http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

DR. NANDJEE SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTSASSOCIATION AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1993

BENCH:

SAWANT, P.B.

BENCH:

SAWANT, P.B.

YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:

1993 AIR 2264 1993 SCR (3) 909

1993 SCC (3) 400 JT 1993 (3) 515

1993 SCALE (2)985

ACT:

%

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Appeal-Whether

appellant appointed against a teaching post--Non-examination

of question by High Court-Positive presumption by High

Court- Whether Supreme Court to decide said question.

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226-Writ by

Association against an individual-Individual dispute whether

public interest litigation.

Education-M.D. (Medicine) Examination-Requirements

appearance.

University-Examination-M.D.(Medicine)-Appearance --Require-

ments of.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant was a teacher in the Department of

Biochemistry of Rajendra Medical College. He filed an

application for his registration as a student in M.D. The

University forwarded the application to the Principal of

Rajendra Medical College. The Principal objected to

appellant's registration as he was not posted in any of the

teaching posts in Rajendra Medical College. Though the

appellant was attached to the Department of Medicine, was a

Biochemist attached to that Renal Unit dealing with the

subject of Biochemistry.

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a

direction tot he University to permit him to submit his

thesis in M.D. (Medicine) examination on the ground that he

was a teacher.

The University took the stand that the appellant was not a

teacher and he was not eligible for training in M.D.

(General Medicine).

The High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition and

held that he was not entitled for admission to the

examination in M.D. as he did not such it

910

his thesis and did not produce a certificate of having

undergone satisfactory training. The High Court did not

decide on the question whether he held a teaching post or

not.

The appellant was granted permission to appear for M.D.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

(Medicine) examination after the University was satisfied

that the appellant was holding a teaching post

The respondent-Association filed a writ petition before the

High Court challenging the permission given to the appellant

to appear for the said examination, contending that he was

not a teacher and that he did not undergo the necessary

training for 2 years and that he did not do housemanship in

General Medicine for one year.

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that

the appellant did not undergo training for 3 years prior to

his application to appear for M.D. (Medicine) examination.

In this writ petition also the High Court did not decide

whether the appellant was holding a teaching post.

The appellant filed this appeal by special leave against the

High Court's judgment.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. On account of the interim order passed by the

High Court, the appellant appeared for the examination. The

High Court has, however, by the impugned decision restrained

the University from declaring his results in the

examination. (915-G)

1.2. Since the High Court has not gone into the question as

whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post

and has proceeded on the footing that he was appointed, it

is not necessary for this Court to go into the said

question. (915-F)

2.1. The facts of the-case would reveal that this was a

dispute relating to an individual and turned on the facts.

There was no question of law involved in it. It is not

understood how the respondent-Association could convert an

individual dispute into a public interest litigation. (915-

H)

2.2 Cases where what is strictly an individual dispute is

sought to be

911

converted into a public interest litigation should not be

encouraged. The present proceeding is one of the kind.

(915-H)

3.1. The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the

candidate must have done one year's housemanship prior to

the admission to the Postgraduate degree in the same subject

in which he wants to appear for the examination or atleast

six months housemanship in the same Department and the

remaining six months in the allied Department. The period

of training thus, shall be 3 years after full registration

including one year of the. housejob.(912-B)

3.2. According to the rules, 4 years, (teaching experience

in the College and the Hospital (which is always combined.

with practice in the Hospital) is considered equivalent to

one year's house-job experience. In the face of these

facts, it is difficult to understand the stand taken by the

State Government in the present proceedings. (916-D)

3. 3. The University bad on the facts of the case accepted

the contention of the appellant that he had completed 3

years' training. It is not understood as to what' state the

State has in denying the said factual position. (916-B)

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2909 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1990 of the Patna High

Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1465 of 1989 (R).

S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

Uday Sinha, S.K. Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Special leave granted.

