Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 33 (JK)

C. D. Gupta (Dr. ) v. State

2000-02-28

T.S.DOABIA

body2000
JUDGMENT I. What is required to be interpreted in this petition is the scope and ambit of paragraph II.4 of the Statute prepared by the University of Jammu for appointing Internal Examiners governing Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) and Master of Surgery (M.S.) examinations. This paragraph is being reproduced below: - "There shall be four examiners in each subject two external and two internal to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor out of a panel of examiners proposed by the Board of Studies concerned". All teachers in the concerned subject in the college concerned who fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment as post-graduate examiners shall be appointed as internal examiner according to the following criteria: The senior most teacher/ HOD in the subject will always act as Internal Examiner while all the other eligible teachers will rotate as second internal examiner every one year". 2. A perusal of this statute makes it apparent that the senior most teacher/ Head of Department in the subject is to always act as the first internal examiner, while the other teachers will rotate as second internal examiner every one year. The petitioner submits that this statute has not been observed in letter and spirit. 3. This petition was admitted on 15th Feb., 2001. 4. The University has filed its reply. The State Government has also taken its stand. The objections filed by respondents no. 1 and 4 are treated as counter. It is basically the information which is given by respondents no. 1 and 4, which is to guide the University in the matter of picking up the second internal examiner. It is the case of respondent no. 1 that a panel of second internal examiner for MD in General Medicine examination was prepared in the year 1993. Following doctors were included in the panel: "1.Dr. Virinder Gupta 2. Dr. MB Wadhwa 3. Dr. Vijay Gupta 4. Dr. C.D. Gupta". 5. It is further case of respondent no. 1 that the doctors mentioned at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had already been appointed as Second Internal Examiners, and therefore, the doctor who was supposed to act as the second internal examiner was the petitioner. It is stated that as the petitioner was on Commonwealth Medical Fellowship, which was sanctioned vide Govt. Order No. 527-frg of 1993 dt: 28.9.1993, he could not be appointed as Second Internal Examiner. It is stated that as the petitioner was on Commonwealth Medical Fellowship, which was sanctioned vide Govt. Order No. 527-frg of 1993 dt: 28.9.1993, he could not be appointed as Second Internal Examiner. It is thus submitted that as the turn of the petitioner had come earlier and he being not available, it will be presumed that he has lost his chance to act as Second Internal Examiner. It was in these circumstances the offer went to Dr. Virender Gupta at No. 1 in the panel. It is further stated that in May-June session, Dr. MS Wadhwa who was after Dr. Virender Gupta, was given the chance to act as Second Internal Examiner. It is further stated that for examination conducted on Aug. 2000, Dr. Vijay Gupta who was next to Dr. MB Wadhwa was picked up to act as Second Internal Examiner. Thus, what is stated is that as Dr. CD Gupta had a chance and as he was not available. Therefore he has lost his right to act as Second Internal Examiner. It is accordingly submitted that he has to wait for his turn being in rotation. 6. The learned counsel for the University submits that the examination have already commenced and any change in the panel at this stage would not be conducive to the holding of said examination. 7. The panel which was prepared for the year 1994 was operated when the petitioner was not in India. As to whether the petitioner was called upon to take up the assignment of Second Internal Examiner is not apparent from the stand taken by respondent no.1. The purport of Regulation noticed above is that there should be an actual offer made to the person concerned and if he declines only then, the panel can further be rotated. A person who was not in the station at the particular time and who had no opportunity to avail of the benefit of Regulation referred to above, cannot be said to have availed of the benefit of rotation. The interpretation placed by respondent no. 1 cannot be accepted. It is accordingly held that from 1994 onwards, no valid opportunity byway of rotation was given to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent authorities that he was given an opportunity in the year 1994, is a stand which cannot be accepted. This petition as such is allowed. The interpretation placed by respondent no. 1 cannot be accepted. It is accordingly held that from 1994 onwards, no valid opportunity byway of rotation was given to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent authorities that he was given an opportunity in the year 1994, is a stand which cannot be accepted. This petition as such is allowed. The respondents would operate the panel so that the petitioner gets a chance to become the second internal examiner as per the aforementioned Regulation for the examination to be conducted in terms of communication dt. 7th Sept., 2000 copy whereof has been placed on record as annexure "C". Disposed of accordingly.