SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ajay Kumar Sachdev – Appellant
Versus
Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5737 of 2021 & CM APPL. 33511 of 2021
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate, for the Respondent-1 and 2.
Mr. T. Singhdev and Ms. Anum Hussain, Advocates, for the Respondent-4/NMC.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Institute cannot prescribe qualifications in variance with or in derogation of the qualifications prescribed by NMC. The court accepted the petitioner's eligibility based on the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2019, which govern the present selection.

Headnote:

Eligibility Criteria - Professor (Surgical Hepatology) - Regulations, 2019 - The judgment discusses the conflict between the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Institute and the Regulations, 2019 of the National Medical Commission (NMC) regarding the required research publications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology). The court held that the Institute cannot prescribe qualifications in variance with or in derogation of the qualifications prescribed by NMC. The court accepted the petitioner's eligibility based on the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2019, which govern the present selection. The court directed the Institute to consider the petitioner's case on merits within five weeks from the date of the judgment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of his application for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) by the Institute, citing the rejection based on the eligibility criteria of research publications. The petitioner had applied for the post and was hopeful of a positive outcome based on his qualifications and experience. The Institute rejected his application, alleging that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of publications. The petitioner contended that the rejection was illegal and actuated by mala fides.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Institute cannot prescribe qualifications in variance with or in derogation of the qualifications prescribed by NMC. The court accepted the petitioner's eligibility based on the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2019, which govern the present selection. The court directed the Institute to consider the petitioner's case on merits within five weeks from the date of the judgment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Institute was empowered to prescribe an eligibility criteria at variance with the minimum criteria laid down by the NMC. Another issue was whether the Institute was empowered to prescribe qualifications 'higher' than those prescribed by the NMC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Institute cannot prescribe qualifications in variance with or in derogation of the qualifications prescribed by NMC. The court accepted the petitioner's eligibility based on the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2019, which govern the present selection.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the Institute to consider the petitioner's case on merits within five weeks from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks inter alia quashing of letter dated 22.05.2021, whereby Respondent No. 1/Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the `Institute') has rejected Petitioner's application for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) on the ground that he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria of publications as prescribed under the Institute's Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as the `RRs'). Writ of mandamus is sought directing the Institute to re-initiate the process of screening/selection in terms of order passed by this Court on 01.02.2021, in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner being W.P.(C) 1129/2021.

2. Factual score, as per the narrative in the writ petition and necessary for adjudicating the issues emanating therefrom is that the Petitioner completed his MBBS and M.S. in General Surgery from Kanpur University and thereafter pursued his Ph.D. in Gastro-intestinal (GI) Surgery from Delhi University. He joined the Department of GI Surgery at G.B. Pant Hospital in 1986 as a Resident, where he dedicatedly offered his services in teaching, research and clinical activities till 1998. Petitioner not only taught but was also an examiner for students in M.Ch. (specialisation in GI surgery) degree course as an ad-hoc Associate Professor. In 1998, Petitioner cleared the UPSC examination and was posted at G.B. Pant Hospital as regular Associate Professor, GI Surgery. Between 2005-2019, Petitioner worked as Senior GI Surgeon/CEO/Head/Chairman /Director of GI Surgery Department in various reputed Hospitals like Batra, Fortis, Kailash, Agrasen, to name a few. By a letter dated 07.02.2019, Secretary General of Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the `MCI') confirmed Petitioner's eligibility for post of Professor in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology in medical colleges in India, based on his academic qualifications, teaching experience and research publications.

3. On 18.12.2016 and 19.10.2017, advertisements were issued by the Institute inviting applications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) as per which the criteria of eligibility was M.Ch. in Surgical Gastroenterology (2/3/5/6 years recognized course) or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto with 11 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology etc. Petitioner applied for the post and was hopeful of a positive outcome being eligible, experienced and meritorious. Between 2017-2020, Petitioner visited the Institute several times to enquire about the status of his application, but no information was shared with him and on 15.10.2020 he filed an RTI application to ascertain the status. Replying to the RTI application on 13.11.2020 and 15.12.2020, Institute informed the Petitioner that his application had been rejected as he did not possess M.Ch. degree in Gastroenterological Surgery. This decision of the Screening Committee as per the Petitioner was illegal and contrary to the conditions advertised in the advertisements. According to the Petitioner, the Screening Committee did not consider his equivalence which was clearly demonstrated by his qualifications as per the criteria laid down by MCI under the `Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998' (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulations, 1998') and his selection as Associate Professor by UPSC. Finding no other option, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 1129/2021, challenging the rejection of his application by the Institute.

4. In the meantime, on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, Institute published a fresh advertisement for filling up the post and thus the Court disposed of the writ petition on 01.02.2021 on a statement made on behalf of the Institute that if the Petitioner applies, his application shall be
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top