The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant

was qualified to appear for the M.D. (General Medicine)

Examination as a teacher candidates The High Court by the

impugned order has taken the view that he was not, on the

around that he had not completed 3 years training period

including one year of the house-job, prior to qualifying

himself for appearing for the examination.

912

The respondents, P.G. Medical Students Association had

challenged the permission given to the appellant to appear

for the said examination on two rounds. The first ground

was that he was not a teacher and the second ground was that

he had not undergone the necessary training for 2 years and

had also not done housemanship in General Medicine for one

year. The requirement of the relevant regulation is that

the candidate must have done one year's housemanship prior

to the admission to the Post-graduate degree in the same

subject in which he wants to appear for the examination or

at least six months housemanship in the same Department and

the remaining six months in the allied Department. The

period of training thus, shall be 3 years after full

registration including one year of the housejob.

The appellant claimed that he was teacher in the Department

of Biochemistry in the Rajendra Medical College (R.M.C.) and

filed an application for his registration as a student in

M.D. The University forwarded the application to the then

Principal of Rajendra Medical College-cum-Dean, Faculty of

Medicine, Dr. C.J.K. Singh. He objected to his registration

on the ground that the appellant was not posted in any of

the teaching posts in medical college. The then Head of the

Department of Medicine, Dr. S. Sinha also wrote to Dr.

C.J.K. Singh that the appellant though attached to the

Department of Medicine, was a Bio-chemist attached to the

Renal Unit and dealt entirely with the subject of

Biochemistry.

The appellant filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 755

of 1988 praying for appropriate direction to the University

to permit him to submit his thesis in M.D. (Medicine)

examination. The University contested his claim that he was

a teacher and took the stand that since he was not a

teacher, he was not eligible for training in M.D. (General

Medicine). For this purpose, the University relied upon

the. letters of Dr. C.J.K. Singh and Dr. S. Sinha. The

Court dismissed the said petition on 23rd May, 1988 without

deciding the issue as to whether the appellant held a

teaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant was

not entitled for admission to the examination in M.D. as he

had not submitted his thesis and had also failed to produce

a certificate of having undergone satisfactory training.

The High Court also held that the acceptance of the thesis

was a pre-requisite for appearing at the examination.

However, thereafter the present petition was filed by the

respondent Association when the appellant was granted

permission to appear for the said examination being

satisfied that the post which he was holding was a teaching

post as pointed out by the State Government. In this

petition, the University supported the appellant by

asserting that the, appellant was appointed against a

teaching post

913

in the Department of Medicine. The High Court has again not

decided the point whether the appellant was appointed

against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine. For

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

not deciding the point, the High Court has given an

additional reason, viz., that many persons who were in fact

appointed as teachers would be prejudicially affected since

they would become junior to the appellant and they were not

before the Court. For the purposes of the disposal of the

writ petition, the High Court presumed that the appellant

was teacher in the Department of Medicine in the Rajendra

Medical College. The Court has, however, made it clear that

this presumption would be confined to the present case only

and the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit

on the basis of the said presumption. The High Court has,

however, allowed the respondents' petition only on the

grounds that the appellant had not undergone training for 3

years prior to his application to appear for the said

examination. In order to come to the said conclusion, the

High Court relied on the fact that although the petitioner

was registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad as a trainee on 6th

February, 1986, he had not undergone training with him and

it was only from 4th February; 1988 onwards that he had

undergone the training with another Supervisor, viz., Dr.

P.R. Prasad. Hence, on the date he made the application for

appearing in the examination, he had not completed the

required 3 years' training period. In support of its

finding that the appellant had not completed 2 years'

training with Dr. S.s. Prasad, the former Supervisor, the

High Court has relied upon two facts. The first is that Dr.

S.S. Prasad had written to the University that appellant had

undergone no training under him. The second circumstance

relied upon is that the second Supervisor, viz., Dr. P.R.

Prasad was not appointed as appellant's Supervisor as per

the suggestion of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine since

respondent No. 7 to the petition who had recommended Dr.

