JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Aggrieved by non renewal of the term of his appointment as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Allahabad, after 30th June, 1980 and the appointment of Dr. Surendra Bahadur Singh, respondent no. 4, to that post for a period of six months, petitioner Dr. Chandra Kant has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner Dr. Chandra Kant joined short Service Commission in the Army Medical Corps in the year, 1971 for a period of five years. He was released from the army in the year, 1976 and thereafter he took the Diploma Course in Ear, Nose and Throat diseases at the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, (hereinafter referred to as Medical College Allahabad), in May, 1977. He was subsequently registered for M. D. course in Forensic Medicine. One Dr. A. K. Gupta, who was working as a Demonstrator since January, 1979 and whose appointment was to continue up to June, 1980, resigned from the post of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine in the month of February, 1980. Principal of the Medical College, Allahabad, by means of a notice dated 8th February, 1980, invited applications for the posts of Demonstrators in Forensic Medicine and some other department in the pay scale of Rs. 450-700. The notice listed the following as qualifications essential for the job :- 1. Passed M. B. B. S. and completed his rotating internship period of one year and M. Sc. Biochemistry. 2. Preference will be given to (1) must have done his house officer-ship in the subject or allied subject for M. B. B. S., applicant (2) must have done resident officer's job for one year in the subject for M. B. B. S. applicant. 3. Candidates with post-graduate qualifications in the subject concerned or allied subject. 4. Candidate with high merit in the subject concerned. 5. Those having teaching experience. 6. Those already in employment should apply through proper channel. N. B. - (i) Candidates with good academic record will only be considered. (ii) The number of vacancies may increase or decrease. (iii) Canvassing in any manner will disqualify the candidate. (iv) Incomplete applications and those without required certificates will not be considered. 5. Those having teaching experience. 6. Those already in employment should apply through proper channel. N. B. - (i) Candidates with good academic record will only be considered. (ii) The number of vacancies may increase or decrease. (iii) Canvassing in any manner will disqualify the candidate. (iv) Incomplete applications and those without required certificates will not be considered. The notice further stated that the selected candidates will be required to join within specified time and that they will not be allowed to apply elsewhere during first six months of their tenure. 3. Petitioner Dr Chandra Kant made an application and was selected for appointment as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Medical College. However, the appointment letter dated 28th February, 1980 issued to him clearly stated that his appointment was purely temporary and that had been sanctioned till 3th June, 1980 terminable at any time without notice. The petitioner took up his appointment and started working as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine. As the date 30th June, 1980 was approaching, the petitioner made an application on 10th June, 1980 praying for an extension of the tenure of his appointment for Demonstrator ship in the Department of Forensic Medicine till 31st December, 1980. It appears that in the meantime the Principal of the Medical College issued a notice dated 18th June, 1980 calling for applications for various posts of Demonstrators, Registrars and Resident Officers on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The notice specified that the appointment when to be for a period of six months i. e. up to 31st December, 1980 but then their services, of the appointees could be terminated after giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice on either side. The minimum qualification for posts other than that of Demonstrator in Pharmacy and Biochemistry was stated to be as Medical Graduates fully registered with State Medical Council, U. P. Respondent no. 4 Dr. S.B. Singh, who had obtained full registration with the State Medical Council after completing his M.B.B.S. recently, also made an application for the post of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine. Eventually the Principal, Medical College, appointed respondent no. 4 as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine for the period ending 31st December, 1980. 4. 4 Dr. S.B. Singh, who had obtained full registration with the State Medical Council after completing his M.B.B.S. recently, also made an application for the post of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine. Eventually the Principal, Medical College, appointed respondent no. 4 as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine for the period ending 31st December, 1980. 4. The petitioner then filed this writ petition on 5th August, 1980 and contended that in accordance with the practice prevailing in the Medical College, ' petitioner's appointment as Demonstrator should automatically have been extended up to 31st December, 1980. He alleged that his term has not been extended because of the mala fides of Dr. S. R. Singh respondent no. 2 under whom the petitioner had been required to work in connection with a scholarship granted to him by the Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi and that respondent no. 4 Dr. S.B. Singh, who happens to be a relation of respondent no. 2, was appointed to that post. 5. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 i. e. the Principal of the Medical College, Dr. S.R. Singh and Dr. S. B. Singh filed counter-affidavits and have contested the prayer made in this writ petition. According to the Principal Dr. Y. P. Naithani, it was incorrect to say that after initially appointing Demonstrators in the month of January, their terms are automatically extended in the month of June, each year for a period of six months expiring on 31st December. He alleged that every year there are two batches of medical graduates available on the basis of examinations held in the months of March, April and October, November, and that medical graduates are appointed on paid posts of demonstrator etc. on the basis of their respective merit for the term from January to June and June to December. His affidavit further suggests that merit in making such appointment is objectively judged on the basis of the marks obtained by candidates in their M. B. B. S. examination. As respondent no. 4 had, in his M. B. B. S. examination, obtained more marks than the petitioner, he was appointed as Demonstrator for the term July to December, 1980. He denied that there was any mala fides on the part of respondent no. 2 Dr. S.R. Singh or that he had any hand in doing the selection of candidates for the post of Demonstrators. He denied that there was any mala fides on the part of respondent no. 2 Dr. S.R. Singh or that he had any hand in doing the selection of candidates for the post of Demonstrators. The criteria adopted for judging the merit of candidates for the post of Demonstrator was in accordance with the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. In paragraph 19 of his affidavit Dr. Naithani also took the stand that appointment on paid post of Demonstrators are normally given to candidates pursuing post-graduate studies who from amongst various applicants are judged most meritorious. The petitioner had already been awarded his M. D. degree in Forensic Medicine and was not pursuing any postgraduate studies. Accordingly he cannot claim any legal right for being appointed on the post of Demonstrator or for automatic extension of his appointment on the said post for the term June to December, 1980. 