G.M. LODHA, J.-The Judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur accepting the appeal of Dr. Ishwari Prasad Garg is under challenge in these two writ petitions, which have been filed on identical grounds by the State of Rajasthan and Dr. H.K. Sharma. Though, detailed, prolonged and lengthy arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy centres round the interpretation of the relevant rules. It is not in dispute that Dr. Ishwari Prasad Garg was working as Reader in Anaesthesia in the year 1974 and was substantively appointed as Reader on 11/7/1975. 2. In the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan as well as Dr. Sharma it has been challenged that though he was sent to Iran vide order dated 10/7/1975, in which it has been mentioned that he was being sent on deputation; but in fact, the word "deputation was misnomer and he was never sent on deputation. 3. It is not disputed that he came back and reported on duty on 26/8/1979. During this period, Dr. O.P. Garg and Dr. H.K. Sharma, who were earlier working as Readers in Anaesthesia were promoted to the post of Professor. 4. When Dr. Garg came back, he was ordered to be posted as Reader by order dated 23/6/1979 at Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer. Dr. I.P. Garg was aggrieved by this order as in his opinion he fulfilled all the conditions for becoming a Professor and, therefore, he should have been considered for this post, and since he was not considered, the orders for promoting Dr. O.P. Garg and Dr. H.K. Sharma as Professor in Anaesthesia were bad in law and liable to be quashed. Hence, he filed appeal. 5. One Dr. Maya Tandon, respondent No. 4, intervened. 6. The Government sought the advice of the University as to whether the experience in Iran may be computed towards educational experience while giving promotion. The University of Rajasthan replied in affirmative in favour of Dr. I.P. Garg. The State made reference to the Medical Council of India on the same point. The Medical Council gave a contrary opinion. 7. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the deputation was sanctioned by the Government under Rules 143 and 51 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and, therefore, he was eligible for the benefit of the experience gained in Iran. The Medical Council gave a contrary opinion. 7. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the deputation was sanctioned by the Government under Rules 143 and 51 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and, therefore, he was eligible for the benefit of the experience gained in Iran. The Tribunal further held that the certificate issued by "Red Lion and Sons Society" of Iran was admissible in evidence and therefore, Rule 142 was complied with and he was entitled for promotion under Rule 35 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as his period spent in Iran should be treated as on duty. 8. The Tribunal further held that the experience laid down in the Rules of 1962 (Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962-to be referred as the Rules of 1962 hereinafter), should be prescribed by the Rajasthan University and the opinion of the Medical Council was not relevant. The Tribunal placed reliance on Rule 23 (1) of the Rules of 1962 and held that the appellant was eligible for promotion. 9. Both Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharma counsel for the appellant have challenged the above findings on various grounds. It is not in dispute that the qualifications and experience prescribed for the post of Professor which is to be filled up 100% by promotion is as under:— REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIAL ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AND TEACHING/RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Post Academic qualification Teaching experience ANAESTHESIOLOGY (a) Professor M.D./M.S. (Anaesthesiology) F.F.A R.C.S. Specially Board Anesthesiology (USA) M.D./M.R C.P./F.R.C.P. or M.S./ F.R.C S. with D.A., M.R.C.P./F.R.C.S. (with Anesthesiology as a Special subject) or an equivalent qualification. As Associate Professor, Asstt. Professor, Lecturer in Anesthesiology for five years in a Medical College after requisite recognised post-graduate degree or an equivalent qualification. Of these five years at least three years must be as Associate Professor or Reader. 10. This experience has been prescribed by the University of Rajasthan and is applicable on account of Rule 23 (1) of the Rules of 1962. 11. It would thus be seen that the prescribing authority for qualification and experience is the University of Rajasthan. 12. The crucial controversy is about teaching experience as mentioned in Clause (3) of the above Schedule. Here again the important requirement is that he must have remained as Associate Professors Asstt. 11. It would thus be seen that the prescribing authority for qualification and experience is the University of Rajasthan. 12. The crucial controversy is about teaching experience as mentioned in Clause (3) of the above Schedule. Here again the important requirement is that he must have remained as Associate Professors Asstt. Professor, Lecturer in Anesthesiology for five years in a Medical Colleges after requisite recognised post-graduate degree or an equivalent qualifications. Of these five years at least three years must be as Associate Professor or Reader. 13. It is not disputed that if the period spent by respondent Dr. Garg is not counted, he cannot be treated to be eligible for being considered for the post of Professor in Anesthesiology. 