{"id":14062,"date":"1993-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993"},"modified":"2016-12-26T10:58:45","modified_gmt":"2016-12-26T05:28:45","slug":"dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2264, \t\t 1993 SCR (3) 909<\/div>\n
Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n
Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR.  NANDJEE SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.G. MEDICAL STUDENTSASSOCIATION AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/05\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 2264\t\t  1993 SCR  (3) 909\n 1993 SCC  (3) 400\t  JT 1993 (3)\t515\n 1993 SCALE  (2)985\n\n\nACT:\n%\nConstitution  of  India, 1950 :\t Article  136-Appeal-Whether\nappellant appointed against a teaching post--Non-examination\nof  question  by  High Court-Positive  presumption  by\tHigh\nCourt- Whether Supreme Court to decide said question.\nConstitution   of   India,  1950  :  Article   226-Writ\t  by\nAssociation against an individual-Individual dispute whether\npublic interest litigation.\nEducation-M.D.\t    (Medicine)\t    Examination-Requirements\nappearance.\nUniversity-Examination-M.D.(Medicine)-Appearance  --Require-\nments of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t  was  a  teacher  in  the   Department\t  of\nBiochemistry  of  Rajendra  Medical College.   He  filed  an\napplication  for his registration as a student in  M.D.\t The\nUniversity  forwarded  the application to the  Principal  of\nRajendra   Medical  College.   The  Principal  objected\t  to\nappellant's registration as he was not posted in any of\t the\nteaching  posts\t in  Rajendra Medical  College.\t Though\t the\nappellant was attached to the Department of Medicine, was  a\nBiochemist  attached  to that Renal Unit  dealing  with\t the\nsubject of Biochemistry.\nThe appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for  a\ndirection  tot\the University to permit him  to\t submit\t his\nthesis in M.D. (Medicine) examination on the ground that  he\nwas a teacher.\nThe  University took the stand that the appellant was not  a\nteacher\t and  he  was  not eligible  for  training  in\tM.D.\n(General Medicine).\nThe  High Court dismissed the appellants writ  petition\t and\nheld  that  he\twas  not  entitled  for\t admission  to\t the\nexamination in M.D. as he did not such it\n910\nhis  thesis  and  did not produce a  certificate  of  having\nundergone  satisfactory\t training.  The High Court  did\t not\ndecide\ton the question whether he held a teaching  post  or\nnot.\nThe  appellant\twas granted permission to  appear  for\tM.D.\n(Medicine)  examination after the University  was  satisfied\nthat the appellant was holding a teaching post\nThe respondent-Association filed a writ petition before\t the\nHigh Court challenging the permission given to the appellant\nto  appear for the said examination, contending that he\t was\nnot  a\tteacher and that he did not  undergo  the  necessary\ntraining for 2 years and that he did not do housemanship  in\nGeneral Medicine for one year.\nThe High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground\tthat\nthe appellant did not undergo training for 3 years prior  to\nhis  application to appear for M.D. (Medicine)\texamination.\nIn  this  writ petition also the High Court did\t not  decide\nwhether the appellant was holding a teaching post.\nThe appellant filed this appeal by special leave against the\nHigh Court's judgment.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court\nHELD  : 1.1. On account of the interim order passed  by\t the\nHigh Court, the appellant appeared for the examination.\t The\nHigh Court has, however, by the impugned decision restrained\nthe   University   from\t declaring  his\t  results   in\t the\nexamination. (915-G)\n1.2. Since the High Court has not gone into the question  as\nwhether the appellant was appointed against a teaching\tpost\nand  has proceeded on the footing that he was appointed,  it\nis  not\t necessary  for\t this Court  to\t go  into  the\tsaid\nquestion. (915-F)\n2.1. The  facts\t of the-case would reveal that\tthis  was  a\ndispute\t relating to an individual and turned on the  facts.\nThere  was  no question of law involved in it.\t It  is\t not\nunderstood  how the respondent-Association could convert  an\nindividual dispute into a public interest litigation.  (915-\nH)\n2.2  Cases  where what is strictly an individual dispute  is\nsought to be\n911\nconverted  into a public interest litigation should  not  be\nencouraged.   The  present proceeding is one  of  the  kind.\n(915-H)\n3.1. The requirement of the relevant regulation is that\t the\ncandidate  must have done one year's housemanship  prior  to\nthe admission to the Postgraduate degree in the same subject\nin  which he wants to appear for the examination or  atleast\nsix  months  housemanship  in the same\tDepartment  and\t the\nremaining  six months in the allied Department.\t The  period\nof  training thus, shall be 3 years after full\tregistration\nincluding one year of the. housejob.(912-B)\n3.2. According\tto the rules, 4 years, (teaching  experience\nin  the College and the Hospital (which is always  combined.\nwith  practice in the Hospital) is considered equivalent  to\none  year's  house-job\texperience.  In the  face  of  these\nfacts, it is difficult to understand the stand taken by\t the\nState Government in the present proceedings. (916-D)\n3.  3. The University bad on the facts of the case  accepted\nthe  contention\t of the appellant that he  had\tcompleted  3\nyears' training.  It is not understood as to what' state the\nState has in denying the said factual position. (916-B)\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2909 of 1993.
