Case: Dr. B.L. Asawa Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

the High Court should issue an appropriate writ or direction cancelling the interview and selection conducte d by the Commission as well as the consequential appointments given by the State Government to respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers in Forensic Medicine.The short point to be considered is whether the Commission was right in law in excludin g the appellant from consideration on the ground that he did not possess the academic qualification prescribed by clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.7. The qualifications prescribed for the said post by clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 are:(1) A basic University (Degree ?) or equivalent qualification entered in Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.(2) Registration under the State/Central Medical Registration Act.(3) Post-graduate qualification in the concerned subject.(4) Two Years experience of Medico-legal work.8. The appellant is admittedly t he holder of the basic Degree of M.B.B.S. from the Rajasthan University, which is a qualification entered in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act. It is also not in dispute that he is duly registered under the Medical Registration A ct. The sole ground on which the appellant was treated by the Commission as ineligible for consideration was that the Post-graduate degree in Forensic Medicine possessed by the appellant is not one awarded by the University of Rajasthan and the said Degree has also not been recognised by the University of Rajasthan as an equivalent qualification.9. The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degree s. The Degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)-M.D. (Forensic Medicine)-of the University of Bihar is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognised by the Indian Medical Council which is the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. A Post-graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly establis hed by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absen ce of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to a ny post in such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be t reated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification. It is common ground be fore us that the University of Rajasthan does not conduct Post-graduate examinations in the subject of Forensic Medicine and it does not award the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine). In order that there should be scope for declaration of equivalence of a qualification obtained from another body, there should be a corresponding qualification that can be earned by virtue of passing an examination or test conducted by the concerned University. There can be declaration o f equivalence only as between a degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained from a body different from the concerned University. When the University of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award o f the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine), there cannot be any question of declaration of equivalence in respect of such a degree awarded by any University. Unfortunately, the State Public Service Commission as well as the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out that the declaration of equivalence referred to in Section 23A of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ord inances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a Post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a s tatutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well as Post-graduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian Universit y and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council.Though a contention was taken by the respondents in the High Court as well as before us that the appellant did not also satisfy the requirement regarding "two years of Medic o- legal work", we dont find any force in the said plea. The certificates from the Principal and Heads of Departments of Forensic Medicine in the concerned Medical Colleges produced by the appellant in the High Court as annexures in his affidavit dated July 27, 1973 which are at pages 31 and 33 of the printed Paper Book, establish beyond doubt that the appellant had put in more than two years of Medico-legal work in Dr. S. N. Medical College and in the Dharbhanga Medical College, pri or to the last date fixed by the Commission for receipt of the applications.10. The conclusion that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the appellant was fully qualified for being considered for appointment to the two posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine advertised by the Commission on November 16, 1972, and that the Commission acted illegally in treating the appellant as not being possessed of the requisite academic qualification and excluding him fro m consideration on the said ground.11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degree s. The Degree of Doctor of Medicineof the University of Bihar is included in the Schedule tothe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognised by the Indian Medical Council which is the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India. A Post-graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly establis hed by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absen ce of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to a ny post in such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the University of Rajasthan, it could not be t reated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the saidng it as an equivalent qualification. It is common ground be fore us that the University of Rajasthan does not conduct Post-graduate examinations in the subject ofand it does not award the degree of M.L.. In order that there should be scope for declaration of equivalence of a qualification obtained from another body, there should be a corresponding qualification that can be earned by virtue of passing an examination or test conducted by the concerned University. There can be declaration o f equivalence only as between a degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained from a body different from the concerned University. When the University of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award o f the degree of M.L., there cannot be any question of declaration of equivalence in respect of such a degree awarded by any University. Unfortunately, the State Public Service Commission as well as the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out that the declaration of equivalence referred to in Section 23A of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ord inances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a Post-graduatein the concerned subjectawarded by a s tatutory Indian University, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well as Post-graduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian Universit y and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical Council.Though a contention was taken by the respondents in the High Court as well as before us that the appellant did not also satisfy the requirement regarding "two years of Medic o- legal work", we dont find anyid plea. The certificates from the Principal and Heads of Departments ofe in theconcerned Medical Colleges produced by the appellant in the High Court as annexures in his affidavit dated July 27, 1973 which are at pages 31 and 33 of the printed Paper Book, establish beyond doubt that the appellant had put in more than two years of Medico-legal work in Dr. S. N. Medical College and in the Dharbhanga Medical College, pri or to the last date fixed by the Commission for receipt of theconclusion that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the appellant was fully qualified for being considered for appointment to the two posts of Lecturers ined by the Commission on November 16, 1972, and that the Commission acted illegally in treating the appellant as not being possessed of the requisite academic qualification and excluding him fro m consideration on the said ground.