Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for medical professors: Dr. Shadab Ahmed Khan vs. Prof. Mujahid Beg (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 357

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J. and L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Is a Ph.D. degree essential for a medical college teacher to be promoted to the post of Professor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions at Aligarh Muslim University. The core issue revolved around whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations mandating a Ph.D. for professorships apply to medical faculty, or if the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations, which specify an MD/MS degree, should prevail. This judgment clarifies the qualifications required for promotions of teachers in medical colleges. The bench consisted of Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the promotion of several faculty members at the Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University. Respondent No. 1, Prof. Mujahid Beg, initially appointed as a Lecturer on August 5, 1992, was later promoted to Reader on June 25, 2003, and subsequently to a cadre post of Professor in 2009. The Appellants, Dr. Shadab Ahmed Khan and others, along with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, were also considered for promotion to Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme.

The Appellants and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were promoted as Professors, with some promotions effective from 2009, making them senior to Respondent No. 1. Prof. Mujahid Beg raised objections to these promotions, which were rejected by the University on July 24, 2013. Aggrieved, Prof. Mujahid Beg filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the promotions of the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the promotions due to the lack of a Ph.D. qualification.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Allahabad allowed the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1, primarily on the ground that the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 did not possess a Ph.D. degree, which the High Court deemed mandatory for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme. The High Court did not address other issues raised in the Writ Petition.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellants filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The Aligarh Muslim University and Dr. Shahzad F. Haque (Respondent No. 7 before the High Court) also filed Special Leave Petitions against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The Aligarh Muslim University is governed by the Universities Act, 1920, and is subject to the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC Regulations of 2010 prescribe minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers in universities and colleges.

Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations states that for teachers in the faculty of medicine, the norms/regulations of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, shall apply. Clause 4.1.0 and Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations stipulate that a Ph.D. is a mandatory qualification for direct recruitment and promotion to the post of Professor. However, these clauses are not applicable to teachers in the faculty of medicine as per Clause 1.1.1.

The Aligarh Muslim University amended its Ordinances to align with the UGC Regulations. Clause 12.5 of Chapter IV of the Ordinance (Executive) mandates a Ph.D. for promotion. However, Clause 12(19) of the Ordinances (Executive) states that for the faculty of medicine, the minimum qualifications are those prescribed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). Clause 12(19) of the Ordinances (Executive) reads as follows:

“12 (19) the candidates from the faculty of medicine and Unani Medicine possessing minimum qualifications as prescribed by the MCI and CCIM/AYUSH, respectively, for the posts of Associate Professor and Professor may also apply for promotion under these Ordinances subject to their fulfilling other conditions as laid down in these Ordinances.”

The MCI regulations specify that an MD/MS degree is the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Professor in a medical college.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides centered on the interpretation of the UGC Regulations, the Aligarh Muslim University Ordinances, and the MCI regulations.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:

• The Appellants contended that Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations clearly states that the norms for teachers in the faculty of medicine are to be governed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which in turn relies on the MCI regulations.
• They argued that Clause 12(19) of the University Ordinances specifically refers to the MCI regulations for the qualifications of medical faculty, and therefore, a Ph.D. is not mandatory.
• They submitted that the High Court erred in applying Clause 12(5) of the University Ordinances, which mandates a Ph.D., to medical faculty, thereby ignoring the specific provision in Clause 12(19).

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1:

• Respondent No. 1 argued that Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations mandates a Ph.D. for promotion to the post of Professor and that the same should be applicable to the faculty of medicine as well.
• The Respondent No. 1 relied on the initial stance of the UGC counsel before the High Court, which supported the requirement of a Ph.D. for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college.
• The Respondent No. 1 contended that Clause 12(19) of the University Ordinances requires fulfillment of other conditions laid down in the Ordinances, which includes the requirement of a Ph.D. as per Clause 12(5).

Submissions on behalf of the UGC:

• Initially, the UGC counsel supported the argument that a Ph.D. was mandatory for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college.
• Later, the UGC filed an additional counter-affidavit correcting their earlier stance, stating that the qualification for teaching posts in the faculty of medicine shall be those prescribed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in consultation with the MCI.

