Medical Education in India: Totally a bad scenario
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Saturday, August 30, 2008 )
The rapid privatization of medical education in India and mushrooming of private medical colleges confirms the claim of many middle-class Indian - the main sufferer – that this trend creates two classes of patient i.e. rich patients and poor patients.
Lifestyle
How long should we wait for Justice?
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Wednesday, September 03, 2008 )
This article is related to the problem of unrecognised medical degrees (MD/MS/Diplomas)awarded by the many Government Medical Colleges across India.
Other
Exploitation of Medical Teachers in India
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Saturday, September 13, 2008 )
This article is about the exploitation of medical teaching faculty by the management of private medical college. Medical Council of India has to introspect about its intention and objectives of the Medical Council of India Act, 1965.
Other
Acute shortage of faculty in Govt. Medical Colleges
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Saturday, September 27, 2008 )
In this article is presenting grim picture of acute shortage of medical faculty in Govt. Medical Colleges in U.P., supposed to be models for Private Medical College.
Other
Quality of medical education in Delhi on decline
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Monday, October 20, 2008 )
This article is related to the quality of medical education in government medical college of India's Capital i.e. Delhi, exposing the insensitivty of the government authorities.
Lifestyle
Landmark judgment of SC to improve quality of education
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Tuesday, February 17, 2009 )
Hon'ble Apex Court of India, delivered a landmark judgement on February 13, 2009, related to educational institution falling under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. These observations will help improve the quality of education in India.
Other
Privatization of medical education showing its ugly face
( MUKESH YADAV )
( Wednesday, April 01, 2009 )
Privatization of medical education in India has started showing its ugly face. This article is an attempt to show the current deplorable scenario in MP, India.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Privatization of medical education showing its ugly face
Privatization of medical education showing its ugly face
Posted : Wednesday, April 01, 2009 By : MUKESH YADAV
Mushrooming of private medical colleges in India and acute shortage of medical faculty along with huge profit motive on the part of private management leads to ruin quality of medical education in India. Recently Hon’ble M.P. High Court (Jabalpur Bench) came to rescue operation by giving direction to MCI in its order dated December 19TH 2008, in a PIL (Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP No. 10263/2008).
The Hon’ble HC Observed:
“……..The petitioner has alleged in this writ petition that the private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh do not have the required faculty members on their permanent rolls. We direct that the Medical Council of India, the respondent No.1 and the Dental Council of India, the respondent No. 3 will carry out the inspection of all the private medical and dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and report this Court whether the teaching staff has been permanently employed by the private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh, or such teaching staff has only been shown in the rolls of these Colleges for purposes of permission or recognition. Court has given directions for the inspection to be carried out by the MCI and report be submitted by 05.01.2009”.
To verify the teaching faculty, residents and clinical material - Pursuant to order of Hon'ble M.P. High Court MCI conducted Inspection on 2nd January, 2009, of four private medical colleges viz.: People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research, Bhanpur, Bhopal, Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain.
To the utter surprise for all of us the shortage of teaching faculty was 61.2% (i.e. 79 out of 129) and that of Residents were 65% (i.e. 49 out of 76) at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore.
Clinical material was grossly inadequate as reported by the MCI inspectors. On the day of Inspection: O.P.D. attendance was 129 in place of average 800 per day and Bed occupancy was 26.7% as against 80% as per MCI norms Minimum Requirements.
Other interesting observations of MCI Inspectors were:
On actual verification and as per ward census, bed occupancy was found to be 26.7% on the day of inspection.
There were no patients in casualty, Paediatrics ICU & NICU on the day of inspection.
There was no delivery/LSCS on the day of inspection.
The admission/discharge registers were found to be incomplete.
There were no entries in Surgery admission register after 29.12.2008, in Ortho register after 30.12.08, in Peadiatrics register after 2.1.09 and the Medicine registers were not available.
In most of the wards, approximately 50% of the admissions were done on the day of inspection.
In all major departments, patients who were admitted did not warrant hospitalization.
In most of the case sheets, there were no OPD slips, no IPD registration number and history sheets were not written. Only treatment notes were found to be written.
Fake faculty:
It was found that the 4 doctors presented as Tutors in Pharmacology were not doctors. However, they signed the declaration certificate that they were working full time in Index hospital. On questioning, they also certified that they are not doctors. However, the Dean did not submit the declaration forms and refused to countersign on the aforesaid declaration certificate. It was signed by the other two Inspectors who were also present at the time of head count. Their names are: Mr. Jeetendra Tiwari, Mr.Pradeep Solanki, Mr.Om Prakash Prajapati, Mr.Sandeep Thakur.
Dr.Kolpe Dayanand Vasant Rao, had presented himself as Asstt. Prof., Forensic Medicine. However, on questioning, he failed to give satisfactory reply pertaining to his qualifications. On further questioning, he admitted that he is not a doctor who had signed the declaration form and was countersigned by the Dean and three Inspectors. Thus he has submitted a false declaration form with relevant enclosures which is countersigned by the Dean.
Recently, The Tribune, a leading news paper from Punjab in its editorial dated March 7, 2009 has reported “the shocking revelation that some Punjab government doctors have been engaging in scandalous moonlighting in private medical institutes deserves severe condemnation. A Tribune investigation lists half-a-dozen government doctors simultaneously figuring on the rolls of private medical colleges in southern India which they have been visiting for monetary benefit during mandatory head count inspections by the Medical Council of India, an apex body entrusted with maintaining uniform standards of medical education in the country”.
The Editorial further added that “the figure of six doctors is more likely to be suggestive of many more doctors engaged in a similar exercise from just not only Punjab but perhaps from other states as well. This corruption by manipulation and moonlighting is the latest by government doctors, many of whom are since long known to engage in unethical activities of private practice and of taking commissions from private diagnostic laboratories and private clinics for referrals”.
Regarding the stand of MCI it mentioned that “Even more strange is the display of indifference by the MCI, which has ruled out any action saying that they accept at face value a written list of doctors submitted by the medical colleges who are privy to the racket. The MCI seems to overlook the fact that only last year they had threatened to de-recognise the three government medical colleges in Punjab partly because of similar manipulation of manpower after 23 faculty members from Amritsar and Fardikot were detected of being posted to the Government Rajindra Hospital in Patiala on the date of inspection and then reverted to their parent institutions when they faced similar inspection a month later”.
If timely actions by all concerned authorities including common man and parents of students studying in these medical colleges are not taken right to quality of heath care in India may be a distant dream for all of us. Many cases related to infrastructural deficiencies are pending in the various high courts of the country and even in the Apex Court of India, waiting for their fate of fighting for a right cause till date.
We have only hope from the higher judiciary, to come forward for these public sprit health rights activist to protect most cherished fundamental right i.e. Right to life and quality of health care. Media one of the important pillars of democracy can also play its much awaited leading role in exposing these illegal and unethical practices on the part of doctors and private management.
Posted : Wednesday, April 01, 2009 By : MUKESH YADAV
Mushrooming of private medical colleges in India and acute shortage of medical faculty along with huge profit motive on the part of private management leads to ruin quality of medical education in India. Recently Hon’ble M.P. High Court (Jabalpur Bench) came to rescue operation by giving direction to MCI in its order dated December 19TH 2008, in a PIL (Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP No. 10263/2008).
The Hon’ble HC Observed:
“……..The petitioner has alleged in this writ petition that the private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh do not have the required faculty members on their permanent rolls. We direct that the Medical Council of India, the respondent No.1 and the Dental Council of India, the respondent No. 3 will carry out the inspection of all the private medical and dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and report this Court whether the teaching staff has been permanently employed by the private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh, or such teaching staff has only been shown in the rolls of these Colleges for purposes of permission or recognition. Court has given directions for the inspection to be carried out by the MCI and report be submitted by 05.01.2009”.
To verify the teaching faculty, residents and clinical material - Pursuant to order of Hon'ble M.P. High Court MCI conducted Inspection on 2nd January, 2009, of four private medical colleges viz.: People’s College of Medical Sciences & Research, Bhanpur, Bhopal, Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain.
To the utter surprise for all of us the shortage of teaching faculty was 61.2% (i.e. 79 out of 129) and that of Residents were 65% (i.e. 49 out of 76) at Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Indore.
Clinical material was grossly inadequate as reported by the MCI inspectors. On the day of Inspection: O.P.D. attendance was 129 in place of average 800 per day and Bed occupancy was 26.7% as against 80% as per MCI norms Minimum Requirements.
Other interesting observations of MCI Inspectors were:
On actual verification and as per ward census, bed occupancy was found to be 26.7% on the day of inspection.
There were no patients in casualty, Paediatrics ICU & NICU on the day of inspection.
There was no delivery/LSCS on the day of inspection.
The admission/discharge registers were found to be incomplete.
There were no entries in Surgery admission register after 29.12.2008, in Ortho register after 30.12.08, in Peadiatrics register after 2.1.09 and the Medicine registers were not available.
In most of the wards, approximately 50% of the admissions were done on the day of inspection.
In all major departments, patients who were admitted did not warrant hospitalization.
In most of the case sheets, there were no OPD slips, no IPD registration number and history sheets were not written. Only treatment notes were found to be written.
Fake faculty:
It was found that the 4 doctors presented as Tutors in Pharmacology were not doctors. However, they signed the declaration certificate that they were working full time in Index hospital. On questioning, they also certified that they are not doctors. However, the Dean did not submit the declaration forms and refused to countersign on the aforesaid declaration certificate. It was signed by the other two Inspectors who were also present at the time of head count. Their names are: Mr. Jeetendra Tiwari, Mr.Pradeep Solanki, Mr.Om Prakash Prajapati, Mr.Sandeep Thakur.
Dr.Kolpe Dayanand Vasant Rao, had presented himself as Asstt. Prof., Forensic Medicine. However, on questioning, he failed to give satisfactory reply pertaining to his qualifications. On further questioning, he admitted that he is not a doctor who had signed the declaration form and was countersigned by the Dean and three Inspectors. Thus he has submitted a false declaration form with relevant enclosures which is countersigned by the Dean.
Recently, The Tribune, a leading news paper from Punjab in its editorial dated March 7, 2009 has reported “the shocking revelation that some Punjab government doctors have been engaging in scandalous moonlighting in private medical institutes deserves severe condemnation. A Tribune investigation lists half-a-dozen government doctors simultaneously figuring on the rolls of private medical colleges in southern India which they have been visiting for monetary benefit during mandatory head count inspections by the Medical Council of India, an apex body entrusted with maintaining uniform standards of medical education in the country”.