6. In his counter-affidavit respondent no. 2 Dr. S. R. Singh denied the allegations of mala fides made against him. He also tried to explain the facts from which the petitioners wanted this Court to infer his mala fides. He also denied that he had a hand in the non-selection of the petitioner and asserted that respondent no. 4 had been selected as a Demonstrator in preference to the petitioner on merits. 7. Respondent no. 4, Dr. S.R. Singh, who admittedly has not yet been enrolled or registered for carrying on post-graduate studies in Forensic Medicine, took up the stand that for enrolling on self as a postgraduate student it is necessary for him to complete one year as a Demonstrator is made in order to encourage meritorious students to complete their post graduation. With a view to his registration for postgraduate studies, the respondent is already pursuing his studies and, as such, as compared to the petitioner he deserves weightage in appointment to the post of Demonstrator. Moreover, considering his academic record he was more meritorious than the petitioner and was rightly selected for the post of Demonstrator. 8. As in the case of the respondents ts that it is because of certain objective considerations that respondent no. 4 was preferred for appointment as a Demonstrator and that respondent no. 2 Dr. Moreover, considering his academic record he was more meritorious than the petitioner and was rightly selected for the post of Demonstrator. 8. As in the case of the respondents ts that it is because of certain objective considerations that respondent no. 4 was preferred for appointment as a Demonstrator and that respondent no. 2 Dr. S. R. Singh had no hand in the selection of the Demonstrator, we do not think it necessary to go into various allegations of mala fides made against him. The question that arises for consideration is whether the considerations that weighed with the respondents in giving preference to respondent no. 4 to the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine over the petitioner were valid and if some of those considerations are found not to be valid, the effect which they have on respondent no. 4's selection. 9. We will first of all deal with the question as to whether the petitioner was, as of right, entitled to have the term of his appointment of Demonstrator extended up to December, 1980. A copy of the letter appointing him as a Demonstrator has been filed as Annexure to Dr. Y. P. Naithani's counter affidavit. It clearly mentions that the post on which the petitioner has been appointed was purely temporary and stood sanctioned till 30th June, 1980 and was terminable at any time without notice. There is nothing in the appointment letter to indicate that any right was being conferred upon him to have his term as Demonstrator extended beyond 30th June, 1980. It, therefore, follows that the terms on which the petitioner was appointed and which terms he had, by accepting the appointment, do not indicate that the petitioner was being given any right to have his term emended beyond 30th June, 1980. In this connection the petitioner, who argued this petition before us in person, invited our attention to the notice dated 8th February, 1980 in pursuance of which he made the application for appointment as Demonstrator and was so appointed on 28th February, 1980. He contended that inasmuch as the notice laid it down that the selected candidate will not be allowed to apply as elsewhere during first six months of his tenure and also that the pay scale would be Rs. He contended that inasmuch as the notice laid it down that the selected candidate will not be allowed to apply as elsewhere during first six months of his tenure and also that the pay scale would be Rs. 450-700 it clearly implied that the appointment intended to be made in pursuance of that notice was to last for more than six months. Since the petitioner was selected and appointed in pursuance of that notice, it should be taken that notwithstanding his letter of appointment the petitioner had a right to continue to work as a Demonstrator even after the expiry of the period specified in the letter of his appointment. 10. In support of his submission the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena v. Vice-Chancellor, Rohil-khand University, Bareilly and others. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9021 of 1978 decided in the month of March, 1979 and reported in 1980 U.P.L B.E C. 225, wherein a substantive vacancy in respect of a post of lecturer in Zoology in the Bareilly College, Bareilly, had been advertised. The advertisement did not indicate that the said appointment was intended to be made on a temporary poster for limited duration. The Selection Committee recommended the name of Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena for appointment as lecturer in Zollogy temporarily for a period ending 30th June, 1978. Accordingly the letter of appointment issued to her mentioned that she had been temporarily appointed as a lecturer up to 30th June, 1978. Dr. Saxena, when she went to join duties, made a protest to the Principal of the College about her temporary appointment but then she was asked by the Principal to accept the appointment as it was and to put her signature in lieu thereof after assuring her that she will be made permanent. As her appointment was coming to an end, the Managing Committee extended her period up to 31st October, 1978. She then approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming her appointment to be a permanent one. Ibis Court upheld her contention and held that the condition imposed by the Selection Committee, in its resolution appointing the petitioner for a limited period, was invalid and as that part of the recommendation was severable, her appointment was to be considered to have been made on regular basis. Ibis Court upheld her contention and held that the condition imposed by the Selection Committee, in its resolution appointing the petitioner for a limited period, was invalid and as that part of the recommendation was severable, her appointment was to be considered to have been made on regular basis. The petitioner contends that like Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena's case, the condition imposed in his appointment letter that his appoint-me1 ;t was to last up to 30th June, 1980 only should be ignored inasmuch as the advertisement in pursuance of which he was appointed did not contain any such limitation. In the circumstances it should be taken that his appointment continued on a regular basis even after 30th June, 1980. 