{"id":3355,"date":"1978-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978"},"modified":"2016-01-10T17:30:27","modified_gmt":"2016-01-10T12:00:27","slug":"m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","title":{"rendered":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM. C. GUPTA ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. K. GUPTA & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1978\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian Medical  Council Act,  1956, S.  2(f) read\twith\nGeneral Regulations,  R. 4,  \"Medicine\", includes specialist\nbranch of  cardiology -\"Research  experience\",\tcomputation,\nholding\t of   specified\t post  whether\tpre-requisite  while\nconducting   research-\"Teaching\t  experience\"\tin   foreign\ninstitutions when can be taken into account.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  Dr. M. C. Gupta and the sixth respondent\nDr. R.\tN. Tandon,  were appointed to the post of 'Professor\nin medicine  in State  Government    Medical  Colleges.\t The\nappointments were  made by  the\t State\tGovernment,  on\t the\nrecommendation of  U.P. Public Service Commission, which had\nearlier\t with\tthe  assistance\t of  four  medical  experts,\nselected them through an interview. The respondents No. 1, 2\nand 3  who were\t also candidates  for the  post filed a writ\npetition in  the High  Court, challenging  the selection and\nappointment of\tDr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon, though\nno mala\t fides were  attributed to  the Commission. A Single\nJudge  of   the\t High  Court  issued  a\t writ  quashing\t the\nselection, on  the ground  that neither\t of the two selected\ndoctors had  the  requisite  teaching  experience  and\tthat\nneither of  them was qualified for selection as Professor of\nMedicine. In  appeal, the  appellate Bench of the High Court\nconfirmed the  order quashing  the selections,\tand  further\nquashed the  order of  appointment, remitting  the matter to\nthe Commission,\t directing it  to make\tfresh  selection  in\nconsonance with\t the interpretation  put upon  the  relevant\nregulation, by the court.\n     Allowing the  three connected appeals, one by Dr. M. C.\nGupta, and two by the State of U.P., the Court\n^\n     HELD .  I. Medicine  includes cardiology.\tThe  Medical\nCouncil of  India, a  body composed  of experts, have in the\nregulations clearly manifested their approach when they said\nthat cardiology is a specialist branch under medicine. Where\ngeneral subject\t such as  medicine or surgery is being dealt\nwith, in  a regulation, the specialist branch under it would\nbe covered,  though not\t vice versa, because if one wants to\nhold a\tpost in\t the specialist branch, he must of necessity\nhave teaching  experience in  the specialist branch. [859 G,\n860 D, 861 E].\n     II. If  general regulation\t 4 is  properly analysed for\nthe  purpose   of   computing\tresearch   experience,\t the\nprerequisite  is  that\tthe  research  must  be\t done  after\nobtaining the  requisite post-graduate qualification. It has\nno reference  to the  post held\t by the\t person\t engaged  in\nresearch at the time of conducting the research, and, to say\nthat holding  of the  post specified in the regulation, is a\npre-requisite while  conducting\t research,  is\tto  read  in\nregulation 4, what is not prescribed thereunder. [862 D-F].\n     III.   Teaching\texperience   in\t  foreign   teaching\ninstitutions can  be taken  into account,  but, they must be\nsome  recognised   institutions\t of   repute  and   not\t any\ninstitution outside the territory of India. 865 G, 866 C].\n854\n     State of  Bihar &\tAnr. v.\t Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee &\nOrs.,<\/a> [1975] 2 SCR 894; followed.\nVade Mecum :\n     In view of the twilight zone of Court's interference in\nappointment to\tposts requiring\t technical  experience\tmade\nconsequent upon\t selection  by\tPublic\tService\t Commission,\naided and advised by experts having technical experience and\nhigh  academic\t qualifications\t in  the  specialist  field,\nprobing teaching\/research  experience in technical subjects,\nwithin the  framework of  Regulations framed  by the Medical\nCouncil of  India, under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council\nAct, 1956  and approved\t by the\t Government  of\t India,\t the\ncourts\tshould\t be  slow  to  interfere  with\tthe  opinion\nexpressed by  the experts,  unless there  are allegations of\nmala fides against them. [857E-G].\n     University of  Mysore &  Anr. v.  C. D.  Govinda Rao  &\nAnr.,<\/a> [1964] 4 SCR 575; applied.\n     State of  BIhar &\tAnr. v.\t Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee &\nOrs.,<\/a> [1975] 2 SCR 894; explained.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 357\/77
\nand 1142-1143\/78.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated 28-8-75  and 17-9-75  of the  Allahabad High  Court in
\nSpecial Appeal Nos. 233, 254 and 264 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     L. N. Sinha, Santosh Chatterjee, Vineet Kumar and P. P.
\nSingh for the Appellant in CA 357\/77.\n<\/p>\n
     S. N.  Kacker, Sol.  General, M.  V. Goswami  and Rajiv
\nDutt for the Appellants in CA 1142-1143\/78 and RR 4 and 5 in
\nCA 357\/77
\n     A. K. Sen, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for Respondent
\nNo. 1 in All the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     V. M.  Tarkunde, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 2
\nin all appeals
\n     G. L. Sanghi, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 3 in
\nall appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Rajiv Dutt and P. C. Kapur for R. 6 in CA 357\/77.
\n     Santosh Chatterjee\t and Vineet  Kumar for\tR. 6  in  CA
\n1142\/78.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J.\tRespondents Nos.  1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal
\nNo. 357\/77  filed writ\tpetition No. 5462\/74 challenging the
\nselection by  U.P. Public  Service Commission  (‘Commission’
\nfor  short)   and  subsequent\tappointment  by\t U.P.  State
\nGovernment of  appellant and respondent No. 6 to the post of
\nProfessor in  Medicine in State Government Medical Colleges.
\nA learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the selec-\n<\/p>\n
855<\/span><\/p>\n
tions.\tFour  appeals  came  to\t be  preferred\tagainst\t the
\njudgment quashing  selections. Special Appeal No. 232\/75 was
\nfiled by  Dr. R. N. Tandon, respondent No. 6; Special Appeal
\nNo. 233\t of 1975  was preferred by the present appellant Dr.
\nM. C. Gupta; Special Appeal No. 264 of 1975 was preferred by
\nthe State  of U.P.;  and Special  Appeal No. 256 of 1975 was
\nfiled by  respondents Nos.  1, 2  and 3\t in Civil Appeal No.
