Director, Medical Education, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Dr. Swapnil Chauhan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 1997
Petitioner: Director, Medical Education, Lucknow & Ors.
Respondent: Dr. Swapnil Chauhan
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 1997
Judges: Dr. A.S.ANAND, CJI, S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 02, 2000
Head Note:
MEDICAL EDUCATION
Constitution
Article 226 – Admission to Medical College – Student admitted to Diploma course filing writ seeking admission to M.S. course – High court giving directions for admission – Directions stayed by Supreme Court since they ran counter to the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta & Ors. (JT 1992 (4) SC 422) – Because of High Court’s directions respondent pursuing M.S. course for about a year – Re-spondent after successfully completing the Diploma course seeking directions for being permitted to appear in M.S. examinations – Permissibility. Held in respect of the period of study for Diplo-ma no credit could be given for obtaining M.S. Since three years minimum training was required for M.S. and as the respond-ent did not possess the requisite training she cannot be permit-ted to appear in M.S. High Court’s direction to admit the re-spondent to M.S. also set aside since it ran counter to Anupam Gupta’s case (ibid).
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta & Ors.(JT 1992 (4) SC 422)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Respondent after qualifying in the P.G.M.E.E. in 1994 was allotted a seat in the Diploma Course in Gynaecology and Obste-trics (hereinafter Diploma G & O)) in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad which she joined in May, 1994. She had also sought admission for M.S. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) (herei-nafter M.S. (G & O)) at the time of applying for admission. It appears that a seat in M.S. (G & O) fell vacant because of the resignation of one of the candidates on 1st February, 1995. The respondent claimed admission to the M.S. (G & O) against that vacancy. That request having been declined, she filed a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to admit the respondent in M.S. (G & O) course in the session 1994-97 for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Dr. Anupam Bansal within two weeks. This direction was made by the High Court on 11th September, 1996, admittedly, much after the course in M.S. (G & O) for session 1994-97 had commenced. The appellants approached this Court and submitted that the direction given by the High Court on 11th September, 1996 to admit the respondent in M.S. (G & O) course for the session 1994-97 runs in the teeth of the judgment given by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta & Ors.(JT 1992 (4) SC 422) = (1993 Supp. (1) SCC 594), and could not be sustained. In the spe-cial leave petition, on 22nd March, 1996, following order was made :
“Issue notice. The notice shall state that the matter would appear to be covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc. reported in (JT 1992 (4) SC 422 = AIR 1992 SC 932) and the SLP might be disposed of accordingly.”
2. Subsequently, since the respondent had been granted time repeatedly to file the counter affidavit and had not filed it. Leave was granted and the interim stay earlier granted was con-tinued.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent filed, in this Court, an application, being I.A. No. 2/97 complaining that though the respondent had studied for Diploma (G & O), she was not being permitted to appear even in the examination for Diploma (G & O). That application was allowed and by an order of this Court dated 4th April, 1997, it was directed that the respondent be allowed to appear in the Diploma (G & O) examination to be held in March/April, 1997, provided she satisfies all other requirements for the purpose. It is conceded before us that respondent has since appeared in the Diploma (G & O) examination and been de-clared successful.
4. According to learned counsel for the respondent since the study course of Diploma (G & O) and M.S. (G & O) is to a great extent identical and she was already preparing her thesis, she should be permitted to appear in the examination for M.S. (G & O) as she had got admission in M.S. (G & O) course pursuant to the directions of the High Court with effect from 29th March, 1996 and had also pursued the diploma course. The argument is miscon-ceived. The respondent continued to study in M.S. course only till 4th January, 1997 whereafter because of the stay order granted by this Court, she was not permitted to pursue that course. She has, therefore, not even put in one year course of study in M.S. According to the Medical Council of India the minimum period of training for the award of M.D./M.S. courses from the year 1993 onwards is three calendar years. The relevant provision reads :
“PERIOD OF TRAINING
The prescribed minimum period of training for award of various post-graduate decree/diploma shall be as follows :
1. MD/MS, from the year 1993 onwards the minimum period of training for obtaining these decrees shall be three calendar years and the candidates can be admitted to this training after their registration with the Medical Council of India.
2. No exemption shall be given from this period of training of three years either for doing housemanship or for any other ex-perience or diploma.”
