JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Petitioners in these three petitions had been working as Junior Doctors at Baba Ragbav Das Medical College, Goiakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College) till 31st of March, 1981. All of them are aggrieved by non-renewal of their respective term beyond 31st of March, 1981 inasmuch as they have been prevented fir completing one year's tenure in their respective job which according to them essential for acquiring eligibility for admission to Post-Graduate Degree courses of the Medical College. 2. Dr. Seema Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4849 of 1981) was, after completing her internship on 5th May, 1980, appointed as a Resident in the Department of Pathology in the Medical College with effect from 1st of July, 1980. This appointment of Dr. Srivastava was to denture till 31st of December, 1980. 3. Dr. Vindheshvari Prasad Shukla (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4774 of 1981), after doing his M.B.B.S. from the Medical College, completed his internship in June, 1980 and was appointed as House Officer in the Department of Ear, Nose and Throat of the Medical College with effect from 1st of July, 1980. His appointment was also to last up to 31st of December, 1980. 4. Dr. Shahid Parwez (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 487 of 1981), after doing his M.B.B S. and completing internship in the Medical College, was appointed as Demonstrator in the Social and Preventive Medicine Department of the Medical College with effect from 2-8-1980 and the said appointment also was to last up to 31st of December, 1980. 5. According to all these petitioners, they were at the time of their respective appointments given to understand that after their terms as mentioned in their appointment letters can^e to an end, the same would be renewed so as to enable them to continue in their respective jobs for at least one year, so that they may become eligible for making applications for registration to Post-Graduate Degree courses conducted in various Medical Colleges of the State. 6. On 31st of December, Principal of the Medical College passed an order extending the terms of all Junior Doctors (including that of the three petitioners) doing House Jobs, Residents' Jobs and Demonstrators' Jobs in various faculties of the Medical College, till further orders or till any other person was appointed on the concerned posts. 6. On 31st of December, Principal of the Medical College passed an order extending the terms of all Junior Doctors (including that of the three petitioners) doing House Jobs, Residents' Jobs and Demonstrators' Jobs in various faculties of the Medical College, till further orders or till any other person was appointed on the concerned posts. He also advertised various posts (including the posts of the three petitioners) and invited applications for appointment thereto. The advertisement indicated that the persons who were already working in the Medical College and wished to continue on it their posts were to apply through their respective Head of Departments for extension. The three petitioners accordingly made applications through their respective Head of the Departments for extension of their appointment. 7. In the month of March, 1981 interviews for making appointments to various posts of Junior Doctor that had been advertised were held, but the three petitioners were not even called upon to appear before the interview Beard Respondent No. 1, however, appointed following three Doctors in place of the petitioners and the new appointees were to take over with effect from 1st of April, 1981 : - 1. Dr. Arjana Agarwal (respondent no, 3 in Writ Petition No. 4849/81) as Resident in Pathology in place of Dr. Seema Srivastava. 2. Dr. Amrit Kumar Agarwal (respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4773 of 1981) as House Officer in the Department of Ear, Nose and Throat in place of Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla, and 3. Dr. Ashok Kumar Arora (respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4871 of 1981) as Demonstrator in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine in place of Dr. Syed Shahid Parwez. 8. Effect of issuing appointment letters In favour of the three respondents, mentioned above, was that the appointments of three petitioners were to come to an end with effect from 1st of April, 198.1. 9. All the three petitioners claim that notwithstanding the fact that to begin with they were issued appointment letters appointing them as Junior Doctors (Resident, House Officer and Demonstrator) up to 31st of December, 1980 and that thereafter their tenure was on 31st of December, 1980 extended only till further orders or til) any other person was appointed on their posts, they had a right to continue to function od the said post at least till such time they completed one year's tenure on that post. In any case respondent No. I, that is, Principal of the Medical College, had picked them out for discriminatory treatment inasmuch as he had extended the terms of several other Doctors similarly situated with a view to enable them to complete one year's tenure, but then in the case of the petitioners he had, without any justification, declined to do so Action of the Principal accordingly contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the petitioners are entitled to be treated in a manner similar to that in which various other Junior Doctors similarly situate 1 nave been dealt with. Petitioners Dr Seema Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4848 of 1981) and Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla (petitioner in Writ. Petition No. 47/4 of 1981), therefore, prayed that a writ be issued to the Principal, Medical College directing him to renew their respective appointments as Resident and House Officer till 30th of June, 1981. In view of the fact that Dr. Shahid Parwez had taken over as Demonstrator in Social and Preventive Medicine with effect from 2nd of August, 1980 he prayed that a writ be issued to the Principal, Medical College directing him to renew his appointment up to 1st of August, 1981. 