S C PATIL Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions can be dealt with under common judgment since the relief that is prayed for is one and the same.

(2.) The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 18167,18168 and 18169 of 1985, Dr. S.C. Patil, Dr. S.M. Banakar and Dr. Vijaya Sangama Deva, are Assistant Surgeons in the State Medical Service who have put in over 5 years of service. Dr. M. Mahabalcshwar the petitioner in W.P. No. 18170 of 1985 is a Medical Officer in the Karnataka Power Corporation. He has also similarly put in over 5 years of service. All these petitioners were admitted to the Post Graduate Medical Courses by the State Government-respondent-2 as in service candidates. They were allotted to the Karnataka Medical College affiliated to the Karnataka University from out of the quota of 50 per cent seats reserved for Doctors serving in the Department of Medical Education and Health & Family Welfare Services and Government Corporations. The selection of the in-service candidates was made by the order dated 30th January, 1985 in respect of first of the three petitioners. Similar order was also made in respect of the 4th petitioner. Though originally the 4th petitioner was allotted to the Bangalore Medical College, he sought for transfer to the Karnataka Medical College after two months. The Medical Council of India, incorporated under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is empowered to prescribe standards of Post Graduate Medical Education in order to secure and maintain uniform standards to Post Graduate Medical Education throughout India. It has the power under Section 33 of the Act to make regulations. With regard to Post Graduate courses, regulations have been made for establishing Post Graduate teaching centre. The period prescribed by the Medical Council for Post Graduate Diploma and Degree courses is one and two years respectively followed by an examination after one year house job or equivalent thereof. As regards persons who had served in the State Medical Services or other equivalent services of public undertakings, local bodies as well, for a period of five years after full registration the same shall be considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship. The 1st respondent-University issued a notification on the 1st of March, 1984 stating that the Ordinance governing eligibility criteria for admission to the Post Graduate courses with regard to 1983-84 would be as stated therein. Inter alia it has been stated that exemption for one year would be allowed only in cases of those students who had (1) completed one year of senior housemanship in the subject or (2) held a teaching job in the subject for one year or (3) completed Diploma course in that subject. All other Universities except the Karnataka University have regulations which provide for exemption as set out by the Medical Council. For instance, the Universities of Mysore, Bangalore and Mangalore have granted exemption of one year to Post Graduate students who have completed five years of service or as prescribed by the regulations of the Medical Council. The petitioners had prayed for necessary exemption on the strength of having put in five years and more service in the Karnataka State Medical Service. By the communication dated 12-11-1985 the 1st respondent wrote to the Principal of Karnataka Medical College listing out the names of persons to whom exemptions have been granted. However, the petitioners have not been granted exemption. Aggrieved by the failure to grant exemption, these writ petitioners had come to be preferred.

(3.) Mr. K.R.D. Karanth, learned Counsel for the petitioners, urges that the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council are statutory in character. When such a high powered body which is in-charge of prescribing the standards of Post Graduate medical education in order to secure uniform standards had chosen to recommend that five years medical service would be equivalent to one year of housemanship or Doctorship, there is absolutely no justification whatever to deny the benefit of such a provision by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioners. Having regard to the terms of Section 33 it must be considered to be mandatory in nature. More so, when it is read in the light of Section 20 of the Act. However, the Karnataka University alone refuses to treat the five years of service as equivalent to one year of housemanship, as a result the petitioners are put to great prejudice. It is only the State of Karnataka which makes the allocation to various Universities. If, for example, one happens to be allocated to say Bangalore or Mangalorc University, he gets the benefit of one year exemption, whereas such an exemption is denied in favour of the petitioners who have all been allocated to the Karnataka University. This would also constitute discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. If really these regulations as laid down in K.P. Ganguly v University of Lucknow, AIR 1984 SC 186 are statutory in character, there is no justification for the University to by-pass the statutory instructions and then refuse to recognise a regulation which is made not only in the interest of the provisions of the Act but also to maintain the standards of Post Graduate Medical education. These are the only submissions made before us.