11. We are unable to accept this submission. In Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena's case this Court took the view mentioned above because of specific provisions contained in Section 30th of the U. P. State Universities Act which provided for appointment of four kinds only, and did not contemplate making of appointment for limited duration on regular posts. In the circumstances this Court cease to the conclusion that the part of the resolution of the Selection Committee, which after finding Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena fit for appointment to lecturer's post, limited the same to last up to 30th June, 1980, was without jurisdiction and that part of the resolution which was severable from rest of it, should be ignored. Consequence of valid portion of the resolution was that Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena's appointment had to be taken to have been made on probation, This authority does not in any way impinges upon the normal rule that appointing authority has unless there is some statutory requirement to the contrary, a discretion to make appointments on various posts under its control either on temporary or on permanent basis. In the case before us, the petitioner could not indicate any statutory provisions which precludes the appointing authority from appointing Demonstrator for limited duration. Thus the petitioner cannot, on the basis is of Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena's case, claim that the stipulation in his appointment letter that it was to last up to 30th june, 1980 only should be ignored. 12. Next question that arises for consideration in this connection is as to whether action of the Principal, Medical College in selecting Dr. Thus the petitioner cannot, on the basis is of Dr. (Km.) Ranjana Saxena's case, claim that the stipulation in his appointment letter that it was to last up to 30th june, 1980 only should be ignored. 12. Next question that arises for consideration in this connection is as to whether action of the Principal, Medical College in selecting Dr. S. B Singh, in preference to the petitioner, for appointment as Demonstrator, after 30th June, 1980 is legally sustainable. 13. During the course of hearing it occurred to us that as the term for which the petitioner bad sought renewal of his appointment as also the term for which respondent no. 4 had been appointed is going to expire in a few on 31st December 1980, no useful purpose will be served by going into the merits of the controversy mentioned above, but then it was brought to our notice that fresh selection for the post, of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine is going to be made shortly and that both the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 are going, to put themselves up as candidates for the post. In the circumstances we fell that it would be adopted to resolve the controversy in this regard at this stage. 14. As stated above, the case of respondent no. 1 is that normally appointments to the paid post of Demonstrators etc., in various departments of the college are made from amongst students pursuing post-graduate degree courses on merits which has to be judged only on the basis of the marks obtained by them in their respective M. B. B. S examinations. The petitioner was neither pursuing post-graduate degree course nor was he more meritorious than Dr. S.B. Singh. In the circumstance he could not, after June 1980, be selected as a Demonstrator in preference to Dr. S. B. Singh. 15. It is true that according to the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India on post-graduate education on 12/13th February, 1971 which have been approved by the Government of India as regulations under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. "There would be two types of post-graduate students : (a) those holding posts in the same department like Resident, Registrar, Demonstrator etc. Adequate number of paid pest should be created for this purpose ; (b) those receiving stipends. The stipend should normally be Rs. "There would be two types of post-graduate students : (a) those holding posts in the same department like Resident, Registrar, Demonstrator etc. Adequate number of paid pest should be created for this purpose ; (b) those receiving stipends. The stipend should normally be Rs. 300 per month-payable for the duration of the course, The students of both the categories (a) and (b) above shall be full time Resident". In our opinion whereas aforementioned recommendation regulation envisages that the students pursuing postgraduate courses in Medical College can or may be appointed to the posts like that of Resident, Registrar. Demonstrator etc., and that the respective Governments are to take steps to create adequate number of paid posts for this purpose, it certainly does not contemplate that the post of Demonstrator which is a teaching post, is meant to be filled exclusively by students pursuing postgraduate degree courses in the Medical College. No order either of the State Government or of some other competent authority has been brought to our notice debarring a person, who is not pursuing postgraduate degree course in the Medical College from being appointed a6 a Demonstrator, has been brought to our notice. It is not disputed that in the north of February, 1980 the petitioner who had already completed his postgraduate degree course and bad obtained the degree of M. D. in Forensic Medicine, had been appointed as a Demonstrator in the department of Foin-sic Medicine. Besides this, the petitioner has cited a number of cases in which, persons, after completing their postgraduate course, have been appointed as Demonstrator in various other department as well. Dr. Y.P. Naithani has not disputed the appointment of such persons as Demonstrator but then he has tried to explain the same by saying that they have been so selected because of their merits judged on the basis of their performance in the M-B, B. S. examination. 16. We further find that respondent no. 4 who has been selected as a Demonstrator is in fact not pursuing any post graduation degree course. He-has done his M.B.B.S. and obtained full registration with the State Medical Council recently. He has not yet done any house job, which has necessarily to be done, before a person can qualify for being registered to pursue a postgraduate degree course. As Dr. He-has done his M.B.B.S. and obtained full registration with the State Medical Council recently. He has not yet done any house job, which has necessarily to be done, before a person can qualify for being registered to pursue a postgraduate degree course. As Dr. S.B. Singh is neither qualified to nor is he pursuing a postgraduate decree course, no question of preferring him to the petitioner for appointment as a Demonstrator on the ground that such appointments are normally given to the persons pursuing postgraduate degree course arises. 17. Learned counsel appearing for Dr. S.B. Singh submitted that in the Department of Forensic Medicine there are no posts of House Officers. The practice in this department has teen to treat such students to be eligible for registration for postgraduate degree course, as have worked on the post of Demonstrator in the department for one year, (working as a Demonstrator is treated as equivalent to doing house jobs for one year). It would, in the circumstances be nothing but fair to, in the matter of appointment to the post of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine, prefer a student who intends to do his M. D. in Forensic Medicine, to one who has already done his M. D. in the said subject. The result of not giving such preference would be that in the Department of Forensic Medicine no student who has not been a Government servant, will ever qualify to be registered as a postgraduate decree course student. 