The Editorial further added that “the figure of six doctors is more likely to be suggestive of many more doctors engaged in a similar exercise from just not only Punjab but perhaps from other states as well. This corruption by manipulation and moonlighting is the latest by government doctors, many of whom are since long known to engage in unethical activities of private practice and of taking commissions from private diagnostic laboratories and private clinics for referrals”.
Regarding the stand of MCI it mentioned that “Even more strange is the display of indifference by the MCI, which has ruled out any action saying that they accept at face value a written list of doctors submitted by the medical colleges who are privy to the racket. The MCI seems to overlook the fact that only last year they had threatened to de-recognise the three government medical colleges in Punjab partly because of similar manipulation of manpower after 23 faculty members from Amritsar and Fardikot were detected of being posted to the Government Rajindra Hospital in Patiala on the date of inspection and then reverted to their parent institutions when they faced similar inspection a month later”.
If timely actions by all concerned authorities including common man and parents of students studying in these medical colleges are not taken right to quality of heath care in India may be a distant dream for all of us. Many cases related to infrastructural deficiencies are pending in the various high courts of the country and even in the Apex Court of India, waiting for their fate of fighting for a right cause till date.
We have only hope from the higher judiciary, to come forward for these public sprit health rights activist to protect most cherished fundamental right i.e. Right to life and quality of health care. Media one of the important pillars of democracy can also play its much awaited leading role in exposing these illegal and unethical practices on the part of doctors and private management.
Unrecognized Medical Degree / Diploma; Employment, Promotion
Unrecognized Medical Degree / Diploma; Employment, Promotion
A Review of Indian Court’s Judgments
Dr. Mukesh Yadav, B. Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., LL.B., PGDHR
Prof. & HOD, Forensic Medicine
Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
Email: drmukesh65@yahoo.co.in
Abstract
Medical education is the subject matter of both Union and State Governments and Medical Council of India is the sole supervising body of medical education and maintaining its standard. Problem of recognition of medical degrees / diplomas is prevalent in almost all the States of India and in most of the medical specialties. Holders of unrecognized degree / diploma may face problem of employment / promotion, etc. thus leading to many litigations either decided or pending in the Indian Courts.
This paper deals with review of this problem, brief discussion of relevant court decisions, Government Orders and MCI notifications, etc. thus help in solving this problem to great extent by making concerned persons aware about the issue and to take initiative to solve the problem of very much public interest.
Key Words: Unrecognized Medical Degree / Diploma, Employment, Promotion, Medical Council of India, Court.
Introduction:
The problem of recognition of degree / diploma and employment is not new issue as apparent from various courts’ decisions and other relevant documents of Government and Medical Council of India. Since medical education is still in infancy in India as private medical colleges are mushrooming and as India is a developing economy many problems are bound to arise. This problem is prevailing in many States of India like Jammu & Kashmir, Himanchal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, U.P., Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Delhi etc.
Author himself had received an interview call from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, for the post of Assistant Professor scheduled to be held on 06-12-2005, and concerned authority has asked for certificate from MCI in this regard as a condition to appear before the interview board. Similar is the position with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), New Delhi, which asks for letter of recognition of degree issued by the MCI before they allow appearing for the interview.
In a very interesting case in which a doctor holder of M.D. (Pathology) awarded by M.L.B. Medical College, which is not recognized by the MCI. He was given appointment as Senior Lecturer at G.M.C. Medical College, Chandigarh on adhoc basis and continues his job for more than five years till he received a call of interview for the same post on permanent basis through UPSC, New Delhi. But unfortunately his candidature was rejected by the UPSC, after allowing him to appear for the interview.
In an another more interesting case from Allahabad, U.P., one doctor holder of Diploma Cardiology from G.S.V.M. Medical College, which is not recognized by the MCI, faced criminal charges and remain in prison for few months not under section 304-A, but under charges of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of one of his serious patient, for no fault of him, but to hold unrecognized diploma awarded by a Government Medical College of U.P.
Problem of employment / promotion and possession of unrecognized degree / diploma:
“For the fault of the University, the students cannot be made to suffer. Since they have acquired qualification, degree in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) should be amended as the Schedule to Act of 1956, does not recognize the degree in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology)”; [R-9]
“Where the Post-graduate course was started by the Ranchi University with the consent of Medical Council of India and the State of Bihar had recognized such degree imparted by the Ranchi University, held, it could not be contended that degree obtained after pursuing said course was of no value as the same had not been recognized so far by the Medical Council of India”, [R-8]
Judges, J.S. Khehar and Rajiv Bhalla of Punjab and Haryana High Court while delivering judgment on the issue of recognition of degree and problem of promotion on 09-02-2005.
“The fourth contention of the learned counsel (page No. 20-23) for the respondent is that the petitioner has no locus standi to impugn the selection and promotion of respondent No. 3 Dr. S.S. Sangwan to the post of Dean (Medical) as the petitioner himself is ineligible for appointment by promotion to the aforesaid post under the 1988 Rules. In this behalf, the petitioner acquired the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the Medical College, Rohtak, and that he was awarded the aforesaid Postgraduate Degree, by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) awarded by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioner does not even fulfil the basic qualifications for the post of Dean (Medical). [Page No. 21-23]
So far as the fourth contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is concerned, reference will have to be made to the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of the Dean (Medical), in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules (details wherof have already been extracted above). The essential minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical) comprise of three essential ingredients. Firstly, a basic University qualification included in the schedule to the Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, Secondly, M.D./M.S. or equivalent Postgraduate qualification, and thirdly, five years teaching experience as Professor (Medical). The fact that the petitioner possesses the first and third essential eligibility conditions is not disputed. The only issue which arises for determination is, whether the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) acquired by the petitioner in 1980 satisfies the second requirement in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules, noticed above. In our view, the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) possessed by the petitioner has to be accepted as relevant qualification for satisfying the second requirement. Our aforesaid conclusion is based on firstly, on the fact that the qualification of M.D. / M.S. or equivalent postgraduate depicted as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical), is a requirement in the verbatim, even for appointment to the post of Professor (Medical). The petitioner was appointed as Professor in the Institute of Medical Sciences as far back as on 1-06-1981. at the aforesaid juncture, the qualification possessed by the petitioner, was considered to be sufficient for appointment to the post of Professor. It is not open to the respondent at this juncture to assert, that the same postgraduate qualification, which was accepted to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Professor, is not acceptable for determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). Secondly, while Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules expressly indicates, that the basic University qualification possessed by an incumbent must be one of the qualifications included in the schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, there is no such prescription / requirement in so far as the M.D. / M.S. qualification is concerned. It is, therefore, misconceived for the respondents to assert, that only such M.D. / M.S. qualifications are to be considered as valid for the purposes of eligibility as have been recognized by the Medical Council of India. Thirdly, the petitioner acquired the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the Medical College, Rohtak i.e. the very institute, wherein he is claiming appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). It is difficult to accept, that the respondent would not accept the postgraduate qualification acquired from the institute itself, as a valid postgraduate qualification for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical). In fact, it would be pertinent to mention, that the official respondents in the instant writ petition did not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). The instant objection was raised only at the hands of respondent No. 3. In view of the deliberations recorded above, it is not possible for us to accept even the fourth contention (advanced by the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3) [Page No. 23]
Since the procedure adopted while short listing respondent No. 3 for appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical), was in clear violation of the mandate of Rules 9 (2) of the 1988 Rules, we are satisfied, that the selection and promotion of respondent No. 3 Dr. S.S. Sangwan to the post of Dean (Medical), deserves to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, be immediately relieved from the post of Dean (Medical). [Page No. 26]
The respondent shall reconvene the process of appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical) forthwith. The entire deliberations shall be completed within one month from today, by following the principle of seniority-cum-merit, envisaged under Rule 9(2) of the 1988 Rules. [Page No. 26] writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [Page No. 26] [R-1]
The problem of recognition of degree and employment is not new issue as apparent from this letter: Letter written by the Secretary, U.P., Sri G.K. Joshi, to all Heads of Departments and Principal, Heads of Offices, Niukti (Kha), Vibhag. The contents of letter are as follows:
“Subject: Recognition of the degrees and diplomas awarded by the Universities established by law in India for purposes of recruitment to services under the State Government.
Sir,
I am directed to say that the question of recognition of the degree / diploma awarded by the Universities as established by law in India for purposes of recruitment to services and posts under the State Government has been under their consideration for some time past. In the light of the decision taken by the Government of India and in consultation with the Lok Seva Ayog, Uttar Pradesh [UPPSC] it has been decided that in the case of degree / diploma awarded by Universities in India which are incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature, no formal orders recognizing such degrees / diplomas need be issued by Government. Such degrees / diplomas should be recognized automatically for purposes of employment under the State Government. [R-2]
In a case from Rajasthan Court observed that “--Rajasthan University Ordinance – Ordinance 65 (vii) – Post-graduate medical degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country which has also recognized by the Indian Medical Council – Ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country – In absence of any express provision to the country, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognized by other Universities in any State in country before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State. [R-7]
Bench of Justices A.D. Koshal, J., R.B. Mishra,J., V. Balakrishnana Eradi. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Eradi, J.