\n357\/77 against\tthat part  of the  judgment of\tthe  learned
\nsingle Judge  by which\tappointment of\tappellant Dr.  M. C.
\nGupta and  respondent No.  6, Dr.  R.  N.  Tandon,  was\t not
\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellate  Bench partly  allowed  the\tappeals\t and
\nwhile confirming  the order quashing the selection of Dr. M.
\nC.  Gupta   and\t Dr.   R.  N.  Tandon,\talso  quashed  their
\nappointment  and  remitted  the\t matter\t to  the  Commission
\ndirecting it  to  re-examine  the  relative  merits  of\t all
\ncandidates in  the light  of the interpretation put upon the
\nrelevant regulations  by the Court. Arising from this common
\njudgment, three\t appeals by  special leave  are preferred to
\nthis Court.  Civil Appeal  No. 357\/77 is preferred by Dr. M.
\nC. Gupta  and Civil  Appeals Nos.  1142 &  1143 of  1978 are
\npreferred by the State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
     To focus  the attention on the contention raised at the
\nhearing of  these appeals,  a brief resume of facts would be
\nadvantageous. The  Commission invited  applications for\t two
\nposts of Professor of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges
\nas  per\t  its  advertisement   dated  8th   September  1973,
\nsubsequently  extending\t  the  last   date  for\t receipt  of
\napplications to\t 30th March 1974, Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R.
\nN. Tandon  (referred to\t as the ‘appellants’) along with Dr.
\nA. K.  Gupta, Dr.  Brij\t Kishore  and  Dr.  S.\tN.  Aggarwal
\n(referred to  as ‘respondents  1, 2  and 3), applied for the
\npost.\tThe    advertisement   set    out   the\t  prescribed
\nqualifications for  the post under Regulations made under s.
\n33 of  the Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956\t (‘Act’\t for
\nshort). They  were in  respect of  the academic attainments,
\nteaching\/research experience,  upper  age  limit,  etc.\t The
\nCommission was\tassisted by  four  medical  experts  in\t the
\nmatter\tof   interview,\t selection   and  recommendation  of
\nsuitable candidates  satisfying the requisite qualifications
\nfor the\t post. The  Commission selected\t Dr. M. C. Gupta and
\nDr. R.\tN. Tandon for the two posts of Professor in Medicine
\nand  recommended   their  names\t to  the  State\t Government,
\nRespondents 1,\t2 and  3 who  were also\t candidates for\t the
\npost, presumably  came to  know about the recommendation and
\nmoved the High Court on 13th September 1974 by way of a writ
\npetition  questioning\tthe  selection.\t  The  petition\t was
\nadmitted and  rule nisi was issued. An ex-parte interim stay
\nrestraining the\t Government from making the appointments was
\ngranted but sub-\n<\/p>\n
856<\/span><\/p>\n
sequently it  was vacated. The State Government accepted the
\nrecommendations of  the Commission  and appointed  Dr. M. C.
\nGupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon as Professors of Medicine on 30th
\nOctober\t 1974.\t The  petition\t was  subsequently   amended
\nquestioning the\t order of  appointment.\t As  already  stated
\nabove, the  learned single Judge held that neither Dr. M. C.
\nGupta nor  Dr. R.  N.  Tandon  had  the\t requisite  teaching
\nexperience and\tthat  neither  of  them\t was  qualified\t for
\nselection as  Professor of  Medicine and accordingly allowed
\nthe writ  petition and\tquashed the  selection. By  a common
\njudgment in  the appeals  arising from\tthe judgment  of the
\nlearned single\tJudge, the  appellate  Bench  confirmed\t the
\norder quashing\tthe selections and further quashed the order
\nof appointment\tand remitted  the matter  to the  Commission
\ndirecting it  to make fresh selection in consonance with the
\ninterpretation put  upon the  relevant\tregulations  by\t the
\nCourt. Three  appeals are  before us.  These  three  appeals
\nobviously were\theard together\tand are being disposed of by
\nthis common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The selection and appointment of Dr. M.C. Gupta and Dr.
\nR. N. Tandon were questioned only on one ground in that each
\nof them\t did not  satisfy  the\trequisite  teaching\/research
\nexperience. The\t controversy in\t these appeals centres round
\nthe  question\tof  teaching\/research\texperience  and\t the
\nrelevant regulation in this behalf may be extracted:
\n___________________________________________________________
\nPost\t\t  Academic\t  Subject   Teaching\/
\n\t\t  Qualification\t\t    Research
\n\t\t\t\t\t    experience
\n___________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n
(b) Professor\/\t  M.D., M.R.C.P., Medicine  (b) As Reader\/
\n    Associate\t  F.R.C.P.,\t\t    Asst. Professor
\n    Professor\t  Speciality\t\t    in Medicine for
\n\t\t  Board of\t\t    5 years in a
\n\t\t  Internal Medicine\t    Medical College
\n\t\t  (USA) or an\t\t    after requisite
\n\t\t  equivalent\t\t    post-graduate
\n\t\t  qualification in\t    qualification.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  the subject.\n<\/p>\n
___________________________________________________________
\n     Regulation 4 of General Regulations provides as under:
\n\t  “4. 50%  of the  time spent in recognised research
\n     under the\tIndian Council\tof  Medical  Research  or  a
\n     University or  a Medical  College, after  obtaining the
\n     requisite\tpost-graduate\tqualification\tbe   counted
\n     towards teaching  experience in  the same\tor an allied
\n     subject provided  that 50%\t of the\t teaching experience
\n     shall be the regular teaching experience.”