5. The above provision makes it abundantly clear that no credit can be given to the respondent for the period of study for Diplo-ma for obtaining M.D./M.S. Three calendar years’ minimum training is an essential requisite for the award of postgraduate degree of M.D./M.S. which the respondent does not possess. That being the position the request of the respondent is wholly untenable.
6. Since, the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition to grant admission to the respondent for the session 1994-97 on 11.9.1996 runs in the teeth of the judgment in Dr. Anupam Gupta’s cases (supra), we allow this appeal and set aside that direction. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. No costs.
1. Respondent after qualifying in the P.G.M.E.E. in 1994 was allotted a seat in the Diploma Course in Gynaecology and Obste-trics (hereinafter Diploma G & O)) in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad which she joined in May, 1994. She had also sought admission for M.S. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) (herei-nafter M.S. (G & O)) at the time of applying for admission. It appears that a seat in M.S. (G & O) fell vacant because of the resignation of one of the candidates on 1st February, 1995. The respondent claimed admission to the M.S. (G & O) against that vacancy. That request having been declined, she filed a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to admit the respondent in M.S. (G & O) course in the session 1994-97 for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Dr. Anupam Bansal within two weeks. This direction was made by the High Court on 11th September, 1996, admittedly, much after the course in M.S. (G & O) for session 1994-97 had commenced. The appellants approached this Court and submitted that the direction given by the High Court on 11th September, 1996 to admit the respondent in M.S. (G & O) course for the session 1994-97 runs in the teeth of the judgment given by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta & Ors.(JT 1992 (4) SC 422) = (1993 Supp. (1) SCC 594), and could not be sustained. In the spe-cial leave petition, on 22nd March, 1996, following order was made :
“Issue notice. The notice shall state that the matter would appear to be covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc. reported in (JT 1992 (4) SC 422 = AIR 1992 SC 932) and the SLP might be disposed of accordingly.”
2. Subsequently, since the respondent had been granted time repeatedly to file the counter affidavit and had not filed it. Leave was granted and the interim stay earlier granted was con-tinued.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent filed, in this Court, an application, being I.A. No. 2/97 complaining that though the respondent had studied for Diploma (G & O), she was not being permitted to appear even in the examination for Diploma (G & O). That application was allowed and by an order of this Court dated 4th April, 1997, it was directed that the respondent be allowed to appear in the Diploma (G & O) examination to be held in March/April, 1997, provided she satisfies all other requirements for the purpose. It is conceded before us that respondent has since appeared in the Diploma (G & O) examination and been de-clared successful.
4. According to learned counsel for the respondent since the study course of Diploma (G & O) and M.S. (G & O) is to a great extent identical and she was already preparing her thesis, she should be permitted to appear in the examination for M.S. (G & O) as she had got admission in M.S. (G & O) course pursuant to the directions of the High Court with effect from 29th March, 1996 and had also pursued the diploma course. The argument is miscon-ceived. The respondent continued to study in M.S. course only till 4th January, 1997 whereafter because of the stay order granted by this Court, she was not permitted to pursue that course. She has, therefore, not even put in one year course of study in M.S. According to the Medical Council of India the minimum period of training for the award of M.D./M.S. courses from the year 1993 onwards is three calendar years. The relevant provision reads :
“PERIOD OF TRAINING
The prescribed minimum period of training for award of various post-graduate decree/diploma shall be as follows :
1. MD/MS, from the year 1993 onwards the minimum period of training for obtaining these decrees shall be three calendar years and the candidates can be admitted to this training after their registration with the Medical Council of India.
2. No exemption shall be given from this period of training of three years either for doing housemanship or for any other ex-perience or diploma.”
5. The above provision makes it abundantly clear that no credit can be given to the respondent for the period of study for Diplo-ma for obtaining M.D./M.S. Three calendar years’ minimum training is an essential requisite for the award of postgraduate degree of M.D./M.S. which the respondent does not possess. That being the position the request of the respondent is wholly untenable.
6. Since, the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition to grant admission to the respondent for the session 1994-97 on 11.9.1996 runs in the teeth of the judgment in Dr. Anupam Gupta’s cases (supra), we allow this appeal and set aside that direction. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. No costs.
