IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, J.
Yasmin Khan W/o Irfan Khan – Petitioner
Versus
Shailendra Singh S/o Late Badri Singh – Respondent
C.R.M.P. No. 802 of 2016
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1952 - Section 11(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 465, and 471 - Advertisement - Appointment to post - Not qualified for post - Petitioner challenge order passed whereby learned Revisional Court has confirmed order of framing of charge passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case – Held, Complaint that has been filed by respondent No. 1 dealing with same subject matter, which is pending before this Court in WP cannot be considered/adjudicated at two Forums and Criminal Court cannot decide suitability of a candidate of petitioner’s employment, which is exclusively job of expert and employer of petitioner, then Guru Ghasidas University had already submitted their reply in above mentioned writ petitions (service) that appointment of petitioner on post of Reader/Assistant Professor has been done strictly in accordance with law by Selection Committee – Court is of considered opinion that present proceeding amounts to a malicious prosecution and abuse of process of the law and it is a fit case warranting interference by this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C - Hence, impugned order passed in Criminal Revision affirming order passed in Complaint Case and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed – Petition allowed.
ORDER
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 77/2016, whereby the learned Revisional Court has confirmed the order of framing of charge dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 75/2012.
2. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 along with Ms. Muskaan Fatwani and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 2/State.
3. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is against the entire proceeding drawn in Criminal Case No. 75/2012, pending before the learned JMFC, whereby, the learned trial Court has overreached the jurisdiction by overlooking the orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court in various writ petitions (quo-warranto, PIL and SLP). The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 19.07.2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/2016, by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the order of framing of charge dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned JMFC in Criminal Case No. 75/2012. He also submits that the petitioner has passed MBBS degree examination in the year 1987 in first division from Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur duly recognized and affiliated by Nagpur University, Nagpur (Maharashtra). Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for M.D. (Medicine) and she also passed the examination of M.D. (Medicine) in the year 1991 from Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur duly affiliated by the Nagpur University.
4. Mr. Khan further submits that the M.D. postgraduate degree of Nagpur University is included in Schedule-I enacted under India Medical Council Act, 1956. Though the degree of M.D. granted by the Nagpur University was duly recognized and affiliated by Medical Council of India as the said degree has been included in Schedule-I of the Act of 1856, yet the department of Health and Family Welfare through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued notification dated 27.07.2009 in exercise of power conferred under sub-section 2 of Section 11 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1952 stating inter-alia that the Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine) shall be the recognized medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University, Nagpur University in respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur on or after 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was duly registered in Maharashtra Medical Council on 09.01.1989 and necessary registration certificate for additional medical qualification of M.D. was issued by Maharashtra Medical Council. The petitioner after having obtained the M.D. degree from Nagpur University acquired experience after working on the post of lecturer.
5. Mr. Khan also submits that the Guru Ghasidas University issued an advertisement calling upon the applications for the post of reader in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) in which 5 years experience on the post of reader was required. The petitioner duly fulfilling the requisite qualification & experience for the post of reader submitted her candidature. The petitioner’s credentials including experience on the post of reader were duly scrutinized and assessed by the selection committee so constituted and she was interviewed on 17.08.2005 and thereafter, the appointment order dated 23.08.2005 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, appointing the petitioner to the post of reader. He further submits that at no point of time, any query was raised by the appointing authority i.e. Guru Ghasidas University with regard to qualification or experience of the petitioner for
A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another
Bharat Parikh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
SupremeToday
The judgment emphasizes the significance of possessing the minimum educational qualification for appointment on a government post and upholds the binding nature of Regulations framed by the Medical C....
Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitio....
The essential elements of defamation under IPC Section 499 require intent to harm the reputation of the complainant, which was not established in this case, highlighting the balance between defamatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.