CCL. IVS GAHLOT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 6 August 2018

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 462

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 9 S.C.R.

A

COL. IVS GAHLOT

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 8047 of 2018)

BAUGUST 06, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Medical Council of India Act, 1956 – s.11 r/w First Schedule– Armed Forces Medical Services – Appellant, Colonel consideredfor promotion to the rank of Brigadier, but not selected – O.A filedCby appellant contending that the promotion policy dated 14.01.2004could not have been reviewed before five years and thus, theamendment of said policy by Order dated 22.05.2006 was not valid– O.A dismissed – On appeal, held: Stipulation in the policy dated14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was not aDfetter on right of the Government to review the policy – Further,admittedly, the appellant was considered by the Promotion Boardon 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issue of the policyon 14.01.2004 – At the time when appellant was considered theamendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force – In the policy dated14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grantEof three marks – However, after amendment by Order dated22.05.2006, the eligibility was restricted to “Ph.D. recognised byMedical Council of India” – No exception can be taken to the saidamendment – Section 11 provides for recognition of medicalqualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in IndiaF– First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and medicalinstitutions granting such recognised medical qualifications –Berhampur University, from where the appellant obtained his Ph.D.degree in Anthropology (Science) is also one of the universitiesmentioned in the First Schedule – Various medical courses ofBerhampur University find place in the First Schedule but Ph.D. inGAnthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medicalqualifications of Berhampur University – No fault found in therestriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006 restricting awardof marks only to the Ph.D. degrees recognized by MCI – Further,Certificate produced by the appellant also does not fulfill the H

essential conditions as laid down in Order dated 22.05.2006 tomake the appellant eligible for one mark for two year full timetraining program – No error in the judgment of Armed ForcesTribunal warranting interference – Service Law – Promotion –Promotion Policy.

Service Law – Promotion policy – Change in – Held: It is theauthority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotionof its officers and employees – When an employer has power toframe policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time totime.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is the authority of the employer to framepromotion policy for promotion of its officers and employees.When an employer has power to frame policy it has inherent powerto change the policy from time to time. The stipulation in thepolicy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after fiveyears was in no manner a fetter on right of the Government toreview the policy as and when occasion arose. There was nostatutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policyeven before five years. The view of the Tribunal that the policydated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year2006, is fully approved. [Paras 13, 14] [469-F-G; 470-F-G]

1.2 Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by thePromotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years fromthe issue of the policy on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellantwas considered the amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force.An officer has to be considered in accordance with the policy asprevalent at the time of his consideration. Hence, no error isfound in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per theamended policy dated 22.05.2006. [Para 15] [470-H; 471-A-B]

1.3 In the policy which was issued on 14.01.2004, on anyPh.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant of three marks.Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006 the eligibility hasbeen restricted to “Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) recognised byMedical Council of India”. No exception can be taken to theamendment by which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aone mark which are recognised by Medical Council of India. Thereis a rationale for restricting the award of marks only on thosePh.D. degrees which are recognised by the Medical Council ofIndia. Medical Council of India recognises medical degreesawarded by different universities and institutions under theMedical Council of India Act, 1956. The Promotion Policy datedB22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed ForcesMedical Services (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marksto those Ph.D., which have been recognised by Medical Councilof India has object and purpose. Section 11 of the 1956 Actprovides for recognition of medical qualifications granted byCuniversities or medical institutions in India. It refers to the FirstSchedule. The heading of the First Schedule is “recognizedmedical qualifications granted by universities or medicalinstitutions in India”. The First Schedule contains list of variousuniversities or medical institutions of India which contains acolumn “recognised medical qualifications”. BerhampurDUniversity is also one of the universities mentioned in theSchedule. The perusal of Schedule indicates that although variousmedical degrees have been mentioned in the column “recognisedmedical qualifications” but qualification of Ph.D. inAnthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medicalEqualifications for Berhampur University. [Paras 16, 19][471-C-E; 473-C-E]2. The Medical Council of India in its First Schedulerecognizes medical courses which also contains various Ph.D.courses. It may be true that Ph.D. degree awarded to a candidateFneeds no recognition from the Medical Council of India but forthe purposes of this case, the marks can be claimed by a candidatein promotion only when the Ph.D. course is recognized byMedical Council of India. Thus, the letter dated 15.12.2017/07.12.2017 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of Medical Council of India mentioning that recognition of Ph.D.Gdegree does not come under the purview of Medical Council ofIndia, cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover,any communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Councilof India cannot be given any precedence on the clear statutoryprovisions contained in Section 11 read with First Schedule ofHthe 1956 Act. [Para 22] [477-B-D]

