M. C. GUPTA ETC. v. A. K. GUPTA & ORS., ETC.
Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 853; 1978 INSC 266
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER , D.A. DESAI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1978 INSC 266. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1978-12-15. M. C. GUPTA ETC. v. A. K. GUPTA & ORS., ETC. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
• -"':'\. · a: I ~ ' ' \ , " ~ ;,;l_ .. 853 M. C. GUPTA ETC. v. A. K. GUPTA &: ORS . • ETC. December 15, 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYE! t AND. D. A. DESAI, JJ. ] Indian M1dical Council Act, 1956. S. 2(/) read with General Regulations, R. 4, "Medicine", includes specialist branch of cardiology-''Research expe- rience'', computation, holding of specified post whether pre-requisite while con- ducting research-"Teaching experience" in foreign institutions when can be taken into account. B The appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta and the· sixth respondent Dr. R. N. Tandon, C were appointed to the post of 'Professor in medicine in State Government Medical Colleges. The appointments were made by the State Government, on the rccon1ntendation of U. P. Public Service Commission, which ha produced a ccrtific~'. e issued by the Principal and Chief Superintendent, S. N. Medical College & Hospital, Agra, dated 19th September 1974 in which it is stated that 'Dr.
Gupta joined the De- partment of Medicine as Lecturer in Cardiology on 25th January 1965 and continued till July 19, 1971 when he Was appointed as Reader in Medical by Public Service Commission'. It is further certified by A B c D E F G H A B c D E F B 864 SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS [ 1979] 2 s. c. R. the Principal & Chief Superintendent that 'Dr. Gupta was actively in- volved in patient-care, teaching of undergraduates and post-graduates in general medicine in addition to conducting Cardiac Out Patient, looking after cardiac beds and taking Cardiology lectures during his tenure as Lecturer in Cardiology, as Cardiology forms a part of general medicine in this college and there is no separate Department of Cardio- logy here'. There is another certificate issued by Dr. K. S. Mathur, Professor & Head, Department of Medicine (RD), dated 17th Sep- tember 1974, in which it is in terms stated that Dr.
Gupta was actively involved in the patient care and teaching of undergraduates and post- graduates in General Medicine in addition to Cardiology during this period. Further, Dr. Gupta used to be the Senior Physician to ~! tend to Emergencies of all medical cases on a particular day of week and he looked after indoor beds of general medical units during Leave arrangements. He was also incharge of T. B. Clinic for a period of one month. It was further stated that Dr. Gupta bad been assigned 'Special Clinics' to 5th year and 3rd year and 'Long Clinics' to ! inal year students from time to time in addition to Cardiac Clinics and Cardiology lectures. He was also taking regnlar classes in clinical methods for third year and has also been called upon to teach them kidney diseases. There are further references in the certificate which we may ignore for the time being. Dr. Gupta also produced a certi- ficate issued by Professor of Clinical Medicine, S. N.
Medical College, Agra, which, inter a/ia, states that Dr. Gupta was associated from time to time with teaching and patient care in general medicine and be was also actively associated with teaching of post-graduates in generat medicine in the way of clinical conferences, seminars, etc. He was also incharge of beds in general medicine in Professors' Unit in the leave vacancy. A notice dated 24th October 1970 issued by the Deparmtent of Medicine, S. N. Medical College, Agra, was also brought to our notice in which it was shown that Dr. Gupta was to be the Senior Physician on call on every Tuesday. It would thus appear that even if Dr. Gupta was designated as Lecturer in Cardiology for the period 25th January to July 19, 1971, undoubtedly he was teach- ing general medicine to undergraduate students and to some post-gradu- ate students also and this is testified by persons under whom he was working. It would be unwise to doubt the genuineness of these certi- ficates.
Therefore, even apart from the fact that Cardiology is a pert of medicine, the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in Cardiology, was teaching experience in subject which subs- tantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same, be was also working as Lecturer in Cardiology and, therefore, the Com- mission was amply ju. stifled in reaching the conclusion that Dr. Gupta •. ·-r· ,.... ' M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, l. ) 86 5 had the requisite teaching experience qualification and the High Court A was in error in quashing the selection of Dr. M. C. Gupta on this ground. Mr. L. N. Sinha, learned counsel, also wanted us to examine the research experience of Dr. M. C. Gupta when he pointed out that Dr.
