BY THE COURT—In these three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the validity of some appointments to the Clinical Wing and the fixation of seniority under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been challenged. The validity of some of Rules has also been challenged. All the three writ petitions have been contested on behalf of the State and on behalf of some of the respondents. They were heard together and the material on record in one writ petition was also read in the other writ petitions with the consent of the parties. 2. Up to the year 1959 there was only one Medical College in the State namely the Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur. Two new colleges namely the Sardar Patel Medical College Bikaner and the Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur, were started in 1959 and 1961 respectively. Teaching in the Clinical Wing was imparted mostly by the members of the Medical Service of Rajasthan in these colleges till the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 came into force with effect from November 5, 1962. These teachers were designated as part-time Professors, Readers and Lecturers. 3. They were ordinarily drawn from the following three cadres of the Medical Services: (1) Senior Specialists. (2) Junior Specialists. (3) Civil Assistant Surgeons Class I. Senior Specialists were granted a special pay of Rs. 200/-. Junior Specialists were appointed as part-time Readers on a special pay of Rs. 150/-. Officers belonging to C. A. S. Class I were appointed part-time Lecturers on a special pay of Rs. 100/-. 4. In addition to their teaching duties these doctors attended indoor and outdoor patients in the hospitals attached to the three Medical Colleges like other Senior Specialists, Junior Specialists and C.A.S. Class I Officers who were attached to these hospitals. 5. All the above mentioned Medical Colleges were affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. Under Ordinance No. 65 made by the Syndicate of the University in exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 29 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1956 the following minimum qualifications for teachers in the Clinical Wing of the Faculty of Medicine were prescribed: Medicine Surgery, Ophthalmology and Gynaecology and Obstetrics—1. Under Ordinance No. 65 made by the Syndicate of the University in exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 29 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1956 the following minimum qualifications for teachers in the Clinical Wing of the Faculty of Medicine were prescribed: Medicine Surgery, Ophthalmology and Gynaecology and Obstetrics—1. Professor or Additional Professor—Post-graduate degree of a recognised University or equivalent post-graduate diploma in the respective subject with experience of teaching the subject for 4 years to under-graduates and have practised the speciality for 4 years and should have practised the speciality exclusively for 4 years. The period spent in exclusive practice of the speciality may be deemed equivalent to teaching experience for half the period." 2. Reader or Asstt. Professor 3 Lecturer. Post-graduate degree of a recognised University or equivalent post-graduate diploma in the respective subject with experience of teaching the subject for 4 years to under-graduates and have practised the speciality for 4 years, and should have practised the speciality exclusively for 4 years." Diseases of E.N.T.: Any teaching appointment—"Post-graduate degree of a recognised University or a post-graduate diploma in the respective subject." The above Ordinance was amended by the Syndicate on 16.3.63 and the qualifications prescribed for teachers in the Clinical Wing under the amended Ordinance are as follows— Post Academic Qualifications Teaching Experience Medicine, Surgery, Ophthalmology and Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1. Professor/ Addl. Professor Post-graduate degree or an equivalent postgraduate diploma in the subject such as M.D.M.R.C.P. At least 5 years as Asstt. Professor/Reader/Lecturer in a Medical College. 2. Reader – do – At least 3 years teaching experience in the subject of which at least 2 years as Lecturer. 3. Lecturer – do – At least 2 years teaching experience in the subject as Clinical Tutor/Registrar. E. N. T. 1. Professor/ Addl. Professor Post-graduate degree or an equivalent diploma in the subjectORPost-graduate degree in a major subject with diploma in the speciality of a recognised University. At least 4 years as Asstt. Professor/Reader/Lecturer in the subject in a Medical College. 2. Reader Post-graduate degree or an equivalent diploma in the subjectORPost-graduate degree in a major subject with diploma in the speciality of a recognized University At least 3 years teaching experience in the subject of which at least 2 years as Lecturer. 3. Lecturer – do – At least 2 years teaching experience in the subject as Clinical Tutor/Registrar. 6. 2. Reader Post-graduate degree or an equivalent diploma in the subjectORPost-graduate degree in a major subject with diploma in the speciality of a recognized University At least 3 years teaching experience in the subject of which at least 2 years as Lecturer. 3. Lecturer – do – At least 2 years teaching experience in the subject as Clinical Tutor/Registrar. 6. It was decided to constitute a separate service for Professors, Additional Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the Medical Colleges of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 were framed under Art.309 of the Constitution with this object. 7. The initial constitution of the Service was to be made under rule 5, the relevant part of which relating to the Clinical Wing runs as follows— Rule 5. Initial Constitution of Service— (1) In the Clinical Wing (i) all doctors already working as Readers and Professors shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed to these posts included in the Service except those who are working in a purely temporary or officiating capacity, (ii) all doctors who have worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years on 1.10.61 shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed to posts of Lecturers in the Service, and (iii) the remaining Lecturers and all other doctors who opt for this service and who are qualified under the Rules for being appointed as Lecturers shall be screened by a Committee consisting of a representative of the Commission as Chairman, the Secretary to Government in Medical & Public Health Department, Special Secretary to Government in the Appointments Department or his representative not below the rank of Deputy Secretary, Director of Medical and Health Services, and one representative of three State Medical Colleges. (2) ... ... ... . ... ... (3) The seniority of persons referred to in sub-rule (1) (i), (ii) and (2) shall be determined on an ad hoc basis by the Government. The seniority of persons referred to in sub-rule (1) (iii) shall be determined by Government on the advice of the Committee referred to in sub-rule (i) (iii)." R.12 which falls under Part IV relating to procedure for direct recruitment runs as follows— "R.12. The seniority of persons referred to in sub-rule (1) (iii) shall be determined by Government on the advice of the Committee referred to in sub-rule (i) (iii)." R.12 which falls under Part IV relating to procedure for direct recruitment runs as follows— "R.12. Academic and Technical qualifications—-The candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in Part A, B and C of the Schedule shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as is laid down, from time to time by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in Medical Colleges." 8. There is no other rule contained in these Rules prescribing the academic and technical qualifications for the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors and Additional Professors. 9. Rule 7 which deals with the methods of recruitment after the commencement of the Rules runs as follows— "R. 7. Recruitment. Recruitment in the Service after the commencement of these Rules shall be by the following methods:— (a) Direct recruitment (in accordance with Part IV of these Rules); (b) By promotion of (substantive) members of Service in accordance with Part V of these Rules; in the proportion indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule." The Screening Committee appointed under rule 5(1) (iii) held its first meeting on 19th July, 1963 and decided to assess the suitability of the candidates, who in its opinion possessed the minimum qualifications which had been prescribed by allotting marks to them under the following heads — 1. Academic record and qualifications—10 marks. 2. Teaching experience—10 marks. 3. Research work—10 marks. 4. Date on which a candidate acquired qualifications to make him eligible for appointment as a Lecturer—10 marks. 5. Confidential Rolls—10 marks. 6. Performance before the Screening Committee—25 marks. 7. Deductions for failures. The marks allotted under each head were not mentioned in the proceedings, but they are apparent from an inspection of the marks sheet. The Committee made the following observations about the criteria— "These criteria were designed to test the merit of each candidate in addition to determine whether or not he would make a successful teacher. The Committee felt that it was necessary to interview the candidates in order to assess their merit. The Committee made the following observations about the criteria— "These criteria were designed to test the merit of each candidate in addition to determine whether or not he would make a successful teacher. The Committee felt that it was necessary to interview the candidates in order to assess their merit. It also took into consideration other particulars such as teaching experience, the date on which a particular candidate became eligible for appointment as a Lecturer, the manner in which he had attended to his duties as a teacher which was reflected in his confidential rolls and his academic career including the factor whether he had passed certain crucial examinations at first or subsequent attempts. The Committee also thought it proper to attach importance to the research carried out by each candidate and the extent to which he had made an original contribution to the medical science. The Committee felt that without research no teaching institution could thrive. Marks were allotted for each criterion in such a manner as to make an aggregate of 75. The Committee also decided that a candidate who failed to obtain 12 marks out of 25 in the interview should not be considered suitable for the post of a Lecturer. They took a further decision that a candidate must obtain 33 marks out of the aggregate in order to qualify him for the post of a Lecturer. Greater stress was laid on the performance of a candidate before the Screening Committee because this would bring out the merit of each candidate more vividly than other factors, such as teaching experience, date of eligibility and the quality of the work turned out by a candidate as reflected in his confidential rolls. The Committee proceeded on the assumption that in order to make a good teacher, a candidate must keep himself abreast of the latest trends in the Speciality in which he was working. Such questions relating to his Speciality were put to him as were intended to draw out only the extent of his knowledge but also its depth, and whether or not he could put it across to others with ease and facility. Stress was laid on research and the academic career of each candidate because it was felt by the Committee that these factors would, to a considerable extent, enhance the merit of each candidate as a teacher." Dr. Stress was laid on research and the academic career of each candidate because it was felt by the Committee that these factors would, to a considerable extent, enhance the merit of each candidate as a teacher." Dr. Ramavtar was given 10 marks for performance before the Committee and was rejected out-right even though he secured more than 33 marks in the aggregate. 