( 77 ) BE that as it may, the question as towhether a particular provision is mandatory or directory is not relevant in order to decide its constitutional validity.

( 78 ) AT this stage, it would be necessary tonotice the judgment of the Supreme Court in dr. Preeti Srivastava (14 supra ). The question as to whether the regulations framed by the indian Medical Council under the Indian medical Council Act, 1956 are mandatory or directory had fallen for consideration in the said decision.

( 79 ) SECTION 20 of the Indian Medicalcouncil Act, 1956 deals with Post-graduate medical education. The relevant provisions under Section 20 are as follows:"20. Post-graduate Medical Education committee for assisting Council in matters relating to Post-graduate medical Education. (1) The Council may prescribe standards of post- graduate Medical Education for the guidance of Universities, and may advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for postgraduate Medical Education throughout India and for this purpose the Central Government may constitute from among the members of the Council a Post-graduate Medical education Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Post-graduate committee ). (2) - (4) (5) The views and recommendations of the Post-graduate Committee on all matters shall be placed before the council; and if the Council does not agree with the views expressed or the recommendations made by the Postgraduate committee on any matter, the council shall forward them together with its observations to the Central government for decision. "

( 80 ) SECTION 33 of the Indian Medicalcouncil Act, 1956 gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central government. Pursuant to its power to frame the regulations, the Medical Council of India had framed regulations on postgraduate medical education, which have been approved by the Government of India under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council act, 1956. Considering the expression 'may advise Universities' used in Section 20 of the indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar held that "the power of the Council to prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education under Section 20 are only for the guidance of the Universities. " The court held that "the entire power under section 20 was purely advisory. Therefore the power of the Indian Medical Council to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education at the post-graduate level was only advisory in nature and not of a binding character. "

( 81 ) THE Supreme Court in Dr. Preetisrivastava (14 supra) specifically overruled the said decision and accordingly held that the standards on post-graduate medical education prescribed by the Medical council of India are mandatory and the universities are bound to comply with the standards so prescribed. The reasoning adopted in State of M. P. v. Nivedita fain that the regulations framed by the Medical council on under-graduate medical courses are only recommendatory has also been disapproved in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (14 supra ). The Supreme Court accordingly held that the Medical Council regulations are having statutory force and are mandatory. The expressions such as 'recommendations' and 'guidance' used in relevant provisions are held to be inconsequential notwithstanding the use of such expressions. The regulations framed by the medical Council are held to be mandatory.

( 82 ) SECTION 12 of the U. G. C. Act, whichdeals with the functions of the Commission, also contains such expressions as 'recommends', 'advise', 'required' etc. The relevant provisions of Section 12 of the u. G. C. Act read: "12. Functions of the Commission: it shall be the general duty of the commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and for the det

Click Here to Read the rest of this document