Gupta had published as many as 40 research papers in leading medical journals in India during 10 years he worked as Lecturer/Reader and that he had also been a recognised appraiser for the thesis submitted for the award of Doctor of Medicine. Mr. Sen seriously objected to our examining this contention because Dr. Gupta himself never claimed B any credit for research experience. Undoubtedly, the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Commission refers to having taken into consideration the research experience of Dr. Gupta but the affidavit is blissfully vague c on the question which research experience was examined by the Com- m1ss1on. Therefore, we would not take into account the research ex- perience claimed on behalf of Dr. Gupta. In re : Dr. R. N. Tandon. We have already extracted above the teaching/research experience qualification claimed on behalf of Dr. Tandon. Mr.
Kacker, learn- ed Solicitor General requested us to start examining each item of experience commencing from the last one as first. Before we proceed to examine each item of experience claimed by Dr. Tandon, one con- tention raised on behalf of the respondents must be dealt with. It - was urged that wherever the regulations prescribe teaching or research experience, it must be one acquired in an institution in India or in any foreign institution recognised by the Medical Council of India or the Govermnent of India. It is not necessary to examine this argu- ment in depth because the point could be said to have been concluded by A. K. Mukherjee's case, wherein same set of regulations came in for consideration of this Court and in which it was seriously contend- ed that the teaching experience specified in regulations in question must be acquired in teaching institutions in India and, therefore, any teaching experience in a foreign country cannot be taken into con- sideration.
This contention was in terms negativated simultaneously negativing the other extreme submission that teaching experience from any foreign institution is good enough, and after referring to sections 12, 13, and 14, it was held that those which are good enough for the aforementioned sections, are good enough for the teaching experi- ence gained therefrom being reckoned as satisfied. The matter un- doubtedly was not further pursued by this Court because the final deci- sion wus left to the Commission. D E F G H A B c D . E F G H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s. c. R. Proceeding in the order suggested by Mr. Kacker it is claimed ! pat Dr. Tandon worked as Assistant Professor of Medicine, State Univer- sity of New York at Buffalo from 29th July 1969 to 30th October 1974. This includes some period subsequent to the last date for . submitting application to the Commission and we would exclude (hat part of the experience claimed by Dr. Tandon. Therefore, Dr.
Tandon claims to be working as Assistant Professor of Medicine from 29th July 1969 to 30th March 1974 which was the last date for sub- mitting the application to the Commission. Computing the period, he would have teaching experience of four years, six months and one day. It was also said that even if teaching experience in foreign teaching institution is to be taken into account, they must be some recognised institutions of repute and not any institntion outside the territory of India. That of conrse is true. In A. K. Mukherjee's case the per- tinent observation is as under : "Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out, we consider it right to reckon as competent and qualitatively acceptable those institutions which are linked with, or are recognised as teaching institutions by the Universities and organisations in Schedule II and Schedule III and recog- nised by the Central Government under s. 14.
Teaching institutions as such may be too wide if extended all over the globe but viewed in the perspective of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, certainly they cover institutions expressly embraced by the provisions of the statute. If those institutions are good enough for the important purposes of ss. 12, 13 and 14, it is reasonable to infer they are good enough for the teaching experience gained therefrom being reckoned as satisfactory. " But it could hardly be urged with some confidence that the State Uni- versity of New York at Buffalo would not be an institution of repute. An attempt was made to refer to the Schedules, not upto date, to the Act published by the Medical Council of India showing recognised institution·s. In fact, the· Schedules set out recognised degrees, certifi- cates and diplomas of various Universities and certain examining Boards of U. S. A. being recognised by the Medical Council of India.
This brochure hardly helps in coming to conclusion one way or the other. It refers to degrees and the Boards awarding the degrees and diplomas. It does not refer to teaching institutions. It nowhere shows that the cer- tificates and diplomas issued by the State University of New York at •. '• ,>, • ; M. c. GUPTA V. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, J. ) 867 A Buffalo would not be under one of the American Boards and, therefore, it is not recognised. Such a contention was not even urged before the High Court or specifically in affidavits so that factual material could have been more carefully examined. The experts aiding and advis- ing the Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience was acquired by Dr. Tandon and this one is a reputed University. B It was, however, contended that there is no proof in support of the submission that Dr. Tandon was working as Assistant Professor of Medicine at State University of New York at Buffalo, commencing C from 29th July 1969.
