to make fresh selection in consonance with the interpretation put  upon the  relevant  regulations  by  the Court. Three  appeals are  before us.  These  three  appeals obviously were  heard together  and are being disposed of by this common judgment.      The selection and appointment of Dr. M.C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon were questioned only on one ground in that each

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

of them  did not  satisfy  the  requisite  teaching/research experience. The  controversy in  these appeals centres round the  question   of  teaching/research   experience  and  the relevant regulation in this behalf may be extracted: ___________________________________________________________ Post              Academic        Subject   Teaching/                   Qualification             Research                                             experience ___________________________________________________________ (b) Professor/    M.D., M.R.C.P., Medicine  (b) As Reader/     Associate     F.R.C.P.,                 Asst. Professor     Professor     Speciality                in Medicine for                   Board of                  5 years in a                   Internal Medicine         Medical College                   (USA) or an               after requisite                   equivalent                post-graduate                   qualification in          qualification.                   the subject. ___________________________________________________________      Regulation 4 of General Regulations provides as under:           "4. 50%  of the  time spent in recognised research      under the  Indian Council  of  Medical  Research  or  a      University or  a Medical  College, after  obtaining the      requisite  post-graduate   qualification   be   counted      towards teaching  experience in  the same  or an allied      subject provided  that 50%  of the  teaching experience      shall be the regular teaching experience."      The teaching/research experience claimed by each of the appellants may be set out and then the comments of each side in respect of each item may be examined: 857 Experience of Dr. M. C. Gupta.      I. 25th January 1965 to 19th      About 6 years and         July 1971-Lecturer in Cardio-  6 month’s teaching         logy in the Dept. of Medicine  experience.      II July 71 upto the date of       About 3 years, 2         appointment as Professor-      months’ teaching         Reader in Medicine in S.N.     experience.         Medicine College, Agra. Experience of Dr. R.N. Tandon      I. 1st October 1965 to 31st       One years’ teaching         October, 1966-Post doctoral    experience.         teaching fellow, Dept. of         Medicine, State University         of New York at Buffalo, USA.     II  1st February, 1967 to 31st     One year’s teaching         1968-As a Lecturer while       experience.         posted as Pool Officer Dept.         of Medicine in GSVM Medical         College, Kanpur.    III  5th April 1968 to 4th July     15 Months’ teaching         1969-Post doctoral research    experience.         fellow, Dept. of Medical in         GVSM Medical College, Kanpur.     IV  29th July 1969 to 30th October Over 5 years teaching         1974-(date of appointment as   experience.         Professor)-Asst. Professor         of Medicine, State University         of New York, at Buffalo USA.      Before the  rival comments  are probed and analysed, it would be  necessary to  keep in  view the  twilight zone  of Court’s  interference  in  appointment  to  posts  requiring technical  experience  made  consequent  upon  selection  by Public Service  Commission, aided  by experts  in the field, within the  framework of  Regulations framed  by the Medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

Council of  India under  s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,  and approved  by the  Government of India on 5th June 1971.  When selection  is made  by the Commission aided and advised  by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications  in the  specialist  field,  probing teaching/research  experience  in  technical  subjects,  the Courts  should   be  slow  to  interfere  with  the  opinion expressed by  experts unless  there are  allegations of mala fides against  them. It  would normally  be prudent and safe for the  Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who  are more  familiar with  the problems they face than the  Courts generally  can be. Undoubtedly, even such a body if  it were to contravene rules and regulations binding upon  it  in  making  the  selection  and  recommending  the selectees  for   appointment,  the   Court  in  exercise  of extraordinary jurisdiction  to  enforce  rule  of  law,  may interfere in  a writ  petition under  Article 226. Even then the Court,  while enforcing the rule of law, should give due weight 858 to the  opinions expressed  by the experts and also show due regard to  its recommendations on which the State Government acted. If  the recommendations  made by  the body of experts keeping in  view the relevant rules and regulations manifest due consideration  of all  the relevant  factors, the  Court should be  very slow  to interfere with such recommendations (see, The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C. D. Govinda Rao & Anr.,(1). In a more comparable situation in State of Bihar & Anr. v.  Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee,  and Ors.,(2) this Court observed as under:           "Shri Jagdish  Swaroop rightly  stressed that once      the right  to appoint  belonged to Government the Court      could not  usurp it merely because it would have chosen      a different person as better qualified or given a finer      gloss or  different construction  to the  regulation on      the score  of a set formula that relevant circumstances      had been  excluded, irrelevant  factors had  influenced      and such like grounds familiarly invented by parties to      invoke the  extraordinary jurisdiction  under Art. 226.      True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a      government servant.  Speaking in  plaintitudinous terms      these propositions  may deserve serious reflection. The      Administration should  not be  thwarted  in  the  usual      course  of   making  appointments  because  somehow  it      displeases judicial  relish or the Court does not agree      with  its   estimate  of  the  relative  worth  of  the      candidates. Is  there violation of a fundamental right,      illegality or  a skin  error of  law which vitiates the      appointment".      With   these   blurred   contours   of   periphery   of jurisdiction under  Article 226 to interfere with selections made by  an independent  body like Public Service Commission not attributed  any mala  fides, assisted by four experts in the   field    who   presumably    knew   what   constituted teaching/research experience,  what institutions are treated prestigious enough,  in which  teaching/research  experience would  be   treated  valuable,  we  may  examine  the  rival contentions.      Two contentions  which have  found favour with the High Court must engage our attention: (1) In order to satisfy the experience  qualification  for  the  post  of  Professor  in Medicine,  the   teaching/research  experience  must  be  in medicine and  stricto  sensu  Cardiology  being  a  separate branch, experience of teaching/research in Cardiology cannot be availed  of, and  (2) any  such experience to satisfy the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

regulation must  be acquire while holding the post of Reader or Assistant  Professor (including  the post of Lecturer) in Medicine.      The controversy  centres round  the connotation  of the expression 859 ’medicine’. Does  it include  Cardiology or  Cardiology is a separate Branch  ? Section  2(f) of the Act defines medicine to mean  modern scientific  medicine in all its branches and includes  surgery  and  obstetrics,  but  does  not  include veterinary  medicine   and  surgery.  This  is  too  wide  a definition to  assist  us  in  the  problem  posed  for  the decision of the Court. In the world of medical science there are general  subjects and specialities. Medicine and surgery are general  subjects. To wit, Cardiology is a speciality in medicine and  orthopaedics is  a speciality in surgery. Even the  regulation  from  page  8  onwards  bears  the  heading ’Specialist Branch  under Medicine  and Surgery’. Cardiology finds its  place as  a specialist branch under medicine. The relevant regulation requires teaching/research experience in medicine.   Contention    is,   if    any   one    who   has teaching/research experience in Cardiology, could he be said to have  such experience  in medicine  ? In  this context we must recall regulation 4 which provides that 50% of the time spent in  recognised research  after obtaining the requisite post-graduate  qualification   shall  be   counted   towards teaching experience  in the  same or allied subject provided that 50%  of the  teaching experience  shall be  the regular teaching experience.  If research  in allied  subject can be taken  to   satisfy  the   requisite  experience,   teaching experience in  a speciality under the general head could not be put  on an  inferior footing. Undoubtedly, if the post is in a  specialist department, the requisite teaching/research experience will have to be in the speciality. To illustrate, if one  were to  qualify for  being appointed  as Professor/ Associate Professor  of Cardiology,  his teaching experience must be  in Cardiology  though his research experience could as well  be in Cardiology or allied subject. A person having such experience  in  the  general  subject  medicine  cannot qualify for  the speciality.  