10. In order to contest these petitions Principal of the Medical College as also the Doctors who have been appointed in place of the three petitioners filed counter-affidavits. They contended that initial appointment of the three petitioners was purely of a temporary nature and that it was so last up to 3lst of December, 1980 only. Before the petitioners were appointed, they gave it in writing that they will have no claim for extension of their services beyond the said date. On 31st of December, 1980 an order extending the terms of all Junior Doctors working in the Medical College was passed on specific condition that the appointments were to last only till further others or till such time as any other person was appointed to that post whichever even took place earlier and that on happening of either of the two events their appointments were to automatically stand terminated. Petitioners' term accordingly came to an end with effect from 1st of April, the date on which the Doctors who have been arrayed as respondents in these petitions were appointed to take over. Petitioners' term accordingly came to an end with effect from 1st of April, the date on which the Doctors who have been arrayed as respondents in these petitions were appointed to take over. According to the respondents, the petitioners have no legal right to claim extension of their services beyond the term for which they had been appointed. In any case, in view of the undertaking given by them that they will not have any claim to the post after 31st of December, 19.-0 they are not entitled to approach this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents further asserted that the petitioners have neither been discriminated against for has respondent no. 1 acted in any manner which may be in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. So far as the undertaking given by the three petitioners not to claim any right to the post to which they had been appointed after 31st of December, 1980 is concerned, the case of petitioner Dr. Seema Srivastava is that she first of all gave that undertaken p hut then she scored out her signature underneath it before she was appointed as a Resident. These of Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla and Dr. Shahid Parwez. on the other hand, is that they were compelled by the Principal to save that undertaking and that the said under taking is not binding on them. The Principal has denied that Dr. Seema Srivastava had withdrawn her undertaking prior to her being appointed as a Resident in the Department of Pathology. He also denied that he pressurised either Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukia or Dr Shahid Parwez to give that undertaking He has explained the circumstances, with which we shall deal subsequently, in which the said undertaking was obtained from the three petitioners. However, as there is a dispute between the parties as a question of fact in this regard, we may proceed on the basis that the petitioners, prior to their appointment as Junior Doctors in the months of July and August, 1980, bad given an undertaking that they will have no claim to the post, to which they had been appointed, after 31st of December. 1980. 1980. The case of the respondents, further, is that the circumstances in which the petitioners were appointed as Junior Doctors, they did not irrespective of the undertaking given by them, have any legal right to claim extension of their appointment beyond 31st of December, 1980, and that the petitioners were asked to give the undertaking only with a view to make the legal position clear to them. 12. Sri Markandey Katju, learned counsel appearing for the three petitioners, was unable to place before us any statutory provision or Government order on the base of which the petitioners could, as of right, claim extension in the terms of their appointments. In the circumstances whether or not the undertaking referred to above was obtained from the petitioners, legal position remained just the same. It may be that if the petitioners had made out a case that they, under some statutory provisions or Government Order had a right to Continue on the post to which they had been appointed even after 31st of December. 