STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. versus RAMESH CHANDRA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 20-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA AND ANR. ETC. 
MARCH 20, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Medical Council Act, 195(r-Section 33(j)!Indian Medical Council 
Regulations, 1971/1982/1989-Requisite qualifications for professor and As-
C 
sociate professor of Neurosurgery-Quashing of appointment of the app~l,ant 
as Professor, who was already working as Associate Professor on tile g/Ju;id 
of not having requisite qualifications-Held: Illegal, as the. requisite/qualifica-
tions prescribed by Indian Medical Council Regulations, 1971 for the post of 
Professor and Associate Professor are the same-lt has to be ajsumed that 
one who was already appointed 011 011e of the posts did possess the requisite D 
qualificatio11s for the other post a11d the appointing autho1ity was so satisfied 
before appointing him-Degree of M.C/1. after M.S./F.R.C.S. as prescribed by 
Indian Medical Council Regulations 1971-Held: Is an alternative qualifica-
tion a11d not the only qualificatio11 to be eligible for being appoilJted as 
Professor or Associate Professor--f'erso11 possessing degree of M.!j./F.R.C.S. E 
with two years' special trai11i11g is also eligible. 
I11dian Medical Council Regulatio11S, 1971-Though approved by the 
Central Government they cannot have statutory f orce-011ly recomme11datory 
and 11ot obligatory i11 nature. 
I11dia11 Medical Council Regulations, 1982 and 1989-T7wugh 11ot 
approved by the Ce11tral Government, desirable to be followed by the appoi11t-
i11g authority for making appointments in order to avoid arbitrariness. 
F 
Words and Phrases : 'Special Trai11ing'-Mea11ing of-In the context of G 
Indian Medical Council Regulations, 1971. 
The respondent was appointed as Associate Professor of 
Neurosurgery on ad hoc basis in Patna Medical College. The appointment 
was'\challenged by the appellant alongwith one of his colleagues, who was 
servi~ as Associate Professor. The High Court dismissed the writ petition H 
115 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A as infructuous in view of the statement made by the State that the Govern-
ment had decided to promote both the petitioners as Associate Professors 
on ad-hoc basis. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court 
granted liberty to the Government to issue the notification making the 
appointments. Accordingly, the Government issued a fresh notification 
B cancelling its earlier order of appointment of the respondent alone and 
appointing all the three together as Associate Professors on ad-hoc basis. 
The order of the High Court was challenged by the respondent in the 
Supreme Court During the pendency of the appeal, the Government 
issued another notification regularising the ad-hoc appointment of all the 
three Associate Professors and also fixing their ·intcr-se seniority. The 
C appellant was placed above the respondent in seniority. Taking into con-
sideration thl,i·order, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on 22.9.91 
observing that the dispute which required determination related to 
seniority only and the same had to be decided by the High Court. Thus the 
matter was remanded to the High Court. 
D 
The respondent challenged before the High Court, the eligibility of 
the appellant for being appointed as Associate Professor, which was ul-
timately withdrawn by him. 
In the meantime, the post of Professor of Neuro Surgery had fallen 
E vacant and the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the 
appointment of the appellant as Professor, which was challenged by the 
respondent before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition 
as premature. Ultimately on August 1, 1992 the Government promoted the 
appellant to the post of Professor with retrospective effect from May 1, 
1990. The respondent again challenged the appointment of the appellant 
F before the High Court on the ground that the respondent did not have the 
requisite qualifications. The High Court quashed the appointment of the 
appellant as Professor in Neurosurgery holding that he did not possess 
that requisite qualifications for being appointed as Professor and directed 
the State Government to consider the matter afresh. Against the order of 
G the High Court, the appellant as well as the State Government filed the 
present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
Held : 1.1. The High Court was wrong in quashing the appointment 
H of the appellant as Professor, who was already working as an Associate 
I 
~ 
\ 
STATE v. 

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