Disposed

Dr. Chandramohan K. v. Regional Cancer Centre

Kerala HC1 Nov 2022WP(C)/6447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that upon the repeal of earlier regulations by new ones, only appointments made under the old rules are saved. Since no appointment was made under the impugned notifications before repeal, the Respondents cannot proceed with selection under them and must issue fresh notifications under the new Regulations.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed directing the Respondent not to take further action under the old notifications but to issue fresh notifications under the Regulations, 2022.

Dr. Chandramohan K. Vs Regional Cancer Centre — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DR. CHANDRAMOHAN K., AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, 'DWARAKAMAYI', T.C.14/420, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶9

R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.O.BOX NO.2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, P.O.BOX NO.2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶13

3 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POCKERT - 14, SECTOR - 8, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.

¶14

4 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O., THRISSUR - 680 596.

¶15

5 ADDL.R5.DR.SHAJI THOMAS ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011.

¶16

6 ADDL.R6.DR.BIPIN THOMAS VARGHESE, ADDITOAL PROFESSOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695011.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

7 ADDL.R7.DR.PAUL AUGUSTINE, ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695011. 8 ADDL.R8.DR.ELIZABETH MATHEW IYPE, ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011. 9 ADDL.R9.DR.BALAGOPAL P.G., ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011. ADDL.R5 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.03.2021. IN IA 1/2021. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI SRI.TITUS MANI SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC P.NANDAKUMAR SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

“CR”

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be fully qualified to be

¶26

appointed as a Professor (Surgical Oncology), in the services of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC); but when it issued Ext.P1 notification calling for candidates who were already working in its services — for being selected and appointed in the said post — he found that it contained qualifications which were in variance with that prescribed by the Regulations of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) [now the National Medical Commission (NMC)].

¶27

The petitioner thus approached this Court through W.P(C)No.19248 of 2017, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, whereby, the MCI was directed to consider the validity of the qualifications in Ext.P1 notification viz-a-viz their Regulations and to take a decision as to whether selection can be permitted on its basis. This led to Ext.P6 order being issued by the erstwhile MCI, affirming that the qualifications shown in Ext.P1 were contrary to their Regulations.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

It transpires that the RCC, in compliance with Ext.P6, issued Exts.P7 and P8 fresh notifications calling for candidates from the open market, as well as from among Doctors within their services, prescribing qualifications as are stipulated under the ‘Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998’ (‘Regulations 1998’ for short) of the MCI.

¶31

The afore two notifications were issued nearly 2½ years after Ext.P6 was issued, and by then the ‘Regulations 1998’ had undergone two amendments — through Exts.P9 and P10 notifications of the erstwhile MCI, dated 07.06.2019 and 12.02.2020, respectively.

¶32

Through the first afore amendment notification of the MCI, namely Ext.P9, the qualification for the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) was diluted from what was mentioned in Ext.P6; while, through the subsequent Ext.P10 notification, dated 12.02.2020, the position was restored. However, Ext.P10 carried a stipulation that there would be a ‘transitory period of two years’ from its date; and that, during such period, the ‘Regulations 1998’, as it stood amended through Ext.P9 notification, would remain in force.

¶33

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

It is based on the above that the RCC issued Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, stipulating the qualifications to the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) as enumerated in Ext.P9; which has now caused the petitioner to have approached this Court through this writ petition, challenging it.

¶36

Sri.R.T.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner, very strongly argued that Exts.P7 and P8 notifications could not have been issued containing the qualifications as prescribed in Ext.P9, as far as the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) is concerned because, by the time it was issued, Ext.P10 notification dated 12.02.2020, had come into play. He contended that the ‘transitory period of two years’ in Ext.P10 only applied to the requirements of “Teaching and Research Experience” and not to “Academic Qualifications” mentioned therein; and hence that the invitation to candidates with qualifications not in conformity with the same, was not merely untenable but illegal. He relied on the contents of Ext.P10 in substantiation, particularly the placing of the words ‘transitory period of two years’ within the column under ‘Teaching and Research Experience’, to drive home the point that, a s far as the “Academic Qualifications” are concerned, the prescriptions therein would apply and no other.