1980 and the petitioners wanted to enforce that right, the respondents could rely upon the said undertaking and urge that petitioners' request may not be entertained by this Court The said undertaking cannot, in our opinion, stand in the way of the petitioners when they seek relief on the ground that in the matter of appointment they have been illegally discriminated in contravention of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 13. Moreover, the undertaking given by the petitioners merely was that they would, on the basis of their appointment letters, not claim any right to the post as and when their appointment came to an end on 31st of December, 1980. In case petitioners' appointment had come to an end on 31st of December, 1980 the undertaking given by the petitioner might have stood in their way in claiming extension of their job. We, however, find that respondent no. 1. by means of an order dated 31st of December, 1980 extended the appointment of the three petitioners beyond that date. The undertaking given by the petitioners thus became innocuous The undertaking did not, after 31st of March, 1981, Seclude the petitioners from enforcing a claim on the basis of principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. The undertaking given by the petitioners thus became innocuous The undertaking did not, after 31st of March, 1981, Seclude the petitioners from enforcing a claim on the basis of principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. While it is true that the normal rule is that the appointing authority has unless there is sou e statutory requirement to the contrary, a discretion to make appointments on various posts under its control either on temporary or on permanent basis (See Dr. Chandrakant v. Acting Principal, M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad (1981 UPLBEC 241) it cannot in making such appointments act in a manner which is violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 15. Sri Katju, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Principal of the Medical College had contravened the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as he has extended the terms of some Junior Doctors similarly situated so as to enable them to complete at least one year's service on the post on which it they had been working at Junior Doctors, but then he has not done so in the case of the petitioners. There is no reason why the petitioners were not accorded the same treatment this assumes great importance in view of the fact that one year's service as an issue Officer, or Resident or Demonstrator is absolutely necessary before a person becomes eligible to be considered for registration for a Post-Graduate Degree course, and primary object of the persons joining such jobs is to acquire such eligibility. The petitioners have, in various affidavits filed on their behalf, claimed that the fact they have, been improperly discriminated against in this regard by the Principal will be evident from the cases of following Doctors who were similarly situated : - 1. Dr. Mool Narain, who belongs to the same batch as that of the petitioners, was appointed as House Officer in the Department of Ophthalmology on 1st of September, 1980. Even after the term for which the appointment had been made, mentioned in his appointment letter, .expired his term was extended till such time as he completed one year as a House Officer. The incumbent appointed in place of Dr. Mool Narain has been asked to take over only after Dr. Even after the term for which the appointment had been made, mentioned in his appointment letter, .expired his term was extended till such time as he completed one year as a House Officer. The incumbent appointed in place of Dr. Mool Narain has been asked to take over only after Dr. Mool Narain completed one year as a House Officer in the Department of Ophthalmology ; 2. Dr. Sumah Nagar and Dr; Sobba Sharma (House Officers; in the Department of Obst. and Gynaecology, Dr. S.K. Birju and Dr. Radha Kutnal (House Officers in Surgery), Dr. S.K. Dixit (House Officer in Medicine) and Dr. V.K. Srivastava (House Officer in Orthopaedics) belong to petitioner's batch. All these Doctors have been allowed to continue to work on their posts and their terms have been extended. The incumbents on the posts held by aforementioned Doctors have been told to join only after the existing incumbents complete one year in their job. 16. According to the petitioners, there is no reason why in their case* also the new incumbents appointed to the posts held by them should also not have similarly been told to take over charge only after the petitioners bad completed one year in their respective jobs. 17. While refuting the charge of illegal discrimination levelled by the petitioners, respondent no. 1 explained that after completion of M.B.B.S. Examination, successful candidates are required to undergo a compulsory rotating internship training for one year. On completion of internship training students become eligible to receive M.B.B.S. Degree and also to get registration to practice medicine or get some job. Those students who fail in final examination conducted in December can appear in the next examination to be held after four to six months and such candidates, after passing their M.B.B.S. final examination, are also required to undergo compulsory internship for one year. On the hospital side (clinical side) fresh graduates are considered for appointment on the post of House Officers. These House Officers are appointed for one year. The next senior post is that of Resident Officer and still senior is that of Administrator Tutor Registrar. On the college side (that is. non-clinical side) there exist post of Demonstrators only and there are no post of House Officers, However, so far as the Department of Pathology is concerned, pathological investigations of patients undergoing treatment in the attached hospitals are also carried out. On the college side (that is. non-clinical side) there exist post of Demonstrators only and there are no post of House Officers, However, so far as the Department of Pathology is concerned, pathological investigations of patients undergoing treatment in the attached hospitals are also carried out. Accordingly one post of Resident Officer in the Department of Pathology also exists Each year the vacant posts are advertised for the clinical and non-clinical sides. Selection to the posts is done by a Committee consisting of Heads of all the Departments and the Principal as its Chairman. The selections are entirely made on the basis of merit list prepared in accordance with Government Order dated 29th of December, 1977. While preparing the merit list a common list of all the applicants belonging to a particular batch who have in the regular way competed their internship by the month of December of the year (regular batch) as also that of those of that batch who could not complete their internship by the month of December along with the regular batch but having failed in one subject or the other they were asked to appear in the supplementary examination and were allowed to do internship from a later date and who would be completing one year of internship during the year (supplementary batch) is prepared. The interview for selection is conducted by the said Committee merely for confirming the merit index from the concerned candidates and also to finalise their preferences for various available vacant posts for which the candidates may be eligible. It is understood that the candidates appointed to such jobs will be allowed to continue for a period of one year even though their initial appointments may indicate appointment for a period less than a year, The candidates of regular batches who have already completed one year's internship as appointed immediately but those selected candidates who belong to the supplementary batch are appointed only after they have completed their internship training which normally comes to an end in the month of July. The selection for all appointments are made once as far as possible in the month of December or January each year, but what happened with of batch students of 1975 was that the M.B.B.S. training course started late in September, 1975 and as such they could complete their internship training programme only in March, 1981 It was for this reason that the candidates were available for appointment on different posts, that is, clinical and non-clinical posts only after March, 1981. It was under these circumstances that the berm of all Junior Doctors working in the Medical College and its attached teaching hospital was extended till the date when the new selected candidates could join their duties. In January, 1980 the three petitioners and many other candidates could not be selected for appointment because of relatively low merit. In the subsequent months between May to December, 1980 some Junior Doctors working on different posts resigned and it jobs because they got permanent regular appointments elsewhere. Consequently, the teaching of the medical students and medical care of patients were adversely affected and an advertisement on 18th of January, ;980 was published inviting applications for filing various posts of Junior Doctors that had fallen vacant. This advertisement included amongst others one post of D demonstrator in Pathology, one post of Demonstrator in Social and Preventive Medicine and one post of House Officer in Ear, Nose and Throat Departments. The criteria for selecting the candidates on the freshly advertised posts was also merit as laid down in Government Order dated 29th December, 1977. The petitioners and several others made applications for appointment to these posts, so far as the vacant post of Demonstrator in Pathology was concerned, the same was given to Dr. R K. Mishra who was still then working as a Resident in Pathology as he was higher in merit than Dr, Seema Srivastava. Because of appointment of Dr. Mishra as Demonstrator, the post of Resident in Pathology fell vacant and the same was given to Dr. Seema Srivastava for the period up to 31st of December, 1980. Posts of Demonstrators in Social and Preventive Medicine and House Officer in Ear, Nose and Throat went to Dr. Shahid Parwez and Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla respectively. Mishra as Demonstrator, the post of Resident in Pathology fell vacant and the same was given to Dr. Seema Srivastava for the period up to 31st of December, 1980. Posts of Demonstrators in Social and Preventive Medicine and House Officer in Ear, Nose and Throat went to Dr. Shahid Parwez and Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla respectively. These appointments in pursuance of advertisement dated 18th June, 1980 were made for short period on a clear written undertaking that the appointees shall not have any claim for extension on the posts after 31st of December, 1980. Normally fresh appointments of Junior Doctors ought to have been made in the month of December, 1980 or January, 1981 after the regular batch of the year 1975 should have been available after completing one year's internship, but then for the reasons already stated that batch was available only at the end of March, 1981. Accordingly, the term of all Junior Doctors, was on 31st of December, 1980 extended till such time as regular selection of Junior Doctors was made and as none of the three petitioners could compete on merit with the persons so appointed in their places, they were not selected and instead the respective appointments wont to Dr. Anjana Agarwal, Dr. Arnit Kumar Agarwal and Dr. Ashok Kumar Arona. 