18. We find no merit in this submission. The Medical Council of India has, in its recommendation on post-graduate Medical Education, laid down the following as the criteria which has to be followed by Medical Collete in admitting or registering candidates for post-graduate degree course : - (a) Students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly om merit judged on the basis of academic record in the under-graduate course. All selection for post graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities. (b) The candidates should have obtained full registration i. e., they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the M. B. B. S. examination and must have full registration with State Medical Council. (c) They must subsequently have done one year's house man ship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma course. (b) The candidates should have obtained full registration i. e., they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the M. B. B. S. examination and must have full registration with State Medical Council. (c) They must subsequently have done one year's house man ship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma course. House man ship should preferably be for one year in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department. Provided that in departments like Radiology/Anaesthesiology/Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation where suitable candidates who have done house- man ship in the respective subjects for the respective speciality are not available then the house man ship in Medicine and/or in surgery may be considered as sufficient. Alternatively (i) Must have worked as a full time post-graduate student in a manner equivalent to house man ship requirements, in the department concerned before taking up the post-graduate courses. (ii) Of worked in State Medical Services, Armed "Forces Medical Services or other equivalent services of public undertakings, local bodies, etc., for a period of three years after full registration provided that one year of these three years is spent in a hospital which is approved rotating internship or in a command hospital failing which the aforesaid period of three years would be increased to five years: Provided that in case of service in Armed Forces, this period shall be in addition to one year of compulsory rotating internship required for purposes of obtaining the M. B. B. S. degree and full registration. (d) Other conditions being equal, weightage may be given to persons who have worked in rural areas or the Armed Forces Medical Services for atleast two years". Learned counsel for the respondents could not bring to our notice any provision which equates a Demonstrator in a department of a Medical College with a housemen, contemplated by condition no. (c) mentioned above. Learned counsel for the respondents could not bring to our notice any provision which equates a Demonstrator in a department of a Medical College with a housemen, contemplated by condition no. (c) mentioned above. They, however, contended that a Demonstrator working in a department is a full time post-graduate student in a manner equivalent to house mans hip requirements as contemplated by alternative condition (i) to condition (c) specified for the purpose by the Medical Council of India and a student who has worked as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine for one year would be eligible for being registered for M. D. Degree in the subject. In the first place the recommendation made by the Medical Council of India with regard to the Qualifications required for appointment of persons to the post of teachers etc., in a Medical College show that the post of a Demonstrator is a post of a teacher in the department and that a -person working in the capacity of a Demonstrator cannot be treated as a student. The fact that students can also be appointed as Demonstrators does not mean that performance of Demonstrator's job tent amounts to pursuing of post-graduate studies in a Medical College, according by a person while working in his capacity as a Demonstrator cannot be considered to be a person working as a postgraduate student within the meaning of first alternative to Clause (c) of the criteria laid down by the Medical Council for selecting candidates for post-graduate degree courses. Moreover, before the work carried on by a full time postgraduate student can be treated as equivalent to house man ship requirements under the aforementioned clause, it has to be shown that the concerned university has treated it as equivalent to house man ship requirements. No material has been placed before us to show that while performing the job of Demonstrator, the person concerned has to perform duties equivalent to the requirements of house man ship. We are according by of opinion that the stand of the respondents that in the matter of appointment of a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine respondent no. No material has been placed before us to show that while performing the job of Demonstrator, the person concerned has to perform duties equivalent to the requirements of house man ship. We are according by of opinion that the stand of the respondents that in the matter of appointment of a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine respondent no. 4 deserved preferred to the petitioner so as to unable him to, while working as a Demonstrator, acquire the requisite qualification for being subsequently admitted to post-graduate degree course in Forensic Medicine in terms of the recommendations made by the Indian Medical Council is fallacious and cannot be accepted. 19. We are further of opinion that the recommendations made by the Indian Medical Council do not on their own govern the admission of candidates to post graduate degree courses in various Medical Colleges. Such admissions are governed by the Ordinances framed on the subject by various State Universities on lines suggested in the recon jurisdiction made by the Medical Council of India. Such admissions are governed by the Ordinances framed on the subject by various State Universities on lines suggested in the recon jurisdiction made by the Medical Council of India. So far as the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, is concerned, it is governed by the ordinances on the subject framed by the University of`Allahabad reproduced in the prospectus issued by the Faculty of Medicine, University of Allahabad Ordinance No. 2 in Part (D) lays down that no candidate shall be registered for the degree or Doctor of Medicine (M. D.) or Master of Surgery (M. S) in a clinical subject unless (i) he has obtained full registration of the M. B. B. S. degree awarded by the Allahabad University or by an other University shows M. B. B. S. degree has been recognised by the Allahabad University for the purpose ; (ii) he has satisfactorily worked as a houseman for one year in general Medicine for M. D., degree or general snuggery for M D. degree provided that in the case of other specialities at least half of this period is spent in the speciality concerned and the period of housemanship may include any period spent as a Resident Officer or Registrar in the subject concerned ; (iii) In the case of Ophthalmology and Obstetrics and Gynaecology one 5 ear's housemanship in the respective subject shall be necessary ; (iv) in the case of Social and Preventive Medicine, a period of one year spent as Demonstrator in research work in the department or a period of 2 years spent in the State Public Health Service, or 3 years service in the State Medical or Central Health Service shall be considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship ; (v) in the case of H. N. T., one year housemanship shall be necessary. The housemanship can be done either fully in the department concerned or partly in