JUDGMENT : S.B. Sinha, J. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari setting aside the ORDER :dated 17.8.1985 contained in Annexure-31 by which the petitioner has not been found eligible for regular absorption on the teaching post in the Shrikrishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur, hereinafter referred to as the College. (b) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the period of clinical teaching by the petitioner in the College right from 22.8.1972 until 7.9.1978 when the petitioner was posted as Blood Bank Officer as teaching experience. (c) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the period from 9.3.1956 until 5.8.1959 as the petitioner was doing the teaching work in Darbhanga Medical College. (d) Issuance of a direction ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the resp6ndents to treat the period from 15.3.1963 to 14.3.1964 as the period during which also the petitioner did medical teaching in Branch hospital. (e) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his regular absorption in the college on the basis of the entire period being treated as teaching in favour of the petitioner. (f) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make regular posting of the petitioner as Associate Professor/Professor on the basis of the aforesaid teaching experience. (g) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or appropriate declaration that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the teaching experience for the period he did actually work either in the college or in any other medical institution, including the Darbhanga Medical College and Frenchaya Hospital. (h) Issuance of a direction, ORDER :or appropriate declaration that the petitioner's case even after the ORDER :of this Hon'ble Court contained in Annexure-30 has neither been properly put before the Screening Committee nor considered by the Screening Committee. (i) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled in law. 2. Although various facts have been pleaded by the petitioner but for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. (i) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled in law. 2. Although various facts have been pleaded by the petitioner but for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice is to say that the petitioner claims teaching experience on various counts. Firstly he submits that he obtained teaching experience while he was on Supy duty as a medical officer from March 1956 to October, 1956. He further claims teaching experience as an Anaesthesist which duty he performed from October, 1956 to 30th June, 1958. The petitioner further claims teaching experience on the basis of the job he performed in United Kingdom while he was on study leave i.e. from 15th March, 1963 to 14th March, 1964. The petitioner further claims teaching experience with effect from 5.2.75 to 15.8.75, 15.8.75 to 15.7.77 and 20th January, 76 onwards while he was holding the post of Reader. 3. By reason of the ORDER :impugned in this writ petition as contained in Annexure-31 thereto the petitioner has been granted teaching experience only for two years, five months and thirteen days i.e. from 22.8.72 to 4.2.75. The petitioner has been denied the teaching experience thereby from 15.8.75 to 7.9.78. 4. The petitioner in this writ petition has annexed various documents for the purpose of showing that the period during which he did the actual teaching job or he was posted on teaching post had not been taken into consideration by the authorities concerned while counting his teaching experience. From a perusal of the aforementioned ORDER :as contained in Annexure-31 to the writ petition it would appear that the petitioner was denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor only on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum teaching experience for a period of three years. The certificates referred to above in this petition inter alia are the certificates granted by the Superintendent, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital dt. 30.6.58 (Annexure 1) and certificate dt. 23.6.76 granted by the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai as contained in Annexure 1/1 and the documents showing formation of units and distribution of beds at Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur dt. 18.5.77 as contained in Annexure 20, the certificate dt. 30.6.58 (Annexure 1) and certificate dt. 23.6.76 granted by the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai as contained in Annexure 1/1 and the documents showing formation of units and distribution of beds at Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur dt. 18.5.77 as contained in Annexure 20, the certificate dt. 20th January, 1978 issued by the Superintendent Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur as contained in Annexure-21/1, the certificate dated 6.3.78 issued by the Principal of Shri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur as also a letter dated 9.8.80 issued by the Principal of Shri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur as contained in Annexure-21/3. The petitioner has also put reliance upon the certificate granted by Sri Chaturajan Jha the Deputy Secretary of the State of Bihar, Health Department dt. 28.1.75 and also the arrangements of unit dt. 11.10.76 issued by Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur for the purpose of showing that as the petitioner was also performing teaching job in the said Hospital at the relevant time and has been doing the Clinical teaching job therein. The petitioner contends that although (sic) view of the existence of aforementioned certificates it would appear that the petitioner actually did the teaching job during the period mentioned in the various certificates and letters referred to above but the same were not taken into consideration at the time of passing of the impugned ORDER :. The petitioner annexed all these documents for the purpose of showing that he did actual teaching work and held various teaching posts and as such he was entitled to the teaching experience. 5. The petitioner further submits that although he along with Dr. Deen Dayal Singh was promoted on the same day as Deputy Superintendent of the Hospital for which reliance has been placed upon the ORDER :of promotion as contained in the notification dt. 1.8.75 (Annexure 14) to the writ petition, it is submitted that although Dr. Deen Dayal Singh has been given the teaching experience (vide Annexure-33) which he allegedly gained while holding the post of Deputy Superintendent but such privilege was denied to the petitioner although he had also undertaken the job of teaching while he was posted as Deputy Superintendent. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore submits that there has been a hostile discrimination by the State as against the petitioner and not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therefore submits that there has been a hostile discrimination by the State as against the petitioner and not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has drawn my attention to the proceedings of the meeting of the Screening Committee constituted by the Health Department, Government of Bihar. He submitted that the name of Dr. Deen Dayal Singh appeared in the list of the first Screening Committee itself wherefrom it would appear that he has been given the teaching experience for working in Magadh Medical College, Gaya. Learned Advocate General further submitted that admittedly the post of Deputy Superintendent and the post of Medical Officer were not the teaching post and as such the experience gathered by any person while holding such post cannot be treated for the purpose of counting the teaching experience. He further submits that so far as Dr. Deen Deyal Singh is concerned as he has been found to have actually been working on the teaching side, while he held the post of Deputy Superintendent, the Screening Committee rightly gave the aforementioned benefit in his favour. Learned Advocate General further draws my attention to Annexure-6 of the aforementioned proceedings of the Screening Committee and submits that therefrom it would appear that the petitioner's name was not included in the list of persons whose cases have not been considered by the Committee. 