LexDIRECTOR, A.I.I.M.S. ETC. versus DR. NIKHIL TANDON AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DIRECTOR, A.1.1.M.S. ETC. v. DR. NIKHIL TANDON AND ORS. FEBRUARY 20, 1995 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) " All India Institute of Medical Sciences Recrnitment Rules-Schedule I-Appointment to post of Assistant Professor in Endocrinology-Qualifica- tions-D.M. qualification or a qualification recognised as equivalent there- C to-Special Training for two years in Cambridge University-Whether recognised as a qualification equivalent to D.M.-Held, No-Degrees awarded by Cambridge University-Not recognised in India after 1978-Qualifications awarded by Institutions not recognised by Medical Council of India-Hence not recognised as equivalent to D.M. D The All India Institute of Medical Sciences published a notification calling for applications for appointments to the post of Assistant Professor in Endocrinology. The last date for applying was 7.10.1992. Qualification and other criteria of eligibility was as provided in the Rules and Regula- tions prescribed by the institute. Several persons applied for the post. The E selection committee prepared a panel of two candidates and recommended, that since both the candidates were of high merit, it would be appropriate if the Institute creates another post to accommodate both. However, as the institute could not create an additional post and since there was only one post, it appointed respondent T to it. Second candidate on the panel, S, filed a writ petition questioning the selection and appointment of T, F alleging that T was not qualified to hold the post and, therefore, his selection and appointment was illegal. The High Court allowing the peti- tion set aside the selection and appointment of T. Hence these two special leave petitions, filed by T and the Institute. G The respondent T had joined the Ph.D course in Cambridge Univer- sity in April, 1990 and by 17.4.1992, he had completed two years. He obtained his Ph.D. qualification on 22.6.1993. He did not hold the qualifica- tion ofD.M. The only question raised was whether the candidate T held 'D.M. for H medical super specialities or qualification recognised equivalent thereto' 856 ·~ .... '. .. .... Al.l.M.S. v. N. TANDON 857 and whether the training for two years could be treated as a qualification A recognised as equivalent to D.M. The appellant submitted that in the absence of any orders by the Institute recognising any particular qualification as equivalent to D.M., the qualification prescribed by the Indian Medical Council for similar posts to be relied on and for this the Brochure mentioned D.M. (En- B docrinology), M.D. in medicine with two years special training in En- docrinology and that in the absence of any specification that the special training must be obtained in India, two years' special training in En- docrinology need not be in an Institute in India; that the Institute being an autonomous and statutory body was entitled to decide for itself which C qualification was equivalent to D.M. and in as much as the Institute had treated the two years' special training of the candidate T at the Cambridge University as equivalent to D.M. qualification, it could not questioned. Respondent S submitted that D.M. is a post graduate qualification and since the qualification ·or the training in any institution in United D Kingdom is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, neither of them could be treated as post- graduate qualification and therefore, the training undergone by a person in such University could not also be taken into account as the training contemplated by the first schedule to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Recruitment Rules is the training E which was recognised by the Medical Council of India, i.e., in an Institute approved or recognised by Medical Council of India and neither was there a general order nor a special order recognising the training undergone by T as a qualification equivalent to D.M. by the Institute or by the Medical Council of India. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : The two years' training at Cambridge University undergone F by Respondent T while working for his Ph.D. could not be treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to D.M. Schedule-I to the A.1.1.M.S. Recruitment Rules speaks of D.M. Qualification or a qualification recog- G nised as equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence that is enough. It must also be recognised as equivalent. 'Recognised' evident
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.