Holding

Two years of training at Cambridge University cannot be treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to a D.M.; recognition must be by AIIMS or the Medical Council of India.

Summary

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) advertised for an Assistant Professor in Endocrinology. Dr. Nikhil Tandon was appointed, while Dr. Ajay Sood challenged the appointment, alleging that Tandon did not possess the required D.M. qualification or an equivalent recognised qualification. The High Court set aside Tandon's appointment, prompting special leave petitions by Tandon and AIIMS. The Supreme Court examined whether two years of training undertaken by Tandon at Cambridge University, as part of his Ph.D., could be treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to a D.M. The Court held that "recognised" requires formal recognition by AIIMS or the Medical Council of India, and that Cambridge degrees have not been recognised in India since 1978. Consequently, the foreign training could not satisfy the D.M. equivalence requirement. The appeals were dismissed, leaving the High Court's order in place.

Issues considered

Whether two years of training at Cambridge University undertaken for a Ph.D. can be treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to a D.M. for the purpose of AIIMS recruitment.
Whether the term "recognised" in the AIIMS Recruitment Rules requires formal recognition by AIIMS or the Medical Council of India.
Whether foreign qualifications not recognised by the Medical Council of India can satisfy the qualification criteria for a medical superspeciality post.

Legislation cited

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956s. 23, s. 24, s. 28, s. 29, s. 5

Subjects

AIIMS recruitmentD.M. qualificationequivalence of foreign qualificationsMedical Council of Indiarecognitionassistant professorendocrinologyspecial leave petition

Judgment

....
·~
A DIRECTOR, A.1.1.M.S. ETC.
v.
DR. NIKHIL TANDON AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 20, 1995

B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)
'.
"
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Recrnitment Rules-Schedule
I-Appointment to post of Assistant Professor in Endocrinology-Qualifica-
tions-D.M. qualification or a qualification recognised as equivalent there-
C to-Special Training for two years in Cambridge University-Whether
recognised as a qualification equivalent to D.M.-Held, No-Degrees awarded
by Cambridge University-Not recognised in India after 1978-Qualifications
awarded by Institutions not recognised by Medical Council of India-Hence
not recognised as equivalent to D.M.

D The All India Institute of Medical Sciences published a notification
calling for applications for appointments to the post of Assistant Professor
in Endocrinology. The last date for applying was 7.10.1992. Qualification
and other criteria of eligibility was as provided in the Rules and Regula-
tions prescribed by the institute. Several persons applied for the post. The
E selection committee prepared a panel of two candidates and recommended,
that since both the candidates were of high merit, it would be appropriate
if the Institute creates another post to accommodate both. However, as the
institute could not create an additional post and since there was only one
post, it appointed respondent T to it. Second candidate on the panel, S,
filed a writ petition questioning the selection and appointment of T,
F alleging that T was not qualified to hold the post and, therefore, his
selection and appointment was illegal. The High Court allowing the peti-
tion set aside the selection and appointment of T. Hence these two special
leave petitions, filed by T and the Institute.

G The respondent T had joined the Ph.D course in Cambridge Univer-
sity in April, 1990 and by 17.4.1992, he had completed two years. He
obtained his Ph.D. qualification on 22.6.1993. He did not hold the qualifica-
tion ofD.M.

The only question raised was whether the candidate T held 'D.M. for
H medical super specialities or qualification recognised equivalent thereto'
856
. Al.l.M.S. v. N. TANDON 857

and whether the training for two years could be treated as a qualification A
recognised as equivalent to D.M.

The appellant submitted that in the absence of any orders by the
Institute recognising any particular qualification as equivalent to D.M.,
the qualification prescribed by the Indian Medical Council for similar
posts to be relied on and for this the Brochure mentioned D.M. (En- B
.... docrinology), M.D. in medicine with two years special training in En-
docrinology and that in the absence of any specification that the special
training must be obtained in India, two years' special training in En-
docrinology need not be in an Institute in India; that the Institute being
an autonomous and statutory body was entitled to decide for itself which C
qualification was equivalent to D.M. and in as much as the Institute had
treated the two years' special training of the candidate T at the Cambridge
University as equivalent to D.M. qualification, it could not questioned.