That it what distinguishes the speciality from the general subject. This becomes clear from the fact  that in  a number  of hospitals  there may  not be posts in  specialist branches  and someone  working  in  the general department  may  be  assigned  to  do  the  work  of specialist branches.  If a  particular hospital  has not got Cardiology as  a specialist  branch, a  Reader or  Assistant Professor in  the Department  of Medicine may be required to look after  Cardiology cases and teaching of Cardiology as a subject. In  that event  he is  certainly a Reader/Assistant Professor in  Medicine teaching  one of  the subjects, viz., Cardiology which  again forms part of the general curriculum of the  subject of  medicine. Therefore, it is not proper to divorce  a   specialist  branch  subject  from  the  general subject. It cannot be seriously contended that medicine does not include  Cardiology. To  be qualified for the specialist branch of  Cardiology, the minimum academic qualification is M.D.  (Medicine).   This  would   clearly  show  that  after acquiring  the   general  qualification  one  can  take  the specialist branch. If any other approach is adopted it would work 860 to the  disadvantage of the person who while being posted in the Department  of Medicine,  is asked  to teach  a  subject which is  necessary for being taught for qualifying for M.D. but  which   can  be   styled  as   speciality.   He   would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

simultaneously be  denied the  teaching  experience  in  the subject of  Medicine. An  extreme argument was urged that in adopting this  approach it  may  be  that  somebody  may  be working in  different specialist branches such as Neurology, Gastroenterology,  Psychiatry,   etc.  and  each  one  would qualify for being appointed as Professor of Medicine without having even a tickle of experience on the subject of general medicine. This  wild apprehension  need not deter us because it should  be first  remembered  that  any  one  going  into specialist branch  under medicine has to be M.D. (Medicine). Thereafter, if  he  wants  to  become  a  Professor  in  the specialist  branch   such  as   Cardiology,   the   academic qualification required  is to  hold a  degree of D.M. in the Specialist Branch.  This becomes clear from a perusal of the regulations. It  is not necessary, therefore, to go into the dictionary meaning of the expression ’medicine’ to determine whether it  includes  Cardiology.  The  Medical  Council  of India, a  body composed  of experts  have in the regulations clearly  manifested  their  approach  when  they  said  that Cardiology is  a  specialist  branch  under  medicine.  Ipso facto, medicine  includes Cardiology.  It was  not  disputed that one  qualifying for  M.D. (Medicine)  has to  learn the subject of  Cardiology. And  it must  be remembered that the four  experts   aiding  and  advising  the  Commission  have considered teaching  experience in  Cardiology  as  teaching experience in  Medicine. The  counter-affidavit on behalf of the Commission  in terms  states that medicine is a wide and general subject and includes Cardiology whereas for the post of Professor  of Cardiology  a further  two  years’  special training in  Cardiology or  D.M. in Cardiology after M.D. in Medicine has  been laid down as a requisite qualification by the Medical  Council. It  is further  stated  that  teaching experience in  Cardiology will  make the person eligible for the post  of Professor of Medicine. That was the view of the experts who  assisted the Commission. Incidentally it may be mentioned that  Mr. V.  M.  Tarkunde,  learned  counsel  for respondents 1,  2 and 3 took serious exception to giving any weight to  the counter-affidavit  because it  has  not  been sworn to  by any expert aiding or advising the Commission or by any  officer or  Member of the Commission but by an Upper Division Assistant  whose source  of knowledge  is the legal advice tendered  to him. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit the deponent says  that he has been deputed by the Commission to file the counter-affidavit on their behalf and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to in the affidavit. It is  our sad experience that responsible authorities avoid filing affidavits  in courts  when it behoves them to assist the Court  and facilitate  the  decision  of  the  questions brought before the Court 861 but on  this account  alone we  would not  wholly ignore the counter affidavit.      