JUDGMENT
T.D. Sugla, J.
1. These appeals raise a common question regarding selection to the post of Registrar from amongst the students registered to post graduate and/or post graduate (super specialities) courses in Medical Colleges at Bombay. The question so far as these appeals are concerned involves interpretation of Rule V of the Rules for the appointment of Registrar in Hospitals attached to Government Medical College in Maharashtra State framed under Resolution No. MCG 2571/24500-Q dated 26th June, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). Bombay Municipal Corporation Medical Colleges have similar Rules for appointment to the post of Registrar in hospitals attached to their Medical Colleges, corresponding Rule being Rule 13-A.
2. It is pertinent to mention that Rules regarding admission to degree and post graduate degree including super specialities courses have come up for consideration before the Supreme Court as well as this Court in a number of cases where Rules providing for whole sale reservation on the basis of residence or institutional preference etc. were held bad being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the impugned judgments, the learned Single Judges have struck down preference rule to the post of Registrar in Hospitals attached to Medical Colleges inter alia taking the view that the ratio of those judgments was applicable in the matter of selection to the post of Registrar as well. Rule V of the Rules regarding appointment to the post of Registrar as such, it may be stated, had come up for consideration before the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Shrikrishnadas Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 Mh.L.J. 764 and the rule was stuck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily, we should and would have followed that decision and dismissed the appeals herein straight away.
It was, however, seen that to a large extent Nagpur Bench had relied for that purpose on this Court’s earlier judgment in the case of Satish Deopujari v. State of Maharashtra, being Writ Petition No. 1974 of 1981 decided on 11th December, 1982. The said judgment was overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Dean, G.S. Medical College v. Dr. Samina, 1983 Mh.L.J. 771. Subsequently, the question of admission to degree and post graduate degree including super specialities courses came to be considered by the Supreme Court and this Court in a number of cases. The settled legal position in that regard now is that Rule providing for whole sale reservation on the basis of residence or institutional preference etc. is bad being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, having regard to the various relevant factors taken into account in Dr. Dinash Kumar & others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877 and Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and others, not less than 15% and 25% seats for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. and post graduate degree courses respectively are to be filled on merit on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. as regards admissions to the post (super specialities) courses, admissions to all the seats have to be granted purely on merit on All India basis. The operation of the judgment in so far as admission to sets is to be made on merit on the basis of All India Entrance Examination is stayed till January 1988. No admissions are to be made on the basis of marks obtained at different M.B.B.S. examinations held by different Universities.
Moreover preference rule envisaged in Rule V of the Rules corresponding to Rule 13-A applicable in the case of Bombay Municipal Corporation Medical Colleges has two important limbs having a bearing on the issue, namely, (i) preference is given to those who passed final M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College to which the Hospital in which the post of Registrar is vacant is attached and (ii) preference is, given to those who are registered as students in post graduate or post graduate (super specialities), as the case may be, in that Medical College. There is another important aspect of the matter, namely, the post of Registrar in such Hospitals is not a post independent of medical education of the student in the Medical College to which such Hospitals are attached but is an integral part of the Medical College to which such Hospitals are attached but is an integral part of the medical education. It appears that these aspects were not placed before and considered by the earlier Benches.
In the premises, it has become necessary to consider whether and to what extent the ratio of the Supreme Court and this Court’s decisions on the question of admission/registration to degree and post graduate including super specialities courses is applicable in the case of appointment to the post of Registrar.