Respondent S submitted that D.M. is a post graduate qualification
and since the qualification ·or the training in any institution in United D
Kingdom is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, neither of
them could be treated as post- graduate qualification and therefore, the
training undergone by a person in such University could not also be taken
into account as the training contemplated by the first schedule to the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences Recruitment Rules is the training E
which was recognised by the Medical Council of India, i.e., in an Institute
approved or recognised by Medical Council of India and neither was there
a general order nor a special order recognising the training undergone by
T as a qualification equivalent to D.M. by the Institute or by the Medical
Council of India.
F
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The two years' training at Cambridge University undergone
by Respondent T while working for his Ph.D. could not be treated as a
qualification recognised as equivalent to D.M. Schedule-I to the A.1.1.M.S.
Recruitment Rules speaks of D.M. Qualification or a qualification recog- G
nised as equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence that is enough. It
must also be recognised as equivalent. 'Recognised' evidently means recog-
nised by the Institute or at least by the Medical Council of India. Admit-
tedly, neither has recognised the said research work/training for two years
in the Cambridge University as equivalent to D.M. It is agreed before the H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A court that the degrees awarded by the Cambridge University are not
recognised in India since 1978. This means that even if T had obtained his
Ph.D. qualification from Cambridge University on or before October 7,
1992, it could not have been recognised as a qualification equivalent to
D.M. Therefore, the two years' research/training put in by T while working
B for the said qualification could not be counted as a qualification recog-
nised as equivalent to D.M. It may be equivalent; it may be more. But it is
not recognised. [865-G-H, 866-A-B]

1.2 The words M.D. in 'Medicine with two years special training in
Endocrinology' in the Recommendations of MediCal Council of India with
C respect to the post of Professor in Endocrinology, have to be read and
understood in the context of the A.1.1.M.S. Recruitment Rules and the first
schedule thereto. Based upon the use of the words, 'in any approved
Institution in India' in the qualification mentioned for one among the
several posts in the Recommendations, 'it was not possible to hold that the
qualifications awarded by Institutions which are not recognised by the
D Medical Council of India or the training undergone in such Institutions
has become recognised. (866-C-E]

1.3 Recognition must be by a general order proceeding published for
the information of all concerned. It cannot be a ma~ter decided in a given
E case for the purpose of that case. In the instant case only because the
Institute was of the opinion that T was qualified according to the Rules
and forwarded his name for consideration by the selection committee, it
did not amount to 'recognition' of the two years' training as a recognised
equivalent qualification. (866-G]

F 1.4 It is a matter of regret that a selection made by a competent and
qualified selection committee has to be set aside on the aforesaid ground
but the Court is left with no alternative in the Circumstances. It would have
been in the fitness of things, if the institute could create another post and
accommodate both T and S as recommended by the selection committee.
G Even now, it is not too late for the-Institute to consider the said suggestion
of the selection committee. (867-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3591-92
of 1996.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.95 of the Delhi High Court ·
A.1.1.M.S.v. N. TANDON [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 859

in C.W.P. No. 3873 of 1995. A
Arun Jaitley, A. Mariarputham, Ms. A. Mathur, for Arputham, Arun
& Co. for the appellant in C.A. No. 3591/96.

Soli J. Sorabjee and Maninder Singh for the appellant in C.A. No.
3592/96. B
Deveridra Singh, Ashok Bhan and D.S. Mehra for the Respon-
dent/Union of India.