10. The Screening Committee arranged the names of doctors selected by it in order of preference on the basis of the total marks obtained by them and recommended that their seniority should be fixed in that order. This recommendation was accepted by Government. The inter se seniority of these doctors in C.A.S. I was completely disregarded. 11. Eleven doctors were appointed as Lecturers under rule 5(i) (ii). They were placed above the doctors appointed under rule 5(i) (iii) in order of seniority. 12. The inter se seniority of doctors appointed under rule 5(1) (i) and (ii) was fixed in accordance with their seniority in their parent cadres from which they were drawn. 13. Two of the optants who appeared before the Committee namely Dr. P. Chatterji and Dr. S.P. Mathur had served as Registrars in the Irwin Hospital. They were not borne on the staff of any Medical College. They claimed that they had been teaching in the Irwin Hospital, but could not produce any cogent documentary evidence before the Committee to substantiate their claim. The Committee postponed the consideration of their cases. They were subsequently held qualified and were selected. 14. On behalf of the petitioners rule 5(1) has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution for the following reasons: (1) Clause (i) There is no reasonable basis for classifying doctors already working as Professors and Readers into a separate class for which neither the qualifications prescribed by the University were insisted upon nor was any screening provided. (2) Clause (ii)—There is no reasonable basis for classifying Lecturers into two classes—those who had worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years upto 1.10.61 and those who had not so worked. The date 1.10.61 bears no relationship to the object to be achieved by the Rules. (2) Clause (ii)—There is no reasonable basis for classifying Lecturers into two classes—those who had worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years upto 1.10.61 and those who had not so worked. The date 1.10.61 bears no relationship to the object to be achieved by the Rules. There is no reasonable basis for not prescribing for them minimum qualifications in accordance with the University Ordinance and for not subjecting them to screening as has been done in the case of doctors falling under rule 5(l)(iii). (3) Clause (iii)—Although the rules prescribe for screening by a Committee no principles for the guidance of the Screening Committee have been laid down for assessing the merits of the candidates and there is no provision for co-opting experts in various specialities, candidates for which were to be screened by the Committee. As such arbitrary and unfettered powers have been given to the Screening Committee. 15. The constitutionality of the last part of rule 5(3) is challenged on the ground that although the Committee was authorised to make recommendations with regard to the fixation of seniority of the candidates no guiding principles for fixing the seniority were laid down with the result that obituary and unfettered powers were also given to the Committee in this behalf. 16. The screening by the Committee was criticised on the ground that the total clinical experience of the candidate in the speciality was not taken into consideration. 10 marks were allotted to research work even though it was not prescribed as a necessary qualification for the post of Lecturer, and that marks allotted for the performance before the Screening Committee were unduly high—25 out of a total of 75 having been allotted under this head—whereas 10 marks were allotted under each of the other heads. It was contended that the marking under this head is more or less subjective whereas marking under the other heads is more objective as it is based on material which remains on record even after the Screening Committee had completed its work and this material provided a check against awarding marks arbitrarily. 17. The fixation of seniority of doctors selected under rule 5(i) (iii) was criticised on the ground that in doing so one universally accepted principle was violated. 17. The fixation of seniority of doctors selected under rule 5(i) (iii) was criticised on the ground that in doing so one universally accepted principle was violated. That principle is that if recruitment is made from one service into another, the inter se seniority of members in their parent service is maintained in the new service. It was argued that by not applying this principle which is generally applied to other services and which has been applied by the State Government in fixing the seniority of doctors recruited under rule 5(1) (10) and 5(1) (ii) there has been an unreasonable discrimination against those falling under rule 5(1) (iii) which is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 18. Various allegations of undue favouritism in favour or Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi were made which need not be mentioned here as in our opinion they are irrelevant to the present case. Only one allegation is relevant and that is that the date 1-10 61 was fixed for the ulterior motive of benefitting these two doctors who were first appointed as part-time Lecturers on 26 8-58 and 29.5.58 respectively. 19. Further, with regard to the above two doctors it was contended that they cannot be said to have "worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years on 1.10.61" within the meaning of rule 5(l)(ii) as between the date of their first appointment as part-time Lecturers and 1.10.61 both of them went abroad as Research Fellows for a period of one year each. 20. Dr. Joseph was appointed as a Lecturer in Gynaecology and Obstetrics under rule 5(1) (iii). She was appointed substantively to C.A.S. Class I on 27.4.54. In 1955 she took the post-graduate Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics from Bombay University. In 1959 she took the post-graduate degree of M. D. in the same speciality from the same University. From 11th December, 1958 she worked temporarily as a part-time Lecturer in Gynaecology and Obstetrics for 4 months. On 17.10.59 she was appointed as part-time Clinical Tutor for the same speciality. From 5.2.61 she held the post of part time Lecturer and was holding this post when the Rules came into force. She was placed junior to 14 other doctors who were senior to her in C. A. S.I. She is most affected by the seniority assigned to Dr. From 5.2.61 she held the post of part time Lecturer and was holding this post when the Rules came into force. She was placed junior to 14 other doctors who were senior to her in C. A. S.I. She is most affected by the seniority assigned to Dr. Pushpa Gupta above her as she has been selected for the same speciality. Dr. Pushpa Gupta joined as C.A.S. II in August, 1955. She was appointed to C. A. S. Class I substantively on 19.2.59. She took the post-graduate degree of M. S. in 1960. She was appointed as a Clinical Tutor from 24.4.61 and as a part-time Lecturer from 10.2.62. Thus Dr. Joseph was senior to Dr. Pushpa Gupta in C. A. S. Class I, as a Clinical Tutor and as a Lecturer. Yet she was fixed junior to her in the grade of Lecturers in the Service. 21. Dr. Joseph was given 36 marks and Dr. Pushpa Gupta was given 37. For research work Dr. Pushpa Gupta got 4 marks, but Dr. Joseph got no mark. It was alleged that the only research work of Dr. Pushpa Gupta was the publication of an article on Blood Urea and Uric Acid in Toxemias of Pregnancy in the June, 1963 issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India, which was the joint work of herself along with her husband Dr. Somnath Gupta and another Dr. L. K. Kothari and that Dr. Pushpa Gupta should not have been given any credit for it as it was mainly the work of her husband. We may say at once that it was for the Committee alone to decide what contribution was made by Dr. Pushpa Gupta and we cannot sit in judgment over their opinion. 22. It is contended on behalf of Dr. Joseph that Dr. Pushpa Gupta did not even possess the prescribed qualifications as on 5.11.62 she did not have two years teaching experience as clinical tutor or Registrar as required under the amended University Ordinance which came into force on 16.3.63. It was argued that as rule 5(1) deals with initial constitution of the Service the qualifications prescribed for candidates for recruitment under rule 5(l)(iii) must be possessed on the date on which the Rules came into force, namely on 5.11.62. 23. It was argued that as rule 5(1) deals with initial constitution of the Service the qualifications prescribed for candidates for recruitment under rule 5(l)(iii) must be possessed on the date on which the Rules came into force, namely on 5.11.62. 