P.R. Prasad was not the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at

the time of the recommendation. Hence, according to the

High Court even the training of the appellant under Dr. P.R.

Prasad was not a valid training

The record shows that admittedly the appellant was

registered as a trainee under the former Supervisor, Dr.

S.S. Prasad on 6th February, 1986 and he continued to be the

trainee under him till 4th February, 1988 on which date he

was changed as a Supervisor at the request of the appellant.

In his place Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed as the

appellant's Supervisor on 17th December, 1988. The

appellant, thereafter continued to be the trainee under Dr.

P.R. Prasad from 19th December, 1988 to 3rd August, 1989.

Thus the petitioner was registered for M.D. (General

Medicine) examination of the University on 6th February,

1986 and by the 3rd August, 1989 when he was due to appear

for the examination he had completed 3 years' training under

the two Supervisors.

914

Coming to the respondent-Association's contention that the

earlier Supervisor, Dr. S.S. Prasad had denied that the

appellant had received any training under him, the

University has stated that for the purpose of training, the

Supervisor has nothing more to do than guide the candidate

for writing thesis. But more than that, the letter written

by Dr. P.V.P. Sinha, the Principal of RMC and Dean, Faculty

of Medicines of the Ranchi University to the Registrar of

the Ranchi University on 4th July, 1989 speaks volumes on

the attitude adopted by Dr. S.S. Prasad towards the

appellant. This letter is Annexure-11 to the rejoinder of

the appellant. The letter makes a complaint that Dr. S.S.

Prasad by bypassing the office of the Principal, RMC had

addressed directly to the Registrar of the University two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

letters on 4th May and 3 1st May, 1989. The Principal then

states that he examined the original letter meaning thereby

the letter dated 4th May, 1989 and the connected matter and

found that Dr. S.S. Prasad had been telling lie to the

University and trying to mislead and that is why he had sent

the letter directly to the University. Dr. Prasad had

written another letter to the University on 16th May, 1988

regarding the appellant and in that letter he had written

that the appellant had been prevented from doing research

work connected with his thesis. The Principal then proceeds

to write that when he asked Dr. Prasad in writing vide his

letter dated 21st June, 1989 to give him the letter of the

Principal or the Dean or the University which had authorised

him to prevent the appellant-from doing his research work,

Dr. Prasad failed to produce any letter. Thus according to

the Principal it became very clear that Dr. Prasad had

written the letter dated 16.5.1988 directly to the

University to harm the appellant's career. The Principal

then proceeds to write to University that he would like to

bring to the attention of the University that Dr.Prasad had

signed the thesis and certificate of another doctor, viz.,

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh on 16.10.1984 when that doctor was

registered as an M.D. student in General Medicine only on

26.7.1984 and when Dr. Prasad was not his guide. It was Dr.

R.C.N. Sahai who named the guide for the said Dr. Ashok

Kumar Singh. The Principal then writes that from the

perusal of the records as well as from the reply to the

explanation sought by him from Dr. Prasad, it had become

clear that Dr. Prasad was not made the guide of Dr. Ashok

Kumar Singh either by the University or by the Dean or by

the Principal and yet he had signed the thesis of Dr. Ashok

Kumar Singh barely after 3 months and 11 days of his

registration. The Principal then points out in that letter

that a comparison of the two events made it apparent that

Dr. Prasad had favoured Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh by violating

all the norms statutes of the University and of the Medical

Council of India and that even after the University had

appointed Dr. P.R. Prasad as the guide of the appellant, Dr.

S.S. Prasad was bent upon harming the career of the

appellant. The Principal then adds that there was no record

in his office to show that the appellant was ever suspended

by the University for doing his M.D. General Medicine. He

had asked Dr. S.S. Prasad to produce any notification of the

University regarding the alleged

915

suspension and Dr. S.S. Prasad had failed to do so. He then

concludes the letter by stating that he would, in the

circumstances, recommend the University to consider the

desirability of removing Dr. S.S. Prasad from all

examination work of the Ranchi University. It is thus

apparent that Dr. S.S. Prasad, the former Supervisor of the

appellant had become hostile to him and was apparently not

cooperating with him in his thesis. Yet the appellant had

proceeded to write a thesis and when it became unbearable,

he requested for the change of his Supervisor on 4th

February, 1988 pursuant to which the new Supervisor, Dr.

