Appeal No 2909 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 541990 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No 1465 of 1989 R
SB Upadhyay for the Appellant
Uday Sinha SK Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered Special leave granted
The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant was qualified to appear for the MD General Medicine Examination as a teacher candidates The High Court by the impugned order has taken the view that he was not on the around that he had not completed 3 years training period including one year of the house job prior to qualifying himself for appearing for the examination
912 The respondents PG Medical Students Association had challenged the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said examination on two rounds
The first ground was that he was not a teacher and the second ground was that he had not undergone the necessary training for 2 years and had also not done housemanship in General Medicine for one year
The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the candidate must have done one year s housemanship prior to the admission to the Post graduate degree in the same subject in which he wants to appear for the examination or at least six months housemanship in the same Department and the remaining six months in the allied Department
The period of training thus shall be 3 years after full registration including one year of the housejob
The appellant claimed that he was teacher in the Department of Biochemistry in the Rajendra Medical College RMC and filed an application for his registration as a student in MD
The University forwarded the application to the then Principal of Rajendra Medical College cum Dean Faculty of Medicine Dr CJK Singh
He objected to his registration on the ground that the appellant was not posted in any of the teaching posts in medical college
The then Head of the Department of Medicine Dr section Sinha also wrote to Dr CJK Singh that the appellant though attached to the Department of Medicine was a Bio chemist attached to the Renal Unit and dealt entirely with the subject of Biochemistry
The appellant filed a writ petition being CWJC No 755 of 1988 praying for appropriate direction to the University to permit him to submit his thesis in MD Medicine examination
The University contested his claim that he was a teacher and took the stand that since he was not a teacher he was not eligible for training in MD General Medicine
For this purpose the University relied upon the
letters of Dr CJK Singh and Dr section Sinha
The Court dismissed the said petition on 23rd May 1988 without deciding the issue as to whether the appellant held a teaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant was not entitled for admission to the examination in MD as he had not submitted his thesis and had also failed to produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactory training
The High Court also held that the acceptance of the thesis was a pre requisite for appearing at the examination
However thereafter the present petition was filed by the respondent Association when the appellant was granted permission to appear for the said examination being satisfied that the post which he was holding was a teaching post as pointed out by the State Government
In this petition the University supported the appellant by asserting that the appellant was appointed against a teaching post 913 in the Department of Medicine
The High Court has again not decided the point whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine
For not deciding the point the High Court has given an additional reason viz that many persons who were in fact appointed as teachers would be prejudicially affected since they would become junior to the appellant and they were not before the Court
For the purposes of the disposal of the writ petition the High Court presumed that the appellant was teacher in the Department of Medicine in the Rajendra Medical College
The Court has however made it clear that this presumption would be confined to the present case only and the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of the said presumption
The High Court has however allowed the respondents  petition only on the grounds that the appellant had not undergone training for 3 years prior to his application to appear for the said examination
In order to come to the said conclusion the High Court relied on the fact that although the petitioner was registered with Dr SS Prasad as a trainee on 6th February 1986 he had not undergone training with him and it was only from 4th February 1988 onwards that he had undergone the training with another Supervisor viz Dr PR Prasad
Hence on the date he made the application for appearing in the examination he had not completed the required 3 years  training period
In support of its finding that the appellant had not completed 2 years  training with Dr Ss
Prasad the former Supervisor the High Court has relied upon two facts
The first is that Dr SS Prasad had written to the University that appellant had undergone no training under him
The second circumstance relied upon is that the second Supervisor viz Dr PR Prasad was not appointed as appellant s Supervisor as per the suggestion of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine since respondent No 7 to the petition who had recommended Dr PR Prasad was not the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the time of the recommendation