¶37

¶38

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶39

After arguing as afore, Sri.R.T.Pradeep then predicated that Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, in any event, cannot be now operated by the RCC because, on 14.02.2022, the ‘Regulations 1998’ were repealed by the “Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022” (Regulations, 2022) issued by the NMC, which, while effecting such, saves only the appointments made under it prior to the repeal. He argued that, therefore, by all permutations of reasoning, Exts.P7 and P8 notifications have been rendered inoperable at this time; and that the RCC must now bring out new notifications under ‘Regulations 2022’.

¶40

Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), adopted the second limb of the afore arguments of Sri.R.T.Pradeep — but without answering the first limb, saying that an evaluation of the said limb is unnecessary for this Court once the ‘Regulations 2022’ came into force. He pointed out that his client has filed a statement on record, perspicuously averring that once ‘Regulations 2022’ came into force, ‘Regulations 1998’ stood repealed and that all action taken under it would lose relevance; but conceding that any appointments made under it already — namely before 14.02.2022, would stand

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶43

protected. He added that, in the case at hand, not merely have no appointments been effected by the RCC yet, but that no applications under Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, are even stated to have been received by them, pursuant to its publication. He thus contended that, notwithstanding the contentions of the rival parties in this case, this Court may permit the RCC to make appointments only under ‘Regulations 2022’, so as to maintain the standards of medical education, particularly when the said Regulations were brought in noticing that the earlier qualifications were insufficient or inept for the purpose of teaching at the Professor level.

¶44

Sri.P.Nandakumar – learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, however, had a different view on the whole issue, arguing that, but for the interim orders passed by this Court in this case, candidates — including his clients, would have had their applications made pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8, processed and proceeded with by the RCC under ‘Regulations 1998’. He argued that it is only because this Court had interdicted the operation of Exts.P7 and P8 during the life of this case, that the RCC was unable to continue with such processes; and therefore, that the petitioner cannot be

¶45

¶46

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶47

allowed to take advantage of such an order, which he obtained, and then to maintain that ‘Regulations 2022’ — which came into force pending this lis — is alone applicable to the RCC to make further appointments. He relied on the judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in P.V.Prakasini v. KPSC and Others [1993 KHC 209], to assert that no person can be allowed to take advantage of an order of stay obtained from a Court, particularly when it operates to defeat the rights of rival parties.

¶48

Sri.Titus Mani Vettom – learned counsel for the NMC, began his submissions saying that, as a matter of rule and general principle, once ‘Regulations 2022’ came into force, any fresh notification or appointments can be issued and made only as per its terms and and in no other manner. He pointed out that, in Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the counter affidavit filed by his client, this has been affirmatively stated. However, after saying as afore, he added that, since Exts.P7 and P8 notifications were made at a time when ‘Regulations 1998’ was in force, his client is of the opinion that further proceedings pursuant thereto can be allowed to be taken forward; and that this view is guided by three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Maharashtra State

¶49

¶50

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶51

Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51); K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another [(2008) 3 SCC 512] and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11] . He read these judgments to assert that they indubitably declare the law that, once the processes had begun, it cannot be altered midway to the detriment of candidates, whose rights have already been crystalized. He submitted that it is only in such circumstances, that the NMC now takes the view that Exts.P7 and P8 notifications can be allowed to be operated; however, only as “a one time measure”, solely because it was published before ‘Regulations 2022’ came into force.

