JUDGMENT GINWALA, J.- The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Registrar in Surgery in the hospital attached to the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. He has been unsuccessful in getting the post on the ground - that he had not passed his final M.B.B.S. examination from the said College. The constitutional validity of the relevant rule is under challenge in this petition. 2. The State Government (respondent No. 1) has sanctioned rules for the appointment to the post of Registrar in hospitals attached to Government Medical Colleges in the State thereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') as an accompaniment to its resolution dated 26-6-1971. We may at the outset state the Rules which are relevant for our purpose. Rule III lays down the conditions, of eligibility for the said post. It provides that a candidate for being qualified for appointment :— (a) must hold a M.B. B. S. degree from a recognised University, (b) must have been registered with the Maharashtra Medical Council under Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, (c) must have done two house appointments (covering the period of six months each either in the subject of\appointment or one post in the subject of appointment and one in ancillary subject) at any of the teaching or associated recognised hospital, and (d) must have registered for a post-graduate course to a post-graduate degree or diploma examination in the subject of appointment. Rule VI proclaims that the basis for selection shall be merit which has to be judged by the marks obtained at the University examination in the subject concerned as corrected for the number of attempts taken to pass the final M.B.B.S. examination as a whole and subject concerned with the post for which the candidate is to be appointed. This rule also prescribes the mode for arriving at the corrected marks. Rules VII to XI make provisions for stipend, tenure, residence, leave, duties and disciplinary control. Under Rule XII the Government has reserved to itself the right of modifying the conditions of service at any time during the tenure of appointment. This rule also prescribes the mode for arriving at the corrected marks. Rules VII to XI make provisions for stipend, tenure, residence, leave, duties and disciplinary control. Under Rule XII the Government has reserved to itself the right of modifying the conditions of service at any time during the tenure of appointment. Rule V which deals with preference in the matter of appointment is material for our purpose and it is in the following terms: "V. Preference: - The persons who have already registered as post graduate students and have done two house posts, will be eligible for regular Registrar's post, preference being given to those who have passed the final MBBS Examination from the Medical College to which the teaching hospital where the posts are vacant, is attached. Amongst those preference will be given to those registered for Degree where both Degree and Diploma are in existence. If any Registrar's post is vacant after absorbing the eligible candidates, second, preference will be given to those who have passed final MBBS Examination from the Government Medical College affiliated to other Universities in the Maharashtra State and if these one (sic) vacancies, even after these candidates are absorbed, then the posts may be awarded to any other candidates who are otherwise eligible". 3. Till 1-4-1981 the Indira Gandhi Medical College at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'I.G.M. College’) was being run by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. With effect from the said date it has been taken over by the State Government and since then it has attained the status of a Government Medical College. The Mayo Hospital at Nagpur is, attached to this College. Though the said College was not a Government Medical College up to 1-4-1981 the appointments of Registrars in the hospital attached to it were made in accordance with the abovesaid results even prior to 1-4-1981. 4. The petitioner took his M. B. B. S. degree from the Government Medical College at Nagpur in 1980 having cleared the final examination in the first attempt securing 252 marks out of 400 in surgery. He has got himself registered with the Medical Council. He says that he has done two house appointments, one in surgery at a Central Railway Hospital and another in plastic surgery at the Government Medical College, Nagpur. He is also registered for post graduate course in surgery at the I. G. M. College. He has got himself registered with the Medical Council. He says that he has done two house appointments, one in surgery at a Central Railway Hospital and another in plastic surgery at the Government Medical College, Nagpur. He is also registered for post graduate course in surgery at the I. G. M. College. Thus according to him, he holds all the qualifications for being appointed as Registrar to the hospital attached to the I. G. M. College. 5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have passed their final M. B. B. S. examinations from 1. G. M. College securing 247 and 222 marks out of 400 in the subject of surgery. Since respondent No.3 had cleared his final examination in second attempt the marks which he had obtained in surgery were liable to be deducted by 3 per cent and his corrected marks as computed under Rule VI came to 235 out of 400. The petitioner puts them at 227, but this does not appear to be correct in view of what has been stated by the Dean (respondent No.2) in his return. It is not disputed that both these respondents hold all the qualifications laid down in Rule III. 6. In January 1981 the Dean advertised four posts of Registrars in surgery out of which one was reserved for Scheduled Caste and Tribes. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, ant Dr. Agarwal and others applied for these posts. Dr. Agarwal ranked highest in respect or corrected marks in surgery and it seems that he passed his final M. B. B. S. examination from the I. G. M. College. Dr. Agarwal and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been appointed in the three open posts. Though admittedly the petitioner had secured higher marks in surgery than respondent No.4, and would be thus eligible for appointment on the basis for selection prescribed under Rule VI, he has been deprived of the post by virtue of the operation be the role of preference as laid down in Rule V. 7. Stated shortly tile grievance of the petitioner is that the said Rule has been wrongly interpreted and misapplied by the Dean on the assumption that the preference stated therein means institutional preference irrespective of the merit of the candidate as reflected by the marks obtained by him. Stated shortly tile grievance of the petitioner is that the said Rule has been wrongly interpreted and misapplied by the Dean on the assumption that the preference stated therein means institutional preference irrespective of the merit of the candidate as reflected by the marks obtained by him. According to him, the meaning which should be attached to this rules that in case of candidates standing equal in merit, preference would be given to those who have passed their final examination from the Medical College to which the post is attached. He contends further that if this be not the purport of the rule, it is constitutionally vulunerable as offending the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 inasmuch as the classification of candidates institution-wise is not only unreasonable but has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the rules, namely to secure the best talent for the post of Registrar. 8. In their return the State Government and the Dean (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) have made it abundantly clear that first preference is given to candidates who have passed their final M. B. B. B. Examination from the College to which the hospital where the post is to be filled in is attached and second preference is given to other candidates. Thus according to- these respondent" institutional preference referred to in Rule V not only does not Operate to unfasten a tie between equally merited candidates but on the other hand operates irrespective of merit. This construction of the Rule appears to be in consonance, to some extent, with the second para thereof. In fact it appears that two lists are prepared, one of the candidates who have obtained their M. B. B. S. degree through the College where the post is to be filled in and the other of the rest of the candidates and the candidates from the second list are not considered eligible if a candidate is available from the first fist. It is this rule so interpreted and operated which facts for consideration in this petition. 9. Mr. R. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, butterssed the challenge to the said rule by relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, Ginwala J. was party) in Dr. It is this rule so interpreted and operated which facts for consideration in this petition. 9. Mr. R. R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, butterssed the challenge to the said rule by relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, Ginwala J. was party) in Dr. Salish Deopujari v. State of Maharashtra and others1 in which a similar Rule regarding admission to post graduate courses in Government Medical Colleges in this State has been struck down as discriminatory. In fact he urged that the said decision concludes the point in issue in the present case. According to him, the fact that that case related to admission to post-graduate courses while this case relates to appointment for the post of Registrar does not make any difference as the post of Registrar in a hospital attached to a Medical College is meant as a facility to a postgraduate student to pursue his studies more efficiently by acquiring the necessary clinical experience in his subject. Mr. Deshpande says that both stand on par in so far as the principle involved is concerned. In this connection he relied on the averment in the return of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 26-7-1982 to the effect that the appointment of a Registrar is "with a view to give sufficient experience in clinical subject". On the other hand Mr. W. M. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that there could be no comparison between the two cases as they stand on altogether different footing. He urged that selection of a student for admission to post-graduate studies lies in the field of education, while selection of a candidate for appointment as Registrar in a Government hospital is a matter of employment under the State and thus the two occupy altogether different areas. Hence he said that the ruling in Deopujari's case will not govern the facts of the present case. We may, however, examine the issue under consideration on the basis of both these submissions. 10. Under its resolution dated 18-6-1971 the State Government had framed Rules governing admission to post-graduate courses conducted in Government Medical Colleges in the State. Hence he said that the ruling in Deopujari's case will not govern the facts of the present case. We may, however, examine the issue under consideration on the basis of both these submissions. 10. Under its resolution dated 18-6-1971 the State Government had framed Rules governing admission to post-graduate courses conducted in Government Medical Colleges in the State. Rule 5 thereof, provided that selection of students would be on the basis of the marks obtained at the University Examination in the subject which the 'student wishes to take for his post-graduate course modified by deductions for the number of attempts taken to pass that subject as well as the final M. B. B. S. examination. However, this Rule further provided that "While selecting from amongst eligible candidates preference will be given to the students of that college i.e. who passed the final M. B. B. S. examination from that College in broad specialties and their ancillary discipline". In super specialties 50 per cent seats were reserved for students from other colleges. In Deopujari's case (cited supra) this rule, in so far as it related to the preference, was challenged as violative