\n     The teaching\/research experience claimed by each of the
\nappellants may be set out and then the comments of each side
\nin respect of each item may be examined:\n<\/p>\n
857<\/span><\/p>\n
Experience of Dr. M. C. Gupta.\n<\/p>\n
     I. 25th January 1965 to 19th      About 6 years and
\n\tJuly 1971-Lecturer in Cardio-  6 month’s teaching
\n\tlogy in the Dept. of Medicine  experience.\n<\/p>\n
     II July 71 upto the date of       About 3 years, 2\n\tappointment as Professor-      months' teaching\n\tReader in Medicine in S.N.     experience.\n\tMedicine College, Agra.\nExperience of Dr. R.N. Tandon\n     I. 1st October 1965 to 31st       One years' teaching\n\tOctober, 1966-Post doctoral    experience.\n\tteaching fellow, Dept. of\n\tMedicine, State University\n\tof New York at Buffalo, USA.\n    II\t1st February, 1967 to 31st     One year's teaching\n\t1968-As a Lecturer while       experience.\n\tposted as Pool Officer Dept.\n\tof Medicine in GSVM Medical\n\tCollege, Kanpur.\n   III\t5th April 1968 to 4th July     15 Months' teaching\n\t1969-Post doctoral research    experience.\n\tfellow, Dept. of Medical in\n\tGVSM Medical College, Kanpur.\n<\/pre>\n
    IV\t29th July 1969 to 30th October Over 5 years teaching
\n\t1974-(date of appointment as   experience.
\n\tProfessor)-Asst. Professor
\n\tof Medicine, State University
\n\tof New York, at Buffalo USA.\n<\/p>\n
     Before the\t rival comments\t are probed and analysed, it
\nwould be  necessary to\tkeep in\t view the  twilight zone  of
\nCourt’s\t interference  in  appointment\tto  posts  requiring
\ntechnical  experience  made  consequent\t upon  selection  by
\nPublic Service\tCommission, aided  by experts  in the field,
\nwithin the  framework of  Regulations framed  by the Medical
\nCouncil of  India under\t s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council
\nAct, 1956,  and approved  by the  Government of India on 5th
\nJune 1971.  When selection  is made  by the Commission aided
\nand advised  by experts having technical experience and high
\nacademic qualifications\t in the\t specialist  field,  probing
\nteaching\/research  experience  in  technical  subjects,\t the
\nCourts\tshould\t be  slow  to  interfere  with\tthe  opinion
\nexpressed by  experts unless  there are\t allegations of mala
\nfides against  them. It\t would normally\t be prudent and safe
\nfor the\t Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to
\nexperts who  are more  familiar with  the problems they face
\nthan the  Courts generally  can be. Undoubtedly, even such a
\nbody if\t it were to contravene rules and regulations binding
\nupon  it  in  making  the  selection  and  recommending\t the
\nselectees  for\t appointment,  the   Court  in\texercise  of
\nextraordinary jurisdiction  to\tenforce\t rule  of  law,\t may
\ninterfere in  a writ  petition under  Article 226. Even then
\nthe Court,  while enforcing the rule of law, should give due
\nweight
\n858<\/span>
\nto the\topinions expressed  by the experts and also show due
\nregard to  its recommendations on which the State Government
\nacted. If  the recommendations\tmade by\t the body of experts
\nkeeping in  view the relevant rules and regulations manifest
\ndue consideration  of all  the relevant\t factors, the  Court
\nshould be  very slow  to interfere with such recommendations
\n(see, The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C. D. Govinda Rao &
\nAnr.,<\/a>(1). In a more comparable situation in State of Bihar &
\nAnr. v.\t Dr. Asis  Kumar Mukherjee,  and Ors.,<\/a>(2) this Court
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Shri Jagdish\t Swaroop rightly  stressed that once
\n     the right\tto appoint  belonged to Government the Court
\n     could not\tusurp it merely because it would have chosen
\n     a different person as better qualified or given a finer
\n     gloss or  different construction  to the  regulation on
\n     the score\tof a set formula that relevant circumstances
\n     had been  excluded, irrelevant  factors had  influenced
\n     and such like grounds familiarly invented by parties to
\n     invoke the\t extraordinary jurisdiction  under Art. 226.
\n     True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a
\n     government servant.  Speaking in  plaintitudinous terms
\n     these propositions\t may deserve serious reflection. The
\n     Administration should  not be  thwarted  in  the  usual
\n     course  of\t  making  appointments\tbecause\t somehow  it
\n     displeases judicial  relish or the Court does not agree
\n     with  its\t estimate  of  the  relative  worth  of\t the
\n     candidates. Is  there violation of a fundamental right,
\n     illegality or  a skin  error of  law which vitiates the
\n     appointment”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     With   these   blurred   contours\t of   periphery\t  of
\njurisdiction under  Article 226 to interfere with selections
\nmade by\t an independent\t body like Public Service Commission
\nnot attributed\tany mala  fides, assisted by four experts in
\nthe   field    who   presumably\t   knew\t  what\t constituted
\nteaching\/research experience,  what institutions are treated
\nprestigious enough,  in which  teaching\/research  experience
\nwould  be   treated  valuable,\twe  may\t examine  the  rival
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
     Two contentions  which have  found favour with the High
\nCourt must engage our attention: (1) In order to satisfy the
\nexperience  qualification  for\tthe  post  of  Professor  in
\nMedicine,  the\t teaching\/research  experience\tmust  be  in
\nmedicine and  stricto  sensu  Cardiology  being\t a  separate
\nbranch, experience of teaching\/research in Cardiology cannot
\nbe availed  of, and  (2) any  such experience to satisfy the
\nregulation must\t be acquire while holding the post of Reader
\nor Assistant  Professor (including  the post of Lecturer) in
\nMedicine.\n<\/p>\n
     The controversy  centres round  the connotation  of the
\nexpression
\n859<\/span>
\n‘medicine’. Does  it include  Cardiology or  Cardiology is a
\nseparate Branch\t ? Section  2(f) of the Act defines medicine
\nto mean\t modern scientific  medicine in all its branches and
\nincludes  surgery  and\tobstetrics,  but  does\tnot  include
\nveterinary  medicine   and  surgery.  This  is\ttoo  wide  a
\ndefinition to  assist  us  in  the  problem  posed  for\t the
\ndecision of the Court. In the world of medical science there
\nare general  subjects and specialities. Medicine and surgery
\nare general  subjects. To wit, Cardiology is a speciality in
\nmedicine and  orthopaedics is  a speciality in surgery. Even
\nthe  regulation\t from  page  8\tonwards\t bears\tthe  heading
\n‘Specialist Branch  under Medicine  and Surgery’. Cardiology
