Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner came to this Court initially seeking a simple relief, to wit, a direction to the respondents to interview her and consider her case for appointment to the post of the of Assistant Professor (Pathogy) in the Indra Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (for short, the Institute) in terms of Advertisement No. 4 of 1988. During the pendency of this application before this Court, however, certain developments are reported to have taken place which according to the respondents so alter the ground-facts that the petitioner can no longer be granted the relief sought by her. I will take note of these developments at the appropriate place while narrating the facts of this case may be stated as follows : 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Pathology in the Instititute on 17-9-1985. At that time the petitioner had already acquired a. M.D. degree in Pathology from Patna University after noising her M.B.B.S. course. While she was working as a Lecturer, an advertisement was issued (numbered as Advertisement No. 4 of 1988) for filling up some vacancies in the Institute. One post of Assistant Professor (Pathology) in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-75-2100-2400.00 (per revised) was among the three posts to be filled up in terms of the advertisement. A three years experience of teaching and research as a Lecurer/Senior Resident in a recognised Medical College/Institution, in addition to a post graduate degree, e.g. M. D. in Pathology, was stipulated as the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner who had the required academic qualification and the teaching experience applied for the post. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, it appears as an admitted position that on a screening of the applications received, the petitioner was among the three candidates who were called for interview. In fact, it was found that the petitioner along with one Dr. Abdul Aziz fulfilled the criteria, another candidate, Dr. (Smt.) Vijaya Jaiswal was only provisionally called for interview as it was not then clear whether she satisfied the criterion relating to teaching experience, It is also an admitted position that on the date of interview i.e. 18-5-1989, no other candidate excepting the petitioner turned up though all the three had been called for interview by letter dated 4-5-1989. (Smt.) Vijaya Jaiswal was only provisionally called for interview as it was not then clear whether she satisfied the criterion relating to teaching experience, It is also an admitted position that on the date of interview i.e. 18-5-1989, no other candidate excepting the petitioner turned up though all the three had been called for interview by letter dated 4-5-1989. On this date, however, the interview could not be held as both the two experts on the interview board did not come. According to the counter-affidavit, the next date fixed for interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Patholgy) was 4-10-1989. On this date also the petitioner was the single candidate but again no interview was held as one of the experts on the interview board expressed his inability to come on that date. According to the petitioner she was also called for interview on 9-11-1989 but once again the interview was postponed on the ground of non-availability of the experts. In the counter-affidavit, however, it is denied that any interview was to be held on 9-11-1989. The admitted position that emerges from the counter-affidavit is that the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Patholoty) was fixed on two dates i.e. 18-5-1989 and 4-10-1989, on both the occasions the petitioner was the only candidate turning up for the interview. On both these dates, however, the interview could not be held as the experts did not come. The petitioner submits that she being the lone candidate, interview was a mere formality and her case was sure to be recommended only if the interview was held on those dates. It is also an admitted position that in respect of the other posts, namely, Assistant Professor (Urology) and Lecturer (Surgery), under the same Advertisement (No. 4 of 1989) interviewed were duly held on the first date i.e., 18-5-1989 itself and appointmnts were made following the interview. It is relevant to note here that one Dr. Mahendra Singh was selected and appointed as Assisant Professor, Urology. Dr. Mahendra Singh was appointed as Lecturer in the Institute on 2.2-7-1937 i.e., slightly more than two years after the petitioner and he became an Assistant Professor on 4-7-1989 following the interview on 18-51989 on the basis of the advertisement. 3. When the interview could not be held on successive occasions despite . Dr. Mahendra Singh was appointed as Lecturer in the Institute on 2.2-7-1937 i.e., slightly more than two years after the petitioner and he became an Assistant Professor on 4-7-1989 following the interview on 18-51989 on the basis of the advertisement. 3. When the interview could not be held on successive occasions despite . definite dates having been fixed for it, the petitioner personally met the Director of the Institute and requested him to make arrangements for holding the interview. As nothing happened even after several months she gave a written representation. This also did not produce any result and then she again wrote to the Director giving intimation of her intention to approach the Court. She finally came to this Court with this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was filled on October 22, 1990. 