23. During the course of the hearing it appeared to us prima facie that not only should the qualifications be possessed by the candidates on the date on which the Rules came into force, but that these qualifications should be in accordance with the University Ordinance as it stood at that time. We might repeat that the Ordinance as it stood on 5.11.62 prescribed the following qualifications for appointment as Lecturer in the Specialities of Medicine, Surgery, Ophthalmology and Gynaecology and Obstetrics: "Post-graduate degree of a recognised University or equivalent post-graduate diploma in the respective subject with experience of teaching the subject for 4 years to under-graduates and have practised the speciality for 4 years, and should have practised the speciality exclusively for 4 years." One of the basic questions which thus arises for decision in these writ petitions is whether the Screening Committee complied with the above requirement of rule 5(1) (iii) in making selections. As this question was not pointedly raised in any of the writ petitions we issued notice to all the parties in all the three writ petitions to address us on this question as it was necessary for us to decide it. 24. Dr. Ram Avtar passed the M.B.B.S. Examination in 1952 standing second in order of merit and was awarded two gold medals. He passed M. D. in 1958 in the fourth attempt. He was House Officer for one year from 1.7.52 to 30.6.53 and Registrar for one year from 1.7.53 to 30.6.54. He was appointed to C.A.S. II on 14.7.54 and was appointed substantively to G.A.S. I on 29.9.56. He was part-time Lecturer in P. N. R. G. Training Centre Udaipur from 18.8.58 to 10.3.60. He was part-time Lecturer in a Medical College from 19.3.60 to 23.3.62. He officiated as a Junior Specialist from 24.3.62 and as a Senior Specialist from 1.10.65. He claimed that the period during which he worked as a Lecturer in P.N.R.C. Training Centre should be counted towards the computation of 3 years before 1.10.61 under R. 5(l)(ii) and he should be taken to have been substantively appointed to the Service as a Lecturer from 5.11.62 under that rule. He claimed that the period during which he worked as a Lecturer in P.N.R.C. Training Centre should be counted towards the computation of 3 years before 1.10.61 under R. 5(l)(ii) and he should be taken to have been substantively appointed to the Service as a Lecturer from 5.11.62 under that rule. He alleged that the decision of the Screening Committee and the State in not taking him as a Lecturer under R. 5(l)(iii) was mala fide, being based on matters irrelevant and extraneous to the Rules. He did not however specify what those irrelevant or extraneous matters were. He challenged the appointments of Dr. Shurveer Singh and Dr. S. R. Mehta as temporary part-time Readers under an order dated 8.8.62 on the ground that when they were appointed they did not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Rules. During the pendency of the writ petition both of them were promoted as temporary Professors. He was allowed to amend his writ petition so as to challenge their present appointments. They are challenged on the ground that they are not eligible to hold these posts under the Rules. 25. Dr. Kailash C. Kotia passed his M.B.B.S. examination in 1952. He was House Officer from 11.12.52 to 31.12.53. He was appointed to C.A.S. Class II on 18.6.54 and to C.A.S. I on 29.9.56. He passed his M. D. examination in Medicine in 1956. He was appointed Clinical Tutor in Cardiology on 25.5.58 and part-time Lecturer in Cardiology on 12.4.60. He went for further training in Cardiology to U.S.A. as a Research Fellow in August 1961 for one year and on return he again became a part-time Lecturer. He was working as a part-time Lecturer when the Rules came into force. As a result of the fixation of seniority under R. 5(1) (iii) he became junior to many doctors who were junior to him in C.A.S. I. 26. These writ petitions were contested on behalf of the State, Dr. S.R.Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi who filed written statements opposing them. Respondents Dr. D.L. Chhangani, Dr. P. Chatterji and Dr. S.P. Mathur were also represented. FINDINGS We now proceed to give our findings. 27. The first question which arises is as to whether the remaining Lecturers mentioned in R. 5(1) (iii) are also required to have the qualifications prescribed under R. 12. H.K. Bedi who filed written statements opposing them. Respondents Dr. D.L. Chhangani, Dr. P. Chatterji and Dr. S.P. Mathur were also represented. FINDINGS We now proceed to give our findings. 27. The first question which arises is as to whether the remaining Lecturers mentioned in R. 5(1) (iii) are also required to have the qualifications prescribed under R. 12. The case of the petitioners is that they must also possess the qualifications prescribed under the University Ordinance. The contesting respondents on the other hand contend that the remaining Lecturers need not possess such qualifications. The clause runs as follows— (1) "the remaining Lecturers, and (2) all other doctors who opt for this service, and (3) who are qualified under the Rules for being appointed as Lecturers (4) shall be screened by a Committee etc." (numbering is ours) 28. It is quite clear that the remaining Lecturers as well as the optants are to be screened by the Committee. Both of them have been classified into class. It stands to reason that the clause "who are qualified etc." also governs the remaining Lecturers. That is, the remaining Lecturers should also possess the qualifications prescribed under the University Ordinance. 29. The next question which arises is as to whether the qualifications mentioned in rule 5(1) (iii) should be possessed by the remaining Lecturers and the optants on the date of the coming into force of the Rules or on the date of their appointment. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that this qualification should be possessed on the date of the coming into force of the Rules. The argument is that the initial constitution of the Service under rule 5 takes place on the date of the coming into force of the Rules and recruitment to the Service after the commencement of these Rules is to be governed by rule 7 which we might repeat runs— "Recruitment to the Service after the commencement to these Rules shall be by the following methods: (a) Direct recruitment (in accordance with Part IV of these Rules), (b) By promotion of (substantive) members of the Service in accordance with Part V of these Rules; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 30. ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 30. On behalf of the respondents on the other hand it is contended that the prescribed qualifications should be possessed on the date of appointment and not on the date of the coming into force of the Rules. It is argued that whereas under clauses (i) and (ii) it is provided that the appointment shall be deemed to have been made on the date of the coming into force of the Rules there is no such provision in clause (iii). 31. In our opinion a reading of rule 5 (1) goes to show that recruitment under rule 5 (1) (iii) must relate to the date on which the Rules came into force. Recruitment after the Rules came into force could only take place in the manner provided under rule 7, that is. Lecturers could only be recruited by direct recruitment after that date. There is no deeming provision in clause (iii) similar to that contained in clauses (ii) obviously because the appointments under clause (ii) are automatic, but the appointments under clause (iii) were only to be made after screening. It was not the intention of the rule making authority that these appointments should take effect retrospectively from 5.11.62. It may be noted that because the optants besides the remaining Lecturers were also to be appointed under this clause and as they were not working as Lecturers on 5.11.62 they could not be appointed retrospectively from 5.11.62. That is why no deeming provision could have been inserted in clause (iii). It is not disputed that the remaining Lecturers under this clause were only those who were working as Lecturers on 5.11.62. Only such of them could be selected as possessed on 5.11.62 the necessary qualifications prescribed under the University Ordinance. It follows from this also that only those doctors who possessed the necessary qualifications on 5.11.62 could opt under this clause. | 32. The next question which arises is as to whether the qualifications possessed by the remaining Lecturers; and the optants should be in accordance with the University Ordinance as it stood on 5.11.62. It was not disputed by the parties that if it was necessary to possess the prescribed qualifications on 5.11.62 these qualifications should be in accordance with the University Ordinance No. 65 as it stood at that time. 33. It was not disputed by the parties that if it was necessary to possess the prescribed qualifications on 5.11.62 these qualifications should be in accordance with the University Ordinance No. 65 as it stood at that time. 33. The conclusions reached by the Screening Committee in our opinion are vitiated because they judged the suitability of the candidates before them by reference to their qualifications as prescribed by amended Ordinance of the University and not in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by the University on 5.11.1962 on which date the Rules came in force and the initial recruitment to the Service was to be made. A reference to the columns which the Screening Committee made for allotting marks shows that column 6 is "Date of Eligibility" and 10 marks are allotted to it. The intention apparently was to give marks to a candidate having regard to the date when he or she became eligible for appointment. The question naturally was "eligibility" according to what standard ? The Screening Committee judged this matter according to the eligibility as prescribed by the amended University Ordinance. If that was not so_, there was no need to investigate the length of the teaching experience of Dr. P. Chatterji in the Ear, Nose and Throat speciality because the unamended Ordinance did not require this qualification for a Lecturer in E.N T. Thus the entire screening by the Committee in our opinion was regulated by wrong standards in so far as qualifications are concerned and stands vitiated. Marks allotted under Col. 6 to all the 23 doctors selected by the Committee thus stand in need of revision and this will also affect the fixation of seniority of the selected candidates inter-se. We accordingly quash the appointments of all the 23 doctors made under rule 5(l)(iii) to the Services as Lecturers. They are all parties to one or other of these three writ petitions. We issue a direction to the State Government to convene a meeting of the Screening Committee to screen afresh all "remaining Lecturers" and those doctors who had applied for opting when applications were last invited. Only such of them are eligible for selection as possessed the prescribed qualifications on 5.11.62 in accordance with the University Ordinance as it stood on that date. 34. Only such of them are eligible for selection as possessed the prescribed qualifications on 5.11.62 in accordance with the University Ordinance as it stood on that date. 34. There is controversy between the parties as to what is meant by "exclusive practice of the speciality" in the University Ordinance as it stood on 5.11.62. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that when a doctor holds a teaching appointment he cannot be said to be practising the speciality exclusively. For he does teaching work in addition to practising the speciality. On behalf of the contesting respondents on the other hand it was contended that a teacher in a speciality practises exclusively that speciality so long as he is a teacher and this period is to be counted for purposes of determining the eligibility of a candidate for appointment. We are of the opinion that this latter interpretation is to be preferred. The intention appears to be that during the period of exclusive practice the doctor does not practise as a general practitioner but confines his practice to a particular speciality. 