Shakti Datt Sharma & Ors. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.

14. Respondent no. 3 i.e. National Medical Commission (erstwhile MCI) rejected the applications for Teaching Equivalent Qualification (TEQ) for the post of Professor of petitioner no. 1 and 2 on 31st August, 2020 and application of petitioner no. 3 on 14th January, 2021, on the ground that the experience of the petitioners in Non-Teaching 300 bedded district hospital is less than the minimum requirement of 18 years.

15. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Submissions of Petitioners

16. On behalf of the petitioners, the following contentions have been raised:

(i) The petitioners met the experience criteria norms set by respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the year 2019 itself and applied for Equated Designation. Their applications were duly considered by an Internal Screening Committee of Dr. BSA Medical College, ratified by the Director Principal of Dr. BSA Medical College and the proposal was sent to Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi for his consideration and approval.

(ii) The proposal was approved by the Lieutenant Governor on 02nd November, 2018 and sent to Director Principal of Dr. BSA Medical College and Hospital on 08th November, 2018. Subsequently, on 14th January, 2019, the Director Principal of Dr. BSA Medical College recommended the proposal to respondent nos. 1 and 2, however, the same was rejected arbitrarily by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 in violation of the statutory provisions and their own guidelines vide letter dated 19th August, 2019.

(iii) On 31st August, 2020, the respondent no. 3 also rejected the request of petitioner no. 1 and 2 for grant of Equated Teaching Designation of Professor on the wrong premise of experience required in Non-teaching district hospital. Without any justification and in an arbitrary manner, the respondents refused to accept past service experience of the petitioners. The experience of the petitioners was way more than the minimum threshold and related to Lok Nayak Hospital which has six times the number of beds i.e. more than 1800 beds as compared to the minimum criteria of 300 beds.

(iv) The number of minimum publications prescribed by the

Regulations is 4, whereas the petitioners have published 7, 24 and 18 papers respectively. Thus, they fulfil the said criteria also. In addition to this, the letter dated 26th September, 2019 as issued by respondent no. 3, shows that such Consultants or Specialists who after possessing recognised Post Graduate degree qualification, work in a minimum 300 bedded Nonteaching district hospital for a period of more than 18 years with four research publications, whether gained in a single hospital or more than one hospital, shall be considered eligible for being designated as Professor in the subject institution.

(v) The noting made and signed by the Principal Secretary,

Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi, which was sent for approval to the Lieutenant Governor for granting Equated Teaching Designation, has been ignored by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(vi) The action of the respondents is in violation of the judgment of this Court in the case of Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Hospital Vs. Union of India and Others[1], wherein this Court has observed that grant of Equated Teaching Designation of Professorship is not qua particular hospital, but qua the doctor concerned. Further, transfer is not break in service and does not wipe out the previous experience of the petitioners.

(vii) Delhi being a Union Territory, has no concept of District

Hospitals. Thus, the experience of petitioners at Lok Nayak Hospital ought to have been taken into consideration. The respondents have acted in complete violation of the Regulations while recommending grant of Equated status of Assistant Professors to 12 doctors of the same hospital, when there is no provision for grant of such Equated status of Assistant Professors.

(viii) Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have discriminated against the petitioners in as much as they have not insisted upon the requisite working experience in the same hospital for the other doctors for whom they have recommended Equated status in the same meeting, the minutes of which have been impugned in the present petition.

(ix) Actions of respondents are violative of Fundamental

Rights and principles of Equality. All the three petitioners have worked for more than 18 years in Lok Nayak Hospital, which 2016 SCC Online Del 5911 has a capacity of more than 1800 beds and Dr. BSA Hospital, which has a capacity of 500 beds, both ways more than the minimum requirement of 300 beds.

17. On behalf of the petitioners, the following judgments have been relied upon:-

(i) Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical

College and Associated Hospital Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 SCC Online Del 5911

(ii) K.P Sudhakaran & Another Vs. State of Kerala &

(iii) E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another,

(iv) Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Atmaram

Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433. Submissions of Respondent No. 1

18. On behalf of the respondent no. 1/Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (University), following contentions have been raised:-

(i) Petitioners do not have vested right to grant of Equated

Teaching Designation. The same can be granted only upon fulfilling the criteria as laid down by National Medical Commission.

(ii) Petitioners ought to have approached the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for relief. In view thereof, the petition is not maintainable. Medical Council of India, now known as The National Medical Commission, which has issued the notifications and clarifications thereto, has been notified to be under the jurisdiction of learned CAT.

(iii) The respondent University has not violated any statutory provisions. None of the similarly placed Consultants/Specialists have been granted the Teaching designation.

