Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1316 (BOM)

Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India

2006-08-24

D.D.SINHA, R.C.CHAVAN

body2006
D. D. SINHA, J.:- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri. Maninder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Shri. Jaiswal, learned Counsel, Shri. Chaudhari, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no. 1, Shri. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.2, Shri. Hag, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, and Shri. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The petition is directed against the notifications dated 18-1-2006 issued by the respondent no.1 in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "IMC Act") whereby it is declared that petitioner Dr. Ved Prakash Mishra shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India with effect from 7-1-2006. On the same day, the respondent no.1 issued another notification in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the IMC Act whereby respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant -is appointed as a member of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in place of the petitioner till 21-11-2006. 3. Shri. Maninder Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is a Professor of Physiology in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College affiliated to respondent no.4 University (earlier known as "Nagpur University"). He is also a Dean of Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University. The petitioner by virtue of being a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University was elected by Senate of the respondent no.4 University to be a member of the Medical Council of India under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. It was submitted that under the provisions of the IMC Act, Council is constituted in accordance with provisions of Section 3 of the IMC Act. The provisions of Section 3 provide for constitution and composition of Medical Council of India and amongst others, Council consists of one member from each University to be elected from amongst members of the Medical Faculty of the University by members of the Senate of the University. The petitioner is a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University and was elected by the senate of the respondent no.4 University to be a member of Medical Council of India in accordance with provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act with effect from 31-3-2001. This was duly notified by the respondent no.1 in the official gazette on 20-5-2001. 4. This was duly notified by the respondent no.1 in the official gazette on 20-5-2001. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per provisions of Section 7(2) of the IMC Act, the term of the Member of the Medical Council of India is for five years from the date of his nomination/ election or until his successor is duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer. The term of the petitioner as member of the Medical Council of India was upto 31-3-2006 and petitioner is entitled to continue as a member till his successor is elected or nominated, whichever is longer. It was further contended that under the provisions of Section 20 of the IMC Act, the respondent no. 1 has to constitute a Committee known as Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee from amongst members of the Medical Council of India. The Committee consists of nine members and all of them are required to possess post-graduate medical qualification and experience of teaching or examining post-graduate students of medicine. Out of nine members, six members are to be nominated by the respondent no. 1 and remaining three are to be elected by members of the Medical Council of India. The petitioner is one of the six members nominated by the respondent no. 1 vide notification dated 22-11-2001. The petitioner was thereafter elected as a Chairman of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee by the members of the Committee in its meeting dated 16-9-2002. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Section 20 of the IMC Act provides for constitution of Post Graduate Medical Education Committee for assisting Medical Council of India in matters relating to post- graduate medical education. It was pointed out that the Central Government notified the names of three persons, who were elected on the Committee vide notification dated 9-9-2002. It was submitted that composition of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee was complete on 9-9-2002 as required by Section 20 of the IMC Act. It was contended that as per provisions of Indian Medical Council (Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee) Rules, 1951 (framed by the Government of India) under Section 32 of the IMC Act, the term of the Post- Graduate Medical Education Committee is for five years and in the instant case, the term of the Committee has commenced from 9-9-2002. 6. It was contended that as per provisions of Indian Medical Council (Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee) Rules, 1951 (framed by the Government of India) under Section 32 of the IMC Act, the term of the Post- Graduate Medical Education Committee is for five years and in the instant case, the term of the Committee has commenced from 9-9-2002. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted five years' extraordinary leave by the Government of Maharashtra and was permitted to join as a Professor of physiology in Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) and to perform duties of the Vice Chancellor of the said University. The petitioner, however, continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University under the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "MU Act") and there was neither cessation nor severance of the relationship between respondent no.4 University and the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Government of Maharashtra has a legislative competence to constitute Universities and to provide for various offices, faculties, etc. by framing enactments in this regard. These enactments also permit the academicians and others to be members of the various Faculties of the University/ Universities of which they are not the employees in accordance with the provisions of the respective University Act. In other words, a Professor/Teacher of one University can be a member of Faculties not only of the said University, but also of other Universities under the provisions of respective University enactments. However, no such Teacher can simultaneously draw salary from both the Universities. It was contended that whether a particular employee of the said University is a member of its Medical Faculty or not can only be decided by the said University in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which constitutes the said University. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 does not have jurisdiction whatsoever to determine whether or not any person has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the University since such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Authority of the University and such jurisdiction is required to be exercised by the said Authority as per provisions of the enactment under which the said University is constituted. 8. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the present case, the respondent no.1 has chosen not to place on record the material on the basis of which it has decided to assume that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. The assumption of respondent no.1 apart from being unfounded is also without jurisdiction since the jurisdiction to decide the issue of membership of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University is vested only in the respondent no.4 University. 9. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Counsel for the respondent no.4 University keeping in view the provisions of the MU Act, has categorically stated before this Court that petitioner continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. The letter dated 24-1-2006 issued by the respondent no.4 University showing that the petitioner continues to be the member of the Medical Faculty is also placed on record. It was contended that the stand taken by the respondent no.4 University clearly shows that the petitioner continues to be the member of the Medical Faculty in accordance with its statutory provisions. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that definition of "College" is given under Section 2(10)) of the MU Act and means a College conducted by the University or affiliated to the University, situated in the University area. Similarly, Section 5 of the MU Act deals with powers and duties of the University and sub-section (18) thereof requires University to hold examinations and confer degrees and post-graduate diplomas and award post higher secondary diplomas and certificates and other academic distinctions on persons, who have pursued approved courses of study in the University or in a College or in an Institution or a recognised Institution or a School and have passed the examinations prescribed by the University. It was submitted that provisions of Section 112 of Chapter XV of the MU Act deals with issuance of order or orders providing for matters when new University is constituted. Section 94 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the MUHS Act") is a saving clause. 11. It was submitted that provisions of Section 112 of Chapter XV of the MU Act deals with issuance of order or orders providing for matters when new University is constituted. Section 94 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the MUHS Act") is a saving clause. 11. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State of Maharashtra has passed various orders in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the above referred Acts, sanctioning continuation of Medical Faculty membership of the petitioner in the respondent no.4 University till such time the students admitted in the Colleges affiliated to the respondent no.4 University finally pass in their graduate and postgraduate medical course. These orders issued by the State of Maharashtra clearly establish that the students, who have admitted in all the affiliated Colleges including the deemed University in question for the graduate courses upto the years 1998-99 and admitted for post-graduate courses upto the year 2004-05 will continue to get their medical degree from the respondent no.4 University. The last of such order dated 30-8-2005 of the State Government has been placed on record, which permits continuation of faculty membership upto August, 2007. It was submitted that Government order dated 4-10-2000 and 14-72000 demonstrate the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the MU Act have no applicability in the case of the petitioner in view of the above referred provisions of the MU Act as well as MHUS Act. It was also pointed out that letter dated 13-3-2006 issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India clearly shows that the petitioner continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. It was submitted that notification under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act issued by the respondent no. 1 is completely malafide, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is an admitted case of the respondent no.1 that second impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 was issued by the respondent no. 1 is completely malafide, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is an admitted case of the respondent no.1 that second impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 was issued by the respondent no. 1 under Section 20(1) of the IMC Act only on the premise that the petitioner had ceased to be the member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University, thereby empowering respondent no.1 to issue notification under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act. It was contended that since jurisdiction in regard to issue as to whether person is continuing to be member of the Medical Faculty of the University exclusively vests in the concerned University, respondent no.1 can invoke its jurisdiction under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act only after concerned University has determined and decided whether the concerned person continues to be the member of the Faculty (medical or otherwise) of the said University and not otherwise. It was, therefore, contended that since respondent no.l did not have jurisdiction to determine such an issue, nonexistent presumption drawn by the respondent no. 1 that the petitioner had ceased to be the member of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University is unsustainable in law and further conclusion drawn by the respondent no.1 that petitioner lost his membership of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee of the Council is also void ab initio, without jurisdiction and completely malafide. It was contended that this aspect has been admitted by the respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit filed in the present proceedings wherein it is mentioned that second impugned notification under Section 20(1) of the IMC Act was issued on the premise that the petitioner had lost his membership under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act and not for any other reason and, therefore, it is not open for the respondent no. 1 to take a different stand before this Court than the one taken in the counter affidavit. 13. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under the IMC Act empowering the respondent no. 1 to exercise power of removal of the petitioner from the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in view of doctrine of pleasure. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in Dr. Anil Kohli Vs. 1 to exercise power of removal of the petitioner from the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in view of doctrine of pleasure. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in Dr. Anil Kohli Vs. Union of India and others (53(1994) Delhi Law Times 702 (DB). It was submitted that in view of decision rendered by the Delhi High Court, the impugned second notification deserves to be quashed being malafide, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the· Medical Council of India in accordance with Clause 38 of its Regulations of 2000 had sent communication dated 27-12-2005 to respondent no.1 requesting to arrange for conduct of elections of respondent no.4 University in accordance with law and for which purpose, the entire statutory duty is cast upon respondent no.1. It was submitted that under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act, holding of elections with regard to membership of the Universities, which are continued to have Medical Faculties, is upon respondent no. I. It was contended that it was neither permissible nor open to the respondent no.1 to even contend that it will not hold elections for the purpose of membership of the Universities under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act when Medical Faculties are existing and continuing in those Universities. It was submitted that Madhya Pradesh High Court in such contingency vide judgment and order dated 26-2-1997 in Writ Petition No.881/ 1996 directed Government of India to hold elections in a time bound manner. It was, therefore, contended that petitioner cannot be penalised for the deliberate defiance of law by the respondent no.1 particularly when Section 7(2) of the IMC Act entitles the petitioner to continue as a member of the Council under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act till such time his successor is elected. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of issuance of impugned notifications by the Union of India is also discriminatory. One Dr. S. K. Sharma was notified as a member of the Medical Council of India on the same day on which petitioner was nominated to be the member under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act, Dr. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of issuance of impugned notifications by the Union of India is also discriminatory. One Dr. S. K. Sharma was notified as a member of the Medical Council of India on the same day on which petitioner was nominated to be the member under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act, Dr. S. K. Sharma was the Director of PGI, Chandigarh and also a member of Medical Faculty of Punjab University under the relevant provisions of Punjab University Act and admittedly was not the employee of Punjab University. The respondent no.1 in its affidavit-in-reply dated 28-2-2006 justified the membership of Dr. S. K. Sharma on the ground that some of the courses of PGI, Chandigarh are affiliated to Punjab University and, therefore, there is a linkage between PGI, Chandigarh and Punjab University. It was contended that in the instant case, students admitted in Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) in MBBS course as well as PG medical courses are still pursuing their education and, therefore, the said Institute continues to be affiliated to the respondent no.4 University under the provisions of Section 2(10) and 5(18) of the MU Act. It was submitted that petitioner and Dr. S. K. Sharma though are similarly circumstanced and in fact petitioner stands on a better footing since he continues to remain employee of the respondent no.4 University and member of its Medical Faculty, even then they are treated differently by the Union of India, which has resulted in rendering the impugned notifications not only discriminatory, but also arbitrary and bad in law. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that whenever any University had ceased to exist and/or its medical faculty had ceased to exist, the Government of India was required to issue notification for deleting their names from the notified list. It was submitted that whenever Medical Faculty in any University is in existence and is being continued, it is not permissible for the respondent no.1 to contend that it will deprive such University of its membership of Medical Council of India under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the case of Pune University. It was submitted that Dr. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the case of Pune University. It was submitted that Dr. Pawar Vasant Niwriti, member of Medical Faculty of Pune University (non-teacher) was given membership of the Medical Council of India under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act upto year 2010 even though he is a private medical practitioner. It was submitted that respondent no.1 correctly issued notification notifying membership of Dr. Pawar under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act from Pune University. It was contended that other Universities in the Maharashtra having Medical Faculties have been correctly given representation through their members under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that both the impugned notifications dated 18-1-2000 being malafide, discriminatory and void ab initio are liable to be quashed. The respondent no.1 may be directed to take immediate steps for conducting elections of the respondent no.4 University under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act and till such time, declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as a member of Medical Council of India and Chairman of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. 