14. Mr. Khan & Mr. Sharma both submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that respondent Dr. Garg gained experience as Reader in Anaesthesiology in any Medical College in Iran during this period and the certificate submitted by him is absolutely unauthentic being of a private organisation and cannot be accepted as it has not been verified or countersigned by the Iran Government, or any authorised office of the State. Mr. Mantri controverted it by saying that the certificate was authentic because it was issued under the seal of the Government of Iran. 15. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to enter into this controversy because I am of the opinion that the entire case depends upon the interpretation of the Note appended to Rule 3, definition clause, of the Rules of 1962. Note appended to Rule 3 of the Rules of 1962 reads as under :— "Note—Absences during service e.g. training and deputation which are treated as "duty" under the R.S.R., shall also be counted as service for computing minimum experience or service required for promotion." 16. The Note expressly mentions that the absence during service e.g. training and deputation which are treated as "duty" under the R.S.R., shall also be counted as service for computing minimum experience or service required for promotion. 17. In the Rajasthan Service Rules, Rule 7 (8) defines "duty". Clause (b) of Rule 7(8) provides that Government may issue orders declaring that in the following circumstances or in circumstances similar thereto a Government servant may be treated as on duty (i) during a course of instruction or training in India. 17. In the Rajasthan Service Rules, Rule 7 (8) defines "duty". Clause (b) of Rule 7(8) provides that Government may issue orders declaring that in the following circumstances or in circumstances similar thereto a Government servant may be treated as on duty (i) during a course of instruction or training in India. The question is whether period spent by the petitioner in Iran can be treated to be on duty. In Rule 51 of these rules it has been expressly mentioned that when a Government servant is, with proper sanction, temporarily deputed for duty out of India either in connection with the post held by him in India or in connection with any special duty on which he may be temporarily placed, his pay and allowances, shall be regulated ordinarily in accordance with rules applicable to officers of the Government of India. Provided that a Government servant, who is placed on deputation while already on leave out of India on average pay, may be required by the President to continue to be on leave in which case he shall be given during that period, in addition to his leave salary, an honorarium of one sixth of the pay which he would have drawn had he remained on duty in India; the cost of passages from and to India shall be borne by him. 18. Annexure/2, order dated 10/7/1975, issued by the Secretary to the Government to the Director, Medical & Health Services expressly mentions that the Government granted sanction for the deputation of Dr. L.P. Garg, Reader in Anesthesiology to Iran. This was done under Item No. 8 of Appendix IX of the Rajasthan Service Rules, No. I. II Appendix IX, which has been framed with reference to rule 7(6)(2), expressly mentions that the administrative Department of the Government can sanction under section 7 (8) (b) in exercise of the power to issue orders that the Government servant in the instant case will be treated on duty. 19. In the instant case, the order was issued and the sanction of the Government was conveyed for deputation of Dr. Garg. It was mentioned in the order that during the period of foreign assignment a permanent Government servant will retain his lien on permanent post which he held substantively, but for the assignment. 20. This order is being challenged both by Mr. Garg. It was mentioned in the order that during the period of foreign assignment a permanent Government servant will retain his lien on permanent post which he held substantively, but for the assignment. 20. This order is being challenged both by Mr. Sharma and Mr, Khan on the ground that though word "deputation" has been used, but it is misnomer and the Government was not competent under the rules to send Dr. Garg on deputation nor he was in fact sent on deputation. It was argued that no deputation allowance was given. 21. It was further contended that he can be treated on duty for the limited purpose of pension and Note 8 appended to Rule 51 was referred to in particular, in which it was mentioned that Government servant selected for the foreign assignment will be governed by the following terms and conditions. He would not be entitled to receive pay and allowances from State Government but shall receive it from the foreign Government. The lien shall not be retained beyond a period of three years. It has been mentioned in this Note that henceforth the applications shall be forwarded to the Government of India. The following conditions should be kept in view and the applications of only such permanent Government servant should be forwarded as are approved by the Administrative Department This Note has been appended on 31st December, 1974, that is, earlier to 10th July, 1974. 22. If this Note is given effect to it must be held that as soon as the letter, Annexure 2, was issued it must have been kept in view by the Government and the word deputation must have been used after the foreign assignment was approved because in the absence of that the application could not have been forwarded and the order could not have been issued. 23. I am of the considered opinion, that where the sanction has been given by the Government and the letter has been issued by the Secretary to the Government, a presumption must be drawn that all these conditions which are mentioned in the rule and the Note appended thereto, were strictly followed. 24. 