Allowed

Chandrakant Bhaskar Mhaske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Jun 2016WP/4003/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notification by the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences removing the petitioner from the Board of Study and Medical Council of India. The High Court held the action was in excess of jurisdiction and not supported by law.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 16.10.2015 issued by the Registrar of University of Health Sciences, Nashik, directing removal of the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

Chandrakant Bhaskar Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp4003.16.doc

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4003 OF 2016

¶5

Dr. Chandrakant s/o Bhaskar Mhaske, age: 56 years, Occ: Service, R/o C/o Govt. Medical College, Aurangabad, Tq. & District Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education And Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

02 The Directorate of Medical Education, G.T. Hospital, Mumbai, through the Director.

¶9

03 The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nashik 422 004.

¶10

04 Indian Medical Council, Pocket -14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077.

¶11

.. RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr.Pradeep Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.Yogesh P. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Patil, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.S.K.Kadam, advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

=====

¶14

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 15th June, 2016

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.)

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

¶17

{2}

¶18

wp4003.16.doc

¶19

consent of the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶20

Petitioner is objecting to the notification issued by the Registrar of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, directing removal of the petitioner as a member of Board of Study in Clinical Subjects (Medicine & Allied Subjects) (P.G.), Faculty of Medicine Clinical Subject (Medicine & Allied Subjects) (P.G.) as well as member of Medical Council of India. The action is purported to have been taken under sections 36(2) (b) and 32(5)(c) of the Maharashtra University of Health Scienes Act and section 3(1)(b) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

¶21

Petitioner has been elected as a member of Medical Council of India by virtue of he being a member of Board of Studies in clinical subjects of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Petitioner who was appointed as a professor in faculty of medicine is awarded adhoc promotion as Dean of the Medical College, Aurangabad. According to petitioner, by virtue of award of adhoc promotion, he does not cease to be a professor in the faculty of medicine and his substantive appointment as professor remains untouched. The decision of the University communicated by the Registrar in respect of removal of petitioner as a member of Board of Studies in clinical subjects as well as member of faculty of medicine is bad in law. Petitioner has also not been extended an opportunity of hearing before taking such an adverse action. Apart from this, the University does not have any authority to direct removal of

¶22

{3} wp4003.16.doc

¶23

petitioner as a member of Indian Medical Council. Petitioner has been elected as a member of Indian Medical Council which is an independent body established under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Health University does not have any jurisdiction in respect of removal of petitioner as a member of different central body constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The action of the Health University in issuing notification dated 16.10.2015 directing removal of petitioner as a member of Indian Medical Council is in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the university authority. Respondent is unable to extend any plausible explanation supporting the impugned action.

¶24

In view of reasons set out above, notification issued by the Registrar of University of Health Sciences, Nashik, on 16.10.2015, is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

( K.L.WADANE) JUDGE

¶26

(R.M.BORDE) JUDGE

¶27

dyb

Chandrakant Bhaskar Mhaske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Bhaskar Mhaske v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar Santukrao Kulkarni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Monika Ashok Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shrawan Bandu Sonune Vs Chief Executive Officer Zp Jalna and Another

Saiprakash Ramkishan Uppod through Legal Guardian Ramkishan Piraji Uppod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajaram Laxman Mupade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Vinayakrao Doiphode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others