JUDGMENT B. P. Jha, J. - In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of annexures 12 and 17. By annexure-12, respondent no. 3 Dr. Basir Alam and respondent no. 4 Dr. Anant Kumar Mishra have been promoted to the post of Lecturers in Nalanda Medical College, Patna and Magadh Medical College, Gaya, respectively. By annexure-17, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Health Ministry of the State of Bihar. 2. The relevant facts are these:- The petitioner was appointed in the Bihar Health Service in the year 1962. He was posted as a Casualty Registrar in the Patna Medical College Hospital in between 28th January, 1965 and 29th June, 1966. He was also Registrar, General Surgery in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital between 24th May, 1971 and 23rd May, 1974, that is for three years. He was appointed as a tutor (Assistant Professor) in Orthopaedics on 25th July, 1975 and continuously worked as such till 10th February, 1978 (that is, for 2 years 6 months and 17 days), and he is still working on that post. According to him, he had thus teaching experience of about seven years, that is, 6 years 11 months 18 days. 3. It is being challenged by respondent no. 3 that the petitioner was a Casualty Officer and not Casualty Registrar and, as such, he had no teaching experience between 28th January, 1965 and 29th June, 1966. In this connection, learned counsel of the petitioner has referred to annexure-18. In annexure-18, the State Government clarified this position. It has been held by the State Government that those doctors who have held the post of Casualty Officers shall be Registrars (Casualty) with effect from 1st May, 1964. It is on the basis of annexure-16 the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner should be treated as Casualty Registrar and not Casualty Officer between 28th January, 1965 and 29th June, 1966. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. By annexure-16, the petitioner shall be treated as Casualty Registrar with effect from 28th January, 1965. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner had teaching experience from 28th January, 1965 to 20th June, 1966 (that is to say, for one year five months and one day). In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. By annexure-16, the petitioner shall be treated as Casualty Registrar with effect from 28th January, 1965. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner had teaching experience from 28th January, 1965 to 20th June, 1966 (that is to say, for one year five months and one day). The petitioner had further teaching• experience as Registrar, General Surgery, between 24th May, 1971 and 23rd May, 1974, that is, for three years. He had also teaching experience as tutor from 25th July, 1975 and onwards upto this date, that is, 28th November, 1979. For the purpose of counting teaching experience as a tutor, the petitioner had teaching experience for two years 6 months and 17 days, that is, upto 10th February, 1978. It is on the basis of these statements of facts that the petitioner claim to be senior to respondents 3 and 4. 4. So far as respondent no. 3 Dr. Basir Alam is concerned, he was appointed in the State Health Service on 14th March, 1967 and he was appointed as Lecturer on 10th February, 1978. By that time, he had teaching experience for 5 years 8 months and 1 day in the Orthopaedic Department. 5. So far as respondent no. 4 Dr. A. K. Mishra is concerned, he was appointed in the State Health Service on 9th October, 1963. According to the petitioner, he acted as Resident Surgical Officer for three years and as Registrar and tutor between 24th February, 1975 and 10th February, 1978, that is, for 2 years 11 months and 15 days. In other words, he had teaching experience for 5 years 11 months and 15 days. According to the learned counsel for Respondent no. 4, however, Respondent no. 4 had the teaching experience as Resident Surgical Officer for three years 1 month and 8 days. He further states that he acted as Registrar in the Patna Medical College Hospital from 24th October, 1972 to 23rd April, 1974 and in the Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital from 24th February, 1975 to 20th April, 1976, that is, for about four years. Thereafter he was appointed as tutor on 21st April, 1978 and was as such on 10th February, 1978. In other words, respondent no. 4 had the teaching experience of about nine years and odd. Thereafter he was appointed as tutor on 21st April, 1978 and was as such on 10th February, 1978. In other words, respondent no. 4 had the teaching experience of about nine years and odd. The above fact, as stated by the learned counsel for respondent no. 4, is being disputed by the learned counsel, of the petitioner. According to the case of the petitioner, respondent no. 4 had teaching experience of about 5 years 11 months and 15 days. 6. On a perusal of the materials on the record, it is clear that the petitioner was admittedly senior to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner had the teaching experience of about 6 years 11 months and 18 days. On the other hand, respondent no. 3 had the teaching experience of about six years whereas respondent no. 4, according to the case of the petitioner, had the teaching experience for 5 years 11 months and 15 days. So far as respondent no. 4 is concerned, he has not filed any counter-affidavit in the present case. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 4 has made the statement orally in respect of the teaching experience of respondent no. 4. 7. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no.3 ought not to have been appointed directly as Lecturer on 10th February, 1978 without being a tutor in the department of Orthopaedics. On the other hand, the petitioner had the teaching experience of 6 years 11 months and 18 days and during this period he was a tutor for 2 years 6 months and 17 days, whereas respondent no. 3 had not the experience of a tutor. Similarly, so far as respondent no. 4 is concerned, according to the petitioner, he had the experience of a tutor for one year and ten months. In any event, in my opinion, the petitioner is senior to respondents 3 and 4. 8. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a regulation framed under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prior approval of the Central Government vide Annexure-11. Annexure-11 provides the guideline for the appointment of Reader or Assistant Professor as laid down by the Indian Medical Council. 8. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a regulation framed under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prior approval of the Central Government vide Annexure-11. Annexure-11 provides the guideline for the appointment of Reader or Assistant Professor as laid down by the Indian Medical Council. It provides that if anyone is being appointed as a Reader or as Assistant Professor, an experience for at least three years in Orthopaedics or allied subject is required in a teaching institution. In the present case, the petitioner has fulfilled the qualification as laid down by the Indian Medical Council as contained in annexure-11. The petitioner had served as a teaching staff for more than four years in the Surgical Department which is an allied subject of Orthopaedics. He had also served as a tutor (Assistant Professor) in the subject of Orthopaedics for 2 years 6 months and 17 days upto 10th February, 1978. It is, therefore, clear that neither respondent no. 3 nor respondent no. 4 was senior to the petitioner as he had the highest teaching experience both in Orthopaedics as well as in the general line of surgery which is an allied subject of Orthopaedics. I, therefore, hold that his case should have been considered by respondents 1 and 2 for his appointment to the post of Lecturer which has not been done. So far as Dr. Basir Alam (respondent no. 3) is concerned, he was appointed directly to the post of Lecturer on 10th February, 1978 without being appointed as a tutor. I, therefore, remand the whole matter to respondents 1 and 2 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above as well as on the basis of the guideline made hereafter in this judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on annexure-13 which, according to the respondents, purports to be a regulation framed under section 33 of the Act. It is nowhere stated in Annexure-13 that the Indian Medical Council framed the regulation contained in annexure-13 after obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government. The parties and the learned Government Advocate did not place any material to substantiate that prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained before making it a regulation under section 33 of the Act. It is nowhere stated in Annexure-13 that the Indian Medical Council framed the regulation contained in annexure-13 after obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government. The parties and the learned Government Advocate did not place any material to substantiate that prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained before making it a regulation under section 33 of the Act. We gave time from 1.30 P.M. to 2.45 P.M. today to the learned Government Advocate to produce any material to suggest that annexure-13 was framed as a regulation after obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government. None of the parties could substantiate the fact that the prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained before making the regulation as obtained in annexure-13. If it is so, I am unable to accept annexure-13 as a regulation framed by the Indian Medical Council under section 33 of the Act as no prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained. In annexure-11, it is mentioned that prior approval of the Central Government was obtained and it is a regulation under section 33 of the Act. These statements are not made in annexure-13, and, as such, I am unable to accept it as a regulation under section 33 of the Act. 10. Learned Government Advocate relied on section 19A of the Act. It is relevant to quote section 19A of the Act which runs as follows:- "19 A. Minimum standards of medical education. - (1) The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post-graduate medical qualifications) by Universities or medical institutions in India. (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the Council shall, before submitting the regulations or amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of copies aforesaid. (3) The committee shall from time to time report to the council on the efficiency of the regulations and may recommend to the council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. Section 19A provides that the council shall prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualification under section 19A (1). (3) The committee shall from time to time report to the council on the efficiency of the regulations and may recommend to the council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. Section 19A provides that the council shall prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualification under section 19A (1). The Council prepares the draft regulation for carrying on the purpose of the Act. Under section 19A (2), such draft regulations are sent to the State Governments for consideration before sending them to the Central Government for sanction. In annexure 13, it is mentioned that the council had approved the scheme after complying with the procedure laid down under