¶52

Sri.Athul Shaji - learned standing counsel for the RCC, very pertinently, conceded that once 'Regulations, 2022' came into force, his client is bound to act as per its terms; but argued that, since the NMC has taken a view that they are still bound to act upon Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, his client is left without any other option. He added that the selection criteria prescribed in the aforesaid notifications were as per the existing NMC Norms; but that the ‘petitioner deliberately attempted to delay the selection process with “mala fide

¶53

¶54

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶55

intentions”. He further explained that, at the time of issuance of the impugned selection notifications, 'Regulations 1998' was in force, but that it was solely because of the interim order of this Court that his client was 'restrained' from finalising the selection. He added to his submissions asserting that the selection notifications take in two posts in Surgical Services, comprising of Head and Neck Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Gynecological Oncology; and that, therefore, Surgical Oncology, being one of the components, the impugned notifications are also compliant of Regulations 2022. He, however, conceded — as is also averred in the counter affidavit dated 25.10.2022 filed by respondents 1 and 2 — that, although for Surgical Oncology Course, MCh is mandatory, the second and third criteria are valid for Head and Neck Surgery and Gynecological Oncology courses.

¶56

I have considered the afore submissions very carefully on the touchstone of the various materials available on record, as also the pleadings of the rival parties.

¶57

It is apodictic — it being expressly admitted — that, pending this lis, ‘Regulations 2022’ came into force with effect from 14.02.2022. It is also common case for the Kerala

¶58

¶59

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶60

University of Health Sciences and the NMC that any appointment after that date can be effected only under the said Regulations. However, as seen above, while the University is affirmative in their position that Exts.P7 and P8, notifications of the RCC, therefore, cannot be now allowed to operate further; the NMC takes a stand that, since they were published prior to the coming into force of the afore said Regulations, appointments pursuant thereto can be allowed.

¶61

In the afore context, the question whether Exts.P7 and P8 notifications are valid, because they contain stipulations of qualifications contrary to what is prescribed in Ext.P9 notification of the NMC dated 07.06.2019, would only stand second, viz-a-viz the more crucial question whether the ‘Regulations 2022’ alone would apply for the purpose of appointments to be made now.

¶62

Therefore, I will first deal with the aspect whether, after the coming into force of ‘Regulations 2022’, Exts.P7 and P8 notifications can be allowed to operate; and then proceed to consider whether the said notifications are valid from the stand point of the imputation that the qualifications in Ext.P9 notification could not have been included therein, but only

¶63

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶64

¶65

that contained in the subsequent notification of the NMC dated 12.02.2020 — namely Ext.P10.

¶66

That said, it does not require detailed expatiation for me to state that the position of law has been well settled that once the new Regulations came into force, repealing the earlier one, then only its terms would apply and no other. As far as ‘Regulations 2022’ — a copy of which is on record as Ext.R3(k) — it limpidly declares that ‘Regulations 1998’ stands repealed and that only appointments made under the same shall be protected. There is no dispute about this and therefore, this Court does not require to test it any further.

¶67

Viewed from that perspective, obviously, unless any appointment had been made pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8, the saving clause of ‘Regulations 2022’ would not apply.

¶68

That said, admittedly, as matters now stand, all which has been done by the RCC, prior to the coming into force of “Regulations 2022”, is that it published Exts.P7 and P8, but without any further action being taken thereon. Perspicuously, therefore, the saving Clause of the said Regulations does not protect either the notifications or the

¶69

¶70

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶71

action that the RCC proposed under it, since, as I have already said above, what is protected are only appointments already made under “Regulations 1998”.

¶72

That being said, I must certainly address the corollary argument of Sri.P.Nandakumar that the petitioner is now taking advantage of a “gratuitous” situation, because he was able to obtain an interim order from this Court, thus frustrating the action that could have been taken by the RCC under Exts.P7 and P8 notifications. I am afraid that this argument of Sri.P.Nandakumar, hinged on P.V.Prakasini (supra), cannot obtain my favour at all because of the manner in which the interim orders of this Court had been issued.

¶73

I say as afore because, when this matter was considered by a learned Judge of this Court on 12.03.2021, an interim order was, in fact, issued in favour of the petitioner, to the effect that the RCC can “proceed with Exts.P7 and P8 notifications to consider persons possessing the third (alternate) qualification only if the persons having the first two qualifications are not available, provisionally subject to further orders in this writ petition” (sic.). The file reveals that, thereafter, the party respondents filed I.A.No.1/2021 to implead themselves, which was allowed; and

¶74

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶75

¶76

simultaneously thereto, another learned Judge, through an order dated 26.03.2021, issued an interdiction to the effect: “no steps shall be taken for to fill up the post of Professor till a decision is taken by this Court” (sic).