\nfinds its  place as  a specialist branch under medicine. The
\nrelevant regulation requires teaching\/research experience in
\nmedicine.   Contention\t  is,\tif    any   one\t   who\t has
\nteaching\/research experience in Cardiology, could he be said
\nto have\t such experience  in medicine  ? In  this context we
\nmust recall regulation 4 which provides that 50% of the time
\nspent in  recognised research  after obtaining the requisite
\npost-graduate  qualification   shall  be   counted   towards
\nteaching experience  in the  same or allied subject provided
\nthat 50%  of the  teaching experience  shall be\t the regular
\nteaching experience.  If research  in allied  subject can be
\ntaken  to   satisfy  the   requisite  experience,   teaching
\nexperience in  a speciality under the general head could not
\nbe put\ton an  inferior footing. Undoubtedly, if the post is
\nin a  specialist department, the requisite teaching\/research
\nexperience will have to be in the speciality. To illustrate,
\nif one\twere to\t qualify for  being appointed  as Professor\/
\nAssociate Professor  of Cardiology,  his teaching experience
\nmust be\t in Cardiology\tthough his research experience could
\nas well\t be in Cardiology or allied subject. A person having
\nsuch experience\t in  the  general  subject  medicine  cannot
\nqualify for  the speciality.  That it what distinguishes the
\nspeciality from the general subject. This becomes clear from
\nthe fact  that in  a number  of hospitals  there may  not be
\nposts in  specialist branches  and someone  working  in\t the
\ngeneral department  may\t be  assigned  to  do  the  work  of
\nspecialist branches.  If a  particular hospital\t has not got
\nCardiology as  a specialist  branch, a\tReader or  Assistant
\nProfessor in  the Department  of Medicine may be required to
\nlook after  Cardiology cases and teaching of Cardiology as a
\nsubject. In  that event\t he is\tcertainly a Reader\/Assistant
\nProfessor in  Medicine teaching\t one of\t the subjects, viz.,
\nCardiology which  again forms part of the general curriculum
\nof the\tsubject of  medicine. Therefore, it is not proper to
\ndivorce\t a   specialist\t branch\t subject  from\tthe  general
\nsubject. It cannot be seriously contended that medicine does
\nnot include  Cardiology. To  be qualified for the specialist
\nbranch of  Cardiology, the minimum academic qualification is
\nM.D.  (Medicine).   This  would\t  clearly  show\t that  after
\nacquiring  the\t general  qualification\t one  can  take\t the
\nspecialist branch. If any other approach is adopted it would
\nwork
\n860<\/span>
\nto the\tdisadvantage of the person who while being posted in
\nthe Department\tof Medicine,  is asked\tto teach  a  subject
\nwhich is  necessary for being taught for qualifying for M.D.
\nbut  which   can  be   styled  as   speciality.\t  He   would
\nsimultaneously be  denied the  teaching\t experience  in\t the
\nsubject of  Medicine. An  extreme argument was urged that in
\nadopting this  approach it  may\t be  that  somebody  may  be
\nworking in  different specialist branches such as Neurology,
\nGastroenterology,  Psychiatry,\t etc.  and  each  one  would
\nqualify for being appointed as Professor of Medicine without
\nhaving even a tickle of experience on the subject of general
\nmedicine. This\twild apprehension  need not deter us because
\nit should  be first  remembered\t that  any  one\t going\tinto
\nspecialist branch  under medicine has to be M.D. (Medicine).
\nThereafter, if\the  wants  to  become  a  Professor  in\t the
\nspecialist  branch   such  as\tCardiology,   the   academic
\nqualification required\tis to  hold a  degree of D.M. in the
\nSpecialist Branch.  This becomes clear from a perusal of the
\nregulations. It\t is not necessary, therefore, to go into the
\ndictionary meaning of the expression ‘medicine’ to determine
\nwhether it  includes  Cardiology.  The\tMedical\t Council  of
\nIndia, a  body composed\t of experts  have in the regulations
\nclearly\t manifested  their  approach  when  they  said\tthat
\nCardiology is  a  specialist  branch  under  medicine.\tIpso
\nfacto, medicine\t includes Cardiology.  It was  not  disputed
\nthat one  qualifying for  M.D. (Medicine)  has to  learn the
\nsubject of  Cardiology. And  it must  be remembered that the
\nfour  experts\taiding\tand  advising  the  Commission\thave
\nconsidered teaching  experience in  Cardiology\tas  teaching
\nexperience in  Medicine. The  counter-affidavit on behalf of
\nthe Commission\tin terms  states that medicine is a wide and
\ngeneral subject and includes Cardiology whereas for the post
\nof Professor  of Cardiology  a further\ttwo  years’  special
\ntraining in  Cardiology or  D.M. in Cardiology after M.D. in
\nMedicine has  been laid down as a requisite qualification by
\nthe Medical  Council. It  is further  stated  that  teaching
\nexperience in  Cardiology will\tmake the person eligible for
\nthe post  of Professor of Medicine. That was the view of the
\nexperts who  assisted the Commission. Incidentally it may be
\nmentioned that\tMr. V.\tM.  Tarkunde,  learned\tcounsel\t for
\nrespondents 1,\t2 and 3 took serious exception to giving any
\nweight to  the counter-affidavit  because it  has  not\tbeen
\nsworn to  by any expert aiding or advising the Commission or
\nby any\tofficer or  Member of the Commission but by an Upper
\nDivision Assistant  whose source  of knowledge\tis the legal
\nadvice tendered\t to him. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit the
\ndeponent says  that he has been deputed by the Commission to
\nfile the counter-affidavit on their behalf and as such he is
\nfully acquainted with the facts deposed to in the affidavit.
\nIt is  our sad experience that responsible authorities avoid
\nfiling affidavits  in courts  when it behoves them to assist
\nthe Court  and facilitate  the\tdecision  of  the  questions
\nbrought before the Court
\n861<\/span>
\nbut on\tthis account  alone we\twould not  wholly ignore the
\ncounter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
     Some documents  were brought to our notice showing that
\nin State  University of\t New York  at  Buffalo,\t U.S.A.\t the
\nAssistant Professor of Cardiology is designated as Assistant
\nProfessor of  Medicine.\t Further,  in  the  Agra  University
\nCalendar,  Cardiology  is  included  in\t the  Department  of
\nMedicine.  Similarly  it  was  also  pointed  out  that\t the
\nDepartment of  Medicine\t in  the  University  of  Manchester
\nincludes   Lecturer   in   Cardiology.\t Apart\t from\tthis
\nadministrative\tarrangement,   it  could  not  be  seriously
\ndisputed  that\tCardiology  is\ta  specialist  branch  under
\nmedicine and  it could not be wholly divorced from medicine.