35. Coming now to the question of the validity of rule 5(1) the contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the rule is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 36. Art.14 permits of reasonable classification. A classification is reasonable when it is not an arbitrary selection but rests on differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which classification is made. What is required is that the classification must bear some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. 37. In order to determine the reasonableness of the classifications it is necessary first to ascertain the policy underlying the Rules and the object to be achieved by them. It is stated in the preamble of the Rules that "the Governor of Rajasthan makes the following Rules regulating the recruitment to posts in, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch". To start with there was only one Medical College in the State at Jaipur. Two new Colleges had already been started at Bikaner and Udaipur and it was intended to start more Medical Colleges for training doctors as there was a paucity of them in the State. To start with there was only one Medical College in the State at Jaipur. Two new Colleges had already been started at Bikaner and Udaipur and it was intended to start more Medical Colleges for training doctors as there was a paucity of them in the State. Before the framing of the Rules teaching on the clinical side in the Medical Colleges was imparted by doctors belonging to the Rajasthan Medical Services who were posted as part time teachers. They were transferable from their teaching jobs. It is not disputed that the object of creating a separate service relating to Collegiate Branch was provide efficient Teachers exclusively devoted to this activity, without distractions of frequent transfers and the like, so that the existing and future Medical Colleges in the State may be adequately equipped with efficient teaching staff. 38. Under rule 5(1) doctors of Rajasthan State Medical Colleges who had experience of teaching in the State Medical Colleges were divided into three classes. The first category consisted of doctors already working as Readers and Professors (except those working in a purely temporary of officiating capacity). They were substantively appointed as Readers and Professors. The second category consisted of doctors who had worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years on 1.10.61. They were also appointed substantively to the Service automatically under the Rules. The third category consisted of two classes— (a) the remaining Lecturers, and (b) all other doctors who opt for the service. For this last category it was laid down that they should possess the requisite qualifications prescribed by the University. The first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that similar qualifications should have been prescribed for the other categories under rule 5(1) also. For doctors falling under rule 5 (1) (iii) screening was provided. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no reason why similar screening should not have been provided in case of doctors falling under cl. (i) and (ii). 39. As we have said above reasonable classification is permissible under Art.14 Professors and Readers from a separate class. Lecturers were divided into two classes, one having longer experience of teaching as Lecturers namely for a period of three years on 1.10-61 and the other having comparatively less experience. The object of the Rules was to appoint persons as Lecturers who are likely to be efficient teachers. Lecturers were divided into two classes, one having longer experience of teaching as Lecturers namely for a period of three years on 1.10-61 and the other having comparatively less experience. The object of the Rules was to appoint persons as Lecturers who are likely to be efficient teachers. The Doctors with 3 years experience on 1.10.61 have been treated differently than those who did not possess that much of experience as Lecturers. The question is whether this differentia has rational relationship with the object which the Rules aim to attain. In our opinion the answer to this question must be in the affirmative. Showing preference to and thereby classifying teachers with larger experience separately from those not so experienced is reasonably related to the object sought to be attained by the Rules, namely to have efficient teachers for medical colleges in the initial recruitment. 40. Moreover there is a presumption that the classification made by the Legislature is reasonable. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Brijendra Singh, former Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health Department stating that all those appointed under rule 5(l)(ii) fulfil the qualifications laid down under the University Ordinance as it stood on 5.11.62. The rule making authority might have been aware of this fact and therefore did not think it necessary prescribe minimum qualifications for those falling under clauses (i) and (ii). It considered them fit for substantive appointment without any screening. For teachers having shorter experience of teaching as lecturers and for the optants screening was provided and it was also laid down that they should possess the qualifications prescribed under the University Ordinance. This cannot be regarded as unreasonable. R. 5(1) therefore for all these reasons is not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 41. Rule 5(i) (ii) is also attacked on the ground that the date 1.10.61 was selected arbitrarily and has no reasonable connection with the object to be achieved by the Rules. It is alleged that this date was chosen to favour Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi who completed three years as Lecturer in 26 8-61 and 29 5-61 respectively. This allegation was denied on behalf of the contesting respondents who asserted that the draft of the Rules was finalised shortly before this date and 1.10.61 was selected on this account. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi who completed three years as Lecturer in 26 8-61 and 29 5-61 respectively. This allegation was denied on behalf of the contesting respondents who asserted that the draft of the Rules was finalised shortly before this date and 1.10.61 was selected on this account. On the basis of the material on record we are unable to hold that the date 1.10.61 was selected to favour Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi. It appears to us that the date was accidently chosen because the draft of the Rules was finalised shortly before this date. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that even if this date was not selected to favour particular individuals there is no reasonable nexus between it and the-object to be achieved by the Rules and therefore the selection of the date is arbitrary and rule 5(1) (ii) is thereby rendered void by virtue of Art.14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Balabhau Manaji vs. B.S. Nandanwar (1) in which a right of pre-emption was conferred under sec. 113 of the Berar Land Revenue Code. A Bill was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Legislature on 7.4.53 for the amendment of the Berar Land Revenue Code. In the Bill as originally introduced the provision contained with regard to pre-emption was retained. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee on 29.9.53 which made its report on 25.3.54 recommending the repeal of the provision relating to pre-emption. This report was published in the Gazettee on 26.3.54. The Bill ultimately passed by the Legislature incorporated the recommendation of the Select Committee with regard to the repeal of the provision relating to pre-emption. It received the assent of the President on 5.2.55 and the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.2.55. The Act provided that a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption instituted on or before 25.3.54 shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the unamended Berar Land Revenue Code and a suit filed alter that date shall be dismissed. The petitioner in that case had institu-ted his suit on 15.6.54. It was a Pending suit when the Act came into force. It was held that date of the report of the Select Committee could not afford a rational basis for classification. 42. In our opinion the above case is distinguishable on facts. The petitioner in that case had institu-ted his suit on 15.6.54. It was a Pending suit when the Act came into force. It was held that date of the report of the Select Committee could not afford a rational basis for classification. 42. In our opinion the above case is distinguishable on facts. There a right to preempt had a ready vested in a number of persons before the amended Act came into force winch abolished this right and there was no reason for discriminating between those who had filed suits to enforce the right before a particular date and those who had filed them after that date. In other words the classification on the basis of the date selected in that case had resulted in unjust discrimination. 43. In the present case no unjust discrimination has resulted on account of treating Lecturers who had worked for three years by 1.10.61 as separate class. We have pointed out above that it was quite reasonable to treat doctors who had worked tor a longer period as Lecturers as a separate class and giving them preference over those who had worked for a shorter period, in making appointments to the post of lecturers Such a differentiation is co-related to the object of the Rules. It is only when the fixation of a date results in unjust discrimination that a question may arise as to whether there is a reasonable nexus between the date and the object of the legislation. 44. In Madhubhai vs. Union of India (2) under a notification dated 31.8.57 a period of 12 months immediately preceding 6.8.57 was fixed as the standard for active membership of the Stock Exchange. It was held that the period fixed by the Government as the standard for ascertaining the active membership is not arbitrary or unreasonable. It was observed that there is a presumption in favour of the State that there is a reasonable basis for the classification. 45. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that if the Government was of the opinion that a doctor who had worked for three years as Lecturer was fit for substantive appointment then it should have provided in the Rules that a doctor who had worked for three years as Lecturer would be deemed to have been appointed substantively under rule 5(1) (ii), Such a rule would no doubt have been more equitable. But as was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kangshari Haldar vs. State of West Bengal (3) the consideration as to whether the object of the legislation would have been better achieved by adopting a different classification is foreign to the scope of the present writ petitions. 