The period of training thus, shall be 3 years after full registration including one year of the housejob.
Hence, on the date he made the application for appearing in the examination, he had number companypleted the required 3 years training period.
Yet the appellant had proceeded to write a thesis and when it became unbearable, he requested for the change of his Supervisor on 4th February, 1988 pursuant to which the new Supervisor, Dr. R. Prasad was appointed on 17th December, 1988.
Thus the petitioner was registered for M.D. General Medicine examination of the University on 6th February, 1986 and by the 3rd August, 1989 when he was due to appear for the examination he had companypleted 3 years training under the two Supervisors.
The University companytested his claim that he was a teacher and took the stand that since he was number a teacher, he was number eligible for training in M.D. General Medicine .
The appellant filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.
Prasad, the former Supervisor, the High Court has relied upon two facts.
For this purpose, the University relied upon the.
letters of Dr. C.J.K. Singh and Dr. S. Sinha.
For the purposes of the disposal of the writ petition, the High Court presumed that the appellant was teacher in the Department of Medicine in the Rajendra Medical College.
The letter makes a companyplaint that Dr. S.S. Prasad by bypassing the office of the Principal, RMC had addressed directly to the Registrar of the University two letters on 4th May and 3 1st May, 1989.
It is asserted from the Bar on behalf of the appellant that Dr. P.V.P. Sin ha was both the Principal and the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University from a date much prior to 17th December, 1988.
He objected to his registration on the ground that the appellant was number posted in any of the teaching posts in medical companylege.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1990 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
The Principal then proceeds to write to University that he would like to bring to the attention of the University that Dr.Prasad had signed the thesis and certificate of another doctor, viz.,
In order to companye to the said companyclusion, the High Court relied on the fact that although the petitioner was registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad as a trainee on 6th February, 1986, he had number undergone training with him and it was only from 4th February 1988 onwards that he had undergone the training with another Supervisor, viz.,
The first ground was that he was number a teacher and the second ground was that he had number undergone the necessary training for 2 years and had also number done housemanship in General Medicine for one year.
Dr. P.R. Prasad was number appointed as appellants Supervisor as per the suggestion of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine since respondent No.
However, thereafter the present petition was filed by the respondent Association when the appellant was granted permission to appear for the said examination being satisfied that the post which he was holding was a teaching post as pointed out by the State Government.
755 of 1988 praying for appropriate direction to the University to permit him to submit his thesis in M.D. Medicine examination.
The then Head of the Department of Medicine, Dr. S. Sinha also wrote to Dr. J.K. Singh that the appellant though attached to the Department of Medicine, was a Bio chemist attached to the Renal Unit and dealt entirely with the subject of Biochemistry.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh on 16.10.1984 when that doctor was registered as an M.D. student in General Medicine only on 26.7.1984 and when Dr. Prasad was number his guide.
This letter is Annexure 11 to the rejoinder of the appellant.
The Principal then proceeds to write that when he asked Dr. Prasad in writing vide his letter dated 21st June, 1989 to give him the letter of the Principal or the Dean or the University which had authorised him to prevent the appellant from doing his research work, Dr. Prasad failed to produce any letter.
Dr. Prasad had written another letter to the University on 16th May, 1988 regarding the appellant and in that letter he had written that the appellant had been prevented from doing research work companynected with his thesis.
The Principal then states that he examined the original letter meaning thereby the letter dated 4th May, 1989 and the companynected matter and found that Dr. S.S. Prasad had been telling lie to the University and trying to mislead and that is why he had sent the letter directly to the University.
However, till the new Supervisor was appointed on 17th December, 1988, he companytinued to be registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad and there is numberdispute that under the new Supervisor, viz.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In this petition, the University supported the appellant by asserting that the, appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine.
Hence, according to the High Court even the training of the appellant under Dr. P.R. Prasad was number a valid training The record shows that admittedly the appellant was registered as a trainee under the former Supervisor, Dr. S. Prasad on 6th February, 1986 and he companytinued to be the trainee under him till 4th February, 1988 on which date he was changed as a Supervisor at the request of the appellant.
7 to the petition who had recommended Dr. R. Prasad was number the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the time of the recommendation.
But more than that, the letter written by Dr. P.V.P. Sinha, the Principal of RMC and Dean, Faculty of Medicines of the Ranchi University to the Registrar of the Ranchi University on 4th July, 1989 speaks volumes on the attitude adopted by Dr. S.S. Prasad towards the appellant.
The respondents, P.G. Medical Students Association had challenged the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said examination on two rounds.
Dr. R. Prasad he companypleted his training from 17th December, 1988 to 4th August, 1989.
There is further numberdispute that the appellant submitted his thesis prior to the examination.
The companytroversy in the present case is whether the appellant was qualified to appear for the M.D. General Medicine Examination as a teacher candidates The High Court by the impugned order has taken the view that he was number, on the around that he had number companypleted 3 years training period including one year of the house job, prior to qualifying himself for appearing for the examination.
The following Order of the Court was delivered Special leave granted.
The second circumstance relied upon is that the second Supervisor, viz.,
2909 of 1993.
Uday Sinha, S.K. Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.
In his place Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed as the appellants Supervisor on 17th December, 1988.
1465 of 1989 R .
B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.
The appellant, thereafter companytinued to be the trainee under Dr. R. Prasad from 19th December, 1988 to 3rd August, 1989.
In support of its finding that the appellant had number companypleted 2 years training with Dr. S.s.
The appellant claimed that he was teacher in the Department of Biochemistry in the Rajendra Medical College R.M.C. and filed an application for his registration as a student in D. The University forwarded the application to the then Principal of Rajendra Medical College cum Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dr. C.J.K. Singh.
Dr. R. Prasad.
Thus according to the Principal it became very clear that Dr. Prasad had written the letter dated 16.5.1988 directly to the University to harm the appellants career.
The Court dismissed the said petition on 23rd May, 1988 without deciding the issue as to whether the appellant held a teaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant was number entitled for admission to the examination in M.D. as he had number submitted his thesis and had also failed to produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactory training.
For number deciding the point, the High Court has given an additional reason, viz.,
The High Court has again number decided the point whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine.
The High Court also held that the acceptance of the thesis was a pre requisite for appearing at the examination.
that many persons who were in fact appointed as teachers would be prejudicially affected since they would become junior to the appellant and they were number before the Court.
The first is that Dr. S. Prasad had written to the University that appellant had undergone numbertraining under him.
It was Dr. C.N. Sahai who named the guide for the said Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh.
The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the candidate must have done one years housemanship prior to the admission to the Post graduate degree in the same subject in which he wants to appear for the examination or at least six months housemanship in the same Department and the remaining six months in the allied Department.