18. Shri. Chaudhari, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no.1, contended that the Central Government is required to constitute Medical Council of India as per procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the IMC Act. Similarly, Section 7 of the IMC Act provides term of the office of President, Vice President and members of the Council. It was submitted that as per Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act, the petitioner was appointed as a member of Medical Council of India on his election by' Senate of the respondent no.4 University with effect from 31-3-2001. By virtue of his being member of the Council, he was nominated as member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee by the Central Government. It was contended that as per information received by the Central Government, the petitioner was relieved from the respondent no.4 University on 7-1-2006 consequent to his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Datta Maghe institute of Medical Science (Deemed University), Nagpur where he joined on 7-1-2006. It was contended that as per information received by the Central Government, the petitioner was relieved from the respondent no.4 University on 7-1-2006 consequent to his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Datta Maghe institute of Medical Science (Deemed University), Nagpur where he joined on 7-1-2006. The petitioner has thus ceased to be a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University and as per provisions of Section 7(3) of the IMC Act, the petitioner is deemed to have vacated his seat in the Council with effect from 7-1-2006 and, therefore, Central Government has issued impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 whereby it is notified that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated his seat in the Council with effect from 7-1-2006. 19. It was further submitted by learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri. Chaudhari that the petitioner also ceased to be a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee as he was no more a member of Council and, therefore respondent no. 1 nominated Dr. Ra vi Kant, Professor of Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi as a member of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee vide another impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 issued by the Government of India. It was contended that the Central Government acted strictly in accordance with provisions of the IMC Act. 20. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that the petitioner was elected to represent respondent no.4 University under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act and his appointment was notified on 22-5-2001. However, on his appointment as Vice Chancellor of the deemed University (private) not affiliated to the respondent no.4 University, his membership in the Council cannot be continued since he ceased to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University from which he was elected as a member of the Medical Council of India. It was submitted that petitioner was nominated by the respondent no.1 in the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee on the basis of petitioner being a member of the Medical Council of India. Since petitioner ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of India, in view of above referred facts, membership of the petitioner in the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee also ceased to exist. Consequently, vacancy occurred in the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee, which is filled in by the Central Government by appointing Dr. Ravi Kant as a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in place of the petitioner. Consequently, vacancy occurred in the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee, which is filled in by the Central Government by appointing Dr. Ravi Kant as a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in place of the petitioner. It was contended that as per decision of the Maharashtra Government, all the post-graduation, graduation and diploma courses, which were previously deleted from the jurisdiction of the Universities of Health Sciences have been deemed to have re-affiliated to the Universities of Health Sciences from the academic session 2006-07 and the Institute where petitioner has been appointed as a Vice Chancellor being a private Institute, which has been conferred the status of a deemed University, is not affiliated nor has any linkage with the respondent no.4 University and, therefore, as per provisions of Section 43 of the MU Act, 1994, the petitioner has ceased to be the member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University and shall be deemed to have vacated his office as member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University and the respondent no.1 is justified in issuing the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 in view of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act notifying that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated his seat in the Council with effect from 7-1-2006. 21. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri. Chaudhari alternatively contended that assuming but not admitting that the petitioner continued to be a member of Medical Council of India, he does not thereby automatically continue as a member and also Chairman of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee nor there is any vested right in him to claim this protection. The power to constitute Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee is of the Central Government and the Central Government is entitled to change its nomination on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. There is no legal right in the petitioner to claim to be on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee when the Central Government has decided to end his membership on the Committee. Section 20 of the IMC Act vests power in the Central Government to choose members of the Council in order to constitute Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. Section 20 of the IMC Act does not provide a particular tenure or period of the membership of the Committee and, therefore, respondent no. 1 is justified in appointing Dr. Section 20 of the IMC Act vests power in the Central Government to choose members of the Council in order to constitute Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. Section 20 of the IMC Act does not provide a particular tenure or period of the membership of the Committee and, therefore, respondent no. 1 is justified in appointing Dr. Ravi Kant as member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee after tenure of the petitioner as a member of Medical Council of India expired on 31-1-2006. 22. It was argued by Shri. Chaudhari, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 1, that certificate issued by the Registrar of respondent no.4 University on 241-2006 or opinion of the Vice Chancellor of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences or letters dated 14-7-2000 and 4-10-2000 issued by the Officers of the State Government do not have any legal sanctity nor these letters can override the provisions of the Act and Regulations and, therefore, they are liable to be ignored. 23. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri. Chaudhari contended that as per Section 7(2) of the IMC Act, member of the Council is entitled to hold the office for a term of five years from the date of his nomination or election and sub-section (3) of Section 7 stipulates that elected or nominated member of the Council shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in the case of member elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, if he ceases to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the University concerned and, therefore, Central Government was justified in issuing the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 while exercising power under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act whereby it is declared that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India with effect from 7-1-2006. 24. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri. Chaudhari contended that power vested in the Central Government under Section 20 of the IMC Act is independent than Section 7 though for being nominated to the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee, membership in the Medical Council of India is sine qua non. However, continuation or otherwise of the membership of the Medical Council of India does not create any right in such member to continue his membership on the Post- Graduate Medical Education Committee. However, continuation or otherwise of the membership of the Medical Council of India does not create any right in such member to continue his membership on the Post- Graduate Medical Education Committee. It was, therefore, contended that even if it is presumed that the petitioner continues to be a member of the Medical Council of India, that by itself does not entitle the petitioner to continue as a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. It was submitted that the petition suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. Shri. Haq, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, contended that provisions of Section 37 of the MU Act provide that there shall be a Board of Studies for every subject or group of subjects as prescribed-by the statutes and sub-section (2) provides for constitution of Board of Studies and sub-section (3) gives power to the Board to co-opt one Teacher having not less than ten years' teaching experience from amongst affiliated colleges teachers in the subject, who is not he d of the Department in the University of affiliated College or Principal. It was contended that Section 2(34) of the MU Act provides definition of "teacher", which means full time approved Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Librarian, Principal, Deputy or Assistant Librarian and Documentation Officer in the University and College Librarian, Director or Instructor of Physical Education in any University Department, conducted, affiliated or autonomous College, autonomous Institution or Department or recognised Institution in the University. It was submitted that Section 2(36) of the MU Act provides that "University" means any of the Universities mentioned in the Schedule. It was submitted that name of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) is not finding place in the said Schedule of Universities maintained under Section 3(1) and 6(1) of the MU Act and, therefore, petitioner cannot be treated to be a full time approved Teacher either of the respondent no.4 University or College or Department affiliated to the respondent no.4 University after the was appointed as a Vice Chancellor in Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) with effect from 7-1-2006 and, therefore, is also not eligible to continue as a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University. Consequently, impugned notification issued by the respondent no. Consequently, impugned notification issued by the respondent no. 1 in view of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act is just and proper. Similarly, appointment of Dr. Ravi Kant on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee vide another notification dated 18-1-2006 in view of Section 20 of the IMC Act, is also sustainable- in-law. 26. Shri. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 University, submitted that after coming into force the MU Act, process of election for constitution of various Authorities of the University was started. The Authorities of the University, which are relevant for our purpose, are the Faculty of Medicine and Board of Studies under the Faculty of Medicine. It was contended that the petitioner had become a member of Board of Studies in Homeopathy as he was co-opted as the member of the Board as per Section 37(3)(b) of the MU Act in the meeting held on 2-2-1995. The petitioner thereafter was elected as Chairman of the Board of Studies in Homeopathy in the meeting of the Board held on 17-2-1995. As the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Board of Studies, he became member of Faculty of Medicine by virtue of holding the office of Chairman of Board of Studies. Dr. W. B. Tayade, Dean, Faculty of Medicine had resigned from the post and, therefore, vacancy occurred in the post of Dean, Faculty of Medicine. As per provisions of Section 50 of the MU Act, the vacancy was required to be filled in by nomination. The Standing Committee constituted under Section 14 of the MU Act was the Authority competent to fill up the said vacancy. The Standing Committee had nominated the petitioner as Dean of the Faculty of Medicine on 19-8-1999 for the term co-terminus with the term of office. It was further contended that term of membership of all the Authorities was for five years as per provisions of the MU Act and was upto 31-8-2000. 27. Learned Counsel Shri. Kulkarni pointed out that in June 1998, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences came into force and all the Colleges/Institutes imparting education in medicine got affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The under-graduate and post-graduate courses were brought under the purview of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. 27. Learned Counsel Shri. Kulkarni pointed out that in June 1998, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences came into force and all the Colleges/Institutes imparting education in medicine got affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The under-graduate and post-graduate courses were brought under the purview of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. However, from January, 2000, the postgraduate courses were transferred to parent Universities as if they were never affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. It was submitted that students (under graduates) enrolled prior to June 1998 as well as post-graduate students were to continue their affiliation with the parent Universities and the respective parent Universities were required to conduct their examinations and declare the results. The State of Maharashtra had issued Government Circular dated 17-8-1998 whereby it is declared that the then existing Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine would be continued for a period of four years. The State Government by another Circular dated 28-2-2000 further declared that membership on the Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine were also continued and members of these Boards and Faculties were held to be entitled for participating in the election of other Authorities/ Bodies of the University. 28. Learned Counsel Shri. Kulkarni submitted that the above referred arrangement of the Board of Studies under the Faculty of Medicine as well as Faculty of Medicine was continued in the respondent no.4 University without holding elections and, therefore, petitioner also continued to hold his membership in the Board of Studies in Homeopathy Faculty of Medicine and also continued to hold the post of Dean, Faculty of Medicine, which he is holding till today. It was contended that as per directions of the Medical Council of India, one member of faculty of Medicine was required to be nominated by the Senate of the respondent no.4 University. Accordingly, in the meeting of the Senate held on 31-3-2001, petitioner was nominated by the Senate as member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five years. The State Government vide Circular dated 26-2-2002 confirmed the position that the representation from the Faculty of Medicine on Medical Council of India would be available. Initially the terms of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine was continued upto July, 2003. Subsequently, the said period was extended upto 31-8-2005 as per Government Resolution dated 6-10-2003. The State Government vide Circular dated 26-2-2002 confirmed the position that the representation from the Faculty of Medicine on Medical Council of India would be available. Initially the terms of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine was continued upto July, 2003. Subsequently, the said period was extended upto 31-8-2005 as per Government Resolution dated 6-10-2003. However, State Government has issued another Circular dated 31-8-2005 and extended the said term upto 318-2007 and, therefore, petitioner continues to hold the membership of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University as well as petitioner also continues to hold the post of Dean of Faculty of Medicine as on today till such time. 29. It was submitted by learned Counsel Shri. Kulkarni that when the petitioner has availed extra-ordinary leave for five years, he was Assistant Professor of Physiology in the Government Medical College, Nagpur and was relieved from the said post with effect from 7-1-2006. The petitioner thereafter joined as a Professor of Physiology in Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) on 7-1-2006 and in addition to that, he was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the said University on 7-1-2006. It was submitted that though Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) is an independent University, the students of Post-Graduate courses, who are admitted to Datta Maghe Institute of Medical Sciences prior to its establishment continue to be affiliated and enrolled with respondent no.4 University. The respondent no.4 University is, therefore, required to conduct their examinations and declare their results. It was submitted that the respondent no.4 University referred the issue as to whether dual affiliation is consistent or inconsistent with the provisions of the MU Act as well as MOOS Act to the learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra for obtaining his opinion particularly in respect of the petitioner. The respondent no.4 University is awaiting the opinion of the learned Advocate General. 30. We have given anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties, perused the relevant provisions of law and considered decisions relied on and cited by the respective Counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner has challenged two notifications issued on the same date, i.e. 18-1-2006 by the respondent no. 1. 30. We have given anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties, perused the relevant provisions of law and considered decisions relied on and cited by the respective Counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner has challenged two notifications issued on the same date, i.e. 18-1-2006 by the respondent no. 1. The Government of India issued the first notification dated 18-1-2006 in view of power vested under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act whereby it is declared that since the petitioner has been relieved from the respondent no.4 University on 7-1-2006 consequent to his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Nagpur, he has ceased to be member of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University and shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India with effect from 7-1-2006. While considering the validity of the action of the respondent no. 1 in issuing the said notification, following facts and relevant provisions of the IMC Act, MU Act and MUHS Act as well as scheme and procedure stipulated therein need to be considered. 