\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1990 of the Patna High
\nCourt in C.W.J.C. No. 1465 of 1989 (R).\n<\/p>\n
S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Uday Sinha, S.K. Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.
\nThe following Order of the Court was delivered:
\nSpecial leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant
\nwas  qualified\tto appear for the  M.D.\t (General  Medicine)
\nExamination  as a teacher candidates The High Court  by\t the
\nimpugned  order has taken the view that he was not,  on\t the
\naround\tthat  he had not completed 3 years  training  period
\nincluding  one\tyear of the house-job, prior  to  qualifying
\nhimself for appearing for the examination.\n<\/p>\n
912<\/span><\/p>\n
The  respondents,  P.G.\t Medical  Students  Association\t had
\nchallenged  the permission given to the appellant to  appear
\nfor  the said examination on two rounds.  The  first  ground
\nwas that he was not a teacher and the second ground was that
\nhe had not undergone the necessary training for 2 years\t and
\nhad  also not done housemanship in General Medicine for\t one
\nyear.\tThe requirement of the relevant regulation  is\tthat
\nthe  candidate must have done one year’s housemanship  prior
\nto  the\t admission to the Post-graduate degree in  the\tsame
\nsubject\t in which he wants to appear for the examination  or
\nat least six months housemanship in the same Department\t and
\nthe  remaining\tsix months in the  allied  Department.\t The
\nperiod\tof  training  thus,  shall be  3  years\t after\tfull
\nregistration including one year of the housejob.
\nThe appellant claimed that he was teacher in the  Department
\nof Biochemistry in the Rajendra Medical College (R.M.C.) and
\nfiled  an application for his registration as a\t student  in
\nM.D.  The University forwarded the application to  the\tthen
\nPrincipal  of Rajendra Medical College-cum-Dean, Faculty  of
\nMedicine, Dr. C.J.K. Singh.  He objected to his registration
\non  the ground that the appellant was not posted in  any  of
\nthe teaching posts in medical college.\tThe then Head of the
\nDepartment  of\tMedicine,  Dr. S. Sinha also  wrote  to\t Dr.
\nC.J.K.\tSingh  that  the appellant though  attached  to\t the
\nDepartment  of Medicine, was a Bio-chemist attached  to\t the
\nRenal\tUnit  and  dealt  entirely  with  the\tsubject\t  of
\nBiochemistry.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.\t 755
\nof 1988 praying for appropriate direction to the  University
\nto  permit  him\t to submit his\tthesis\tin  M.D.  (Medicine)
\nexamination.  The University contested his claim that he was
\na  teacher  and\t took  the stand that since  he\t was  not  a
\nteacher,  he was not eligible for training in M.D.  (General
\nMedicine).   For  this purpose, the University\trelied\tupon
\nthe.  letters  of Dr. C.J.K. Singh and Dr.  S.\tSinha.\t The
\nCourt dismissed the said petition on 23rd May, 1988  without
\ndeciding  the  issue  as to whether  the  appellant  held  a
\nteaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant\t was
\nnot entitled for admission to the examination in M.D. as  he
\nhad not submitted his thesis and had also failed to  produce
\na  certificate\tof having undergone  satisfactory  training.
\nThe  High Court also held that the acceptance of the  thesis
\nwas a pre-requisite for appearing at the examination.
