REQUEST TO THE COLLEGE PRINCIPALS AND MEDICAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE AS WELL AS GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGES/DIRECTORS/DIRECTORS OF MEDICAL EDUCATION OF ALL STATES OF INDIA…AS WELL AS AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGES OF INDIA,LIKE NIMHANS IT IS A VICTORY FOR ALL INDIA MD /MS/DNB DOCTORS ASSOCIATION THAT HIGH COURT OF DELHI-HAS TAKEN A JUDICIOUS VIEW OF THE CONFLICT IN THE MEDICAL BIOCHEMISTRY AS WELL AS MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS WE MUST COMPLIMENT THE PETITIONERS WHO HAVE DONE THE HONOURABLE JOB WE MUST SEE THAT THE COLLEGE MANAGEMENTS TOO WILL FOLLOW THE LETTER OF INDIAN LAW ELSE THEY HAVE TO BEAR THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS WE REQUEST THE COLLEGE TEACHERS TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THIS ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THE WILFUL FLOUTING OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS SO THAT WE CAN SEE SOME PRINCIPALS BEING DRAGGED TO COURTS WE SHOULD WAIT FOR BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES DIRECTOR AS WELL AS HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORS TO DO THE JOB OF PROMOTING THEIR PET MASTERS OF SCIENCE CANDIDATES AS HEADS OF THE DEPARTMENTS-NEXT WE CAN INVITE THEM TO COURTS???? IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Date of decision: 18th September, 2012 W.P.(C) 5692/2008 DR. JASWINDER KAUR GAMBHIR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Mayank Goyal & Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Advs. versus U.O.I & ORS . .... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for MCI. Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Manisha Singh, Advs. for R-3/Delhi University. Mr. Arun Batta, Adv. for R-5. AND W.P.(C) 94/2009 PROFESSOR V.G. RAMACHANDRAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Mr. Shashank Kathuria & Ms. Svetlana, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for MCI. Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Manisha Singh, Advs. for R-1/Delhi University. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-4. WE MUST INDEED BE GREATFUL TO THE PETITIONERS AS WELL AS DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE GUIDED THE COUNTRY REGARDING FUTURE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE TEACHERS IN DEPT OF MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY-AND OTHER PRECLINICAL AND PARACLINICAL DEPARTMENTS IN THIS ASPECT WE KNOW THIS JUDGEMENT IS A NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE FACULTY IN OUR MEDICAL COLLEGES WHO HAVE BECOME MOTH INFESTED WITH MASTERS OF SCIENCE PERSONNEL IN FACT GOING AGAINST THE RULES WITHIN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT (SET BY HIGH COURT )WILL HENCE MEAN THAT – 1. COLLEGE DIRECTOR/MANAGEMENT IS COMMITING A CRIME WHICH SHALL BE TAKEN TO COURTS AND CAN BE ACTIVELY PERSECUTED FOR FLOUTING THE JUDGEMENT.PENAL ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN? 2. PENAL ACTIONS AGAINST ASSESSORS OF THE MCI – THE MCI INSPECTORS SHOULD HENCE FORTH NOT CONDONE THE PRESENCE OF MSC PHD STAFF-AND THE TOTAL NUMBER CANT EXCEED 30 %IN MICROBIOLOGY ,BIOCHEMISTRY AS PER HIGH COURT GUIDELINES- SO AUTOMATICALLY COLLEGES LIKE MANIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE,HASSAN INST OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,SLIMS PONDICHERRAL COLLEGE ,MANU KUKA VINAYAKA MEDICAL COLLEGE,BELGAUM INST OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,SDM MEDICAJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,CMC VELLORE,AS WELL AS KMC MANGALORE SHOULD ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF COURTS/LAW/MEDICAL COUNCIL/AMBI AND IMA. 3.IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO APPOINT MSC /PHD PERSONS AS STAFF IN ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF MEDICAL COLLEGES 4.THE AFORESAID PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CASTIGATED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT TO BE OF LESSER MERIT THAN MD TEACHERS ESPECIALLY WITHIN DEPARTMENTS OF BIOCHEMISTRY AS WELL AS MICROBIOLOGY.THIS VERY WELL APPLIES TO PHARMACOLOGY ,PHYSIOLOGY OR ANATOMY OR EVEN COMMUNITY MEDICINE. JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF MSC TEACHERS AS HEADS OF DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE COURT WITH THESE WORDS AS HEREUNDER 19. We have devoted considerable length of this judgment to record the pleas and contentions of the respective parties and which explain the entire perspective. Our decision on the basis thereof is as under: (i). The MCI Act has constituted the MCI as an expert body to control the minimum standards of Medical Education and to regulate their observance. Obviously the high powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education (See State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana (1981) 4 SCC 512). MCI thus has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for teachers and staff in Medical College. (ii). The requirement under the Regulations aforesaid is for the said teachers to be having qualifications in the field of medicine. (iii). The Regulations, insofar as they permit non medicos to also teach in certain Departments of Medical Colleges are an exception to the general rule. While carving out the said exception, care has been taken to limit the role of such non-medico teachers i.e. of their being not eligible to be appointed as HoD. (iv). The letter dated 25th March, 2008 was issued on receipt of representation from non-medico teachers appointed as per the MCI Teachers Eligibility Qualifications Regulations 1971 who had become ineligible upon the coming into force of the 1998 Regulations and were being removed from their posts. The same has nothing to do with the matter in controversy. (v). The legislature having constituted the MCI as the expert body to lay down the standards of education in a medical college, the Government does not have any authority to alter the Regulations framed in this regard. The communication dated 25th March, 2008 of the Government of India is thus of no avail. (vi). Just like there was a reason for permitting non-medico teachers in certain Departments, similarly it can safely be assumed that there was a reason for preventing them from becoming HoD. (vii). The Regulations also prohibit a non-medico from being appointed as Director or Principal or Dean or a Medical Superintendent. No challenge thereto is made. The HoD is the lowest step in the ladder to Director, Principal, Dean and Medical Superintendent. When the non-medico teachers are not to climb the ladder, there can be no discrimination in their being denied to take the first step thereto. (viii). The non-medico teachers clearly fall in a different class than the medical teachers. The question of discrimination thus does not arise. As far as the nexus of the classification to the object sought to be achieved is concerned, it appears to have been felt that a non-medico HoD would be handicapped in some way and which handicap will ultimately affect the functioning of the medical college and the education of its students. (ix). Each of the petitioners joined employment with full knowledge of the limitation as far as appointment as HoD is concerned. (x). This Court, for the sake of providing equality to teachers distinctly belonging to separate class, cannot put the fate of the students at risk. Even otherwise, in a medical college the emphasis is on imparting knowledge to enable the students to become good doctors and it is felt that a medico teacher in the subjects of Biochemistry or Microbiology can provide a more wholesome guidance than a non-medico teacher in the same subject. (xi). Appointment of non medico teacher as HoD is also likely to result in discipline issues in the Department. 20. We therefore do not find any merit in these petitions and dismiss the same. No costs. Sd./- RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J Sd./- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELHI HIGH COURT,DELHI STATE SEPTEMBER 18 , 2012
Posted on: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 05:26:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015