31. The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 received assent of the Governor on 21-71994 and was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 21-7-1994 and came into force on 22-7 -1994. After coming into force of the MU Act, process of election of various Authorities constituted under the provisions of the MU Act was undertaken as per the procedure prescribed in this regard under the said Act. In the present case, we are concerned with the Faculty of Medicine and Board of Studies under the Faculty of Medicine of the respondent no.4 University. The first meeting of the Board of Studies was held on 22-1995 and in the said meeting, as per provisions of Section 37(3)(b) of the MU Act, the petitioner was co-opted as member of the Board of Studies in the subject of Homeopathy. Another meeting of Board of Studies was held on 17-2-2005 and the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Board of Studies in the said meeting. The petitioner by virtue of being Chairman of Board of Studies, became member of Faculty of Medicine of the respondent no.4 University. The election of Dean of Faculty of Medicine was held on 20-3-1995 and Dr. W.B. Tayade was elected as Dean of Medical Faculty. The petitioner by virtue of being Chairman of Board of Studies, became member of Faculty of Medicine of the respondent no.4 University. The election of Dean of Faculty of Medicine was held on 20-3-1995 and Dr. W.B. Tayade was elected as Dean of Medical Faculty. However, at later point of time, he had resigned from the post of Dean, Faculty of Medicine and, therefore, vacancy occurred. As per provisions of Section 50(a) of the MU Act, if any vacancy occurs in the office of member, before expiry of his regular term, it shall be filled in by nomination, by the Authority empowered in that behalf under the MU Act and the person so nominated shall hold office for the residual term for which the earlier member would have held that office. In the instant case, clause (c) of Section 50 of the MU Act is relevant for our purpose, which contemplates that if there is no candidate available for appointment as provided in clause (b) or if it is not possible to fill the vacancy for whatever reason, the Standing Committee shall fill the vacancy by nominating a person, who is otherwise eligible to be so elected, for the residual term for which the earlier member would have held that office, if the vacancy had not occurred. The Standing Committee had nominated the petitioner as Dean, Faculty of Medicine on 19-8-1999. The term of the membership of the Authorities (Bodies) of the University was of five years. 32. The Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act, 1998 came into force with effect from 3-6-1998 and by operation of this Act, all the Colleges/Institutions imparting education in Medicine came to be affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The under-graduate and post- graduate courses in medicine were brought under the purview of the MUHS Act. However, from January 2000, the post-graduate courses were re-transferred to the parent University as if they were never affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. The under-graduate and post- graduate courses in medicine were brought under the purview of the MUHS Act. However, from January 2000, the post-graduate courses were re-transferred to the parent University as if they were never affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. By virtue of provisions of Section 94 of the MUHS Act, any student (under graduate enrolled prior to June, 1998 as well as postgraduate), who immediately prior to the date of commencement of the MUHS Act was studying for a degree course in Health Sciences in any of the Universities specified in the Schedule to this Act, such degree course was required to be completed in Health Sciences of the respective Universities for which he/she qualifies on the result of this examination. In other words, under graduate or post-graduate student pursuing his/her education prior to coming into force the MUHS Act shall be entitled to continue his/her medical education in the said University and his/her results also shall be declared by the said University and requisite degree in health sciences shall also be conferred on them, if he/ she is otherwise eligible, by the said University irrespective of the fact of coming into force of the MUHS Act. It is, therefore, evident that the students pursuing their medical education in the Colleges prior to coming into force of the MUHS Act continue to be affiliated to the parent University in spite of coming into force of the MUHS Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 94 of the MUHS Act starts with nonobstante clause and, therefore, the said provision has an overriding effect on the Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules prevalent at the time of commencement of the MUHS Act. 33. At this stage it will be appropriate for us to consider the provisions of Section 3 of the IMC Act, which deals with constitution and composition of the Indian Medical Council. 33. At this stage it will be appropriate for us to consider the provisions of Section 3 of the IMC Act, which deals with constitution and composition of the Indian Medical Council. The Council is consisting of following members: (a) one member from each State other than a Union territory, to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned; (b) one member from each University, to be elected from amongst the members of the medical faculty of the University by members of the Senate of the University or in case the University has no Senate by members of the Court (?); (c) one member from each State in which a State Medical Register is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on such Register who possess the medical qualifications included in the First or the Second Schedule or in Part II of the Third Schedule; (d) seven members to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on any of the State Medical Registers who possess the medical qualifications included in Part I of the Third Schedule; (e) eight members to be nominated by the Central Government. 34. For the controversy in issue, we are concerned with clause (b) of sub-section (1) Section 3 of the IMC Act. In the instant case, the petitioner being a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University was elected by the Senate of the respondent no.4 University to be the member of the Medical Council of India under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. The Government of India issued notification dated 22-5-2001 in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of IMC Act whereby it was notified that the petitioner - Dean of Faculty of Medicine, respondent no.4 University has been elected by the Senate of respondent no.4 University to be member of the Medical Council of India with effect from 31-3-2001. The necessary amendment was effected in the relevant entry by substituting the name of the petitioner: It is, therefore, evident that vide notification dated 22-5-2001 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, the election of the petitioner by the Senate from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University was not only treated to be valid, but the petitioner was also validly declared to be member of the Medical Council of India with effect from 31-3-2001. As per provisions of Section 7(2) of the IMC Act, the term of the member of the Council is for five years from the date of his nomination or election or until his successor is duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer. Similarly, Section 7(3) of the IMC Act contemplates that an elected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat, if he is absent without excuse, sufficient in the opinion of the Council, from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Councilor in the case of a member elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, if he ceases to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the University concerned, or in the case of a member elected under clause (c) or clause (d) of that sub-section, if he ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medical Register concerned. In the instant case, the Central Government in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act, issued the first impugned notification dated 181-2006 and declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India with effect from 7-1-2006 as he ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University on his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) with effect from 7-1-2006. 35. Considering the procedure and scheme enumerated under Section 7(1) and (3) of the IMC Act, deeming fiction in case of member elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the IMC Act is attracted only if such member of the Council ceases to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the University concerned and not otherwise. Considering the procedure and scheme enumerated under Section 7(1) and (3) of the IMC Act, deeming fiction in case of member elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the IMC Act is attracted only if such member of the Council ceases to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the University concerned and not otherwise. In other words, it is evident that as long as a member elected under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the IMC Act continues to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the concerned University, he cannot cease to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council by operation of deeming fiction provided in Section 7(1) and (3) of the IMC Act since such deeming fiction, in such situation, has no application. 