8. Learned Advocate General has further drawn my attention to the various documents as contained in Annexure-A, B and B/1. Annexure-A is the minutes of meeting of the proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 3.8.82. It appears that the petitioner was not given the teaching experience from 15.8.75 while he held the post of Deputy Superintendent as the said post was considered as an administrative one. It further appears that he has not been given the teaching experience dated 16.1.76 while he held the post of Reader in Surgery Department as he did not obtain prior permission for doing the said work. It further appears that he has not been given the teaching experience dated 16.1.76 while he held the post of Reader in Surgery Department as he did not obtain prior permission for doing the said work. It further appears that he was also not considered for the purpose of counting the teaching experience on the ground that the post of Deputy Superintendent and Medical Officer in the Blood Bank Department being not teaching post, no teaching experience can be granted to the person holding such post. Learned Advocate General has further drawn my attention to the fact that in the minutes of the meeting contained in the report of the second Screening Committee a decision was taken therein that the petitioner can be given the teaching experience only from the period 22.8.72 to 4.2.75. It has further been brought to my notice that by Annexure-B which is a letter dated 9.9.80 a query was made from the Principal of Shrikrishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur as to whether the petitioner actually did any teaching job from 14.8.75 to 15.8.78 and in reply thereto the Principal in his letter dated 19.9.80 (Annexure B/1) stated that there was no official records available in respect thereof. The Principal further in the aforementioned letter said that as the post of the Deputy Superintendent and Medical Officer of Blood Bank Department were not teaching posts the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit so far as gaining the teaching experience is concerned because he held the post at the relevant time. In reply to the learned Advocate General's contention as aforementioned Dr. Jha submitted that from Annexure-A itself it would appear that the reasons assigned in not considering the case of the petitioner were wholly irrelevant as would be evident from item nos. Gha, Cha and Ja of the minutes of the meeting as contained in Annexure-A. He submitted that the considerations which weighed with the members of the Screening Committee were wholly irrelevant and in that view of the matter the entire ORDER :impugned which is based on the aforementioned decision of the Screening Committee must be held to be vitiated in law. 9. 9. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioner actually did the teaching jobs in various period as referred to hereinbefore and in respect whereof various certificates and letters issued by the appropriate authorities have been produced before this Court and particularly the certificates and letters which have referred to above hereinbefore in detail. The stand of the State appears to be that so far as Dr. Deen Dayal Singh is concerned, the teaching experience has been given to him while he held the post of Deputy Superintendent only on the ground that he actually did the job but while considering the case of the petitioner the authorities had all along reminded themselves that the post of Deputy Superintendent and the Medical Officer Blood Bank were not teaching posts. There cannot be any reason whatsoever to discriminate the petitioner vis- a-vis Dr. Deen Dayal Singh inasmuch as if the teaching experience can be granted to him on the basis of his performance of teaching duties, there is no reason why the same should be denied to the petitioner. The letter of the Principal dated 19.9.80 and as contained in Annexure-B/1 thereto does not inspire confidence. From the said letter it would appear that the answer to the query made in the letter dated 9.9.80 as contained in Annexure-B was not specific. He in fact sought to give reply merely saying that no written records were available with the department. The very fact that the Principal of the College and the Superintendent of the Hospital have granted certificates to the petitioner from time to time there was no reason as to why he could not refer to the said certificates granted by them for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner actually did the teaching jobs or not. From the writ petition it appears that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation which is contained in Annexure-32 to the writ petition. In that representation the petitioner has given the detailed history of his service career with particular reference to the post held by them which was either teaching posts at the relevant time or the period during which be actually undertook the teaching job. In that representation the petitioner has given the detailed history of his service career with particular reference to the post held by them which was either teaching posts at the relevant time or the period during which be actually undertook the teaching job. From the ORDER :s impugned it would appear and as has been referred to hereinbefore that the respondents were swayed away by the fact that the post of Deputy Superintendent and the Medical Officer in the Blood Bank Department were not teaching posts and keeping in view and that fact the teaching experience was denied to the petitioner from the period 15.8.75 to 7.9.78. Dr. Jha has referred to various decisions wherein Doctors are said to have gained the teaching experience while they performed the Supy duty of as Registrar in the Medical College in England but in my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. 10. From what has been found hereinbefore, I am of the view that the impugned ORDER :as contained in Annexure-I has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant facts and wholly irrelevant factors has been taken into consideration in passing the said ORDER :. I am further of the view that the petitioner has been discriminated against inasmuch as although teaching experience has been credited to Dr. Deen Dayal Singh while he held the post of Dy. Superintendent but the same was denied to the petitioner. 11. In this connection it may also he noted that the post of Dy. Superintendent has been made a non-teaching post from 15.1.77 as would be evident from Annexure-19 and as such there is no reason as to why the teaching experience which was gained by the petitioner prior should not be taken into consideration. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the ORDER :dt. 16.6.85 (Annexure-31) to this writ petition is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-32 to the writ petition, by a speaking ORDER :keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore and in accordance with law. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the ORDER :dt. 16.6.85 (Annexure-31) to this writ petition is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-32 to the writ petition, by a speaking ORDER :keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore and in accordance with law. As the petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation on the expiry of December, 1987 the respondents are hereby directed to dispose of the representation within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the ORDER :.