¶77

Pertinently it is expressly conceded by the parties on both sides that the aforesaid latter order was not issued at the instance of either of them and that it was a decision taken by this Court, presumably noticing the nature of the controversy projected. Luculently, thus, neither can the party respondents assert that the total interdiction ordered by this Court was at the instance of the petitioner, nor can they take advantage of the first order afore extracted since it, in fact, operates to the benefit of the former.

¶78

I cannot, therefore, find any reason to find in favour of the party respondents merely because the processes under Exts.P7 and P8 may have been delayed – even if it is assumed so – solely on account of the interim orders of this Court.

¶79

In any event, even taking for the sake of argument, that the RCC was interdicted from operating Exts.P7 and P8 on account of the second interim order afore extracted, at the instance of the petitioner, it would be of no consequence at all because, on the “Regulations 2022” coming into force, no

¶80

¶81

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶82

action taken under it – whatever it may be - would be protected, except appointments thereunder, which admittedly, has not been done.

¶83

So found, coming to the submissions of Sri.Athul Shaji, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, I fail to understand how he and his client put blame on the petitioner because, as I have already said above, the interim order in question – through which the RCC was interdicted from making appointments – was issued by this Court, not on the application of the parties. That apart, when the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 admit that “MCh” is mandatory for Surgical Oncology under “Regulations 2022”, their further argument that Exhibits P7 and P8 notifications are compliant with the said Regulations cannot find favour.

¶84

In summation, there can be little doubt that, on the 'Regulations, 2022' coming into force, Exts.P7 and P8 became incapable of being implemented any further; and that none of the parties, including the petitioner or the party respondents, can be allowed to be appointed based on the same. This is because, even the NMC says, as is evident from paragraphs 48 and 49 of their counter affidavit, which I propose to extract ut infra, that any appointments to be made subsequent to

¶85

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶86

¶87

14.02.2022 will have to abide by its terms:

¶88

“48. It is submitted that only those candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria of minimum academic qualifications and teaching experience as per Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022 are qualified to hold the respective teaching posts in medical colleges in the country. The appointments of teachers in institutions, which are contrary to the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, are not approved / recognized by the answering respondent.

¶89

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully submitted that for every appointment as a medical teacher to be made in any medical institution after the coming into force of the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, have to be made under and in accordance with the provisions of Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022 which, being statutory in character, are binding and mandatory.”

¶90

When I say as afore, I am fully aware that the NMC has also taken the specific position that, since Exts.P7 and P8 were published prior to the 'Regulations 2022' having been brought into force, action pursuant thereto can be taken forward; but I must say that this is only on account of a misdirection from their side because, the said Regulations, as I have already mentioned several times, only protects appointments and not even the action taken under it, if any.

¶91

In any event, their impression that rights came to be vested on the party respondents on the impugned notifications of the RCC being published, is forensically flawed because it is now very well settled that mere making of

¶92

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶93

¶94

application or for that matter, even inclusion in a rank list will not inure to any candidate any vested right to be appointed [see for support Unnikrishnan Nair & Others v. State of Kerala & Others (ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 775)]

¶95

Axiomatically, there is no question of the “rules of the game” being altered after the impugned notifications were issued; and limpidly, therefore, the judgments relied upon by the NMC in substantiation of such a contention could also be not relevant or necessary for further consideration by this Court.

¶96

It being seen as above, any further action by the RCC will have to implicitly adhere with 'Regulations 2022'; and, inexorably, therefore, the further contentions of the petitioner and the party respondents, with respect to 'Regulations 2018' and the validity of qualifications prescribed in Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, are rendered wholly superfluous and unnecessary of further evaluation by this Court. I, therefore, choose not to answer the same on its merits because, in any event, whatever be the decision that I may take on it, any further appointment can be made by the RCC only under “Regulations 2022”, as has already been declared.

