UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus S. B. KOHLI & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 20-12-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
0 
F 
G 
UNION O:F INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
S. B. KOHLI & ANR. 
December 20, 1972 
(A. ALAGilUSWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Central Health Scheme Ruks--Quallfications for Specialists-Whether 
the deRret of F. R. C. S. is enough for the. post of a professor in Ortho-
paedics. 
Undet Central Health Service Rules 1963 as amended, items 2 & 3 
of Annexure I to the Second Schedule required "a post·graduate degree 
in the concerned speciality mentioned i:n Part A of Annexure IJ or 
equivale~t." 
Jn the present case, the first Respondent apart from having a posl· 
graduate degree in General Surgery (F. R. C. S. ) had also a degree of 
M. C, H. (Arth). Liverpool; whereas the Second Respondent had a post 
·graduate degree i~ General Surgery (F .R.C.S.) only. 
The question that arose for decision was whether the poat·graduate 
qualification which was required in the case of a direct recruitment to the 
post in question was also a necessary qualification for appointment by 
promotion to that post, and what was the meaning of die phrase "a 
post·araduate degree in the ConcMned Speciality." 
HELD : (i) Before the growth of specialised qualifications Suraeons 
obtaining the F. R. C. S . in general suraory used to specialise in Ortho-
paedics and other specialities either by doina a diploma in Orthopaedics 
or •imply by practice and experience. The regulations framed by the 
Medic~! CX>uneil require that in additior to the general F.R.C.S., a 
surgeon must have a diploma in Orthopaedics before 
he 
could be 
aPl'ointed " Professor, Reader or Lecturer in Ol'thopaedics. That re,u• 
latton has been accepted by the Government. This gives an indication 
of what is considered a post-graduate deg'"'l in the conce110ed speciality. 
Therefore, in the present case, a mere degree of F. R. C. S. as 
such 
cannot be deemed to be a post-gradoote qualification in the concerned 
speciality of Orthopaedics. To hold otherwise would mean that a person 
who has the qualification of F.R.C.S. could be deemed to be specialised 
in TUberculoiis and Orthopaedics, although he is also a specialist i:n gene-
ral surgery. Therefore, the second Respondent does not ho1d a post·· 
graduate degree in the concerned speciality, Orthopaedics and as such, 
his promotion to the post of a professor in Orthopaedics was illegal 
nod against the C'..entral Health Service Rules. 
Appeal dismissed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 
1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 18, 1972 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Civil Writ 
No. 1319 of 1971. 
H 
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor-General of India, G. L. Sanghi and S. P. 
Nayar for the appellants. 
Respondent No. 1 in person. 
117 
11 S 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l 973J 3 s.c.R. 
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga for respondent 
/1 
No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This is an appeal by special leave against 
the judgment of the High Court of Delhi allowing the writ petition 
filed by the 1st Respondent questioning the appointment of the 
2nd respondent to the post of Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery 
in the Maulana Azad Medical College and reverting her as Asso-
ciate Professor. 
The question that arises for decis.ion in this c~'e is whether 
the post-graduate qualification which is undoubtedly required in 
the case of a direct recruitment to the post in question is also a 
necessary qualification for appointment by promotion to. that post, 
and what is the meaning of the phrase 'a post-graduate degree in 
the concerned speciality'. The first resrondent possesses the fol-
lowing qualifications : She is M.B.B.S. of the Bombay University, 
F.R.C.S. of the Edinburgh University, M.Ch. (Orth). of the 
Liverpool University and aJso of F.R.C.S. (Eng.) 
The second 
respondent holds an M.B.B.S. degree and in addition the qualifi· 
cation of F.R.C.S. of the Edinburgh University. Consequent on 
the selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, 
th~ second respondent was appointed to the post in question, as 
already mentioned, and as a consequence the first respondent was 
reverted as Associate Professor. 
The case raises the question of interpretation of the Central 
Health Service Rules, 1963, as amended in the years 1966 and 
1968. 
These rules are made under article 309 of the Constitu-
tion. In the earlier stages the categories into which the various 
posts in the Central Health Service were divided, were fairly 

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