DR. ASIM KUMAR BOSE v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (2)

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 16

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN

Case summary

ration for the purpose of determining the question of his eligibility for appointment as Associate Professor. Scheme and held that post from January 2, 1961 to January 12, 1963.

Judgment text

DR: ASIM KUMAR BOSE v. UNION OF INDIA & QTHERS. December 15, 1982 [D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ. J Central Health Service Rules, 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966, sub-rules (2) and (2A) ofRule 8 and paragraphs 2(b) and 3 ofAnnexure I to . the Second Schedule, construction of-Whether, far• specialist grade II in a teaching hospital btlonging to the Central Health Service to be eligible for appointment or promotion as a Professor or Associate Professor ofthe concerned ,,peciality, the condition prerequi1ite is actual teaching experience ofthe Specialist or the capacity in which such leaching exp_erience is gained-Wards and Phrases-Meaning ofthe word "as"'-Court's role in service Jurisprudence, pertaini~g to appointtn4nl, explatned. · In pursuance of r. 7A(l)(b) of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules.

1966 and all other powers enabling in that behalf, the President of India issued a notification dated June 8, 1967 making the substantive appointment of the appellant Dr. Asim Kumar Bose as Radiologist, Irwin Hospital, New Delhi. By virtue of his post as Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology, the appellant was· teaching the under-gradtiate and post-graduate students as an Associate Professor . of Radiology of the Maulana Azad Medical College for the M. D. , M. S. , D. M. R. T. and M B. B. S. courses of studies of the Delhi University. In 1973 the Central Government promoted Dr. K. P. Mittal, Lecturer in Radiology in the Maulana Azad Medical College as Associate Professor of Radio. therapy ignoring the claim of the appellant who thereupon made a representation. The Government of India, Ministry of Health &: Family Planninl!

, Department of Health ~ its letter dated February 23, 1974 rejected the representation holding that the appellant could not be considered for appointment to the post or Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in the Mau1ana Azad Medical College inasmuch as he did not possess at least five years' teaching experience as Reader/Assistant Professor in the concerned speciality as required under r. 8(2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule of the 1966 Rules. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challetiging the impugned order, but the High Court rejected the writ petition holding that the requirement rules required that the requis~te teaching experience must be the experience gained while working in a medical college or in a teaching institution i. e. as a Teacher in a teaching department. Allowing the appeal.

HELD : (I) There was a failure on the part of the Government of India jμ the Ministr~ of tte3ltb to 9raw n distinction between teaching and non· ASIM KUMAR v. UNION 17 teaching hospitals under·the Central Health Service. Tho Irwiri' Hospital and tho G. B. Pant Hospital are the two associate hospitals of the Maulana Azad Medical College and the teaching in the medical college is undertaken by Professors and Associate Professors as well as by the Specialists attached to the two hospitals affiliated to the College. Thus the teaching experience gained by the appellant while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) had to be taken into consideration to determine his eJigibility for appointment as Professor or Associate Professor of the concerned speciality. [35 G-H, 36 A-C, 43 F-G] (2) On a construction of r.

8(2) and paragraph 2(b) of Annexure 1 to tho Second Schedule of the 1966 Rules, it was held that the appellant possessed the- qualifications and experience requisite for appointment to the post of Professor of Radiotherapy in the Maulana Azad Medical College which is a post belonging to Specialist Grade I equivalent to Supertime Grade II carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 1800-2250, which had fallen vacant during the pendency of the appeal. The Union Public Service Commission must therefore re-advertise the post of Professor and call the appellant for an interview for being considered for appointment to the post. [38 C-D, F:H] (3) The action of the Central Government in the Ministry of Health ignoring the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in the Maulana Azad Medical College in 1973 was • based on a misconstruction of r. B(2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule.

The word "as" in these provisions must, in the context in which it appears, be interpreted to mean "in the capacity or". These provisions must be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense as it would otherwise work great injustice fo persons in Specialists Grade II like the appellant who, while holding a non.. clinical post in a teaching hospital iike the Irwin Hospital, has . a. ctually been teaching the students of the Maulana Azad Medical College to which it i. s affiliated. The Ministry of Health cannot be beard to say that the appellant bad not acquired the status of an As! iociate Professor of Radiology with effect from October 9, 1964, particularly when the Central Governm£ot have been uti! J. zing his services as such for teaching the post-graduate and under~ graduate students of the Maulana Azad Medical College for the M. D. , M. S. , D. M. R. T. and M. B. B. S. courses of studies for the last 17 years.