3. For proper appreciation of rival contentions, it may be useful to refer to the Recommendations on post graduate medical education adopted by Medical Council of India in February 1971 revised upto March, 1983, detailed affidavit of Dr. S.V. Nadkarni. Dean of Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College (one of the B.M.C. Colleges), pamphlet Nos. 1881 to 1984 and Circulars No. 7184 of 1984, Nos. 133 and 455 of 1985 and No. 10 of 1986 of Bombay University. On going through the above, it can be safely deduced that hospitals form integral part of medical education. It is not possible to conceive of a Medical College without there being a hospital or hospitals attached to it. In fact, number of students to be admitted in degree or post graduate including super specialities courses very much depend upon the number of beds in a hospital or hospitals attached to the particular college and/or the number of beds in the respective departments as the case may be. The recommendation of the Medical Council of India as regards the method of training for post graduate students, is :
“Methods of Training :
The emphasis should be on the service training and not in didactic lectures. The candidates should take part in Seminars, Group Discussions, Clinical meeting etc. The candidates should be required to write a thesis or dissertation which detailed commentary which should provide the candidate with necessary background of training in research methods and techniques alongwith the art of writing in research papers and learning the use of library. The in-service training requires the candidate to be a resident in the campus and should be given graded responsibility in the management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. Adequate number of post of clinical residents or tutors should be created for this purpose.”
The Circular No. PG/465 of 1985 issued by University of Bombay reads as;
“The Deans of the Constituent Medical Colleges, Directors of the Tata Memorial Hospital and Haffkins Institute, Bombay, and the Commanding Officer, I.N.H.S., Asvini, Bombay, are hereby informed that the following decisions taken at the meeting of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Chairman of the Boards of Studies falling within the preview of the Faculty of Medicine, and Deans/Directors of the constituent Medical Colleges/recognized Post-graduate Institutions enrolling students for the Post-graduate Medical courses, convened on 28th May, 1985, have been approved by the University :—
1. That all the Deans of the Constituent Medical Colleges, be requested to furnish the details of the resident posts available in various Departments of the hospitals attached to their in various Departments of the hospitals attached to their colleges. The vacant resident posts in the Municipal Medical Colleges be offered to students of the Grant Medical College and vice-versa.
2. That for the benefit of such of the students who desire to do relationship but are not able to get the resident Posts in any of the constituent Medical Colleges a scheme to be called, ‘Full-time post-graduate studentships programme.” Equivalent to residentship be introduced. Such students be allowed to work as full-time post graduate students in the Department of their speciality concerned in a manner equivalent to the residentship and they be paid a stipend to be fixed by the authorities of the colleges concerned.
3. That the work of such students be signed by the respective teachers under whom they register and also countersigned by the Head of the Department concerned.
4. That the full-time post-graduate studentship programme be implemented with retrospective effect from the first term of the academic year 1985-86.
5. That in view of the late declaration of the M.B.B.S. result of November, 1984 batch of students, the nature of the present resident post which is of five months period be extended by one month so that the next batch of students will start their resident posts from 1st August, 1985.
6. That the cases of the resident Doctors who suffer from some grave disease while discharging their duties or doing research work for their dissertations be recommended to the University by the Deans of the colleges concerned for condonation of the period of their resident posts for which they suffered by the diseases for being placed before the relevant authorities of the University.
7. That in view of the introduction of full-time three year residency the attendance at lectures will be voluntary and no post-graduate student for want of attendance at lectures arranged by the University be detained for appearing at the respective examination. However, the attendance at the lectures, seminars programmes arranged by the individual colleges be made compulsory and no post-graduate student be permitted to appear at the examinations concerned unless he produces a certificate signed by the teacher under whom he has registered as also countersigned by the Head of the Department concerned to the effect that he has satisfactorily attended lectures and seminars arranged by the college in the speciality concerned.
They are, therefore, requested to strictly implement the decisions, mentioned above. They are also requested that the decisions from No. 2 to No. 7 may please be brought to the notice of the Professors and the students concerned Bombay.”