The innovativeness of the argument from the Appellants lies in their emphasis on the specific exception carved out for medical faculty in both the UGC Regulations and the University Ordinances, highlighting the primacy of MCI regulations in determining qualifications for medical professors.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a Ph.D. degree is a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme in a medical college?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010: This clause specifies that for teachers in the faculty of medicine, the norms/regulations of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, shall apply.
• Clause 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010: This clause deals with direct recruitment for the post of Professors and provides for Ph.D. qualification.
• Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations, 2010: This clause concerns the promotion to be granted under the Career Advancement Scheme and provides that the educational qualification for appointment/promotion as a Professor and Associate Professor is a Ph.D.
• Clause 12.5 of Chapter IV of the Ordinance (Executive) of Aligarh Muslim University: This clause mandates that no teacher shall be promoted without a Ph.D. degree.
• Clause 12(19) of the Ordinances (Executive) of Aligarh Muslim University: This clause provides for prescription of the minimum qualifications for candidates from the faculty of medicine by the Medical Council of India (MCI).

Regulations:

• Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations: These regulations specify that an MD/MS degree is the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Professor in a medical college.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific provisions in the UGC Regulations and the Aligarh Muslim University Ordinances that carve out an exception for medical faculty. The Court emphasized that the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI) are paramount in determining the qualifications for medical professors. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• Clarity of Regulations: The Court noted that Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations clearly states that the norms for medical faculty are to be governed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which in turn relies on the MCI regulations.
• Specific Provisions: The Court highlighted that Clause 12(19) of the University Ordinances specifically refers to the MCI regulations for the qualifications of medical faculty, indicating that a Ph.D. is not mandatory.
• Avoiding Redundancy: The Court observed that applying Clause 12(5) of the University Ordinances, which mandates a Ph.D., to medical faculty would render Clause 12(19) otiose.
• Correction by UGC: The Court took note of the UGC’s corrected stance that the qualifications for medical faculty are to be determined by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in consultation with the MCI.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as applying Clause 6.4.8 of the UGC Regulations and Clause 12.5 of the University Ordinances, which mandate a Ph.D., to medical faculty. However, these interpretations were rejected because they would contradict the specific provisions for medical faculty in Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations and Clause 12(19) of the University Ordinances. The Court concluded that the MCI regulations, which prescribe an MD/MS degree, are the governing qualifications for medical professors.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao agreeing on the interpretation of the relevant regulations and ordinances.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a plain reading of the regulations and ordinances, emphasizing the specific provisions that apply to medical faculty. This approach ensured that the qualifications for medical professors are determined by the relevant medical authority, i.e., the MCI, rather than the general UGC regulations.

The Court quoted from the judgment, “The qualifications that are required for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college are not governed by the Regulations as is clear from Clause 1.1.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.”

The Court also stated, “The finding of the High Court that the teaching staff in the medical college should have qualification as prescribed in Clause 12 (5) would be rendering Clause 12 (19) otiose.”

Further, the Court observed, “Clause 6.4.8 and Clause 12.5 are inapplicable to the teaching staff working in medical colleges as they would be governed by the regulations framed by the MCI.”

Key Takeaways

• Ph.D. is not a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Professor in medical colleges under the Career Advancement Scheme.
• The qualifications for medical faculty are governed by the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI), which specify an MD/MS degree as the minimum requirement.
• The UGC Regulations and University Ordinances carve out an exception for medical faculty, ensuring that their qualifications are determined by the relevant medical authority.
• The judgment clarifies the confusion caused by the UGC’s initial stance and emphasizes the primacy of MCI regulations in determining qualifications for medical professors.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back for consideration of the other points raised by Respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition stands restored.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college, a Ph.D. degree is not mandatory. The qualifications for such promotions are governed by the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI), which specify an MD/MS degree as the minimum requirement. This judgment clarifies the existing legal position by emphasizing the primacy of MCI regulations over the general UGC regulations for medical faculty promotions.

This judgment settles the previously unclear position regarding the applicability of UGC regulations vis-à-vis MCI regulations for promotions of medical faculty. It establishes that the specific provisions for medical faculty in the UGC Regulations and University Ordinances must be followed, ensuring that the qualifications for medical professors are determined by the relevant medical authority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Shadab Ahmed Khan vs. Prof. Mujahid Beg clarifies that a Ph.D. degree is not mandatory for promotion to the post of Professor in medical colleges. The Court held that the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI), which specify an MD/MS degree as the minimum qualification, govern the promotions of medical faculty. This decision resolves the confusion caused by conflicting interpretations of the UGC Regulations and University Ordinances, ensuring that the qualifications for medical professors are determined by the relevant medical authority.