- (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Keerti Mathur alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 04.02.2011 of this court in Writ Petition No.278/2011, by the respondents, in particular Dr. Reena Nayyar, the respondent no.3, Secretary to the Medical Council of India.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that this court directed the Medical Council of India to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 08.06.2010. Since it was given out by the learned counsel for petitioner to the court that as per the communication of the Secretary, Medical Council of India, by letter dated 18.06.2010, the Board of Governors was ceased of the matter, this court directed the Medical Council of India to decide the representation within thirty days and further directed that the interim order passed by this court directing that person junior to the petitioner or lower in rank than her, shall be handed over charge of Head of Department of Physiology, shall be continued and shall remain co-terminus with aforesaid period of thirty days, subject to however any order that may be passed by Medical Council of India. LEARNED counsel for petitioner has cited communication dated 08.03.2011 sent to him by Medical Council of India wherein it was informed that certain amendments were proposed by the Medical Council of India to Government of India and on receipt of approval from the Government of India, Ministry of Health nd Family Welfare Department, the said amendments will be published in the Gazette of India. It is argued that on that basis the State Government has again handed-over the charge of Head of Department of Physiology to a person junior to the petitioner but the Government of India, has in the meantime, by letter dated 19.07.2011, rejected the recommendation of Medical Council of India and therefore not approved the aforesaid proposed amendments in respect of non-medical candidates. Learned counsel argued that this amounts to deliberate and willful contempt of order passed by this court and therefore the respondents should be held guilty of committing contempt of this court and be punished accordingly. Shri Angad Mirdha, learned counsel for respondent no.3, has submitted that direction of this court was to decide representation of petitioner and that whether or not regulations about the eligibility conditions are to be amended and in what terms, has to be finally decided by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India, being only recommendatory body, it did make certain recommendations but the Government of India has not approved them. The whole issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in a similar matter. It is argued that there was no specific direction by this court and therefore merely because the respondents have sent the communication dated 08.03.2011 to petitioner informing about proposed amendments, does not mean that they have committed contempt of order of this court and this cannot therefore be said to be deliberate and willful contempt. On hearing learned counsel for parties, I find that the Medical Council of India although was required to decide the representation within thirty days but what they have already done is that they can do as per the scheme of the Medical Council of India Act. Medical Council of India indeed has made recommendation to Central Government which have not been approved by the Government. Correctness of their decision or that of the Central Government cannot be subject matter of examination in the present contempt petition. It is although true that communication sent by the Medical Council of India to petitioner does not either reject or accept the representation submitted by petitioner but then the Medical Council of India or its Secretary cannot be held responsible for that situation. Their action cannot be said to be contempt, let alone deliberate contempt of the court. However, if the petitioner is dissatisfied by any of the communication sent by the Medical Council of India or the order passed by the State Government handing over the charge to person junior to her, her remedy lies in challenging all those orders in a duly constituted fresh writ petition because they give rise to fresh cause of action. This contempt petition is therefore dismissed with however aforesaid observations. Consequent upon dismissal of contempt petition itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.;