Experience of Additional Professor can be Counted as Experience of Professor for Principal Post in Department of Medical Education: Allahabad HC
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised for the post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education on 22.12.2021. For essential qualifications, the Commission prescribed that a candidate should possess (i) MD/MS or an equivalent qualification recognised by Medical Council of India and (ii) at least 10 years teaching experience as a Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a recognised Medical College/Institution, out of which at least five years should be as a Professor in a Department.
Allahabad: Granting relief to a doctor and accepting his appointment for the post of Principal (Allopathy) within the Department of Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court recently opined that the experience in the post of Additional Professor would also count as the experience of a Professor while considering the qualifications of the candidates for the concerned post.
The HC bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar made such observations after noting that the experience as an Additional Professor or as a Professor would count to experience of teaching postgraduate classes and the petitioner doctor having requisite teaching experience as Professor and Additional Professor would, therefore, be entitled to the post.
Further, the Court relied on the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) and the National Medical Commission's (NMC) opinion in this regard and noted, "Since highest body, the Medical Council of India and National Medical Commission interpreted that the Professor includes an Additional Professor, I see no justification to hold that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification of experience as Professor on the last date of submission of the application form with the Commission."
The matter concerned the legal question of whether the experience as an Additional Professor in a Medical College would also count as the experience of a Professor, which is a required qualification for a candidate to become the Principal of a Medical College under the relevant Rules.
Petitioner Dr. Kumar had experience as an Additional Professor from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2017 and thereafter as a Professor with effect from 01.07.2017 to 13.07.2020 and then from 14.07.2020 to 13.05.2021. Therefore, considering the experience for the post of Additional Professor and Professor together, Dr. Kumar has an experience of eight years.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (commission) advertised for the post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education on 22.12.2021. For essential qualifications, the Commission prescribed that a candidate should possess (i) MD/MS or an equivalent qualification recognised by Medical Council of India and (ii) at least 10 years teaching experience as a Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a recognised Medical College/Institution, out of which at least five years should be as a Professor in a Department.
Apart from the petitioner Dr. Kumar, another doctor Dr. Kushwaha also applied for the same. The petitioner was selected by notification dated 20.07.2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission. The other applicant Dr. Kushwaha filed a plea before the HC and questioned the selection of the petitioner.
The applicant also challenged the order of the Chief Secretary of UP dated 10.01.2022 where the State Government clarified that the qualification for the post of Professor and Additional Professor being the same, the teaching experience of both for the post of Additional Professor and Professor should be taken to be as of a Professor and therefore, Dr. Kumar was eligible for the post in question.
While the appointment of the petitioner was challenged before the High Court, the petitioner himself filed a plea after his selection was cancelled by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.
The petitioner's counsel argued that while the State Medical Colleges in UP have 3-tier hierarchical system of teaching faculty with Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, the institutes like Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute has a 4-tier system with the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Additional Professor and Professor.
He further argued that even though there is a little difference in the pay-scale between the post of Additional Professor and Professor, for the purposes of essential qualifications for a candidate to be appointed as Additional Professor and Professor is the same, inasmuch the teaching work/ assignment both for Additional Professor and Professor is the same.
At this outset, the petitioner's counsel relied upon the guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission in which it was recorded that many institutions have 4-tier faculty designation system while others have 3-tier faculty designation system. In respect of the question, where does one equate as Additional professor, NMC had prescribed that the academic qualifications for the post of Professor and Additional Professor are the same. As per the regulations, one should have eight years of postgraduate experience and must possess the qualification of MD/MS/DNB in the concerned subject to be appointed in those posts.
The petitioner's counsel also referred to the earlier notification issued by the Board of Governors of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) dated 13.12.2018, which prescribed that as far as the MCI norms are concerned, Professor and Additional Professor are equivalent.
It was further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that when the confusion arose regarding the experience of the petitioner as a Professor for the post of Principal (Allopathy), the Commission wrote a letter dated 27.11.2021 to the State Government seeking its guidelines on the issue. The Commission sought clarity as to whether the experience of a candidate as Additional Professor would be admissible as a Professor. Responding to the same, the State Government answered that those Professors working in Government Medical Colleges and Additional Professors working in SGPGI since were discharging similar duties and their nature of work was the same, therefore, they could be equated and therefore, the petitioner Dr. Kumar possessed the requisite qualification.
