Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Ved Prakash Mishra, was a Professor of Physiology at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College affiliated to Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj University (formerly Nagpur University) and Dean of its Faculty of Medicine. He was elected by the University Senate as a member of the Medical Council of India (MCI) under Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMC Act) for a five-year term commencing 31.3.2001. Subsequently, he was nominated by the Central Government to the Post Graduate Medical Education Committee under Section 20 of the IMC Act and later elected its Chairman. In 2006, the Union of India issued two notifications: one under Section 7(3) of the IMC Act declaring that the petitioner had vacated his MCI seat with effect from 7.1.2006, and another under Section 20(1) appointing respondent no.3 in his place on the Post Graduate Medical Education Committee. The petitioner challenged these notifications by way of a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioner contended that he had taken extraordinary leave from the Government of Maharashtra to serve as Vice Chancellor of a deemed university but remained a member of the Medical Faculty of respondent no.4 University under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. He argued that cessation of faculty membership could only be determined by the University itself under its governing statute, and the Central Government had no jurisdiction to unilaterally conclude that he had ceased to be such member. The respondent University supported the petitioner's stand, clarifying that he continued as a faculty member according to its statutory provisions and government orders extending faculty membership for students admitted up to certain academic years. The petitioner also pointed out that the Central Government did not place any material on record to support its assumption. The respondents opposed the petition, with the Union of India presumably maintaining that the notification was valid. The Court framed the core issue: whether the Central Government had jurisdiction under Section 7(3) IMC Act to deem the petitioner to have vacated his seat. Analyzing the scheme of the IMC Act and the MU Act, the Court held that the jurisdiction to decide whether a person has ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of a University is exclusively vested in the University under its enactment. The Central Government cannot independently determine this fact; it must defer to the University's determination. In the present case, the University had categorically stated that the petitioner continued as a faculty member. Consequently, the notification under Section 7(3) was without jurisdiction, malafide, and void ab initio. The subsequent appointment under Section 20(1) was also set aside as it was predicated on the invalid vacation of seat. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notifications dated 18.1.2006 were quashed.
Headnote
A) Medical Council of India - Vacation of Seat - Central Government's Power under Section 7(3) - Section 7(3), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - The Central Government issued a notification deeming the petitioner, an elected member of the Medical Council of India from a University, to have vacated his seat on the ground that he had ceased to be a member of the Medical Faculty of that University. The petitioner argued that the University had not determined any such cessation and that the jurisdiction to do so vested exclusively in the University. Held: The Central Government cannot usurp the University's jurisdiction; it must base its decision on a determination by the University. Without such determination, the notification is without jurisdiction and void. (Paras 7-12) B) Post Graduate Medical Education Committee - Appointment - Validity Dependent on Vacation of MCI Seat - Section 20(1), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - The Central Government, acting on the premise that the petitioner had vacated his MCI seat, appointed another person to the Post Graduate Medical Education Committee in his place. As the vacation notification was quashed, the subsequent appointment was also invalid. Held: The appointment under Section 20(1) being consequential to the invalid notification under Section 7(3) could not be sustained and was set aside. (Paras 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.1 had jurisdiction to issue notification under Section 7(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 declaring that the petitioner had vacated his seat in the Medical Council of India, and whether the consequent appointment under Section 20(1) was valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notifications dated 18.1.2006 issued by respondent no.1 under Section 7(3) and Section 20(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 were quashed and set aside. The Court held that the Central Government cannot unilaterally deem a member to have vacated his seat without the University's prior determination of cessation of faculty membership, as such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the University.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction to determine cessation of membership of Medical Faculty of a University lies exclusively with the University under its governing Act
- Central Government cannot unilaterally deem a member to have vacated seat under Section 7(3) IMC Act without University's determination
- Notification issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio.