On March 3, 1972, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) issued advertisements inviting applications for the recruitment of two Lecturers in Forensic Medicine for Medical College, Medical & Public Health Department in accordance with the Rules. [Para 5]
The appellant had, by then, obtained the M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur in1970 and had been functioning as Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in one of the Government Medical Colleges in Rajasthan on a temporary and adhoc basis from December 31, 1970 onwards. [Para 6]
In response to the aforesaid advertisement published by the Commission, the appellant applied for appointment to one of the posts. However, by the impugned letter (Annexure IV) dated July 21, 1973, issued by the Secretary of the Commission, the appellant was informed that his application for the post of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine was rejected since he did not possess the necessary academic qualification. A representation made by the appellant to the Public Service Commission for reconsideration of the matter did not meet with any favourable response and hence the appellant approached the High Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution out of which this appeal has arisen. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Commission conducted the interview of the remaining candidates and selected respondents 3 and 4 for appointment to the two posts and on the basis of the said selection the State Government appointed respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers. The appellant thereupon amended the writ or direction canceling the interview and selection conducted by the Commission as well as the consequential appointments given by the State Government to respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers in Forensic Medicine. [Para 7]
The appellant is admittedly the holder of the basic degree of M.B.B.S. from the Rajasthan University, which is a qualification entered in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act. It is also not in dispute that he is duly registered under the Medical Registration Act. The sole ground on which the appellant was treated by the Commission as ineligible for consideration was that the post-graduate degree in Forensic Medicine possessed by the appellant is not one awarded by the University of Rajasthan and the said degree has also not been recognized by the University of Rajasthan as an equivalent qualification. [Para 10]
The University of Bihar at Muzzafarpur is one duly established by statute and is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. The degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine) M.D. (Forensic Medicine) of The University of Bihar is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognized by the Indian Medical Council which is the parmount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognize the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. [Para 11]
The conclusion that emerges from the aforesaid dissuasion is that the appellant was fully qualified for being considered for appointment to the two posts of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine advertised by the Commission on November 16, 1972, and that the Commission acted illegally in treating the appellant as not being possessed of the requisite academic qualification and excluding him from consideration on the said ground. [Para 13]
Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge, subject to the modification that in carrying out the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Commission should treat the appellant as a fully qualified candidate in the light of the finding recorded by us that at the relevant time the appellant possessed not merely the prescribed academic qualification but also the requisite experience of two year’s medicolegal work. The appellant will get his costs throughout from respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares. [Para 14] [R-7]
A Bench of Justices N.M. Kasliwal, J. and M.M. Punchi, J. delivered the judgment on April 26, 1991. [R-8]
The controversy has been raised before us that the M. Ch. Degree course in Neuro Surgery awarded by Rajendra Medical College, Ranch University is not yet recognized for the purpose of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and a letter of Medical Council of India dated 27-02-1991 has been placed on record in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has tried to contend that M. Ch. degree obtained by the appellant was of no value, as the same has not been recognized so far by the Medical Council of India. We find no force in this contention, as this course was started by the Ranch University in 1980 with the consent of the Medical Council of India and the State of Bihar has recognized such degree imparted by the Ranchi University and even before this Court learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar accepted this position. We are not concerned in this case about the value of such degree for places outside State of Bihar, but so far the present case is concerned which relates to the post of Assistant Professor in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna which post is under the Bihar Government, no such objection can be maintained by the Resondent No. 5. [R-8]
“Though the High Court on one stage held that a candidate for Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery must have a postgraduate degree in Neuro Surgery and having held that the degree of Neuro Surgery of the appellant was recognized and valid, yet committed a serious error in giving preference to respondent No. 5, which was having a degree of M.S. in General Surgery over the appellant who was holding much higher degree of M. Ch. in Superspecialty in Neuro Surgery itself. The High Court further committed an error in holding that clauses 2 & 3 of the advertisement did not evolve any distinction of specialty, parent specialty and superspecialty. A mere perusal of the said clauses would show that clauses 2 © and 3© does talk of parent specialty and superspecialty. The finding of the High Court in this regard was clearly erroneous. Clause 3 (c) carved out an exception in favour of superspecialty vis-à-vis experience and, therefore, clause 3 clearly speaks about superspecialty. The High Court in our view committed a further error in not appreciating clause 19 in its correct perspective. Clause 19 envisaged that preference would be given to a person who had a degree in superspecialty along with research or working experience. Thus the appellant having a degree in superspecialty and also having preference in the matter of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery over respondent No. 5 who did not have a degree in superspecialty”. [R-8]
“The State Government has also taken a clear stand that there was an acute shortage of qualified Neuro Surgeons in the State and therefore, the Government had provided certain relaxations and priorities in the criteria for appointment to junior teaching posts in various Medical Colleges of Bihar, so that such candidates could be appointed. The appellant had been given preference by virtue of his having M. Ch. Degree in Neuro Surgery with research work and working experience. The State Government has further stated that appellant is qualified Neuro Surgeon and has been rightly appointed as Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery vide Notification No. 1144 (17) dated 28-12-1990 and the appellant joined the said post on 28-12-1990 itself”. [R-8]
Thus taking in view the entire scheme of the degree and the relevant clauses of the advertisement, we are clearly of the view that appellant was rightly put in the Select Panel at NO. 1 and the Government of Bihar rightly appointed him on the post of Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery.
In the result, we allows the appeals, setting aside the order of the High Court of Patna dated 10-12-1990 and dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Respondent No. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to cost. [R-8]
Most important case of Supreme Court on this issue is that of 1999 [R-6], judgment delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India M.M. Punchhi, and his companion Judges K.T. Thomas and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 254 – Education – Admission – Medical College – Admission Capacity – Fixation – can be done only by Medical Council – State Government and Universities cannot increase admission capacity.
Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956), Ss. 10-A, 10-B, 33.
Karnataka Education Institutional (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act (1984), S. 4.
Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Act 28 of 1976), S. 53 (10).
Dentists Act, 1948 (Act 16 of 1948), S. 10-A.
It is the Medical Council / Dental Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses / dental courses in a medical college or institution. It is the Central Government, alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. Universities and the State Government of Karnataka had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State Government Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. [Par 31, 32]
It is not that only future admissions will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed by or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that power to regulate admission to medical college is prerogative of the State has to be rejected.
It is the Medical Council, which is primarily responsible for fixing standards of medical education and over seeing that these standards are maintained. It is the Medical Council, which is the principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges, which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college. The Medical Council Act is reliable to Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule 7 to Constitution.
(B) Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956), S. 33 – Regulations framed under – Falling within the purpose mentioned in Section 33 – will have mandatory force.
Recent Developments:
The Hon’ble Chief Justice Ajay Nath Ray and his companion Judge Jagdish Bhalla, of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, while delivering interim order in a case [R-5] on April 20, 2005 said
This is a Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) filed by the writ-petitioners, which described themselves as Doctors.
They are final year students of M.B.B.S. Course at B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. The main substance of the writ petition is that the Post Graduate courses of the said Medical College have been substantially de-recognized by the Medical Council of India but this fact notwithstanding, admissions are going on in these Colleges and the Post Graduate Medical Courses even now. We are informed from the Bar that counseling is on from this day, i.e. today with regard to such Post Graduate Medical Courses.
Some other Colleges are also named in the petition like Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi and S.N. Medical College Agra. As for as we have been able to gather today, these colleges are not legal personalities and are not Bodies Corporate, these are basically State instrumentalities. The State also appears to have issued directives to at least the B.R.D. medical College, Gorakhpur, not to admit students and not to recognize students to Post Graduate Courses.
The writ-petition is directed towards making the recognition available again to these colleges by increasing the teaching staff, making the Laboratories better equipped, and such like.
We are told that a writ petition has also been filed in the Delhi High Court (since the Medical Council is in Delhi) and that in the said writ, orders have been passed calling for reports and for bettering of facilities and that the matter is due to be heard again on the 28th of this month (28-04-2005).
So far as the admissions to unrecognized medical seats are concerned, we have, although prima facie, a very strong view. The Medical Council is the over all supervisor of Medical Education in India. Whether an institution is fit to admit students for the purpose of study ultimately with the aim of receiving medical degrees from that institution, is a matter, which is in the sole decision of Medical Council. If the Medical Council de-recognizes institutions, courses or seats, then and in that event it means that those institutions, those courses or those seats, as the case might be, are not fit for producing qualified doctors of that level or that mentality, specialty.
In such an event, it is the job of every public authority in India to see to it that these deficient institutions do not admit students or grant them degree which would have inbuilt and hidden incapacity and inadequacy and which would forever in future be of definite danger to the citizen of India at large.
Just as an unqualified man practicing medicine is a threat to public health, so also is a half qualified or badly qualified person is a similar danger to the public. If anything the danger in the second case is more. Thus, a degree from an unrecognized institution, course or seat is a misrepresentation. It is a misrepresentation of a permanent nature which is likely to mislead many and unknowing patient.
In these circumstances we admit the writ petition. The writ petitioners are directed to score out doctors from their description in the cause title. They are directed to implead the Medical College concerned by impleading those through their Principal; the present incumbent in office to be served in that regard but the impleading to be made by the office itself.
Until further orders of the Court the respondents, their servants, officers and agents, the respective colleges including B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, and their Principles, Professors, employees and servants are restrained from taking any steps towards any fresh admission of any medical student to any course or seat which is not at the time of admission recognized by the Medical Council of India.
Petition is to be served on all the added parties. Affidavit would be called for from them after service is completed and the matter will appear in the person 1st respondent, 2 and 3 are represented today before us by Mr. Sanjay Bhasin. The other respondents already on record should also be served, if not already served. The matter should appear in the last four weeks hence. The appearing respondents might keep their affidavits ready after the orders and under directions would be passed on the next date when the court takes of the matter. The impleadment shall be made as above of the Medical Colleges through the Principal or it added that it should also be served of the Medical University through the Registrar of the University state might require.
It is clarified that if the Medical Council grants recognition the restriction against impressed by our order would automatically be lifted as the restriction order themselves clarify. Case is still pending and final decision is awaited till date.
Letter written by the Director Medical Education, U.P. [R-3] introduced to Principals of Medical Colleges Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhanshi, Gorakhpur and Registrar King Gorge Medical University on the subject of ‘Recognition of Postgraduate Medical Education’ asking principal’s to take appropriate action as per MCI norms to get Postgraduate degree recognized, and to fulfill deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during previous inspections and inform the MCI of action taken in this regard.
The MCI Letter written by the Secretary MCI [R-4] introduced to the Secretary (Health), Govt. of U.P. on the same subject mentions that
“I am directed to inform you that various postgraduate medical courses are being run in the medical colleges in your State which are yet to be approved / recognized u/s 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956. (List enclosed)
You are requested to direct the authorities of the medical colleges to approach the Registrar of the University to which the Medical College is affiliated to forward its formal request through the Central Government as required u/s 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956 for arranging for the inspection by the Medical Council of India at the time of practical examination of respective PG Courses.
In addition you are requested to direct the college authorities to send compliance regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the Council in respect of the postgraduate courses which have yet not been recommended for recognition for further necessary action in the matter”. [R-4]
Summary and Conclusions:
Responsibilities should be fixed on concerned authorities for not getting recognized medical degrees / diplomas in time and raising the problem out of control. No initiative was taken by the faculty members due to reasons best known to them. It might be for the reason of insecurity for themselves or no awareness about the procedure of recognition by the MCI. It might be due to bureaucratic or technocratic insensitivity about the issue of public interest.