Hence according to the High Court even the training of the appellant under Dr PR Prasad was not a valid training The record shows that admittedly the appellant was registered as a trainee under the former Supervisor Dr SS Prasad on 6th February 1986 and he continued to be the trainee under him till 4th February 1988 on which date he was changed as a Supervisor at the request of the appellant
In his place Dr PR Prasad was appointed as the appellant s Supervisor on 17th December 1988
The appellant thereafter continued to be the trainee under Dr PR Prasad from 19th December 1988 to 3rd August 1989
Thus the petitioner was registered for MD General Medicine examination of the University on 6th February 1986 and by the 3rd August 1989 when he was due to appear for the examination he had completed 3 years  training under the two Supervisors
914 Coming to the respondent Association s contention that the earlier Supervisor Dr SS Prasad had denied that the appellant had received any training under him the University has stated that for the purpose of training the Supervisor has nothing more to do than guide the candidate for writing thesis
But more than that the letter written by Dr PVP Sinha the Principal of RMC and Dean Faculty of Medicines of the Ranchi University to the Registrar of the Ranchi University on 4th July 1989 speaks volumes on the attitude adopted by Dr SS Prasad towards the appellant
This letter is Annexure 11 to the rejoinder of the appellant
The letter makes a complaint that Dr SS Prasad by bypassing the office of the Principal RMC had addressed directly to the Registrar of the University two letters on 4th May and 3 1st May 1989
The Principal then states that he examined the original letter meaning thereby the letter dated 4th May 1989 and the connected matter and found that Dr SS Prasad had been telling lie to the University and trying to mislead and that is why he had sent the letter directly to the University
Dr Prasad had written another letter to the University on 16th May 1988 regarding the appellant and in that letter he had written that the appellant had been prevented from doing research work connected with his thesis
The Principal then proceeds to write that when he asked Dr Prasad in writing vide his letter dated 21st June 1989 to give him the letter of the Principal or the Dean or the University which had authorised him to prevent the appellant from doing his research work Dr Prasad failed to produce any letter
Thus according to the Principal it became very clear that Dr Prasad had written the letter dated 1651988 directly to the University to harm the appellant s career
The Principal then proceeds to write to University that he would like to bring to the attention of the University that Dr
Prasad had signed the thesis and certificate of another doctor viz Dr Ashok Kumar Singh on 16101984 when that doctor was registered as an MD student in General Medicine only on 2671984 and when Dr Prasad was not his guide
It was Dr RCN Sahai who named the guide for the said Dr Ashok Kumar Singh
The Principal then writes that from the perusal of the records as well as from the reply to the explanation sought by him from Dr Prasad it had become clear that Dr Prasad was not made the guide of Dr Ashok Kumar Singh either by the University or by the Dean or by the Principal and yet he had signed the thesis of Dr Ashok Kumar Singh barely after 3 months and 11 days of his registration
The Principal then points out in that letter that a comparison of the two events made it apparent that Dr Prasad had favoured Dr Ashok Kumar Singh by violating all the norms statutes of the University and of the Medical Council of India and that even after the University had appointed Dr PR Prasad as the guide of the appellant Dr SS Prasad was bent upon harming the career of the appellant
The Principal then adds that there was no record in his office to show that the appellant was ever suspended by the University for doing his MD General Medicine
He had asked Dr SS Prasad to produce any notification of the University regarding the alleged 915 suspension and Dr SS Prasad had failed to do so
He then concludes the letter by stating that he would in the circumstances recommend the University to consider the desirability of removing Dr SS Prasad from all examination work of the Ranchi University
It is thus apparent that Dr SS Prasad the former Supervisor of the appellant had become hostile to him and was apparently not cooperating with him in his thesis
Yet the appellant had proceeded to write a thesis and when it became unbearable he requested for the change of his Supervisor on 4th February 1988 pursuant to which the new Supervisor Dr PR Prasad was appointed on 17th December 1988
However till the new Supervisor was appointed on 17th December 1988 he continued to be registered with Dr SS Prasad and there is no dispute that under the new Supervisor viz Dr PR Prasad he completed his training from 17th December 1988 to 4th August 1989
There is further no dispute that the appellant submitted his thesis prior to the examination
As regard the qualification of the 7th respondent to make the appointment of Dr PR Prasad as the guide although the record before us does not show as to who the 7th respondent was we take it that it is the then Principal Dr PVP Sinha who was probably added later as the 7th respondent to the writ petition to whom the High Court has referred to in its judgment
It is asserted from the Bar on behalf of the appellant that Dr PVP Sin ha was both the Principal and the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University from a date much prior to 17th December 1988
That statement is not controverted nor does the counter filed by the 1st Respondent make any such point
If that is so then on the date that Dr PR Prasad was appointed as a Supervisor he was so appointed by a duly qualified person