Some documents  were brought to our notice showing that in State  University of  New York  at  Buffalo,  U.S.A.  the Assistant Professor of Cardiology is designated as Assistant Professor of  Medicine.  Further,  in  the  Agra  University Calendar,  Cardiology  is  included  in  the  Department  of Medicine.  Similarly  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  the Department of  Medicine  in  the  University  of  Manchester includes   Lecturer   in   Cardiology.   Apart   from   this administrative  arrangement,   it  could  not  be  seriously disputed  that  Cardiology  is  a  specialist  branch  under medicine and  it could not be wholly divorced from medicine. Under the  general head ’medicine’ number of subjects are to be taught,  one such being Cardiology. If a teacher is asked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

to teach  Cardiology as  one of  the  subjects  for  general medicine, could  he be at a disadvantage by being treated as having not  acquired teaching  experience in medicine ? Even under general  medicine, apart  from medicine  as a subject, there are numerous other subjects and papers and there would be one  or more persons incharge of one or more subjects and papers and indisputably each one would be gaining experience in general medicine. If general medicine is to be restricted only to  the paper on medicine, it would lead to a startling as result, as startling as it was sought to be urged when it was said  that a person teaching Neurology could not be said to be  gaining teaching  experience in  medicine. The matter has to  be looked  at from  this  angle,  viz.,  that  where general subject  such as  medicine or surgery is being dealt with in  a regulation,  the specialist branch under it would be covered,  though not  vice versa, because if one wants to hold a post in the specialist branch he must be of necessity have  teaching  experience  in  the  specialist  branch.  In reaching  this  conclusion  the  seniority  list  maintained branch wise  would hardly  be helpful.  Therefore, it is not possible to  agree with  the High  Court that the subject of medicine under  the regulation  is exclusive  of  the  other subjects mentioned  therein and, therefore, does not include Cardiology.      The second  contention which found favour with the High Court was that the requisite teaching or research experience must be  acquired while  holding the  post set  out  in  the regulation in  that subject. In other words, the view of the High Court  is that the teaching/research experience must be acquired  while   holding  the   post  of   Reader/Assistant Professor in  Medicine for  five years in a Medical College. The  High  Court  placed  the  emphasis  on  the  experience acquired while  holding the  post. The  relevant  regulation requires teaching/research  experience  as  Reader/Assistant Professor (which includes Lecturer) 862 in Medicine  for five years in a Medical College. Regulation 4 has  to be read along with specific regulation. Regulation 4 clearly  shows that  50% of  the time  spent in recognised research in  the same or allied subject will be given credit provided that  50%  of  the  teaching  experience  shall  be regular  teaching   experience.  The   specific   regulation prescribing the  qualification will  have to be read subject to the  general regulation  prescribed  under  regulation  4 because the  experience qualification prescribed in specific regulation must  be  calculated  according  to  the  formula prescribed  in   general  regulation  no.  4.  The  specific regulation requires  5 years’  teaching/research experience. In calculating  the research  experience  in  the  light  of regulation 4,  2 1/2 years’ experience shall be specifically teaching experience and credit can be given to the extent of 50% of  the time  spent in recognised research as prescribed in the  regulation, which  experience can  be  in  the  same subject, viz.,  the subject  for which  the  recruitment  is being made or in allied subject. So far there is no dispute. The question  is: while acquiring research experience, is it incumbent that the person conducting research must also hold of necessity  designated post  in the  regulation ?  Now, if general regulation  4 is  properly analysed for the purposes of computing  research experience, the pre-requisite is that the research  must be  done after  obtaining requisite post- graduate qualification. It has no reference to the post held by the  person engaged in research at the time of conducting the research. The heading is ’teaching/research experience’. The dichotomy  will have  to  be  applied  to  teaching  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

