SADASHIVA REDDY Vs. P JAYARAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to publish the names of the petitioners in the Official Gazette as persons elected to the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) as required under Rule 5 of the Indian Medical Council Rules, 1967, to hold their posts as Members of MCI for four years from the date of issue of the notification.

(2.) The petitioners 1 and 3 are the Professors and the 2nd petitioner is an Associate Professor. They are working in the Medical Colleges as referred to in the cause title. An issue relating to the holding of elections to the Medical Council of India by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, had arisen before this Court in W.P. Nos.36079-80/2013. The order dated 28.08.2013 passed therein, was assailed by two of the Doctors, in W.A. No.5541-42/2013. Through the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in the appeal, the order passed in the writ petition was set-aside and a direction was issued to hold election in accordance with law. One of the respondents to the writ appeal namely Dr.Nisarga R., has assailed the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in W.A. No.5541-42/2013, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.10581- 82/2014. The interim order granted in the said proceedings has thereafter been modified on 20.01.2015. Subsequent to the said order, the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bangalore has held fresh elections and through the notification dated 23.03.2015 declared the petitioners herein as elected. Despite the said details being dispatched to the 1st respondent, the same has not been notified as required under Rule 5 of the Indian Medical Council Rules 1967. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners have made representations to the 1st respondent and on the same not being responded or considered, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned Central Government Counsel, representing the 1st respondent would refer to the very proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the issues decided by the Division Bench of this Court is under consideration. He would also refer to the reply statement said to have been filed in the said proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where contentions with regard to the Ordinance, the same having lapsed subsequently and also in that light, the nature of composition of the Medical Council has been referred. Hence, the learned counsel contends that in such circumstances, the prayer of the present nature made in the instant petition would not arise for consideration herein nor would any purpose be served by directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioners.