STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. versus DR. ASIS KUMAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 03-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

894
STATE, OF BIHAR & ANR.
v.
DR. ASIS KUMAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.
December 3, 1974
(V. R. KRISHNA !YER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.)
A
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956-s. 2 -1'eaclzi11g instillllio11, teaching, ex·
B.
perience-Meaning of duty of Stare Government to consult the Council ill
cases of doubt-Wile11 tile Hi1<1! Court could call for Cabinet papers or other
sensitive materials for i11spectio11-Whether Srate should make a reasoned order
of appoim111e111.
Respondent No. 1, along with two others, was a candidate for one of the
two po->ts of kc'.urers in the government run medical colleges in the State.
On•e
of the importd.nt qualifications prescribed for the post was "teaching experii:nce
c·
in it kaching institution." The respondent satisfied the other a:ademic quaJifi.
cations prescribed for 'the post. The State Government rejec'.ed the contention
of respondent No. 1 that he had acql!Jred the required
~!aching expe knee
when he work!:d in United Kingdom and was. therefore. entitled to be appoin'ed
as a lecturer. The High C<1uit, in a writ petition under article 226 of the
Constitution by respoudent No. 1, quashed the dec'sion of th~ Government and
di:ec!ed it to reconsider his. case. The Government exi;mined th~ 0:a>e do novo
arid again found respondent No. I to be ineligible for the post. When the
rcsi;1ondcnt went to the High Court in a second attempt impugning the Qecisions
D·
of the tlovernment the High Court examined the Cabinet papers. and other
reports and nc>tings of the ollicers, both technical and administrative, ' and
qua1hed !he decision of th·~ Government The appellant and the respond•mts
appealed to this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the State that the "teaching experience'" in
a "teaching institution" visualised by the regulatlons must be in India and not
in a foreign .:ountry; that even assl.,ming thM the Brili'sh Med;cal Institutions
cou1tl come within the purview of the regulations, the post of Registrar held by
K
respondent No. I had not been shown to carry 'teachin~ exoerience': that the
hospitals and the Universities where respondent No. I worked were not proved
to be teaching ins'itu'.ions and that the t(~stimonials produced by the respon-
dent were not reliable.
·
Dismissing the itppeals of the State
HELD : (I) (a) The first respondent's case for the post has not b~en consi-
dered from the legal angle. ' The orders of a:ppoin'ment of the aonellant in
F.
C.A. 1431 of )974 were bad in law. The anpetlants in C.A. 1430 of 1974 are
di·ccted to co11sider de novo the appointments to the two posts of lecturers.
Government will be free to consul! t11>:hnical au•horiti·~s of its own befnre reach-
ing a decision. The first respondent is at :liberty to adduce materials to satiisr·
the State Government on his qualifications (or otherwise). [905G-A]
(bl While the expressions 'medical institution•' and 'npproved in~tit11tions'
a•e defined in s.2 of the Med'cal Council Act 1956, neither 'tell!:hin~ ex"1~ri·
cnce' nor 'teaching inl'itution' has be•.n defined in the Act. rn'~s or r·~ul•tirins.
G
It would be natural to expect any authority like the State Government t' call•d
upon to constnie th•!se words med in the set.ting of a m"tFci•l s11tu•e. if in doubt,
to consult !he
hi~h professional autbo-ity enjoying stittutory status namdy,
the Medical Council of India. [9dpF -F]
·
Jn the inst:int case tne State Government i:; said to have taken a pol'cv
dcci•fon not to con>ult Medic"! Counc'l of In<l;3 berrw~ on an •ea· 'e· o·~cw>ion
the Med'cal Council had given a view once bu• morliAe~ it a littl•. later .. Al-
though there is nothing on the record to prove the allega•ions of th·' Stat-e .. if
H
it were true· that national !echnica:l bodies were shaky on c·ucial o:casions, th-.v
lend themselve!l to the 'usnicion that oressure oav,, While the appointing
authority is thr State Government and the responsibility for final choice vi:sts
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BIHAR v. A. K, MUKHERJEE (Krishna Iyer, J.)
8 95
in it, it is reasonable to consult bodies or authorities of high technical level
when the points in dispute are of technical nature.
[900 G-H]
(c) Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out, 'it is right tci reckon as
competent and qualitatively acceptable those institutions which are linked with
ur are recognised as teaching institutions by the Universities and Organisations
in Schedule 11 and Schedule Ill and recognise

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