other departments of allied subjects ; (vi) in the case of Orthopaedic one year houses ship shall be necessary, the housemanship can be done either fully in the department concerned or partly in the speciality and partly in the department of allied subjects ; (vii) in the case of Anaesthesia one year housemanship shall be necessary. The housematiship can be done either fully in the department concerned or partly in the speciality and partly in other departments of allied subjects, and (viii) in the case of Forensic Medicine, 2 years Service in U P. Stale Medical Service, be considered equivalent to one year's house job for purposes of registration of the subject of thesis for M D. in Forensic Medicine. It will thus be seen that so far as the Ordinances framed by the Allahabad University, which govern the admission of the students to the post-graduate degree courses of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, are concerned they have not provided any thing like the first alternative to criteria no. (c) laid down by the Indian Medical Council. It is significant to note that while framing Ordinance no. 2 (x) (iv), mentioned above, the Allahabad University laid it dowa in the case of Social and Preventive Medicine a period of one year spent as De-monstrator in research, work in the department shall be considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship, it did Dot make any such provision in the Clause (viii) of ordinance no. 2 in respect of Forensic Medicine which merely lays down that to sears service iD U P, State Medical Service shall be considered equivalent to one year's house job for purposes of registration of the subject of thesis of M. D. in Forensic Medicine. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 contended that for purposes of pursuing post graduate degree course, the subject of Forensic Medicine falls, as compared to the subjects of General Medicine and General surgery, which are taught in departments wherein house jobs are available, more in line with the subject of social and Preventive Medicine, which is taught in a department wherein no house jobs are available. Accordingly if in the case of Social and Preventive Medicine a period of one year spent as a Demonstrator in the Department can be treated as equivalent to bouse job in the department for a year, there no reason why the work of a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine for one year should also not be treated as equivalent to house job for a year in that department. We are unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that working as a demonstrator is inherently not the same thing as wot king as a houseman. We are unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that working as a demonstrator is inherently not the same thing as wot king as a houseman. It is only by a fiction created by Clause (iv) for a specific purpose that the year spent as a demonstrator in research work in the Department of Social aDd Preventive Medicine is treated as equivalent to one year's housemanship. But then such fictions cannot be carried farther than the purpose for which it has been created. If the university intended that one year's work as a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine should also be treated as one year's housemanship for purposes of registration for the degree of M.D. in Forensic Medicine, it would easily have made a provision like that in Clause (iv) and in Clause (viii) of the ordinance as well. 20. A reading of aforementioned Ordinance 2 as a whole indicates that in Clauses (i) and (ii) thereof the qualification which a candidate must fulfil before he becomes eligible for if-registration fer the M. D. for M. S degrees have been paid down. The qualification laid down in Clause (ii) that before such registration for the M D. degree the candidate must have satisfactorily worked as a houseman for one year in gestural medicine and that in the case of other specialities (M. D. degree in speciality other than general medicine) at least half of such period should have been spew is the speciality concerned and that the period of be ustmansbip would include any period spent as a Resident Officer or Registration in the subject concerned is the general qualification which, subject to what has been laid down in Clauses (iii) to (viii) of the ordinance, govern registration for the M. D. degree in all subjects in which such degree is awarded by the university. In view of what is contained in Clause (iii) a candidate seeking registration for M. D. degree in Ophthalmology and Obstetrics and Gynaecology will be considered to have acquired the requisite qualification not when he has worked as a houseman for one year in general medicine but when he has worked as houseman for one year in the department of Ophthalmology/obstetrics and Gynaecology. The effect of Clause (iv) is chat apart from persons who have worked as houseman for one year in general Medicine, persons Who have worked Demonstrator, in research work for one year or lave spent 2 years in State Public Health Service or 3 years in the State Medical or Central Health Service will also be eligible for registration for M D. degree in the subject of Social and Preventive Medicine. Likewise the provisions for the type of housemanship to be done so as to make persons eligible for registration for M. D. degree is the subjects of H. N. T. Orthopaedic and Anaesthesia have been laid down in Clauses (v), (vi) aDd (vii) of the ordinance. The effect of reading Clauses (iii) and (viii) of the ordinance together is that in order to qualify for registration for M D. degree in Forensic Medicine a candidate must either have done his bouse job for one year in the Department of General Medicine or he must have served for 2 years in U. P. State Medical Service. 21. Aforementioned discussion leads us to the conclusion that respondent no. 4's working as a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine will not govern for him requisite qualification for being registered for the M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine and we have no hesitation in rejecting respondents' submission that respondent no. 4's Selection as a Demonstrator was either aimed towards enabling him to obtain requisite qualifications for registration for the degree of Doctor of Medicine in Forensic Medicine or that" he was entitled to practice over the petitioner for selection as a Demonstrator on that account. 