36. In the instant case, the respondent no.4 University has taken a stand that the term of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine shall continue upto July, 2003. However, subsequently the said period was extended upto 31-8-2005 as per Government Circular dated 6-10-2003 and has been further extended by the State Government by issuing another Circular dated 30-8-2005 upto 31-8-2007. Consequently, the petitioner continues to hold membership of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine of the respondent no.4 University in view of the above referred Circular/instructions issued by the State Government keeping in view the scheme and procedure stipulated in Section 94 of the MUHS Act. Since the petitioner continues to be member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University, deeming fiction provided under Section 7(1) and (3) of the IMC Act is not attracted and the respondent no.1, in such situation, is not legally entitled to declare by issuing impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University and consequently, deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India with effect from 7-1-2006. 37. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record letter dated 13-32006 issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which shows that the petitioner continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. 37. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record letter dated 13-32006 issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which shows that the petitioner continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. Similarly, communication dated 4-10-2000 addressed to the Additional Secretary to the Chancellor by the Executive Officer, Government of Maharashtra clearly shows that the Medical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra issued orders dated 17-8-1998 and 28-2-2000 whereby it is declared that membership of members on the Faculties of Medicine and Board of Studies relating to Health Sciences has been continued and these orders are issued in view of provisions of Section 94 of the MUHS Act. 38. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and relevant provisions of law, the Board of Studies as well as Faculty of Medicine being continued in the respondent no.4 University till 2007 in spite of coming into force of the MUHS Act, hence, by necessary implication, membership of the petitioner on the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University continues and question of cessation of membership of the petitioner on such faculty as provided in Section 43 of the MU Act does not arise. Consequently, the petitioner shall not be deemed to have vacated his seat as member on the faculty as contemplated under Section 43 of the MU Act. 39. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and law, we have no hesitation to hold that the first notification dated 18-12006 issued by the respondent no.1 in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act is based on wholly wrong assumption and, therefore, conclusion arrived at by the Central Government that the petitioner has deemed to have vacated his seat in the Council with effect from 7-1-2006 is wholly unfounded, misconceived and devoid of substance. The affidavit/counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 does not show that the respondent no.1 has taken into consideration provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules before exercising power under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act. The nature of information received by the respondent no. 1, which necessitated respondent no. 1 to exercise power under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act is also not disclosed to the Court by the respondent no. 1. The nature of information received by the respondent no. 1, which necessitated respondent no. 1 to exercise power under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act is also not disclosed to the Court by the respondent no. 1. It is evident that merely because petitioner took up the additional assignment as Vice Chancellor of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) with effect from 7-1-2006, the respondent no. 1, without considering the provisions and procedure provided and contemplated in the relevant Acts and Rules applicable to the issue in question as well as Circulars and orders issued by the State Government in this regard jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University and exercised power under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act. The said conclusion, in our view, is wholly unfounded and is also inconsistent with the provisions of law and facts of the case and, therefore, cannot be sustained-in-law. 40. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 Union of India dated 28-2-2006 shows that the presumption of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University is based on some information received by the respondent no. 1. The counter affidavit is completely silent regarding nature of information alleged to have been received by the respondent no.1, source from whom such information was received, text thereof etc. and in absence thereof, it can safely be held that conclusion arrived at by the respondent no.1 that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University is based on wholly unfounded and misconceived presumption. It is not the case of the respondent no. 1 that the respondent no.1 made enquiry with the respondent no.4 University in order to find out whether the petitioner at the relevant time continued to be a member of the Medical Faculty nor anything is placed on record to show that respondent no.1 after taking into consideration provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules concluded that petitioner ceased to be a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the respondent no.1 and declaration given in the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 in this regard is wholly devoid of substance and cannot be sustained-in-law. 41. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is on extra-ordinary leave granted by the competent Authority while he was in the employment of respondent no.4 University and, therefore, petitioner continues to be a Teacher of the respondent no.4 University as contemplated under Section 2(34) and (36) of the MU Act and his membership of Board of Studies, election as Chairman of the Board of Studies and membership of the Faculty of Medicine shall not be affected automatically after coming into force of the MUHS Act even on this count. 42. Shri. Chaudhari, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.1, for the first time before this Court contended that as per opinion of the Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra, the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University in view of provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the MU Act. It is difficult for us to appreciate the said contention, firstly because the opinion of the Advocate General, if any, is not placed before this Court and secondly, same is not binding on this Court. 43. In the instant case, let us consider hypothetically if the MUHS Act would not have been enacted by the State Government. In that case, the Authorities/Bodies constituted under the MU Act would have been continued to be governed by the provisions of the said Act for all practical purposes including term of such Authorities/Bodies stipulated in Section 42 of the MU Act as well as cessation of membership as contemplated under Section 43 of the said Act. Section 42(1) of the MU Act prescribes term of office of member of Authorities/Bodies of the respondent no A University and contemplates that term of every Authority constituted under the said Act shall commence on. 1st September, and shall be of five years from the said date and the term of members of every Authority shall expire on the expiry of the said period of five years irrespective of the date on which a member has entered upon his office. 1st September, and shall be of five years from the said date and the term of members of every Authority shall expire on the expiry of the said period of five years irrespective of the date on which a member has entered upon his office. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 42 of the MU Act are not relevant for our purpose. 