DR. ASIM KUMAR BOSE versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 15-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
16 
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) of Rule 8 and paragraphs 
2(b) and 3 of Annexure 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 
of the concerned ,,peciality, the condition prerequi1ite is actual teaching experience 
of the Specialist or the capacity in which such leaching exp_erience is gained-Wards 
and Phrases-Meaning of the 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 institu-
tion 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.