18. So far as the question of granting extension to various Junior Doctors and the newly selected candidates being required to take over from them, after such Doctors completed their one year's service as Junior Doctors is concerned, the case of the respondents is that all those Doctors were those who had, on the basis of merit, been selected for appointment at the time of the regular selection held in the month of January, 1981. However; they could not join their posts immediately either because they belonged to the supplementary batch and had till then not completed one year's internship, but were expected to complete the same sometimes later in the year or, they were such candidates who could take over only after the existing incumbent from an earlier batch had completed his tenure of one year. While granting extension to such candidates to enable them to complete one year in the job, their merit vis-a-vis the candidates of the new batch is not to be compared. According to the respondents the candidates like Dr. Shahid Parwez and Dr. While granting extension to such candidates to enable them to complete one year in the job, their merit vis-a-vis the candidates of the new batch is not to be compared. According to the respondents the candidates like Dr. Shahid Parwez and Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla even though selected after advertisement and inviting application in the month of June, 1980 belonged to a class different from that to which the candidates selected in the month of January, 1980 belonged. Accordingly there was nothing wrong if the jobs of Junior Doctors were given to the candidates selected on the basis of merit in the month of January 1981 for one year, and not to the petitioners who had been selected in the month of June. So far as petitioner Dr. Seema Srivastava was concerned, it was said that the post of Resident in Pathology to which she had been appointed in the month of July. 1980 was not even advertised. She was accordingly given that appointment only as an ad hoc measure and no question of comparing her in the matter of tenure of appointment with the persons selected on merit arose. 19. One important question that accordingly emerges for consideration by the Court is, as to whether in the circumstances of the case, Principal of the Medical College was, while meeting appointments for a period of one year on the posts of Junior Doctors tilled by him as a result of selection made in the month of January, 1980 and 1981 justified in offering, as a result of selection made in pursuance of advertisement dated 18th of January, 1980, vacant posts of Junior Doctors for a shorter period, and in case it is found that this was not a permissible discrimination what would be its effects on the rights of the parties. 20. While it is true that there is no statutory provision or Government Order requiring that Junior Doctors when appointed must be given a minimum tenure of one year so as to enable them to obtain eligibility for admission to postgraduate degree courses, one important factor that invariably weighs in fixing the tenure of said appointments is to enable the incumbents to acquire such eligibility. Indeed the importance of this factor has been fully realised by the Principal who has accepted the position that the appointments of Junior Doctors made in the regular way are expected to enure for a period of one year. So far as the appointments made in respect, of the vacancy advertised in the month of June, 1980 are concerned, the stand by the respondents is that it is a mid-term appointment and as such the considerations which weigh in. appointing candidates in pursuance of regular selection need not be the same as in selecting candidates appointed in the mid-term. 21. Only material brought to our notice relevant for dealing with the question of making appointments to vacant posts of Junior Doctors is that contained In the Government Order dated 29th of December, 1977 which in paragraph 2 merely lays down that the appointments on the vacant posts of House Officers, Residents, Demonstrators and Registrars etc., shall be made oh the basis of merit and that there will be no reservation for such posts. The Government order does not lay down that the vacant posts shall normally be filled only once in a year, that is, during the months of December/January or that the incidence of the appointment made during the months of December/January will be different from that in respect of appointments made subsequently. 22. learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not place before us any material to show that the appointments made in respect of the vacancies advertised in the month of June, 1980 are to be treated in a way different from those made in respect of vacancies advertised in the month of December 6V January each year or as to why the appointments so made should be labelled as mid-term appointments and be dealt with differently. ;Unless there be some very good reason, we find it difficult to countenance the position that an appointing authority can say that persons selected and appointed in the month of January each year will be enable to complete one year in the job and will be allowed to acquire eligibility for admission to post-graduate degree courses, but not the persons similarly selected in the later part of the year. Such an action will on the face of it be discriminatory and inconsistent with the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 23. Such an action will on the face of it be discriminatory and inconsistent with the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 23. In order to justify the differentiation in the treatment matted out to persons appointed in January of a particular year and those appointed in subsequent vacancies occurring during the year learned counsel for the respondents urged that the principle idea underlying the making of selection in January each year is to select most suitable candidates for the concerned job who may also qualify for admission to post graduate degree courses. This object is best achieved by making selections in the month of January when for this purpose a fresh batch of the M.B.B.S. students becomes available. Subsequently during the year, for all practical purposes, no fresh material for making appointments to such posts becomes available. It would, therefore, not be fair to let the/appointments of less meritorious students made subsequently stand in the way of selection of more meritorious candidates who are expected to become available by the end of December or beginning of January next. 24. We find no merit in. this submission. Admittedly each year all Doctors selected in the month of January do not get appointed to various posts immediately on being so selected. Appointment of some of the selected candidates who belong to a supplementary batch takes effect sometimes later in the year after such appointees complete them period of internship. Likewise the appointment of persons to posts, previous incumbents whereof have not already completed one year's tenure {if they belong to the regular batch) also is to fact effect the later part of the year after such previous incumbents complete one year's tenure. All these appointments are effective for a year with effect from a date much after January of a particular year. Respondent No. 1 does not consider such appointments as adversely effecting meritorious candidates belonging to a future batch and thus frustrating the object sought to be achieved. All these appointments are effective for a year with effect from a date much after January of a particular year. Respondent No. 1 does not consider such appointments as adversely effecting meritorious candidates belonging to a future batch and thus frustrating the object sought to be achieved. If the appointments of the nature mentioned above are not considered as effecting the inters of more meritorious candidates of future batch, we fail to see how an appointment made for a period of one year in respect of a vacancy occurring and filled during the year after inviting applications and considering the merits of.various applicants, can be said to jeopardise the interest of the candidates belonging to a future batch. So as far the question of merit is concerned, it is only such person from amongst the applicants who stands higher in merit, who gets the job. Merely because at the time of filling the vacancy candidates from aiflrpre batch are not available for consideration, it does not mean that the appointment which is being made on the basis of merit ceases to be so and justifies (treating such appointees on a different footing. 25. We are, accordingly, of opinion that the Principal of the Medical) College was not justified in treating if the matter of tenure of their appointment Dr. Vindheswhari Prasad Shukla and Dr. Shahid Parwez (petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 4774 of 1981 and 4871 of 1981) who had teen appointed House Officer and Demonstrator respectively after regular selection in the month of June, 1980 differently from those selected in the month of January, 1980 if the candidates selected for appointment in the month of January 1980 are allowed to complete one year in the job and their successors selected for appointment if the month of March, 1981 were asked to take over after they completed of year in the job, there is no reason why persons selected in the month of June, 1980 be also not allowed to complete one year in the job and their respective successors be not asked to take over after their completing one year in the job. 26. Coming now to the case of Dr. Seema Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4849 of 1981). 26. Coming now to the case of Dr. Seema Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4849 of 1981). (we feel that) notwithstanding the fact that she was appointed on the post of Resident in Pathology without that post being advocate she should also be dealt with on the same principle. It is true that when the Government Order dated 29th of December, 1977 requires that appointments to the posts of Demonstrators; Residents etc. should be made on merit, it necessarily envisages an appointment being made after giving an opportunity to deserving candidates to come forward and make applications for the jobs and most meritorious amongst them being selected for- the purpose. In this view the only proper thing for the Principal to do was to invite applications for the post of Resident which had fallen vacant as a result of its incumbent, namely, Dr. Mishra, being appointed as a Demonstrator. However, it has not