46. Next it is contended that Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi had not worked as Lecturers for 3 years by 1.10.61 and so they were not entitled to be taken under rule 5(1) (ii). 47. Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi were deputed for training to the United States of America for a period of one year each between their dates of appointments as Lecturers and 1.10.61. They were treated as on deputation for the first six months of their absence from their posts in Rajasthan under rule 51 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. For the remaining period special leave on half average pay was granted to them. This was done in terms of the decision of the Rajasthan Government mentioned under rule 51 of the R.S.R. subject to their executing bonds to serve the State Government on their return. If this period is excluded they cannot be said to have worked as Lecturers for 3 years by 1.10.61. 48. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was argued that because these two doctors were deputed for training by the State Government they should be treated as being on duty on their posts of Lecturers. This contention cannot be accepted. Their substantive appointment was that of C.A.S. They were part-time Lecturers only upto the date upto which they held charge of this post When they went abroad they retained a lien only on their substantive posts in the C.A.S. under the Rajasthan Service Rules. They could not have drawn the allowance attached to the post of Lecturer when they had gone abroad in view of rule 22 R.S.R. It is not disputed that during this period they did not actually draw any allowance for the post of part-time Lecturer. They were treated as being on deputation only for six months. For six months they were granted leave. They cannot be treated as being on duty on their posts of Lecturers when they went for training abroad. They were treated as being on deputation only for six months. For six months they were granted leave. They cannot be treated as being on duty on their posts of Lecturers when they went for training abroad. Rule 5(i) (ii) runs — "All doctors who have worked as Lecturers for a period of 3 years on 1.10.61 shall be deemed to have been substantively appointed to the posts of Lecturers etc." From the context in which the expressions Professors", "Readers", and "Lecturers" have been used in rule 5(1) it is quite clear that they are confined to doctors who have worked or were working on the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in medical colleges of the Rajasthan State. The requirement of this clause is that a doctor should have worked as Lecturer for a period of three years. That means that he should have actually worked on the post of a Lecturer in a State Medical College in Rajasthan for 3 years prior to 1.10.61. A doctor who goes abroad for training in order that he may be better equipped to carry out the duties of the post of a Lecturer in a State Medical College cannot be treated as having worked as a Lecturer during the period of his training abroad within the meaning of rule 5(i) (ii). 49. Dr. S.R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi have filed letters from the Chairman, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburg and the Director, Department of Neurology, Mount Sinai Hospital respectively to prove that they were associated with teaching programmes for under-graduates and graduates during their training abroad. There is some controversy about the veracity of the contents of these letters which were obtained during the pendency of the present writ petitions. We however consider that it is unnecessary to go into it as in our opinion even if Dr. Mehta and Dr. Bedi were associated with teaching programmes during their training abroad as Research Fellows they cannot be considered to have worked as Lecturers in a State Medical College in Rajasthan during the period and consequently this period cannot be counted under rule 5(l)(ii). 50. We accordingly hold that Dr. S. R. Mehta and Dr. H. K. Bedi were not eligible for appointment under rule 5 (i) (ii) as they had not worked as Lecturers for 3 years by 1.10.61 within the meaning of the rule. 51. 50. We accordingly hold that Dr. S. R. Mehta and Dr. H. K. Bedi were not eligible for appointment under rule 5 (i) (ii) as they had not worked as Lecturers for 3 years by 1.10.61 within the meaning of the rule. 51. We therefore quash the appointments of Dr. S. R. Mehta and Dr. H. K. Bedi made under rule 5 (1) (ii) and direct that the Screening Committee shall screen them for appointment as Lecturers under rule 5 (i) (iii). 52. Dr. Ram Avtar worked as a Lecturer in Medicine in the Punjab Nursing Registration Council Training Centre at Udaipur from 18.8.58 to 10.3.60. He was described as a Lecturer in his letter of appointment (vide Ex. P. 2, page 19 of Dr. Ram Avtars petition). It was contended on his behalf that this period should have been counted as period during which he had worked as a Lecturer within the meaning of rule 5 (i) (ii). This contention was based on two grounds. The first ground is that the expression Lecturer has not been defined in the Rules and that any one who has worked as a Lecturer in any institution is entitled to count his service as a Lecturer towards this period. The second ground is that experience as a Lecturer in P. N. R. C. Training Centre should be regarded as equivalent to the experience of a Lecturer in a State Medical College. 53. We are unable to accept the above contention. As we have pointed out above even though the expression Lecturer has not been defined under the Rules it has been used in rule 5 (i) to denote a doctor who has worked or is working as a Lecturer in a State Medical College in Rajasthan. Any one having an equivalent teaching experience is not eligible for appointment under rule 5 (1) (ii). Dr. Ram Avtar was therefore not eligible for appointment under this rule. 54. Rule 5 (i) (iii) is attacked on the ground that the Government have not laid down any criteria for selection and consequently this rule gives unfettered and arbitrary powers to the Screening Committee and is thus void under article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali (4) and some other cases. Rule 5 (i) (iii) is attacked on the ground that the Government have not laid down any criteria for selection and consequently this rule gives unfettered and arbitrary powers to the Screening Committee and is thus void under article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali (4) and some other cases. The contesting respondents on the other hand relied on Kathi Raning vs. State of Saurashtra (5) and some other cases. 55. In Anwar Alis case(4) it was held that the procedure laid down by the West Bengal Special Courts Act 10 of 1950 for the trial before Special Courts varied substantially from that laid down for the trial of offences generally by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that since the Act did not classify or lay down any basis for the classification of the cases which may be directed to be tried by the Special Courts, but left it to the uncontrolled discretion of the State Government to direct any such case which it liked to be tried by the Special Court under the special procedure, sec. 5(1) of the Act contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution and was accordingly void. 56. The above Act had for its object, as declared in the preamble, "to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences." 57. In Kathi Ranings case (5) sec. 11 of the Saurashtra State Public Ordinance 9 of 1948 came up for consideration. The Ordinance was passed "to provide for public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and tranquility in the State of Saurashtra". Like the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 it authorised the State Government to appoint Special Judges to try such offences or classes of offences or such cases or classes of cases as the Government may direct. The procedure for trial differed from the ordinary procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State Government issued a notification appointing a Special Judge to try certain specified offences, e.g. offences under secs.183, 189, 190, 302, 304, 382 and 384 etc. It was held that the case was distinguishable from Anwar Alis case(4) and that that part of sec. 11 of the Ordinance which authorised the Government to direct offences or classes of offences or classes of cases to be tried by Special Courts did not offend against Art. 14. It was held that the case was distinguishable from Anwar Alis case(4) and that that part of sec. 11 of the Ordinance which authorised the Government to direct offences or classes of offences or classes of cases to be tried by Special Courts did not offend against Art. 14. In the course of the hearing an affidavit was filed by the Assistant Secretary in the Home Department of the Saurashtra Government giving the back-ground of the legislation. In the beginning of 1948 the different States in Kathiawar were integrated into the State of Saurashtra. About that time different dacoits indulged in lawless activities in Kathiawar and in particular in the area known as the districts of Gohiwad and Madhya Saurashtra and on the outskirts of Sorath that was formerly a district in Junagadh State. Their activities gathered such strength and virulence that the security of the State and the maintenance of public peace became seriously endangered. In order to combat with this situation the Ordinance was promulgated. Fazal Ali, J. observed— "Thus under sec. 11 the State Government is expected to select only such offences or class of offences or class of cases for being tried by the special court in accordance with the special procedure, as are calculated to affect public safely, maintenance of public order, etc. under sec. 9, the use of the special procedure must necessarily be confined to only disturbed areas or those areas where adoption of public safety measures is necessary." On account of the above guiding principles which could be gathered from the object of promulgating the Ordinance sec. 11 of the Ordinance was upheld. under sec. 9, the use of the special procedure must necessarily be confined to only disturbed areas or those areas where adoption of public safety measures is necessary." On account of the above guiding principles which could be gathered from the object of promulgating the Ordinance sec. 11 of the Ordinance was upheld. Mukherjee, J. observed— "The object of passing this new Ordinance is identically the same for which the earlier Ordinance was passed, and the preamble to the latter, taken along with the surrounding circumstances discloses a definite legislative policy which has been sought to be effectuated by the different provisions contained in the enactment............A statute will not necessarily be condemned as discriminatory, because it does not make the classification itself, but, as an effective way of carrying out its policy, vests the authority to do it in