..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. The All India Institute of Medical Scien-
c
ces (A.1.1.M.S) published a notification calling for applications for appoint-
ment to several posts including a post of Assistant Professor in
Endocrinology. According to the notification published in the newspapers
dated August 20, 1992, the last date for applying was October 7, 1992. We
are concerned herein with the selection and appointment to the post of D
Assistant Professor (Endocrinology). Pursuant to the said notification,
several persons applied for these posts including Dr. Nikhil Tandon and
Dr. Ajay Sood. Qualifications and other criteria of eligibility was as
provided in the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the Institute, i.e.,
A.1.1.M.S. The selection committee met and prepared a panel of two
candidates. Tandon was placed at No. 1 and Sood at No. 2. The selection E
committee recommended that since both the candidates are of high merit,
it would be appropriate if the Institute creates another post to accom-
modate Sood. It, however, appears that the Institute could not create an
additional. post and since there was only one post, it appointed Tandon to
it. Sood went to Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the F
selection and appointment of Tandon. Though s~veral grounds were raised
in the writ petition, only one point was urged at. the time of hearing, viz.,
that Tandon was not qualified to hold the said post and, therefore, his
selection and appointment is illegal. The Delhi High Court has upheld the
said contention and has set aside the selection and appointment of Tandon.
These two Special Leave Petitions are preferred. by Tandon and the G
Institute.

Leave granted in both the Special Le~ve Petitions.

The Institute was established and is governed by the All India
I
Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956. Section 5 declares the Institute to H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A be an institution of national importance. Section 23 provides that "(N)ot-
withstanding anything contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933,
the medical degrees and diplomas granted by the Institute under this Act
shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of that Act and
shall be deemed to be included in the first Schedule to that Act," Section
24 empowers the Institute to grant medical degrees, diplomas and other
B academic distinctions and titles under the Act. Section 28 confers the
rule-making power upon the Central Government to carry out the purpose
of the Act whereas Section .29 empowers the Institute to make regulations
in respect of matters provided therein with the previous approval of the

..
Central Government.
c The All India Institute of Medical Sde~ces Recruitment Rules, 1981
prescribe the method and mode of r,ecruitment to the posts in the Institute.
Rule 12 which carries the sub-:heading "Qualifications" says that the
academic and professional qualifications including experience prescribed
for each post shall be as per Schedule-I to the Rules. Rule 11, which carries
D the sub-heading "Postgraduate Qualifications", reads : "Postgraduate
qualification means a postgraduate qualification recognised as per the
Medical Council of India Act and for this purpose the holder of an
M.A.M.S. (Membership of the Academy of Medical Sciences) awarded
after an examination held by the Indian Academy of Medical Sciences will
E be deemed to possess a recognised postgraduate (degree) qualification".
Schedule-I to the Rule prescribes the qualifications for the teaching posts
mentioned therein. Sl. No. 7 of the Schedule pertains to the post of
Assistant Professor. It reads :

"Assistant professor (Medical) Pay Scale. Rs. 3500- 125-
F 4500 + NPA.

Essential : 1 to 3 same as for Professor (Medical)

EXPERJENCIJ (for general disciplines) : Three years teaching
and/or research experience in recognised Institution in the subject
G of speciality after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS or
qualifieation equivalent thereto .

. EXPERIENCE (For Superspecialities disciplines) : One year
teaching and/or research experience after obtaining M. Ch/D.M.
H or qualification reeognised equivalent thereto."

i
I

I
ALLM.S. v. N. TANDON [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 861

We are not concerned herein with the experience part of it, but only A

- with the qualifications mentioned as essential. The essential qualifications
for Assistant Professor's post are the same as prescribed for the post of
professor (Medical) which is mentioned at SL No. 1 in the Schedule, which
reads:

"Professor (Medical) Pay Scale Rs. 5900-200-7300 +NPA B

Essential Qualifications :

1. A medical qualification included in the I or II schedule or part
II of the third schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 C
(persons possessing Qualifications included in part II or third
schedule should also fulfil the conditions specified in Section 13(3)
of the Act.)