3. The appellant has filed certificate dated 11.12.1995issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M.Medical College, Kanpur. The said certificate filed by does notindicate that appellant completed full time structured trainingprogramme. The appellant contended that he was grantedpermission to attend the training program but there is no materialto indicate that he was granted two years study leave to join twoyears structured training program. The certificate dated11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant does not fulfill the essentialconditions as laid down in the Order dated 22.05.2006 to makeappellant eligible for one mark. No error is found in the PromotionBoard (Medical) not allocating one mark for two years trainingprogram. Armed Forces Tribunal did not commit any error inrejecting the above claim also. No error is found in the judgmentof Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference by this Courtin exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitutionof India. [Para 26] [478-E-G]

Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another(2011) 10 SCC 121 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 10 SCC 121 relied onPara 13

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8047of 2018.

From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of thethe Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A.No. 428 of 2013.

Yashank P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., T. N. Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Vikas Bansal,Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,Advs. for the Respondents.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 9 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed questioningthe judgment dated 20.07.2015 of Armed Forces Tribunal, PrincipalBench, Delhi by which O.A. No. 428/2013 filed by the appellant hasbeen dismissed. The appellant was commissioned in the army in ArmedBForces Medical Services (AFMC) on 06.04.1984, received his promotionto the rank of Colonel with effect from 01.01.2007. On 15.11.2011 theappellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier byPromotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected for promotion.Appellant had filed a statutory complaint against the non-promotion bythe Board. The competent authority duly examined the statutory complaintCand by decision dated 08.04.2013 granted partial redress by expunsionof the entire assessment of the SRO in CR 2010. On 19.06.2013, appellantwas considered for promotion by Review Promotion Board (Medical)but could not be selected. Being aggrieved by non-promotion, appellantfiled O.A.No.428/2013. The O.A. has been dismissed by the ArmedDForces Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.07.2015 aggrieved by saidjudgment this appeal has been filed.

2. The appellant’s case before the Tribunal was that in hisconsideration for promotion he was denied marks for Ph.D. degree inAnthropology (Science) awarded to him by Berhampur University inE1998. He further questions non granting of any mark for his Post Graduatetraining qualification obtained from G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpurand further no marks were awarded on his Master degree in PersonnelManagement in 2005 obtained from Pune University. The Tribunalalthough accepted the claim of grant of mark for Master degree inPersonnel Management but rejected the claim of the appellant for grantFof any mark for Ph.D. degree as well as Post Graduate training inPediatrics.

3. Shri Yashank P. Adhyaru, learned senior advocate appearingfor the appellant contends that the Ph.D. degree awarded by BerhampurUniversity, which university was competent to award Ph.D. degree, wasGfully entitled to be awarded marks by Promotion Board (Medical). Hesubmits that the grant of Ph.D. degree was not dependent on anyrecognition by Medical Council of India. Relying on a letter dated15.12.2017 addressed by Government of India to the Director (Medical),Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt., where it has been clarified H

