Shrigopal Premprakash ... vs Nagpur University And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 712 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.D. Sinha, J.

1. Heard Shri Haq learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Sonare, AGP for respondent No. 3.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have passed M.B.B.S, and have done one year's rotating internship. The petitioners being eligible for registration for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, had appeared for the Post Graduate Medical Common Entrance Test -- 2000 (PGMCET-2000) which was held on 24-12-2000. The counselling for the selection of the candidates in pursuance of the above mentioned PGMCET-2000 started from 7-8-2001. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No. 1 was selected for M.D. (Anaesthesia) and he was given registration in the Government Medical College, Nagpur. Petitioner No. 2 was selected for M.S. (Surgery) and he was given registration in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. In the second round of admission process, held on 16-12-2002, petitioner No. 1 was selected for M.D. (Medicine) and he was given registration in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. Petitioner No. 2 was selected for M.D. (Medicine) and he was given registration in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. The petitioners have joined the Medicine department in December, 2002 and they are pursuing their training in the Medicine department.

4. Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to Ordinance 57 of Respondent No. 1 - Nagpur University, the period of regular course of study is two years, if the candidate is registered under Clause 4(1)(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) and under Clause 4(2) of the Ordinance 57. In the case of the candidates registered under Clause 4(1)(b)(ii) and (v), the period of regular course of study for the degree course is three years. The process of selection of the candidates for the Post Graduate Medical Course in pursuance of PGMCET-2000 was delayed because of the proceedings pending in the Court as well as delay on the part of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

5. The learned counsel contended that in view of the above referred Ordinance, the respondents be directed to give the benefit to the petitioners of provisions of Clause (3) of the Notification dated 26-5-2003 namely;

(i) Students who were admitted to Diploma in a subject and have been admitted to Degree in the same subject irrespective of Institution/University shall be granted the term previously completed by them.

(ii) Students who were admitted into a degree/diploma in a subject and have been subsequently admitted to the same degree/diploma in other Institution/University, their previous term be counted.

(iii) Students, who have been admitted to the degree/diploma in a subject and have been subsequently admitted to the degree/diploma in an "allied subject" pertaining to the group speciality shall be granted previous term;

and, therefore, direct the respondents to treat the subject of Anaesthesia and Surgery as allied subjects to the Medicine and the petitioners be granted the term previously completed by them in the subject of Anaesthesia and Surgery respectively for the purpose of M.D. (Medicine).

6. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 on the other hand, contended that the procedure adopted by the University is just and proper and the same is based on the Notification dated 4-3-1997 issued by the Medical Council of India. It is further contended that the procedure is evolved by the Committee of Experts, whose report is annexed herewith. The Committee evolved the procedure which is mentioned in the Notification dated 26-5-2003 and the same is based on the decisions already taken in this regard by the University of Mumbai as well Pune. It is contended that in the instant case, petitioner No. 1 was selected in the first round for M.D. (Anaesthesia) and in the second round for M.D. (Medicine). As per the Notification dated 26-5-2003, petitioner No. 1 can only be given benefit if the subject in which the petitioner was given registration in the second round is allied subject in which petitioner No. 1 was admitted in the first round. In the instant case, the allied subjects of M.D. (Medicine) are (i) General Medicine; (ii) Paediatrics; (iii) Chest and T.B.; (iv) Leprosy, Dermatology and Venerology and (v) Psychiatry. Petitioner No. 1 was not given registration in the first round in any of these subjects and therefore, the benefit which is prayed for in the petition cannot be granted. The petitioner will be registered in the subject of M.D. (Medicine) with effect from 16-12-2002 i.e. the date on which he was selected in the second round.

7. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel further contended that so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he was also selected in the second round and was granted registration in M.D. (Medicine) Post Graduate and he was also not given registration in any of the allied subjects in the first round of Selection. Petitioner No. 2 was given registration in the first round in the subject M.S.(Surgery) and therefore, he is also not entitled to get the benefit as prayed for.

8. It is submitted by Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel, for the University that the basis of grouping of the subjects under allied specialities is based on the grouping reflected in the "Regulations on Medical Graduate Education, 1997" of Medical Council of India, issued under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Medicine and its allied specialities as reflected in the said Regulations are thus : (i) Medicine; (ii) Paediatrics; (iii) Psychiatry; (iv) Dermatology and Sexually Transmitted diseases; (v) Tuberculosis and Respiratory diseases. Similarly, so far as discipline of Surgery is concerned, its allied subjects are (a) Surgery; (b) Ophthalmology; (c) Radio- Diagnosis and Radiotherapy; (d) Orthopedics; (e) ENT; (f) Obstetrics and Gynaecology. It is submitted that subject of Anaesthesia is required to be grouped under Surgical, primarily because it is pre-requisite and integral part of the said speciality. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel, therefore, contended that the classification of the allied subjects done by the University is just and proper and as per Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, and therefore, the benefit which is claimed by the petitioners in this petition cannot be extended to the petitioners.

9. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the Notification relied and cited by the respective counsel as well as the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1977 of Medical Council of India. So far as the issue in the present petition is concerned, it is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1 in the first round was selected and granted registration in the subject M.D. (Anaesthesia) (Post Graduate) and in the second round in the subject M.D. (Medicine). Similarly, petitioner No. 2 in the first round was granted registration in the subject of M.S. (Surgery) and in the second round M.D. (Medicine). On the basis of these undisputed facts, we have considered the Notification dated 26-5-2003. Under the said Notification, the benefit which is claimed by the petitioners can be granted if the candidate in the first round was given registration in the allied subjects of the subject in which he has been given registration in the second round. In the instant case, petitioners No. 1 and 2 both were given registration in M.D. (Medicine) (Post Graduate) in the second round and none of them were given registration in the allied subjects of Medicine which are referred to hereinabove. In that view of the matter, petitioners No. 1 and 2 are not entitled for the benefit which they have claimed in the present petition. So far as Notification dated 26-5-2003 is concerned, classification of allied subjects are based on the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1977, of the Medical Council of India and therefore, the classification is not only just and proper but the same is also sustainable in law and there is also no specific challenge either to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1977, of the Medical Council of India nor to the Notification dated 26-5-2003. In the absence of specific challenge to these aspects of the matter, there is no reason why we should not accept the procedure adopted by the University based on the provisions of the Regulations. So far as the report of the Committee is concerned, the same in our, view has a nexus with the Circular dated 20-1-2003 as well as letter dated 1-1-2003 issued by the University of Mumbai and Pune respectively. Even otherwise, as we have already observed hereinabove, the classification is primarily based on the regulations and therefore, no fault can be found with the same.

10. So far as the contention canvassed by Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners in view of Ordinance 57 is concerned, in our view, it does not have any bearing so far as the issue in question is concerned. Firstly, because Clause 4(1) of Ordinance 57 deals with the eligibility for registration for Post Graduate Course and in the instant case, we are concerned with the issue after the registration in the Post Graduate Course is granted to the petitioners and therefore, so far as Section 4(1)(b) (ii), (iii) and (iv) are concerned, the same have no bearing on the issue and therefore, the challenge raised in the petition is misconceived and devoid of substance.

11. In the results-no case is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.