2. A postgraduate qualification e.g. MD/MS or a recognised
qualification equivalent thereto in the respective discipline/subject. D

and/or

3. M. Ch. for surgical superspecialities and D.M. for Medical
superspecialities or qualification recognised equivalent thereto."
E
Here again, there is no dispute that Tandon possesses essential qualifica-
tions mentioned under items 1 and 2. The only dispute is whether he
possesses the qualifications prescribed under Item No. 3. To be more
precise, the question is whether Tandon holds "D.M. for medical super-
specialities or qualification recognised equivalent thereto". Admittedly, F
Tandon does not hold the qualification of D.M. The question is whether
he holds the qualification which is recognised as equivalent to D.M. ?
Tandon says, he does and the Institute supports him whereas Sood says
that Tandon does not.

After obtaining his M.D., Tandon went to United Kingdom and was G
working in the Cambridge University for Ph.D. qualification. He joined the
Ph.D. course there on April 17, 1990. By April 17, 1992, he had completed
two years. As a matter of fact, he completed his three years' course on
April 17, 1993 and it is stated that he obtained his PhD. qualification on
June 22, 1993. Tandon says, his two years' training at Cambridge University H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A while working for Ph.D. is the qualification recognised as equivalent to
D.M.

According to the notification calling for applications issued by the
-
institute, the last date for submitting the applications was October 7, 1992.
It, therefore, follows that the qualifications of an applicant should be
B ascertained with reference to that date alone. (So far as "experience" is
concerned, the notification issued by the Institute itself says that "the
effective date upto which the experience must be completed will be June
30, 1993". But as stated hereinabove, we are not concerned with the
experience part of the qualifications in this matter.) By October 7, 1992,
C Tandon had put in more than two years' training while working for his
Ph.D. in the Cambridge University. The question, to repeat, is whether that
training for two years can be treated as a qualification recognised as
equivalent to D.M.?

D Sri Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for the Institute and shri Soli J.
Sorabjee, learned counsel for Tandon, submitted that in the absence of any.
orders by the Institute recognising any particular qualification as equivalent
to D.M., it would be legitimate to refer to the qualifications prescribed by
the Indian Medical Council for similar posts. Learned counsel relied upon
the Brochure issued by the Medical Council of India entitle~ "Recoinmen-
E dations on. the ·qualific~tions .·required for Appointment of persons .to the
posts of Teachers in MediCal Colleges and' attached H~spit~s for graduate
and postgraduate teaching" in the year; 1989; The Brochure, mentions the
special academic qualifications and. teaching experienc~ ;required, for
several posts mentioned therein; So for as the post of Professor in. En.- .
p docrinology is concerned, the academic qualifications prescfil?ed are "D.M.
(Endocrinology), M;D. in medicine with tWo. years special training in
E~docririology''. ·Learned counsel pointed out that in the said Brochure
wherever it is requited that the special training must be obtained in India;
it has been so specified. By way of illustration; they rely upon the.academic
qualification prescribed for the post of Professor in the D'epartment of
G Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (at page 22). The Academic
qualification mentioned for the said post" is "M.S. in General Surgery/M.S. ..,.-
(Orthopaedics) with two years' special training in the speciality of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation ·(Rehabilitation Medicine) or two years._ of
·equivalent training approved in the subject in any approved Insti~ution in
H India." By contrasting the language of the said qualification with the
A.I.I.M.S.v. N. TANDON [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 863

language employed in the academic qualification prescribed for the post A
of professor in Endocrinology, it is contended that two years' special
training in Endocrinology need not be in an Institute in India or, for that
matter, any recognised or approved institution in India and that it is enough
if such special training is obtained in any Institution of repute. Learned
counsel stressed the well established reputation of the Cambridge Univer- B
sity where Tandon was undergoing the training and doing research for his
Ph.D. Reliance was also placed upon the letter dated September 16, 1993
issued from the Medical Council of India addressed to Tondon, which
reads as follows :

"MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA C

No. MCI-12(1)/93-Med./14815 Date : 16.9.93

To

Professor P.N. Tandon D
Deptt. of Neurosurgery,
All India Instt. of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029.