23. I am of the considered opinion, that where the sanction has been given by the Government and the letter has been issued by the Secretary to the Government, a presumption must be drawn that all these conditions which are mentioned in the rule and the Note appended thereto, were strictly followed. 24. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the word "deputation" used in this letter is misnomer or it has been used without knowing its implications, or that the requisite conditions for sending on deputation were not in existence, and therefore, the letter should be treated as invalid for this purpose. 25. I am also of the opinion that this letter of 1975, on the basis of which Dr. Garg, was sent on deputation to Iran, cannot be questioned in the year 1982, and all the more it sounds odd when the Government, author of the document tries to disown or makes an effort to wriggle out of it. It is neither fair nor proper for the Government to try to disown its own child at this late stage, when the respondent has acted upon and gone to Iran and stayed there for some time. 26. I have not been informed that any corrections were made by of corrigendum or withdrawal of this letters, nor I have been shown that it was done unauthorised. It is too late in the day now to become wise in 1982, in order to disown the specific deputation permitted by this letter dated 10-7-1975. It is not for this Court to inquire or ascertain, adjudicate or decide what was being done by the Doctor concerned in Iran, because as pointed out by Shri Sharma that Note 8 itself shows that it was the duty of the Government to forward such applications for deputation only after verifying them, when he is approved for foreign assignment by the Government in the Administrative Department. 27. The crucial question which arises now for consideration is whether the Note appended to Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1962 is to be given effect to for the purpose of computation of period and experience, including the period of experience gained in Iran for treating respondent Dr. Garg as qualified having the requisite experience for being promoted to the post of Professor. Garg as qualified having the requisite experience for being promoted to the post of Professor. A bare reading of the Note admits of no doubt that once the period of experience of Dr. Grag in Iran is treated as on duty, it shall also be counted as service for computing minimum experience or service required for promotion. In my opinion, this is a legal fiction introduced in this rule by the introduction of this Note in order to avoid all controversies as to what particular function and work a Government servant was doing in the foreign countries, while he was sent there on some assignment or deputation. 28. The plenary powers of the State to frame these Rules in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be challenged and has not been challenged. I am, therefore, not required to decide the validity of these Rules. 29. The Rule, as it stands, clearly shows that the period spent by Dr. Garg, respondent, in Iran would be included in the period of experience in Column 3 of Schedule mentioned above. 30. If this is done, then I am of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on this score cannot be successfully assailed before this Court. 31. Both Mr. Khan and Mr. Sharma laid emphasise on the principles laid down in State of Bihar vs. Sashi Kumar (1). The question raised there was undoubtedly of great importance and the observations made therein regarding the teaching experience admits of no doubt and debate. It may be that by this judgment so far as the question of teaching experience requirement is concerned the earlier judgment in Chaturvedis case might have been watered down, and it now expressly laid down the principles on the subject. 32. The crucial question still remains that the deeming provision and introduction by legal fiction in the Rules of 1962, wherein by virtue of Note appended to it, the period is to be counted for experience was not in existence in the Controversy in Ashish Kumars case. The judgment of Ashish Kumars case, therefore cannot resolve the controversy which we have got for interpreting this Note. 33. The judgment of Ashish Kumars case, therefore cannot resolve the controversy which we have got for interpreting this Note. 33. Shri Mantri, on the contrary, relied upon an authority of this Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1970 SCC (1) 75, in which the question related to some anomaly between qualifications and experience mentioned in the Rajasthan Medical Council Rules, 1962 and University Ordinance No. 65. This Court as well as the Supreme Court was of the opinion that only the University can made a grievance for this non-fulfilment of the qualifications laid down by it and not a third party. The question of directory and mandatory nature of the qualifications was also discussed 34. Assuming that the qualifications and experience mentioned in the Schedule are mandatory, but undoubtedly the University itself has opined that Dr. Garg, respondent, fulfills the qualifications for becoming a Professor and he has also got experience by including the experience gained in Iran. The controversy raised before this Court was that the letter produced by the respondent before the Tribunal was of Deputy Registrar, who was no authority to convey this opinion. Firstly, it is not for this Court to decide now in the writ jurisdiction as to who is competent authority for issuing such a letter because when the matter was in issue before the Tribunal, both the petitioners were at liberty and it was possible to produce and document contrary to it, from the other authorities of the University or at least to produce some letter from the University higher authorities to show that the Deputy Registrar was not competent to issue a certificate or certifying the experience of the University of Iran and, that having not been done, before the Tribunal where the case remained pending for quite sometime, it is now too late to mention and reopen the issue. Secondly, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Registrar of the University is also one of the functionaries, and unless shown otherwise, he is competent to convey the authentic views of the University. 