research experience  for the  purpose of computation. So far as teaching  experience is  concerned, it  must be  acquired while holding  the post  specified in the regulation. But to say that  holding of  the  post  is  a  pre-requisite  while conducting research  is to  read in regulation 4 what is not prescribed thereunder.  The specific  regulation prescribing qualification will  have  to  be  read  subject  to  general regulation 4  and not vice versa. This also becomes manifest from the  fact that  general regulation 4 also provides that 50% of  the teaching  experience shall  be regular  teaching experience  meaning  thereby  that  if  someone  is  engaged exclusively in  research, he  cannot claim  to  satisfy  the teaching  experience   qualification   prescribed   in   the regulation.  Reading   specific  regulation   with   general regulation 4,  it emerges  that teaching experience shall be acquired while holding the particular post specified therein and the research experience can be taken into account if the person is  engaged in research after obtaining post-graduate qualification and  it has  nothing to do with the holding of the post. One may be engaged as a research scholar and holds no teaching  post. The  research is  hardly related  to post though capacity for research is directly related to academic attainment. That has been 863 taken care  of. Teaching it indisputably related to the post because a  higher post may entail greater responsibility for coaching in higher classes. This conclusion is reinforced by the  language   of  general   regulation  4   which  permits recognised research  under the  Indian  Council  of  Medical Research which  body may not have such hierarchical posts of Lecturer or  Assistant  Professor  or  Reader.  These  three designations are  to be  found in  teaching institutions and not in  research institutions.  If it were, therefore, to be held that  even while acquiring research experience one must hold the  post of  either Reader  or Assistant Professor, it would discourage  many persons conducting research under the Indian Council  of Medical  Research. It  is, therefore, not possible to  agree with  the generalisation made by the High Court that  teaching/research experience  to qualify for the post of Professor must be acquired while working as a Reader or Lecturer.      Having cleared  the ground  about the interpretation of requisite regulations,  we must  now turn to examine the two individual cases. In re :Dr. M. C. Gupta.      The experience qualification of Dr. M.C. Gupta has been extracted above.  There is  no dispute  between the  parties that he  was appointed and was working as Reader in Medicine in S.N. Medical College, Agra, from 28th July 1971 till 30th March 1974 which was the last date by which applications had to be  submitted to  the Commission.  This would  give him a teaching experience of 2 years 8 months and 10 days.      Dr. Gupta  also claims  teaching  experience,  being  a Lecturer in  Cardiology in the Department of Medicine, S. N. Medical College,  Agra, from  25th January 1965 to 19th July 1971, in  the aggregate  period of  6 years, 6 months and 24 days. There is a serious dispute between the parties whether Dr. Gupta  is entitled to get credit for teaching experience while working as Lecturer in Cardiology. On the view that we have taken  that Cardiology  is a  specialist  branch  under medicine and,  therefore, a  Lecturer in Cardiology could be said to  be a  Lecturer in one of the subjects under general medicine and  hence he  had requisite experience as Lecturer in Medicine.  However, Dr.  Gupta has produced a certificate issued by  the  Principal  and  Chief  Superintendent,  S.N.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

Medical College  & Hospital, Agra, dated 19th September 1974 in which  it is stated that ’Dr. Gupta joined the Department of Medicine  as Lecturer  in Cardiology on 25th January 1965 and continued  till July  19, 1971  when he was appointed as Reader in  Medical by  Public  Service  Commission’.  It  is further certified by 864 the Principal  & Chief  Superintendent that  ’Dr. Gupta  was actively   involved    in    patient-care,    teaching    of undergraduates and  post-graduates in  general  medicine  in addition to  conducting Cardiac  Out Patient,  looking after cardiac beds  and  taking  Cardiology  lectures  during  his tenure as Lecturer in Cardiology, as Cardiology forms a part of general medicine in this college and there is no separate Department of Cardiology here’. There is another certificate issued by  Dr. K. S. Mathur, Professor & Head, Department of Medicine (RD),  dated 17th September 1974, in which it is in terms stated  that Dr.  Gupta was  actively involved  in the patient   care    and   teaching   of   undergraduates   and postgraduates in  General Medicine in addition to Cardiology during this period. Further, Dr. Gupta used to be the Senior Physician to attend to Emergencies of all medical cases on a particular day  of week  and he  looked after indoor beds of general medical units during leave arrangements. He was also incharge of  T.B. Clinic  for a  period of one month. It was further stated  that Dr.  