Dr. Tandon has produced a certificate, Anne- xure ·cA. 5 issued by Associate Professor of Medicine, Director An- giology Department, Buffalo General Hospital dated 3rd June 1971, In which it is stated that Dr. Tandon is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine on the full time staff of the Buffalo General Hospital having an annual salary of £ 15,000. Mr. Tarkunde urged that this certificate does not show that Dr. Tandon was appointed effective from 29th July 1969. Fuiif:her, exception was taken to the certificate in that it is issued by the Buffalo General Hospital which the certificate does not show to be a teaching institu- tion. If it was not a teaching institution, one would fail to under- stand how it had a post of Assistant Professor of Medicine. In a non- toaching hospital there could not be a post of Assistant Professor. Therefore, the very fact that Dr.
Tandon was shown to be an Assis- "- tant Professor of Medicine, by necessary implication shows that Buffalo General Hospital was a teaching institution under State Univer- sity of New York. In this connection reference may be made to a certificate dated 12th September 1974 issued by James P. Nolan, Professor of Medicine and Head, Department of Medicine, Buffalo General Hospital, in which it is stated that since July 1969 Dr. Tandon has been a teacher in general medicine at the Buffalo General Hospi- tal. This removes any doubt about the commencement of apoint- ment of Dr. Tandon as Assistant Professor at the Buffalo General Hospital. Mr. Tarkunde however urged that the certificate does not appear to be genuine in view of the inquiry made by a telegram (p. 257, Vol. II of the record) from the authorities incharge of the Buffalo General Hospital and the reply received that Dr. Tandon is in India and, therefore, cannot get any information as he left instruc- tions not to release it.
Who has sent this telegram is left to mere speculation. And who sent the reply is equally unknown. It would be improper to reject the certificate on such nebulous ground and we D E F G B 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1979] 2 s. c. R. A can do no better than reject the contention of Mr. Tarkunde as un- ~orthy of consideration as was done in A. K. Mukherjee's case where- in it was observed as under : B c D E F G H "There are 6 certificates now on record and the 1st res- pondent is stated to have taken part in teaching work as Registrar. You cannot expect to produce those surgeons in Patna in proof and unless serious circumstances militating against veracity exist fair-minded administrators may, after expert consultations, rely on them". Therefore, we see no justification for rejecting the certificates. It would appear that Dr. Tandon had the teaching experience while holding the post of Assistant Professor of Medicine for a period of four years, six months and one day.
The minimum requirement is five years. We would next examine one more item of experience claimed by Dr. Tandon in that he was post-doctoral teaching fellow, Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo from 1st Octo- ber 1965 to 31st October 1966. Now, undoubtedly this was teaching experience in the same University where he was subsequently Assis- tant Professor. The grievance is that he was a Fellow and neither a Lecturer nor an Assistant Professor. What does 'Fellow' in the University connote ? A certificate has been produced, Annexure CA. (page 50, Vol. IV) by Dr .. Tandon issued by Eugine I. Lippasch, Professor & Administrative Associate Chairman of the Department y' of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, dated 13fu October 1966, in which it is stated that Dr.
Tandon completed one year teaching fellowship in the Division of Cardiology of the Depart- ment of Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo and the Buffalo General Hospital on October 31, 1966. It is not very clear what is the equivalent of a Fellow in teaching Hospitals in India but Dr. Tandon has also claimed teaching experience from 5th April 1968 to 4th July 1969, being posted as post-doctoral research fellow, Department of Medicine in G. S. V. M. Medical College, Kanpur. In this connection, Annexure R-2, produced by none other than some of the contesting respondents shows that during the tenure of Fellow- ship, Dr. Tandon was expected to take part in the teaching and research activities of the College though he would not be treated as part of the regular establishment of the College. Now, if the certi- ficate produced by Dr. Tandon shows that Fellowship included teach- ing work, it would be unwise to doubt it.
Even if 50% of the time spent in these two places is given credit, Dr. Tandon had certainly t· l" ' l,. I ~ .. ... l!! I I .. r ,, • )Tl M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, !. ) 869 more than five years' teaching experience. The Court is not com- petent to work out figures with mathematical precision. It can broadly examine the question whether the requirement is satisfied or not. Therefore, he had the requisite teaching/research experience and the Commission was fully justified in treating Dr. Tandon as having requisite teaching/research experience. If)_ It thus clearly appears that both Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon had the requisite qualifications, both academic and experience, ~ and they were eligible for the post for which they had applied and if they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Govern- A B ~-- ment, no exception can be taken to the same. The High Court was, therefore, in error in interfering with the same.
Accordingly, all the C three appeals are allowed and the writ petition filed by respondents _. • 1, 2 and 3 in the High Court is dismissed with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. M. R. Appeals allowed. 17-40SCl/79
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.