Practical training is, thus, an essential part of medical education and resident posts such as house post and the post of Registrar provide the best practical training and experience as these posts also involve graded responsibility, the post of Registrar giving the best scope for training. The post of Registrar in particular, is a twenty four hours job. That is why the endeavour of the Medical College always is to provide resident posts to all its students. However, the number of resident posts in the hospitals attached to Medical Colleges is generally less than the number of students. Therefore, it is not possible to provide with a full time resident posts to all the students. It is for this reason that there is a provision that such of the students who are not provided with full time resident posts in an attached or recognised hospital for the purpose have to be accommodated as full time post-graduate students and are paid stipend. Full time post-graduate students, it may be stated, have to work in the hospitals more or less like the students holding resident posts without in the responsibility which makes the training more meaningful. The ideal, of course, is to provide every student with resident posts i.e. at least, of post for some duration. If not the post Registrar. Thus, all post graduate students have either to hold full time resident posts or full time studentship and are paid stipend in order to be entitled to appear in the examination. In view of the above, the attendance at lectures is to some extent voluntary and no post-graduate student for want of attendance at lectures arranged by the University is detained from appearing at the respective examinations. All the same, however, attendance at the lectures/seminars programmes arranged by the individual colleges is made compulsory and no post graduate student is permitted to appear at the concerned examination unless he produces a certificate signed by the Teacher/Guide under whom he is registered to the effect that he has satisfactorily attended lectures/seminars arranged by the colleges in the speciality concerned. Under the circumstances, it can be taken that a post graduate student has to, besides holding a resident post including the post of Registrar, attend seminars, group discussions, clinical meeting etc. arranged by his college.
4. We now proceed to consider rival contentions. The case of the appellants before us in brief is that the decisions of supreme Court and of this Court holding whole sale reservation on the basis of residence or institutional preference for admission/registration of students in the degree, post-graduate and post graduate, (super specialities) courses as bad is not applicable in the case of appointment to the post of Registrar in the hospital attached to the Medical College. According to them, the post of Registrar is only a further step in the direction of imparting medical education to its students particularly post graduate students and therefore the appointment to the post of Registrar cannot be made de hors the registration of its students in the Medical College. Inviting our attention to the admitted position that the students holding house posts or even the post of Registrar in hospital recognized by the University for the purpose have to compulsorily attend seminars, group discussions, etc. arranged by their colleges, it was stated that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a student of one college to coordinate his work if he is appointed Registrar in a hospital not attached to some other college. It was also urged that the student who had passed M.B.B.S. examination form the college to which the hospital in which there is a vacancy of the post of Registrar is attached is of necessity familiar with the environment of the hospital and naturally therefore he would be better suited person for the job as the hospitals and the Medical Colleges are to serve twin objectives of providing medical education on the one hand and health care to the citizens on the other.
The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that passing of final M.B.B.S. examination from the college to which hospital is attached has no nexus with the object of imparting best practical training and therefore must be struck down. It was pointed out that the teachers as well as the other staff members of the hospital are liable to be transferred from one Medical College to another within the B.M.C. Medical Colleges and from one Government Medical College to another Medical College. If what is contended on behalf of the appellants is correct, the policy of transfers in the matter of teaching staff as well as members of the other staff will have also to be depricated. However, except for Sri Jokhi, the learned Counsel for first respondent in Writ Petition Nos. 1113 and 1124 of 1986, the other Counsel for the parties agreed that registration of the student in a particular college who is holding resident post including the Registrar’s post in a hospital attached to that medical college will certainly facilitate the co-ordination between the hospital duties and attendance at the seminars, group discussions, etc. Sri Jokhi, however, contended that the hospitals attached to Government Medical Colleges as well as hospitals attached to B.M.C. Medical Colleges are at different places often far away from the respective Medical Colleges. Therefore, if a student who is a Registrar in the hospital attached to the Medical College in which he is a student can co-ordinate his work as Registrar and as student attending seminars, group discussions arranged by the college. A student from different college can also do that.
Sri Lokur, the learned Counsel for the Government Medical Colleges pointed out that under Rule III of the Rules a candidate would not even be eligible for appointment as a Registrar unless he had done two house jobs covering a period of six months each in the subject of the appointment or at least one in the subject of the appointment and the other in an ancillary subject. The petitioner Dr. Roopkumar Gursahani, he stated, had not done the above type of house jobs and he was, therefore, not even otherwise eligible for appointment as Registrar. Hence, however, the petitioner’s claim for appointment to the post of Registrar was rejected solely on the ground of preference Rule V and this was not the case of the appellants herein before the learned Single Judge or even before us in the appeal memo, we do not consider it fair to entertain this plea at this stage of the proceedings.