(iv) The alleged noting signed by the Principal Secretary,

Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi, as relied upon by the petitioners, is contrary to the specific clarification issued by the respondent no. 3 in its letter dated 08th July, 2020.

(v) Petitioners have not challenged the Regulations of the respondent no. 3 National Medical Association or the clarification thereof. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Submissions of Respondent No. 3

19. On behalf of respondent no. 3/National Medical Commission, the following contentions have been raised:-

(i) Petitioners have based their claim on the provisions contained in the 1998 Regulations, as amended from time to time, which provided for grant of Equated Teaching Designation to Specialists/Consultants as a onetime measure. However, the same has already been repealed on 22nd February, 2022, and is no longer in existence.

(ii) The petitioners have no vested or legal right to be considered for grant of Equated Teaching Designations.

(iii) Respondents have not issued any advertisement for appointment of Faculty Members. The petitioners are seeking Equated Teaching Designations, so as to extend their services till the age of 70 years as the retirement age of teachers is 70 years, while the Specialists/Consultants retire at 60/65 years.

(iv) There is no judicially enforceable right in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have not challenged the 1998 Regulations as amended from time to time. Therefore, they cannot raise a claim that they ought to be granted Equated Teaching Designation in violation of aforesaid statutory Regulations.

(v) There can be no estoppel against a statute. The petitioners cannot place reliance on certain notings of the file of the Government of India. The notings in the file are merely opinions by an Officer and cannot be treated as final decision.

(vi) Judgment in the case of Faculty Association, Maulana

(vii) Scope of judicial review is extremely limited and Courts ought not to interfere in academic matters. No mandamus can be issued to any academic body not to follow its own Rules and Regulations. The petitioners have not obtained the requisite experience of more than 18 years in a minimum 300 bedded Non-teaching district hospital. Their experience while working as Consultant/Specialist at Lok Nayak Hospital, cannot be counted towards grant of Equated Teaching Designation.

20. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 11 SCC 113.

(ii) State of West Bengal Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 694.

(iii) Santosh Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar

(iv) Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur,

(v) Rajasthan State Industrial Development &

Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Cooperative Housing Society Jaipur & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 427

(vi) Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC

(vi) Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi

(vii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vartak Labour Union

(viii) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority &

Ors. Vs. Manju Jain & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 157

(ix) Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA Vs. Bharat

(x) University Grants Commission & Anr. Vs. Neha

(xi) All India Council For Technical Education Vs.

(xii) A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society Vs.

(xiii) CBSE Vs. P.C. Sunil Kumar & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC

21. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

22. The present case pertains to grant of Equated Teaching Designations in respect of MBBS Course regulated through the “Minimum Qualifications For Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” (“1998 Regulations”) as amended from time to time. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them Equated Teaching Designation to the post of Professor in the concerned departments of Dr. BSA Medical College with effect from 19th August, 2019 along with all consequential benefits.

23. By amendment notification dated 22nd January, 2018, the erstwhile MCI (now National Medical Commission) notified Regulations called “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions (Amendment) Regulations, 2018”, thereby bringing certain amendments in the 1998 Regulations. The said amendment notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by the erstwhile MCI reads as under:-

24. The aforesaid amendment provided for grant of Equated Teaching Designations to the post of Professor on fulfilment of the following requirements:

(i) Requisite experience must have been gained in a minimum 300 bedded Non-teaching district hospital owned/managed by State Government/Central Government.

(ii) Requisite experience for appointment as Professor is working for more than 18 years in the concerned speciality, after obtaining post graduate medical degree in the concerned subject.

(iii) Four Research Publications in Indexed Journal as first author or corresponding author.

(iv) Such Consultants/Specialists who possess requisite academic and teaching/research experience, shall be called Designate Professor after joining a medical college and upon completion of three years experience as Designate Professor, be designated as Professor.

(v) Note 1 provides that the notification dated 22nd January,

2018 shall be applicable if any 300 bedded Non-teaching district hospital owned/managed by State Government/Central Government is converted into a Medical College for starting MBBS Course.

(vi) Note 2 provides that grant of such Equated Teaching

Designations is a onetime provision for Non-teaching district hospitals owned/managed by State Government/Central Government, only for the purpose of establishing a new Medical College.

25. The erstwhile MCI by its letter dated 26th September, 2019 to the Director Principal of Dr. BSA Medical College and Hospital, had clearly stated that for grant of Equated Teaching Designation to the Non-teaching Faculty, Consultant/Specialist must have experience of more than 18 years in the concerned speciality in a minimum 300 bedded Non-teaching district hospital. Letter dated 26th September, 2019 issued by the erstwhile MCI reads as under:-

26. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 1 University vide its communication dated 03rd July, 2020 had sought clarification regarding the permissibility to grant Equated Teaching Designation to Consultant/Specialist of 300 bedded District Hospitals, where the said doctor was previously working at a Teaching Medical College/Institution or a Hospital, which was not a District Hospital or a hospital which was having less than 300 beds.