This problem of non-Recognition of degrees/diplomas results in unnecessary litigations in various courts, denial of job to many degree holders, not receipt of call for interview by UPSC, New Delhi, and even not allowed to appear in interviews like by PGIMER, Chandigarh, and mental harassment of candidates, etc.
Over and above when one go into the background of this problem it is very easy to make out that this problem is the result of insensitive authorities on this issue and not fulfillment of Minimum Standard Requirement Criteria fixed by the MCI and directly related to quality of medical education and denial of right to health care (under Article 21 of Indian Constitution) of general public.
It is a very important issue of public interest related to violation of Article 21, 14, 16 of the Indian Constitution and other statutory provisions. This problem of non-recognized degrees / diplomas awarded by many Indian Universities is in violation of the Indian Medical Degree Act, 1916, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and its Regulations, etc.
Now MCI may suo motu may recognize these degrees / diplomas and apply the 1993 rules afresh while inspecting and allowing permission for admission to these courses without affecting the rights of those already possessed these degrees/ diplomas.
References:
R-1-Dr. D.R. Yadav vs. State of Haryana & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 8561 of 2003; Date of Decision 09-02-2005 (P & H).
R-2-Government Order No. 722/II-B-13 [1] –61 Dated 15-05-1964 regarding Degree, Diploma Recognition published in the Gazette Part II, Page No. 27 at Serial No. 6.
R-3- Director Medical Education, U.P. Letter No. ME/ Student Cell/ 2007/ 3225-26, dated 31-05-2007
R-4- Letter of MCI No. MCI-23(1)/ 2006-Med./ 4163, dated 19-05-2007 introduced to Secretary, Health, U.P Government.
R-5-Dr. Om Prakash & Others vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 1563 (M/B) of 2005 in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, date of interim order, 20-04-2005.
R-6- Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnatka and Others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2423. Civil Appeal Nos. 3275 with 3576-77 of 1998 (arising out of S.L.P. ( C) Nos. 14839 of 1997 with 20035 of 1997 and 547 of 1998), D/-16-07-1998. W.A. No. 8413 of 1996, dated 16-07-1997 (Kant.) GP/GP/S100261/98/VVG/CSL.
R-7-Dr. B.L. Asawa vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1976 (Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated October 30, 1974 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1974), decided on March 5, 1982.
R-8-Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar & Others, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1514; J.T. (1991) 2 S.C. 352.
R-9-Dr. Harish Bajaj v. R.D.V. Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, AIR 2003 MP 114.
A Review of Indian Court’s Judgments
Dr. Mukesh Yadav, B. Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., LL.B., PGDHR
Prof. & HOD, Forensic Medicine
Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
Email: drmukesh65@yahoo.co.in
Abstract
Medical education is the subject matter of both Union and State Governments and Medical Council of India is the sole supervising body of medical education and maintaining its standard. Problem of recognition of medical degrees / diplomas is prevalent in almost all the States of India and in most of the medical specialties. Holders of unrecognized degree / diploma may face problem of employment / promotion, etc. thus leading to many litigations either decided or pending in the Indian Courts.
This paper deals with review of this problem, brief discussion of relevant court decisions, Government Orders and MCI notifications, etc. thus help in solving this problem to great extent by making concerned persons aware about the issue and to take initiative to solve the problem of very much public interest.
Key Words: Unrecognized Medical Degree / Diploma, Employment, Promotion, Medical Council of India, Court.
Introduction:
The problem of recognition of degree / diploma and employment is not new issue as apparent from various courts’ decisions and other relevant documents of Government and Medical Council of India. Since medical education is still in infancy in India as private medical colleges are mushrooming and as India is a developing economy many problems are bound to arise. This problem is prevailing in many States of India like Jammu & Kashmir, Himanchal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, U.P., Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Delhi etc.
Author himself had received an interview call from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, for the post of Assistant Professor scheduled to be held on 06-12-2005, and concerned authority has asked for certificate from MCI in this regard as a condition to appear before the interview board. Similar is the position with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), New Delhi, which asks for letter of recognition of degree issued by the MCI before they allow appearing for the interview.
In a very interesting case in which a doctor holder of M.D. (Pathology) awarded by M.L.B. Medical College, which is not recognized by the MCI. He was given appointment as Senior Lecturer at G.M.C. Medical College, Chandigarh on adhoc basis and continues his job for more than five years till he received a call of interview for the same post on permanent basis through UPSC, New Delhi. But unfortunately his candidature was rejected by the UPSC, after allowing him to appear for the interview.
In an another more interesting case from Allahabad, U.P., one doctor holder of Diploma Cardiology from G.S.V.M. Medical College, which is not recognized by the MCI, faced criminal charges and remain in prison for few months not under section 304-A, but under charges of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of one of his serious patient, for no fault of him, but to hold unrecognized diploma awarded by a Government Medical College of U.P.
Problem of employment / promotion and possession of unrecognized degree / diploma:
“For the fault of the University, the students cannot be made to suffer. Since they have acquired qualification, degree in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) should be amended as the Schedule to Act of 1956, does not recognize the degree in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology)”; [R-9]
“Where the Post-graduate course was started by the Ranchi University with the consent of Medical Council of India and the State of Bihar had recognized such degree imparted by the Ranchi University, held, it could not be contended that degree obtained after pursuing said course was of no value as the same had not been recognized so far by the Medical Council of India”, [R-8]
Judges, J.S. Khehar and Rajiv Bhalla of Punjab and Haryana High Court while delivering judgment on the issue of recognition of degree and problem of promotion on 09-02-2005.
“The fourth contention of the learned counsel (page No. 20-23) for the respondent is that the petitioner has no locus standi to impugn the selection and promotion of respondent No. 3 Dr. S.S. Sangwan to the post of Dean (Medical) as the petitioner himself is ineligible for appointment by promotion to the aforesaid post under the 1988 Rules. In this behalf, the petitioner acquired the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the Medical College, Rohtak, and that he was awarded the aforesaid Postgraduate Degree, by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) awarded by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioner does not even fulfil the basic qualifications for the post of Dean (Medical). [Page No. 21-23]
So far as the fourth contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is concerned, reference will have to be made to the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of the Dean (Medical), in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules (details wherof have already been extracted above). The essential minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical) comprise of three essential ingredients. Firstly, a basic University qualification included in the schedule to the Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1956, Secondly, M.D./M.S. or equivalent Postgraduate qualification, and thirdly, five years teaching experience as Professor (Medical). The fact that the petitioner possesses the first and third essential eligibility conditions is not disputed. The only issue which arises for determination is, whether the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) acquired by the petitioner in 1980 satisfies the second requirement in Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules, noticed above. In our view, the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) possessed by the petitioner has to be accepted as relevant qualification for satisfying the second requirement. Our aforesaid conclusion is based on firstly, on the fact that the qualification of M.D. / M.S. or equivalent postgraduate depicted as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical), is a requirement in the verbatim, even for appointment to the post of Professor (Medical). The petitioner was appointed as Professor in the Institute of Medical Sciences as far back as on 1-06-1981. at the aforesaid juncture, the qualification possessed by the petitioner, was considered to be sufficient for appointment to the post of Professor. It is not open to the respondent at this juncture to assert, that the same postgraduate qualification, which was accepted to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Professor, is not acceptable for determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). Secondly, while Appendix ‘B’ of the 1988 Rules expressly indicates, that the basic University qualification possessed by an incumbent must be one of the qualifications included in the schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, there is no such prescription / requirement in so far as the M.D. / M.S. qualification is concerned. It is, therefore, misconceived for the respondents to assert, that only such M.D. / M.S. qualifications are to be considered as valid for the purposes of eligibility as have been recognized by the Medical Council of India. Thirdly, the petitioner acquired the qualification of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the Medical College, Rohtak i.e. the very institute, wherein he is claiming appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). It is difficult to accept, that the respondent would not accept the postgraduate qualification acquired from the institute itself, as a valid postgraduate qualification for appointment to the post of Dean (Medical). In fact, it would be pertinent to mention, that the official respondents in the instant writ petition did not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical). The instant objection was raised only at the hands of respondent No. 3. In view of the deliberations recorded above, it is not possible for us to accept even the fourth contention (advanced by the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3) [Page No. 23]
Since the procedure adopted while short listing respondent No. 3 for appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical), was in clear violation of the mandate of Rules 9 (2) of the 1988 Rules, we are satisfied, that the selection and promotion of respondent No. 3 Dr. S.S. Sangwan to the post of Dean (Medical), deserves to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, be immediately relieved from the post of Dean (Medical). [Page No. 26]
The respondent shall reconvene the process of appointment by promotion to the post of Dean (Medical) forthwith. The entire deliberations shall be completed within one month from today, by following the principle of seniority-cum-merit, envisaged under Rule 9(2) of the 1988 Rules. [Page No. 26] writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [Page No. 26] [R-1]
The problem of recognition of degree and employment is not new issue as apparent from this letter: Letter written by the Secretary, U.P., Sri G.K. Joshi, to all Heads of Departments and Principal, Heads of Offices, Niukti (Kha), Vibhag. The contents of letter are as follows:
“Subject: Recognition of the degrees and diplomas awarded by the Universities established by law in India for purposes of recruitment to services under the State Government.
Sir,
I am directed to say that the question of recognition of the degree / diploma awarded by the Universities as established by law in India for purposes of recruitment to services and posts under the State Government has been under their consideration for some time past. In the light of the decision taken by the Government of India and in consultation with the Lok Seva Ayog, Uttar Pradesh [UPPSC] it has been decided that in the case of degree / diploma awarded by Universities in India which are incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature, no formal orders recognizing such degrees / diplomas need be issued by Government. Such degrees / diplomas should be recognized automatically for purposes of employment under the State Government. [R-2]
In a case from Rajasthan Court observed that “--Rajasthan University Ordinance – Ordinance 65 (vii) – Post-graduate medical degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country which has also recognized by the Indian Medical Council – Ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country – In absence of any express provision to the country, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognized by other Universities in any State in country before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a State. [R-7]
Bench of Justices A.D. Koshal, J., R.B. Mishra,J., V. Balakrishnana Eradi. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Eradi, J.