of Article, 14 of the Constitution. After considering various pronouncements of the Supreme Court in similar matters it was held that though the classification of these candidates who had passed their final M.B.B.S. examination from the College where they were, seeking admission as distinct from others was based on intelligible differentia, it lacked the nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely to secure the best possible talent and material for admission in Government Medical Colleges. This Court held that total reservation of seats for this class of students in the guise of the rule of preference was not valid. We are told that this view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the special leave sought by the State Government to appeal to it has been rejected by it. Hence if selection of a student for post-graduate studies stands on the same footing as selection of a candidate for the post of Registrar as submitted by Mr. Deshpande, 'the decision in Deopujari's case will apply with full vigour to the latter as the rule regarding the basis for selection and preference are practically identical in both cases. 11. Hence if selection of a student for post-graduate studies stands on the same footing as selection of a candidate for the post of Registrar as submitted by Mr. Deshpande, 'the decision in Deopujari's case will apply with full vigour to the latter as the rule regarding the basis for selection and preference are practically identical in both cases. 11. We may, however, also examine the question of the validity of the impugned rule independently of the ruling in Deopujari's case on the basis that the appointment of a Registrar is not the same as admitting a student for post-graduate course, as urged by Mr. Sambre. As seen above the Rules besides laying down the conditions for eligibility and modality of selection also make provision for remuneration, tenure, leave, duties, disciplinary control etc. in respect of these posts. In short these Rules are a combined set of rules for recruitment and conditions of service. Rule XII under which the Government has reserved to itself the right of modifying the "conditions of service" at any time during the “tenure of appointment" makes it abundantly, clear that the appointment to the post of Registrar partakes of the nature of service under the State and is for that reason subject to the guarantee enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. The question, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether the Rule regarding preference violates the right of equality preserved under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 12. Article 14 is the genus of which Article 16 (1) is a specie. Both these Articles do not demand absolute or mathematical equality and do not totally forbid classification. They permit it if it conforms to certain recognised norms. It is now well settled that a Classification, in order to survive the rigour of the doctrine of equality, must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of that group and that differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by such classification. Once the classification passes these twin tests it can successfully withstand any onslaught on the ground of violation of tile fundamental right to equality. Once the classification passes these twin tests it can successfully withstand any onslaught on the ground of violation of tile fundamental right to equality. Applying these principles to the right of equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State ingrained in the Constitution by Article 16, it would be apparent that in such matters it would be permissible for, the State to classify citizens provided such classification meets the abovesaid twin tests. It is, now beyond any controversy that Article 16(1) does not totally prohibit the State from making reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office under it and that it is open to the appointing authority to lay down requisite conditions for recruitment to Government service. Selection for appointment in Government service has to be on competitive basis and such selection has to be made from amongst a large number, of candidates offering themselves for Government service. A predetermined selective test, therefore, becomes essential in order to avoid the charge of arbitrariness which is fatal not only to the doctrine of equality but also to the rule of law which our Constitution so jealously guards. Obviously the selective test itself must not be arbitrary. It must be backed by reason. It must have some rational connection with the object of selection namely to enlist the services of persons best suited for the particular post having regard to the nature, of duties and obligations attached to it. It must have some rational relation to the efficiency of service and the efficiency of service can be achieved only by' selecting the best equipped and the most suitable personnel. Let us then see how far the impugned rule stands this test. 13. Going back to the Rules it can be seen that the Registrar has to shoulder quite onerous duties and, responsibilities, as prescribed by Rule X. For all practical purposes he is sort of executive head of the Unit to which he is attached and in the absence of the Head of the Unit or his Assistant he has to look after the whole task assigned to the Unit. He is responsible for the care and treatment of patients under him. He is responsible for the care and treatment of patients under him. The gravity of his job can be judged from the fact that his post is a whole time resident post and he has to reside in the accommodation provided by the hospital authorities. He is not allowed private practice (See Rule IX). The candidate for the post, therefore, has to be a person with a good academic background, since such candidates would be fresh medical graduates and would be selected soon after a spell of housemanship. The test for their relative merit would be their academic performance and brilliance. It is precisely for this reason that Rule VI rightly makes the marks obtained at the University examination in the subject concerned with corrections as provided therein the basis for selection. This selective test stands to reason. It is aimed at securing the most meritorious and. the best possible amongst the numerous candidates. This rule read with Rule III in the very core of the recruitment rules. It is true that Rule IV which provides for reservation in favour of certain backward classes permits some departure from this Rule but that departure is expressly sanctioned by clause (4) of Article 16 itself. The object of the Rules, therefore, as is the object of all recruitment rules, is to secure the best available talent for the service. Having reached this conclusion the next step is to see how far the impugned rule for preference bears any connection with this object. 