27. The erstwhile MCI vide letter dated 08th July, 2020 clarified that a Consultant/Specialist must have obtained the requisite experience in the concerned speciality in a minimum 300 bedded Nonteaching district hospital owned/Managed by the State/Central Government. Any experience in this regard in any teaching hospital attached to a Medical College where the erstwhile MCI recognised Under Graduate and/or Post Graduate courses were being conducted, cannot be considered towards grant of Equated Teaching Designation. Clarification dated 08th July, 2020 issued by the erstwhile MCI reads as under:

28. Perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that the erstwhile MCI vide its letter dated 08th July, 2020 had clarified that in case of Government of NCT of Delhi, various state government hospitals have not been declared as District Hospitals, even though they are discharging similar functions. It was clarified that in view of the unique issue of governance of Government of NCT of Delhi, experience in the concerned speciality in a 300 bedded Non-teaching hospital owned/managed by the Government of NCT of Delhi may be considered towards grant of Equated Teaching Designation. However, any experience in this regard in any teaching hospital attached to a Medical College where MCI recognised Under Graduate and/or Post Graduate courses are being conducted, cannot be considered towards grant of Equated Teaching Designation.

29. Considering the aforesaid notification dated 22nd January, 2018 and the clarification issued vide letter dated 26th September, 2019 and 08th July, 2020 issued by the erstwhile MCI, it is clear that the petitioners cannot claim benefit of any experience that they may be having in a teaching hospital, as the notification was very categorical with respect to experience in a 300 bedded Non-teaching hospital.

30. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners have not challenged the legality of the notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by erstwhile MCI or the subsequent clarifications issued by the erstwhile MCI in the form of letters dated 26th September, 2019 or 08th July, 2020. Therefore, the petitioners are bound by the norms as laid down in the aforesaid notification dated 22nd January, 2018 issued by the erstwhile MCI, and cannot seek any benefit by disregarding the norms as specified therein. Thus, the experience of the petitioners while working in Lok Nayak Hospital cannot be taken into consideration in view of the clear stipulation as given in notification dated 22nd January, 2018, as the said Lok Nayak Hospital is admittedly a Teaching Hospital attached to a Medical College i.e. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi.

31. It is relevant to note here that the 1998 Regulations, as amended by notification dated 22nd January, 2018, which provided for Equated Teaching Designation to Specialist/Consultants in respect of MBBS course, as a one-time measure, has been repealed on 22nd February, 2022 by way of notification of “Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022”.

32. The contention on behalf of the petitioners that they have no control over their postings and can be transferred from one hospital to another by the State Government and thus, their length of service at Lok Nayak Hospital be counted towards grant of Equated Teaching Designation, is without any justification. The legality of the aforesaid notification dated 22nd January, 2018 and the subsequent clarifications issued by erstwhile MCI have not been challenged. Hence, petitioners cannot raise a claim that they ought to be granted Equated Teaching Designations in violation of the aforesaid Regulations, which was statutory in nature.

33. Reliance on behalf of the petitioners on certain notings of the file of the Government of NCT of Delhi in order to claim that the State Government and Dr. BSA Medical College had agreed for granting Equated Teaching Designations to the petitioners, is totally flawed. File noting in a departmental file or communications between various government agencies, are opinions by an Officer for internal views. The same can neither be considered as a final decision or be relied upon for seeking any benefit.

34. In the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others[2], it has been held by Supreme Court that noting in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. Thus, it has been held as follows:-

16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court in Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413], wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned so as to confer an enforceable right.”

35. Similarly in the case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others Vs. Manju Jain and Others[3], it has been held that an order does not become effective unless it is communicated to the person concerned. Thus, it has been held as follows:

36. Reliance by the petitioners on the judgment in the case of Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Hospital Vs. Union of India & Others[4], is totally misconceived. The said judgment does not deal with “The Minimum Qualifications for 2010 SCC OnLine SC 916 Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998”, as amended from time to time. The said case dealt with the „Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000‟. The said Regulations of 2000 pertaining to Post Graduate Medical Education Stipulated that Consultants or Specialists who have the experience of working for a period of not less than 18 years and 10 years respectively in the teaching and other general departments in the institution or hospital, not attached to any medical college, where with the affiliation from any University, Post Graduate teaching is being imparted, shall be eligible to be equated as Professor and Associate professor in the Department concerned. Whereas, the present case pertains to claim of petitioners for grant of Equated Teaching Designations for MBBS course under “The Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998”. The said 1998 Regulations stipulate experience of more than 18 years in a minimum 300 bedded nonteaching district hospital. Evidently, the governing Regulations as well as the requirement for grant of Equated Teaching Designations in the case of Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College (supra) and the present case, are completely different and distinct.