been shown (to us) that at that time there was any other qualified and more meritorious aspirant for the job of Resident in Pathology. No body has cared to challenge the initial appointment of Dr. Seema Srivastava with effect from 1st of July, 1980 as a Resident in Pathology. Accordingly it is not necessary for us to brand that appointment as illegal. Once that appointment was made and its legality was not in question, there is no reason why Dr. Seema Srivastava and the person appointed in her place be also not dealt with in a manner similar to that in which Dr. Vindheshwari Prasad Shukla and Dr. Shahid Parwez and their respective successors are to be dealt with. 27. It was next contended on behalf of respondent no. 3 in each of these petitions that according to the practice prevailing in the Medical College, the candidates were required to appear before the Selection Committee in order of merit and they were allowed to exercise their preferences in respect of all available vacancies. Had the respondents known that their appointments on these posts were to take effect from a later date, that is, when the existing incumbents completed one year's job, they would, instead of accepting the jobs in question, have opted for such job of a Junior Doctor which was at that time immediately available. Had the respondents known that their appointments on these posts were to take effect from a later date, that is, when the existing incumbents completed one year's job, they would, instead of accepting the jobs in question, have opted for such job of a Junior Doctor which was at that time immediately available. This aspect is of importance inasmuch as joining as a Junior Doctor in later part of the year may entail loss of drib year is being considered for registration to a Post-graduate degree course. The respondents accordingly pray that in case it is found that the petitioners are to continue in their respective jobs till they complete one year, an opportunity should be afforded to them to have, in accordance with their respective merits, a job in such a faculty which might not entail loss of one year In obtaining registration for a Post-graduate degree course after completing one year as a Junior Doctor. This can be done only by quashing the entire selection of Junior Doctors made in the month of March, 1981 and by requiring respondent no. 1 to make a fresh selection keeping in view the preferences given or to be given by various candidates in order of their merit. It true that a direction that the appointments of respondent no. 4 in each of the three petitions should take place after the petitioners in these petitions have completed one year in the service may, if the registration to post-graduate degree course for the year 1982 takes place prior to their completing one year, result In loss of one year to them, but then as all such persons whose selections are to be disturbed are not parties before us, it is not possible for us to disturb the entire selection. Further, quashing of the entire selection may entail greater complications for the Medical College. In these circumstances, we think that it would not be proper for us to disturb the selection of candidates other than those who are at present before us and we should modulate our order in such a way as to cause minimum loss to the respondents. 28. During the course of arguments our attention was invited to the case of Dr. 28. During the course of arguments our attention was invited to the case of Dr. Chandrakant v. Acting Principal, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, (1981 UPLBEC 241) wherein it was observed that while prescribing that appointment of Junior Doctors is to be made on the basis of merit, the Government Order dated 29th of December .1977, does not lay down that merit for making appointments on such posts shall be judged only on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate in M.B.B.S. examination. It was suggested that the entire selection made by the Principal in the month of March, 1981 stands vitiated on this ground. However, in the view which we are taking and as we are not inclined to quash the entire selection for filling various posts of Junior Doctors made in the month of March, 1981, we do not think it necessary to say anything about that decision. Suffice it to say that in further when respondent no. 1 proceeds to fill up the vacancies of Junior Doctors he will do so after taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in Dr. Chandrakants case. 29. In the result, these petitions succeed and are allowed. We direct that the appointment of Dr. Anjana Agarwal as Resident In Pathology shall take effect with effect from 1st of July, 1981 and till then petitioner Dr. Seema Srivastava will be entitled to work as Resident in that Department. The appointment of Dr. Am it Kumar Agarwal as House Officer in the Department of Ear, Nose and Throat shall be effective with effect from 1st of July, 1981 and till 30th of June, 1981 petitioner Vindheshwari Prasad Shakla will be entitled to work as House Officer in that Department Dr. Syed Shahid Parwez will be entitled to work as Demonstrator in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine of the Medical College till 1st of August, 1981 and the appointment of Dr. Ashok Kumar Arora as a Demonstrator in that Department shall be effective with effect from 2nd of August, 1981. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.