35. It was then pointed out that the Tribunal has not given due importance to the opinion of the Medical Council. This criticism appears to be correct. I am of the opinion that the opinion and views of the Medical Council are certainly relevant, and cannot be treated as redundant or irrelevant. 35. It was then pointed out that the Tribunal has not given due importance to the opinion of the Medical Council. This criticism appears to be correct. I am of the opinion that the opinion and views of the Medical Council are certainly relevant, and cannot be treated as redundant or irrelevant. However, that takes us nowhere in the present case because of the Rules and the Note appended to the rule mentioned above. Obviously, the Note appended to Rules of 1962, reproduced above, clinches the issue and the opinion of the Medical Council may or may not be correct; as when by legislative enactment by introducing legal fiction and deeming provision a competent legislative authority expressly and unequivocally authorises to permit and compute all the period of foreign assignment, or foreign service or of deputation in foreign countries to be treated and computed in the experience of service that is the end of the matter. 36. It is not possible to probe into the wisdom of the legislative authority, not can be held that this note in spite of it having been enacted by competent authority under proviso to Article 309 is of no consequence and should be ignored. In my view, it has to be given due weight and occupy the field of these Rules of 1962, which have been enacted in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are to be kept at a higher pedestal. 37. In fact, it is only on account of these Rules of 1962, and more specifically Rule 23 that the University has been authorised to lay down the qualifications and experience. If that is so, the primary Rules are Rules of 1962 and the University frames and prescribes the qualifications and experience in order to be applicable to the promotions, recruitments of Doctor only by way of authorised agent under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1962. 38. That being so, the University is the delegated authority and the real repository of powers for the purpose of framing or laying down the qualifications and experience for appointment and recruitment of the Doctors and Professor is Rule 23 of the Rules of 1962. Note to rule 2 of these Rules of 1962 has got a prime place, and if I may as so, has got primacy, overall other Rules or provisions and I hold accordingly. 39. Note to rule 2 of these Rules of 1962 has got a prime place, and if I may as so, has got primacy, overall other Rules or provisions and I hold accordingly. 39. A word about the Rule 3 of Chapter 7 under Head, "Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutics at Page 190 of the Hand Book of University of Rajasthan, may also be mentioned here. For teachers in Medical Colleges for MBBS and Post graduate course it has been mentioned that the basic qualifications of teachers must be equivalent qualification entered in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in the non-clinical department. It was thus pointed out that the teachers in the Medical Colleges must possess postgraduate qualifications in the respective subject. In case of post-graduate qualifications of other Universities and statutory bodies, these must be recognised by the Medical Council of India. As I have already stated above, Indian Medical Council has got a say in the matter and the qualifications entered in the Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are to be treated as the basic qualifications. 40. However, I find that it has not been placed on record before us that there is any Schedule attached to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, by which the qualification and experience, which is in the controversy in this case, has been prescribed by the Indian Medical Council. Contrary to it, sub-clause 6 of page 191 clearly shows that the present qualifications which I have reproduced above, has been prescribed by the University of Rajasthan. 41. It will be pertinent to note that in clause (6) it has been mentioned that in case of difficulties cases may be considered on individual merits by the University in consultation with the Medical Council of India. This goes to show that this qualification has been provided by the University and University alone. That being so, the emphasis laid by Mr. Khan in respect of clause (1) regarding the basis requirements to be prescribed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 loses its relevance in the present controversy. 42. As discussed above, for the purpose of the present case, we are governed by Rule 23 of Rules of 1962, which mentions that persons to be appointed as Professor will have both experience and qualifications as prescribed. 43. 42. As discussed above, for the purpose of the present case, we are governed by Rule 23 of Rules of 1962, which mentions that persons to be appointed as Professor will have both experience and qualifications as prescribed. 43. I am, therefore, convinced that the petitioners have got no prima facie case requiring consideration and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed summarily. There would be no order as to costs.