Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned appointment to two posts of lecturer in orthopaedics in government-run medical colleges in Bihar, namely Patna and Darbhanga Medical Colleges. Three candidates were in the fray: Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee, who had worked in hospitals in the United Kingdom, and two India-trained orthopaedic surgeons, Dr. Ram and Dr. Jamuar. One of the essential qualifications prescribed for the post was teaching experience in a teaching institution. Dr. Mukherjee satisfied the other academic qualifications but the State Government rejected his candidature on the ground that his British work experience did not constitute teaching experience in a teaching institution. Aggrieved, Dr. Mukherjee filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Patna High Court. The High Court first quashed the government's decision and directed reconsideration. The government examined the matter de novo and again found him ineligible. Dr. Mukherjee filed a second writ petition; this time the High Court examined Cabinet papers, official reports and nothings, and quashed the government's decisions, directing de novo consideration of the appointments. The State of Bihar and the other candidates appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave in Civil Appeal Nos. 1430 and 1431 of 1974. The contentions of the State were that teaching experience must be acquired in India, not in a foreign country; that the post of Registrar held by Dr. Mukherjee did not carry teaching functions; that the hospitals and universities where he worked were not proved to be teaching institutions; and that the testimonials produced by him were unreliable. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were the interpretation of the expressions teaching experience and teaching institution under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; whether foreign institutions could be covered; whether the High Court could inspect Cabinet papers; and whether the State was obliged to consider every eligible candidate under Articles 14 and 16. The Court held that neither teaching experience nor teaching institution were defined in the Act, rules or regulations, and that institutions abroad could qualify if they were linked with or recognised by universities and organisations in Schedules II and III and recognised by the Central Government under Section 14. It observed that the State should consult the Medical Council of India in cases of technical doubt, and that testimonials from professors should be taken at face value absent grave suspicion. The Court further held that screening an eligible candidate out of consideration altogether was illegal under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that while a reasoned order of appointment was not always required, reasons relevant to the rules must animate the order. On judicial review, the Court ruled that the High Court need not have looked into Cabinet papers and back records in the absence of mala fides or special circumstances. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the State and the other candidates, held the orders of appointment bad in law, and directed the State Government to consider de novo the appointments to the two lecturer posts, with freedom to consult technical authorities; Dr. Mukherjee was at liberty to adduce materials in support of his qualifications.
Headnote
A) Medical Education - Interpretation of Statutory Terms - Teaching Experience and Teaching Institution - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Sections 2, 12, 13, 14 - The expressions 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institution' are not defined in the Act, rules or regulations; they must be construed in the setting of the medical statute. Foreign institutions which are linked with or recognised by universities/organisations in Schedules II and III and recognised by Central Government under Section 14 fall within the meaning of teaching institutions, and experience gained there can be counted. The State Government should consult the Medical Council of India if in doubt on technical questions (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Screening of Eligible Candidate - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 - An obligation to consider every qualified candidate is implicit in the equal opportunity right under Articles 14 and 16; screening a candidate out of consideration altogether is illegal if the applicant has eligibility under the regulations. The State need not always make a reasoned order of appointment, but reasons relevant to the rules must animate the order (Paras Not mentioned). C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Writ of Certiorari and Inspection of Cabinet Papers - Constitution of India, Article 226 - When a writ of certiorari is moved, the court has power to call for records, but sensitive materials like Cabinet papers may not routinely be sent for unless mala fides or special circumstances are alleged. The power must be exercised judicially and judiciously; in this case the High Court need not have looked into Cabinet papers and back records (Paras Not mentioned). D) Evidence - Testimonials and Certificates - Acceptance at Face Value - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Testimonials from professors showing that the respondent taught as Registrar should be taken at face value by a public authority acting bona fide unless grave suspicion taints them; high-placed academic men are assumed veracious absent clear contrary indications. The respondent's certificates showed he took part in teaching work as Registrar (Paras Not mentioned). E) Service Law - Appointment - Consultation with Technical Authorities - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - While the appointing authority is the State Government and responsibility for final choice vests in it, it is reasonable to consult bodies or authorities of high technical level like the Medical Council of India when points in dispute are technical in nature. The State's policy decision not to consult the Council due to prior inconsistent advice was criticized (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institution' under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 include foreign institutions and experience gained abroad; whether the post of Registrar in UK hospitals involved teaching functions; whether the High Court could call for and inspect Cabinet papers in writ proceedings; whether the State Government was required to make a reasoned order and consider every qualified candidate under Articles 14 and 16; whether the State Government should consult Medical Council of India in technical doubts
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed both appeals of the State and the other candidates. The orders of appointment in Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 1974 were held bad in law. The State Government was directed to consider de novo the appointments to the two posts of lecturers, free to consult technical authorities of its own before reaching a decision. The first respondent was at liberty to adduce materials to satisfy the State Government on his qualifications. The High Court need not have looked into Cabinet papers and back records. Teaching institutions abroad were recognized if linked with or recognised by universities/organisations in Schedules II and III and recognised by Central Government under Section 14. Testimonials from professors were to be taken at face value unless contrary indicated. The question whether assisting or participating in teaching was different from actual teaching was left to be decided by the appointing authority.
Law Points
- Teaching experience and teaching institution not defined in Indian Medical Council Act
- 1956
- foreign institutions linked with or recognised by universities/organisations in Schedules II and III and recognised by Central Government under Section 14 qualify as teaching institutions
- State Government should consult Medical Council of India on technical doubts
- screening an eligible candidate from consideration violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
- testimonials of high-placed academic men to be taken at face value unless grave suspicion exists
- High Court should not routinely call for Cabinet papers in writ of certiorari unless mala fides or special circumstances alleged
- reasoned order of appointment not always necessary but reasons relevant to rules must animate order
