Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Pranay Verma, JJ.
Amita Gupta (Dr.) (Smt.) v. State of M. P. & Another
Writ Appeal No. 743 of 2021(Indore): against the order dated 29.4.2019 passed in W.P. No.29018/2018 and order dated 9.8.2021 passed in R.P. No.945/2019; Decided on10.11.2021
(1) Medical Council Act, 1956 -- Ss. 10A and 11 -- permission to 'establish' medical college and grant of 'recognition'of medical qualification -- are two different aspects governed by two different statutory provisions -- however, this aspect has no significance in light of notification dated 1.4.2019 and corrigendum dated 2.7.2019 -- recognised medical qualification shall be treated from date 'when granted' -- by corrigendum, recognised medical qualification was granted from 2017 -- any other interpretation will lead to absurdity. [Paras 19 to 22
(2) MedicalCouncil Act, 1956 -- Ss. 10A and 11 -- notification dated 1.4.2019 and corrigendum dated 2.7.2019 -- appellant/petitioner selected but not appointed because additional registration certificate of MD received after cut-off date and recognised medical qualification shall be treated from date 'when granted' -- held -- by corrigendum, recognised medical qualification was granted from2017, the batch in which appellant passed MD course -- appellant's qualification is treated as 'recognised' by MCI from 2017, much before cut-off date -- delay in issuing notification and corrigendum etc. attributable to MCI/respondents -- appellant cannot be made to suffer for same -- respondents directed to proceed with selection and issue appointment order of appellant/petitioner subject to other formalities -- aspect of recognised qualification of MD cannot be impediment for petitioner to get appointment. (2012)8 SCC 80 referred to. [Paras 22, 25, 26 & 31
(3) Interpretation of Statute -- hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly to be avoided -- if grammatical construction leads to any absurdity or inconsistency, itmay be departed from, to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency. (1996)2 ALL ER 23, (2009) 2 SCC 1, (1998) 3 SCC 23, AIR 2000 SC 1261 and 2002 (3) SC 1 referred to. [Paras 23 & 24
(4) Civil Service -- estoppel or waiver -- appellant/petitioner selected but not appointed -- life ofselect list over during pendency of writ petition -- neither principle of estoppel nor waiver candeprive appellant from fruits of litigation as she promptly challenged inaction of respondents during lifetime of panel. (1999)6 SCC 49 and (2000) 3 SCC6 99 followed. 2017 (II) MPWN 137 relied on.
[Paras 27 & 30
¼1½ vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 10d rFkk 11 && fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ^LFkkfir* djus dh vuqefr vkSj fpfdRlh; vgZrk dh ^ekU;rk* dk iznku && nks fHkUu dkuwuh mica/kksa }kjk fofu;fer nksuk igyw gSa && rFkkfi] vf/klwpuk fnukad 1&4&2019 vkSj 'kqf) fnukad 2&7&2019 ds vkyksd esa bl igyw dk dksbZ egRo ugha && ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlh; vgZrk ^tc iznku dh tk,* ds fnukad ls ekuh tk,xh && 'kqf) }kjk] ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlh; vgZrk 2017 ls iznku dh xbZ && vU; dksbZ Hkh fuoZpu csrqdk gksxkA ¼iSjk 19 ls 22
¼2½ vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 10d rFkk 11 && vfèklwpuk fnukad 1&4&2019 vkSj 'kqf) fnukd 2&7&2019 && vihykfFkZuh@;kph p;fur ijarq fu;qDr ugha D;ksafd ,eMh dk vfrfjDr jftLVªhdj.k izek.ki= dV&vkWQ fnukad ds i'pkr~ izkIr] rFkk ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlh; vgZrk ^tc iznku dh tk,* ds fnukad ls ekuh tk,xh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && 'kqf) }kjk ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlh; vgZrk 2017 ls iznku dh xbZ] ftl cSp esa vihykfFkZuh us ,e Mh ikB~;Øe mÙkh.kZ fd;k && vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~ }kjk vihykfFkZuh dh vgZrk dks dV&vkWQ fnukad ds cgqr igys] 2017 ls ^ekU;rkizkIr* ekuk x;k gS && vf/klwpuk vkSj 'kqf) vkfn tkjh djus esa foyac vk;qfoZKku ifj"kn~@izR;FkhZx.k ij vkjksIkr; && mlds fy, vihykfFkZuh dks Hkksxus ij foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && izR;FkhZx.k dks p;u dh dk;Zokgh djus vkSj] vU; vkSipkfjdrkvksa ds v/;/khu] vihykfFkZuh@;kph dk fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh djus dk funs'k && ,e Mh dh ekU;rkizkIr vgZRkk dk igyw ;kph dh fu;qfDr ds jkLrs dk jksM+k ugha gks ldrkA ¼2012½8 ,l lh lh 80 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 22] 25] 26 ,oa 31
¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dfBukbZ] vlqfo/kk] vU;k;] csrqdsiu vkSj fo"kerk ls cpuk gksrk gS && O;kdj.k lEer vFkkZUo;u csrqdk ;k vlaxrrk gks rks ml csrqdsiu vkSj vlaxrrk ls cpus ds fy, ml vFkkZUo;u ls fopyu fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1996½ 2 vkWy bZ vkj 23] ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 1] ¼1998½3 ,l lh lh] 23] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1261 rFkk ts Vh 2002 ¼3½ ,l lh 1 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24
¼4½ flfoy lsok && foca/k ;k vf/kR;tu && vihykfFkZuh@;kph p;fur ijarq fu;qDr ugha && fjV;kfpdk ds yacu ds nkSjku p;u lwph dh izorZu vof/k dk volku && u rks foca/k dk fl)kar] vkSj u vf/kR;tu gh vihykfFkZuh dks eqdnes ds Qy ls oafpr dj ldrk gS] D;ksafd mlus lwph dh izorZu vof/k ds nkSjku izR;FkhZx.k dh fuf"Ø;rk ij vfoyac vk{ksi fd;kA ¼1999½6 ,l lh lh 49 rFkk ¼2000½3 ,l lh lh 699 vuqlfjrA 2017¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 137 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 30
ORDER
Paul, J.: -- 1. This intra-Court appeal filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order of Single Bench dated 29.4.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed in W.P. No.29018/2018 as well as order dated 9.8.2021 (Annexure-P/2) passed by in R.P. No.945/2019.
