Holding

The appellant was qualified to appear for the M.D. (General Medicine) examination as a teacher candidate and the High Court's order was set aside.

Summary

Dr. N. Singh, a biochemist attached to Rajendra Medical College, applied for registration as a teacher candidate for the M.D. (General Medicine) examination. The University and the High Court held that he was not a teacher and had not completed the requisite three years of training, including housemanship, and consequently restrained the University from declaring his results. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that he held a teaching post as recognized by the State Government and that his training satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court observed that the High Court had not examined the teaching‑post issue and, given the interim order allowing the appellant to sit for the exam, found no need to revisit that question. It further held that the dispute was purely individual, not a public‑interest litigation, and that the appellant had indeed fulfilled the training criteria, directing the University to declare his results. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant held a teaching post for the purpose of eligibility as a teacher candidate for the M.D. examination.
Whether the appellant completed the required three years of training, including the mandatory housemanship, for the M.D. (General Medicine) qualification.
Whether the writ petition filed by the association could be treated as a public interest litigation.
Whether the Supreme Court needed to decide the teaching‑post issue given the High Court's presumption.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226

Subjects

M.D. eligibilityteaching postmedical educationpublic interest litigationwrit petitiontraining requirementshousemanshipSupreme CourtHigh CourtArticle 136Article 226

Judgment

·~

DR. NANDJEE SINGH -A
v.

,,
P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTS
ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

MAY 14, 1993 B
[P.B. SA WANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Appeal-Whether appellant
appointed against a teaching post-Non-examination of question by High
Court-Positive presumption by High Court- Whether Supreme Court to decide
said question. c
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ by Association against an
individual-Individual dispute whether public interest litigation.

Education-M.D. (Medicine) Examination-Requirements appearance.
D

University-Examination-M .D .(Medicine)-Appearance-Requirements
of.

The appellant was a teacher in the Department of Biochemistry of
Rajendra Medical College. He fiied an application for his registration as a E
student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to the Principal of
Rajendra Medical College. The Principal objected to appellant's registration

- as he was not posted in any of the teaching posts in Rajendra Medical College.
Though the appellant was.attached to the Department of Medicine, was a Bio-
chemist attached to that Renal Unit ~e~ing with the subject of Biochemistry.
F
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction tot
·~
he University to permit him to submit his thesis in M.D. (Medicine) examina·
tion on the ground that he was a teacher.

The University took the stand that the appellant was not a teacher and G
he was not eligible for training in M.D. (General Medicine).

...... The High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition and held that he
was not entitled for .admission to the examination in M .D. as he did not sl.: ~ .~_n
H

909

'
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

his thesis and did not produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactor)'
A
training. The High Court did not decide on the question whether he held a
teaching post or not.

The appellant was granted permission to appear for M.D. (Medicine)
examination after the University was satisfied that the appellant was holding
B a teaching post.

The respondent-Association fded a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said
examination, contending that he was not a teacher and that he did not undergo
the necessary training for 2 years and that he did not do housemanship in
c General Medicine for one year.

The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the
appellant did not undergo training for 3 years· prior to his application to
appear for M.D. (Medicine) examination. In this writ petition also the High
D Court did not decide whether the appellant was holding a teaching post.

The appellantfded this appeal by special leave against the High Court's.
judgment.

Allowing the ~ppeal, this Court
E

HELD: 1.1. On account of the interim order passed by the High Court,
the appellant appeared for the examination. The High Court has, however, by
the impugned decision restrained the University from declaring his results in
the examination. (915-G)
F
1.2. Since the High Court has not gone into the question as whether the
appellant was appointed against a teaching post and has proceeded on the
footing that he was appointed, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the
said question. (915-F)

G
2.1. The facts of the-case would reveal that this was a dispute relating to
an individual and turned on the facts. There was no question oflaw involved
in it. It is not understood how the respondent-Association could convert an .....,.._
individual dispute into a public interest litigation. (915-H)

H 2.2 Cases where what is strictly an individual dispute is sought to be
DR. N. SINGH. v. .STIJDENT ASSOCIAllON 911

converted into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged. The A
present proceeding is one of the kind. (915-H)

3.1. 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 B
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 house-
job. (912-B)

3.2. According to the rules, 4 years, (teaching experience in the College C
and the Hospital (which is always combined_with practice in the Hospital) is
considered equivalent to one year's house-job experience. In the face of these
facts, it is difficult to understand the stand taken by the State Government in
the present proceedings. (916-D)

·3. 3. The Universi~y had on the facts of the case accepted the. contention D
·of the appellant that he had completed 3 years' training. It is not understood
as to what state the State has in denying the said factual position. (916-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2909 of 1993.

E
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1990 of the Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 1465of1989 (R).

- S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

Uday Sinha, S.K. Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents. F

/
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Special leave granted.
G
The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant was qualified to
appear for the M.D. (General Medicine) Examinati0n as a teacher candidate. The
High Court by the impugned order has taken the view that he was not, on the
ground that he had not completed 3 years training period including one year of the
house-job. prior to qualifying t:iimself for appearing.for the examination. H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R. _,.. )-<
The respondents, P.G. Medical Students Association had challenged the.
A
permission given to the. appellant to appear for the said examination on two
grounds. 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
B 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 tht: allied Department. The period of
training thus, shall be 3 years after full registrati.on including one Year of the house-
job.

c The appellant claimed that he was teacher in the Department of Biochemis-
try in the Rajendra Medical College (R.M.C.) and filed an application for his
registration as a student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to the
then Principal of Rajendra Medical College-cum-Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dr.
C.J .K. 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
D
Department of Medicine, Dr. S. Sinha also wrote to Dr. C.J.K. 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 C.W .J.C. No. 755 of 1988 praying
E for appropriate direction to the University to permit him to submit his thesis in
M.D. (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 M.D. (General Medicine). For this purpose, the University relied upon
the. letters of Dr. C.J.K. Singh and Dr. S. Sinha. The Court dismissed the said
·petition on 23rd May. 1988 without deciding the issue as to whether the appell<¥lt
F held a teaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant was not entitled for
admission to the examination in M.D. 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.

