Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1956  OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7729 of 2012)

Dr.Purshotam Kumar Kaundal ....Appellant

Versus

State of H.P. and Others       ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Leave granted.

2. The only question for  consideration is  whether respondent  

No.5  Dr.  D.D.  Gupta  was  eligible  for  being  considered  for  

promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in accordance with  

the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999. In  

our opinion, the question should be answered in the affirmative  

and against the appellant Dr. Purshotam Kumar Kaundal.

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 1 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 2

3. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant  

Professor, as laid down in the Service Rules  is as follows:-

“By  promotion  from  amongst  the  lecturers  who  possess  three  years  regular  service  or  regular  combined  with  continuous  ad  hoc  (rendered  upto  31.3.1998)  service,  if  any,  in  the  grade  in  the  concerned specialty failing which by appointment (by  selection  from  amongst  the  members  of  H.P.  Civil  Medical  Service  (General  Wing)  having  recognized  post-graduation degree or its equivalent qualification  in the concerned specialty and possess at least three  years  teaching  experience  as  Lecturer/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor/Sr.  Resident/Chief  Resident  in  the  concerned  specialty  after  doing  post-graduation  in  the  concerned  specialty failing which by direct recruitment.”

4. Dr.  Gupta  had  obtained  a  post  graduation  degree  in  

Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak on  

31st December,  1991.  He  believed  that  he  met  the  eligibility  

criterion  as  per  the  Service  Rules  and  ought  to  have  been  

considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor.

5. However,  when  his  case  came  up  for  consideration  for  

promotion before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 28th  

August, 2001 he was not considered  apparently on the ground  

that  he  did  not  possess  an M.D.  degree in  Pharmacology  duly  

recognized by the Medical Council of India (for short the MCI).  We  

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 2 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 3

were told that this decision was based on a letter dated 8th July,  

2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary in the MCI to the Director of  

Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh in which it is  

stated as follows :-

“Kindly  refer  to  your  letter  No.  HFW (DME)  H(1)A- 20/99, dated 1.9.2001, this is to inform you that MD  (Pharmacology)  qualification  granted  by  Maharishi  Dayanand  University  in  respect  of  students  being  trained at Pt B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of  Medical Science is not recognized by the Council for  purposes of IMC Act, 1956.”

6. Dr.  Gupta  challenged  the  failure  of  the  Departmental  

Promotion Committee to consider him for promotion by filing an  

original application before the State Administrative Tribunal.   The  

original application was transferred to the High Court of Himachal  

Pradesh and registered as CWP (T) No.7948 of 2008.   

7. By a judgment and order dated 9th August, 2010 a learned  

Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by  

Dr. Gupta. The learned Single Judge held that Section 11(1) of the  

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the Act) provides that  

only  those  medical  qualifications  granted  by  any  university  or  

medical  institution  in  India  which  are  included  in  the  First  

Schedule to the Act shall be recognized medical qualifications for  

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 3 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 4

the purposes of the Act.  The learned Single Judge held that since  

an M.D. in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University  

was not included in the First Schedule to the Act, Dr. Gupta was  

not  eligible  for  being  considered  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  

Assistant Professor in Pharmacology.  It was also held that since  

Maharishi Dayanand University did not apply for recognition of the  

qualification to the Central Government in terms of Section 11(2)  

of the Act, Dr. Gupta was also not entitled to the benefit of that  

sub-section of Section 11 of the Act.  The learned Single Judge  

also referred to Section 2(h) of the Act which defines a recognised  

medical qualification as meaning any of the medical qualifications  

included  in  the  schedules  of  the  Act.  It  was  held  that  the  

qualification obtained by Dr. Gupta from the Maharishi Dayanand  

University did not fall under any schedule to the Act.  Accordingly,  

the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

8. Feeling aggrieved, Dr. Gupta preferred LPA No.176 of 2010 in  

the High Court.  By its judgment and order dated 19th October,  

2011 the High Court agreed with Dr. Gupta and allowed the letters  

patent  appeal  and  set  aside  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 4 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 5

learned Single Judge. The official  respondents were directed by  

the  High  Court  to  hold  a  review  departmental  promotion  

committee for the post of Assistant Professor within a period of  

eight weeks.  It was also held that Dr. Gupta would be entitled to  

all  consequential  benefits  in  case  he  is  found  suitable  by  the  

review departmental promotion committee for appointment to the  

post of Assistant Professor in 2001.