On March 3, 1972, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) issued advertisements inviting applications for the recruitment of two Lecturers in Forensic Medicine for Medical College, Medical & Public Health Department in accordance with the Rules. [Para 5]
The appellant had, by then, obtained the M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur in1970 and had been functioning as Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in one of the Government Medical Colleges in Rajasthan on a temporary and adhoc basis from December 31, 1970 onwards. [Para 6]
In response to the aforesaid advertisement published by the Commission, the appellant applied for appointment to one of the posts. However, by the impugned letter (Annexure IV) dated July 21, 1973, issued by the Secretary of the Commission, the appellant was informed that his application for the post of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine was rejected since he did not possess the necessary academic qualification. A representation made by the appellant to the Public Service Commission for reconsideration of the matter did not meet with any favourable response and hence the appellant approached the High Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution out of which this appeal has arisen. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Commission conducted the interview of the remaining candidates and selected respondents 3 and 4 for appointment to the two posts and on the basis of the said selection the State Government appointed respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers. The appellant thereupon amended the writ or direction canceling the interview and selection conducted by the Commission as well as the consequential appointments given by the State Government to respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers in Forensic Medicine. [Para 7]
The appellant is admittedly the holder of the basic degree of M.B.B.S. from the Rajasthan University, which is a qualification entered in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act. It is also not in dispute that he is duly registered under the Medical Registration Act. The sole ground on which the appellant was treated by the Commission as ineligible for consideration was that the post-graduate degree in Forensic Medicine possessed by the appellant is not one awarded by the University of Rajasthan and the said degree has also not been recognized by the University of Rajasthan as an equivalent qualification. [Para 10]
The University of Bihar at Muzzafarpur is one duly established by statute and is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. The degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine) M.D. (Forensic Medicine) of The University of Bihar is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognized by the Indian Medical Council which is the parmount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognize the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. [Para 11]
The conclusion that emerges from the aforesaid dissuasion is that the appellant was fully qualified for being considered for appointment to the two posts of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine advertised by the Commission on November 16, 1972, and that the Commission acted illegally in treating the appellant as not being possessed of the requisite academic qualification and excluding him from consideration on the said ground. [Para 13]
Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge, subject to the modification that in carrying out the directions contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Commission should treat the appellant as a fully qualified candidate in the light of the finding recorded by us that at the relevant time the appellant possessed not merely the prescribed academic qualification but also the requisite experience of two year’s medicolegal work. The appellant will get his costs throughout from respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares. [Para 14] [R-7]
A Bench of Justices N.M. Kasliwal, J. and M.M. Punchi, J. delivered the judgment on April 26, 1991. [R-8]
The controversy has been raised before us that the M. Ch. Degree course in Neuro Surgery awarded by Rajendra Medical College, Ranch University is not yet recognized for the purpose of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and a letter of Medical Council of India dated 27-02-1991 has been placed on record in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has tried to contend that M. Ch. degree obtained by the appellant was of no value, as the same has not been recognized so far by the Medical Council of India. We find no force in this contention, as this course was started by the Ranch University in 1980 with the consent of the Medical Council of India and the State of Bihar has recognized such degree imparted by the Ranchi University and even before this Court learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar accepted this position. We are not concerned in this case about the value of such degree for places outside State of Bihar, but so far the present case is concerned which relates to the post of Assistant Professor in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna which post is under the Bihar Government, no such objection can be maintained by the Resondent No. 5. [R-8]
“Though the High Court on one stage held that a candidate for Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery must have a postgraduate degree in Neuro Surgery and having held that the degree of Neuro Surgery of the appellant was recognized and valid, yet committed a serious error in giving preference to respondent No. 5, which was having a degree of M.S. in General Surgery over the appellant who was holding much higher degree of M. Ch. in Superspecialty in Neuro Surgery itself. The High Court further committed an error in holding that clauses 2 & 3 of the advertisement did not evolve any distinction of specialty, parent specialty and superspecialty. A mere perusal of the said clauses would show that clauses 2 © and 3© does talk of parent specialty and superspecialty. The finding of the High Court in this regard was clearly erroneous. Clause 3 (c) carved out an exception in favour of superspecialty vis-à-vis experience and, therefore, clause 3 clearly speaks about superspecialty. The High Court in our view committed a further error in not appreciating clause 19 in its correct perspective. Clause 19 envisaged that preference would be given to a person who had a degree in superspecialty along with research or working experience. Thus the appellant having a degree in superspecialty and also having preference in the matter of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Neuro Surgery over respondent No. 5 who did not have a degree in superspecialty”. [R-8]
“The State Government has also taken a clear stand that there was an acute shortage of qualified Neuro Surgeons in the State and therefore, the Government had provided certain relaxations and priorities in the criteria for appointment to junior teaching posts in various Medical Colleges of Bihar, so that such candidates could be appointed. The appellant had been given preference by virtue of his having M. Ch. Degree in Neuro Surgery with research work and working experience. The State Government has further stated that appellant is qualified Neuro Surgeon and has been rightly appointed as Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery vide Notification No. 1144 (17) dated 28-12-1990 and the appellant joined the said post on 28-12-1990 itself”. [R-8]
Thus taking in view the entire scheme of the degree and the relevant clauses of the advertisement, we are clearly of the view that appellant was rightly put in the Select Panel at NO. 1 and the Government of Bihar rightly appointed him on the post of Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery.
In the result, we allows the appeals, setting aside the order of the High Court of Patna dated 10-12-1990 and dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Respondent No. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to cost. [R-8]
Most important case of Supreme Court on this issue is that of 1999 [R-6], judgment delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India M.M. Punchhi, and his companion Judges K.T. Thomas and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 254 – Education – Admission – Medical College – Admission Capacity – Fixation – can be done only by Medical Council – State Government and Universities cannot increase admission capacity.
Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956), Ss. 10-A, 10-B, 33.
Karnataka Education Institutional (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act (1984), S. 4.
Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Act 28 of 1976), S. 53 (10).
Dentists Act, 1948 (Act 16 of 1948), S. 10-A.
It is the Medical Council / Dental Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses / dental courses in a medical college or institution. It is the Central Government, alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. Universities and the State Government of Karnataka had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State Government Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. [Par 31, 32]
It is not that only future admissions will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed by or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that power to regulate admission to medical college is prerogative of the State has to be rejected.
It is the Medical Council, which is primarily responsible for fixing standards of medical education and over seeing that these standards are maintained. It is the Medical Council, which is the principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges, which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college. The Medical Council Act is reliable to Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule 7 to Constitution.
(B) Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956), S. 33 – Regulations framed under – Falling within the purpose mentioned in Section 33 – will have mandatory force.
Recent Developments:
The Hon’ble Chief Justice Ajay Nath Ray and his companion Judge Jagdish Bhalla, of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court, while delivering interim order in a case [R-5] on April 20, 2005 said
This is a Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) filed by the writ-petitioners, which described themselves as Doctors.
They are final year students of M.B.B.S. Course at B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. The main substance of the writ petition is that the Post Graduate courses of the said Medical College have been substantially de-recognized by the Medical Council of India but this fact notwithstanding, admissions are going on in these Colleges and the Post Graduate Medical Courses even now. We are informed from the Bar that counseling is on from this day, i.e. today with regard to such Post Graduate Medical Courses.
Some other Colleges are also named in the petition like Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi and S.N. Medical College Agra. As for as we have been able to gather today, these colleges are not legal personalities and are not Bodies Corporate, these are basically State instrumentalities. The State also appears to have issued directives to at least the B.R.D. medical College, Gorakhpur, not to admit students and not to recognize students to Post Graduate Courses.
The writ-petition is directed towards making the recognition available again to these colleges by increasing the teaching staff, making the Laboratories better equipped, and such like.
We are told that a writ petition has also been filed in the Delhi High Court (since the Medical Council is in Delhi) and that in the said writ, orders have been passed calling for reports and for bettering of facilities and that the matter is due to be heard again on the 28th of this month (28-04-2005).
So far as the admissions to unrecognized medical seats are concerned, we have, although prima facie, a very strong view. The Medical Council is the over all supervisor of Medical Education in India. Whether an institution is fit to admit students for the purpose of study ultimately with the aim of receiving medical degrees from that institution, is a matter, which is in the sole decision of Medical Council. If the Medical Council de-recognizes institutions, courses or seats, then and in that event it means that those institutions, those courses or those seats, as the case might be, are not fit for producing qualified doctors of that level or that mentality, specialty.
In such an event, it is the job of every public authority in India to see to it that these deficient institutions do not admit students or grant them degree which would have inbuilt and hidden incapacity and inadequacy and which would forever in future be of definite danger to the citizen of India at large.
Just as an unqualified man practicing medicine is a threat to public health, so also is a half qualified or badly qualified person is a similar danger to the public. If anything the danger in the second case is more. Thus, a degree from an unrecognized institution, course or seat is a misrepresentation. It is a misrepresentation of a permanent nature which is likely to mislead many and unknowing patient.
In these circumstances we admit the writ petition. The writ petitioners are directed to score out doctors from their description in the cause title. They are directed to implead the Medical College concerned by impleading those through their Principal; the present incumbent in office to be served in that regard but the impleading to be made by the office itself.
Until further orders of the Court the respondents, their servants, officers and agents, the respective colleges including B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, and their Principles, Professors, employees and servants are restrained from taking any steps towards any fresh admission of any medical student to any course or seat which is not at the time of admission recognized by the Medical Council of India.
Petition is to be served on all the added parties. Affidavit would be called for from them after service is completed and the matter will appear in the person 1st respondent, 2 and 3 are represented today before us by Mr. Sanjay Bhasin. The other respondents already on record should also be served, if not already served. The matter should appear in the last four weeks hence. The appearing respondents might keep their affidavits ready after the orders and under directions would be passed on the next date when the court takes of the matter. The impleadment shall be made as above of the Medical Colleges through the Principal or it added that it should also be served of the Medical University through the Registrar of the University state might require.
It is clarified that if the Medical Council grants recognition the restriction against impressed by our order would automatically be lifted as the restriction order themselves clarify. Case is still pending and final decision is awaited till date.
Letter written by the Director Medical Education, U.P. [R-3] introduced to Principals of Medical Colleges Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhanshi, Gorakhpur and Registrar King Gorge Medical University on the subject of ‘Recognition of Postgraduate Medical Education’ asking principal’s to take appropriate action as per MCI norms to get Postgraduate degree recognized, and to fulfill deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during previous inspections and inform the MCI of action taken in this regard.
