MANJUNATH B D, Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before the learned Single Judge are the appellants herein, who have assailed the order dated 28/08/2013, in W.P.Nos.36079 -80/2013 c/w 36204/2013. Factual Background:

(2.) THE appellants who are Assistant Professors in two different Medical Institutions in Bangalore and are part of the Medical Faculty of those Institutions, intended to contest in election for the Medical Council of India [hereinafter, referred to as the "Medical Council"], in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [the "Act", for short], pursuant to the amendment made by insertion of first proviso to Clause (b) to sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'first proviso' for the sake of convenience). While the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2013, was pending consideration by the Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution of India, His Excellency the President of India, promulgated the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 on 21/05/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'first Ordinance' for the sake of convenience), by which inter alia, three provisos were incorporated in Clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. By virtue of this Ordinance, the appellants claimed that they were entitled to contest the election to represent the Medical Colleges in the Medical Council, as the Medical Colleges in Karnataka, are affiliated to the third respondent - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [hereinafter referred to as the "Health University", for short]. However, they were aggrieved by the Election Notice dated 30/07/2013 [Annexure "F"], issued by the Health University by which, four members from amongst the Faculty of Medicine of the Health University were to be elected to the Medical Council. It was the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that they being the members of the Medical Faculty of the Medical College affiliated to University, were entitled to file nominations and contest elections but were excluded by the impugned Notice of Election dated 30/7/2013.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge, while issuing notice to the respondents on 12/08/2013, had issued an ad interim order permitting the appellants to file their nominations for the election. Thereafter, the matter was heard and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The interim directions dated 12/08/2013 were dissolved by order dated 28/08/2013. Consequently, appellants could not contest in the election held on 30/8/2013 to the Medical Council. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners before the learned Single Judge have filed these appeals.