Gupta had  been assigned  ’Special Clinics’ to  5th year  and 3rd  year and  ’Long Clinics’  to final year students from time to time in addition to Cardiac Clinics and  Cardiology lectures. He was also taking regular classes in clinical methods for third year and has also been called upon to teach them kidney diseases. There are further references in  the certificate  which we  may ignore for the time being.  Dr. Gupta also produced a certificate issued by Professor of Clinical Medicine, S. N. Medical College, Agra, which, inter alia, states that Dr. Gupta was associated from time to  time with  teaching and  patient  care  in  general medicine and  he was  also actively associated with teaching of post-graduates in general medicine in the way of clinical conferences, seminars,  etc. He was also incharge of beds in general medicine in Professors’ Unit in the leave vacancy. A notice dated  24th October  1970 issued by the Department of Medicine, S.  N. Medical  College, Agra, was also brought to our notice  in which  it was  shown that Dr. Gupta was to be the Senior Physician on call on every Tuesday. It would thus appear that  even if Dr. Gupta was designated as Lecturer in Cardiology for  the period  25th January  to July  19, 1971, undoubtedly   he    was   teaching   general   medicine   to undergraduate students  and to  some post-graduate  students also and  this is  testified by  persons under  whom he  was working. It  would be  unwise to  doubt the  genuineness  of these certificates. Therefore, even apart from the fact that Cardiology is  a part  of medicine,  the teaching experience acquired while  holding the  post of Lecturer in Cardiology, was  teaching  experience  in  subject  which  substantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same, he  was   also  working   as  Lecturer  in  Cardiology  and, therefore, the  Commission was  amply justified  in reaching the conclusion that Dr. Gupta 865 had the  requisite teaching experience qualification and the High Court  was in error in quashing the selection of Dr. M. C. Gupta on this ground.      Mr. L.  N. Sinha,  learned counsel,  also wanted  us to examine the  research experience  of Dr. M. C. Gupta when he pointed out  that Dr.  Gupta had  published as  many  as  40

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

research papers  in leading medical journals in India during 10 years  he worked  as Lecturer/Reader and that he had also been a recognised appraiser for the thesis submitted for the award of  Doctor of  Medicine. Mr. Sen seriously objected to our examining  this contention  because  Dr.  Gupta  himself never  claimed   any   credit   for   research   experience. Undoubtedly,  the   counter-affidavit  on   behalf  of   the Commission refers  to having  taken into  consideration  the research experience  of  Dr.  Gupta  but  the  affidavit  is blissfully vague  on the  question which research experience was examined by the Commission. Therefore, we would not take into account  the research  experience claimed  on behalf of Dr. Gupta. In re: Dr. R. N. Tandon.      We have  already extracted  above the teaching/research experience qualification  claimed on  behalf of  Dr. Tandon. Mr. Kacker,  learned Solicitor General requested us to start examining each  item of  experience commencing from the last one as  first. Before  we proceed  to examine  each item  of experience claimed  by Dr.  Tandon, one contention raised on behalf of  the respondents  must be dealt with. It was urged that wherever the regulations prescribe teaching or research experience, it  must be  one acquired  in an  institution in India or  in  any  foreign  institution  recognised  by  the Medical Council  of India  or the Government of India. It is not necessary  to examine this argument in depth because the point could  be  said  to  have  been  concluded  by  A.  K. Mukherjee’s case,  wherein same  set of  regulations came in for  consideration  of  this  Court  and  in  which  it  was seriously contended  that the  teaching experience specified in regulations  in question  must be  acquired  in  teaching institutions  in   India  and,   therefore,   any   teaching experience  in  a  foreign  country  cannot  be  taken  into consideration. This  contention  was  in  terms  negativated simultaneously negativing  the other extreme submission that teaching experience  from any  foreign institution  is  good enough, and  after referring  to sections 12, 13, and 14, it was  held   that  those   which  are  good  enough  for  the aforementioned sections,  are good  enough for  the teaching experience gained therefrom being reckoned as satisfied. The matter undoubtedly  was not  further pursued  by this  Court because the final decision was left to the Commission. 866      Proceeding in  the order  suggested by Mr. Kacker it is claimed that  Dr. Tandon  worked as  Assistant Professor  of Medicine, State  University of New York at Buffalo from 29th July 1969  to 30th  October 1974.  This includes some period subsequent to  the last  date for  submitting application to the Commission  and  we  would  exclude  that  part  of  the experience claimed  by Dr.  Tandon.  Therefore,  Dr.  Tandon claims to be working as Assistant Professor of Medicine from 29th July  1969 to  30th March  1974 which was the last date for submitting  the application to the Commission. Computing the period, he would have teaching experience of four years, six months and one day.      It was  also said  that even  if teaching experience in foreign teaching  institution is  to be  taken into account, they must  be some recognised institutions of repute and not any institution  outside the  territory of  India.  That  of course is  true. In  A. K.  Mukherjee’s case  the  pertinent observation is as under:           "Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out,      we  consider  it  right  to  reckon  as  competent  and      qualitatively acceptable  those institutions  which are      linked with, or are recognised as teaching institutions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

    by the  Universities and  organisations in  Schedule II      and  Schedule   III  and   recognised  by  the  Central      Government under  s. 14.  Teaching institutions as such      may be  too wide  if extended  all over  the globe  but      viewed in the perspective of the Indian Medical Council      Act, 1956,  certainly they cover institutions expressly      embraced by  the provisions  of the  statute. If  those      institutions are good enough for the important purposes      of ss.  12, 13  and 14,  it is reasonable to infer they      are good  enough for  the  teaching  experience  gained      therefrom being reckoned as satisfactory." But it  could hardly  be urged with some confidence that the State University  of New  York at  Buffalo would  not be  an institution of  repute. An  attempt was made to refer to the Schedules, not  upto date,  to  the  Act  published  by  the Medical Council of India showing recognised institutions. In fact, the Schedules set out recognised degrees, certificates and diplomas  of various  Universities and certain examining Boards of  U.S.A. being recognised by the Medical Council of India. This  brochure hardly  helps in  coming to conclusion one way  or the  other. It  refers to degrees and the Boards awarding the  degrees and  diplomas. It  does not  refer  to teaching   institutions.   It   nowhere   shows   that   the certificates and  diplomas issued by the State University of New York at 867 Buffalo would  not be  under one of the American Boards and, therefore, it  is not  recognised. Such a contention was not even  urged   before  the  High  Court  or  specifically  in affidavits so  that factual  material could  have been  more carefully examined.  The experts  aiding  and  advising  the Commission must  be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience  was acquired by Dr. Tandon and this one is a reputed University.      It was,  however, contended  that there  is no proof in support of  the submission  that Dr.  Tandon was  working as Assistant Professor  of Medicine  at State University of New York at  Buffalo, commencing from 29th July 1969. Dr. Tandon has  produced  a  certificate,  Annexure  CA.  5  issued  by Associate  Professor   of   Medicine,   Director   Angiology Department, Buffalo General Hospital dated 3rd June 1971, in which it is stated that Dr. Tandon is an Assistant Professor of Medicine  in the  Department of Medicine on the full time staff of  the Buffalo  General  Hospital  having  an  annual salary of $ 15,000. Mr. Tarkunde urged that this certificate does not  show that  Dr. Tandon was appointed effective from 29th  July   1969.  Further,  exception  was  taken  to  the certificate in  that it  is issued  by the  Buffalo  General Hospital which  the  certificate  does  not  show  to  be  a teaching institution.  If it was not a teaching institution, one would  fail to understand how it had a post of Assistant Professor of Medicine. In a nonteaching hospital there could not be  a post  of Assistant  Professor. Therefore, the very fact that  Dr. Tandon was shown to be an Assistant Professor of Medicine,  by necessary  implication shows  that  Buffalo General Hospital  was a  teaching  institution  under  State University of  New York. In this connection reference may be made to  a certificate  dated 12th  September 1974 issued by James P.  Nolan, Professor  of Medicine and Head, Department of Medicine, Buffalo General Hospital, in which it is stated that since  July 1969  Dr. Tandon  has  been  a  teacher  in general medicine  at  the  Buffalo  General  Hospital.  This removes any  doubt about  the commencement of appointment of Dr. Tandon  as Assistant  Professor at  the Buffalo  General Hospital. Mr.  Tarkunde however  urged that  the certificate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

