LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-117

G ELANGOVAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

Decided On November 12, 2008
G. ELANGOVAN Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's name for promotion as Reader in Medicine as per the order of the first respondent dated 9.2.2007.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Government through letter No.19 Health Department, dated 3.1.1989 granted permission to utilise the facilities available in the District Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, and the Government Kamaraj Hospital, Chidambaram, for clinical training of the students of the Medical College of the Annamalai University for further period of three years or till hospital of their own is started, whichever is earlier. THE Annamalai University, pursuant to the said permission, appointed Doctors in the above hospitals as Lecturers for the purpose of imparting clinical training to the MBBS students and granted approval to pay honorarium. THE Annamalai University by order dated 7.7.1989 issued the said order appointing the petitioner as Honorary Lecturer and therefore the said experience is to be treated as teaching experience since the petitioner has imparted training to the MBBS students and therefore the contention now raised in the counter affidavit to the effect that the said experience gained by the petitioner cannot be treated as teaching experience, is unreasonable and self-contradictory. Insofar as the non-consideration of the teaching experience rendered in the Government Peripheral Hospital, Periyar Nagar, Chennai, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is one of the attached hospital of the Madras Medical College and training was given to the MBBS students and the department considered the said experience as teaching experience to similarly placed Doctors worked in peripheral hospital and denying the benefit to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.