JUDGMENT 1. S.N. Bhargava, J. - In these two writ petitions, common questions are involved and, therefore, they can be disposed of by this common order. 2. The Director of National Institute of Ayurved notified an advertisement on 1-12-1982 inviting applications for direct recruitment on various vacant posts including the post of Laboratory Technicians. The qualifications with regard to the post of Laboratory Technician were as under: The petitioners in pursuance of the said advertisement applied for the post of Laboratory Technicians and they were duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the Rules. S/Shri Madhu Sudan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar Tiwari were given appointment vide order dated 31-5-1984 as Laboratory Technicians though their names were below the names of the petitioners. A representation was submitted by the petitioners and other candidates who were higher in order of merit and thereafter, the petitioners were also appointed vide order dated 11-9-1985 on probation for a period of two years as per Rule 34 of the National Institute of Ayurved Service Rules, 1982, here in after referred to as the 'Rules'. Curiously enough, service of petitioners were terminated vide order dated 31-1-1986 (Anx. 4). The petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 238 and 239 of 1986 which were allowed by this Court on 19th May, 1986 and the order dated 31st January. 1986 was set aside, since the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity, what so ever, and being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The non-petitioners, in that writ petition, had contended that since the petitioners did not fulfil the requirement of experience and submitted false certificates for having acquired the experience, their service were terminated, because in the appointment order itself, it was made clear that if any declaration or information furnished by the candidate is found to be false, he will be liable to removal from service. This Court did not decide that question on merits as the parties had filed counter affidavits on that aspect and the respondents were left free to take any action, if they chose to do so, by giving an opportunity of explaining and hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter, take any decision according to law. 3. After the decision of this Court, the petitioners were served with notice calling upon them to produce documentary evidentary in support of their experience. 3. After the decision of this Court, the petitioners were served with notice calling upon them to produce documentary evidentary in support of their experience. The petitioners sought time and also sought an inspection of the documents and according to the petitioners, they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to make representation and when they appeared in the Office of the Director, National Institute of Ayurveda, several persons pressurised them to write down a prayer for merciful treatment and ultimately, the petitioner Pramod Kumar Sharma (Writ Petition No. 2580/88) was served with the notice dated 21-4-1987 (Annexure--16) terminating his services w.e.f. 20th May, 1987. The petitioners submitted representation to the President of the Governing Body of the Institute The petitioners submitted Writ Petition Nos. 1149/87 and 1189/87 before this Court which were subsequently withdrawn for availing the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, under the law. Therefore, the above mentioned Writ Petitions Nos. 1189/87 and 1149/87 were dismissed as withdrawn on 22-5-1987 vide Annexure-21. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed appeals before the President, Governing Body, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur on 3-6-1987 but the same was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 24-8-1987 (Annexure-22) and, thereafter, the petitioner Pramod Kumar Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 2580/88 on 8-8-1988 challenging the impugned orders dated 21-4-1987 and 24-8-1987, and so also Kailash Chand filed WP No. 2976/88. 5. The Institute had filed a caveat and when the case came up before the court on 7-9-1987, learned Counsel for the Institute sought time to file reply. Reply to the writ petition has been filed. Arguments were heard and the record of the case was perused.. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Pramod Kumar Sharma, has submitted a certificate from S.S. Jain, Subodh College, dated 1-12-1981, where in it was stated that the petitioner had worked as Laboratory Assistant in that Institution from August, 1978 to September, 1981. During his stay in the College, he was always found 'sincere and honest worker'. It appears that some complaint was made to the Director of the Institute that the petitioners and Ors. have been wrongly appointed and that they were not qualified. Thereupon, the Director of the Institute made enquiries from S.S.Jain, Subodh College, Jaipur, who vide his letter dated 2-12-1985 (Annex. It appears that some complaint was made to the Director of the Institute that the petitioners and Ors. have been wrongly appointed and that they were not qualified. Thereupon, the Director of the Institute made enquiries from S.S.Jain, Subodh College, Jaipur, who vide his letter dated 2-12-1985 (Annex. 6), replying letter dated 20 11-1985 of the Director of the Institute informed that there is no name like Pramod Kumar who worked as Laboratory Assistant and drew salary for the above said period. It seems that Parmod Kumar Sharma might have worked as a Laboratory Assistant in honorary capacity for some period during the above period, because no record there was for such persons. On the basis of the letter from the Principal, S.S Jain Subodh College, Jaipur, the Director of the Institute had come to the conclusion that petitioner Pramod Kumar was not qualified as he did not have experience of two years and, therefore, his service was terminated. The earlier order terminating services of the petitioner, dated 31-1-1986 did not disclose any ground for termination. The petitioners were given appointment in regular manner on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with Rule 25(1) of the Rules. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were terminated on account of unsatisfactory progress during probation, as contemplated under Rule 35 of the Rules. The petitioners have also submitted certificates (Annex. 13) dated 28-10-1985, (Annex. 14) dated 8-9-1986. (Annx. 15) dated 4-4 1987. showing that his work during all these years was very satisfactory and he had worked with honesty, sincerely and that he was very hard working and enthusiastic in his work. In reply to the writ petition also, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners had submitted false certificates with regard to their possessing two years experience in Laboratory Technology in a Laboratory of a recognised hospital/institute. The respondents have not submitted any evidence to substantiate their assertion except the letter from the Principal, S.S. Jain, Subodh College Jaipur, which only shows that petitioner Pramod Kumar Sharma was not on regular pay as Laboratory Assistant. Petitioner Kailash Chandra in Writ No. 2976/88 had filed an affidavit of Dr. Pitambar Dayal, who had been Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in support of his contention. 7. Petitioner Kailash Chandra in Writ No. 2976/88 had filed an affidavit of Dr. Pitambar Dayal, who had been Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in support of his contention. 7. In the case of petitioner Kailash Chandra he had submitted a certificate from the Indian Red-cross Society wherein it was stated by Dr. Pitambar Dayal, Chairman of the Indian Red Cross Society, that Kailash Chand had been associated with him in his workas a Consultant Physician, as a Laboratory Technician during the period Aug., 1978 to Dec, 1980, where as the Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society vide his letter dated 8-11-1985 in reply to the Director of the Institute's letter dated 4-11-1985 had informed that Kailash Chandra does not appear to have worked in their Society during the period in question. 8. The only question to be decided in these two cases is as to whether, it is necessary that a person should gain experience in Laboratory technology in a recognised hospital/ institute in regular service and on the regular pay roll or he can gain such experience even while working there on honorary basis without accepting any money and not being on the pay roll of such Hospital/ institution. 9. We have carefully gone through the case file and have considered the submissions made at the bar. 10. We have carefully examined the qualification as well as requirement of the Rules and the advertisement, which only says that one of the qualifications for the post of Laboratory Technician is 2 years' experience in laboratory technology in a laboratory of recognised hospital/institute. It no where requires that experience should be gained as a regular employee or after receiving regular pay from the hospital or institute. It only requires experience in laboratory technology in a laboratory, whether while working there on regular pay being on the pay roll or merely working on honorary basis without accepting any money. More over, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Asstt. vide order dated ll-9-1985 and they worked till 21-4-1987 for nearly 20 months. So they have gained experience of nearly 20 months' working with the Institute and we cannot ignore or brush aside the affidavit of Dr. More over, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Asstt. vide order dated ll-9-1985 and they worked till 21-4-1987 for nearly 20 months. So they have gained experience of nearly 20 months' working with the Institute and we cannot ignore or brush aside the affidavit of Dr. Pitambar Dayal, a senior doctor, who had been the Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur as also of the Principal, S.S. Jain Subodh College, where in it has been stated that the petitioners worked in honorary capacity and thus gained experience. Therefore, in our view, the non-petitioners were not justified in holding that the two certificates submitted by the petitioners were not sufficient or that they were not qualified for the posts of Laboratory Technician in the manner it has been done, merely relying on reply to their letters. It appears from the record that no regular enquiry was held in this regard nor any affidavits or evidence were produced by either parties nor they were examined on oath. 11. In the result, these writ petition are allowed, the impugned orders dated 21-4-1987 and 24-8 1987 are here by quashed. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******