The arrange- , ment has continued for all these years with the approval of the Delhi University which has conferred the designation of Associate Professor of Radiology on the appellant presumably with the tacit sanction of the Medi. cal Council of India. [37 F-G, 38 A-B, 42 D-F] (4) The recruitment rules nowhere provide that the teaching experience gained by a Specialist in a teaching hospital in the capacity of an Asso:iate Professor (ex-officio) shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience for purposes of sub·rs. (2) and (2A) of r. 8 and paragraph 2 (b) anci 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule of . the 1966 Rules. There is no provision made in the Rules that the teaching experience must be gained on a regtilar appointment. There is hardly any difference so far as teaching eXperience is It concerned whether it is acquired on regular appointment or as a Specialist in a ~achin~ hospital with the ex-officio designatio~. A! t)! e ~IJl!

Utory rules do 001 IS SUPIWMB COURT llBPORTS (1983) 2 s. c. R. provide that the teaching experience gained in an ex-officio capacity shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience, the teaching·-experience gained by the appellant WW! e holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Profes1or of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital qan not be ignored in determining bis eligibility for appointment as Professor or Associate Professor of the concerned speciality. [35 C-E] 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 598 of 1980. Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th November, 1979 of ihe Delhi High Court in CWP No. '\-·· 885 of 1974. > RBMS COURT REPORTS [1983] 2 S. C. R.

· It appears that subsequent to his substantive appointment by the President to Specialists' Grade with effect from September 9, 1966, the appellant was called by the Banaras Hindu University for an interview on August 7, 1972 for the post of Professor of Radiotherapy but since the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in Maulana Azad Medical College was falling vacant in 1973, he did not appear for the interview. In 1973, the Government of India promoted and appointed Dr. K. P. Mittal, Lecturer in Radiology in the Maulana Azad Medical College as Associate Professor of Radiotherapy ignoring the claim of the appellant. The appellant accordingly made a: representation to the Government of India but the same was rejected.

The Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Planning, Department of Health by its letter dated February 23, 1974 informed the Delhi Adminisration that the appellant could not be considered for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in the Maulana Azad Medical College inasmuch as he did not possess at least five years' teaching experience as Reader/Assistant Professor in the concerned speciality as required under the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966. The Ministry of Health was of the view that although the appellant bad the essential qualification prescribed for teaching post, the teaching experience gained by him while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital since October 9, 1964 cannot be taken into considration.

The appellant assailed the impugned order by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court on July 24, 1974 complaining that the action of th"e Government of India in the Ministry of Health disregarding his claim fvr appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy was in denial of equal opportunity in matters of employment and thus violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The contention upon which the writ petition was based was that on a true construction of r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule, he was clearly eligible for appointment to the post of Associate Professor as he bad the essential educational qualification and bad also the requisite teaching experience while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital which is a teaching hospital attached to the Maulana Azad Medical College. The respondents Nos. I and 2 filed· a return reiterating the . tand ASIM kUMAR v.

UNION (Sen, J. ) taken by the Government of India in the Health Ministry that the experience gained by th~ appellant ·as an' Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) by virtue of his holding the post of Radiologist in the Irwin Hospital cannot be taken into conside. ration for the purpose of determining the question of his eligibility for appointment as Associate Professor. It was pleaded that the impugned order was thus perfectly legal and valid and bad been issued on correct interpretation of the Central Health Service Rules, I963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966. In support of the plea, . it was averred : "The teaching experience gained by the petitioner while holding the post of Radiologist in the Irwin Hospital, New Delhi by virtue of his having ex-officio status of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy from the 9th of of October, 1964 cannot be counted as requ1sne teaching experience under the Central Health Service Rules.

" It appears that while the writ petition was pending in the High Court, the appellant was in 1976 selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission for the post of Professor of Radiology (Radiotherapy) in the Medical College, Rohtak, but was not relieved of his duties by the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Planning. A letter of the Registrar of the Rohtak University dated December 9, 1976 requesting the Central Government to place his services on deputation with the Rohtak University for period of three years in the first instance as the appellant, having put in 17 years' service, was not inclined to resign his post as Radiologist in the Irwin Hospital.