22. We shall now deal with the question as to whether the respondents were justified in selecting respondent no. 4 as a demonstrator treating him to he more meritorious than the petitioner judging their merits only on the basis of their academic records it. the under-graduate course. There can be no objection to selection of candidate for the post of Demonstrator on the basis of merit. In the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, [1971 (2) Services Law Reporters 799]. the under-graduate course. There can be no objection to selection of candidate for the post of Demonstrator on the basis of merit. In the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, [1971 (2) Services Law Reporters 799]. The Supreme Court observed thus : - "The term `merit' is not capable of an easy definition, but it can be safely said that merit is a sum total of various qualities and attributes of an employee such as his academic qualifications his distinction in the University, his character, integrity, devotion to duty and the manner in which he discharges his official duties. Allied to this may be various other matters or factors, such as his punctually in work, the quality and outturn of work done by him and the manner of his dealings with his superior and subordinate officers and the general public and his rank in the service". The Supreme Court then went to observe that it bad only indicated some of the bread aspects that may be taken into account in assessing the merits of an officer. In cur opinion merit of a candidate has to be judged from the point of view of his suitability for the job which he is expected to perform, as is evident .from the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India on the qualifications required for appointment of persons to the posts of teachers in Medical Colleges, the post of a Demonstrator is that of a teacher in the Medical College, as such, the merit of a candidate for appointment as a Demonstrator has. to be judged keeping in view the suitability of a candidate to work as a teacher in the Medical College. Learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to Clause 12 of the recommendations made by the Medical council of India which reads thus : - "The nomenclatures suggested for the teachers in Medical College is (1) professor (2) reader and (3) lecturer conforming to the nomenclatures prescribed by the University Grants Commissions. Alternatively The nomenclature may be (1) Professor, (2) Associate Professor and (3) Assistant Professor". Alternatively The nomenclature may be (1) Professor, (2) Associate Professor and (3) Assistant Professor". And contended that this indicates that the Medical Council of India never contemplated that Demonstrators in various Medical Colleges ate to be treated as teachers and as such it would not be right to judge the merits of the candidates for appointment as Demonstrators keeping in view their suitability to work as teachers. We are unable to accept this submission. In Clause (xii) of the recommendations made by the Indian Medical Council, the council merely suggested that in various Medical Colleges there should be various posts of teachers with the nomenclature Professor, Reader/Associate Professor and Lecturer/Assistant Professor as prescribed by the University Grant Commission. The recommendation did not mean that there was not to be any other teach-ins post with the nomenclature of Demonstrator/Tutor/Registrar, Resident etc. This becomes clear by Clause (iii) of the general representation which lays down that medical teachers in a medical college except Tutors, Residents, Registrars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite recognised post-graduate qualification in their respective subjects, it means that according to Indian Medical Council generally speaking all teachers in the medical college (Lecturer/Assistant Professors, Readers/Associate Professors and Professors) must necessarily possess requisite post-graduate qualification in their respective subjects, but then the teachers who fall in the category of tutors, Residents, Registrar and Demonstrators need not necessarily possess such post-graduate qualification. Clause (vii) of the recommendation reads thus : - "Teachers in a Medical College having at least seven years' under-graduate teaching experience of which not less than four years should be after obtaining the requisite recognised post-graduate qualification, shall be recognised as post-graduate teachers". Portion of Clause (viii) underlined by us clearly indicates that the recommendations contemplate that there can be a teacher in the medical college who does not possess post-graduate qualification. The requirements of special academic qualification and teaching/research, experience recommended by the Indian Medical Council shows that a person must necessarily possess a postgraduate qualification before he can be appointed as a Professor, Reader/Associate Professor or Lecturer/Assistant Professor in a Medical College. Apart from it, the council has further recommended that qualification for appointment as Tutors, Residents, Registrars and Demonstrators will be M B. B. S. or some other equivalent degree mentioned in the recommendations. Apart from it, the council has further recommended that qualification for appointment as Tutors, Residents, Registrars and Demonstrators will be M B. B. S. or some other equivalent degree mentioned in the recommendations. Accordingly, notwithstanding the words used in Clause (vii) of the recommendations the words used in Clause (viii) of the recommendations, relied upon by respondent no. 4 we are clearly of opinion that the job of a Demonstrator in the Medical College is that of a teacher and that the suitability of persons to be appointed as Demonstrators must be judged keeping in view their teaching ability. 23. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 next contended that the appointments to the paid posts of demonstrators etc. in various Medical Colleges are made under the authority of the State Government. It is open to the State Government to provide that such appointments should be made on the basis of merit as also to lay down the criteria for judging such merit. He contended that by Government Order dated 29th of December, 1977 (Annexure 1 to Supplementary Counter-Affidavit filed on the 5th of December, 1980) the State Government has not only directed that the appointments to the pots of House Officer/Residents, Demonstrators and Registrars should be made on the basis of merit but has also laid down the criteria that such merit is to be judged on the basis of the marks obtained by the concerned candidate in his M. B. B. S. examination. is Dot disputed that respondent no. 4 possessed the minimum qualification as recommended by the Indian Medical Council for appointment to the post of demonstrator. Further respondent no. 4 had, as compared to the petitioner, obtained more marks in his M.B.B.S. examination and as such he was more meritorious. In the circumstances no exception can be taken to his appointment as a Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine in preference to the petitioner. 24. The petitioner did not accept that the Government Order dated 29th of December, 1977 laid down any criteria for determining the merit of the candidates for appointment to the posts of demonstrator etc. He contended that as laid down in Clause (ix) of the n commendations in respect of the qualification required for appointment of persons to posts of Tutors etc. He contended that as laid down in Clause (ix) of the n commendations in respect of the qualification required for appointment of persons to posts of Tutors etc. in\Medical College, made by the Medical Council of India, the approving authority sh mid, in making such appointments, amongst other matters give weightage to published research work as well. Moreover, for making appointments to such teaching posts a person who has obtained post-graduate degree and has some teaching experience to his credit should normally be considered to be more meritorious than a person who has merely done his M.B.B.S. but who neither has done house job nor does he possess any teaching experience, not withstanding that such person has obtained slightly more marks in his M.B.B.S. examination. In the alternative the petitioner contended that as the Government order dated 29th of December; 1977 had not been notified under Section 28 of the State Universities Act, it was of no legal validity and the merits of the candidates for appointment on a teaching post has to be judged unfettered by anything contained in the said Government Order. 