Besides, the counsel also highlighted that while considering the plea by the other doctor, the Court on 08.10.2021 had directed the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh to take a decision regarding the equivalence of qualification as it related to the experience on the post of Additional Professor/Professor in consultation with the National Medical Commission. In compliance with the order of the court, the State took a decision on 10.01.2022.
Upon repeated inquiry made by the Commission, the State reiterated its stand on 30.05.2022 specifying that since the work and discharge of duties on the posts of Additional Professor and Professor were the same, their respective experiences were logically required to be equated and thus the experience as an Additional Professor would count towards the experience of a Professor. Referring to all these factors, the counsel argued that it was not open for the Commission to cancel the selection made in respect of the post.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Commission argued that once the post was advertised requiring the experience as Professor, there was no justification accepting the experience of an Additional Professor as a Professor. They further argued that the recruitment and selection body was not empowered to change or relax the qualifications as prescribed for in the advertisement or in the absence of any relaxation or equivalence prescribed for in the advertisement, the recruitment and selection body could not on its own accept the equivalent qualification or otherwise set up any definition to the qualification prescribed for the post.
It was also argued by the Commission that the petitioner was only provisionally selected and therefore his selection was subject to his furnishing requisite certificates of experience regarding which he had furnished his undertaking but failed to do so.
Meanwhile, the counsel for the other applicant argued that irrespective of the MCI guidelines, the rules provided for only experience as a Professor and not as an Additional Professor. He also argued that even though the essential qualifications for recruitment for the post of Professor and Additional Professor in those colleges, where they have 3-tier or 4-tier faculty designation system, is the same but the legal position stands that the post of Additional Professor is of a lower cadre post in terms of payscale.
The court noted that the matter involved whether defining the experience of a Professor by including the experience of an Additional Professor would amount to encroaching upon the Rule making power and thereby changing the essential qualification prescribed for under the relevant Rules and therefore the Commission was justified to cancel the provisional selection or conversely, the clarification made by the State was to answer the query and remove the confusion, and, therefore, would not amount to changing qualification, since such a clarification is not a faulty one and so the clarification made under the letters do not suffer from any illegality and Commission was not justified in cancelling selection of petitioner.
While considering the matter, the bench took note of the essential qualifications as prescribed under the Rules and observed that the minimum qualifications for teachers in medical education institutions are prescribed as per the regulations framed by the MCI in the year 1998, which have been amended from time to time.
"From the perusal of the above, it is clear that as far as the post of Additional Professor and Professor are concerned, academic qualifications have been kept at par," the Court noted at this outset.
Apart from this, the Court also took note of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal/Dean/Director of Medical Colleges. The required qualification is that the candidate "Should possess the recognised postgraduate medical qualification and other academic qualification from a recognized institution with a minimum of ten years’ teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college/Instt. Out of which atleast five years should be as Professor in a department. Preference for these appointments may be given to the Heads of the Departments."
Further, the HC bench observed that the Board of Governors in supersession of MCI, while being queried upon, made a reply vide letter 13.12.2018 that the academic qualification and the teaching and research experience for the post of Professor and Additional Professor have been kept the same, so as per the MCI they are equivalent but it was left open for the concerned appointing authority to prescribe higher norms than what was prescribed under the Minimum Qualification for Teachers Regulations 1998.
The Commission also observed that the Board of Governors also reiterated the academic qualification and teaching & research experience for the post of Professor and Additional Professor to be the same. At this outset, the bench observed,
"The essential qualifications that have been prescribed for, by the MCI in its Regulations have been adopted by the State Government and the same qualifications in terms of academic qualification have been prescribed for, under the advertisement in question for the post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education."