The Ministry of Health by its letter dated January 17, 1976 however informed the Secretary (Medical), Delhi Administration that it was not possible to· relieve the appellant of bis duties or place bis services on deputation with a lien on his post as Radiologist in the Irwin Hospital, and if he wanted to join as Professor of Radiology (Radiotherapy) in the Medical College, Robtak, be should "give up all connections with the Central Health Service". By the judgment under appeal, the High Court, while observing · that the appellant admittedly holds high academic and professional qualifications and has also good teaching experience to his credit, 28 SIJPRBMB COURT RB9QRrS (1983] 2s. c. R. rejected his writ petition on its construction of the Rules. It . observed that the recruitment rules requi~ed that the requisite experience must be the experience gained while working in a medical college or in a teaching institution i. e. as a teacher in a teaching department.

·It also observed that "it is a well-known fact that after acquiring the requisite medical qualifications t! :iere are different careers open to a medieal graduate, and in fact it is so ill all professional careers. " According to the High Court, "some people opt for 11 teaching career while others opt for a regular professional career a1 Doctors. The medical graduates who opt for a teaching career, join a cadre different from that of the career of Doctors. " In the words of the High Court, "they tie down their fate to the teaching career and expect promotions· to various posts in their channel of promotion i. e. in the cadre of teachers. " While rejecting the claim of the appellant, the High Court observed : "It is a fortuitous circumstance that a medical graduate regularly working as a doctor is also permitted by the authorities to take up a teaching assignment. The normal duty of such a doctor is in the hospital and in the cadre of doctors in hospital.

If the person who is working as a doctor is allowed to compete, with teachers in the teaching cadre, such. teachers are at a disadvantage. Their chances of promotions are adversely affected by recruitment of people who do not initially opt for a teaching career. This being the rationale behind the respondents' ·decision, we do not find that there is any illegality or arbitrariness in the. decision of the respondent. " F' It is difficult to support the reasoning or the conclusion reached by the High Court ou a construction of the Rules. The appellant has placed on record a· number of documents emanating from the University of Delhi as well as from the Dean, · ~ Maulana Azad Medical College showing that his services were ut. ilized as an Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) for delivering lectures to the post-graduate and under-gradate students for tbs M. D. , M. S. , D. M. R. T. and M. B. B. S. courses during the last 17 years.

In response to a query from the Court, tile Ministry of Health prepared a note on the structure of the Central Health Service ASJM KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, J) . 29 drawing our particular attention to r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule and Sr. No. 4 of Annexure II to the Second Schedule and on the b'asis of these provisions it is asserted that for promotion to the post of Associate Professor at least five years' experience as Reader/Associate Professor in the concerned speciality in a medical college/teaching institution after the requisite post-graduate qualification is absolutely essential.

It is said that in response to an advertisement of the Union Public Service Commission for the non-teaching post of Radiologist in the former Category 'C' the appellant who had joined the Central Health Service in Category 'E' as Lecturer in Maulana Azad Medical College with effect from January 14, 1963 on selection to that post, switched over from teaching to non-teaching post of Radiologist. After setting out his teaching experience as a Lecturer of Radiology in Maulana Azad Medical College from January 14, 1963 to October 8, 1964 and elsewhere, it is said that· the appellant was not eligible for appointment as Associate Professor as he was not holding the post of Reader/Assistant Professor.

In trying to refute the appeallnt's allegation that there was denial of equal \ opportunity, it is asserted : "In the absence of the particular advertisement for the post of Associate Professor, it is not possible to indicate as to when the applications were first called for the appointment to the post of Associate Profes. sor of Radiology in a teaching institution participating in the CHS. According to the provisions of the CHS Rules, all posts of Lecturers, Assistant Professors and Associate Profesaors were required to be filled through the UPSC before the rules came to be amended w. e. f: 18. 09. 1971. After the amendment of the CHS Rules, only Assistant Professors possessing five years exeperience were eligible for appoint· ment as AssoCiate Professor. Since Dr. Bose was holding the clinical post of Radiologist, he was not in direct line of and eligible for promotion to· the post of Associate Professor.

" It is somewhat strange that alongwith the aforesaid note, the Ministry had produced a letter of the Dean, Maulana Azad Medical College dated January 25, 1982 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare which tends to show that T 30 SiJPR. EMB COUllT R. EPORTS (198312 s. c. 11. the appellant as Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) was not actually teaching the post-graduate and undergraduate students of the Maulana Azad Medical College. The letter is self-explanatory and reads : "With reference to the telephonic conversation with Sri R. N. Tewari with respect to the question received from the Supreme Court regarding Dr. A. K. Bose I have to state that Dr. Bose while performing his duties as Radiologist was not lecturing to the students as an Associate Professor is required to do.