25. It, therefore, becomes necessary for us to consider as to whether the Government order dated 29th of December, 1977 relied upon by respondent no. 4. lays down any criteria for selecting candidates for appointment to the posts of Demonstrators etc. as also the basis for applying the same. 26. The documents filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit indicate that various Medical Colleges of the State had been adopting different principles for admitting candidates to various post-graduate degree courses conducted by them and for making appointments to the posts of Demonstrators etc. Accordingly, a meeting of Principal of various Medical Colleges in the State, and the Director and the Additional Director of Medical and Health Services of the State was held under the Chairmanship of the Health Minister on 24ch of December 1977, wherein as mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the minutes it was decided the generally admissions to various post-graduate degree courses should be made on the basis of merit which should be judged in the manner provided and on the basis of the marks obtained by various candidates to their respective VI B 8 S. exam So far as the question regarding appointments to the paid posts of Residents, Registrar and Demonstrators, etc. wise concerned, no decision, as mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the minutes, was taken, instead the matter was deferred for consideration to a future date. Indigently after the meeting dated 24th of December, 1977, the State Government issued an order dated 29th of December, 1977 addressed to the Director of Medical and Health Services (Annexure I to the Supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 5th of December, 1980) on the subject of admission of the students to various post-graduate decree courses of the various Medical Colleges of the State Deluding K. G. Medical College, Lucknow and appointments on the paid posts of House Officers/Residents etc. After emphasising the necessity of having a uniform patters for admission to such post graduate degree courses and appoint on such posts in various Medical Colleges of the State, the State Government laid down the following criteria 1. Admission to post-graduate degree courses : - (a) Admission to post-graduate degree courses shall be made on the basis of merit. (b) The basis for determining the merit. The merit index would be prepared on the binds of marks obtained by the candidate in the M. B B. S. examination after deducting from the percentage of marks obtained in each subject 1% marks for each failure in that subjects, (The clause further Provide for making of certain other adjustments while preparing the merit index. (c) The clause provides for certain reservations for candidates from other Medical Colleges, not necessary to mention here). (d) Admission to house jobs and post-graduate degree courses to be made only in the months of December/January each year. (e) (Special provision for admission to post-graduate degree courses for Kanpur Medical College, not necessary to be mentioned). 2. Appointments on the posts of House Officers/Residents etc. : Appointments on the post of House Officers/Residents, Demonstrators and Registrars shall be made on the basis of merit and there shall be no reservation on those posts. It is significant to note that while providing that admissions to post-graduate degree courses shall be made on the basis of merit, the State Government also laid down the basis for determination of such merit. It did not, while providing that selection to the paid posts of Demonstrators etc. shall be made on merit, lay down the criteria for determining the same. It did not, while providing that selection to the paid posts of Demonstrators etc. shall be made on merit, lay down the criteria for determining the same. The reason why the State Government did not do so is that whereas in the meeting of principals of various Medical Colleges held under the Chairmanship of the Health Minister on 24th of December, 1977, there was an agreement with regard to the basis for determining the merit for admission to post-graduate degree course, there was no such understanding for determining the merit for appointment to the teaching posts of demonstrators etc. It is apparent that the purpose of admission of students to post-graduate degree courses is essentially different from appointment of persons to perform duties of teaching job like that of demonstrators etc. and in the context the criteria for judging merit of the persons for such admissions and appointments cannot be the same. As no-method has been evolved for judging the merit of candidates for the paid posts of Demonstrators in the meeting of 24th December, 1977, the State Government merely contended itself by directing that the appointments on such posts had to be made on the basis of merit. In this view we are not inclined to accept the submission of the respondents that the intention of the State Government was that the merit of the candidates for appointment to the paid posts of Demonstrators etc. also had to be judged on the basis of the criteria laid down for judging the merit of candidates for admission to postgraduate degree courses. 27. In a case where provision has been made for making appointment on merit but no precise criteria has been laid down for judging the same the appointing authority will have to determine the merit of various candidates in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, [1972 (2) Service Law Reporter 799], and all such factors which go into judging the suitability of the candidates to work as a teacher in the Medical College have to be taken into consideration by the persons making the appointment. Merely the marks obtained by a candidate in the M. B. B. S. bereft of all other relevant considerations cannot provide a basis for judging the merit of persons for selection for the post of Demonstrators in Medical Colleges. Prima facie a candidate who has done his post-graduate degree course and was also has some teaching experience to his credit will be more suitable for a teaching job than a person who has merely done his M.B.B.S. and has no teaching experience. But then there may also be other circumstances which may detract from suitability of the persons possessing higher educational qualification and thus rendering him less suitable for being given a teaching job as compared to a person possessing lower academic qualification. It is for the appointing authority to take alt relevant facts into consideration before making the appointment. 28. Admittedly, respondent no. L in this case did not take any factor other than the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent no. 4 into consideration while judging their respective suitability for the post of Demonstrator in Forensics Medicine. As stated above, respondent no. 1 was not justified in judging the respective merits of the two candidates merely on the basis of the marks obtained by them in their respective M. B B. S. examination and the selection made by him in this regard stands vitiated. 29. We may, however, add that according to the recommendations made by the Medical Council adequate number of paid posts of Resident, Registrar, Demonstrator etc., should be created for being filled amongst postgraduate. We should not be understood as holding that even where certain posts of Demonstrators etc. have been created for being filled from amongst post-graduate students only, respondent no. 1 will be compelled to judge the comparative merit of such post-graduate students who applied for appointment as Demonstrator as also those who are not pursuing post-graduate degree courses in the Medical College in the light of what has been stated by us above. In such cases it will be open to respondent no. 1 to consider the applications of post-graduate students alone for appointment against the posts reserved for them and to judge their comparative merit only on the basis of their academic records. 