SC Relief to Medical teachers, slaps Rs 25 lakh compensation on Medical College for terminating their service

New Delhi: In a recent order, the Supreme Court has awarded altogether Rs 25 lakh compensation to three lecturers of KJ Somaiya Medical College of Maharashtra, who had been terminated from their services as they were held to be not qualified.

The employments of the said three lecturers were terminated with effect from 21st June 2004 on the ground that their employment was void ab initio as they were not qualified. Issuing an order dated April 17, 2007, a Bombay High Court bench confirmed their service noting that three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Regulations existing at the time of their appointment.

While considering the matter, the Supreme Court bench refused to reinstate their appointments. However, it directed KJ Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre, Maharashtra to compensate them. Further, the top court bench has also awarded Rs 50,000 to each of them as cost of litigation. One of the three lecturers has been granted Rs 11 lakh as compensation while the other two have been awarded compensation of Rs 7,20,000 and Rs 7,10,000.

Dr. Medha V Joshi, one of the petitioners had been appointed as a lecturer in Biochemistry in the medical college back in 1991. She has a B.Sc. degree in Microbiology, Chemistry, an M.Sc. degree in Biochemistry by research and a PhD degree in applied Biology by research.

Another petitioner, Mrs. Anjali Khavnekar had a B.Sc and M.Sc. degree in Microbiology. She had been appointed as a lecturer in Microbiology by the college, back in 1993. Dr. Smita Karandikar, who was a Ph.D in Zoology was appointed as a lecturer in Physiology in 1991.

It has been submitted by the lecturers that they had been regularly appointed as full-timers. At that time, the Medical College was affiliated to the University of Mumbai. They claimed that at the time of their appointment, they fulfilled the requirement of qualifications laid down by the University of Mumbai for appointment to the post of lecturer.

Also Read: NMC reverses its stand on TEQ norms for non medical teachers, says old rules will be followed

However, from the year 1998, the medical college was affiliated with the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and in the same year, the erstwhile Medical Council of India framed the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. Clause 2 of Schedule-I provided that in the Departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, and Microbiology, nonmedical teachers may be appointed to the extent of 30 percent of the total number of posts in the department.

The petitioner lecturers contended that the said Clause 2 provided that for non-medical teachers, the qualification of M.Sc. was sufficient for appointment as a lecturer. However, the employments of those three lecturers were terminated with effect from 21st June 2004 on the ground that their employment was void ab initio as they were not qualified.

Following this, they approached the Grievance Redressal Committee of the University and passing a resolution on May 9, 2006, the Committee recommended reinstatement of the said three lecturers. The resolution provided that the petitioners should forward a proposal for approving their appointment to the University and the University shall approve the appointment of these three lecturers with retrospective effect from the year 1998.

However, being aggrieved by the decision/ recommendation of the Grievance Redressal Committee, the college approached the Bombay High Court. While considering the matter, the HC bench opined that the date on which the lecturers had been appointed was relevant.

Further, the HC bench pointed out that even the appellants had agreed that the said three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Regulations existing at the time of their appointment and MCI never raised any objection to their appointments till the date the Medical College got affiliated to MUHS. 

The HC bench further observed that the 1998 Regulations will have no application and directed the college to immediately comply with the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee.

"It will be open to the petitioners to make a fresh recommendation to the Respondent No.3, pointing out that the concerned teachers were appointed much before the Regulations came into force and they have been teaching in the medical college since the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and that the Regulations of 1998 would not apply to them. If in spite of that the Medical Council does not recognise or consider the same, it is for the petitioners to approach this court to seek appropriate relief," the HC bench had mentioned in its judgment.

However, challenging the High Court order, the college approached the Supreme Court bench and argued that even if the 1989 Regulations of MCI were perused, none of the three lecturers were qualified and even under the 1998 Regulations, none of them were qualified. 

Further, the college submitted that the lecturers had to be terminated as neither MUHS nor MCI recognised them during the year 2003-2004. Therefore, the appointment of these lecturers was void ab initio.

