Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 481 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-26

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State for the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna and for Respondent No. 12. 2. The petitioner in 1997 joined the three year M.D., Community Medicine course conducted by the Respondent-Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (hereinafter to be referred as IGIMS) and completed the same successfully. An advertisement was published by the IGIMS being No. 1 of 2004 inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of Assistant Professor, Community Medicine. He applied in response to the same. The selection committee after interview on 15.5.2004 recommended his name. Respondent No. 12 was at serial 2 of the panel. The post was solitary. The Board of Governors of the IGIMS decided to have second opinion on the recommendation of the selection committee from a three man committee. This three man committee doubted the validity of the course of M.D., Community Medicine conducted by the IGIMS and opined that it requires a probe into the course being run by the Institute. The Board of Governors in its meeting dated 21.12.2005 rejected the recommendation of the selection committee with regard to the candidature of the petitioner. His representation also came to be rejected on 6.2.2006. 3. The respondents then published a fresh advertisement on 8.2.2006. In pursuance of which Respondent No. 12, who has his qualification of M.D. in Community Medicine from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi has been appointed. The petitioner questions the same also after what he alleges his wrongful denial of the recommendation in his favour by the selection committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that IGIMS is recognized by the Medical Council of India. It is also a Deemed University under the U.G.C. Act. A piquant situation is sought to be created by the Institute where it refuses to recognize a qualification granted by it for its own purpose. The petitioner has sufficient experience and it is not the case of the IGIMS that the M.D., Community Medicine course conducted by it is of substandard quality. On the contrary, the State Government has issued an essentiality certificate on 29.10.1998 for purpose of obtaining recognition from the Medical Council of India, inter alia, for M.D. course. The petitioner, therefore, definitely has a case for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Community Medicine in so far as the present Institute is concerned. On the contrary, the State Government has issued an essentiality certificate on 29.10.1998 for purpose of obtaining recognition from the Medical Council of India, inter alia, for M.D. course. The petitioner, therefore, definitely has a case for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Community Medicine in so far as the present Institute is concerned. What shall be his status with regard to the aforesaid qualification outside the Institute is not relevant in the present situation. 5. Learned counsel for the IGIMS submitted that the course was conducted for one session only, that there was no recognition from the Medical Council of India for this course. Learned counsel for the IGIMS fairly submits that till date it does have recognition from Medical Council of India for this course. Respondent No. 12 holds the qualification of M.D. Community Medicine from All India Institute of Medical Sciences recognized by the Medical Council of India. 6. Peculiar are the ways and the manner in which a professional Institute imparting specialized knowledge is being run by the people at the helm presumed to be presumably proficient. The IGIMS is aware that it does have recognition under the Indian Medical Council Act for the course of Community Medicine. It nonethe-less takes admission of candidates. Unsuspecting candidates shall naturally believe and presume that the Institute which is one of repute and recognized by the Medical Council of India had recognition for the course also. Quite rightly so, as it defies prudence to defeat the presumption that a reputed Institute like IGIMS shall be running an unrecognized course. It is not the case of the IGIMS before this Court that it had cautioned the applicants before granting them education that the course was unrecognized. The IGIMS then issued an advertisement making it essential that a candidate should have the qualification for the same post from an Institute recognized under the schedules of the Medical Council Act. 7. Naturally the selection committee considered the qualification of the petitioner of M.D. in Community Medicine from the IGIMS itself good and valid for appointment for the Institute itself. From a common sense point of view, there cannot be any infirmity in it and there can be no justification to deny the benefit of such recommendation except for justifiable reasons. Unfortunately, sympathy cannot supplant the law. 8. From a common sense point of view, there cannot be any infirmity in it and there can be no justification to deny the benefit of such recommendation except for justifiable reasons. Unfortunately, sympathy cannot supplant the law. 8. The IGIMS conducts a course, grants certification of proficiency of the course conducted by it, declares the candidate to have acquired the qualification. When this qualification is presented before it, it refuses to recognize it. This is a classic case of non-application of mind and arbitrariness. 9. The petitioner has not only been deprived of an opportunity to enhance his career but if he was to urge that he wasted the time in doing the M.D., Community Medicine course, in the Institute, this Court has no option but to concur with him. 10. Since the advertisement stipulated the qualifications of M.D. in Community Medicine from an institution recognized by the Medical Council of India, that qualification is wanting in so far as the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds very difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. To that extent, the writ application is dismissed. 11. There is another aspect of the matter. The institute led the petitioner up the garden path for the course in M.D., Community Medicine. At the end of the path, as promised by the Institute, instead of a rose garden there was a ravine in which the Institute has now pushed the petitioner. The only defence of the Institute is that this was done in anticipation of approval. Had it been a private Institute, taking such a defence, the matter may have been different. Surely reputed Institute like IGIMS was not expected to indulge in such irresponsible act. From 1998 to 2009, the recognition is still wanting. A fact which speaks eloquently. 12. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be entitled to costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid by the Institute to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the Institute to commence enquiry and to fix responsibility with regard to those who initiated the course without recognition, invited application for admission, and recover the amount of cost from them. 13. Liberty is granted to the Institute to commence enquiry and to fix responsibility with regard to those who initiated the course without recognition, invited application for admission, and recover the amount of cost from them. 13. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an opinion on the quality and the qualification acquired by the petitioner in absence of recognition by the Medical Council of India. This observation is considered necessary in view of the submission of the Institute itself that this course was not substandard. If that be so, perhaps the Institute has more to explain in not considering the petitioner.