certain officers or administrative bodies----In my opinion, if the legislative policy is clear and definite, and, as an effective method of carrying out that policy, a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of administrative or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or groups of persons, the statute itself cannot be condemned as a piece of discriminatory legislation............In such cases the power given to the executive body would import a duty on it to classify the subject-matter of legislation in accordance with the objective indicated in the statute. The discretion that is conferred on official agencies in such circumstances is not an unguided discretion; it has to be exercised in conformity with the policy to effectuate which the discretion is given, and it is in relation to that objective that the propriety of the classification would have to be tested." Das, J. obsrved— "If at any time, however, State Government classifies offences arbitrarily and not on any reasonable basis having a relation to the object of the Act, its action will be either an abuse of its power if it is purposeful or in excess of its powers even if it is done in good faith and in either case the resulting discrimination will encounter the challenge of the Constitution and the Court will strike down, not the law which is good but, the abuse or misuse or the unconstitutional administration of the law creating or resulting in unconstitutional discrimination." In the present case object of making the Rules was to promote the efficiency of teaching in the State Medical Colleges. The Screening Committee was thus bound to select doctors who were likely to be efficient teachers in the Clinical Wing. The power to make selection under rule 5(1)(iii) cannot thus be said to be an arbitrary power. The rule therefore cannot be struck down as discriminatory. But if it is shown that the power given under the rule has been abused or mis-used in making any particular selection that is a different matter. 58. The process of screening itself has been assailed on several grounds and it is urged that omission to take into account certain factors and considering or giving undue weight to others has resulted in discrimination against the petitioners. It is not disputed by the respondents that where discrimination is the resultant effect of the working of a rule the effect can be struck down. The question is whether the failure to consider certain qualifications or considering or attaching undue importance to others has resulted in discrimination which is hit by Art.14 of the Constitution individually or cumulatively. 59. Length of clinical experience of a candidate in our opinion was a relevant factor for the appointment of a Lecturer in the Clinical Wing of the Collegiate Branch of medical service. While it may have indirectly influenced the mind of the Screening Committee but no specific marks were allotted on this account. 59. Length of clinical experience of a candidate in our opinion was a relevant factor for the appointment of a Lecturer in the Clinical Wing of the Collegiate Branch of medical service. While it may have indirectly influenced the mind of the Screening Committee but no specific marks were allotted on this account. In our opinion while it may have been better to allot marks under this head as it was one of the conditions prescribed by the University Ordinance-practice in the speciality for 4 years and exclusive practice for another 4 years—but that omission on this account resulted in discrimination is not what we are prepared to hold. 60. Yet another criticism is that the marks allotted to the performance of the candidates before the Committee were disproportionately high. Out of the total number of marks one-third were allotted under this head. Further a candidate getting less than 12 marks under this head was disqualified out-right for selection. If we may report, the Committee observed in its proceedings— Greater stress was laid on the performance of a candidate before the Screening Committee because this would bring out the merit of each candidate more vividly than other factors, such as teaching experience, date of eligibility and the quality of the work turned out by a candidate as reflected in his confidential rolls. The Committee proceeded on the assumption that in order to make a good teacher, a candidate must keep himself abreast of the latest trends in the speciality in which he was working. Such questions relating to his speciality were put to him as were intended to draw out not only the extent of his knowledge but also its depth, and whether or not he could put it across to other with ease and facility." The majority of the members of this Committee were however laymen who were not competent to judge whether the candidate was keeping himself abreast of the latest trends in his speciality and what was the extent and depth of his knowledge in the speciality. Out of the two doctors who were on the Committee one was a specialist in medicine and the other was a specialist in surgery. There was no specialist in the other specialities for which Lecturers were to be selected. Out of the two doctors who were on the Committee one was a specialist in medicine and the other was a specialist in surgery. There was no specialist in the other specialities for which Lecturers were to be selected. The result of allotting one-third of the total number of marks under this head by such a Committee was to give undue importance and weight to the impression created by a candidate who was a specialist on a body of persons the majority of whom were laymen, relegating there by to the back-ground other considerations chalked out by the Committee itself. The fixation of qualifying marks under this head was criticised on the ground that this gave, uncontrolled powers to the Committee to reject any candidate out-right irrespective of his qualifications. Even a candidate who may get full marks under other heads was liable to out-right rejection if he scored less than 12 marks for performance before the Committee. 61. Some of the above criticism is justified in our opinion. It would have been more desirable if power had been given to the Screening Committee to co-opt specialists to assist it whenever it found it necessary to do so. But the two doctors who were on the Committee knew something about all the subjects as they must have studied them when they took their medical degrees. We presume that only these two doctors tried to judge the medical knowledge of the candidates and not the other three members of the Committee. It would have certainly been more appropriate if the Committee had consisted of fewer administrative officers and more doctors. Further we are inclined to take the view that prescribing minimum qualifying marks under this head gave an undue weight age to the subjective assessment by the members of the Screening Committee of the candidates in preference to their academic and technical attainments and other factors. We may point out that minimum qualifying marks for personality test are no longer prescribed by the Public Service Commissions. Despite our aforesaid observations we cannot strike down the selections made by the Screening Committee on these grounds. 62. Another criticism is that the Committee should not have taken into consideration the research work of a candidate as research work was not a qualification prescribed for the post of a Lecturer. Despite our aforesaid observations we cannot strike down the selections made by the Screening Committee on these grounds. 62. Another criticism is that the Committee should not have taken into consideration the research work of a candidate as research work was not a qualification prescribed for the post of a Lecturer. Further it was pointed out that there was no specialist in several specialities including Gynaecology and Obstetrics on the Committee and thus there was not a single member who was competent to evaluate the research work of a candidate in these specialities. Dr. Joseph petitioner and Dr. Pushpa Gupta were the two candidates for Gynaecology and Obstetrics who were selected. Dr. Pushpa Gupta secured more marks than Dr. Joseph because she was awarded 4 marks for research work, whereas no marks was allotted to Dr. Joseph. 63. So far as the first criticism is concerned we are of the opinion that a doctor who has made some original contribution to the medical science is likely to prove a better teacher. Allotting marks for research work was therefore not improper. 64. So far as the second criticism is concerned there is no doubt substance in it. We have however pointed out above that selections made by the Committee cannot be struck down on this ground. 65. Our attention was drawn to the observations made in V. K. Kulkarni vs. The State of Mysore (6). We are unable to subscribe to the view that every member of the Committee should be able to judge the candidates in respect of every criterion. But we agree that there must be some one on the Committee who is competent to do so. 66. It was not disputed that in the absence of rules the seniority in a cadre is determined by the length of substantive service. The inter se seniority of persons taken substantively in the service on the same date is determined by the order of their selection by the Public Service Commission generally. 67. It was also not disputed that if seniority is wrongly fixed by Government it can be challenged on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution provided in fixing it a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution has been made. 68. Another criticism is that the Committee failed to take into consideration the seniority of the candidates in CAS. It was also not disputed that if seniority is wrongly fixed by Government it can be challenged on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution provided in fixing it a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution has been made. 68. Another criticism is that the Committee failed to take into consideration the seniority of the candidates in CAS. Class I from which recruitment was made to the Service under rule 5(1). This too was a relevant consideration in our opinion. For as was pointed out in M. A. Moqeem vs. The State of Mysore (7), seniority is one of elements in the assessment of merit. 69. But the selections made by the Committee cannot be struck down merely because it failed to take into consideration some relevant factors. 70. U/rule 5(3) the Government is empowered to fix the seniority of persons appointed u/r. 5(i)(i) and (ii) and the seniority of persons referred to in r. 5(l)(iii) is to be determined by the Government on the advice of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee arranged the names of the doctors selected by it in order of preference on the basis of the total marks obtained by them and recommended that their seniority may be fixed in that order. This recommendation was accepted by the Government. The Committee failed to take into consideration the length of clinical experience of the candidates or the length of their service or their inter se seniority in C.A.S. Class I from which all of them were drawn. The result was that many doctors who were senior in C. A.S. Class I. to others became junior to them in the cadre of Lecturers. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that whenever recruitment is made from one service into another the inter se seniority of members in their parent service is maintained in the new service and the non-application of this general rule to doctors appointed under rule 5(1) (iii) has resulted in an unreasonable discrimination violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on Motiram vs. N. E. Frontier Railway (8). The following service rules framed by the Government of Rajasthan were cited in support of this contention— 1. The Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954; R. 28-A cls. (6) and (7). 2. The Rajasthan Subordinate Devasthan Service (Class I) Rules, 1954; R. 27(3). 3. Reliance is placed on Motiram vs. N. E. Frontier Railway (8). The following service rules framed by the Government of Rajasthan were cited in support of this contention— 1. The Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954; R. 28-A cls. (6) and (7). 2. The Rajasthan Subordinate Devasthan Service (Class I) Rules, 1954; R. 27(3). 3. The Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954; R. 28(9), (11) and (12). 4. The Rajasthan Archaeology & Museums Service Rules, 1960; R. 24(4) 5. The Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service Rules, 1959; R. 24(4). 6. The Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954; R. 24(4) and (5). 7. The Rajasthan Forest Service Rules 1962; R. 31(3). 8. The Rajasthan Agricultural Service Rules, 1960; R. 25(d) and (e). 9. The Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960; R. 23(3) and (6). 10. The Rajasthan Employment Exchanges Service Rules, 1960; R. 24(2) and (3) read with proviso (ii) to R. 27 11. The Rajasthan Jail Service Rules, 1959; R. 23(4). 12. The Rajasthan Accounts Service Rules, 1954; R. 28(8) and (9). 13. The Rajasthan Industries Service Rules, 1960; R. 23(1) (c) read with proviso (2) to R.26. 14. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, RR. 35, 39, 40 and 41 (inter-se seniority of R. A. S. Officers taken in R., J. S. not to be disturbed.) 15. The Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963: R. 24(5) to (8). On behalf of the State the following Rules were referred to in support of the contention that inter se seniority in the parent service is not always maintained— 1. The Rajasthan Co-operative Service Rules, 1954; R. 24(2) and (4). 2. The Rajasthan Social Welfare Service Rules, 1963, and 3. The Rajasthan Social Welfare Subordinate Service Rules 1963. These latter two service rules do not support the contention of the State for recruitment was not made from persons belonging to one permanent cadre. Selection was made out of persons belonging to numerous cadres holding temporary posts in the service. 71. On behalf of the State the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 were also referred to. Under rule 5 the year of allotment was determined on the basis of two formulae—the N formula and the weighted down N formula. The year of allotment was determined on the basis of the lengths of service above a salary of Rs. 600/- and below it by the application of the formulae. Under rule 5 the year of allotment was determined on the basis of two formulae—the N formula and the weighted down N formula. The year of allotment was determined on the basis of the lengths of service above a salary of Rs. 600/- and below it by the application of the formulae. By the application of weighted down N formula the inter-se seniority of officers of R.A.S. taken in the I.A.S. was sometimes disturbed. In Ghoerdhan Singh vs. The Union of India—CW 705-D/1962—decided by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi on March 1, 1965 it was held that the weighted down N formula had to be applied irrespective of the fact that the result was to disturb the inter se seniority in R.A.S. 72. It was recognised in Motirams case (8) that service rules for different services may differ. In the face of the above material it cannot be said that it is an invariable rule that when recruitment is made from one service into another the inter se seniority of persons selected in the new service is not disturbed. It is however a very wholesome rule which is generally followed. The Government have themselves applied it to persons appointed under rule 5(1) (i) and 5(1) (ii). As was observed in M. A. Moqeem vs. The State of Mysore (7) seniority normally engenders some expectations of preferment or promotion in the minds of Government servants; the State, which is interested in having contented service for good and efficient admi-nistration, should not totally disregard all considerations of seniority. Even under the N formula and the weighted down N formula weight was given to the length of service of a person in fixing his seniority. In the present case the Screening Committee failed to take into consideration the length of service or the inter se seniority of the candidates in C.A.S.I. in making their recommendations to the Government about the fixation of seniority of the doctors selected u/r. 5(1) (iii). We are of the opinion that it was desirable to maintain the inter se seniority of the doctors in C.A.S.I. barring some exceptions or some formula should have been devised which took into consideration their length of service in C.A.S.I. It is no doubt true that a new service was constituted. We are of the opinion that it was desirable to maintain the inter se seniority of the doctors in C.A.S.I. barring some exceptions or some formula should have been devised which took into consideration their length of service in C.A.S.I. It is no doubt true that a new service was constituted. But persons appointed under rule 5(1) (i) and 5(1) (ii) were also being appointed to this new service and the wholesome rule applied in fixing seniority in their case should also have been applied in fixing the seniority of persons appointed under rule 5(l)(iii) ordinarily. 73. The seniority fixed by the Government merely on the basis of the order of preference without reference to inter seniority in the parent cadre cannot however be struck down under Art.14 of the Constitution by this Court. 74. It was contended that the last part of rule 5(3) relating to the fixation of the seniority on the recommendation of the Committee is violative of Art. 14 as no criteria was laid down for the guidance of the Committee as to the principles on the basis of which it was to be determined. Our observations made in connection with the constitutionality of rule 5(1) are equally applicable to this matter. 75. The doctors appointed under rule 5(1) (ii) were placed above those appointed under rule 5(1) (iii) by the Government. The petitioners have contended that all of them having been recruited to the post of Lecturers their inter se seniority should have been fixed in accordance with their inter se seniority in C.A.S.I We are of the opinion that doctors appointed under rule 5(1) (ii) have been rightly placed above those appointed under rule 5(1) (iii). The former were appointed substantively on 5.11.62 by virtue of the deeming provision contained in rule 5(1) (ii). The latter were appointed only after they were selected by the Screening Committee. The doctors appointed under rule 5(1) (ii) thus have longer substantive service in the cadre of Lecturers in the new Service. They are therefore senior. 76. There was some argument about the scope of rule 2 as to whether it saved the existing appointments made under executive orders and not made under any rule or order having the force of law. They are therefore senior. 76. There was some argument about the scope of rule 2 as to whether it saved the existing appointments made under executive orders and not made under any rule or order having the force of law. This rule runs as follows— "Supersession of existing Rules and Orders—All existing Rules and Orders in relation to matters covered by these Rules stand superseded, but any action taken by or appointments made under or in pursuance of such existing Rules and Orders, shall be deemed to have been taken or made under these Rules." 77. Rule 4 provides that unless the context otherwise requires the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, shall apply for the interpretation of the Rules as it applies for the interpretation of a Rajasthan Act. Under sec. 32(41) "law" means any law, Act, Ordinance, regulation, rule, notification, order, bye-law, scheme, or other instrument having for the time being the force of law. That is the terms rule and order if used in any Rajasthan Act mean a rule or order having the force of law. Now the appointment of doctors to part-time posts of Professors, Readers or Lecturers was made by executive orders. There were no rules regulating appointments to these posts. These appointments made by executive orders were thus not saved by rule 2. 78. A Division Bench of this Court took the same view in Dr. S. M. Gupta vs. The Government of Rajasthan and others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 384/ 1964, decided on 9.12.65) with regard to the interpretation of a rule which was worded similarly. 79. All doctors working as Professors, Additional Professors, Readers and Lecturers who were not automatically appointed substantively to the Service on the coming into force of the Rules were entitled to continue to work on their posts in a temporary capacity by virtue of rule 30 provided they were eligible under rule 12-^-that is they possessed the academic qualifications and teaching experience prescribed under the University Ordinance. 80. Dr. Shurveer Singh and Dr. S.R. Mehta were officiating part-time Readers under the order dated 8.8.62. The appointments were initially made for a period of 6 months, but they were continued. During the pendency of the present writ petitions they were appointed officiating Professors in Medicine. Their appointments have been challenged by Dr. Ram Avtar. 81. Both these offices are public offices. S.R. Mehta were officiating part-time Readers under the order dated 8.8.62. The appointments were initially made for a period of 6 months, but they were continued. During the pendency of the present writ petitions they were appointed officiating Professors in Medicine. Their appointments have been challenged by Dr. Ram Avtar. 81. Both these offices are public offices. In England it is a settled principle since the case of Rex vs. Speyer (9) that any private person may apply for quo-warranto in the matter of a public office. This principle has been followed in India. In Sivaramakrishnan vs. Arumugha Mudaliar (10) a private person was allowed to challenge the appointment of the Inspector General of Registration even though he had no personal interest in the appointment. It was not disputed on behalf of the respondents that Dr. Ram Avtar is entitled to challenge the appointments. 