Indraprastha Cancer Society and Ors v. UOI & Ors

order dated

06.01.2006. The Division Bench decision, upsetting this direction of the learned Single Judge, did not in any way come in the way of the NBE to independently fix the amount ofRs.19,000/- per month by way of a stipend. This is what has been done by the NBE and, therefore, the circular dated 08.05.2006 cannot be faulted. Consequently, the grievance of the petitioner that accreditation was not being granted for non-compliance with the conditions of this circular, is also not well founded.

¶18The learned counsel for the hospitals submitted that, in any event, rules of natural justice ought to have been followed before the circular dated 08.05.2006 was issued. He submitted that the petitioner/hospitals ought to have also been consulted or heard before the amount was fixed. In the present case, the committee had gone through with its deliberations starting from 16.11.2005 and ending on

21.04.2006. It has looked into various pieces of information collected by it and has also taken a sample of the accredited institutions to arrive at the said decision. Although practical considerations alone cannot be sufficient to override the requirements of natural justice, it must be seen as to whether the procedure adopted by the Stipend Committee was reasonable or not. In my view, the committee has followed a very reasonable approach and has considered the entire range of stipends, which includes not only those institutions which were taken in the sample but also others and the committee has fairly taken the view that the average stipend should be fixed as the minimum. This has been fixed taking into the interest of the DNB candidates. I see no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents.

Page 15

¶19Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the Jaipur Golden Hospital and Tirath Ram Hospital are dismissed. Insofar as the writ petition filed on behalf of the DNB trainees is concerned, I am of the view that their grievances have been taken care of by the circular dated

08.05.2006 and which ought to be implemented in letter and spirit. The parties shall bear their own costs."

¶11In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the challenge to the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable; the writ petitioner does not in any event disclose how and if so to what extent the increased expenditure would deprive it or cause such financial set-backs as may be termed unreasonable. After all it is a private commercial hospital being managed on business principles; it does not disclose its receipts, expenditure or profits or for that matter, the structure of fees recovered from various classes of patients. For the above reasons, the writ petition has to fail, it is accordingly dismissed.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE May 06, 2009 'ajk'

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on : 13.04.2009 + W.P. (C) 8122/2009 INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Gosain, Advocate for NBE. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) % 1. The petitioner, which has established, and manages a Cancer Institute and Research Centre, challenges a circular issued by the National Board of Examination (NBE); the latter conducts the Diplomate of National Board (DNB) examination. The ground for challenge is that the said impugned circular is arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. The NBE was established, as a registered society in 1985. Its objective is to conduct post graduation examinations in the discipline of modern medicine and allied sciences, constitute a specialist board for each discipline Page 2 and coordinate with national and international bodies to further its objectives etc. It is contended that the NBE falls within the meaning of the expression "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Before September 2001 the NBE had not prescribed any norms or rules for payment of stipend to students undergoing DNB qualification. On 24.09.2001 a circular was issued to all accredited institutions mandating payment of stipend. The petitioner refers to a judgment of this Court, i.e. Dr. Vishal Sehgal v. Secretary Health and others, 116 (2005) DLT 493 and submits that such candidates could not claim parity with students undergoing post graduate degree courses in medicine and dentistry. The petitioner submits that on 31.07.2003 the Government of NCT (hereafter called "NCT") stipulated a payment of Rs.10,000/- to such trainees with effect from the date of their enrolment for the entire duration of the course. The petitioner further refers to an order being Dr. Shiv Shankar Shahi v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, WP 19903/2004, where parity was claimed with MD/MS students in which the Court declined to grant such parity but directed payment of enhanced stipend of Rs.19,000/- per month. This judgment, states the petitioner, was set aside by the Division Bench which directed the matter to be re-considered (by the judgment dated 31.03.2006). In this background the NBE issued the impugned circular, directing payment of Rs.19,000/- as stipend. Clause 6 of the circular states that DNB trainees, in such accredited institutions, shall always be paid stipend equivalent to the sum paid by the Page 3 respective State Governments according to the pay revisions made by them. The said impugned circular reads as follows: "I am directed to convey to you that, in pursuance to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23rd November, 2005 and 6th January, 2006, the competent authority has decided the following: - 1. Payment of stipend to DNB trainees is mandatory for all NBE accredited institutions. 2. DNB trainees shall be paid monthly stipend equivalent to the sum paid to MD/MS/DM/MCh trainees by respective State Govts., in institutions owned by them. 3. The trainee (s) shall be paid monthly stipend as per Clause 92) above or as mentioned in the table below, whichever is HIGHER: - Programme First Year Second Year Third Year Broad Specialties Rs.10,000/- Rs.11,000/- Rs.12,000/- Super Specialties Rs. 14,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs. 16,000/- 4. The DNB candidates in accredited institutions in Delhi shall be paid monthly stipend of a minimum Rs.19,000/- or the stipend paid by the Government of India/Govt. of NCT of Delhi to their MD/MS/DM/MCh trainees in their respective year of studies, whichever is HIGHER. 5. In strict compliance to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on 6th Janua