9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of foreign teaching experience for appointment. 2. Definition and recognition of "teaching experience" and "teaching institution." 3. Reliability of testimonials and evidence provided by the candidate. 4. Judicial review of administrative decisions and government orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Foreign Teaching Experience for Appointment: The primary issue was whether the teaching experience gained by Dr. Mukherjee in the United Kingdom could be considered valid under the Indian regulations for the post of Lecturer in Orthopaedics. The Government of Bihar initially rejected Dr. Mukherjee's application, arguing that the rule did not recognize foreign teaching experience. However, the High Court quashed this decision and directed the government to reconsider his case, leading to further litigation. The Supreme Court held that teaching institutions abroad are not ruled out and should be considered if they meet the standards set by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court stated, "Teaching institutions as such may be too wide if extended all over the globe but viewed in the perspective of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 certainly they cover institutions expressly embraced by the provisions of the statute." 2. Definition and Recognition of "Teaching Experience" and "Teaching Institution": The Court had to interpret the terms "teaching experience" and "teaching institution" as used in the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The regulations required teaching experience in a teaching institution as a sine qua non for the post of Lecturer in Orthopaedics. The Court observed, "We are called upon to construe words which are not defined and therefore bear their natural meaning." It emphasized that these terms should be interpreted in a common-sense manner, considering the statutory setting and professional objectives. The Court concluded that institutions linked with or recognized by universities and organizations listed in Schedules II and III of the Act, as well as those recognized by the Central Government under Section 14, could be considered valid teaching institutions. 3. Reliability of Testimonials and Evidence Provided by the Candidate: The reliability of the testimonials provided by Dr. Mukherjee was another critical issue. The appellants argued that the testimonials were not reliable and could not be treated as probative without further proof. The Supreme Court stated, "Unless proved to the contrary, they should be taken by a public authority acting bona fide at their face value." The Court found that the certificates from British professors indicating that Dr. Mukherjee had participated in teaching were credible. It directed the government to fairly consider these testimonials and any additional evidence provided by Dr. Mukherjee to establish his teaching experience. 4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions and Government Orders: The Court addressed whether the High Court was right in issuing a writ to quash the government's decision and direct a reconsideration. The appellants contended that the Court should not interfere with the government's discretion in making appointments. The Supreme Court held that while the government need not always provide a reasoned order for appointments, it must act in accordance with the regulations and consider all eligible candidates. The Court stated, "An obligation to consider every qualified candidate is implicit in the 'equal opportunity' right enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution." The Court concluded that the government had not properly considered Dr. Mukherjee's qualifications and directed it to re-evaluate his eligibility. It emphasized that the government should act fairly and consult technical authorities if necessary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, declaring the appointments of the appellants as invalid and directing the government to reconsider the appointments de novo. The Court emphasized the need for fair consideration of all candidates and adherence to the regulations. The appeals were dismissed with costs against the State, payable to Dr. Mukherjee.
|