" It is rather difficult to act on the letter of the Dean particulary when it runs counter to his own affidavit sworn in February, 1982 the relevant extracts of which are given below : · "That since 1964 the Appellant continues to be a Radiologit and is not holding any teaching designation assigned by the Central Health Service and is not is receipt of the teaching allowance of Rs. 200. 00 which is admissible in the case of an Associate Professor. Dr. Bose has never worked as Assistant Professor/Reader to become eligible for promotion as Associate Professor. He is working in the Radiology Department. The Head of the Radiology Department, uses the services of some of the Radiologists who do not have any teaching designation to take lectures. Over the years as an internal arrangement the non•teacbing Radiologists such as Dr. I. Sahai, Dr. D. P. Garg, Dr. A. R. Dar, Dr. B. L. Jain, Dr. S. C. Gupta etc. , in addition to Dr. A. K.

Bose, have been assigned lectures to under-graduate students. Dr. A. K. Bose has been delivering lectures to post graduates of Delhi University and has guided some thesis. Delhi University has recognised him as a Supervisor of Thesis and a teacher. However in the matter of post-graduate teaching the Delhi University also recognises and ultilises the services of Specialists of non-teaching hospitals like Safdarjang Hospital, Army Hospital and Dr. R. M. L. Hospital (Willingdon). The Specialist in Safdarjang Hospital and Dr. R. M. L. Hospital do not have teaching designation assigned by ASI¥ KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, J. ) 31 the Central Health Service. The Army Hospital is not nuder the Central Health Service. " _, As regards the documents placed on record by the appellant, the Dean goes on to aver in the affidavit : 8 ''That the Appellant bas produced the.

Under-graduate lecture programme, the post~graduate lecture programme, prospectus of Maulana· Azad Medical College for the year 1966-67 and Annual Report of Maulana Azad Medical College for the year 1980. The Under-graduate teaching programme is· only an internal arrangement of the Radiology Department The post-graduate programmes . have been drawn up by the Delhi University. The prospectus and the Annual Report are informative bulletins only. All that they state is that Dr. A. K. Bose is an exofficio Associate Professor. " The Ministry bas also filed the affidavit of Sb. ri N. S. Bakshi, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to the effect : "That according to the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966, atleast 5 years experience as Reader/Assistant Professor in the concerned speciality in a medical college/teaching institution .

is after the requisite post-graduate qualification is absolutely essential for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. ---.. That the appellant does not fulfil the above mentioned requirement and thus cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor as per CHS Rules. • That according to the provisions of the CHS Rules, all posts of Lecturers, Assistant Professors and Associated Professors were required to be filled through the UPSC before the Rules came to be amended with effect from 18-9-1971. After the amendment of the CHS Rules, only Assistant Professors possessing five years experience were eligible for appointment as Associate Professor. Since Dr. Bose was holding the Clinical post of Radiologist, he was . not in direct line of and eligible for promotion to th~ 32 SUPRBMB COURT RBPOllTS (1983) 2 S. C. ll post of Associate Professor. As such the question of the Appellant becoming due for promotion to the post of '--- Associate Professor does not arise.

" After the conclusion of the hearing, the Health Ministry at our behest prepared a note on the pattern of teaching and non-teaching staff as laid down in the Central Health . Service Rules, 1963 amended from time to time. It would be convenient to re produce the note in its entirety and it reads : TEACHING POSTS Specialists' Grade (new Specialist Grade II) Lecturers All vacancies in this Grade are filled by direct recruitment through the UPSC at the level of Lecturers in the scale of pay of Rs. II00-1800 plus NPA at graded rates. Assistant/Associate Professors All vacancies in the posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor are filled by promotion through the Departmental Promotion Committee from amongst officers holding the posts of Lecturers and Assistant Professor 'resp~ctively. The officers are required to possess the qualification and experience prescribed for· the post in question.