\nUnder the  general head ‘medicine’ number of subjects are to
\nbe taught,  one such being Cardiology. If a teacher is asked
\nto teach  Cardiology as\t one of\t the  subjects\tfor  general
\nmedicine, could\t he be at a disadvantage by being treated as
\nhaving not  acquired teaching  experience in medicine ? Even
\nunder general  medicine, apart\tfrom medicine  as a subject,
\nthere are numerous other subjects and papers and there would
\nbe one\tor more persons incharge of one or more subjects and
\npapers and indisputably each one would be gaining experience
\nin general medicine. If general medicine is to be restricted
\nonly to\t the paper on medicine, it would lead to a startling
\nas result, as startling as it was sought to be urged when it
\nwas said  that a person teaching Neurology could not be said
\nto be  gaining teaching\t experience in\tmedicine. The matter
\nhas to\tbe looked  at from  this  angle,  viz.,\t that  where
\ngeneral subject\t such as  medicine or surgery is being dealt
\nwith in\t a regulation,\tthe specialist branch under it would
\nbe covered,  though not\t vice versa, because if one wants to
\nhold a post in the specialist branch he must be of necessity
\nhave  teaching\texperience  in\tthe  specialist\t branch.  In
\nreaching  this\tconclusion  the\t seniority  list  maintained
\nbranch wise  would hardly  be helpful.\tTherefore, it is not
\npossible to  agree with\t the High  Court that the subject of
\nmedicine under\tthe regulation\tis exclusive  of  the  other
\nsubjects mentioned  therein and, therefore, does not include
\nCardiology.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t contention which found favour with the High
\nCourt was that the requisite teaching or research experience
\nmust be\t acquired while\t holding the  post set\tout  in\t the
\nregulation in  that subject. In other words, the view of the
\nHigh Court  is that the teaching\/research experience must be
\nacquired  while\t  holding  the\t post  of   Reader\/Assistant
\nProfessor in  Medicine for  five years in a Medical College.
\nThe  High  Court  placed  the  emphasis\t on  the  experience
\nacquired while\tholding the  post. The\trelevant  regulation
\nrequires teaching\/research  experience\tas  Reader\/Assistant
\nProfessor (which includes Lecturer)
\n862<\/span>
\nin Medicine  for five years in a Medical College. Regulation
\n4 has  to be read along with specific regulation. Regulation
\n4 clearly  shows that  50% of  the time\t spent in recognised
\nresearch in  the same or allied subject will be given credit
\nprovided that  50%  of\tthe  teaching  experience  shall  be
\nregular\t teaching   experience.\t The   specific\t  regulation
\nprescribing the\t qualification will  have to be read subject
\nto the\tgeneral regulation  prescribed\tunder  regulation  4
\nbecause the  experience qualification prescribed in specific
\nregulation must\t be  calculated\t according  to\tthe  formula
\nprescribed  in\t general  regulation  no.  4.  The  specific
\nregulation requires  5 years’  teaching\/research experience.
\nIn calculating\tthe research  experience  in  the  light  of
\nregulation 4,  2 1\/2 years’ experience shall be specifically
\nteaching experience and credit can be given to the extent of
\n50% of\tthe time  spent in recognised research as prescribed
\nin the\tregulation, which  experience can  be  in  the\tsame
\nsubject, viz.,\tthe subject  for which\tthe  recruitment  is
\nbeing made or in allied subject. So far there is no dispute.
\nThe question  is: while acquiring research experience, is it
\nincumbent that the person conducting research must also hold
\nof necessity  designated post  in the  regulation ?  Now, if
\ngeneral regulation  4 is  properly analysed for the purposes
\nof computing  research experience, the pre-requisite is that
\nthe research  must be  done after  obtaining requisite post-
\ngraduate qualification. It has no reference to the post held
\nby the\tperson engaged in research at the time of conducting
\nthe research. The heading is ‘teaching\/research experience’.
\nThe dichotomy  will have  to  be  applied  to  teaching\t and
\nresearch experience  for the  purpose of computation. So far
\nas teaching  experience is  concerned, it  must be  acquired
\nwhile holding  the post\t specified in the regulation. But to
\nsay that  holding of  the  post\t is  a\tpre-requisite  while
\nconducting research  is to  read in regulation 4 what is not
\nprescribed thereunder.\tThe specific  regulation prescribing
\nqualification will  have  to  be  read\tsubject\t to  general
\nregulation 4  and not vice versa. This also becomes manifest
\nfrom the  fact that  general regulation 4 also provides that
\n50% of\tthe teaching  experience shall\tbe regular  teaching
\nexperience  meaning  thereby  that  if\tsomeone\t is  engaged
\nexclusively in\tresearch, he  cannot claim  to\tsatisfy\t the
\nteaching  experience   qualification   prescribed   in\t the
\nregulation.  Reading   specific\t regulation   with   general
\nregulation 4,  it emerges  that teaching experience shall be
\nacquired while holding the particular post specified therein
\nand the research experience can be taken into account if the
\nperson is  engaged in research after obtaining post-graduate
\nqualification and  it has  nothing to do with the holding of
\nthe post. One may be engaged as a research scholar and holds
\nno teaching  post. The\tresearch is  hardly related  to post
\nthough capacity for research is directly related to academic
\nattainment. That has been
\n863<\/span>
\ntaken care  of. Teaching it indisputably related to the post
\nbecause a  higher post may entail greater responsibility for
\ncoaching in higher classes. This conclusion is reinforced by
\nthe  language\tof  general   regulation  4   which  permits
\nrecognised research  under the\tIndian\tCouncil\t of  Medical
\nResearch which\tbody may not have such hierarchical posts of
\nLecturer or  Assistant\tProfessor  or  Reader.\tThese  three
\ndesignations are  to be\t found in  teaching institutions and
\nnot in\tresearch institutions.\tIf it were, therefore, to be
\nheld that  even while acquiring research experience one must
\nhold the  post of  either Reader  or Assistant Professor, it
\nwould discourage  many persons conducting research under the
\nIndian Council\tof Medical  Research. It  is, therefore, not
\npossible to  agree with\t the generalisation made by the High
\nCourt that  teaching\/research experience  to qualify for the
\npost of Professor must be acquired while working as a Reader
\nor Lecturer.\n<\/p>\n
     Having cleared  the ground\t about the interpretation of
\nrequisite regulations,\twe must\t now turn to examine the two
\nindividual cases.\n<\/p>\n
In re :Dr. M. C. Gupta.\n<\/p>\n
     The experience qualification of Dr. M.C. Gupta has been
\nextracted above.  There is  no dispute\tbetween the  parties
\nthat he\t was appointed and was working as Reader in Medicine
\nin S.N. Medical College, Agra, from 28th July 1971 till 30th
\nMarch 1974 which was the last date by which applications had
\nto be  submitted to  the Commission.  This would  give him a
\nteaching experience of 2 years 8 months and 10 days.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Gupta\talso claims  teaching  experience,  being  a
\nLecturer in  Cardiology in the Department of Medicine, S. N.