The bench also relied upon the part of the advertisement containing the post and the educational qualifications etc. and noted that relying upon the qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor and Additional Professor, the State Government replied to the Commission's query and also in compliance with the HC order that for the purposes of experience, the experience gained as Additional Professor in SGPGI and as a Professor there or in any other medical college deserved to be equated and so also logically as the discharge of duty and the work and/or assignment in the field of teaching are the same.
Addressing the argument that the act of defining the experience for eligibility would not amount to 'changing the qualifications prescribed for under the Rules' or eligibility criterion otherwise, the Court observed, "I find that the experience as a Professor deserved scrutiny from the point of view of the qualifications prescribed by the MCI and clarificatory notifications/letters issued by it. While it is true that the Rules provide for requisite number of years of experience as Professor, in some department there is 4- tier system whereas in the large number of departments/institutions/universities there is 3- tier system faculty."
The court also referred to a circular letter issued by SGPGI, Lucknow on 27.01.2012 saying that the new career progression scheme in respect of faculty members at par in AIIMS, New Delhi is implemented at SGPGI. This letter prescribed for pay scale of both the Additional Professor and Professor under Pay Band-4 with a difference of Rs.1000/- in grade pay.
Further, the bench noted that recently on 14.02.2022, the National Medical Commission floated the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022. Regulation 6 of the Regulations prescribed for Faculty Appointment and Promotion, Teaching and Research Experience and the Academic Qualifications. Perusing these regulations, the court noted, "Thus, for a Professor, a candidate is required to possess eight years teaching experience at postgraduate level and three years teaching experience as an Associate Professor in a recognised medical college/institution."
Referring to the SGPGI circular, the Court observed that a person would be getting promotion as Additional Professor after three years of service as an Associate Professor. Therefore, for the post of Additional Professor also, three years experience of Associate Professor is required.
"...feeding cadre of the Additional Professor is Associate Professor. The conclusion, therefore, would be that Additional Professor is above to the Associate Professor and since the Medical Council of India has defined experience of Professor as including of Additional Professor and the NMC has equated the posts, no other body can interpret experience as to qualification otherwise," the Court noted
"Both the MCI and NMC therefore, would be the only authorities to define the experience and it having defined in its wisdom the experience of a Professor to include the experience of an Additional Professor, the essential qualification/eligibility criterion for the two posts to be the same, this Court cannot sit in appeal to take a view contrary to what a body of experts in the field, has taken," the bench further noted.
The High Court noted that the authorities and the other applicant did not claim that the petitioner did not possess the eight years of teaching experience at postgraduate level or that the petitioner had no experience as an Associate Professor.
"The Commission had also selected the petitioner for the post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education, for the documents of experience furnished by him. It being not a case of “walk-ininterview”, the applications were invited to shortlist the candidates on the basis of documents furnished by them, so the Commission could have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications but it admitted his application and the candidature, though selected him provisionally only subject to his furnishing the experience certificate both of Professor and Additional Professor. While the petitioner could have done something, the litigation intervened and this Court also in its order directed the State Government to take a proper decision. The State Government, therefore, took a conscious decision to hold that the post of Additional Professor and Professor are equated for the purposes of experience. The State being the employer has issued clarifications and these clarifications cannot said to changing the Rules of recruitment on the post as to essential qualification in the midst of selection process. I do not, therefore, find any good ground to hold the decision taken by the State Government to be bad, as it stands in conformity with the guidelines of the MCI," it further observed.
"In view of what I have already discussed above, the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the Commission that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of teaching experience as a Professor cannot be accepted," opined the Court.
Granting relief to the petitioner, the Court observed,
"It is all a question that experience as a Professor, which is to be reckoned with for the post in question for which selection has been undertaken by the Commission, in my considered view the experience as an Additional Professor or as a Professor would count to experience of teaching postgraduate classes and the petitioner having requisite teaching experience as Professor and Additional Professor would, therefore, be entitled to the post. The question formulated thus stands answered in favour of Dr. Kumar."
Further observing that the Commission cancelled the petitioner's order of appointment in a very cryptic order as it recorded that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications but it failed to deliberate upon the various guidelines prescribed by the MCI. Therefore, the Court quashed the cancellation order by the Commission.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/allahabad-hc-dr-sheo-kumar--229863.pdf