Sub : Teachers' Eligibility Qualifications - Appointment of persons
to the different posts of teachers in the Deptt. of Endocrinology. E

** ** **
Sir,

With reference to your letter dated nil on the subject noted F
above, I am to state that the Medical Council of India in its
recommendations on Teachers' Eligibility Qualifications to the
different post of teachers in the Deptt. of Endocrinology have
prescribed as under :

·Post Qualification Teaching Exp.
G
Professor D. M. (Endocrinology) (a) As Reader Ill
M.D. in Medicine with Endocrinology for 4
2 years special training years in a medical
in Endocrinology. college.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A Reader (b) As Lecturer in
Endocrinology for 5
-do-
years in a medical
;
college.
Lecturer (c) Requisite recogni-
B -do- sed postgraduate quali-
fication in the subject.

It is clarified that a person is eligible to be appointed as teacher
in the speciality either with DM (Endocrinology) or with M.D. in
Medicine with 2 years special training in Endocrinology.
c
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
MRS. M. SACHDEVA SECRETARY"

D On the question whether D.M. is a post-graduate qualification or a
superspeciality, learned counsel stressed the language in qualification No.
2 prescribed for the post of Professor in Schedule-I to the A.I.l.M.S.
Recruitment Rules, 1981, viz., "a post-graduate qualification, e.g. M.D./M.S.
or a recognised qualification equivalent thereto ... ". Learned counsel em-
phasised the fact that the Institute is an autonomous and statutory. }Jody
E and is entitled to decide for itself which qualification is equivalent to D.M.
Inasmuch as the Institute has treated the two years' special training of
Tandon at the Cambridge University as equivalent to D.M. qualification,
it is not open to any other person to question it. They pointed out that not
only the Institute but the selection committee was also satisfied that Tan-
F don did satisfy the requirements of Rules and that in such a case, it was
not appropriate for the High Court to interfere and declare that Tandon
was not qualified.

Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for Sood, on that othe·r hand,
supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. The learned
G counsel submitted that D.M. is a post-graduate qualification as has been
mentioned in the prospectus issued by the Institute itself concerning ad-
mission to courses conducted by it. Learned counsel relied upon the ·.
Recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Post~graduate Medi-
cal Education (revised upto January, 1988) wherein at Page 6, the following
H statement occurs :
Al.l.M.S. v. N. TANDON [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 865

"!.Nomenclature : A
The Committee was of the opinion that the following nomenclature
should be uniformly adopted for all clinical and non-clinical sub-
jects.

For the postgraduate degree, the following degrees were B
recommended :

(c) D.M.M. Ch. for specialities in which a candidate should have
taken prior to M.D./M.S., i.e., for specialities in Category 'C',"

Counsel placed reliance on Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules which C
says that "post-graduate qualification means a postgraduate qualification
recognised as per the Medical Council of India Act" and contended on that
basis that since the qualifications or the training in any Institution in United
Kingdom is not recognised by the Medical Council of India, neither of
them can be treated as post-graduate qualification. Counsel pointed out D
that while prior to 1978, the United Kingdom qualifications were recog-
nised in India, they are not so recognised since 1978. If a degree awarded
by the Cambridge University is not recognised for the purpose of appoint-
ment to any post in india, the learned counsel says, the training undergone
by a person in such University cannot also be taken into account. The
training contemplated by the First Schedule to the Recruitment Rules is E
the training which is recognised by the Medical Council of India, i.e., in
an institute approved or recognised by Medical Council of India. He
-
submitted that neither is there a general order nor a special order recog-
nising the alleged training undergone by Tandon as a qualification
equivalent to D.M. by the Institute or by the Medical Council of India. F

We are of the opinion that the two years' training at Cambridge
University undergone by Tandon while working for his Ph.D. cannot be
treated as a qualification recognised as equivalent to D.M. Schedule-I to
the A.1.1.M.S. Recruitment Rules speaks of D.M. qualification or a
qualification recognised as equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence G
that is enough. It must also be recognised as equivalent. Recognised
evidently means recognised by the Institute or at least by the Medical
Council of India. Admittedly, neither has recognised the said research
work/training for two years in the Cambridge University as equivalent to
D.M. It is agreed before us that the degrees awarded by the Cambridge H
}
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.