section 19A of the Act. Learned Government Advocate lays emphasis on the words "After complying with the procedure laid down under section 19A of the Act". The learned Government Advocate submits that if the formalities of section 19A have been complied with then it will be presumed that prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that section 19 A(2) speaks of a stage prior to sending of the draft regulation to the Central Government. There is no material on the record to suggest that either the draft regulation as contained in annexure 13 was sent to the Central Government or any prior sanction of the Central Government was obtained before making annexure 13 a regulation. If any regulation is framed by the Indian Medical Council without the prior sanction of the Central Government, that has no force in the eye or law. Hence, I do not take into consideration annexure 13 as it is not in consonance with section 33 of the Act. 11. I, therefore, quash annexure 12 on the grounds mentioned above. I also quash annexure 17, because it is not a speaking order. 12. Respondents nos. 1 and 2 are, accordingly, directed to follow the guidelines made in this case until rules are framed by respondents 1 and 2 in this connection. 11. I, therefore, quash annexure 12 on the grounds mentioned above. I also quash annexure 17, because it is not a speaking order. 12. Respondents nos. 1 and 2 are, accordingly, directed to follow the guidelines made in this case until rules are framed by respondents 1 and 2 in this connection. Respondents 1 and 2 are also directed to decide any pending representation of any teaching staff in respect of an order made earlier by respondents 1 and 2 which is contrary to the direction made in this case and will dispose of the pending or future representation on the basis of the directions given hereinbelow: (1) The teaching staff should be appointed first to the post of Registrar of a certain subject. Thereafter, promotion shall be made by respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the following manner. A tutor should be appointed from amongst the seniormost Registrars in particular or allied subject. Similarly, a lecturer should be appointed from amongst the seniormost tutors in particular or allied subject. Likewise, a professor or a reader should be appointed from amongst the seniormost lecturers. Respondents 1 and 2 can deviate from the principle of seniority-cum-merit if the integrity of the seniormost teaching staff under consideration is in doubt or if he has failed to discharge the duties, otherwise in all cases the seniority-cum-merit shall prevail in the appointment of either a tutor or a lecturer or 3 professor or a reader, as stated above. I, therefore, hold that nobody should jump as a lecturer without being the seniormost tutor. The above mentioned guidelines given in this case shall be followed in the present case as well as in all the identical pending and future cases before respondents 1 and 2 in the whole of the State of Bihar. 13. In the result, I issue a writ of certiorari and quash annexures 12 and 17. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to follow the directions and guidelines in this case as well as in all identical cases in the State of Bihar and dispose of the pending representations of any teaching staff which have not been earlier disposed of on the basis of the guidelines made in this case. The parties shall bear their own costs. The parties shall bear their own costs. M. P. Varma, J. - I have had the advantage of hearing the judgment delivered by learned brother B. P Jha, J. I must respectfully agree to all what he has said. I have noticed that at one stage the learned brother observed that the representation of this petitioner, filed in the Government should have been considered at the very early stage and should not have been ignored, as has been done, which gave an opportunity to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. I am constrained to say that annexure 17, which is an order rejecting the representation of this petitioner is not at all a speaking order. No reason has been assigned thereto. But before I make any comment for adding my own reasons to this writ application, my attention has been drawn to the statements made in the supplementary affidavit of this petitioner filed alongwith annexure 20. This annexure 20 gives an inkling that some such Medical officers, who had no experience in speciality (in plastic surgery) were appointed as Associate Professors in the said department, obviously the case of the petitioner stands on a higher and a more firm footing and his case should not have been treated indifferently. The petitioner has averred in the supplementary affidavit in his reply to the counter affidavit (filed by respondents 3 and 4) that at one stage the case of the petitioner also found favour with the Government, so much so, that the Health Department on full consideration of the case of this petitioner and also the two respondents 3 and 4 has accepted the case of the petitioner, as made out in the representation and was inclined to appoint him as a Lecturer (Associate Professor) to the post and even his seniority in the department was accepted (see paragraph 17 of the supplementary affidavit), it appears that due to some change of circumstances, something went wrong and the matter was thrown in the waste paper basket. No order could be issued. The case was kept in abeyance and finally ignored. 15. My learned brother in his well-reasoned judgment has rightly given the guidelines, on which the Health Ministry of the Government should act. No order could be issued. The case was kept in abeyance and finally ignored. 