14. As seen above it is not the case of the respondent that the preference spoken of in Rule V is not preference amongst equally merited candidates but preference carving a class consisting of candidates who have passed their final M. B. B. S. examination from the College to which the hospital where they are to be appointed is attached, as against those who have not. As it is, by virtue of this rule there would be two classes of candidates one of those who have passed the final examination as abovesaid and the other of those who have not. The classification which is clearly based on intelligible differentia, can Pass muster only if it has some rational nexus, connection or relation with the abovesaid object sought to be achieved by the Rules. 15. Respondent Nos. The classification which is clearly based on intelligible differentia, can Pass muster only if it has some rational nexus, connection or relation with the abovesaid object sought to be achieved by the Rules. 15. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seek to justify the classification by making the following averments in their return filed on 26-7-1982. "It maybe pointed out that there is a specific intention of providing this rule. The same is to see that the students of the Parent College are given adequate opportunities to work in clinical subject before they appear for the examination. It may be pointed out that the appointment of Registrars cannot be compared with that of giving registration to post-graduate students for the simple reason that the latter forms an academic matter whereas the former is an appointment with a view to give sufficient experience in clinical subjects. " (See Para 5 of the return) During the course of hearing these respondents filed an additional return on 3-8-1982. By it they have advanced the following grounds for upholding the preferences: "I. A student passing from the same college is very 'much conversant with the atmosphere and working of the college and an his selection he can give better services to the patients. He is not required to start from initial stages. (see para 2) 2. A student after passing his M.B.B.S. examination is appointed as House Officer in the same college. While working as such he is completely guided by his Lecturers and has an opportunity to treat the patients under his guidance, thereafter he is preferred by the same institute for the post of Registrar with the presumption that being conversant with the working of the hospital, Professors, Readers and Lecturers and other staff he will render better services than students who have taken their degree from other institutions. (see para 3) 3. Students from outside are not preferred as there cannot be a proper control over them and if they do not perform their duties properly the whole administration of ward and hospital will collapse. (see para 4) 4. Even in normal course preferenceis required to be given ‘as a natural justice’ to students of the same institutions in theinterest of Patients. It would be disadvantageous to the institution to recruit a person from outside about whom neither the professors not the staff have knowledge. (see para 4) 4. Even in normal course preferenceis required to be given ‘as a natural justice’ to students of the same institutions in theinterest of Patients. It would be disadvantageous to the institution to recruit a person from outside about whom neither the professors not the staff have knowledge. His activities or working can adversely affect the service of the ward and treatment of patients. 5. Professors and other staff can repose confidence in and entrust responsible work to him without any hesitation as he has worked under them for last 5 or 6 years. (see para 5) Let use examine the validity of these averments and grounds. 16. In order to see the force in the reasons given for the preference, a few facts may be noted. Since registration for a post-graduate course is one of the essential conditions of eligibility for appointment, it follows that at the time of their appointment all the Registrars would be post-graduate students. In other words every Registrar is a post-graduate student, though the converse is not true. Secondly under Rule III it is not necessary that the two house appointment must have been done in a hospital attached to the College from where the candidate has obtained his M.B.B.S. degree. This rule itself provides that such job must have been done at any of the teaching or associated recognised hospital." Thirdly it is not the case of the respondents that a similar rule for preference governs the appointment of the teaching staff or other staff in a Government Medical College or hospitals attached to it, or that such staff is not transferable so that a student once admitted to a, Medical College would, learn under the same set of staff throughout their career in it. 17. Now coming to what has been said in the first return, it boils down to this that a student of the present college is preferred in order to give him adequate opportunity to work in the' clinical subject he has chosen for hilt post-graduate course and thus prepare him better for his post-graduate examination. As it is the Registrars working in a teaching hospital would be a section of the larger body of post-graduate students pursuing their course in the college to which such hospital is attached. As it is the Registrars working