¶97

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶98

¶99

In such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered, directing the RCC not to take forward any further action based on Exts.P7 and P8 notifications; however, with liberty being reserved to them to issue fresh notifications in terms of 'Regulations 2022'; in which event, the parties will be at full liberty to apply thereunder, subject to the qualifications and criteria prescribed.

¶100

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶101

JUDGE

¶102

mc/stu

¶103

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶104

¶105

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6447/2021

¶106

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶107

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF INVITATION OF APPLICATION FOR
	THE POST OF PROFESSOR (SURGICAL ONCOLOGY) DATED 4.5.2017 BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 4.12.2015 IN AN APPEAL UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED 5.8.2016 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY OF 1ST RESPONDENT CENTRE.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION NIL DATED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.6.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.19248/2017.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA DATED 14.09.2018 IN COMPLIANCE OF DIRECTIONS IN EXHIBIT - P6 JUDGMENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 2.2.2021 FOR INTERNAL SELECTION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN SURGICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE INSTITUTION.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 2.2.2021 FOR OPEN SELECTION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN SURGICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE INSTITUTION.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 7.6.2019 AMENDING THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION FOR PROFESSOR IN SUPER SPECIALTY CONTEMPLATED UNDER MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS, 1998.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 12.02.2020 AMENDING THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION FOR PROFESSOR IN SUPER SPECIALTY CONTEMPLATED
	UNDER MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

¶108

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶109

¶110

IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS, 1998.

¶111

Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE AND POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE WHICH WAS HELD ON 14/07/2015
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/02/2016 IN W.P(C) 34766/2015
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 15/03/2021 FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 25/02/2021 FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR BY MALABAR CANCER CENTRE
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE TEACHERS ELIGIBILTY QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS 2022 WHICH IS BROUGHT INTO FORCE BY NOTIFICATION DATED 14/02/2022
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31/10/2018 AMENDING THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION FOR PROFESSOR IN SUPER SPECIALITY CONTEMPLATED UNDER MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR TEACHERS IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS 1998

¶112

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶113

Exhibit R3(a)	COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.3263 (E) DATED 24/09/2020.
Exhibit R3(b)	COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.3260 (E) DATED 24/09/2020.
Exhibit R3(c)	COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.3262 (E) DATED 24/09/2020.
Exhibit R3(d)	COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.3261 (E) DATED 24/09/2020.

¶114

WP(C) NO. 6447 OF 2021

¶115

¶116

Exhibit	R3(e) COPY OF TEACHERS REGULATI	MINIMUM QUAL IN MEDICAL ONS, 1998.	IFICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONS
Exhibit	R3(f) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 05/06/2017.
Exhibit	R3(g) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 31/10/2018
Exhibit	R3(h) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 07/06/2019.
Exhibit	R3(i) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 16/08/2019.
Exhibit	R3(j) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 12/02/2020.
Exhibit	R3(k) COPY OF	NOTIFICATION	DATED 14/02/2022.
Exhibit	R3(l) COPY OF BY DIVIS COURT OF GAMBHIR AND PROF UNIVERSI WPC.NO.9	JUDGMENT DAT ION BENCH OF DELHI IN DR VS. UOI & OR ESSOR V.G.RA TY OF DELHI 4/2009.	ED 18/09/2012 PASSED THE HON'BLE HIGH .JASWINDER KAUR S.- WPC.NO.5692/2008 MACHANDRAN VS. & ORS.-

Dr. Chandramohan K. v. Regional Cancer Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chandramohan K. v. Regional Cancer Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar N. Vs Nanminda Co-Operative Rural Bank Ltd.

K.a.Baby Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Rhithik.I.P., Vs State of Kerala

Girija T.N. Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies

Cijimol Scharia, Vs State of Kerala

Sreedev P.S, Vs the Deputy Director