44. The provisions of Section 43 of the MU Act need to be considered in the backdrop of the provisions of Section 42 of the MU Act. Section 43 of the MU Act deals with cessation of membership of a member elected, nominated, appointed or co-opted on any of the Authorities/Bodies of the University and contemplates that such member shall cease to be a member of such Authority or Body as soon as he ceases to belong to such category and shall be deemed to have vacated his office as a member. In the instant case, considering the provisions of Section 43 of the MU Act and if MUHS Act would not have come into force, then the term of the Medical Faculty would have ended after completion of five years from its constitution and by necessary implication, by virtue of provisions of Section 43 of the MU Act, the members of the Medical Faculty would have ceased to be members thereof from such date and by deeming fiction, shall be deemed to have vacated their office as members of the Medical Faculty from such date. However, MUHS Act, which has come into force in the year 1998, has changed the legal complexion of Sections 42 and 43 of the MU Act, particularly in view of Section 94 of the MUHS Act. Section 94 of the MUHS Act creates a distinct category of students, who immediately prior to the date of commencement of the MUHS Act were taking education in health sciences in the Universities specified in' the Schedule to the MUHS Act. This provision permitted such students to continue their education in the said Universities and the said Universities were also permitted to hold examinations, declare results and confer degrees in health sciences on such students. Section 94 therefore, has evolved concept of dual affiliation (may be for a temporary period) of such students. This provision permitted such students to continue their education in the said Universities and the said Universities were also permitted to hold examinations, declare results and confer degrees in health sciences on such students. Section 94 therefore, has evolved concept of dual affiliation (may be for a temporary period) of such students. It is pertinent to note that Section 94 starts with non obstante clause and, therefore, this provision has an overriding effect on all other Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules prevalent at the time of commencement of the MUHS Act, which includes MU Act. 45. In view of provisions of Section 94(a) of the MUHS Act, it was necessary for the State Government as well as respondent no.4 University to continue Faculty of Medicine in the respondent no.4 University till such time such students pass their graduation and post-graduation examinations since it would have been absurd for the University to impart medical education to students without Medical Faculty. Keeping in view the object of Section 94(a) of the MUHS Act and in the interest of students falling within the said category, the State Government vide Circular dated 26-2-2002 continued the term of Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine initially upto July 2003, which was extended upto 31-8-2005 as per Government Circular dated 6-10-2003 and was further extended upto 31-8-2007 vide Government Circular dated 30-8-2005. The Circulars and orders issued by the State Government, in our view, are consistent with the provisions of Section 94(a) of the MUHS Act. In the present case, though the Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University were continued by the State Government upto 31-8-2007, the competent Authority under the MUHS Act thought it fit not to hold elections of the Board of Studies and Faculty of Medicine since term of these Bodies is temporarily extended upto 31-8-2007 and in any case, eventually the Colleges/ Institutions imparting medical education shall be affiliated to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences after passing of last student, who is taking medical education in such Universities prior to coming into force of the MUHS Act as per cut off date prescribed in this regard under the provisions of the MUHS Act. 46. In the instant case, the respondent no. 46. In the instant case, the respondent no. 1 does not have power or jurisdiction to declare whether petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University particularly when it is the specific stand of the respondent no.4 University that he continues to be a member of Medical Faculty and there is also a certificate on record in this regard issued by the Registrar of the respondent no.4 University. This decision of the respondent no.4, in our view, cannot be nullified or rendered nugatory by the respondent no.1 by issuing unilaterally the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006. The impugned notification is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 47. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that under the provisions of various Universities Acts, academicians as well as members of various Faculties of one University can be members of Faculties not only of the said University, but also of other Universities. Similarly, whether a particular Teacher/ Professor/employee of a University is a member of its Medical Faculty/Faculties can only be decided by the said University in accordance with provisions of the Act, which constitutes the said University. In the instant case, it is the respondent no.4 University alone, which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner is a member of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University and to give declaration accordingly. The respondent no.1, in our view, does not have any power or jurisdiction to hold, decide or declare as to whether petitioner is or is not a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University. Consequently, declaration given by the respondent no.1 in the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 that since petitioner was relieved by the respondent no.4 University on 7-1-2006 on being appointed as Vice Chancellor of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University is not only without jurisdiction, but same is also void ab initio. In the instant case, the Registrar of respondent no.4 University has issued Circular dated 24-1-2006, which is on record, which certifies that the petitioner is Dean and Member of Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University. In the instant case, the Registrar of respondent no.4 University has issued Circular dated 24-1-2006, which is on record, which certifies that the petitioner is Dean and Member of Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University. It is not in dispute that validity of this certificate has not been challenged by anybody before any competent Authority either under the provisions of the MU Act or before any competent Court and in absence thereof, it is not open for any other Authority including respondent no.1 to nullify effect of the said certificate dated 24-1-2006 issued by the Registrar of respondent no. University. It is not disputed by the respondent no. 1 that the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences vide letter dated 13-3-2006 communicated to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India that the petitioner continues to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University. In view of these undisputed facts as well as stand taken by the respondent no.4 University, the respondent no.1 was not legally competent to decide as to whether the petitioner is a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University or continues to be a member till date. The declaration given by the respondent no.1 in the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 in this regard, therefore, being without jurisdiction is wholly unsustainable-in-law. 48. The respondent no.1 in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the IMC Act issued another impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 appointing respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant to be member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee upto 21-11-2006 in place of the petitioner. Section 20(1) of the IMC Act provides for constitution of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee for assisting Medical Council of India in relation to postgraduate medical education. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the said Committee shall consist of nine members, all of whom shall be persons possessing post-graduate medical qualification and experience of teaching or examining postgraduate students of medicine. Sub-section (3) stipulates that out of nine members, six members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Central Government and remaining three members shall be elected by the Council from amongst its members. So far as sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 20 are concerned, they are not· relevant for the purpose of issue in question. 49. Sub-section (3) stipulates that out of nine members, six members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Central Government and remaining three members shall be elected by the Council from amongst its members. So far as sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 20 are concerned, they are not· relevant for the purpose of issue in question. 49. In the instant case, the respondent no.1 nominated six members of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee vide notification dated 22-11-2001 and the petitioner is one of them. The respondent no.1 notified members of the Committee, which were elected, vide notification dated 9-9-2002. The petitioner was elected Chairman of the post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in its meeting held on 16-9-2002. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per provisions of the Indian Medical Council (Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee) Rules, 1951, under Section 32 of the IMC Act, term of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee is for five years. In the instant case, nine members Committee was validity constituted vide notification dated 9-9-2002 and, therefore, term of the office of the Committee is for five years from the said date. This aspect has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. In the backdrop of the above aspect, we are of the view that the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee can be said to be legally constituted with effect from 9-9-2002 and, therefore, term of the said Committee shall be for a period of five years from the said date. Consequently, before expiry of the said period, the respondent no.1 has no jurisdiction to appoint respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant vide impugned notification dated 18-12006 as a member of the Post -Graduate Medical Education Committee since term of the petitioner as member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee continues for five years from 9-9-2002. At the same time, as per provisions of Section 20(2) of the IMC Act, the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee consists of only nine members. Consequently, respondent no.1 has no power or jurisdiction to increase strength of members more than nine by appointing respondent no.3 and, therefore, impugned notification dated 181-2006 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 50. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that the petitioner was elected to represent respondent no.4 University under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. Consequently, respondent no.1 has no power or jurisdiction to increase strength of members more than nine by appointing respondent no.3 and, therefore, impugned notification dated 181-2006 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 50. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that the petitioner was elected to represent respondent no.4 University under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. However, the petitioner shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India under sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the IMC Act since he has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of the respondent no.4 University, It was further contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that since petitioner ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of India, membership of the petitioner on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee also came to an end. Consequently, vacancy occurred, which is filled in by the Central Government by appointing respondent no.3 as a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in place of the petitioner. 51. The above referred contentions canvassed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, in the backdrop of the above referred facts and law, in our view, are misconceived because petitioner continues to be a member of Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 till 2007. By virtue thereof, deeming fiction provided under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act is not attracted. Consequently, petitioner continues to be an elected member of the Medical Council of India under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. Therefore, by necessary implication, membership of the petitioner on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee also continues and question of vacancy in the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee does not arise. Consequently, there is no question of appointing respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee by the Central Government. In the circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 20 of the IMC Act is devoid of substance. 52. Consequently, there is no question of appointing respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee by the Central Government. In the circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 20 of the IMC Act is devoid of substance. 52. The learned Assistant Solicitor General alternatively contended that the Central Government in view of power vested in it under Section 20 of the IMC Act nominated the petitioner on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee and, therefore, petitioner continued to be a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee during pleasure of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 was entitled to change its nomination on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. It was also contended that there is no legal right in the petitioner to continue on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in view of doctrine of pleasure, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner continued to be member of the Medical Council of India and the respondent no.1 was entitled to take a decision to end membership of the petitioner on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee and appoint respondent no.3 Dr. Ravi Kant in place of the petitioner. 53. The above referred contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, in our view, are also not legally sound and sustainable in law. The doctrine of pleasure must be understood in its right perspective. It is no doubt true that the petitioner being a member of the Medical Council of India was nominated by the Central Government on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee. However, we cannot turn nelson's eye to the fact that after petitioner was nominated on the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee, he was elected as Chairman of the said Committee and, therefore, original status of the petitioner as a nominated member of the PostGraduate Medical Education Committee is changed into an elected Chair-person of the said Committee and, therefore, complexion of the order issued by the respondent no.1 whereby petitioner was nominated as a member of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee has also changed. The removal of the petitioner by the Central Government as a member of Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee in view of doctrine of pleasure will take away the elective rights of the petitioner as Chairman of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Committee and in our view, would be arbitrary exercise of power since it is without justification, based on no reasons and suffers from lack of fairness and transparency. We want to express that any order passed by the State or Central Government in exercise of power conferred on it under the provisions of the concerned Act or statute, which curtails the term of the office/post even of a nominated member/person, must be reasonable, fair, just and transparent apart from being in the public interest. At the same time, it should not be wholly unreasonable, irrational and perverse. In the instant case, we are of the considered view that the impugned notification issued by the Central Government in pursuance of subsection (l) of Section 20 of the IMC Act is not only arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, but same is also without justification and, therefore, cannot be sustained-in-law. There is also no material on record to hold that same is issued in the public interest. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Anil Kohli Vs. Union of India and others (53(1994) Delhi Law Times 702 (DB)). 54. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Dr. S. K. Sharma was notified as member of the Medical Council of India on the same day on which petitioner was nominated to be member under Section 3(1)(b) of the IMC Act. Dr. S. K. Sharma at the relevant time was director of PGI, Chandigarh and also a member of Medical Faculty of Punjab University though was not the employee of the Punjab University. The stand of the respondent no.1 reflected in the affidavit-in-reply dated 282-2006 demonstrates that membership of Dr. S. K. Sharma of Medical Council of India was held to be valid by the respondent no.1 on the ground that some of the Courses of PGI, Chandigarh are affiliated to Punjab University and, therefore, there is a linkage between PGI, Chandigarh and Punjab University. If that is the stand of the Central Government in the case of Dr, S. K. Sharma, we see no reason how situation in the present case is different. If that is the stand of the Central Government in the case of Dr, S. K. Sharma, we see no reason how situation in the present case is different. The students admitted in Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences in graduate and post-graduate medical courses prior to coming into force of MUHS Act continue to be affiliated to the respondent no.4 University in regard to holding of their examinations, declaration of results and conferment of degrees and the Faculty of Medicine of respondent no.4 University also continues. Consequently, petitioner is also continued to be a member of Faculty of Medicine of the respondent no.4 University. Therefore, membership of the petitioner of the Medical Council of India, in the circumstances, even as per the stand taken by the respondent no.1, is valid and shall continue till his successor is nominated or elected, whichever is longer. 55. So far as contentions canvassed by Shri. Haq, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 are concerned, in view of above referred facts and law, same are misconceived. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is granted extra-ordinary leave for five years by the respondent no.4 University and, therefore, petitioner does not cease to be a Teacher of respondent no.4 University as contended by learned Counsel Shri. Haq. Similarly, in view of concept of dual affiliation as contemplated by the provisions of Section 94 of the MUHS Act (may be for a temporary period), the petitioner does not cease to be a full time approved Teacher under Section 3(1) or 6(1) of the MU Act, with the result, the impugned notification dated 18-1-2006 issued by the respondent no. 1 in view of Section 20 of the IMC Act, cannot be sustained. 56. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned notifications dated 18-1-2006 issued by the respondent no. 1 are misconceived, devoid of substance, arbitrary, unjust and cannot be sustained in law. Hence, same are quashed and set aside. 57. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.