\nMedical College,  Agra, from  25th January 1965 to 19th July
\n1971, in  the aggregate\t period of  6 years, 6 months and 24
\ndays. There is a serious dispute between the parties whether
\nDr. Gupta  is entitled to get credit for teaching experience
\nwhile working as Lecturer in Cardiology. On the view that we
\nhave taken  that Cardiology  is a  specialist  branch  under
\nmedicine and,  therefore, a  Lecturer in Cardiology could be
\nsaid to\t be a  Lecturer in one of the subjects under general
\nmedicine and  hence he\thad requisite experience as Lecturer
\nin Medicine.  However, Dr.  Gupta has produced a certificate
\nissued by  the\tPrincipal  and\tChief  Superintendent,\tS.N.
\nMedical College\t & Hospital, Agra, dated 19th September 1974
\nin which  it is stated that ‘Dr. Gupta joined the Department
\nof Medicine  as Lecturer  in Cardiology on 25th January 1965
\nand continued  till July  19, 1971  when he was appointed as
\nReader in  Medical by  Public  Service\tCommission’.  It  is
\nfurther certified by
\n864<\/span>
\nthe Principal  & Chief\tSuperintendent that  ‘Dr. Gupta\t was
\nactively   involved    in    patient-care,    teaching\t  of
\nundergraduates and  post-graduates in  general\tmedicine  in
\naddition to  conducting Cardiac\t Out Patient,  looking after
\ncardiac beds  and  taking  Cardiology  lectures\t during\t his
\ntenure as Lecturer in Cardiology, as Cardiology forms a part
\nof general medicine in this college and there is no separate
\nDepartment of Cardiology here’. There is another certificate
\nissued by  Dr. K. S. Mathur, Professor & Head, Department of
\nMedicine (RD),\tdated 17th September 1974, in which it is in
\nterms stated  that Dr.\tGupta was  actively involved  in the
\npatient\t  care\t  and\tteaching   of\tundergraduates\t and
\npostgraduates in  General Medicine in addition to Cardiology
\nduring this period. Further, Dr. Gupta used to be the Senior
\nPhysician to attend to Emergencies of all medical cases on a
\nparticular day\tof week\t and he\t looked after indoor beds of
\ngeneral medical units during leave arrangements. He was also
\nincharge of  T.B. Clinic  for a\t period of one month. It was
\nfurther stated\tthat Dr.  Gupta had  been assigned  ‘Special
\nClinics’ to  5th year  and 3rd\tyear and  ‘Long Clinics’  to
\nfinal year students from time to time in addition to Cardiac
\nClinics and  Cardiology lectures. He was also taking regular
\nclasses in clinical methods for third year and has also been
\ncalled upon to teach them kidney diseases. There are further
\nreferences in  the certificate\twhich we  may ignore for the
\ntime being.  Dr. Gupta also produced a certificate issued by
\nProfessor of Clinical Medicine, S. N. Medical College, Agra,
\nwhich, inter alia, states that Dr. Gupta was associated from
\ntime to\t time with  teaching and  patient  care\t in  general
\nmedicine and  he was  also actively associated with teaching
\nof post-graduates in general medicine in the way of clinical
\nconferences, seminars,\tetc. He was also incharge of beds in
\ngeneral medicine in Professors’ Unit in the leave vacancy. A
\nnotice dated  24th October  1970 issued by the Department of
\nMedicine, S.  N. Medical  College, Agra, was also brought to
\nour notice  in which  it was  shown that Dr. Gupta was to be
\nthe Senior Physician on call on every Tuesday. It would thus
\nappear that  even if Dr. Gupta was designated as Lecturer in
\nCardiology for\tthe period  25th January  to July  19, 1971,
\nundoubtedly   he    was\t  teaching   general   medicine\t  to
\nundergraduate students\tand to\tsome post-graduate  students
\nalso and  this is  testified by\t persons under\twhom he\t was
\nworking. It  would be  unwise to  doubt the  genuineness  of
\nthese certificates. Therefore, even apart from the fact that
\nCardiology is  a part  of medicine,  the teaching experience
\nacquired while\tholding the  post of Lecturer in Cardiology,
\nwas  teaching  experience  in  subject\twhich  substantially
\nformed part of general medicine and over and above the same,
\nhe  was\t  also\tworking\t  as  Lecturer\tin  Cardiology\tand,
\ntherefore, the\tCommission was\tamply justified\t in reaching
\nthe conclusion that Dr. Gupta
\n865<\/span>
\nhad the\t requisite teaching experience qualification and the
\nHigh Court  was in error in quashing the selection of Dr. M.
\nC. Gupta on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. L.  N. Sinha,\tlearned counsel,  also wanted  us to
\nexamine the  research experience  of Dr. M. C. Gupta when he
\npointed out  that Dr.  Gupta had  published as\tmany  as  40
\nresearch papers\t in leading medical journals in India during
\n10 years  he worked  as Lecturer\/Reader and that he had also
\nbeen a recognised appraiser for the thesis submitted for the
\naward of  Doctor of  Medicine. Mr. Sen seriously objected to
\nour examining  this contention\tbecause\t Dr.  Gupta  himself
\nnever  claimed\t any   credit\tfor   research\t experience.