\nHowever,  thereafter the present petition was filed  by\t the
\nrespondent  Association\t when  the  appellant  was   granted
\npermission   to\t appear\t for  the  said\t examination   being
\nsatisfied that the post which he was holding was a  teaching
\npost  as  pointed  out by the  State  Government.   In\tthis
\npetition,   the\t University  supported\tthe   appellant\t  by
\nasserting  that\t the,  appellant  was  appointed  against  a
\nteaching post
\n913<\/span>
\nin the Department of Medicine.\tThe High Court has again not
\ndecided\t the  point  whether  the  appellant  was  appointed
\nagainst a teaching post in the Department of Medicine.\t For
\nnot  deciding  the  point,  the\t High  Court  has  given  an
\nadditional reason, viz., that many persons who were in\tfact
\nappointed as teachers would be prejudicially affected  since
\nthey would become junior to the appellant and they were\t not
\nbefore\tthe Court.  For the purposes of the disposal of\t the
\nwrit  petition, the High Court presumed that  the  appellant
\nwas  teacher in the Department of Medicine in  the  Rajendra
\nMedical College.  The Court has, however, made it clear that
\nthis presumption would be confined to the present case\tonly
\nand the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit
\non  the basis of the said presumption.\tThe High Court\thas,
\nhowever,  allowed  the\trespondents’ petition  only  on\t the
\ngrounds that the appellant had not undergone training for  3
\nyears  prior  to  his application to  appear  for  the\tsaid
\nexamination.   In order to come to the said conclusion,\t the
\nHigh  Court relied on the fact that although the  petitioner
\nwas  registered\t with Dr. S.S. Prasad as a  trainee  on\t 6th
\nFebruary,  1986, he had not undergone training with him\t and
\nit  was\t only from 4th February; 1988 onwards  that  he\t had
\nundergone  the training with another Supervisor,  viz.,\t Dr.
\nP.R. Prasad.  Hence, on the date he made the application for
\nappearing  in  the  examination, he had\t not  completed\t the
\nrequired  3  years’  training period.\tIn  support  of\t its
\nfinding\t that  the  appellant had  not\tcompleted  2  years’
\ntraining  with Dr. S.s. Prasad, the former  Supervisor,\t the
\nHigh Court has relied upon two facts.  The first is that Dr.
\nS.S. Prasad had written to the University that appellant had
\nundergone  no training under him.  The\tsecond\tcircumstance
\nrelied\tupon is that the second Supervisor, viz.,  Dr.\tP.R.
\nPrasad\twas not appointed as appellant’s Supervisor  as\t per
\nthe suggestion of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine  since
\nrespondent  No.\t 7 to the petition who had  recommended\t Dr.
\nP.R.  Prasad was not the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine  at
\nthe  time  of the recommendation.  Hence, according  to\t the
\nHigh Court even the training of the appellant under Dr. P.R.
\nPrasad was not a valid training
\nThe   record  shows  that  admittedly  the   appellant\t was
\nregistered  as\ta trainee under the former  Supervisor,\t Dr.
\nS.S. Prasad on 6th February, 1986 and he continued to be the
\ntrainee\t under him till 4th February, 1988 on which date  he
\nwas changed as a Supervisor at the request of the appellant.
\nIn   his  place\t Dr.  P.R.  Prasad  was\t appointed  as\t the
\nappellant’s   Supervisor  on  17th  December,\t1988.\t The
\nappellant, thereafter continued to be the trainee under\t Dr.
\nP.R.  Prasad from 19th December, 1988 to 3rd  August,  1989.
\nThus  the  petitioner  was  registered\tfor  M.D.   (General
\nMedicine)  examination\tof the University on  6th  February,
\n1986  and by the 3rd August, 1989 when he was due to  appear
\nfor the examination he had completed 3 years’ training under
\nthe two Supervisors.\n<\/p>\n
914<\/span><\/p>\n
Coming\tto the respondent-Association’s contention that\t the
\nearlier\t Supervisor,  Dr. S.S. Prasad had  denied  that\t the
\nappellant   had\t received  any\ttraining  under\t  him,\t the
\nUniversity has stated that for the purpose of training,\t the
\nSupervisor  has nothing more to do than guide the  candidate
\nfor writing thesis.  But more than that, the letter  written
\nby Dr. P.V.P. Sinha, the Principal of RMC and Dean,  Faculty
\nof  Medicines of the Ranchi University to the  Registrar  of
\nthe  Ranchi University on 4th July, 1989 speaks\t volumes  on
\nthe  attitude  adopted\tby  Dr.\t S.S.  Prasad  towards\t the
\nappellant.   This letter is Annexure-11 to the rejoinder  of
\nthe  appellant.\t The letter makes a complaint that Dr.\tS.S.