The MCI Letter written by the Secretary MCI [R-4] introduced to the Secretary (Health), Govt. of U.P. on the same subject mentions that
“I am directed to inform you that various postgraduate medical courses are being run in the medical colleges in your State which are yet to be approved / recognized u/s 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956. (List enclosed)
You are requested to direct the authorities of the medical colleges to approach the Registrar of the University to which the Medical College is affiliated to forward its formal request through the Central Government as required u/s 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956 for arranging for the inspection by the Medical Council of India at the time of practical examination of respective PG Courses.
In addition you are requested to direct the college authorities to send compliance regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the Council in respect of the postgraduate courses which have yet not been recommended for recognition for further necessary action in the matter”. [R-4]
Summary and Conclusions:
Responsibilities should be fixed on concerned authorities for not getting recognized medical degrees / diplomas in time and raising the problem out of control. No initiative was taken by the faculty members due to reasons best known to them. It might be for the reason of insecurity for themselves or no awareness about the procedure of recognition by the MCI. It might be due to bureaucratic or technocratic insensitivity about the issue of public interest.
This problem of non-Recognition of degrees/diplomas results in unnecessary litigations in various courts, denial of job to many degree holders, not receipt of call for interview by UPSC, New Delhi, and even not allowed to appear in interviews like by PGIMER, Chandigarh, and mental harassment of candidates, etc.
Over and above when one go into the background of this problem it is very easy to make out that this problem is the result of insensitive authorities on this issue and not fulfillment of Minimum Standard Requirement Criteria fixed by the MCI and directly related to quality of medical education and denial of right to health care (under Article 21 of Indian Constitution) of general public.
It is a very important issue of public interest related to violation of Article 21, 14, 16 of the Indian Constitution and other statutory provisions. This problem of non-recognized degrees / diplomas awarded by many Indian Universities is in violation of the Indian Medical Degree Act, 1916, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and its Regulations, etc.
Now MCI may suo motu may recognize these degrees / diplomas and apply the 1993 rules afresh while inspecting and allowing permission for admission to these courses without affecting the rights of those already possessed these degrees/ diplomas.
References:
R-1-Dr. D.R. Yadav vs. State of Haryana & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 8561 of 2003; Date of Decision 09-02-2005 (P & H).
R-2-Government Order No. 722/II-B-13 [1] –61 Dated 15-05-1964 regarding Degree, Diploma Recognition published in the Gazette Part II, Page No. 27 at Serial No. 6.
R-3- Director Medical Education, U.P. Letter No. ME/ Student Cell/ 2007/ 3225-26, dated 31-05-2007
R-4- Letter of MCI No. MCI-23(1)/ 2006-Med./ 4163, dated 19-05-2007 introduced to Secretary, Health, U.P Government.
R-5-Dr. Om Prakash & Others vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 1563 (M/B) of 2005 in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, date of interim order, 20-04-2005.
R-6- Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnatka and Others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2423. Civil Appeal Nos. 3275 with 3576-77 of 1998 (arising out of S.L.P. ( C) Nos. 14839 of 1997 with 20035 of 1997 and 547 of 1998), D/-16-07-1998. W.A. No. 8413 of 1996, dated 16-07-1997 (Kant.) GP/GP/S100261/98/VVG/CSL.
R-7-Dr. B.L. Asawa vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal No. 303 of 1976 (Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated October 30, 1974 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1974), decided on March 5, 1982.
R-8-Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar & Others, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1514; J.T. (1991) 2 S.C. 352.
R-9-Dr. Harish Bajaj v. R.D.V. Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, AIR 2003 MP 114.
Problem of Unrecognized Medical Degrees awarded by the Government Medical Colleges:
Problem of Unrecognized Medical Degrees awarded by the Government Medical Colleges:
A Critical Case review from State of Madhya Pradesh, India
Dr. Mukesh Yadav, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., LL.B., PGDHR
Prof. & HOD, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
Abstract
Problem of recognition of medical degrees / diplomas awarded by the Government Medical Colleges is still persisting through out the India and drawing the attention not only of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India but also of the various High Courts. The present case report deals with the problem of the Government Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. Dr. S.K. Neema, who completed his M.S. (Orthopedics) from G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, whose appointment for the post of Assistant Professor, Orthopedics was challenged by Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani on the ground that the course i.e. M.S. (Orthopedics) is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior from where Dr. S.K. Neema has obtained M.S.(Orthopedics) degree, hence, he is not eligible for appointment to the said post.
Hon’ble High Court has gone into the depth of the problem, their consequential effects on the medical student’s community, role of the various authorities, and directions to solve the problem. [Para 9] [1]
This paper deals with critical review of the problem based on recent six pages judgment delivered by the Justice, Subhash Samvatsar, at Jabalpur Bench, Gwalior, High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh on May 13, 2008, in Writ Petition No. 2943 of 2004 in case of Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Key Words: Recognition of Degree, High Court, Apex Court, Supreme Court, State Medical Council, University, State Government of M.P.
Brief facts of the case:
That said course M.S. (Ortho) is being run by G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for more than 25 years and the students who clear the said examination are being appointed by the State Government. [Para 6] [1]
Various government authorities like: the State of Madhya Pradesh, Medical Council of India, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and G.R. Medical College, Gwalior have admitted that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for large number of years. It was also contended that for recognition of the said course, the Medical Council of India had conducted inspections of the College whereby the Medical Council of India had recommended for recognition of the course of MS (Orthopedics) in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. But till today, no recognition is granted by the Medical Council of India. [Para 10] [1]
However, the question before the Hon’ble High Court was what is its effect? Hon’ble High Court has gone into the depth of the problem, their consequential effects on the medical student’s community, role of the various authorities, and directions to solve the problem. [Para 9] [1]
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner (Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani) challenging the contractual appointment of respondent No.6 (Dr. S.K. Neema) to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopedics in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior on the ground that his appointment is contrary to the rules framed by the Medical Council of India. [Para 1] [1]
Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani had obtained his MBBS degree from Jiwaji University, Gwalior in the year 1994. He had successfully completed three years post graduate course in Orthopedics from M.G.M. College, Indore in the year 2003. After completing his MS course in the year 2003, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor on contractual basis in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh. This advertisement was issued on July 22, 2004 inviting applications for various posts. Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani as well as Dr. S.K. Neema applied for the said post. After facing selection process, the selection committee found Dr. S.K. Neema to be more meritorious and appointed him as Assistant Professor in G.R. Medical College at Gwalior.
Although Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani was also selected in the said selection, but he was placed lower in merit than Dr. S.K. Neema hence he was posted at Rewa Medical College. [Para 2] [1]
Contention of the learned counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani is that the course i.e. M.S. (Orthopedics) is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior from where Dr. S.K. Neema has obtained M.S.(Orthopedics) degree, hence, he is not eligible for appointment to the said post. [Para 3] [1]
Counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani has invited attention of the Hon’ble High Court to clause 6 of the advertisement according to which, it is necessary that a candidate must have a degree in the subject from the institution recognised by Medical Council of India. Thus, according to the advertisement, it is necessary that the candidate must have got a degree from the institution where the course is recognised by Medical Council of India. [Para 4] [1]
Counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani also invited attention of the Hon’ble High Court to the document which is a list issued by Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal of various courses in various colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh which are not recognised. As per the list, M.S. (Orth.) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court to the schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to demonstrate that the subject of Orthopedics is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. [Para 8] [1]
Said course, is however, recognised in M.G.M. Medical College, Indore from where Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani obtained his degree in MS (Orthopedics). Thus, as per, Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani, Dr. S.K. Neema is not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor. [Para 5] [1]
After perusal of records it is virtually an admitted position that MS (Orthopedics) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, still Dr. S.K. Neema is appointed against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopedics. Parties, at the time of arguments, have admitted that said course is being run by G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for more than 25 years and the students who clear the said examination are being appointed by the State Government.
It was further contended by Shri R.D.Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani that the illegality which is committed by the Authorities for long years cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. Hence, appointment of Dr. S.K. Neema be cancelled. [Para 7] [1]
Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no dispute to the fact, in the present case, that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. What is the effect of running courses and awarding unrecognized medical degrees / diplomas by the Government Medical Colleges?
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Medical Council of India, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and G.R. Medical College, Gwalior have admitted that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for large number of years. It is also contended that for recognition of the said course, the Medical Council of India had conducted inspections of the College whereby the Medical Council of India had recommended for recognition of the course of MS (Orthopedics) in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. But till today, no recognition is granted by the Medical Council of India. [Para 10] [1]
Insensitivity of the Government:
Mayhem and chaos ruled the day in Government Hospitals of Madhya Pradesh as Junior Doctors went on strike following the Medical Council of India’s recommendations to derecognize 154 medical Post Graduate seats in the State. On Monday Junior Doctors of Bhopal, Jabalpur, Gwalior and Rewa went on strike. Junior Doctors in Indore are joined the strike on Tuesday. Patients queued up out side of the emergency ward of Government Hospitals while nurses assumed charge and major operations were postponed. The Government remained silent while patient waited for hours hoping for doctor to attend to them. [5]
Last year (2007) the MCI inspected Medical Colleges in MP and found the Institutions unsuitable to churn out quality doctors. Since 1996 MCI has been repeatedly observing that the basic infrastructure of Medical Colleges in the State did not match standard set by the Council. In March this year (2007), MCI recommended that 154 Post Graduate seats be derecognized. MP has five Government Medical Colleges. The MCI also asked the Centre to direct the colleges not admit fresher for 2007-2008 academic session, unless the State Government introduced the necessary infrastructural changes. Junior Doctors claim that doctors seeking jobs outside MP were facing discrimination as the validity of their degrees was being questioned. [5]
In fact, if State Government did make adequate changes in the existing Medical Colleges as per standard prescribed by MCI, their degree were valueless. “If the Medical Colleges are derecognized, then we are ‘fargy’ (fraud) doctors. It will not be right for fraud doctors to treat patients,” –Junior Doctor’s Association, President, Jeevan Singh Meena, argued. [5]
“We are not the ones to be blamed,” -Meena justified. “We had informed the Government 48 hours in advance. For the last nine years, the Government has been inactive. The State has not assured us that it will bring the Medical Colleges to the standard set by the MCI. If our degrees are not recognised who will give us job? Even this Government not employs us any longer.” [5]
On its part, State Medical Education Department has argued that the strike is unjustified because neither the MCI nor the Union Government has informed MP Government about derecognition. Principal Secretary, Medical Education, M. M. Upadhyay told reporters “we have spoken to the Union Government on this and have been assured to that as per rules the State Government will be consulted before the Centre takes any action on the MCI recommendations.” [5]
The department claimed that after the MCI’s recommendation in March, 2007 the State has recruited Assistant Professors in the faculties, considering construction of buildings and purchasing medical equipments and instruments. A budget of 73.73 crore has been allotted for the up gradation of Medical Colleges. [5]
Hon’ble High Court’s important observations:
In the present case, an advertisement was issued by the State for contractual appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and both – Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani and Dr. S.K. Neema– had applied. There is no dispute that the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is having MS degree from an institution in the course recognised by the Medical Council of India. [Para 11] [1]
Hon’ble High Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and observed that “I find that the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. the State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1514 [4] has considered the similar situation. In that case also, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna had issued advertisement and selection committed had made appointments after considering the merits of the candidates.
