DR. GANGA PRASAD VERMA ETC. versus STTE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 10-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. GANGA PRASAD VERMA ETC. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.} 
B 
SERVICE LAW 
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-Section 33 (J )-Promotion to post 
of Professor/Associate Professor-Qualification in speciality namely MCh. 
after MS.IF.R.C.S. is a must. 
C 
The appellant, while working as an Assistant -Professor, was 
promoted as an Associate Professor in Neuro Surgery. Writ petition 
was filed questioning the promotion of the appellant. The High Court 
set aside the promotion of the appellant and directed the respondent to D 
consider the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of the Supreme 
Court in Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar, [1991] 2 SCR 491. 
, This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment of the 
High Court. 
Both the appellant and respondent No. 7 had the qualification of E 
M.S. General Surgery. In addition, 7th ' respondent had the 
qualification of M.Ch. in the speciality concerned, namely, Neuro 
Surgery. The appellant is not possessed of the qualification prescribed 
for super speciality, namely, M.Ch. The question, therefore, was 
whether the direction issued by the High Court to consider the case in 
the light of the Supreme Court judgment, was correct in law, F 
• 
considering the regulation framed by Medical Council of India under 
Clause 33 (J) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 
The appellant submitted that according to Ciause (9) of the 
Regulation, M.S. after M.Ch. in the speciality concerned after 
M.S./F.R.C.S. or a qualification equivalent in Surgery with 2 years G 
special training in the speciality concerned would mean that the 
requirement of acquiring the qualification of M.Ch. is not a condition 
precedent for promotion to the post of Associate Professor from the 
post of Assistant Professor. Since the appellant had put in more than 15 
years experience as an Asstt. Professor and also in the speciality H 
455 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
concerned in the Neuro Surgery, he is entitled to be considered for 
promotion. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Where the language of the Act is clear and explicit, the 
Court must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in 
that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. 
The interjection of the preposition 'or' at the underlined place amounts 
to judicial legislature or supplying omission which is impermissible in 
the process of construction of the Regulation. M.Ch. is a super 
speciality. The Associate Professor is to teach the students in that 
subject or guide the research students. So the Regulation intended to 
prescribe M.Ch. after M.S., is a must. It is clear from word 'after' M.S. 
or F.R.C.S. (458-E-F) 
1.2. In this case, no statutory rules have been made by the State of 
Bihar. Therefore, the Regulations made by Medical Council of India 
~Is 33 would bind the State Government. The conditions prescribed 
tllerein namely; for promotion to the Post of Professor or Associate 
Protessor, the qualification in the speciality namely M.Ch. concerned 
after M.S./F.R.C.S. is a must. Since t!te appellant did not have the 
qualification of M.Ch. though he had the experience, he is not entitled 
to be considered for promotion as Associate Professor in supersessiol\ / 
of the claim of the 7th respondent and other similarly situated persons. 
There is no illegality in the directions given by the High Court. 
(459-C-F) 
Govt. of A.P. and Anr. etc. v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Anr. etc., 
(1988) 3 SCR 173 and Dr. Arun Kumar Aggarwa/v. State of Bihar, (1991) 
2 SCR 491, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7721-22 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.94 of the Patna· High "Court in 
c. W.J~c. No. 2832 of 1993 (R) 
Harish Salve, L.R. Singh for the Appellant. 
B.B. Singh for State of Bihar. 
Ashok Desai, A. Sharan and Ranjit Kum·ar for the Respondent. 
H 
The follcwing Order of the Court was delivered: 
-
GANGA PRASAD VERMA 11. STATE OF BIHAR 
4S1 
Leave granted. 
A 
The appellant, while working as an Assistant Professor, was promoted 
as an Associate Professor in Neuro Surgery, by proceedings dated 
September 17, 1993. In the meanwhile, Dr. Basant Kumar Singh, 
respondent No. 7, had already filed a writ petition claiming the right for 
promotion as an Associate Professor, Neuro Surgery. During its pendency, B 
the promot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.