Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2010WP/417/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Doctors seeking postgraduate diploma enrollment challenged a notice barring enrollment from uninspected institutions. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider applications if Deans submit names and proofs, and directing medical colleges to facilitate inspection. Enrollment eligibility was separated from examination eligibility. Note: subject 3 is an error in my ini

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. Vs the State… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.417-10

¶3

mgj

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

Writ Petition No.417 of 2010

¶6

1 Dr.Pankaj s/o P.D.Biraris
 and others ..Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra
 and another ..Respondents

¶9

Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.Satish Mishra i/b
Mr.A.M.Saraogi for petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Jaideep Mitra i/b Apte & Co. for
respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S.SHAH CJ &
 S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J
 15th July, 2010

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1The petitioners, after completing
theircourseofM.B.B.S.,joined
K.E.M.Hospital in the year 2008 between 18th

¶14

August and 11th September. In this petition

¶15

under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioners, who are aspiring for admissions

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.417-10

¶18

to the course run by respondent no.2 College

¶19

of Physicians and Surgeons of Mumbai, have

¶20

challenged notice dated 28th November, 2008
(Exh.C to the petition) issued by respondent
no.2. By the said notice, respondent no.2
informed the candidates that no candidate
holding plain stipendiary post will be
enrolled either for Diploma for F.C.P.S.
courses of the below mentioned institutions
with effect from February 2009 as the
institutionsarenotinspectedfor

¶21

recognition of the plain post. Further the
said notice provides that the candidates who
have been admitted for MD/MS, through MH CET

¶22

only will be allowed to enroll only for
Diploma Courses of College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Bombay considering their
admission in the under mentioned Medical
Colleges:

¶23

�1 Grant Medical College, Mumbai
 2 Seth G.S.Medical College, Mumbai
 3 L.T.M. Medical College, Mumbai

¶24

¶25

W.P.No.417-10

¶26

 4 B.Y.L.Nair Medical College, Mumbai
 5 B.J.Medical College, Parel and
 6 Govt. Medical College, Nagpur�

¶27

petitioners submit that the above colleges

¶28

are recognised by the Medical Council of
India for Post Graduate Degree as well as
Diploma and respondent no.2 who follows the
norms for recognition cannot be allowed to
contend that the petitioners will not be

¶29

enrolled as the petitioners who are working
at St.George Medical College, Mumbai will not
be enrolled as the said institution is not
inspected for recognition of the plain post.

¶30

3In the affidavit in reply filed on
behalf of respondent no.2, it is submitted,
inter alia, as under:

¶31

�I say that the petitioners being
residentdoctorsintheir
respective medical institutions
are eligible to do the same post
graduate course of this respondent
in the very same unit/department
where they are presently posted.
�For example� - or Resident

¶32

¶33

W.P.No.417-10

¶34

doctors posted in the Gynecology
Department can enroll for a Post
Graduate Course in Gynecology of
this respondent and �not� for a
Post Graduate Course in Radiology.
I say that for the same the Dean
oftherespectivemedical
Institution of the Petition (and
only the Dean himself) has to
forward to the Respondent no.2
names of the students along with
the requisite proof (mentioned at
page 21 of the petition) as per
the format laid down by the
Respondent no.2 or as near thereto
as possible. I say that it is not
the case of the petitioner that
they made their applications for
enrollment after complying with
all the conditions as mentioned
above and that this respondent had
refused to enroll them thereafter.
The petitioners did not apply for
enrollment.I,therefore,
respectfully say and submit that
this petition is premature and
oughttobedismissed
accordingly.�

¶35

4It is further contended in the above

¶36

affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2
that the petition is premature as the
petitioners took up their posts in the above
colleges in or around August/September, 2008
which posts would require a minimum period of

¶37

¶38

W.P.No.417-10

¶39

3 years before eligibility for examinations

¶40

and the petitioners would be eligible to
appear for the examination only after
August/September, 2011.

¶41

petitioners submits that the question of
eligibility for examination is entirely
different from the question of enrollment as

¶42

the enrollment has to precede the
examination. It is only if the petitioners
are enrolled before that the petitioners

¶43

would be eligible to appear at the
examination to be held in 2011. It is
further submitted that the petitioners are
ready and willing to submit the forms to be
signed by the Deans of the concerned colleges
and it is also submitted that inaction on the
part of any authorities including respondent
no.2 in not inspecting the concerned
colleges/institutions cannot be a ground for
denying enrollment to the petitioners.

¶44

¶45

W.P.No.417-10

¶46

6We have heard the learned Counsel

¶47

for the parties and particularly in view of

¶48

the stand adopted by respondent no.2 in
paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed on their
behalf, we dispose of this petition with a
direction that if the Deans of the concerned
medical colleges/institutions forward to
respondent no.2 the petitioners� names along
with the requisite proof as per the format
laid down by respondent no.2 in Exhibit A to
the reply affidavit, respondent no.2 shall
consider the petitioners� applications for

¶49

enrollment subject to compliance of the
requisite conditions.

¶50

7As regards the question of

¶51

inspectionoftheconcerned

¶52

colleges/institutions,weseesome

¶53

justification in the grievance being made on
behalf of the petitioners, that if respondent
no. 2 waits for invitation from the concerned
medical colleges/institutions for inspection

¶54

¶55

W.P.No.417-10

¶56

and if that is a matter of coordination

¶57

between respondent no.2 and the concerned
colleges/institutions, that may not be a
ground to delay consideration of the
petitioners� application for enrollment. We,
therefore, direct that if respondent no.2
goes for inspection of the concerned medical
colleges/institutions which are named in Exh.

¶58

C to the petition such colleges may give
access to the representatives of respondent
no.2 for inspection.

¶59

8Petition is accordingly disposed of

¶60

in the above directions.

¶61

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶62

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Pankaj P. D. Biraris and 2 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Giribala Sangam Sagre Vs Mrs.Sharadha Hemant Joshi and Ors.

Rajaram Shivrudra Koshti and Anr. Vs Mahadev Dhulappa Khawashe

Devidas Madhukar Lokhande and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Mura Vagare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kishor Nandalal Pahuja Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Vs Municipal Corporation for City of Thane and Ors.