G
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 GovemmeQt.. In this petition, the University supported
H the appellant by asserting that the .appellant was appointed against a teaching post
DR. N. SINGH v. STUDENT ASSOCIATION 913

in the Department of Medicine. The High Court has again not decided the point A,
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 B
Medicine in the RajendraMedical 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 C
Court relied on the fact tliat although the petitioner was registered with Dr. S.S.
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. P.R. Prasad. Hence, on the date he made
the application for appearing in the examination, he had not completed the required
D
3 years' training period. In support of its finding that the appellant had not
completed 2 years' training with Dr. S~s. Prasad, the forme")_c;;upervisor, the High
Court has relied upon two facts. The first is that Dr. S.S. 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. P.R. Prasad was
not appointed as appellant's Supervisor as per the suggestion of the Dean of the E
Faculty of Medicine since respondent No. 7 to the petition who had recommended
Dr. P.R. Prasad was not the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the time of the
recomme_ndation. Hence, according to the High Court even the training of the
appellant under Dr. P.R. Prasad was not a valid training.

The record shows that admittedly the appeliant was registered as a trainee F
under the former Supervisor, Dr. S.S. Prasad ori 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. P.R. Prasad
was appointed as the appellant's Supervisor on 17th December, 1988. The
appellant, thereafter continued to be the trainee under Dr. P.R. Prasad from 19th
December, 1988 to 3rd August, 1989. Thus the petitioner was registered for M.D. G
(General Medicine) examination of the University on 6th February, 1986 and by"
the 3rd August, 1989 wheri he was due to appear for the examination he had
completed J years' training urider the two Supervisors.
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R. _ _,-'"'(

Coming to the respolldent-Association's contention that the earlier Super-
A
visor, Dr. S.S. 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. P.V.P. Sinha, the Principal ofRMC and Dean, Faculty of
Medicines of the Ranchi University to the Registrar of the Ranchi University on
B 4th July, 1989 speaks volumes on the attitude adopted by Dr. S.S. Prasad towards
the appellant. This letter is Annexure-11 to the rejoinder of the appellant. The Jetter
makes a complaint that Dr. S.S. Prasad by bypassing the office of the Principal,
RMC had addressed directly to the Registrar o_f the University two letters on 4th
May and 3 lst 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
c found that Dr. S.S. Prasad had been telling lie to the University and trying to
mislead and that is why he had sentthe 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,
D
1989 to-give him the letter of the Principal or the Dean or the Vniversity which hf.ld
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 Jetter dated 16.5.1988 directly to the University to
harm the appellant's career. The Principarthen proceeds to write to University that
E -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
16.10.1984 when that doctor was registered as an M.D. student in General
Medicine only on 26. 7.1984 and when Dr. Prasad was not his -guide. It was Dr.
R.C.N. 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
F to the explanation sought by him from Dr. Prasad, it had become- clear that Dr.
Prasad was not made the guideofDr. Ashok Kumar-Singh either by the University
· or by the Dean or by the Principal anci 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 faveiured Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh by violating all the norms
G statutes of the University and of the Medical Counci~ of India and that even after
the University had appointed Dr. P.R. Prasad as the guide of the appellant, Dr. S.S.
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 M.D. General Medicine. He had asked Dr. S.S. -
H Prasad to produce any notification of the University regarding the alleged
DR. N. SINGH v. STUDENT ASSOCIATION 915

suspension and Dr. S.S. Prasad had ' failed to do so. He then concludes the letter by A
stating that he would, in the circumstances, recommend the University to consider
the desirability of removing Dr. S.S. Prasad from all examination work of the
Ranchi University. It is thus apparent that Dr. S.S. 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 B
February, 1988 pursuant to which the new Supervisor, Dr. P.R. 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. S.S.
Prasad and there is no dispute that under the new Supervisor, viz., Dr. P.R. Prasad
he eompleted his training from 17th December, 1988 to 4th August, 1989. There
is furtherno dispute that the appellant submitted his thesis priorto the examination. C

As regard the qualification of the 7th respondent to make the appointment of
Dr. P.R. 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. P.V.P. Sinha who
was probably added later as the 7th respondent to the writ petition to whom the D
High Court has referred to in its judgment. It is asserted from the Bar on behalf of
the appellant that Dr. P.V .P. Sinha 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 Ist
Respondent make any such point. If that is so, then on the date that Dr. P.R. Prasad
was appointed as a Supervisor he was so appointed by a duly qualified person. E

Since the High Court has not gone 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 gd into the said question.

F
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 G
individual and turned on ~he facts. There was no question oflaw 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 H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993).3 S.C.R.
/

A kind. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State wanted to support
the respondent-Association. We did not think itnecessary to hear the State since
the dispute was essentially with regard to the interpretation of the facts relating to
the training ofan 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
B 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
C 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
D appellant's application for his registration as M.D. 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
E 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 game.

In the circum'>tances, we allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the High
F Court and hold that th~ appellant was qualified to appear for the M.D. (General
Medicine) examination as a teacher candidate. Hence, we direct the University to
declare his results in M.D. (General Medicine) examination for which he has
appeared, forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.

VPR Appeal allowed.