W.P. (C) No. 7049/2005 Page 1 of 36

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 7049/2005

Reserved on: 2^nd August, 2016

%

Date of Decision

: 9^thNovember, 2016

FACULTY ASSOCIATION, MAULANA AZAD MEDICAL

COLLEGE AND ASSOCIATED HOSPITAL

....Petitioner

Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms.

Palak Singh, Mr. Varun K. Chopra and Mr. Chinmay

Bhatt, Advocates.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

..…Respondents

Through Mr. B.S. Shukla, Advocate for R-1-UOI.

Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Amita

Sahni, Advocate for GGSIP University.

Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Biakthansangi and Mr. Tarun

Verma, Advocates for R-3-MCI.

Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mrs. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Padma Kumar,

Advocate for respondents 6 to 10.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioner-Faculty Association of Maulana Azad Medical

College and associated hospitals namely, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan

Hospital, G.B. Pant Hospital, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Sushruta Trauma

Centre, Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, Dental College and Hospital and

College of Nursing, impugn the notification dated 15^th March, 2005, as

being arbitrary, illegal and beyond the scope of powers and jurisdiction of

2016:DHC:7410-DB

W.P. (C) No. 7049/2005 Page 2 of 36

the Medical Council of India (MCI, for short), respondent No.3 herein.

The petitioners also pray that Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,

respondent No. 5 herein, should be restrained from equating non-teaching

specialists and consultants at the Safdarjung Hospital and Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital with Professors and Associate Professors as they do not

possess the requisite and mandated qualifications prescribed by the

Recruitment Rules for the said posts. A consequential prayer is made for

setting aside the orders dated 2^nd May, 2005 and 31^st May, 2005 and

directions are sought that the number of teaching posts in the post-graduate

institutions should be increased as per norms to meet the required number.

2. The judgment in the present case was reserved vide order dated 2^nd

August, 2016. The said order reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement

in writing, on instructions received from the petitioner. The

statement reads as under:

“Petitioners will be satisfied if this Hon‟ble court

examines and pronounces it‟s verdict on:-

1. Repugnancy of the impugned notification vis-a-vis proviso

to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Minimum

Qualifications for Teachers Regulations, 1998.

2. Interpretation and the conceptual working of the impugned

notification dated 15.03.2005.

3. Validity of all the subsequent office orders issued pursuant

to the impugned notification dated 15.03.2005.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner also clarifies that the

proviso to Regulation 11(1) (d) and its violation is not the

subject matter of the present writ petition. The said statement is

also taken on record.

2016:DHC:7410-DB

W.P. (C) No. 7049/2005 Page 3 of 36

Arguments heard.

Judgment reserved.”

3. The issue before us pertains to the notification dated 15^th March,

2005 and whether the same is repugnant and contrary to law on account of

violation of the Minimum Qualification of Teachers Regulations, 1998 (

MQT 1998 Regulations, for short). The second issue, which arises for

consideration, again relates to the interpretation of the notification dated

15^th March, 2005 and the validity of the subsequent orders issued pursu