that Medical Council of India has informed that recognition of Ph.D.degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, itis submitted that the denial of marks to the appellant was illegal. Hefurther submits that Post Graduate training obtained from a recognisedmedical institution by the appellant was also entitled to be awarded marks.He further submits that the promotion policy which was earlier issued inthe year 2004 could not have been reviewed before five years as wascontemplated by policy dated 14.01.2004. The amendment of policy bysubsequent policy dated 22.05.2006 was not valid. He submits that hadthe appellant been granted the marks by Promotion Board (Medical) onthe aforesaid two counts he would have surely been promoted to therank of Brigadier. Non promotion had adversely affected him whichneeds to be redressed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India refuting the abovesubmission contends that Ph.D. degree obtained by appellant byBerhampur University is not recognised by Medical Council of India asper Medical Council of India Act, 1956, hence, no error has beencommitted by the Promotion Board (Medical) in not rewarding any marksto the appellant. It is further contended that the Post Graduate Trainingwhich is relied by the appellant is also not training of any integratedcourse obtained by the appellant after taking study leave, nor anycertificate of passing the training course has been filed by the appellantto make him eligible to award of any mark on the Post Graduate training.He submits that promotion policy can be changed from time to time andthere was no error in modification of the promotion policy in the year2006.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel forthe parties and perused the records.

6. The right to be considered for promotion in accordance withthe rules for promotion is right of every officer and employee. In thepresent case there is no denial that appellant was considered by PromotionBoard (Medical) on 15.11.2011 and thereafter again by Review PromotionBoard (Medical) on 19.06.2013. Appellant’s case is that had he beengranted one mark each for the Ph.D. degree and Post Graduation trainingcourse, he could have been definitely in the list of promoted officer anddenial of marks on aforesaid two counts was illegal. The Tribunalcommitted error in not considering the above claim in accordance withlaw.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

7. We need to first consider the promotion policy under which theappellant’s claim was considered. The consideration of each officer hasto be in accordance with the promotion policy as in existence andapplicable to Armed Forces Officers (Medical). The promotion policydated 14.01.2004 is brought on record as Annexure A-5.

8. In the present case, we are concerned with paragraphs 11, 12and last line of paragraph 18. Paragraph 11 deals with allocation of markson different qualifications. Two year full time training program ismentioned as item No.(d) in table of the qualifications. It is useful toextract the aforesaid item No.(d) of the aforesaid table:

B

“ Qualifications: Officers in possession of the Cfollowing academic will be aw arded marks, as mentioned against each:- 1 Qualification Marks (d) Tw o-year full time 2 training program during study leave in India/Abroad in a medical field from an institution/university recognized by a statutory body D

E

9. Paragraph 12 refers to various academic achievements which ” includes Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) which is to the following effect:

“12. Marks will be awarded for possessing any one of the academic achievements as given below:- (a) Master of Chirurgery(M.Ch.) -3

(b) Doctorate in Medicine(DM) -3

F

(c) Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D) -3 (d) Diplomate of National Board -3 (DNB)(Super-Speciality subject)

(e) Two years training during study

leave in a specialized field

G

of medical sciences/certificate

of training from an institute/

university recognized by a

statutory body.

H

Note: - If an officer is having more than one of the above-mentioned qualifications, marks for only one qualification will be credited.”

10. The above policy was issued on 14.01.2004 and in paragraph18 following was stipulated “the policy will be reviewed after fiveyears”.

11. The above policy was amended by Order dated 22.05.2006heading of which itself mentioned “amendment to promotion policy dated14[th] January 2004:AFMS Officers.”

12. Amendments were made in paragraph 11 and paragraph 12which are relevant in the present case. For existing paragraph 11, newparagraph 11 was substituted which provided in clause (d) that for “two-year full time structured training program during study leave in India/Abroad in a medical field from an institution/university recognized by astatutory body, one mark shall be allocated. For existing paragraph 12,new paragraph was substituted which is to the following effect:

“12. Officers in possession of any one of the followingacademic achievements will be awarded one (1) mark.