The officers promoted to the posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor are allowed a special pay of Rs. JOO/- p. m. and Rs. 200/- p. m. respectively In case no departmental officer is available for promotion to the posts of Assistant/Associate Professor, such vacancy is filled by direct recruitment through the U. P. S. C. Composite Supertime Grade II (Revised Specialist Grade /) Professor On the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, the Composite Sureprtime Grade II has been bifurcated into Specialist ff Grade I (Rs. 1800-2250) and Supertime Grade II revised (Rs. 1500- 2000). Vacancies in the Specialist Grade I posts of Professor are filled by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 1 : I. ASl! of KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, J. ) 33 For promotion to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor/ Asssistant Professor with 8 years service are eligible. Supertime Grade I (Level 11) - Rs.

2250-2500 All the vacancies in the posts of Principals of Medical College, Heads of teaching institution, Deans are filled by promocions of Professors. NON-TBACHING POSTS Specialists' Grade (now Specialist Grade II) AU vacancies in this Grade (Rs. 1100-1800) are filled by direct ·C recruit through the UPSC. Composite Supertime Grade II (now Specialist Grade I Rs. 1800-2250) Vacancies in the Specialist Grade I posts of Senior Specialists are filled by direct recruitment and by promotion to the ratio of I : I. For promotion in the posts of Senior Specialists, Specialist Grade II officers with eight years of regular service and considered. Supertime Grade I (Level II) Rs. 2250-2500 Vacancies in Supertime Grade I posts of Consultants etc. are filled by promotion of officers of composite Supertime Grade II. The officers must, however, possess the requisite qualifications and experience for appointment to a particular post in this grade.

" The aforesaid note is in consonance with the view that there is no infiexible rule that Specialists in a teaching hospital cannot be promoted as Associate Professor or Professors of their concerned speciality. On tile contrary, the note clearly brings out that vacancies in Specialists Grade I posts of Professors are filled by direct recruitment and by promotion in the ratio of 1 : I. ,__ The Health Ministry has also submitted a separate note regarding persons imparting leaching in various disciplines who are neither Professor, Associate Profe~sor, A,ssis. t~~t Professor or L~ctur-. r. The note runs as under ; · 34 SUPREME COUllT Rl! POllTS (1983] 2 s. c. a. "There is no provision in the C. H. S. Rules, whereby the officers who do not possess the requistc teaching experience is appointed to a post of Professor in CHS.

However, the University College of Medical Sciences which , is under the administr~tive control of the University of Delhi has been utilising the services of the Medical officers 'of the CHS working in the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, for clinical teaching of the students of the University College of Medical Sciences. These persons who arc participating in the teaching programme have been recognised by the Univeroity of Delhi as Professors/Readers/ Lecturers/Teachers without specific teaching designation on C!! the condition that such designations will be valid "for the ,period till such time the Safdariang Hospital continues to impart instructions in clinical subjects to the under-graduate students of University College of Medical Sciences and the persons continue to take part in the said teaching".

The conferment of teaching designations by the University of Delhi does not mean that these officers arc recognised as teachers for the purposes of their service conditions in the Central Health Service. " Instances are not uncommon where Specialists have been promoted as Professors of their concerned speciality. One instance of this as given by the appclllant is of bis immediate prede:essor Dr. 0. P. Bhardwaj, Radiologist-cum-Reader in Radiology exofficio) in the Irwin Hospital who was appointed as Professor of Radiology in the Maulana Azad Medical College; and presently is Dean, Jawabarlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research, (JIPMER), Pondicherry. The other instances that we we could gather with dfficulty are these. One is that of Dr. (Kum. ) P. Nirupma Nayak, Specialist in Gynaecology, Central Hospital, Dbanbad, promoted as Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, JIPMER, Pondicherry; later promoted to Supertime Grade I as Medical Superintendent at!

JIPMER, Pondicherry. Another is that of Dr. Prakash Chand Sikand, Specialist Physician, Safdarjang Hospital, promoted as Professor of Medicine, Medical College, Simla; later transferred as Professor of Medicine to Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi. The other is that of Dr. Harinandan Prasad Verma, Specialist in Anaesthesia, promoted as Professor of ;A~aesthesiolo~y. Maulana Azad Medical~Collcgc, New Delhi. A ASIM KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, J) 35 further instance is furnished by the case of Dr. N. C. Shinghal v. Union of India. (') On the recommendation of the Medical Superinten-· dent, Willingdon Hospital, the post of Specialist in Ophthalmology which was an unspecified Specialist Grade post was upgraded by the Central Gov,ernment as a specified post in Supertime Grade II, and ' Dr. B. S. Jain, Chief Ophthalmologist-cum-Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Medical College, Simla was transferred to that post. In the vacancy caused thereby, Dr.