4. It seems that the petitioners apparently justified grievance was somewhat relegated to the background as around this time the Institute appears to have been engaged in adopting a scheme of re-designation of the faculty posts earlier implemented in the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. This scheme of re-designation of posts had several features such as (i) a revised pay-scale applicable to the re-designated posts (ii) a change in criteria regarding minimum qualifications in respect of the re-designated posts and (iii) the mode of implementation, particularly the change over from the unrevised pay-scale to the higher pay-scale applicable to the re-designated posts. It, however, appears that in the process of the schemes adoption by the Institute the feature that came into immediate focus was the introduction of the revised (higher) scales of pay in the re-designated posts to the faculty members; the other features of the re-designation scheme came to be fully appreciated only after a while. This is amply indicated from the exchange of correspondence between the Institute and the State Government. And perhaps it was for this reason that it took the Institute no less than six counter-affidavits, filed separately over a period from 12-12-1990 to 6-8-1992 to present a complete picture before this Court. In contrast to the six counter-affidavits filed by the Institute, the State Government (respondent No. 4) maintained complete silence and did not choose to file any affidavit in this case. 5. In contrast to the six counter-affidavits filed by the Institute, the State Government (respondent No. 4) maintained complete silence and did not choose to file any affidavit in this case. 5. In the first counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute on 12-12-1990 it was stated (vide para 3) in regard to the changed criteria as follows : While the matter of fixing another date of interview was pending, a . new criteria for appointment and designation of the Faculty posts was evolved in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi whereby in the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Pathology, the qualification remained the same but experience was changed as follows : Six years teaching and research experience in a recognised Institute in the subject of speciality after obtaining the qualifying degree of M.D./M.S. of equivalent qualification who do not possess M.D./M.S. This criteria was adopted by the A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi from 1.1.90. (This statement is incorrect in as much as six years teaching and research experience is required in case of Associate Professor (re-designated) and in case of Assistant Professor (re-designated) the required experience is of three years; this is plain from the Institutes own affidavits filed later in this case. 6. It was further stated inthecounter-affidavit that the Project Committee of the Institute decided to refer the matter to the state Government for approval. In reply the Director of the Institute received a letter dated 20-9-1990 from the Additional Secretary to the Department of Health. A copy of this letter has been enclosed as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit. The communication contained in Annexure C stated that in response to the Institutes letter dated 18-1-1990 it was to be intimated that the department was in agreement with the proposal in principle. It further said that the payment of salary in the proposed pay-scale (i.e., revised) could be made from the current month but any differences following the issuance of the final order by the State Government in this regard would be liable to adjustments and recovery. It is apparent that contrary to what is stated in the counter-affidavit, the letter dated 20-9-1990 (AnnexureC) was not on the question of change in criteria regarding minimum qualification for the re-designated posts; it was on the question of payment of the revised pay-scale to the faculty members. It is apparent that contrary to what is stated in the counter-affidavit, the letter dated 20-9-1990 (AnnexureC) was not on the question of change in criteria regarding minimum qualification for the re-designated posts; it was on the question of payment of the revised pay-scale to the faculty members. The letter (Annexure C) was completely silent as to the criteria on the basis of which the existing posts were to be filled up. 7. It is also to be noted that in the same counter-affidavit it was maintained that the Director of the Institute had recommended on 28-8-1990 that the faculty posts remaining vacant should be filled up according to the old criteria as the State Government till then had not taken a final decision to accept the new criteria. It follows that till 12-12-1990 (date of filing of the first counter affidavit) there was no decision to apply the new criteria for filling up the vacancies in the Institute. 8. A supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the Institute was then filed on 10-5-1991 wherein it was stated that the Board of Governors of the Institute in their 32nd meeting held on March 5 and 6, 1991 had resolved that "the posts created for faculty should be filled up by the new criteria as applicable in A.I.I.M.S.". 