\nUndoubtedly,  the   counter-affidavit  on   behalf  of\t the
\nCommission refers  to having  taken into  consideration\t the
\nresearch experience  of\t Dr.  Gupta  but  the  affidavit  is
\nblissfully vague  on the  question which research experience
\nwas examined by the Commission. Therefore, we would not take
\ninto account  the research  experience claimed\ton behalf of
\nDr. Gupta.\n<\/p>\n
In re: Dr. R. N. Tandon.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  already extracted\t above the teaching\/research
\nexperience qualification  claimed on  behalf of\t Dr. Tandon.
\nMr. Kacker,  learned Solicitor General requested us to start
\nexamining each\titem of\t experience commencing from the last
\none as\tfirst. Before  we proceed  to examine  each item  of
\nexperience claimed  by Dr.  Tandon, one contention raised on
\nbehalf of  the respondents  must be dealt with. It was urged
\nthat wherever the regulations prescribe teaching or research
\nexperience, it\tmust be\t one acquired  in an  institution in
\nIndia or  in  any  foreign  institution\t recognised  by\t the
\nMedical Council\t of India  or the Government of India. It is
\nnot necessary  to examine this argument in depth because the
\npoint could  be\t said  to  have\t been  concluded  by  A.  K.
\nMukherjee’s case,  wherein same\t set of\t regulations came in
\nfor  consideration  of\tthis  Court  and  in  which  it\t was
\nseriously contended  that the  teaching experience specified
\nin regulations\tin question  must be  acquired\tin  teaching
\ninstitutions  in   India  and,\t therefore,   any   teaching
\nexperience  in\ta  foreign  country  cannot  be\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration. This  contention\t was  in  terms\t negativated
\nsimultaneously negativing  the other extreme submission that
\nteaching experience  from any  foreign institution  is\tgood
\nenough, and  after referring  to sections 12, 13, and 14, it
\nwas  held   that  those\t  which\t are  good  enough  for\t the
\naforementioned sections,  are good  enough for\tthe teaching
\nexperience gained therefrom being reckoned as satisfied. The
\nmatter undoubtedly  was not  further pursued  by this  Court
\nbecause the final decision was left to the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
866<\/span><\/p>\n
     Proceeding in  the order  suggested by Mr. Kacker it is
\nclaimed that  Dr. Tandon  worked as  Assistant Professor  of
\nMedicine, State\t University of New York at Buffalo from 29th
\nJuly 1969  to 30th  October 1974.  This includes some period
\nsubsequent to  the last\t date for  submitting application to
\nthe Commission\tand  we\t would\texclude\t that  part  of\t the
\nexperience claimed  by Dr.  Tandon.  Therefore,\t Dr.  Tandon
\nclaims to be working as Assistant Professor of Medicine from
\n29th July  1969 to  30th March\t1974 which was the last date
\nfor submitting\tthe application to the Commission. Computing
\nthe period, he would have teaching experience of four years,
\nsix months and one day.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also said\tthat even  if teaching experience in
\nforeign teaching  institution is  to be\t taken into account,
\nthey must  be some recognised institutions of repute and not
\nany institution\t outside the  territory of  India.  That  of
\ncourse is  true. In  A. K.  Mukherjee’s case  the  pertinent
\nobservation is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out,
\n     we\t consider  it  right  to  reckon  as  competent\t and
\n     qualitatively acceptable  those institutions  which are
\n     linked with, or are recognised as teaching institutions
\n     by the  Universities and  organisations in\t Schedule II
\n     and  Schedule   III  and\trecognised  by\tthe  Central
\n     Government under  s. 14.  Teaching institutions as such
\n     may be  too wide  if extended  all over  the globe\t but
\n     viewed in the perspective of the Indian Medical Council
\n     Act, 1956,\t certainly they cover institutions expressly
\n     embraced by  the provisions  of the  statute. If  those
\n     institutions are good enough for the important purposes
\n     of ss.  12, 13  and 14,  it is reasonable to infer they
\n     are good  enough for  the\tteaching  experience  gained
\n     therefrom being reckoned as satisfactory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But it\tcould hardly  be urged with some confidence that the
\nState University  of New  York at  Buffalo would  not be  an
\ninstitution of\trepute. An  attempt was made to refer to the
\nSchedules, not\tupto date,  to\tthe  Act  published  by\t the
\nMedical Council of India showing recognised institutions. In
\nfact, the Schedules set out recognised degrees, certificates
\nand diplomas  of various  Universities and certain examining
\nBoards of  U.S.A. being recognised by the Medical Council of
\nIndia. This  brochure hardly  helps in\tcoming to conclusion
\none way\t or the\t other. It  refers to degrees and the Boards
\nawarding the  degrees and  diplomas. It\t does not  refer  to
\nteaching   institutions.   It\tnowhere\t  shows\t  that\t the
\ncertificates and  diplomas issued by the State University of
\nNew York at
\n867<\/span>
\nBuffalo would  not be  under one of the American Boards and,
\ntherefore, it  is not  recognised. Such a contention was not
\neven  urged   before  the  High\t Court\tor  specifically  in
\naffidavits so  that factual  material could  have been\tmore
\ncarefully examined.  The experts  aiding  and  advising\t the
\nCommission must\t be quite aware of institutions in which the
\nteaching experience  was acquired by Dr. Tandon and this one
\nis a reputed University.\n<\/p>\n
     It was,  however, contended  that there  is no proof in
\nsupport of  the submission  that Dr.  Tandon was  working as
\nAssistant Professor  of Medicine  at State University of New
\nYork at\t Buffalo, commencing from 29th July 1969. Dr. Tandon
\nhas  produced  a  certificate,\tAnnexure  CA.  5  issued  by
\nAssociate  Professor   of   Medicine,\tDirector   Angiology
\nDepartment, Buffalo General Hospital dated 3rd June 1971, in
\nwhich it is stated that Dr. Tandon is an Assistant Professor
\nof Medicine  in the  Department of Medicine on the full time
\nstaff of  the Buffalo  General\tHospital  having  an  annual
\nsalary of $ 15,000. Mr. Tarkunde urged that this certificate
\ndoes not  show that  Dr. Tandon was appointed effective from
\n29th  July   1969.  Further,  exception\t was  taken  to\t the
\ncertificate in\tthat it\t is issued  by the  Buffalo  General
\nHospital which\tthe  certificate  does\tnot  show  to  be  a
\nteaching institution.  If it was not a teaching institution,
\none would  fail to understand how it had a post of Assistant
\nProfessor of Medicine. In a nonteaching hospital there could
\nnot be\ta post\tof Assistant  Professor. Therefore, the very
\nfact that  Dr. Tandon was shown to be an Assistant Professor
\nof Medicine,  by necessary  implication shows  that  Buffalo
\nGeneral Hospital  was a\t teaching  institution\tunder  State
\nUniversity of  New York. In this connection reference may be
\nmade to\t a certificate\tdated 12th  September 1974 issued by
\nJames P.  Nolan, Professor  of Medicine and Head, Department
\nof Medicine, Buffalo General Hospital, in which it is stated
\nthat since  July 1969  Dr. Tandon  has\tbeen  a\t teacher  in
\ngeneral medicine  at  the  Buffalo  General  Hospital.\tThis
\nremoves any  doubt about  the commencement of appointment of
\nDr. Tandon  as Assistant  Professor at\tthe Buffalo  General
\nHospital. Mr.  Tarkunde however\t urged that  the certificate
\ndoes not appear to be genuine in view of the inquiry made by
\na telegram  (p.\t 257,  Vol.  II\t of  the  record)  from\t the
\nauthorities incharge of the Buffalo General Hospital and the
\nreply received\tthat Dr.  Tandon is in India and, therefore,
\ncannot get  any information  as he  left instructions not to
\nrelease it.  Who has  sent this\t telegram is  left  to\tmere
\nspeculation. And  who sent  the reply is equally unknown. It
\nwould be improper to reject the certificate on such nebulous
\nground and we
\n868<\/span>
\ncan do\tno better than reject the contention of Mr. Tarkunde
\nas  unworthy   of  consideration   as  was  done  in  A.  K.