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner lecturers submitted that when they had been appointed, they were qualified as per the prevailing Regulations. They pointed out that the college failed to implement the order of the High Court and argued that the orders of termination were bad in law.

Referring to the High Court order, the top court bench noted,

"In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, it is clearly recorded that the appellants agreed that the said three lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Rules existing at the time of their respective appointments and that the 3 rd respondent – the Medical Council of India permitted them to do the teaching job till the Medical College was affiliated to the 1st respondent – University in the year 1998. As this was a clear concession made by the appellants themselves, the High Court was right in not accepting the contention of the appellants that their appointments were void ab initio."

"While directing the appellants to implement the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee, liberty was granted to the appellants to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent – the Medical Council of India for pointing out that the said three lecturers were teaching from the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and therefore, the said Regulations of 1998 would not apply to them. The High Court reserved the remedy to the appellants to approach the High Court, in the event, the Medical Council of India does not grant recognition. Therefore, per se¸ we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court," it further noted as it agreed with the observation made by the HC bench.

While considering the question of reinstatement of these doctors, the top court bench also considered the affidavits filed by the petitioner lecturers, where they informed the bench about their status and details of any other employment after termination, salary received during employment and when they reached the age of superannuation.

Taking note of their submissions, the top court bench also referred to the fact that all along MCI expressed its stand that the three lecturers were not qualified to teach in the Medical College.

Referring to this, the bench opined that it would not be appropriate to reinstate the service of those lecturers and noted,

"Considering the passage of time and the stand of the 3rd respondent – the Medical Council of India, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate at this stage to grant reinstatement. Moreover, after 21st June 2004 till date, none of the three lecturers have worked as a teacher."

However, granting compensation to them, the bench observed,

"The impugned judgment is based on a concession by the appellants that on the date of the appointment, the said three lecturers were qualified. The appellants did not comply with the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are of the view that reasonable compensation will have to be granted to the lecturers in lieu of their reinstatement in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

Granting Rs 11 lakh compensation to Dr. Medha V Joshi, the bench mentioned in the order,

"As Dr Medha V Joshi was not employed after termination, we propose to grant her compensation equivalent to the average salary of three years. Her average annual salary is Rs.3,60,000/- and therefore, the average salary for three years will be Rs.10,80,000/- which figure can be rounded off to Rs.11,00,000/-. In addition, she will be entitled to the costs of the petition, quantified at Rs.50,000/-."

In the case of Mrs. Anjali Khavnekar, the bench ordered,

"The average salary payable to her on the date of her termination and as of February 2023, is Rs.60,000/- per month. We propose to grant a compensation equivalent to one year’s average salary which will come to Rs.7,20,000/-. In addition, she will be entitled to the costs of the petition, quantified at Rs.50,000/-."

Granting Rs 7,02,000 compensation to Dr. Smita Karandikar, the bench stated,

"Now, coming to Dr (Mrs) Smita Karandikar's case, she took up employment on 3rd January 2005 and she continued to work till 30th September 2021. As per Annexure-A to the affidavit filed by the appellants, the average salary payable to her on the date of termination and the date of superannuation will be approximately Rs.58,500/- per month. We propose to grant her compensation equivalent to the average salary of one year which comes to Rs.7,02,000/- which can be rounded off to Rs.7,10,000/-. In addition, she will be entitled to the costs of the petition, quantified at Rs.50,000/-."

"Though we cannot find fault with the impugned judgment and order, as far as the reinstatement of the said three lecturers is concerned, we mould the relief by directing the appellants to pay the following compensation amounts in lieu of reinstatement to the said three lecturers," the bench ordered.

"In addition, they will be entitled to the costs of the petitions quantified to Rs.50,000/- each. The compensation amount and costs amount shall be paid to them within a period of two months from today. On the failure to pay the aforesaid amounts to the said three lecturers within two months from today, the same will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of this judgment till the payment of the amounts," it added.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-210367.pdf

Also Read: Set up Panel On Disability Assessment For Mentally Ill candidates seeking MBBS Admissions: SC Tells NMC