(a) Master of Chirugury(M.Ch) recognized by MCI

(b) Doctorate in Medicine(DM) recognized by MCI

(c) Doctor of Philosphy(Ph.D) recognized by MCI

(d) Diplomate of National Board(DNB)

(Super-speciality subject)”

13. At the outset, we may consider the submission raised by theappellant that since the policy dated 14.01.2004 contemplated that thepolicy will be reviewed after five years, there was no occasion for thereview of the policy after two years only. There cannot be any disputethat it is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy forpromotion of its officers and employees. When an employer has powerto frame policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time totime. This Court in Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India and another,(2011) 10 SCC 121 laid down that it is always open to an employer tochange its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. Theabove case was also a case of promotion of officers of Indian Army. Anew promotion policy dated 31.12.2008 with regard to promotion wasissued changing the criteria for promotion where in place of value A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ajudgment weightage were to be given on different aspects, repelling thechallenge to new policy following was laid down in paragraphs 25 & 26,which is to the following effect:

“25. In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to changeits policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees.This Court would normally not interfere in such policydecisions. We would like to quote the decision of this Courtin Virender S. Hooda Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC696 where this Court had held in para 4 of the judgmentthat:

B

C

“4....When a policy has been declared by the State as tothe manner of filling up the post and that policy is declaredin terms of rules and instructions issued to the PublicService Commission from time to time and so long as theseinstructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondentsDought to follow the same.”

26. Similarly, in Balco Employees’ Union Vs. Union of India,(2002) 2 SCC 333 it has been held that a court cannot strikedown a policy decision taken by the Government merelybecause it feels that another policy would have been fairerEor wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within thedomain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policyor to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.”

14. The stipulation in the policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy willFbe reviewed after five years was in no manner a fetter on right of theGovernment to review the policy as and when occasion arose. Therewas no statutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policyeven before five years. We fully approve the view of the Tribunal thatthe policy dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year2006.G

15. Furthermore, the earlier policy was issued on 14.01.2004 andin accordance with the appellant, it could have been reviewed only afterfive years. Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by the H

Promotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issueof the policy on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellant was consideredthe amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force. An officer has to beconsidered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of hisconsideration. Hence, we do not find any error in consideration of theclaim of the appellant as per the amended policy dated 22.05.2006.

16. Now, we come to the claim of the appellant on the basis ofPh.D. degree obtained from Berhampur University in Anthropology(Science). Berhampur University like any other university as perUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 was fully competent to instituteany degree including Ph.D. degree. In the policy which was issued on14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant ofthree marks. Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006 the eligibilityhas been restricted to “Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) recognised byMedical Council of India”. No exception can be taken to the amendmentby which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for one mark which arerecognised by Medical Council of India. There is a rational for restrictingthe award of marks only on those Ph.D. degrees which are recognisedby the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India recognisesmedical degrees awarded by different universities and institutions underthe Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The Promotion Policy dated22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed Forces MedicalServices (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marks to those Ph.D.,which have been recognised by Medical Council of India has object andpurpose.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that theMedical Council of India does not recognise any Ph.D. degree for whichhe has placed reliance on the letter dated 15.12.2017 addressed by theGovernment of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to the Director(Medical), Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt. This Court on06.04.2018 directed the respondent to obtain instructions with regard tothe aforesaid letter dated 15.12.2017. By letter dated 15.12.2017 addressedto the appellant, a copy of reply received from the Medical Council ofIndia dated 07.12.2017 was forwarded. A Joint Secretary to MedicalCouncil of India issued the letter dated 07.12.2017 which is to thefollowing effect:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“The Secretary to the

Govt. of India,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

Nirman Bhawan,

BNew Delhi

Kind Atten:- Sh.D.V.K.Rao, Under Secretary(ME-I)

-Subject: Recognition of Ph.D. Degree request of Col. Indra–Veer Singh Gahlot Regarding C

Sir,

Please refer to your letter No.Z.20015/15/2015-ME-I(FST143472)

dated 01.11.2017, on the subject noted above.

In this regard, this is to inform you that the matter with regard toD recognition of Ph.D. Degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-x-x-x-x-x

E

(Dr. Rajendra Wabale)

Joint Secretary”

18. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to IndianMedical Council Act, 1956. Section 11 of the Medical Council of IndiaAct pertains to recognition of medical qualifications granted by universitiesFor medical institutions in India. Section 11 is as follows:

“11.Recognition of medical qualifications granted byUniversities or medical institutions in India.-

(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University orGmedical insitution in India which are included in the FirstSchedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for thepurposes of this Act.

COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grantsa medical qualification not included in the First Schedulemay apply to the Central Government to have suchqualification recognised, and the Central Government, afterconsulting the Council, may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include suchqualification therein, and any such notification may also directthat an entry shall be made in the last column of the FirstSchedule against such medical qualification declaring that itshall be a recognised medical qualification only when grantedafter a specified date.”

19. Section 11 of the Act refers to the First Schedule. The headingof the First Schedule is “recognized medical qualifications granted byuniversities or medical institutions in India”. The First Schedule containslist of various universities or medical institutions of India which containsa column “recognised medical qualifications”. BerhampurUniversity is also one of the universities mentioned in the Schedule. Theperusal of Schedule A indicates that although various medicaldegrees have been mentioned in the column “recognised medicalqualifications” but qualification of Ph.D. in Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical qualifications forBerhampur University.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the letter dated15.12.2017 read with letter dated 07.12.2017 of the Medical Council ofIndia contends that since Medical Council of India does not recognisePh.D. Degree, Ph.D. Degree awarded by Berhampur Universitycould not have been ignored. Section 11 of the Medical Council of IndiaAct, 1956, as noticed above, provides for recognition of medicalqualifications granted by universities or medical institutions inIndia in First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities andmedical institutions. Berhampur University is also one of the universities,which finds place in the First Schedule. Variousmedical courses of Berhampur University find place in the First Schedulebut there is no mention of any Ph.D. degree. The list of recognisedmedical courses of Berhampur University is as follows:- AB

C

D

E

F

G

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

University or Recognis ed Abbreviation for Medical Medical Reg istration Instituti onQualificationBerhamp ur Bachelor of Medicine M.B .B .S., University and Bachelo r of Berhampur Surgery Diplo ma i n D. Ort ho ., Orthopaedics Berhampur Diplo ma in Chi ld D.C .H., B erh ampur Health Doctor o f Medicine M.D. (Phys iology) (Phys iolo gy ) Master of Su rgery M.S. (Orthopaed ics) (Ortho paed ics) Doctor o f Medicine M.D. (Paed iatrics) (Paed iatrics) Master of Su rgery M.S. (General (Gen eral Surgery) Surgery) Doctor o f Medicine M.D. (General (Gen eral M ed icine) Medicine) Doctor of Medicine M.D. (Pharmacology) (Pharmacology) Doctor of M ed icine M.D. (Patholo gy) (Patholo gy) Master of Su rgery M.S. (Anatom y) (Anatom y)

AM aster o f Su rger y M.S. ( E.N .T .)(E .N .T .) D octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (Forens ic (Fo ren sic M ed icine Med ic ine a nd and T o xicolo gy ) To xico log y) BD octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (S .P .M .) (So cial an d P re ven tive (M .K .C .G.) M ed ica l Med icine) Col lege, B erh am pu r granted from 1-12 -1 97 4. CD octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (A n aes .) (A n aesthesi olo gy) D octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (O b st. A nd (O b stetrics an d G ynae ) (T his sh a ll b e G ynaeco log y) a recog niz ed Dqu alifica tio n w hen granted in or af ter 19 75 ) D octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (M icrob iol ogy ) (M icrob iolo gy ) (T h is shall be a reco gn ized m ed ica l qu alifica tio n w hen Egranted by Be rham p ur U niv ersit y i n resp ec t of the stud e nts b eing tra in ed M .K .C.G . Med ic al Col lege , Be rham p ur, O ris sa on For afte r 1 99 0.) D octo r o f M ed icine M.D . (D .V .L.) (D e rm ato log y, (T h is shall be a V enerolo gy and reco gn ized m ed ica l Lep ro sy ) qu alifica tio n w hen granted by GBe rham p ur U niv ersit y i n resp ec t of stud e nts b eing tra in ed at M .K .C.G . Med ic al Col lege , Be rham p ur, O ris sa on or afte r 1 99 1.H