Shinghal who was Specialist in Ophthalmology attached to the Willindon Hospital, was offered the post of Chief Opthalmologist-cum-Assoclate Professor of Ophthalmology, Medical College. Simla. There may be other imtances as well. c. It is ne1:essary to emphasise that the recruitment rules nowhere provide that the teaching experience gained by a Specialist in a teaching hospital in the capacity of an Associate Professor (ex-officio) shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience. There is no provision made in the Rules that the teaching experience must be gained on a·regular appointment. There is hardly any difference so for as teaching experience is concerned whether it is acquired on regular appoilltment or as Specialist in a teaching hospital with the ex-officio designation.

As the statutory rules do not provide that the teaching 1,xperience gained in an ex-officio capacity shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience, the teaching experience gained by the appellant while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital cannot be ignored in determining his eligibility for appointment as Professor or Radiology in Maulana Azad Medical. College. There is a failure on the part of the Ministry of ·Health to draw a distinction between teaching and non-teaching hospitals under the Central Health Service. The two general hospitals under the Central Health Service are the Willingdon Hospital & Nursing Home, New Delhi and the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. The Service also runs Central Hospital, Asansol, Central Hospital, Dhanbad, Goa Medical College & Hospital, Panaji, G. B. Pant Hospital, Port Blair, and Government Hospital, Lakshadweep.

In c rofessor or Assistant Professor in the concerned speciality in a medical college or a teaching institution havioig' at least six years' teaching experience out of 12 years' standing in the G1ade through the Uoian Pubiic Service Commission. An Associate Professor in the medical college or a teaching institution can only be promoted from amongst persons holding the post of ' Assistant Professor having at lea. st five year's teaching experience in the concerned speciality by the Departmental Promotion Com· mittee. We arc inclined to the view that the word "as" in the collocation of the words used "at least six years" experience as Associate Prof~ssor/Assistant Professor/Reader" in paragraph 2 (b) and of the words "at least five years' experience as Reader/Assistant Professor" in paragraph 3 and sub-r. (2A) of r. 8 must be interpreted in its ordinary sense as meaning teaching experience gained "In the capacity of". In Black's Legal Dictionary, 5th edn. , p.

104 the meaning of the word "as" as given is : "Used as an adverb, etc; means like, similar to of the same kind, in the same manner, in tho • 38 sUPkEME C<'Uk1 REPORTS (1983] 2 S,C,P. manner in which". In Shorter Oxford Dictionary 3rd edn. p. 111, tbe word "as" is stated to mean : "The same as, in the character capacity, role of". In our view, the Ministry of Health is apparently wrong in·assuming that the word "as" in paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule and sub-r. (2A) of r. 8 makes holding of a post in the cadre a condition precedent to the appointment of a Professer or an Associate Professor. The question that falls for consideration is whether the appel· ! ant possessed the qualification and experience requisite for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in . Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, and if not, whether the appellant is eligible for appointment to the post of Professor of . Radiotherapy in that College.

That depends on whether be fulfilled the conditions laid down in r. 8 (2) and 2 (A) and paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule. R. 8 provides that after appointments have been made to the Service under rs. 7 and 7A, future vacancies shall he filed in the manner provided there· under. R. 8 (2) provides that every vacancy in the Specialists' Grade shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner specified in the Second Schedule. That is to say, 100% of vacancies in the Specialists' Grade have to be filled by direct recruitment through tbe Union Public Service Commission. The post of Professor of Radiotherapy in the Maulana Azad Medical College is a post belo! 'ging to Specialist Grade I which is equivalent to Supertime Gra~'II carrying a pay·scale of Rs. 1800-2250. Annexure I to the Second Schedule prescribes the age limit, educational qualifications · and experience for direct recruitment to the various categories of the Service.

Paragraph 2 (b) thereof reads : "F 50 years For Professors/ Additional Professors "Supertime Grade II Rs. 1300-1800 and be- in medical colleges/teaching institulow re- lions. taxable A post-graduate degree in the for concerned speciality mentioned Govt. in Part A of Annexnre II or equivalent servant. .. .. .... .. * For Professors/Additional Professor, in medical colleges or tea- • ASl! I KO! IA! l. v. UNION (Sen, J) • ching institutions, at least 6 years experience as Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor/Reader in medical college or teaching institu· tion after the requisite postgraduate degree qualification out of the aforesaid 12 years' standing. (Qualifications relaxable at Commis· sion's discretions in the case of candidates otherwise well-qualified). " R.