\nPrasad\tby  bypassing the office of the Principal,  RMC\t had
\naddressed  directly to the Registrar of the  University\t two
\nletters on 4th May and 3 1st May, 1989.\t The Principal\tthen
\nstates that he examined the original letter meaning  thereby
\nthe letter dated 4th May, 1989 and the connected matter\t and
\nfound  that  Dr.  S.S. Prasad had been telling\tlie  to\t the
\nUniversity and trying to mislead and that is why he had sent
\nthe  letter  directly  to the University.   Dr.\t Prasad\t had
\nwritten\t another letter to the University on 16th May,\t1988
\nregarding  the appellant and in that letter he\thad  written
\nthat  the appellant had been prevented from  doing  research
\nwork connected with his thesis.\t The Principal then proceeds
\nto  write that when he asked Dr. Prasad in writing vide\t his
\nletter\tdated 21st June, 1989 to give him the letter of\t the
\nPrincipal or the Dean or the University which had authorised
\nhim  to prevent the appellant-from doing his research  work,
\nDr. Prasad failed to produce any letter.  Thus according  to
\nthe  Principal\tit  became very clear that  Dr.\t Prasad\t had
\nwritten\t  the  letter  dated  16.5.1988\t directly   to\t the
\nUniversity  to harm the appellant’s career.   The  Principal
\nthen  proceeds to write to University that he would like  to
\nbring to the attention of the University that Dr.Prasad\t had
\nsigned\tthe thesis and certificate of another doctor,  viz.,
\nDr.  Ashok  Kumar Singh on 16.10.1984 when that\t doctor\t was
\nregistered  as an M.D. student in General Medicine  only  on
\n26.7.1984 and when Dr. Prasad was not his guide.  It was Dr.
\nR.C.N.\tSahai  who named the guide for the  said  Dr.  Ashok
\nKumar  Singh.\tThe  Principal then  writes  that  from\t the
\nperusal\t of  the records as well as from the  reply  to\t the
\nexplanation  sought  by him from Dr. Prasad, it\t had  become
\nclear  that Dr. Prasad was not made the guide of  Dr.  Ashok
\nKumar  Singh either by the University or by the Dean  or  by
\nthe Principal and yet he had signed the thesis of Dr.  Ashok
\nKumar  Singh  barely  after  3 months and  11  days  of\t his
\nregistration.  The Principal then points out in that  letter
\nthat  a comparison of the two events made it  apparent\tthat
\nDr.  Prasad had favoured Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh by  violating
\nall the norms statutes of the University and of the  Medical
\nCouncil\t of  India and that even after\tthe  University\t had
\nappointed Dr. P.R. Prasad as the guide of the appellant, Dr.
\nS.S.  Prasad  was  bent\t upon  harming\tthe  career  of\t the
\nappellant.  The Principal then adds that there was no record
\nin his office to show that the appellant was ever  suspended
\nby  the University for doing his M.D. General Medicine.\t  He
\nhad asked Dr. S.S. Prasad to produce any notification of the
\nUniversity regarding the alleged
\n915<\/span>
\nsuspension and Dr. S.S. Prasad had failed to do so.  He then
\nconcludes  the\tletter\tby stating that\t he  would,  in\t the
\ncircumstances,\trecommend  the University  to  consider\t the
\ndesirability   of   removing  Dr.  S.S.\t Prasad\t  from\t all
\nexamination  work  of  the Ranchi University.\tIt  is\tthus
\napparent that Dr. S.S. Prasad, the former Supervisor of\t the
\nappellant  had become hostile to him and was apparently\t not
\ncooperating  with him in his thesis.  Yet the appellant\t had
\nproceeded  to write a thesis and when it became\t unbearable,
\nhe  requested  for  the\t change of  his\t Supervisor  on\t 4th
\nFebruary,  1988\t pursuant to which the new  Supervisor,\t Dr.
\nP.R. Prasad was appointed on 17th December, 1988.   However,
\ntill  the  new Supervisor was appointed\t on  17th  December,
\n1988, he continued to be registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad and
\nthere is no dispute that under the new Supervisor, viz., Dr.
\nP.R.  Prasad he completed his training from  17th  December,
\n1988 to 4th August, 1989.  There is further no dispute\tthat
\nthe appellant submitted his thesis prior to the examination.
\nAs  regard the qualification of the 7th respondent  to\tmake
\nthe  appointment of Dr. P.R. Prasad as the  guide,  although
\nthe  record  before  us\t does not show as  to  who  the\t 7th
\nrespondent  was, we take it that it is the  then  Principal,
\nDr.  P.V.P.  Sinha who was probably added later as  the\t 7th
\nrespondent  to the writ petition to whom the High Court\t has
\nreferred to in its judgment.  It is asserted from the Bar on
\nbehalf of the appellant that Dr. P.V.P. Sin ha was both\t the
\nPrincipal  and\tthe Dean of the Faculty of Medicine  of\t the
\nUniversity  from a date much prior to 17th  December,  1988.
