DR. NANDJEE SINGH versus P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
DR. NANDJEE SINGH 
-A 
v. 
P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTS 
,, 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
MAY 14, 1993 
B 
[P.B. SA WANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Appeal-Whether appellant 
appointed against a teaching post-Non-examination of question by High 
Court-Positive presumption by High Court- Whether Supreme Court to decide 
said question. 
c 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ by Association against an 
individual-Individual dispute whether public interest litigation. 
Education-M.D. (Medicine) Examination-Requirements appearance. 
D 
University-Examination-M .D .(Medicine )-Appearance-Requirements 
of. 
The appellant was a teacher in the Department of Biochemistry of 
Rajendra Medical College. He fiied an application for his registration as a 
E 
student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to the Principal of 
Rajendra Medical College. The Principal objected to appellant's registration 
-
as he was not posted in any of the teaching posts in Rajendra Medical College. 
Though the appellant was.attached to the Department of Medicine, was a Bio-
chemist attached to that Renal Unit ~e~ing with the subject of Biochemistry. 
F 
·~ 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction tot 
he University to permit him to submit his thesis in M.D. (Medicine) examina· 
tion on the ground that he was a teacher. 
The University took the stand that the appellant was not a teacher and 
G 
he was not eligible for training in M.D. (General Medicine). 
...... 
The High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition and held that he 
was not entitled for .admission to the examination in M .D. as he did not sl.: ~ .~_n 
H 
909 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. 
his thesis and did not produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactor)' 
training. The High Court did not decide on the question whether he held a 
teaching post or not. 
The appellant was granted permission to appear for M.D. (Medicine) 
examination after the University was satisfied that the appellant was holding 
a teaching post. 
The respondent-Association fded a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said 
examination, contending that he was not a teacher and that he did not undergo 
the necessary training for 2 years and that he did not do housemanship in 
General Medicine for one year. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the 
appellant did not undergo training for 3 years· prior to his application to 
appear for M.D. (Medicine) examination. In this writ petition also the High 
Court did not decide whether the appellant was holding a teaching post. 
The appellantfded this appeal by special leave against the High Court's. 
judgment. 
Allowing the ~ppeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. On account of the interim order passed by the High Court, 
the appellant appeared for the examination. The High Court has, however, by 
the impugned decision restrained the University from declaring his results in 
the examination. (915-G) 
1.2. Since the High Court has not gone into the question as whether the 
appellant was appointed against a teaching post and has proceeded on the 
footing that he was appointed, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the 
said question. (915-F) 
2.1. The facts of the-case would reveal that this was a dispute relating to 
an individual and turned on the facts. There was no question oflaw involved 
in it. It is not understood how the respondent-Association could convert an 
individual dispute into a public interest litigation. (915-H) 
H 
2.2 Cases where what is strictly an individual dispute is sought to be 
.....,.._ 
-
/ 
DR. N. SINGH. v .. STIJDENT ASSOCIA llON 
911 
converted into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged. The A 
present proceeding is one of the kind. (915-H) 
3.1. The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the candidate 
must have done one year's housemanship prior to the admission to the Post-
graduate degree in the same subject in which he wants to appear for the 
examination or at least six months housemanship in the same Department and 
B 
the remaining six months in the allied Department. The period of training 
thus, shall be 3 years after full registration including one year of the house-
job. (912-B) 
3.2. According to the rules, 4 years, (teaching experience in the College 
C 
and the Hospital (which is always comb

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