in a teaching hospital would be a section of the larger body of post-graduate students pursuing their course in the college to which such hospital is attached. By this device of preference a smaller section of only those post-graduate students who have graduated from the same college is carved out of the larger body of post-graduate students with a view to give to the former better facilities for prosecuting their post-graduate studies. If that be so, what is the rationale behind this mini-classification? Will it not amount to discrimination against those post-graduate students who were not lucky enough to have secured admission for their graduation course in that college or at least to have prosecuted part of their pre-graduation course leading, to the final M.B.B.S. examination in that college? This classification depends merely on the fortuitous event of a given candidate obtaining his degree from a particular college. If the post of Registrar is meant “to give sufficient experience in clinical subjects" there is no plausible reason why this facility should be given only to those post-graduate students who have taken their M.B.B.S. degree from that very college to the exclusion of other possible meritorious students. As seen above in Deopujari's case this Court has struck down the rule regarding preference in relation to admission for post-graduate courses on the ground that it has no nexus with the object sought, to be achieved by the rules namely to secure the best talent for the course. If the reason behind the rule regarding preference in appointment to the post of Registrar is in fact what has been stated in the first return, this rule would also suffer from the lame vice as the former rule and the ratio in Deopujari's case can be extended to it and it can be struck down on the same principle. 18. Let us now examine the grounds which are urged in the additional return which have been summarised in para 15 above. It is significant to note that these grounds do not find: place in the first return. Had these been the real reasons on which the impugned rule was founded they would have been prominently placed in the first return. Apart from this they can hardly stand a closer scrutiny. It is significant to note that these grounds do not find: place in the first return. Had these been the real reasons on which the impugned rule was founded they would have been prominently placed in the first return. Apart from this they can hardly stand a closer scrutiny. What is urged under the first ground applies, if at all it does to the selection, for the post of Registrar only and not to other staff attached to the hospital which in the very nature of its being in Government service would be transferable and a floating. If the criterion of giving better service to the patients on account of being conversant with the working and atmosphere of the hospital does not apply to the other staff it is difficult to see why it-should be insisted upon in the case of the Registrars only. Besides this the questions whether the working and atmosphere of one Government hospital is so different from the other that the newly appointed Registrar must of necessity devote much of his initial time in adjusting to the same. One can easily see that the routine in one such hospital is not much different from the other. It is pertinent to note in this connection that no such familiarity with the working of the hospital seems to be insisted upon for the job of a Houseman which can be done in any teaching or recognised hospital. The first ground, therefore, has no substance. 19. The very premise on which the second ground is based is wrong. As seen above it is not necessary that the Houseman's job must have been done, in the same hospital. It is not that after passing his M.B.B.S. examination every candidate will be offered House Job in the same institution. A few may be lucky to have it, but others have to search for it in other recognised hospitals. The petitioner in the present case is a living example of the same. He has done one House job in a Central Railway Hospital and another in the hospital attached to the Government Medical College. It is not the case of the respondents. That the petitioner is not qualified as he has not done the two house jobs in the hospital attached to I.G.M. College, though they contend that he has done only one house job and not the requisite two. It is not the case of the respondents. That the petitioner is not qualified as he has not done the two house jobs in the hospital attached to I.G.M. College, though they contend that he has done only one house job and not the requisite two. There is, therefore, no force in this ground either. 20. It is difficult to understand the third ground It is not dear how a better control can be exercised on a Registrar who has graduated from the College to which the hospital where be works is attached than on one who has not. Surely it is not suggested that there are different rules for disciplinary control in respect of these two categories, one being more efficient than the other. We see no substance in this ground. 21. As regards the fourth and fifth grounds, it is not possible to see how natural justice comes into play and gives a right of preference in the matter of appointment to a post under the State. The rest of these grounds also do not stand to reason as the professors and other sta1f.in a given College is not permanently attached to it so as to lend an assurance to the fact that the Registrar would have to work under the same staff under whom he had learnt during his pre-graduate career. 22. It is not difficult to see how harsh this rule will work against a candidate with much better academic record than of one who has been selected purely because he has done his M.B.B.S. course from that College. The latter would be selected in preference to the former on the basis of a factor which has absolutely nothing to do with his educational qualifications or merit. Academic performance and brilliance cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a fortuitous circumstance of passing final M.B.B.S. examination from a particular College. In view of what we have observed above we find that there is no rational nexus between the classification sought to be made by the impugned rule and the object sought to be achieved by the Rules and hence in our opinion the first para of Rule V violates guarantee of equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16(1) of the Constitution. 