8 (3) provides that 50% of the vacancies in Supertime Grade II to ·be filled in by promotion of General Duty officers Grade I and Specialists Grade II officers in the ratio of 2:3 and the remaining 50% of the vacancies to be filled by airect recruit· ment in the manner specified in the Second Schedule. That is to say, there is certain amount of flexibility and it cannot be that the appellant who is a Radiologist in the Maulana Azad Medical College which is a post belonging to Specialists Grade II, cannot be appointed by direct recruitment as Professor of Radiotheraphy uuder r. 8 (2). The Ministry of Health seems to quite oblivious of the E· fact that during the pendency of appeal, the post of Professor or Radiotheraphy in M1julana Azad Medical College having fallen be i vacant, the vacancy in the post has to be filled up in the man· ner provided by r. 8 (2) i. e. by direct recritment through the Union Public Service Commission.

It is not disputed before us that the' Union Public Service Commission has the power to relax the qualifications prescribed in the case of candidates otherwise well-qualified. That being so, the appellant who admittedly is a highly qualified person and has . the requisite teaching experience as Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of kadiologist (ex-officio) is clearly eligible for appoint· ment as Professor of Radiotherapy under r. 8 (2). The Union Public Service Commission while advertising the post of Professor Radiotherapy which has fallen vacant, must, as it rightly did, invite the appellant for an interview for being considered for appointme~t to that post. That conclusion however does not relieve us from dealing • ·A :with the main. question viz, whether the appellant possessed the qualifications. and experience requisite for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy. The question must turn on a construction of r.

8 (2 A) and paragraph 3 of Annexurc I to the Second Schedule of the Rules. As stated above, r. 8 (2) provides that every vacancy in the Specialists' Grade ~hall be filled by direct 8 recruitment in the manner specified in the Second Schedule. R. 8 (2A) however makes an exception in the case of Associate Professors and Assisstant Professors Sub-r. (2A) of r. 8 contains a non-obstapte clause and it reads : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-r. (2) ·c the vacancies in the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in the medical colleges and teaching institutions shall be filled hy the appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturer respectively in the Specialists' Grade, possessing the qualifications and experience prescri· bed in Annexure I to the Second Schedule for the respec· live post, on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee. Provided that if no suitable officer is available for appointment to the post of Associate Professor or Assis- .

E tant Professor in any medical college or teaching institution from the Grades of Assistant Professor or Lecturer, as the case may be, such vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner specified in the Second Schedule. " · Paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule reads as follows: "Specialists' Grade 45 years For Associate Professors/Readers (Rs. 600-1300) and be- Assistant Professors/Lecturers. low (re- A post-graduate degree in the Jaxable concerned speciality mentioned for Govt. in Part A of Annexure II or servants. ) equivalent. For Associate Professors : . ff At least 5 years' experience as Reader/Assistant Professor in ASIM KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, . i. ) 41 the coacerned speciality in medical college/teaching insti· tution after the requisite post· graduate qualifications. (Qualifications retaxable at Commission's discretion in the case of candidates otherwise well-qualified.

)" The contention on behalf ofthe respondents is that ihe appellant could not be considered for appointment to the post of Asso· ciate Professor of Radiotherapy in Maulana Azad Medical College because the teaching experience gaiaed by him while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex· officio) in the Irwin Hospital since October 9, 1964 cannot be taken into consideration. It is urged that there is a distinction between the two posts of Radiologist and Associate Professor of Radiology as the post of Radiologist is a clinical post while that of Associate Professor of Radiology is a teaching post. That being so, it was · urged that the channels of promotion to the two posts are different and the appellant who had been substantively appointed to the post of Radiologist in the Irwin Hospital must seek his own channel of promotion in Supertime Grade II for a non·teaching job.

It is further urged that since the appellant was not holding the post of an i Associate Professor, he was not drawing the teaching allowance of Rs. 200/- p. m. to which he wopld otherwise be entitled. 1t is also urged that the status of Associate Professor of Radiology (exofficio ) which the appellant holds in the Irwin Hospital is akin to that of honorary Professor or Associate Professsor in the Willingdon Hospital or the Safdarjang Hospital and the mere designation of the appellant as Associate Professor of Radiology (ex·officio) by the University of Delhi does not give him a right to hold the post of Professor of Radiology in Maulaaa Azad Medical College. It is pointed out that a similar question arose in connection with the conferral of honorary teaching designations on certain medical offi· cers in the Willingdon Hospital and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi in the year 1973.