2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the appellant completed her M.B.B.S. Course from Government Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and said qualification was duly registered with the Medical Council of India (MCI) on 13.8.2012. The appellant got admission in MD (Bio-chemistry) in MGM Medical College, Indore, which is a Government institution on 05.08.2014. Indisputably, MGM Medical College is a MCI recognized medical college. The appellant completed her MD (Bio-chemistry) Course on 31.8.2017. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents inviting candidature for the post of Assistant Professor on 13.4.2018, the appellant submitted her candidature. The appellant was duly selected and was found to be meritorious. Despite selection, the appellant was not served with any appointment order. Aggrieved with the said inaction of the respondents, W.P. No. 29018/2018 was filed seeking writ of mandamus for issuance of appointment order. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 29.4.2019.
3. Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondents admitted that appellant is eligible, meritorious and selected for the post in question, but could not be appointed for want of ‘additional registration’ by MCI. The Writ Court by assigning reason in para 13 and 14 of the order impugned opined that appellant could not furnish the ‘additional registration’ and respondent No.2 did not commit any illegality in demanding the additional registration of MD. R.P. No.945/2019 was filed on the strength of the document dated 29.4.2019 and documents dated 1.4.2019 ad 2.7.2019 (page-149 and 150). On the strength of these documents, the appellant sought review by contending that a cumulative reading of these documents shows that Letter of Permission was received by the Government MGM College way back on 31.3.2013. Apart from this, corrigendum dated 2.7.2019 makes it clear that first schedule of previous notification dated 1.4.2019 stood amended whereby qualification of MD acquired by appellant in the year 2017 is also duly recognized under section 11 of the MCI Act.
4. The review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that additional registration certificate is received on 25.6.2019, and therefore, on the last date of submission of candidature (cut off date) i.e. 20.4.2018, the appellant, admittedly did not have essential certificate to show that her MD course is recognized by the MCI.
5. Criticizing both the above orders, Shri Patne, learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly, MGM Medical College was not only a college which imparted education to the appellant in MD course, it was a recruiting agency / unit for which appellant submitted her candidature and was duly selected. After having received education in MD subject from a Government institution, it was no more open to said institution to say that the qualification so obtained from that college is not valid in the teeth of MCI provisions.
6. Secondly, Shri Patne submits that a careful reading of Schedule-1 appended to Regulation of 1998 and reproduced in para 7 of the order passed in W.P. No.29018/2018, the expression used is ‘recognized medical college’. It is not in dispute that MGM College is a ‘recognized’ medical college. Apart from this, the notification dated 2.7.2019 leaves no room for any doubt that it is retrospective in nature and grants recognition to the degree of MD obtained by the appellant w.e.f. 2017.
7. To bolster this submission, reliance is placed on the language employed in section 11(2) of the MCI Act coupled with the ‘corrigendum’ where the words used are ‘when granted’. It is urg
The delay in issuing the recognition notification should not penalize an individual who has fulfilled the basic eligibility norms and was meritoriously selected for a position.
Eligibility for appointment requires meeting criteria by the cut-off date; subsequent qualifications do not retroactively qualify candidates.
Eligibility for a post is determined based on the candidate's qualifications as of the last date of submission of application.
The delay in obtaining a required certificate, beyond the petitioner's control, should not render the petitioner ineligible for appointment, especially when vacancies exist and there is a need for mo....
Teaching experience for medical positions must be obtained from recognized institutions, and non-compliance with statutory qualifications results in disqualification.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