9. Following this a fresh advertisement appears to have been issued for the post of Associate Professor, Pathology. This was in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,100-125-4,850-5,300.00 plus N.P.A. The academic qualification for this post remained the same but a teaching/resarch experience of six years from a recognised institution in that speciality was required as the minimum experience. 10. The petitioner then filed an amendment petition on 14-5-1991 seeking challenge the issuance of this advertisement and an order restraining the Institute from filing up the post of Associate Professor (Pathology) on the basis of that advertisement. The amendment petition was taken up on 8-7-1991 when this Court directed that pending hearing of this application and till further orders no appointment in the department of pathology should be made in pursuance of Annexure 4 and 5 to the amendment petition (the advertisement and its corrigenda). 11. Later on, another counter-affidavit, labelled as the second supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on 3-7-1991. This brought on the record, as AnnexureG another letter dated 31-5-1991 addressed by the Additional Secretary Department of Health to the Director of the Institute. 11. Later on, another counter-affidavit, labelled as the second supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on 3-7-1991. This brought on the record, as AnnexureG another letter dated 31-5-1991 addressed by the Additional Secretary Department of Health to the Director of the Institute. This letter stated that the ad hoc promotions given to the six doctors/teachers of the Institute (including the petitioner) by the out-going Director were declared unauthorised and were accordingly cancelled. This letter further directed that the re-designation scheme of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences should be implemented in the Institute as one package and it shall be deemed to have been implemented from the date on which the faculty members took benefit of the revised higher scale of pay in terms of the re-designation scheme. In other words, it was directed to enforce the revised criteria regarding minimum qualification in relation to the re-designated posts along with the higher scales of pay given to them. 12. Yet another counter-affidavit labelled as the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 was filed on 31-7-1992. The purpose of this counter-affidavit was to bring on record as Annexure H a letter dated October 10, 1991 from the Additional Secretary, Department of Health to the Director of the Institute. This letter directed that in matters relating .to appointment, promotion, pay-scale and other service conditions of the officials/staff of the Institute the rules prevailing in the All-Indian Institute of Medical Sciences should be implemented. It was further said that earlier also such directions had been given to the Institute and the Board of Governors of the Institute had also taken this decision earlier. 13. Another counter-affidavit, 4th counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents land 3 was filed on 5-8-1992 and yet another, 5th Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 6-8-1992. 14. From the last counter-affidavit the position that emerges is as follows : The scheme of re-designation of faculty posts adopted by the All-India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi was as follows (vide Annexure J) : Name of Post Existing scales Revised including NPA Scales (1) Lecturer Rs. 1500-60-2040 to be abolished Medical Rs. 900-50-1600 to be abolished Non-Medical (2) Assistant Professor Medical Rs. 1800-75-2100 100-2400 Rs. 3500-125-4500 Non-Medical Rs. 1300-60-1720 (3) Associate Professor Medical Rs. 2100-75-2625 Rs. 4100-125-4850- 150-5300 Non-Medical Rs. 1600-60-2020 -do- (4) Addl. Professor Medical does not exist Rs. 1500-60-2040 to be abolished Medical Rs. 900-50-1600 to be abolished Non-Medical (2) Assistant Professor Medical Rs. 1800-75-2100 100-2400 Rs. 3500-125-4500 Non-Medical Rs. 1300-60-1720 (3) Associate Professor Medical Rs. 2100-75-2625 Rs. 4100-125-4850- 150-5300 Non-Medical Rs. 1600-60-2020 -do- (4) Addl. Professor Medical does not exist Rs. 5100-150-6300 Non-Medical does not exist} (5) Professor Medical Rs. 2500-100-3200 Rs. 5900-200-7300 Non-Medical Rs. 1700-75-2525 (6) Distinguished Professor Medical Rs. 3350/-fixed Rs. 7300-100-7600 Non-Medical Rs. 2750/-fixed } (7) Director Rs. 3500/-fixed Rs. 8000/- The change of criteria relating to the minimum experience that came as a part of the re-designation scheme was as follows (vide Annexure K series). (1) Professor .. 14 years after MD/MS or 12 years after obtaining MD/MCH (2) Addl. Professor .. 10 years after MD/MS or 8 years after obtaining MD/MCH (3) Assoc. Professor .. 6 years after MD/MS or 4 years after .. MD/MCH (4) Asstt. Professor .. 