DR. R.K. GOYAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 05-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. R.K. GOYAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 5, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Indian Medical Council Act : 
Section 19-A---Appointment---Lecturer in Medical Colleges-Qualifica-
tion for appointment-Regulation thereof-Recommendation of Medical 
Council approved by Cenb'Ol Government-Subsequem revised recommenda-
A 
B 
c 
tion was pending approval by Central Government-Held, State Governments 
expected to comply with recommendations made by Medical Council from 
time to time-If such recommendations, although not approved by Central D 
Govemment, were complied with by State Government it was neither illegal 
nor arbitrary. 
Appointment-Lecturer in Medical Colleges-Absence of recrnitment 
rules-No teaching experience prescribed in recommendation by Medical E 
Council superseding its earlier recontniendation-Held, reco1nntendation of 
Medical Council Binding on State Government-Order of appointment af-
finned. 
The Director of Medical and Health Services invited applications for 
appointment as lecturers on ad hoc basis in different disciplines in Medi-
F 
cal Colleges of the State. The appellant and Respondent No. 4 applied for 
the post of lecturer in Orthopaedics and were recommended for appoint-
ment. Subsequently, the State Public Service Commission (PSC) invited 
applications for the post of lecturers in Orthopaedics in different medical 
colleges of the State. A Master's degree in the speciality with three years 
teaching experience was the minimum required qualification. This time G 
also the appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the same post but the 
appellant's candidature was caucelled as he did not possess any teaching 
experience. The PSC could not give its recommendations on account of 
filing of several writ petitions and court orders. Under these circumstan-
ces, the State Government appointed the appellant as a lecturer in Or- H 
543 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A thopaedics in the Medical College for one year on ad hoc basis. The State 
Government terminated the appelfant's service on expiry of the period of 
one year. The Medical Council of India had recommended Master's degree 
in the concerned specially with three year's teaching /research experience 
and this recommendations received the sanction of the Central Govern-
B ment and thus became regulatiohs under Section 33 of the Indian Medical 
Council Act. The said recommendation was revised and the requirement 
of teaching experience was done away with. Though the Council had 
forwarded the revised recommendation to the Central Government for its 
approval they had not become regulations as they were still under the 
consideration of the Central Government. Before the order of termination 
C could be served upon the appellant, he filed a writ petition in High Court 
and obtained an interim order restraining the authorities from terminat-
ing his services. Jn view of this interim order the State Government 
continued the appellant as lecturer till further orders. Subsequently the 
appellant's service was regularised under Rule 4(3) of the U.P. Regularisa-
D lion of Ad hoc Appointments(On posts within the purview of PSC) Rules, 
1979. Jn view of these developments the appellant allowed his writ petition 
to be dismissed. 
Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court chal· 
lenging the aforesaid regularisation of the appellant's service. The High 
E court held that as the appellant did not possess three years' teaching 
experience, the State Government could not have appointed him as lec-
turer even on ad hoc basis. The High Court further held that as the 
appellant's initial ad hoc appointment was bad his services could not have 
been regularised by the State Government for that reason also. The High 
F Court, therefore, declared the ad hoc appointment of the appellant and 
regularisation of his services as bad and quashed the same. Hence this 
appeal. 
On behalf of respondent No. 4 it was contended that the recommen-
dation of the Council regarding three years' teaching experience was 
G binding on the State Government as it had received the sanction of the 
Central Government and had become regulation under the Indian Medical 
Council Act; and that the subsequont recommendations of the Council had 
not been approved and, therefore, had no binding force. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
R.K.GOYALv. STATE [NANAVATI,J.] 
545 
HELD: 1.1. Even the regulations framed by 

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