82. Dr. S.R. Mehta is eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of a Professor as he has teaching experience as Lecturer and Reader for a period of 5 years. Dr. Shurveer Singh is however ineligible as he does not possess the necessary teaching experience prescribed under the amended University Ordinance No. 65. 83. The stand of the State is that both these appointments have been made under the proviso to rule 30 (1). This rule runs as follows: "A temporary vacancy in a Senior or Selection post, may be filled by Government by appointing thereto in an officiating capacity an officer whose name is included in the list prepared under R. 24(3) or in the lists under sub-rules (2) and (3) of R. 23: Provided that till the preparation of the first list or in case the list is exhausted a vacant post may be filled by Government, (1) by appointing thereto a member of the Service eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or (2) by appointing thereto temporarily a person eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the Service under the provisions of these Rules." (numbering of clauses of proviso is by us.) 84. Under the Schedule promotion to the post of a Professor is 100% by promotion of Readers. Now a member of the Service has been defined in the Rules as a substantive member and includes a person placed on probation. Under the Schedule promotion to the post of a Professor is 100% by promotion of Readers. Now a member of the Service has been defined in the Rules as a substantive member and includes a person placed on probation. "Reader" in the Schedule must therefore mean a substantive Reader or a doctor appointed as Reader on probation. At present there is no doctor who has been appointed on probation as a Reader in the speciality of medicine. There are two substantive Readers and both of them were already officiating as Professors when Dr. Shurveersingh and Dr. S.R. Mehta were appointed as officiating Professors. No list has so far been prepared under rule 24. A temporary or officiating appointment to the post of Professor can therefore be made only under the proviso to rules 30(1) if it can be made at all. No member of the Service eligible for appointment to the post of Professor by promotion was available as both the Readers were already officiating as Professors. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that as recruitment to the post of Professor is 100% by promotion the second part of the proviso is not applicable to the temporary appointment to the post of Professor. We are unable to accept this contention. 85. We are of the opinion that a person possessing the qualifications prescribed by the University for the incumbent of the post of a Professor can be appointed in a temporary or officiating capacity to that post under the second part of the proviso. 86. On behalf of the petitioners Mr. Jain contended that if no Reader is available who can be promoted temporarily as Professor than recourse should be had to the proviso to rule 25. This rule runs as follows: R. 25. "Appointment to Senior and Selection posts—Appointment to senior and selection posts shall be made by Government by direct recruitment or promotion in the proportion given in column 3 of the Schedule. This rule runs as follows: R. 25. "Appointment to Senior and Selection posts—Appointment to senior and selection posts shall be made by Government by direct recruitment or promotion in the proportion given in column 3 of the Schedule. Promotion shall be from amongst the members of the Service on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the list referred to in R. 24(7): Provided that if Government is satisfied in consultation with the Commission that no suitable officer is available in the Service for promotion to any senior or selection post or posts, Government may resort to direct recruitment through the Commission or appoint an officer on deputation from the Government of India, or any other State Government or by reemployment of a retired member of the Service: Provided further that appointment on deputation or by re-employment shall not exceed a period of 2 years without the concurrence of the Public Service Commission." 87. In our opinion rule 25 is only applicable if there is a permanent vacancy. A temporary vacancy can only be filled under rule 30. 88. We are therefore of the opinion that the appointment of Dr. S.R. Mehta as temporary or officiating Professor is valid. 89. The learned Advocate General tried to defend the appointment of Dr. Shurveer Singh on the ground that it is not an appointment made under the Rules, but is an appointment outside the Rules. His contention is that the Rules provide for the appointment of a whole-time Professor only and that Dr. Shurveer Singh has been appointed as a part-time Professor for which there is no provision in the Rules. He has argued that the Rules do not prohibit the appointment of a part-time Professor. 90. We are unable to accept the above arguments. The object of creating a Collegiate Branch of the Rajasthan Medical Service under the Rules was to promote the efficiency the teaching in the State Medical Colleges by providing whole-time teachers who will not be transferable from their teaching jobs and will in the course of time become efficient teachers. The Rules provide for the appointment of whole-time Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Impliedly they prohibit the appointment of any one to impart teaching as a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in the State Medical College except under the Rules. The Rules are comprehensive and they make provision for every contingency. The Rules provide for the appointment of whole-time Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Impliedly they prohibit the appointment of any one to impart teaching as a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in the State Medical College except under the Rules. The Rules are comprehensive and they make provision for every contingency. They provide for appointments not only to permanent posts, but also to temporary posts. If any appointment made in violation of the Rules can be treated as one made outside the Rules the very object of framing the Rules would be frustrated. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Ernperor (11) in which it was observed— "The rule which applies is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not all. Other methods of performance arenecessarily forbidden. No doubt the Magistrate acting under Secs.164 and 364 is not acting as a Court, yet he is a judical officer, and both as a matter of construction and of good sense, the rule above applies to sec 164. Secs. 164 and 364 must be looked at and construed together, and it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particular in the sections themselves Where therefore the Magistrate has neither acted nor purported to act under sec. 164 or sec. 364, and nothing has been tendered in evidence as recorded or purporting to be recorded under either sec. 1164 or sec. 364, oral evidence of the Magistrate is not admissible. Sec. 164 is not meant to allow evidence to be put in a form in which it can prove itself under sec. 74 or sec. 80, Evidence Act. It is section conferring powers on Magistrate and delimiting them. If oral evidence be allowed in such a case all the precautions and safeguards laid down by secs. 164 and 364 would be such trifling value as to be almost idle." We accordingly hold that the appointment of Dr. Shurveer Singh to the post of temporary or officiating Professor is invalid. We issue a direction to the State Government to revert him from this post within six months unless in the meantime the Rules are suitably amended. 164 and 364 would be such trifling value as to be almost idle." We accordingly hold that the appointment of Dr. Shurveer Singh to the post of temporary or officiating Professor is invalid. We issue a direction to the State Government to revert him from this post within six months unless in the meantime the Rules are suitably amended. Order The result is that the writ petitions are allowed in part and the following orders are made— (1) The appointment of all the 23 doctors under Rule 5(1) (iii) is quashed and a direction is issued to the State Government to convene a meeting of the Screening Committee to screen afresh all the "remaining Lecturers" and those doctors who had applied for opting when applications were last invited. The doctors whose appointments are quashed are— Petitioners: (1) Dr. (Miss) B. Joseph, (2) Dr. Kailash C. Kotia. Respondents: (3) Dr. Daulal Chhangani, (4) Dr. J.P. Sethi, (5) Dr. S.N. Misra, (6) Dr. S.K. Pande, (7) Dr. O.P. Kulshrestha, (8) Dr. M.G. Sarin, (9) Dr. R.K. Bhargava, (10) Dr. K.C. Gangwal, (11) Dr. J.P. Udawat, (12) Dr. K.C. Sogani, (13) Dr. S. D.Dandia, (14) Dr. B.P. Bhatnagar, (15) Dr. T.C. Jain, (16) Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Gupta, (17) Dr. P. Chatterji, (18) Dr. S.P. Mathur, (19) Dr. A.S. Dave, (20) Dr. Hari Charan, (21) Dr. M.S. Gambir, (22) Dr. R.K. Harneja, (23) Dr. D.D. Bhattacharya. Only those doctors are eligible for selection who possessed on 5-l 1-62 the qualifications prescribed under University Ordinance No. 65 as it stood on that date. (2) The appointments of Dr. S. R. Mehta and Dr. H.K. Bedi u/R. 5(l)(ii) are quashed and a direction is issued to the State Government that they shall also be screened by Screening Committee convened under the direction given above. All the above 25 doctors will continue to work in the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) till fresh appointments are made after fresh screening. It will be open to the Screening Committee and the State Government to consider the suggestions made by us in this judgment with regard to the laying down of criteria, fixing qualifying marks for performance before the Committee and determination of seniority and to adopt them to the extent they deem fit to do in the fresh screening. It will be open to the Screening Committee and the State Government to consider the suggestions made by us in this judgment with regard to the laying down of criteria, fixing qualifying marks for performance before the Committee and determination of seniority and to adopt them to the extent they deem fit to do in the fresh screening. (3) The State Government is directed to convene a meeting of the Screening Committee for the above purpose within two months. (4) The State Government is directed to revert Dr. Shurveer Singh from the post of temporary or officiating Professor within six months of the date of this order unless the Rules in the meantime suitably amended. Formal order incorporating the above directions shall be issued by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within seven days and shall be served on the Secretary, Medical and Health Department as well as on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of these writ petitions.