3 years after MD/MS or one year after MD/MCH And this scheme of re-designation was implemented (vide Annexure K series) in the following manner : (1) All Lecturers in position on or before 1-1-1986 will be re-designated as Assistant Professor with effect from 1-1-1986. Those who had taken over as Lecturers from any subsequent date should be designated as Assistant Professors from the date of their assuming charge. (2) Considering that in the above procedure all Lectures prior to 1-1-1986 will be re-designated as Assistant Professor on the same date and that their inter se seniority would be maintained, fixation of pay in the new grades be done as per Government norms. This matter may be examined legally and administratively. (3) All Assistant Professors on 1-1-1986 be redesignated as Associate Professors if they have atleast 6 years of teaching experience after obtaining the required post-graduate qualification. (4) All Assistant Professors who were appointed subsequent to 1-1-1986, would be re-designated from the date of their assuming office, provided they have at least 6 years of teaching experience as recognized by the Institute after their post-graduation. Pay fixation be done as for Assistant Professor and inter se seniority be maintained. Following the adoption of the scheme by the Institute, the petitioner is said to have been re-designated as Assistant Professor and was given the revised scale of pay of Assistant Professor (Rs.3500-125-4500) with effect from 1-1-1986. Pay fixation be done as for Assistant Professor and inter se seniority be maintained. Following the adoption of the scheme by the Institute, the petitioner is said to have been re-designated as Assistant Professor and was given the revised scale of pay of Assistant Professor (Rs.3500-125-4500) with effect from 1-1-1986. This was in terms of the method of implementation of the scheme as contained in serial No. 1 herein above. 15. On the basis of these facts it is contended on behalf of the Institute that the petitioner has already been re-designated as Assistant Professor in the revised pay-scale and hence there is no question of considering her case for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. It is further contended that on account of re-designation of posts, there is no post of Assistant Professor in the old pay-scale and in the sense it existed before the re-designation of posts and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of the earlier advertisement No. 4 of 1988. It is further stated that the petitioner having been re-designated as Assistant Professor (pathology) the next post to be filled-up is that of Associate Professor Pathology and in terms of the scheme of re-designation the minimum experience criterion for the post of Associate Professor is six years after M.D./M.S. and the letter advertisement (impugned in this case under the amendment petition) was issued in confirmity with the changed requirements. It is further stated on behalf of the Institute that in any event the petitioner has now behind her more than six years teaching experience (having been appointed a lectures on 25-9-85) and she easily qualifies for the post of Associate Professor even in terms of the changed criteria. The sum and substance of the argument is that the adoption of the re-designation scheme by the Institute has rendered this application infructuous for all intent and purpose and the petitioner is seeking some thing which can no longer be given to her. 16. I am afraid the position is not so. The above-mentioned developments relating to the adoption and implementation of the re-designation Scheme by the Institute which took place during the pendency of this case before this Court do not really touch the controversy in this case and are no answer the points raised by the petitioner. 17. 16. I am afraid the position is not so. The above-mentioned developments relating to the adoption and implementation of the re-designation Scheme by the Institute which took place during the pendency of this case before this Court do not really touch the controversy in this case and are no answer the points raised by the petitioner. 17. From the facts stated, it is clear that the introduction of the re-designation Scheme in the Institute found the petitioner holding the post of a Lecturer in the earlier designation. Applying therefore, the criterion at serial No. 1 of the implementation methodology she was given the designation of Assistant Professor in the revised scale of pay. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not appointed as Assistant Professor, Pathology but was merely given that designation as she was holding the post of Lecturer at the time of the introduction of the re-designation Scheme. Had she been appointed as an Assistant Professor following the interview as scheduled, then she would have got the designation of Associate Professor, in terms of the re-designation Scheme. The point will be well illustrated by taking into consideration the case of Dr. Mahendra Singh (vide Annexures N .& O). It is to be recalled that Dr. Mahendra Singh appointed as Assistant Professor, Urology on the basis of the same advertisement (No. 4 of 1988) as his interview was held as scheduled on 18-5-1989. Thus, the introduction of the re-designation scheme in the Institute saw Dr. Mahendra Singh holding the post of Assistant Professor (earlier designation) from 4-7-1989. Accordingly, he was given the revised scale of pay of Assistant Professor with effect from 22-7-1987 (the date of his appointment as a Lecturer) and he automatically got the re-designation of Associate Professor on 23-5-1991 in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4100-5300 He was given the designation of Associate Professor with effect from 23-5-1991 as he would complete the requirement of six years teaching experience on that date. It is, thus, manifest that in the case of