P.R. Prasad was appointed on 17th December, 1988. However,

till the new Supervisor was appointed on 17th December,

1988, he continued to be registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad and

there is no dispute that under the new Supervisor, viz., Dr.

P.R. Prasad he completed his training from 17th December,

1988 to 4th August, 1989. There is further no dispute that

the appellant submitted his thesis prior to the examination.

As regard the qualification of the 7th respondent to make

the appointment of Dr. P.R. Prasad as the guide, although

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

the record before us does not show as to who the 7th

respondent was, we take it that it is the then Principal,

Dr. P.V.P. Sinha who was probably added later as the 7th

respondent to the writ petition to whom the High Court has

referred to in its judgment. It is asserted from the Bar on

behalf of the appellant that Dr. P.V.P. Sin ha was both the

Principal and the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the

University from a date much prior to 17th December, 1988.

That statement is not controverted nor does the counter

filed by the 1st Respondent make any such point. If that is

so, then on the date that Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed as a

Supervisor he was so appointed by a duly qualified person.

Since the High Court has not one into the question as to

whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post

and has proceeded on the footing that he was so appointed.

it is not necessary for us to go into the said question.

The appellant was thus fully qualified for appearing in the

said examination and in fact on account of the interim

orders passed by the High Court he has appeared for the

examination. The High Court has, however, by the impugned

decision restrained the University from declaring his

results in the examination.

The facts narrated above would reveal that this was a

dispute relating to an individual and turned on the facts.

There was no question of law involved in it. We have,

therefore, not understood how the respondent-Association

could convert an individual dispute into a public interest

litigation. We are of the view that cases where what is

strictly an individual dispute is sought to be converted

into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged.

The present proceeding is one of the

916

kind. The learned counsel appearing, for the respondent-

State wanted to support the respondent-Association. We did

not think it necessary to hear the State since the dispute

was essentially with regard to the interpretation of the

facts relating to the training of an individual medical

officer, viz., the appellant. The University had on the

facts of the case accepted the contention of the appellant

that he had completed 3 years' training. We have not been

able to understand as to what stake the State has in denying

the said factual position.

It must be remembered in this connection that the State

Government itself by its letter of 17th September, 1984

written to the Principal, RMC and had asserted that the post

which the appellant was holding, viz., that of Bio-chemist

in the Artificial Kidney Unit of RM College and Hospital,

was a teaching post and that the appellant was posted to

that post since 12th February, 1982. The letter further

proceeded to state that the Principal and the Head of the

Department of Medicine of RM College and Hospital has also

given written certificate that the appellant was posted on a

teaching post and therefore his teaching experience would be

counted with the Kidney Unit. A request was, therefore,

made in the letter that the appellant's application for his

registration as M.D. General Medicine candidate [Teacher] be

forwarded to the University and further action in that

regard be intimated to the Regional Additional Commissioner-

cum-Principal Secretary. There is no dispute further that

according to the rules, 4 years teaching experience in the

College and the Hospital [which is always combined with

practice in the Hospital] is considered equivalent to one

year's house-job experience. It the face of these facts, it

is difficult to understand the stand taken by the State

Government in the present proceedings. There is no doubt in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

our mind that some forces are at work to obstruct the

appellant's career on one ground or the other. The State

Government should not become a party to this came.

In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the

decision of the High Court and hold that the appellant was

qualified to appear for the M.D. (General Medicine)

examination as a teacher candidate. Hence, we direct the

University to declare his results in M.D. (General Medicine)

examination for which he has appeared, forthwith. There

will be no order as to costs.

VPR Appeal allowed.

917