It was argued that the candidate who is selected did not fulfill criterion of passing post graduate degree from an institution where the said course was recognised and the Apex Court has held that whether the post graduate course is started by the University with the consent of Medical Council of India and where the State has recognised the said degree imparted by the University, plea raised that the candidate has obtained decree in such course which was not recognised in the institution has no value and dismissed the petition”. [Para 14] [1]
Hon’ble Court further observed that the Contention of Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani is that, in that case, there was consent by the State Government and the Medical Council of India which is not present in the present case. Hence, the facts of the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable. [Para 15] [1]
On the question of Consent of the State Government and Medical Council of India:
Hon’ble High Court observed that in the present case, I find that Dr. S.K. Neema was a candidate from All India Quotas. He was allotted a seat in MS (Orthopedics) by Director of Medical Education on the basis of his merits. At the time of allotment of seat, the Director of Medical Education must have knowledge that said course is not recognized by Medical Council of India. Thus, the State Government had consented to the admission of Dr. S.K. Neema in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. [Para 16] [1]
Hon’ble Court further added that apart from that, at the time of admission of Dr. S.K. Neema, the State Authorities were fully conscious of the fact that said course was not recognised and still Dr. S.K. Neema was appointed by the State. This clearly shows that there was implied consent by the State Government, firstly at the time of admission and secondly at the time of appointment in service. Now it cannot be said that the State Government had not consented to this fact. [Para 17, Page No.5] [1]
It is an admitted position that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run for the last more than 25 years in G.R. Medical College and candidates who have cleared the said post graduate courses are being appointed by the State Government from time to time. Thus, in the present case, objection about not having consent of the State Government cannot be maintained. [Para 17] [1]
Comments about role of Madhya Pradesh Medical Council:
Hon’ble High Court made comments about the role of M.P. State Medical Council in the words that so far as Madhya Pradesh Medical Council is concerned, it cannot be presumed that they are not aware of this illegality. It is true that illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated, all the same, it is the Respondents Authorities which are indulging in continuing such illegality and the innocent students who come from outside the State and getting admission are made to suffer without any fault on their part. [Para 18] [1]
Hon’ble High Court concluded that considering this aspect of the matter, I find that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal [4] is fully applicable in the present case and there is no illegality in the appointment of Dr. S.K Neema. At the most, it can be said that there is some irregularity in his appointment for which Dr. S.K Neema cannot be held to be responsible. [Para 19] [1]
Perusal of Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the medical qualifications which are recognized by the Universities and Medical Institutions in India have been mentioned. According to the First Schedule qualification Doctor of Medicine in Pathology in abbreviation from M.D. (Path.) has been recognized in the Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidhyalya, Jabalpur. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 University to have awarded only that degree which is recognized one and to amend the degree from that of M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) to M.D. (Pathology) as this is the only change in nomenclature of the degree. For the fault of University, the students cannot be made to suffer. Since they have acquired qualifications, degrees in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) should be amended as the Schedule to Act of 1956 does not recognize the degree in M.D (Pathology and Microbiology). The petitioner and such other similar students are being deprived of their right to education and other fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India which make it clear that the petitioner and such other students cannot be dealt with in such an arbitrary manner. [Para 8] [6]
The respondents are bound to act within the purview of Medical Council Act, 1956. I find no rhyme or reason in the explanation offered by the Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalya in not amending nomenclature of the degree of M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology). If the degree is not amended, it may be detrimental to the students who have passed out the examination by making hard efforts to obtaining the degree and their qualification would go in waste. In such circumstances, the decision was taken by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalya, Indore and by notification Annexure A-8; the said University has recalled its order and amended the degree. Therefore, same action ought to have been taken by the respondent No. 1 University to amend the degree of the students who have been taken by the University to amend the degree of the student who have passed prior to 1997 when it has decided to amend it prospectively. Though the University realized the situation and its mistake and they have passed the resolutions in this respect in 1997 the student of 1990 to 1996 are being still awarded by the degree with nomenclature on the basis of same course as M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology). The action taken is discriminatory. Right to Education is a fundamental right. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India no one can be deprived of fruits of his hard labour in pursuit of degree in question by prescribing a wrong nomenclature. Medical Council had indicated it’s willing to treat degree as one in M.D. in Pathology as same course which should have been enough for University to amend it and act like Devi Ahilya University, India. [Para 8] [6]
Summary and Conclusions:
It is not disputed that there are number of courses which are not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Students are admitted to such courses as per the allotment made by the Director of Medical Education in spite of the fact that the Director of Medical Education is fully aware of the fact that said courses are not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India and the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council are also watching this illegality for number of years as silent spectators and thus, all these Authorities are playing with the career of the students which cannot be permitted to be done. If the Medical Council of India and Madhya Pradesh Medical Council permitted to watch the game as silent spectators and continue the illegality in admissions, then the very purpose of establishing these Authorities will be frustrated. In such a situation, it is for the aforesaid Authorities to see that in future, no candidate is allotted seat in post graduate degree course in the Institutions which are not recognised. Therefore, they are directed not to admit any student in future against any course which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in a particular Institution. [Para 20, Page No.5, 6] [1]
In the result, Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said petition with the directions issued to be followed in future. [Para 21, Page No. 6] [1]
Reference:
Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No.2943 of 2004, High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, Date of disposal: May 13, 2008.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Schedules.
The Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998.
Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. the State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1514.
‘Jr doctors stop work in MP’, The Times of India, December 15, 2007.
Dr. Harish Bajaj v. Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and Others, AIR 2003 Madhya Pradesh 114-117, Writ Petition No. 30 of 2002, dated 10-05-2002.
Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1974), decided on March 5, 1982.
Om Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 1563 (M/B) of 2005, Order dated April 22, 2005 of Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court.
Dr. Mukesh Yadav & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ No.124 of 2008, Supreme Court of India.
Dr. Ms. Swapnil Sandhya & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) 3065/2002, Disposed on March 12, 2008 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2423.
A Critical Case review from State of Madhya Pradesh, India
Dr. Mukesh Yadav, B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., LL.B., PGDHR
Prof. & HOD, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
Muzaffarnagar Medical College, Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
Abstract
Problem of recognition of medical degrees / diplomas awarded by the Government Medical Colleges is still persisting through out the India and drawing the attention not only of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India but also of the various High Courts. The present case report deals with the problem of the Government Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. Dr. S.K. Neema, who completed his M.S. (Orthopedics) from G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, whose appointment for the post of Assistant Professor, Orthopedics was challenged by Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani on the ground that the course i.e. M.S. (Orthopedics) is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior from where Dr. S.K. Neema has obtained M.S.(Orthopedics) degree, hence, he is not eligible for appointment to the said post.
Hon’ble High Court has gone into the depth of the problem, their consequential effects on the medical student’s community, role of the various authorities, and directions to solve the problem. [Para 9] [1]
This paper deals with critical review of the problem based on recent six pages judgment delivered by the Justice, Subhash Samvatsar, at Jabalpur Bench, Gwalior, High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh on May 13, 2008, in Writ Petition No. 2943 of 2004 in case of Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Key Words: Recognition of Degree, High Court, Apex Court, Supreme Court, State Medical Council, University, State Government of M.P.
Brief facts of the case:
That said course M.S. (Ortho) is being run by G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for more than 25 years and the students who clear the said examination are being appointed by the State Government. [Para 6] [1]
Various government authorities like: the State of Madhya Pradesh, Medical Council of India, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and G.R. Medical College, Gwalior have admitted that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for large number of years. It was also contended that for recognition of the said course, the Medical Council of India had conducted inspections of the College whereby the Medical Council of India had recommended for recognition of the course of MS (Orthopedics) in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. But till today, no recognition is granted by the Medical Council of India. [Para 10] [1]
However, the question before the Hon’ble High Court was what is its effect? Hon’ble High Court has gone into the depth of the problem, their consequential effects on the medical student’s community, role of the various authorities, and directions to solve the problem. [Para 9] [1]
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner (Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani) challenging the contractual appointment of respondent No.6 (Dr. S.K. Neema) to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopedics in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior on the ground that his appointment is contrary to the rules framed by the Medical Council of India. [Para 1] [1]
Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani had obtained his MBBS degree from Jiwaji University, Gwalior in the year 1994. He had successfully completed three years post graduate course in Orthopedics from M.G.M. College, Indore in the year 2003. After completing his MS course in the year 2003, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor on contractual basis in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh. This advertisement was issued on July 22, 2004 inviting applications for various posts. Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani as well as Dr. S.K. Neema applied for the said post. After facing selection process, the selection committee found Dr. S.K. Neema to be more meritorious and appointed him as Assistant Professor in G.R. Medical College at Gwalior.
