HC relief to Associate Professor seeking appointment to Cardiology professor post, says acceptance of research paper enough than actual publication
Nagpur: In a recent judgment, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has recently clarified that in order to determine the doctor's eligibility for any post of qualification, only the acceptance of a research paper for publication in a journal is relevant than the actual publication.
Opining that the worthiness of the paper for publication determines the eligibility, the division bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and Vrushali V. Joshi observed, “In our view, it is only the fitness or worthiness of research paper for its publication, which comes from a decision of it’s acceptance for publication, which should determine the issue of eligibility of the researcher for a particular post or qualification”.
While making such an observation, the HC bench set aside the decision of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) which had declared an Associate Professor ineligible for the post of Professor of Cardiology because his fourth research paper got published after the due date.
Observing that the paper had been accepted for publication before the due date, the bench mentioned in the order, “Once it is established on record that the Medical Council of India considers the research papers accepted for publication as eligible for various posts and it is found that the fourth research paper of the petitioner was accepted for publication on 19.8.2021, much before the due date of 26.8.2021, the Committee of Experts could not have found the petitioner to be not eligible on the ground that the publication of the research paper of the petitioner was after the said due date.”
The matter concerned an Associate Professor working in the Super Speciality Hospital, Government Medical College, Nagpur. Responding to the advertisement inviting applications from the eligible Associate Professors in Cardiology for the post of Professor in Cardiology, the concerned doctor applied for the post.
Along with his application, the doctor enclosed all the necessary documents including copies of paper publications and letters showing the dates of acceptance of those research papers which had been sent by the doctor for their publication in the prescribed journal.
During scrutiny of the application, the doctor, however, was found to be ineligible to take part in the selection and appointment process. MPSC had communicated about its decision holding the doctor ineligible in E-mail.
After knowing about this, the petitioner questioned the decision of MPSC and approached the Nagpur bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. However, the Tribunal take any notice of this lapse and dismissed the application of the petitioner upholding the decision of the MPSC.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the doctor approached the HC bench. The counsel for the doctor contended that the dismissal order passed by the MPSC is bad in law as it does not consider the most relevant aspects of the matter, in particular, the fact that the research paper of the petitioner was accepted for publication by the concerned International journal on 19.8.2021, much before the last date of filing of the application, which was 26.8.2021.
On the other hand, it was argued by the Government authorities that the decision of MPSC was based upon the decision of the Experts Committee. It was submitted by the Government counsel that the first decision taken by the MPSC was based upon the earlier decision of the Experts Committee and subsequently when this matter was again directed to be referred to the Experts Committee for fresh consideration, the Experts Committee found that the fourth research paper on the subject “Retrospective Study of Clinical & Epidemiological Parameters of PCI PA” was published after due date of the application i.e. 26.8.2021 and, therefore, the Experts Committee found afresh that the petitioner could not be said to be eligible for taking part in the selection process.
It was argued that when the Experts Committee had given its opinion, it was not open to MPSC to disagree with the opinions of the Experts Committee and in fact, the opinion of the Experts Committee would also be binding upon the Court.
During the court proceedings, the Court had directed MPSC to examine the request of the petitioner for being considered as eligible. However, even after this direction, neither the expert committee not the MPSC considered the issue afresh, the court noted.
MPSC rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that only one out of four research papers was complying with the rules of the National Medical Council.
Again the MPSC was directed by the Court to consider the case of petitioner by referring the matter to the committee of experts. Thereafter, the committee accepted that three papers were complying with the rules but the petitioner was ineligible because the fourth paper was published after the due date.
As per the Guidelines issued by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC), the requirement of publication of a research paper in the prescribed journal is fulfilled not only by its actual publication but also by the acceptance for publication, though it may not have been actually published.
"The Committee of Experts, it is further seen, has opined that the paper about which it has objection has been published after due date i.e. 26.8.2021, which was the last date of filing of the application and hence it found that the petitioner was “ineligible”. This opinion of the Committee of Experts, in our view, is perverse as it does not take into account the relevant facts and also the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India..." opined the HC bench.
Referring to the guidelines, the court noted,
"They show that the requirement of publication of a research paper in the prescribed journal is fulfilled not only by its actual publication in the journal but also by the fact that the research paper is “accepted for publication”, even though research paper may not have been actually published. There is no dispute about these guidelines."
At this outset, the bench referred to the fact that the fourth research paper of the petitioner doctor, which was objected by the Experts Committee, was accepted for publication by Editor of International Journal of Scientific Research on 19.8.2021 i.e. before the due date of application.
Thereafter, the State argued that the acceptance letter was addressed only to the petitioner doctor as co-author. However, considering another communication which indicated that the acceptance of the research paper was addressed to both the co-authors including the petitioner, the Court added, “Even otherwise, addressing of a communication to one of two authors in a case like this would not negate the fact that the research paper in question has been accepted for publication before the due date as the paper is written by two authors, the petitioner being the first author and Mr. Rajput the co-author.”
Opining that the actual publication is only a consequence of the decision to accept the research paper for publication and it may happen immediately or after a gap of several days, months, or even years, the court noted, “That apart publication of any research paper, which is already accepted for publication depends various factors such as availability of space in the journal, frequency of the journal and so on. These things are not within the control of the researcher and, in fact, should not matter for determining the eligibility of a researcher for a particular post or qualification.”
"The guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India, (document-A3), in our view, make sense and they only show that Medical Council of India accepts that it is only the finding about worthiness of research paper for its publication which matters and not it’s actual publication. The Committee of Experts, however, glossed over this most important aspect of the matter and reached a patently wrong and perverse conclusion. It, therefore, deserves to be interfered with," further observed the bench.
Allowing the petition, the bench observed,
"In this view of the matter, we find that the scrutiny Committee has committed serious error of fact and law and has misdirected itself by taking into consideration something which is really not relevant for deciding the issue in the petition. It also appears to us that the MPSC - respondent no.3 has only mechanically followed decision of the Committee Experts, though it ought to have rejected it."
"The impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and also the impugned decision taken by the MPSC are hereby quashed and set aside," it further noted.
Declaring that the petitioner doctor satisfies the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Professor in Cardiology under the Maharashtra Medical Education & Research Service, Group-A, the bench ordered,
"We direct the MPSC to conduct the process of selection and appointment to the post of Professor in Cardiology under Maharashtra Medical Education & Research Service, Group-A by allowing the petitioner to take part in the selection process."
"We further direct the MPSC to take it’s final decision in the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, at the earliest, preferably within eight weeks of the receipt of the writ of this Court," it further mentioned.
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-publication-202191.pdf