37. As noted above, the aforesaid judgment in the case of Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College (supra) does not deal with the 1998 Regulations for grant of Equated Teaching Designation in Government Medical Colleges running MBBS course alone. As submitted by respondents, “The Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000” which has been interpreted in the said judgment of 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5911 Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College (supra), is not applicable to Dr. BSA Hospital where the petitioners have been working, since in the Dr. BSA Hospital only MBBS course is currently available.

38. This court also notes that the judgment in Faculty Association, Maulana Azad Medical College (Supra), was dealt extensively in a subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Abhishek Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others[5], wherein this Court while holding that Equated Teaching Designation cannot be granted automatically, held as follows:-

39. Even otherwise, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the respondents. It is pertinent to note here that in the case of University Grants Commission & Another Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)6, it has been held by Supreme Court that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by Expert Academic Bodies. Normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of the Academic Experts who are more familiar with the problem they face. Thus, it has been held as follows:-

40. Similarly, advising the Courts to adopt the course of minimum interference in issues involving academic matters, Supreme Court in the case of All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others[7], has held as follows:-

”

41.

(i) Documents on record show that Petitioner no. 1 had submitted an application dated 28th July, 2020 to the erstwhile MCI seeking confirmation of eligibility for grant of Equated Teaching Designation to the post of Professor in the Department of Anaesthesiology. The acceptable experience of petitioner no. 1 in reference to the Statutory Regulations was from 15th June, 2017 to 28th July, 2020 when he was working in a 300 bedded non-teaching district hospital i.e. Dr. BSA Hospital. Thus, his total experience is only 3 years and 1 month against the requirement of more than 18 years. The experience of petitioner no. 1 while working at Lok Nayak Hospital cannot be taken into consideration, since it is admittedly a teaching hospital attached to a Medical College i.e. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Therefore, the application of petitioner no. 1 was rightly rejected by the erstwhile MCI vide its letter dated 31st August,

2020.

(ii) The petitioner no.2 had submitted an application dated 13th July,

2020 to the erstwhile MCI seeking confirmation of eligibility for grant of Equated Teaching Designation to the post of Professor in the Department of Pathology. The acceptable experience of petitioner NO. 2 in reference to the Statutory Regulation was from 12th January, 2012 to 12th July, 2020 when she was working in a 300 bedded nonteaching district hospital i.e. Dr. BSA Hospital. Thus, her total experience is only 8 years and 6 months against the requirement of more than 18 years. The experience of petitioner no. 2 while working at Lok Nayak Hospital cannot be taken into consideration, since it is admittedly a teaching hospital attached to a Medical College i.e. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Therefore, the application of petitioner no. 2 was rightly rejected by the erstwhile MCI vide its letter dated 31st August, 2020.

(iii) The petitioner no. 3 had submitted an application dated 14th December 2020 to the erstwhile MCI seeking confirmation of eligibility for grant of Equated Teaching Designation to the post of Professor in the Department of Microbiology. The acceptable experience of petitioner no. 3 in reference to the Statutory Regulation was from 11th May, 2012 to 14th December, 2020 when she was working in a 300 bedded non-teaching district hospital i.e. Dr. BSA Hospital. Thus, her total experience is only 8 years and 3 months against the requirement of more than 18 years. The experience of petitioner no. 3 while working at Lok Nayak Hospital cannot be taken into consideration, since it is admittedly a teaching hospital attached to a Medical College i.e. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Therefore, the application of petitioner no. 3 was rightly rejected by the National Medical Commission (NMC) vide its letter dated 14th January, 2021.

42. Considering the discussion hereinabove, it is beyond doubt that the petitioners do not have the requisite experience of more than 18 years in a minimum 300 bedded non-teaching district hospital owned/managed by the State/Central Government.

43. This Court also notes the law as laid down by Supreme Court holding in categorical terms that Courts ought not to interfere with the decision of the Academic Body and cannot relax the Rules or rewrite them. The court cannot devise its own criterion and has no jurisdiction to import its own ideology. (See: Krishna Priya Ganguly and Others Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, (1984) 1 SCC 307).

44. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is manifest that the petitioners do not have the requisite experience and qualifying period for grant of equated designations. The prayers as sought by the petitioners being contrary to the Statutory Regulations, cannot be granted by this Court.

45. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 04, 2023/c/au/ak