\nMukherjee’s case where in it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There are  6 certificates  now on  record and the
\n     1st respondent is stated to have taken part in teaching
\n     work as  Registrar. You  cannot expect to produce those
\n     surgeons  in   Patna  in\tproof  and   unless  serious
\n     circumstances militating  against veracity\t exist fair-
\n     minded administrators  may, after expert consultations,
\n     rely on them”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore,  we\t see  no  justification\t for  rejecting\t the
\ncertificates. It  would\t appear\t that  Dr.  Tandon  had\t the
\nteaching experience  while holding  the\t post  of  Assistant
\nProfessor of Medicine for a period of four years, six months
\nand one day. The minimum requirement is five years.\n<\/p>\n
     We would  next examine  one  more\titem  of  experience
\nclaimed by  Dr. Tandon in that he was post-doctoral teaching
\nfellow, Department of Medicine, State University of New York
\nat Buffalo  from 1st October 1965 to 31st October 1966. Now,
\nundoubtedly  this   was\t teaching  experience  in  the\tsame
\nUniversity where  he was  subsequently Assistant  Professor.
\nThe grievance is that he was a Fellow and neither a Lecturer
\nnor an\tAssistant  Professor.  What  does  ‘Fellow’  in\t the
\nUniversity  connote  ?\tA  certificate\thas  been  produced,
\nAnnexure CA.  (page 50,\t Vol. IV)  by Dr.  Tandon issued  by
\nEugine I.  Lippasch, Professor\t&  Administrative  Associate
\nChairman of  the Department of Medicine, State University of
\nNew York at Buffalo, dated 13th October 1966, in which it is
\nstated\tthat   Dr.  Tandon   completed\tone   year  teaching
\nfellowship in  the Division  of Cardiology of the Department
\nof Medicine  at the  State University of New York at Buffalo
\nand the\t Buffalo General Hospital on October 31, 1966. It is
\nnot very  clear what  is  the  equivalent  of  a  Fellow  in
\nteaching Hospitals  in India but Dr. Tandon has also claimed
\nteaching experience  from 5th  April 1968  to 4th July 1969,
\nbeing posted as post-doctoral research fellow, Department of
\nMedicine in  G. S.  V. M.  Medical College,  Kanpur. In this
\nconnection, Annexure  R-2, produced  by none other than some
\nof the\tcontesting respondents\tshows that during the tenure
\nof Fellowship,\tDr. Tandon  was expected to take part in the
\nteaching and  research activities  of the  College though he
\nwould not be treated as part of the regular establishment of
\nthe College.  Now, if the certificate produced by Dr. Tandon
\nshows that  Fellowship included\t teaching work,\t it would be
\nunwise to  doubt it.  Even if 50% of the time spent in these
\ntwo places is given credit, Dr. Tandon had certainly
\n869<\/span>
\nmore than  five years’ teaching experience. The Court is not
\ncompetent to  work out\tfigures with mathematical precision.
\nIt can\tbroadly examine the question whether the requirement
\nis  satisfied  or  not.\t Therefore,  he\t had  the  requisite
\nteaching\/research experience  and the  Commission was  fully
\njustified  in\ttreating  Dr.  Tandon  as  having  requisite
\nteaching\/research experience.\n<\/p>\n
     It thus  clearly appears  that both Dr. M. C. Gupta and
\nDr. R.\tN. Tandon  had the  requisite  qualifications,\tboth
\nacademic and experience, and they were eligible for the post
\nfor which  they had applied and if they were selected by the
\nCommission and appointed by the Government, no exception can
\nbe taken  to the  same. The  High Court\t was, therefore,  in
\nerror in  interfering with  the same.  Accordingly, all\t the
\nthree appeals  are allowed  and the  writ petition  filed by
\nrespondents 1,\t2 and  3 in the High Court is dismissed with
\nno order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
\nM.R. Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
870<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 PETITIONER: M. C. GUPTA ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: A. K. GUPTA & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1978 BENCH: ACT: Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, S. 2(f) read with General Regulations, R. 4, “Medicine”, includes specialist branch of […]<\/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-3355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - 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\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-10T12:00:27+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=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T12:00:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\"},\"wordCount\":6340,\"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\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\",\"name\":\"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T12:00:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - 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\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-10T12:00:27+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":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978","datePublished":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T12:00:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978"},"wordCount":6340,"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\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978","name":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T12:00:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-gupta-etc-vs-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-on-15-december-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. C. Gupta Etc vs A. K. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 15 December, 1978"}]},{"@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\/3355","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=3355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}