\nThat  statement\t is not controverted nor  does\tthe  counter
\nfiled by the 1st Respondent make any such point.  If that is
\nso, then on the date that Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed as a
\nSupervisor he was so appointed by a duly qualified person.
\nSince  the  High Court has not one into the question  as  to
\nwhether the appellant was appointed against a teaching\tpost
\nand  has proceeded on the footing that he was so  appointed.
\nit is not necessary for us to go into the said question.
\nThe appellant was thus fully qualified for appearing in\t the
\nsaid  examination  and\tin fact on account  of\tthe  interim
\norders\tpassed\tby the High Court he has  appeared  for\t the
\nexamination.   The High Court has, however, by the  impugned
\ndecision  restrained  the  University  from  declaring\t his
\nresults in the examination.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  narrated  above would reveal  that\tthis  was  a
\ndispute\t relating to an individual and turned on the  facts.
\nThere  was  no\tquestion of law involved in  it.   We  have,
\ntherefore,  not\t understood how\t the  respondent-Association
\ncould  convert an individual dispute into a public  interest
\nlitigation.   We  are of the view that cases where  what  is
\nstrictly  an  individual dispute is sought to  be  converted
\ninto a public interest litigation should not be\t encouraged.
\nThe present proceeding is one of the
\n916<\/span>
\nkind.\tThe learned counsel appearing, for  the\t respondent-
\nState wanted to support the respondent-Association.  We\t did
\nnot  think it necessary to hear the State since the  dispute
\nwas  essentially  with regard to the interpretation  of\t the
\nfacts  relating\t to the training of  an\t individual  medical
\nofficer,  viz.,\t the appellant.\t The University had  on\t the
\nfacts  of the case accepted the contention of the  appellant
\nthat  he had completed 3 years’ training.  We have not\tbeen
\nable to understand as to what stake the State has in denying
\nthe said factual position.\n<\/p>\n
It  must  be remembered in this connection  that  the  State
\nGovernment  itself  by its letter of  17th  September,\t1984
\nwritten to the Principal, RMC and had asserted that the post
\nwhich  the appellant was holding, viz., that of\t Bio-chemist
\nin  the Artificial Kidney Unit of RM College  and  Hospital,
\nwas  a\tteaching post and that the appellant was  posted  to
\nthat  post  since 12th February, 1982.\tThe  letter  further
\nproceeded  to state that the Principal and the Head  of\t the
\nDepartment  of Medicine of RM College and Hospital has\talso
\ngiven written certificate that the appellant was posted on a
\nteaching post and therefore his teaching experience would be
\ncounted\t with  the Kidney Unit.\t A request  was,  therefore,
\nmade in the letter that the appellant’s application for\t his
\nregistration as M.D. General Medicine candidate [Teacher] be
\nforwarded  to  the  University and further  action  in\tthat
\nregard be intimated to the Regional Additional Commissioner-
\ncum-Principal  Secretary.  There is no dispute further\tthat
\naccording  to the rules, 4 years teaching experience in\t the
\nCollege\t and  the Hospital [which is  always  combined\twith
\npractice  in the Hospital] is considered equivalent  to\t one
\nyear’s house-job experience.  It the face of these facts, it
\nis  difficult  to understand the stand taken  by  the  State
\nGovernment in the present proceedings.\tThere is no doubt in
\nour  mind  that\t some forces are at  work  to  obstruct\t the
\nappellant’s  career on one ground or the other.\t  The  State
\nGovernment should not become a party to this came.
\nIn  the\t circumstances, we allow the appeal, set  aside\t the
\ndecision  of the High Court and hold that the appellant\t was
\nqualified   to\tappear\tfor  the  M.D.\t(General   Medicine)
\nexamination  as a teacher candidate.  Hence, we\t direct\t the
\nUniversity to declare his results in M.D. (General Medicine)
\nexamination  for  which he has appeared,  forthwith.   There
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
VPR\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n917<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2264, 1993 SCR (3) 909 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: DR. NANDJEE SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTSASSOCIATION AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/05\/1993 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION: 1993 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2647,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\",\"name\":\"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993","datePublished":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993"},"wordCount":2647,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993","name":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-26T05:28:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-nandjee-singh-vs-p-g-medical-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical … on 14 May, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14062","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14062"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14062\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}