A University are not recognised in India since 1978. This means that even if
Tandon had obtained his Ph.D. qualification from Cambridge University
on or before October 7, 1992, it could not have been recognised as a
qualification equivalent to D.M. If so, it is understandable how the two
years' research/training put in by Tandon while working for the said
qualification can be counted as a qualification recognised as equivalent to
B
D .M. lt may be equivalent; it may be more. But the question is whether it
is recognised - and admittedly it is not. We are not impressed by the
argument of Sri Jaitley that the words "M.D. in Medicine with two years'
special training in Endocrinology" in the Recommendations of Medical
Council of India with respect to the post of Professor in Endocrinology
C means two years' special training in Endocrinology anywhere in the world.
The said words have to be read and understood in the context of the
A.I.I.M.S. Recruitment ~ules and the First Schedule thereto. The submission
... based upon the contrast in the langu~ge used in describing the qualifica-
tions for Professor in endocrinology and Professor in the department of
D Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is unacceptable. Sri Jaitely could not
point out any such requirement against any other qualification in the said
Recommendations. Based upon the use of the words, "in any approved
Institution in India" in the qualifications mentioned for one among the
several posts in the Recommendations, it is not possible to hold that the
qualifications awarded by Institutions which are not recognised by the
E Medical Council of India or the training undergone in such Institutions has
become recognised. The acceptance of this argument would mean that the
qualifications not -recognised by the Institute or Medical Council of India
become recognised in this indirect manner. We cannot countenance such an
·argument.
F
It is also not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the
appellants that because the Institute was of the opinion that Tandon was
qualified according to the Rules and forwarded his name for consideration
by the selection committee, it amounts to "recognition" of the said two
years' training as a recognised equivalent qualification. Recognition must
G be by a general order/proceeding published for the information of all
concerned. It cannot be a matter decided in a given case for the purpose
of that case.
'

In the written arguments submitted.by Tandon, a new submission is
H urged based upon certain statements contained in the .special Leave Peti-
A.I.l.M.S.v. N. TANDON [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 867

tion. It is submitted that though the qualifications awarded by the A
Cambridge University may not be recognised by the Medical Council of
India, the qualifications awarded by University of London and University
of Sheffield continue to be recognised. It is submitted that part of the
training/research undertaken by him while working for his Ph.D. was at
Sheffield and, therefore, it must be treated as a recognised qualification.
Firstly, this submission, which is factual in nature, was not urged in the B
High Court. Secondly, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that
the qualifications and degrees awarded by the University of Sheffield
continue to be recognised, it appears from the averments made and docu-
ments filed by Tandon that his experience in the University of Sheffield is
from October, 1991 to April, 1993. He was permitted by the Cambridge C
University, on November 20, 1990, to shift to the University of Sheffield.
By a communication dated June 6, 1991, the University of Sheffield agreed
to the transfer of his studies for the degree of Ph.D from Cambridge to
Sheffield "for the period October, 1991 to April, 1993". It is thus evident
that by October 7, 1992, he had not undergone two years' training at D
Sheffield. If so, the said circumstance cannot also advance his case.

In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to go into other
questions arising herein including the question whether the D.M. qualifica-
tion is a post-graduate qualification for the purposes of the appointment
in the institute. E
It is a matter of regret that a selection made by a competent and
qualified selection committee has to be set aside on the aforesaid ground
but the Court is left with no alternative in the circumstances. It would have
been in the fitness of things, if the Institute could create another post and
accommodate both Tandon and Sood, as recommended by the selection F
committee. Even now, it is not too late for the Institute to consider the said
suggestion of the selection committee.

The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. No costs.

R.A. Appeal dismissed.