does not appear to be genuine in view of the inquiry made by a telegram  (p.  257,  Vol.  II  of  the  record)  from  the authorities incharge of the Buffalo General Hospital and the reply received  that Dr.  Tandon is in India and, therefore, cannot get  any information  as he  left instructions not to release it.  Who has  sent this  telegram is  left  to  mere speculation. And  who sent  the reply is equally unknown. It would be improper to reject the certificate on such nebulous ground and we 868 can do  no better than reject the contention of Mr. Tarkunde as  unworthy   of  consideration   as  was  done  in  A.  K. Mukherjee’s case where in it was observed as under:           "There are  6 certificates  now on  record and the      1st respondent is stated to have taken part in teaching      work as  Registrar. You  cannot expect to produce those      surgeons  in   Patna  in   proof  and   unless  serious      circumstances militating  against veracity  exist fair-      minded administrators  may, after expert consultations,      rely on them". Therefore,  we   see  no  justification  for  rejecting  the certificates. It  would  appear  that  Dr.  Tandon  had  the teaching experience  while holding  the  post  of  Assistant Professor of Medicine for a period of four years, six months and one day. The minimum requirement is five years.      We would  next examine  one  more  item  of  experience claimed by  Dr. Tandon in that he was post-doctoral teaching fellow, Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo  from 1st October 1965 to 31st October 1966. Now, undoubtedly  this   was  teaching  experience  in  the  same University where  he was  subsequently Assistant  Professor. The grievance is that he was a Fellow and neither a Lecturer nor an  Assistant  Professor.  What  does  ’Fellow’  in  the University  connote  ?  A  certificate  has  been  produced, Annexure CA.  (page 50,  Vol. IV)  by Dr.  Tandon issued  by Eugine I.  Lippasch, Professor  &  Administrative  Associate Chairman of  the Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, dated 13th October 1966, in which it is stated  that   Dr.  Tandon   completed  one   year  teaching fellowship in  the Division  of Cardiology of the Department of Medicine  at the  State University of New York at Buffalo and the  Buffalo General Hospital on October 31, 1966. It is not very  clear what  is  the  equivalent  of  a  Fellow  in teaching Hospitals  in India but Dr. Tandon has also claimed teaching experience  from 5th  April 1968  to 4th July 1969, being posted as post-doctoral research fellow, Department of Medicine in  G. S.  V. M.  Medical College,  Kanpur. In this connection, Annexure  R-2, produced  by none other than some of the  contesting respondents  shows that during the tenure of Fellowship,  Dr. Tandon  was expected to take part in the teaching and  research activities  of the  College though he would not be treated as part of the regular establishment of the College.  Now, if the certificate produced by Dr. Tandon shows that  Fellowship included  teaching work,  it would be unwise to  doubt it.  Even if 50% of the time spent in these two places is given credit, Dr. Tandon had certainly 869 more than  five years’ teaching experience. The Court is not competent to  work out  figures with mathematical precision. It can  broadly examine the question whether the requirement is  satisfied  or  not.  Therefore,  he  had  the  requisite teaching/research experience  and the  Commission was  fully justified  in   treating  Dr.  Tandon  as  having  requisite teaching/research experience.      It thus  clearly appears  that both Dr. M. C. Gupta and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

Dr. R.  N. Tandon  had the  requisite  qualifications,  both academic and experience, and they were eligible for the post for which  they had applied and if they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no exception can be taken  to the  same. The  High Court  was, therefore,  in error in  interfering with  the same.  Accordingly, all  the three appeals  are allowed  and the  writ petition  filed by respondents 1,  2 and  3 in the High Court is dismissed with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. M.R. Appeals allowed. 870