On going through the recommendations of the Medical Council of India for post graduate medical education, the detailed affidavit of Dt. S.V. Nandarni, Dean of one of the B.M.C. Medical Colleges. Pamphlets and circulars issued by the University of Bombay from time to time and the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel at the time of hearing, we are convinced that practical training and experience at the hospitals is not merely an important part of the post graduate medical education. It is an integral and inseparable part of it. The resident posts including the post of Registrar are created in the hospitals attached to Medical Colleges with a view to impart practical training and experience with graded responsibility which besides making the students competent, helps in building of confidence. The Registrar’s post is a full time job. That is why for a student who holds the post of Registrar, attendance at the lectures arranged by the University is voluntary. However, he has compulsorily to attend lectures, seminars, group discussions etc. arranged by his Medical College. The post of Registrar is, thus so much linked with and is part of post graduate medical education that the assignment as a post graduate student and as Registrar cannot be treated as separate and distinct and Registrar’s post could not be filled purely on the merit without taking into account other considerations such as the extent of contact the student is likely to have with the guide/teacher under whom he is registered, convenience in co-ordinating the attendance at seminars, group discussions etc. arranged by his college and the duties as Registrar. In the circumstances, we agree with the appellants’ Counsel that the ratio of the decisions pertaining to admission/registration to degree, post graduate and post graduate (super specialities) courses as such cannot be applied to the appointment to the post of Registrar.
Pertinent question, however, continues to remain whether and to what extent preference Rule V in the case of Government Medical Colleges and Rule 13-A in the case of B.M.C. Medical Colleges is bad. The Rule, as stated earlier, has two important limbs which have direct bearing on the question of validity of the Rule. To the extent the preference Rule provides for preference on the basis of passing of M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College to which the hospital in which the post of Registrar is vacant is attached, we are in full agreement with this Court’s decision in 1982 Mh.L.J. 764 that there is no nexus between the Rule and the object to the achieved. By and large, the set up and working conditions etc. in the hospitals attached to Medical Colleges are similar if not identical. In any event, it has not been denied by the appellants that teaching staff of Medical Colleges and members of staff of hospitals are liable to be transferred within their group of colleges and hospitals. In the circumstances, we find it extremely difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, that the student who passed M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College to which hospital in which the post of Registrar is vacant is attached, is better suited person than others. As regard the second limb of the preference Rule, however, we find sufficient merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. After all there is no dispute that the post of Registrar is a full time hob and attendance at the seminars, group discussions etc. arranged by the Medical College is compulsory for a post graduate student. In case the student is from one Medical College and is a Registrar in a hospital attached to another Medical College, he will find it extremely difficult to coordinate his work so as to be able to accomplish both properly. As against this if the student is a Registrar in a Hospital attached to the Medical College of which he is a student, his guide/teacher being one of the senior teacher/Doctor in the College and Hospital will be aware of his duties at the hospital and arrange seminars, group discussions etc. in such a manner that conflict between his duties as Registrar and student is bare minimum. In such a case, it is but natural that guide/teacher under whom the student is registered will have better opportunity to watch the performance of his student closely and of guiding him whenever necessary.