15. My learned brother in his well-reasoned judgment has rightly given the guidelines, on which the Health Ministry of the Government should act. The substratum of the decision is that the Health Ministry in the State Government should not act in an erratic manner and must conform to the rules, regulations, principles and procedures laid down by the Indian Medical Council. The department must know that appointments of lecturers, promotions and question of seniority are all quasi-judicial matters and must be treated and examined with all fairness. 16. So far the case of this petitioner is concerned, it has been seen that he has gathered teaching experience for more than six years and in addition to it, he holds M.S. Degree in the Speciality of Orthopaedics. He has qualified himself for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Associate Professor) in the department of Orthopaedics and in my opinion too, he has rightly claimed seniority over other two respondents-claimants. I have already stated that annexure-17 is not a speaking order and no reason has been shown for putting at a discount the experiences which the petitioner acquired in between 28th of January, 1965 and 29th of June, 1966 and also in between 24th May, 1971 and 23rd May, 1974 and the Government wrongly held the view that the petitioner got the teaching experience of only two years and odd while working as a tutor. 17. In the circumstances, referred to above, I like to speak a few words with regard to annexure 13 before I part with the case. Both the counsel for the State and also the lawyers of the respondents 3 and 4 made an attempt to rely on this annexure. They have submitted that this annexure 13 is a regulation framed under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act and was in conformity with the provisions laid therein. I am of the view that even if annexure 13 if at all is taken into consideration, this brings no difference, so far the case of the petitioner is concerned. I fully agree with my learned brother that annexure 13 has not been a regulation made under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act. But even if it is taken into consideration, the case of the petitioner is not defeated. I fully agree with my learned brother that annexure 13 has not been a regulation made under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act. But even if it is taken into consideration, the case of the petitioner is not defeated. According to annexure 13, for the appointment of a Lecturer (Associate Professor), the recognized qualification is a Post-Graduate qualification and in addition to it three years teaching experience as a Tutor/Registrar Resident in Orthopaedics/Medical Officer of Rehabilitation, of which one year should be after Graduate-Qualification. So far the petitioner is concerned, it has been seen that he has acquired a teaching experience of more than six years and in addition to that he has further acquired Post-Graduate qualification holding M. S. Degree. Therefore in all fairness, it was proper for the department to have accepted the representation and given effect to the earlier decision, which the Government had taken, as stated in paragraph 17 of the supplementary affidavit. 18. It has been further contended by the lawyers for the respondents 3 and 4 that the department of Orthopaedics was bifurcated in the year 1962 at the Patna Medical College Hospital. It is relevant to note here, the learned Counsel has, however, admitted that the bifurcation will be only under a notification by the State Government. No such notification has been filed in support of the contention with respect to bifurcation as contended. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has, on the other hand, filed two documents namely, annexures 5 and 6, from which it is gathered that both the departments of General Surgery and Orthopaedics were one and the same till 7th of August, 1974 in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital (annexure-5) and the General Surgery and Orthopaedic Emergency were one and the same till 1st of September, 1975 in Patna Medical College Hospital (annexure 6). It appears that so far the actual bifurcation of the latter (i.e. Surgery and Orthopaedics Emergency in Patna Medical College Hospital) is concerned, it came into effect on the 8th of September, 1975. Therefore, the contention, raised on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 is ruled out. The Professor should be appointed from amongst the senior-most Associate Professors or Lecturers in the particular subject and similarly an Associate Professor (Lecturer) must be taken from amongst the seniormost tutors in the particular subject. 19. Therefore, the contention, raised on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 is ruled out. The Professor should be appointed from amongst the senior-most Associate Professors or Lecturers in the particular subject and similarly an Associate Professor (Lecturer) must be taken from amongst the seniormost tutors in the particular subject. 19. To sum up I once again repeat that I am in agreement with my learned brother and must say that the teaching experiences of the petitioner for the period he held the post of Surgical Registrar and Casualty Registrar before the above specified dates cannot be brushed aside and in all reasonableness must be counted and I do count it and take it that the petitioner acquired and equipped himself with requisite qualification for his appointment to the post and the position and place of the petitioner must be restored. I also agree with my learned brother that the Government in the Health Department of Government of Bihar must implement in letter the directions as laid down here in the judgment as aforesaid. Annexures 12 and 17, as stated above, have been rightly quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.