the petitioner the criterion contained in serial No. 1 was adopted for she was only a lecturer on that date and in the case of Dr. Mahendra Singh the criterion at serial No. 4 was applied as he was holding the post of Assistant Professor on that date. 18. Herein lies the arbitrariness and discrimination meted out to the petitioner. Mahendra Singh the criterion at serial No. 4 was applied as he was holding the post of Assistant Professor on that date. 18. Herein lies the arbitrariness and discrimination meted out to the petitioner. She was a Lecturer on the date of introduction of the re-designation Scheme for no fault of hers. Admittedly, the Institute, on two occasions, failed to hold the necessary interview for her appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. No steps were taken to arrange the holding of an interview despite repeated request made by her, verbally and in writing through representation. Even months after filing of this writ petition in this Court nothing was done to meet her grievance. The advertisement was issued in 1988; the first date for the interview was 18-5-1989; it was next fixed on 4-10-1989; the petitioner filed this writ petition on 22-10-1989. As it appears from the records the decision to fill up the vacancies on the basis of the changed criteria was first taken on 10-5-1991 (vide 32nd meeting of the Board of Governors of the Institute. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioners interview could not be held for almost two years from 18-5-1989 to 10-5-1991. The inaction on the part of the authorities, in my opinion, caused considerable damage to the petitioner and it was no compensation for her to be re-designated from Lecturer to Assistant Professor. Under the circumstances, the authorities cannot absolve themselves by taking the plea that the ground facts have so changed that the petitioner cannot be given the relief as sought by her. 19. Mr. I. K. Sharan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Institute also pleaded helplessness in view of the Governments decision to fill up the existing vacancies in the Institute on the basis of the changed criteria. He pointed out that the directions issued by the Government were binding upon the Institute in terms of Sec. 24 of the Indra Gandhi Institute of Medical Science Act, 1984. Sec. 24 of the Act is as follows : The Institute shall carry out such direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of the Act. In this regard Mr. Sharan relied upon Annexures C, G and H. 20 On the other hand Mr. Sec. 24 of the Act is as follows : The Institute shall carry out such direction as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of the Act. In this regard Mr. Sharan relied upon Annexures C, G and H. 20 On the other hand Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that any subsequent change in the criteria shall not effect the petitioners vested right to be considered in terms of the criteria stipulated in Advertisement No. 4/1988. He submitted that once the process of selection was initiated by issuing advertisement, the selection would be regulated by the criteria then prevailing. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon decisions reported in -- and -- . The submission is not without substance. 21. Moreover it has been seen that the letter dated 20-9-1990 (Annexure-C) is not at all on the question of the changed criteria. Annexnre G (dated 31-5-1991) is indeed speaks of the application of the changed criteria from the same date the doctors/staff of the Institute got the benefit of the revised scales. This, however, was issued on 31-5-1991 and there is just no explanation why the authorities did not hold the interview till then. Moreover it is a letter written by the Additional Secretary, Department of Health to the Director of the Institute and it cannot be construed as a direction of the State Government within the meaning of Sec. 24 of the Act, In fact, none of the letters brought on the record are directions from the State Government but are mere letters from the Additional Secretary of the Department, I, thus, find no substance in this submission either. 22. Having given my careful consideration to the material facts and circumstances of this case, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to be interviewed and considered for the post of Assistant Professor (Pathology) (earlier designation) in terms of advertisement No. 4 of 1988, that is to say, on the basis of the criterion of three years teaching experience. On being found suitable she would be appointed as Assistant Professor, Pathology. This would not in any manner alter the grant of the scale of Rs. 3500-125-4500 to her with effect from 1-1-1986. On being found suitable she would be appointed as Assistant Professor, Pathology. This would not in any manner alter the grant of the scale of Rs. 3500-125-4500 to her with effect from 1-1-1986. As a consequence of his appointment as Assistant Professor, however, she would be entitled to be designated as Associate Professor, Pathology (in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 4100-5300) with effect from the date she completed six years teaching experience and she must be so designated from that date. The respondents are hereby directed to act accordingly. 23. In the result, this application is allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. R.N.Sahay, J. 24 I agree.