5. As regards the appeals herein it is seen that the relevant facts are not in dispute and in narrow compass. In Writ Petition No. 1859 of 1985, the petitioner is Dr. Roopkumar Gursahani. He passed Final M.B.B.S. as well as M.D. Examination from Nagpur University in 1981 and 1984 respectively. Thereafter he registered himself in Grant Medical College, Bombay in post graduate (super specialities) i.e. ,D.M. (Neurology). Respondent No. 4 Dr. Kailash Bhatia. He is also registered a post graduate (super specialities) i.e. D.M. (Neurology) in Grant Medical College, Bombay. On 20th August, 1985 an advertisement was issued by the Dean of Grant Medical College for the post of Registrar in Neurology. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 both applied for the same. In terms of Rule VI of the Rules the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No. 4 out of total marks of 400. However, the 4th respondent was appointed Registrar on the basis of first limb of institutional preference rule, namely, passing of final M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College to which the hospital in which the post of Registrar is vacant is attached.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1902 of 1986 is Dr. Vipsi H. Jokhi. He passed final M.B.B.S. examination from Bombay University in the year 1983 and is registered with Maharashtra Medical Council. He applied for and obtained registration in Grant Medical College as a post graduate student in the subject M.S. (Orthopaedies). Respondent No. 3 Dr. P.B. Borude, also passed final M.B.B.S. examination from Bombay University and is registered with Maharashtra Medical Council. He applied for and was registered as post graduate student in Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College in the subject of M.S. (Orthopaedies). Three posts of Registrar in Orthopaedies department in hospital attached to Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College were advertised on two occasions. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 amongst others applied for the same According to merit list prepared, the petitioner was found to be more meritorious than respondent No. 3 However, respondent No. 3 was given appointment in preference to the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 3 was registered as a post graduate student in Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College to which the hospital in which the post of Registrar was vacant is attached where as the petitioner was student of Grant Medical College.
So far as the appeals against the judgment and order of the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1859 of 1985 is concerned, both Dr. Roop Kumar Gursahani and Dr. Kailash Bhatia are registered to post graduate (super specialities) courses in D.M. (Neurology) in the Grant Medical College. In the view we have taken, there was no scope for applying rule of preference between the two. To the extent preference rule is based on passing of the final M.B.B.S. examination, it has been held bad. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, absolutely correct and is confirmed. As regards two appeals against the order and judgment of the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1902 of 1986 are concerned, the petition was allowed by rejecting the second limb of preference rule which we have upheld as valid. It is, however, pertinent that all relevant facts and aspects were not placed for the consideration of the Ld. Judge in that case. In fact, the Counsel for the Medical College almost conceded that ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1986 (S.C.) 1877 applied in the case of appointment to the post of Registrar also and that all the three posts of Registrar could not have gone to the institutional candidates. Further, the distinction drawn between the two limbs of preference rule was not brought out as was done before us. Therefore, the impugned judgment in that case cannot be confirmed. Since, however, respondent No. 3 was also given the post of Registrar under the orders of this Court by creating an additional post of Registrar in other hospital attached to Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College, we do not consider it proper to disturb the existing arrangement.
6. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the ratio of the Supreme Court’s decision and the decision of this Court on the question of admission registration to the degree, post graduate degree and post graduate (super specialities) courses does not apply as such to the appointment of Registrar in hospitals attached to Medical Colleges. We also hold that the rule of preference (Rule V in the case of the Government Medical Colleges and Rule 13-A in the case of the B.M.C. Medical Colleges) is not valid to the extent it provides for preference on the basis of passing final M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College to which hospital in which the post of Registrar is vacant, is attached. However, the preference rule to the extent it is based on the registration of the student in the Medical College in the post graduate or post graduate (super specialities) courses as the case may be is concerned, the rule is valid as it has direct nexus with the object to be achieved. Needless to mention, until all students who were competing for the post of Registrar are admitted/registered on the basis of Entrance Examination on all India or State basis, relative merits of the students for appointment to the post of Registrar will have to be decided by holding examination of the students competing for the post, as following the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Dineshkumar’s case, , we have already held in Writ Petition No. 599 of 1987 dated 3rd July 1987 that relative merits cannot be judged on the basis of marks obtained at different M.B.B.S. examination held by different Universities.
Since, however, the petitioners as well as the respondents have all being accommodated by creating additional posts of Registrar, the Appeals will stand dismissed except to the extent of modification in terms of the judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