It is said that the President of India was pleased to direct that the conferral of such teaching designations would not entitle the Specialists to claim seniority or eligibility for promotion merely by virtue of these honorary designations, nor would it entitle the incumb1mt any special benefit with regard to any teaching allowance which may be given to the teachers in a medical college. By parity of reasoning, it is urged that the designation of the appe 1lant as a Radiologist ·cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (exofficio) did not make him eligible for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in Maulana Azad Medical College. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to this line of argument.

We find it rather difficult to support the impugned action of the Government of India in the Health Ministry in holding that the teaching experience gained by the appellant as Radiologist cum-Associate Professor or Radiology (ex·officio) with effect from October 9, 1964 cannot be taken into consideration. The view taken by the Health Ministry appears to proceed, on a misconstruction of r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule. As already stated, the word "as" in these provisions must, in the context in which it appears, be interpreted to mean "in the capacity of". The Ministry of Health cannot be heard to say that the appellant has not acquired the status of an Associate Pro· fessor of Radiology with effect from October, 9, 1964, particularly when the Central Government have been utilizing his services as such for teaching the post·gradudate and under graduate students of the Maulana Azad Medical College for the M. D. , M. S. , D. M. R. T. and M. B. B. S.

courses of studies for the last 17 years. The arrangement bas continued for all these years with the approval of the Delhi University and presumably with the tacit sanction of the Medical Council of India. In our opinion, the provisions contained in r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule must be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense as it would otherwise work great injustice to persons in Specialists Grade II like the appellant who, while holding a non-clinical post in a teaching hospital like the Irwin Hospital, has been actually teaching the students of the Maulana Azad Medical College to which it i. s affiliated. The contention that the position which the appellant enjoys as Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital is similar to that of honorary Professor or Associate Professor in the Willingdon Hospital or the Safdarjang Hospital and the mere designation of the .

appellant as such does not give him a right to hold the post of Associate Professor of Radiology, cannot prevail. There is no order placed before us of the President of India directing that conferral of honorary teaching designations on Specialists in the Willingdon ASIM KUMAR v. UNION (Sen, J. ) 43 Hospital and the Safdarjang Hospital would not entitle such Specialists to claim seniority or eligibility for promotion. Even if it were so, that would hardly make any difference. The submission overlooks the distinction between a teaching and a non-teaching hospital. There cannot be a medical college without a teaching hospital as its integral and inseparable part. The mere fact that the appellant was not drawing a teaching allwance of Rs. 200/· p. m. is of no legal consequence because the allowance is attached to the post of Associate Professor.

We wish to make it clear that it is not for the Court to give the appellant promotion or make his appointment to the post of Professor of Radiotherapy. The Court can only on a true cons· ! ruction of r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule determine the question of his eligibility for such promo. tion or appointment. If the appellant is eligible to hold the post of Professor of Radiotherapy, he can always apply irrespective of the fact whether or not he is in the line of promotion. It is for the Union Public Service Commission to advertise the post of Professor of Radiotherapy and everyone who satisfies the required qualifications can make an application. That is because the Commission undoubtedly has the power to relax any of the qualifications. The result therefore is that the appeal must succeed and is allowed with costs.

The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the impugned order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Planning, Department of Healih New Delhi dated February 23, 1974 is quashed. It is declared that the appellant had acqμired the requisite teaching experience as nvisaged by r. 8 (2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963, as amended by the Central Health ,Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966, and was therefore eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in Mauhna Azad Medical College which had fallen vacant in 1973. The second respondent shall give effect to the declaration. As a necessary consequence, we direct the Union Public Service Commission to re-advertize the post of Professor of Radiology in Malulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi which had.

fallen vacant during the pendency of the appeal and call the appellant for an interview for being conside(ed appointment to that post. 44 SUPREME COUJ. t RllPORts [1983) 2 s. c. a. A We wish to clarify that the declaration shall not adversely affect or act to the detriment of any person who was and is senior to the appellant in the Central Health Service or bad already been appointed as Associate Professor in the concerned speciality. B S. R. Appeal allowed.