Although Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani was also selected in the said selection, but he was placed lower in merit than Dr. S.K. Neema hence he was posted at Rewa Medical College. [Para 2] [1]
Contention of the learned counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani is that the course i.e. M.S. (Orthopedics) is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior from where Dr. S.K. Neema has obtained M.S.(Orthopedics) degree, hence, he is not eligible for appointment to the said post. [Para 3] [1]
Counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani has invited attention of the Hon’ble High Court to clause 6 of the advertisement according to which, it is necessary that a candidate must have a degree in the subject from the institution recognised by Medical Council of India. Thus, according to the advertisement, it is necessary that the candidate must have got a degree from the institution where the course is recognised by Medical Council of India. [Para 4] [1]
Counsel for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani also invited attention of the Hon’ble High Court to the document which is a list issued by Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, Bhopal of various courses in various colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh which are not recognised. As per the list, M.S. (Orth.) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court to the schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to demonstrate that the subject of Orthopedics is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. [Para 8] [1]
Said course, is however, recognised in M.G.M. Medical College, Indore from where Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani obtained his degree in MS (Orthopedics). Thus, as per, Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani, Dr. S.K. Neema is not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor. [Para 5] [1]
After perusal of records it is virtually an admitted position that MS (Orthopedics) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, still Dr. S.K. Neema is appointed against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopedics. Parties, at the time of arguments, have admitted that said course is being run by G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for more than 25 years and the students who clear the said examination are being appointed by the State Government.
It was further contended by Shri R.D.Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani that the illegality which is committed by the Authorities for long years cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. Hence, appointment of Dr. S.K. Neema be cancelled. [Para 7] [1]
Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no dispute to the fact, in the present case, that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is not recognised in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. What is the effect of running courses and awarding unrecognized medical degrees / diplomas by the Government Medical Colleges?
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Medical Council of India, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and G.R. Medical College, Gwalior have admitted that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior for large number of years. It is also contended that for recognition of the said course, the Medical Council of India had conducted inspections of the College whereby the Medical Council of India had recommended for recognition of the course of MS (Orthopedics) in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. But till today, no recognition is granted by the Medical Council of India. [Para 10] [1]
Insensitivity of the Government:
Mayhem and chaos ruled the day in Government Hospitals of Madhya Pradesh as Junior Doctors went on strike following the Medical Council of India’s recommendations to derecognize 154 medical Post Graduate seats in the State. On Monday Junior Doctors of Bhopal, Jabalpur, Gwalior and Rewa went on strike. Junior Doctors in Indore are joined the strike on Tuesday. Patients queued up out side of the emergency ward of Government Hospitals while nurses assumed charge and major operations were postponed. The Government remained silent while patient waited for hours hoping for doctor to attend to them. [5]
Last year (2007) the MCI inspected Medical Colleges in MP and found the Institutions unsuitable to churn out quality doctors. Since 1996 MCI has been repeatedly observing that the basic infrastructure of Medical Colleges in the State did not match standard set by the Council. In March this year (2007), MCI recommended that 154 Post Graduate seats be derecognized. MP has five Government Medical Colleges. The MCI also asked the Centre to direct the colleges not admit fresher for 2007-2008 academic session, unless the State Government introduced the necessary infrastructural changes. Junior Doctors claim that doctors seeking jobs outside MP were facing discrimination as the validity of their degrees was being questioned. [5]
In fact, if State Government did make adequate changes in the existing Medical Colleges as per standard prescribed by MCI, their degree were valueless. “If the Medical Colleges are derecognized, then we are ‘fargy’ (fraud) doctors. It will not be right for fraud doctors to treat patients,” –Junior Doctor’s Association, President, Jeevan Singh Meena, argued. [5]
“We are not the ones to be blamed,” -Meena justified. “We had informed the Government 48 hours in advance. For the last nine years, the Government has been inactive. The State has not assured us that it will bring the Medical Colleges to the standard set by the MCI. If our degrees are not recognised who will give us job? Even this Government not employs us any longer.” [5]
On its part, State Medical Education Department has argued that the strike is unjustified because neither the MCI nor the Union Government has informed MP Government about derecognition. Principal Secretary, Medical Education, M. M. Upadhyay told reporters “we have spoken to the Union Government on this and have been assured to that as per rules the State Government will be consulted before the Centre takes any action on the MCI recommendations.” [5]
The department claimed that after the MCI’s recommendation in March, 2007 the State has recruited Assistant Professors in the faculties, considering construction of buildings and purchasing medical equipments and instruments. A budget of 73.73 crore has been allotted for the up gradation of Medical Colleges. [5]
Hon’ble High Court’s important observations:
In the present case, an advertisement was issued by the State for contractual appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and both – Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani and Dr. S.K. Neema– had applied. There is no dispute that the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is having MS degree from an institution in the course recognised by the Medical Council of India. [Para 11] [1]
Hon’ble High Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and observed that “I find that the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. the State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1514 [4] has considered the similar situation. In that case also, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna had issued advertisement and selection committed had made appointments after considering the merits of the candidates.
It was argued that the candidate who is selected did not fulfill criterion of passing post graduate degree from an institution where the said course was recognised and the Apex Court has held that whether the post graduate course is started by the University with the consent of Medical Council of India and where the State has recognised the said degree imparted by the University, plea raised that the candidate has obtained decree in such course which was not recognised in the institution has no value and dismissed the petition”. [Para 14] [1]
Hon’ble Court further observed that the Contention of Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani is that, in that case, there was consent by the State Government and the Medical Council of India which is not present in the present case. Hence, the facts of the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable. [Para 15] [1]
On the question of Consent of the State Government and Medical Council of India:
Hon’ble High Court observed that in the present case, I find that Dr. S.K. Neema was a candidate from All India Quotas. He was allotted a seat in MS (Orthopedics) by Director of Medical Education on the basis of his merits. At the time of allotment of seat, the Director of Medical Education must have knowledge that said course is not recognized by Medical Council of India. Thus, the State Government had consented to the admission of Dr. S.K. Neema in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. [Para 16] [1]
Hon’ble Court further added that apart from that, at the time of admission of Dr. S.K. Neema, the State Authorities were fully conscious of the fact that said course was not recognised and still Dr. S.K. Neema was appointed by the State. This clearly shows that there was implied consent by the State Government, firstly at the time of admission and secondly at the time of appointment in service. Now it cannot be said that the State Government had not consented to this fact. [Para 17, Page No.5] [1]
It is an admitted position that the course of MS (Orthopedics) is run for the last more than 25 years in G.R. Medical College and candidates who have cleared the said post graduate courses are being appointed by the State Government from time to time. Thus, in the present case, objection about not having consent of the State Government cannot be maintained. [Para 17] [1]
Comments about role of Madhya Pradesh Medical Council:
Hon’ble High Court made comments about the role of M.P. State Medical Council in the words that so far as Madhya Pradesh Medical Council is concerned, it cannot be presumed that they are not aware of this illegality. It is true that illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated, all the same, it is the Respondents Authorities which are indulging in continuing such illegality and the innocent students who come from outside the State and getting admission are made to suffer without any fault on their part. [Para 18] [1]
Hon’ble High Court concluded that considering this aspect of the matter, I find that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal [4] is fully applicable in the present case and there is no illegality in the appointment of Dr. S.K Neema. At the most, it can be said that there is some irregularity in his appointment for which Dr. S.K Neema cannot be held to be responsible. [Para 19] [1]
Perusal of Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the medical qualifications which are recognized by the Universities and Medical Institutions in India have been mentioned. According to the First Schedule qualification Doctor of Medicine in Pathology in abbreviation from M.D. (Path.) has been recognized in the Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidhyalya, Jabalpur. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 University to have awarded only that degree which is recognized one and to amend the degree from that of M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) to M.D. (Pathology) as this is the only change in nomenclature of the degree. For the fault of University, the students cannot be made to suffer. Since they have acquired qualifications, degrees in M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology) should be amended as the Schedule to Act of 1956 does not recognize the degree in M.D (Pathology and Microbiology). The petitioner and such other similar students are being deprived of their right to education and other fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India which make it clear that the petitioner and such other students cannot be dealt with in such an arbitrary manner. [Para 8] [6]
The respondents are bound to act within the purview of Medical Council Act, 1956. I find no rhyme or reason in the explanation offered by the Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalya in not amending nomenclature of the degree of M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology). If the degree is not amended, it may be detrimental to the students who have passed out the examination by making hard efforts to obtaining the degree and their qualification would go in waste. In such circumstances, the decision was taken by Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalya, Indore and by notification Annexure A-8; the said University has recalled its order and amended the degree. Therefore, same action ought to have been taken by the respondent No. 1 University to amend the degree of the students who have been taken by the University to amend the degree of the student who have passed prior to 1997 when it has decided to amend it prospectively. Though the University realized the situation and its mistake and they have passed the resolutions in this respect in 1997 the student of 1990 to 1996 are being still awarded by the degree with nomenclature on the basis of same course as M.D. (Pathology and Microbiology). The action taken is discriminatory. Right to Education is a fundamental right. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India no one can be deprived of fruits of his hard labour in pursuit of degree in question by prescribing a wrong nomenclature. Medical Council had indicated it’s willing to treat degree as one in M.D. in Pathology as same course which should have been enough for University to amend it and act like Devi Ahilya University, India. [Para 8] [6]
Summary and Conclusions:
It is not disputed that there are number of courses which are not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Students are admitted to such courses as per the allotment made by the Director of Medical Education in spite of the fact that the Director of Medical Education is fully aware of the fact that said courses are not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India and the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council are also watching this illegality for number of years as silent spectators and thus, all these Authorities are playing with the career of the students which cannot be permitted to be done. If the Medical Council of India and Madhya Pradesh Medical Council permitted to watch the game as silent spectators and continue the illegality in admissions, then the very purpose of establishing these Authorities will be frustrated. In such a situation, it is for the aforesaid Authorities to see that in future, no candidate is allotted seat in post graduate degree course in the Institutions which are not recognised. Therefore, they are directed not to admit any student in future against any course which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India in a particular Institution. [Para 20, Page No.5, 6] [1]
In the result, Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said petition with the directions issued to be followed in future. [Para 21, Page No. 6] [1]
Reference:
Dr. Omprakash Lakhwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No.2943 of 2004, High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior, Date of disposal: May 13, 2008.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Schedules.
The Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998.
Dr.Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. the State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 1514.
‘Jr doctors stop work in MP’, The Times of India, December 15, 2007.
Dr. Harish Bajaj v. Rani Durgavati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur and Others, AIR 2003 Madhya Pradesh 114-117, Writ Petition No. 30 of 2002, dated 10-05-2002.
Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1974), decided on March 5, 1982.
Om Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ Petition No. 1563 (M/B) of 2005, Order dated April 22, 2005 of Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court.
Dr. Mukesh Yadav & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ No.124 of 2008, Supreme Court of India.
Dr. Ms. Swapnil Sandhya & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) 3065/2002, Disposed on March 12, 2008 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2423.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)