LexDR. PURSHOTAM KUMAR KAUNDAL versus STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 2 S.C.R. 470 DR. PURSHOTAM KUMAR KAUNDAL v. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS (Civil App~al No.1956 of 2014) FEBRUARY 11, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] HIMACHAL PRADESH MEDICAL EDUCATION C SERVICE RULES, 1999: r.2(n) - Promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacology - Respondent no.5 possessing M.D. in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University - 0 Consideration of case of respondent no.5 for promotion - Challenged on the ground that he did not possess an M.D. degree in Pharmacology duly recognized by the MCI - Held: There is nothing to suggest that recognition of the post graduation degree must be by the MCI - As per the Service E Rules wherever recognition by the MCI is postulated, there is a specific reference to it in the Service Rules - r. 2(n) defines a post graduate qualification as meaning a qualification as specified in Appendix C-1 and II - Appendix C-11 contains a list of post graduate qualifications - Some of the post graduation degrees that require recognition by the MCI are F specifically mentioned therein - Except the post graduation degrees specified therein the Service Rules merely required a recognized post graduate degree for meeting the eligibility criteria - Thus, respondent no.5 was entitled to be considered for promotion and if found suitable, entitled to all G consequential benefits - Service law - Promotion. Respondent no.5 had obtained a post graduation degree in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak on 31st December, 1991. When his H 470 DR. PURSHOTAM KUMAR KAUNDAL v. STATE OF 471 H.P. AND OTHERS case came up for consideration for promotion before the A Departmental Promotion Committee on 28th August, 2001, he was not considered apparently on the ground that he did not possess an M.D. degree in Pharmacology duly recognized by the Medical Council of India. This decisipn was based on a letter dated 8th July, 2001 B issued by the Deputy Secretary in the MCI to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent no.5 challenged the failure of the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider him for C promotion. A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by respondent no.5 on the ground that Section 11 (1) of the Medical Council Act, 1956 provides that only those medical qualifications granted by any university or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule to the Act shall be D recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act and since an M.D. in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University was not included in the First Schedule to the Act, respondent no.5 was not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of E Assistant Professor in Pharmacology. The Single Judge also referred to Section 2(h) of the Act which defines a recognised medical qualification as meaning any of the medical qualifications included in the schedules of the Act. It was held that the qualification obtained by F respondent no.5 from the Maharishi Dayanand University did not fall under any schedule to the Act. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 preferred LPA. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the LPA and directed the Department to hold a review departmental promotion G committee for the post of Assistant Professor within a period of eight weeks. It also held that respondent no.5 would be entitled to all consequential benefits in case he is found suitable by the review departmental promotion committee. The Division Bench of the High Court was of H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A the view that the eligibility criteria only required a recognized post graduation degree and did not require a post graduation degree recognized by the MCI. The degree obtained by respondent no.5 was a recognized post graduation degree inasmuch as it was conferred by B a recognized statutory university. The Division Bench of the High Court also noted that in a later departmental promotion committee held on or about 25th November, 2012 respondent no.5 was found eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant c Professor and was in fact so promoted, while holding the same qualifications. The question for consideration in the instant appeal was whether respondent No.5 was not eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant D Profe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.