30. In such cases it will be open to respondent no. 1 to consider the applications of post-graduate students alone for appointment against the posts reserved for them and to judge their comparative merit only on the basis of their academic records. 30. The present, however, is not a case where it has been shown that post of Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine has been reserved for post-graduate students or where the comparative merit of post-graduate students and non post-graduate students for appointment as Demonstrator was being judged. 31. Coming now to the question of relief, which, in the circumstances of the case, can be granted to the petitioner we find that the period for which respondent no. 4 had been appointed as a Demonstrator is coming to an end within a few days, that is, on 31st of December, 1980. AH that we have found is that respondent no. 1 did not, in selecting respondent no. 4 as a Demonstrator, apply the correct criteria and principles which should have been applied. It is for the appointing authority to judge the comparative merit of the two candidates, after taking into consideration relevant facts. It is not for this court to substitute its own judgment and to declare the petitioner to be more meritorious than respondent no. 4 for as we have already indicated that although prima facie the petitioner should be considered to be more meritorious than respondent no. 4 yet there may be circumstances which may detract from his merit and may make respondent no. 4 more suitable for appointment to the post of Demonstrator. In these circumstances it is not possible for us to issue a direction that the petitioner should be appointed as a Demonstrator in place of respondent no. 4. Ail that we possibly could do was to direct the appointing authority to reconsider the matter in the light of observations made by us. However, before such a reconsideration can now take place, the term for which respondent no 4 has been appointed will be over. As already stated, the question of appointing Demonstrators for the period subsequent to 31st of December, 1980 is going to be considered shortly and as both the petitioner and respondent no. However, before such a reconsideration can now take place, the term for which respondent no 4 has been appointed will be over. As already stated, the question of appointing Demonstrators for the period subsequent to 31st of December, 1980 is going to be considered shortly and as both the petitioner and respondent no. 4 are prospective candidates, their comparative merit is also that of any other applicant for the post of Demonstrator should be considered by the appointing authorities in the light of observations made by us above. Accordingly, we decline to issue any writ quashing the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Demonstrator for the period June to December, 1980. 32. The petitioner contended that in case he was selected he would normally have been entitled to an increment in the scale of pay in which he was appointed, but because of wrong selection of respondent no. 4 he would lose the benefit of the period between July to December, 1980 in the matter of earning increment in the pay scale applicable to Demonstrators. It is true that in case the petitioner is ultimately found to be more meritorious than respondent no. 4, he would normally have been appointed as a Demonstrator in the month of July, 1980 and the period of six months between July and December, 1980 would have counted towards the period whereafter, he would have been entitled to earn his increment, but then we trust that in case the petitioner is so selected he would be able to make a representation to the State Government which would consider his case sympathetically and in accordance with the rules. This circumstance, therefore, does not justify us in making an order quashing respondent no. 4's appointment at this stage. 33. Before parting with the case we may note that the petitioner had made certain allegations of mala fides against Dr. S.R. Singh, respondent no. 2, who is at present acting as Principal of the Medisal College. The petitioner had contended that certain amounts have been received by Dr. S.R. Singh from the Director General, I.C.M.R. for payment to him, which Dr. Singh is wrongfully withholding. We have, however, not gone into the question of mala fides alleged by the petitioner because, in our opinion, it was in the circumstances of the case not necessary to do so. S.R. Singh from the Director General, I.C.M.R. for payment to him, which Dr. Singh is wrongfully withholding. We have, however, not gone into the question of mala fides alleged by the petitioner because, in our opinion, it was in the circumstances of the case not necessary to do so. However, during the course of arguments the petitioner brought to our notice that by means of a letter dated 10th of September, 1980 the Director General, I. C M. R. had advised him to collect a sum of Rs. 3,459.35 from the Principal, Medical College, Allahabad (Dr S. R. Singh is now acting as the Principal), but Dr. Singh is refusing to pay the same to him. We asked learned counsel representing the Principal, Medical College, Allahabad as to why the said amount was being withheld. On this the learned counsel stated that he would contact the Principal and hoped that any amount which has been received for payment to the petitioner from the Director General I. C. M. R. will not be withheld by the Principal. We trust and hope that the Principal of the Medical College will not do anything which is not consistent with the dignity of his office and he will not because of the allegations made in the writ petition, adopt a vindictive attitude against the petitioner and try to harass him. We think that as the question of issuing any direction to respondent no. 1 to pay the amount received from the Director General, I. C. M. R. to the petitioner, falls outside the purview of the main reliefs claimed in this writ petition, it will not be proper for us to issue any direction in that regard at this stage. If in spite of our observations, respondent no. 1 (which office is now being occupied by Dr. S R. Singh respondent no. 2) wrongly withholds payment of the said amount, the petitioner can approach the Director General, I. C. M. R. afresh who, we are certain, would see to it that the just dues of the petitioner are not denied to him or else the petitioner may pursue such other remedy as may be open to him under the law. 34. In the result while holding that the selection of respondent no. 34. In the result while holding that the selection of respondent no. 4 for appointment on the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine for the term July to December, 1980 was not in accordance with law, we, in the circumstances of this case, decline to in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, quash his appointment. But we direct that all the applications for appointment as Demonstrators for the period subsequent to 31st of December, 1980 shall be considered and disposed of by respondent no. 1 in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. Costs on parties.