A21. Whereas with regard to various medical institutions like AllIndia Institute of Medical Sciences and Sree Chitra Thirunal Institutefor Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapura, there aremention of various Ph.D. courses. It is useful to refer to relevant extractfrom First Schedule with regard to the few Ph.D. courses recognised inAll India Institute of Medical Sciences and Sree Chitra Thirunal InstituteBfor Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapura, which are asfollows:-

University or Recognised Abbreviation for Medical M ed ical Registration Institution Q ualification CAll India Doctor of Ph.D. (Anat.) Institute of Philosophy Medical Sciences (Anatomy) Doctor of Ph.D. (Biochem.) Philosophy D(Biochemistry) Doctor of Ph.D. (Micro.) Philosophy (Microbiology) Doctor of Ph.D. (Patho.) EPhilosophy (Pathology) Doctor of Ph.D. (Physiology) Philosophy (Physiology) Fand 38 other fields. Sree Chitra Doctor of Ph.D. (Biochem.) Thirunal Institute Philosophy for Medical (Biochemistry) Science and Technology, Doctor of Ph.D. (Micro.) GThiruvananthapuraPhilosophy (Microbiology) Doctor of Ph.D. (Patho.) Philosophy (Pathology)

H

22. There being Ph.D. degree courses recognized for medicalinstitutions in the First Schedule of the Medical Council of India Act,1956, we cannot find any fault in the restriction imposed by policy dated22.05.2006 restricting award of marks only to the Ph.D. degreesrecognized by Medical Council of India. Coming to the letter dated15.12.2017 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of MedicalCouncil of India, the letter mentions that recognition of Ph.D. degreedoes not come under the purview of Medical Council of India. TheMedical Council of India in its First Schedule recognizes medical courseswhich also contains various Ph.D. courses. It may be true that Ph.D.degree awarded to a candidate needs no recognition from the MedicalCouncil of India but for the purposes of this case, the marks can beclaimed by a candidate in promotion only when the Ph.D. course isrecognized by Medical Council of India. Thus the letter dated 15.12.2017/07.12.2017 cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover, anycommunication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council of Indiacannot be given any precedence on the clear statutory provisions containedin Section 11 read with First Schedule of Medical Council of India Act,1956.

23. Now, we come to the Post Graduate training program on whichthe appellant is also claiming allocation of marks. Two year full timetraining program to be eligible for award of one mark required to fulfillfollowing conditions:

a) full time structured training program.

b) during study leave in India/abroad.

c) in a medical field from an institution/university recognised by statutory body.

24. The appellant has filed certificate as Annexure A-1 dated11.12.1995 issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, which is to the following effect:

“ Department of Pediatrics

Children’s hospital: G.S.V.M. Medical College: Kanpur – 208002

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Dated:11.12.1995

CERTIFICATE

Certified that Indra Veer Singh Gahlot had been working inPediatrics from March, 1991 till November, 1993. The Department ofBpediatrics is recognized for M.D. Pediatrics and Diploma Courses. Thedepartment is maintaining student-teacher ratio of 1:1 including Dr. IndraVeer Singh Gahlot. During the period of stay of Dr. Gahlot,Prof.G.P.Mathur was the Head of the Department.

During the period of his stay, Dr. Gahlot was doing emergencyCduties independently. He had chances to perform exchange-bloodtransfusions in the premature Baby Nursery. He also participated in theP.G.teaching programme.

Sd/- (Illegible) Sarla MathurD Prof.& Head”

25. The above certificate does not indicate that appellant completedfull time structured training programme.

26. The appellant contended that he was granted permission toEattend the training program but there is no material to indicate that hewas granted two years study leave to join two years structured trainingprogram. The certificate dated 11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant doesnot fulfill the essential conditions as laid down in paragraph 11 of theOrder dated 22.05.2006 to make appellant eligible for one mark. WeFthus do not find any error in the Promotion Board (Medical) not allocatingone mark for two years training program. Armed Forces Tribunal didnot commit any error in rejecting the above claim also. We thus do notfind any error in the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal warrantinginterference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 ofthe Constitution of India.G

27. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

H