Medical Council of India Act, 1956 – s.11 r/w First Schedule – Armed Forces Medical Services – Appellant, Colonel considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier, but not selected – O.A filed by appellant contending that the promotion policy dated 14.01.2004 could not have been reviewed before five years and thus, the amendment of said policy by Order dated 22.05.2006 was not valid – O.A dismissed – On appeal, held: Stipulation in the policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was not a fetter on right of the Government to review the policy – Further, admittedly, the appellant was considered by the Promotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issue of the policy on 14.01.2004 – At the time when appellant was considered the amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force – In the policy dated 14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant of three marks – However, after amendment by Order dated 22.05.2006, the eligibility was restricted to “Ph.D. recognised by Medical Council of India” – No exception can be taken to the said amendment – Section 11 provides for recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India – First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and medical institutions granting such recognised medical qualifications – Berhampur University, from where the appellant obtained his Ph.D. degree in Anthropology (Science) is also one of the universities mentioned in the First Schedule – Various medical courses of Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule but Ph.D. in Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical qualifications of Berhampur University – No fault found in the restriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006 restricting award of marks only to the Ph.D. degrees recognized by MCI – Further, Certificate produced by the appellant also does not fulfill the essential conditions as laid down in Order dated 22.05.2006 to make the appellant eligible for one mark for two year full time training program – No error in the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference – Service Law – Promotion – Promotion Policy.
Service Law – Promotion policy – Change in – Held: It is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotion of its officers and employees – When an employer has power to frame policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time to time.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotion of its officers and employees. When an employer has power to frame policy it has inherent power to change the policy from time to time. The stipulation in the policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was in no manner a fetter on right of the Government to review the policy as and when occasion arose. There was no statutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policy even before five years. The view of the Tribunal that the policy dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year 2006, is fully approved. [Paras 13, 14] [469-F-G; 470-F-G]
1.2 Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by the Promotion Board on 15.11.2011 i.e. much after five years from the issue of the policy on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellant was considered the amendment dated 22.05.2006 was in force. An officer has to be considered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of his consideration. Hence, no error is found in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per the amended policy dated 22.05.2006. [Para 15] [470-H; 471-A-B]
1.3 In the policy which was issued on 14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant of three marks. Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006 the eligibility has been restricted to “Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D.) recognised by Medical Council of India”. No exception can be taken to the amendment by which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for one mark which are recognised by Medical Council of India. There is a rationale for restricting the award of marks only on those Ph.D. degrees which are recognised by the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India recognises medical degrees awarded by different universities and institutions under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. The Promotion Policy dated 22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marks to those Ph.D., which have been recognised by Medical Council of India has object and purpose. Section 11 of the 1956 Act provides for recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India. It refers to the First Schedule. The heading of the First Schedule is “recognized medical qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India”. The First Schedule contains list of various universities or medical institutions of India which contains a column “recognised medical qualifications”. Berhampur University is also one of the universities mentioned in the Schedule. The perusal of Schedule indicates that although various medical degrees have been mentioned in the column “recognised medical qualifications” but qualification of Ph.D. in Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical qualifications for Berhampur University. [Paras 16, 19] [471-C-E; 473-C-E]
2. The Medical Council of India in its First Schedule recognizes medical courses which also contains various Ph.D. courses. It may be true that Ph.D. degree awarded to a candidate needs no recognition from the Medical Council of India but for the purposes of this case, the marks can be claimed by a candidate in promotion only when the Ph.D. course is recognized by Medical Council of India. Thus, the letter dated 15.12.2017/07.12.2017 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of Medical Council of India mentioning that recognition of Ph.D. degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover, any communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council of India cannot be given any precedence on the clear statutory provisions contained in Section 11 read with First Schedule of the 1956 Act. [Para 22] [477-B-D]
3. The appellant has filed certificate dated 11.12.1995 issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur. The said certificate filed by does not indicate that appellant completed full time structured training programme. The appellant contended that he was granted permission to attend the training program but there is no material to indicate that he was granted two years study leave to join two years structured training program. The certificate dated 11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant does not fulfill the essential conditions as laid down in the Order dated 22.05.2006 to make appellant eligible for one mark. No error is found in the Promotion Board (Medical) not allocating one mark for two years training program. Armed Forces Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the above claim also. No error is found in the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Para 26] [478-E-G]
Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another
(2011) 10 SCC 121 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.