9. The High Court was of the view that the eligibility criteria  

only  required a recognized post  graduation degree.   It  did  not  

require  a post  graduation degree recognized by the MCI.   The  

degree obtained by Dr. Gupta was a recognized post graduation  

degree inasmuch as it was conferred by a recognized statutory  

university.  Therefore, Dr. Gupta was eligible for being considered  

for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacology.

10. The  High  Court  also  noted  that  in  a  later  departmental  

promotion committee held on or about 25th November, 2012 Dr.  

Gupta was found eligible for being considered  for  promotion to  

the post of Assistant Professor and was in fact so promoted, while  

holding the same qualifications.

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 5 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 6

11. We are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the  

view taken by the High Court in the letters patent appeal filed by  

Dr. Gupta. The Service Rules mainly concern themselves with a  

recognized post graduation degree.  There is nothing to suggest  

that  recognition of the post graduation degree must be by the  

MCI.  On the contrary, we have gone through the Service Rules  

and find that wherever recognition by the MCI is postulated, there  

is a specific reference to it in the Service Rules.

12. Rule  2(n)  of  the  Service  Rules  defines  a  post  graduate  

qualification as meaning a qualification as specified in Appendix  

C-I and II.  We are concerned with Appendix C-II which contains a  

list of post graduate qualifications.  Some of the post graduation  

degrees  that  require  recognition  by  the  MCI  are  specifically  

mentioned therein. These are as follows:    

Sl. No. Subject Part A Part B

23. Cardiology D.M.  Cardiology  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.D.Medicine,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  

-

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 6 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 7

to D.M. Cardiology.

24 Gastro-

Entrology

D.M.Gastro-enterology  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after M.D. Medicine, or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  D.M.  Gastro- enterology.  

_

25 Theoracic  

Surgery

M.Ch.C.T.S.  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  M.Ch. C.T.S.

_

26. Urology M.Ch.  Urology  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to M.Ch. Urology

      _

31 Nephrology D.M.  Nephrology  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after M.D. Medicine, or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to D.M. Nephrology

_

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 7 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 8

32. Neo-Natology D.M. Neo-Natology 2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after M.D. Medicine, or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to D.M. Neo-Natology.

_

33. Paediatric  

Surgery

M.Ch.Paediatric  Surgery  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  M.Ch.Paediatric  Surgery.

  _

34. Neuro-Surgery M.Ch.Neuro  Surgery  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  M.Ch.  Neuro  Surgery.

_

35. Plastic Surgery M.Ch.Plastic  Surgery  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery,  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  M.Ch.  Plastic  

_

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 8 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 9

Surgery.

36. Surgical  Gastro- Enterology

M.Ch.Surgical  Gastro- enterology  2/3  years  course  as  recognized  by  M.C.I.  after  M.S.  Surgery  or  M.B.B.S.  and  5  years  direct  course  leading  to  M.Ch.  Gastro- Enterology.

_

13. It is quite clear from a perusal of the above chart that except  

the post graduation degrees specified therein the Service Rules  

merely require a recognized post graduate degree for meeting the  

eligibility criteria.     

14. Learned counsel for Dr. Kaundal submitted that if the appeal  

is  dismissed,  rights  that  have  accrued  or  vested  in  his  client,  

including his seniority over Dr. Gupta, will be disturbed and this is  

not permissible.  The submission is stated only to be rejected.    In  

view of the fact that Dr. Gupta was wrongly not considered for  

promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacology, he  

deserves to be now considered and if found suitable,  entitled to  

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 9 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 10

all consequential benefits.  In this context, we may note that the  

State of Himachal Pradesh has not challenged the decision of the  

High Court directing reconsideration.

15. It  was  also  contended  that  the  post  graduation  degree  

obtained by Dr. Gupta was subsequently recognized by the MCI by  

a Notification issued in 2004 and that the Notification would not  

have  retrospective  effect  so  as  to  make  Dr.  Gupta  eligible  for  

consideration for promotion.   It is not necessary for us to deal  

with  this  contention  since  we have held  that  Dr.  Gupta’s  post  

graduation degree did not require any recognition by the MCI.

16. Finally,  it  was  contended that  if  Dr.  Gupta  is  promoted  it  

would be contrary to the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in  

Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998.  This submission was not  

made by Dr. Kaundal at any point of time and was only raised in  

passing by his learned counsel in his rejoinder submissions.  We  

are not inclined to entertain this submission at this stage.  

17. We  find  no  merit  in  this  appeal  and  it  is  accordingly  

dismissed.     

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 10 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012

Page 11

                            …………………………….J                              (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

                             …………………………….J                                            (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; February 11, 2014

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014                                                        Page 11 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012