Since the High Court has not one into the question as to whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post and has proceeded on the footing that he was so appointed
it is not necessary for us to go into the said question
The appellant was thus fully qualified for appearing in the said examination and in fact on account of the interim orders passed by the High Court he has appeared for the examination
The High Court has however by the impugned decision restrained the University from declaring his results in the examination
The facts narrated above would reveal that this was a dispute relating to an individual and turned on the facts
There was no question of law involved in it
We have therefore not understood how the respondent Association could convert an individual dispute into a public interest litigation
We are of the view that cases where what is strictly an individual dispute is sought to be converted into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged
The present proceeding is one of the 916 kind
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State wanted to support the respondent Association
We did not think it necessary to hear the State since the dispute was essentially with regard to the interpretation of the facts relating to the training of an individual medical officer viz the appellant
The University had on the facts of the case accepted the contention of the appellant that he had completed 3 years  training
We have not been able to understand as to what stake the State has in denying the said factual position
It must be remembered in this connection that the State Government itself by its letter of 17th September 1984 written to the Principal RMC and had asserted that the post which the appellant was holding viz that of Bio chemist in the Artificial Kidney Unit of RM College and Hospital was a teaching post and that the appellant was posted to that post since 12th February 1982
The letter further proceeded to state that the Principal and the Head of the Department of Medicine of RM College and Hospital has also given written certificate that the appellant was posted on a teaching post and therefore his teaching experience would be counted with the Kidney Unit
A request was therefore made in the letter that the appellant s application for his registration as MD General Medicine candidate Teacher be forwarded to the University and further action in that regard be intimated to the Regional Additional Commissioner cum Principal Secretary
There is no dispute further that according to the rules 4 years teaching experience in the College and the Hospital which is always combined with practice in the Hospital is considered equivalent to one year s house job experience
It the face of these facts it is difficult to understand the stand taken by the State Government in the present proceedings
There is no doubt in our mind that some forces are at work to obstruct the appellant s career on one ground or the other
The State Government should not become a party to this came
In the circumstances we allow the appeal set aside the decision of the High Court and hold that the appellant was qualified to appear for the MD General Medicine examination as a teacher candidate
Hence we direct the University to declare his results in MD General Medicine examination for which he has appeared forthwith
There will be no order as to costs
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been working as Superintendents Grade 11 in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry prior to the promotion of respondents Nos 2
to 13 before the Tribunal the erstwhile Secretariat Assistants as Superintendents Grade 11
Respondent Nos 2 to 13 were further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before the petitioners on the basis of tentative Seniority list wherein the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between 11
1973 and 3171981 had been included for computing the seniority in the Grade of Superintendent Grade II
The petitioners before the Tribunal aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period 11
1973 to 3171981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11 challenged the promotion of respondent Nos 2 to 13 there in who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade 11 prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistant as Superintendents Grade II
It was contended by the petitioners before the Tribunal that from 181981 respondents Nos 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly 713 lower scale of pay as compared to them could not be promoted to the post of Superintendents Grade I before the petitioners
The Tribunal allowed the applications and set aside the promotions of respondents No 2 to 13 before it
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals
Agreeing with the reasonings and conclusions of the Tribunal HELDThe note in Column 11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to the erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade 11 for purposes of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and not for the purpose of seniority at all
The note merely allows the erstwhile Assistants who were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade 11 to include their service rendered as Assistants after 11
1973 to 317
1981 for purposes of counting the period of five years service as Superintendent Grade 11
This note is for no purpose other than for giving them eligibility for consideration for promotion from the cadre of superintendent Grade 11 to the cadre of Superintendent Grade 1
718 A