23. The next question is whether the rest of the rule as contained in the second para can stand. 23. The next question is whether the rest of the rule as contained in the second para can stand. There appears to be some confusion in so far as the opening part of this para regarding the second preference is concerned. If strictly construed it will mean that if any posts are vacant after selecting candidates under the first preference i.e. candidates who have passed their final M.B.B.S. examination from the College to which the hospital where they are to be appointed, second preference will be given to candidates who have passed the said examination from Government Medical College affiliated to other Universities in this State. This means that if there are more than one Government Medical Colleges affiliated to the University to which the College where the post of the Registrar is to be filled in, is affiliated a candidate passing his final M.B.B.S. examination from such other Government Medical College, affiliated the same University will not be given a second preference but will be put in the last category. To illustrate this we may state to that there are two Government Medical Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University, namely, Government Medical College, Nagpur and I. G. M. College, Nagpur. Under the impugned Rule first preference will be given to candidate who has passed the said examination from I. G. M. College if appointment is to be made in hospital attached to that College. But a candidate graduating from the Government Medical College, Nagpur will not be given second preference for this post because it can be given only to those candidates who have graduated from a Government Medical College "affiliated to other Universities in the Maharashtra State". The word 'other' has to be rioted. Perhaps it has been put in a wrong place. At any rate the rule regarding the second preference as it stands does not only not make any sense but it is devoid of any reason whatsoever. It passes our comprehension as to why a candidate who has graduated from a Government Medical College affiliated to a University other than the University to which the College where the appointment is made, is affiliated should be preferred to one who bas graduated from a Government Medical College affiliated to the same University. It is difficult to see what difference this makes. It is difficult to see what difference this makes. This part of the Rule has therefore, to be struck down because it unreasonably deprives the latter class of candidates of equality of opportunity in the matter of appointment to the post of Registrar. At any rate this part of the Rule can stand and make some sense if the rule regarding the first preference is upheld. Since we have found against the constitutional validity of that part of the Rule, this part also will have to be struck down. Hence the whole of Rule V is held to be constitutionally invalid as offending the right of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16. In this view of the matter we find that the petitioner has been wrongly rejected from being appointed Registrar in Surgery in the I.G.M. College. 24. In para 12 of the first return it has been urged by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as he has not done two house appointment. In para 3 of the petition the petitioner has averred that he has completed two house jobs of 6 months duration each, one in Central Railway Hospital which is recognised by the Indian Medical Council and ·the other at Government Medical College, Nagpur, the former in surgery and the latter in plastic surgery. Since the petitioner had not stated the place of the Central Railway Hospital in para 3 of the return the respondents said that the petitioner had not done this house job at a teaching hospital or associated recognised hospital. But further on in the same para these respondents say that as per office record the petitioner has completed 6 month house job in surgery from 1-2-1981 to 31-7-1981, at Central Railway Hospital, Nagpur which is recognised by Indian Medical Council of India. They do not deny that he had done second house job in plastic surgery at Government Medical College, Nagpur. Hence though some confusion was created because of the, petitioner omitting to name the place where the Railway Hospital is situated, it stands clarified by the last sentence in para 3 of the return. There is, therefore, no difficulty in holding that the petitioner has done two house jobs in the subject concerned as required by Rule III and hence is qualified to be appointed. 25. There is, therefore, no difficulty in holding that the petitioner has done two house jobs in the subject concerned as required by Rule III and hence is qualified to be appointed. 25. The upshot of the whole discussion, therefore, is that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Registrar in surgery in I.G. M. College in the post in which respondent No.4 has been appointed. It may be stated here that on 2-4-1982 when this petition was admitted this Court had directed that respondent No.4 should be informed that her appointment would be subject to the result of this petition. She did not appear and contest the claim of the petitioner. Her appointment will have to be quashed as a sequel to the result of this petition .... " 26. Tile result, therefore, is that the petition is allowed, Rule V is hereby quashed, the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Registrar in Surgery in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur is hereby set aside and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner in the said post forthwith with effect from the date on which respondent No. 4 was appointed to it. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.