JUDGMENT- H.W. Dhabe J.:---The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the requirement of three years experience for a Dental Surgeon for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Course in the subject in which she has applied in the reserved category of In-service personnel as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (for short `the B.D.S.') in June, 1988 from Nagpur University. She was thereafter duly registered as Dentist with the Maharashtra State Dental Council under the provisions of the Dentist Act, 1948. After obtaining the B.D.S. Degree, the petitioner worked as a Clinical Assistant/House Surgeon from 2-9-1988 to 1-9-1989 i.e. for a total period of one year in the Dental College and Hospital Belgaun of the Karnatak Liberal Education Society, which is a recognised Institution. She was thereafter appointed as tutor (which designation was subsequently changed to that of a Junior Lecturer) in the same College on 3rd October, 1989, in which post, she worked upto 2nd July, 1989 i.e. for a period of about 9 months. 3. The respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra through its Public Service Commission advertised the Post of Dental Surgeon in Maharashtra Educational and Research Services, Class-II. The Petitioner applied for the said post of Dental Surgeon and was duly selected for the same by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Accordingly, she was given appointment as a Dental Surgeon in the Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur by the Order dated 19-11-1990 issued by the Joint Director (Dental) Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Bombay i.e. the respondent No. 3. Her appointment was communicated by the Dean, Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur i.e. the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 26-11-1990, after the receipt of which, the Petitioner joined in the post of Dental Surgeon in the respondent No. 2 College with effect from 27-11-1990. 4. An Advertisemnt was issued by the respondent No. 2 Dean on 21-8-1992 for admission to the Post Graduate Courses in Master of Dental Surgery (for short `the M.D.S.') of the Nagpur University in various subjects for the year 1992-93. It is clear from the said Advertisement that the total seats advertised therein were 15, out of which 2 were in the subject of Orthodontia. It is clear from the said Advertisement that the total seats advertised therein were 15, out of which 2 were in the subject of Orthodontia. It is then clear from para 2.B of the said Advertisement dated 21-8-1992 that out of 15 seats, 2 seats were reserved for in-service personnel of the Govt. of Maharashtra serving at its Dental Colleges, one seat each in the subject of Orthodontia and Oral Pathology. 5. The petitioner who was working as a Dental Surgeon in the Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur made an application on 24-8-1992 for admission to the M.D.S. Course in the subject of Orthodontia through proper channel in the reserved category of In-service Candidates. The claim of the petitioner for admission to the M.D.S. Course in the above subject was however not considered by the respondent No. 2 Dean on the ground that as required by Rule 10(b) of the Rules for Admission in Post Graduate Dental Courses, the petitioner did not possess three years experience as Dental Surgeon. The petitioner has therefore, preferred the instant Writ Petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid rule i.e. Rule 10(b) of the Rules for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Courses for the year 1992-93 on the ground that the aforesaid condition of three years experience as Dental Surgeon which is prescribed for a Dental Surgeon or for a perosn working in an equivalent post and not for a Lecturer in the Govt. Dental College, is onerous, arbitrary and discriminatory and is thus liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. After the rule was issued in this petition, the respndent No. 2 Dean gave admission to the respondent no. 4 in the above subject of Orthodontia pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 21-8-1992. The petitioner has therefore, joined the respondent No. 4 as a party to this petition and has challenged her admission in the Post Graduate Courses in the subject of Orthodontia raising an additional ground that the respondent No. 4 was already holding Post Graduate Degree in the subject of Oral Pathology and therefore, she was not entitled to apply or get admission again for Post Graduate Degree course in another subject viz. Orthodontia against the seats reserved for In-service personnel. Orthodontia against the seats reserved for In-service personnel. The respondents have denied the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement of three years experience for Dental Surgeon for admission to the M.D.S. Course in rule 10(b) of the Rules for admission is arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As regards the said challenge of discrimination, it is further submitted that all the candidates who were called for Interview for M.D.S. Course in Orthodontia were Dental Surgeons and therefore, the challenge on the ground that for lecturers, no experience is provided and for Dental Surgeon, three years experience is provided does not arise for consideration. 7. When it was pointed out on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was at serial No. 5, in the Merit list in the subject Orthodontia and therefore, even if he succeeds he cannot get admission to M.D.S. course in the said subject, the petitioner filed an Additional affidavit in which it is submitted that although the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 5, in the Merit List for admission to the Post Graduate courses in Orthodontia, the candidates at serial No. 1 to 4 in the Merit List viz. Dr. Smt. M.S. Choudhari, Dr. Mrs. S.O. Dhivare, Dr. S.M. Patil and Dr. S.A. Meshram, were not eligible for admission to the M.D.S. course in Orthodontia, according to the general conditions of eligibility. 8. As regards Dr. Smt. M.S. Choudhari, who is the respondent No. 4 and was at Serial No. 1 in the Merit List, it is stated in the additional affidavit of the Petitioner that she had already done her M.D.S. course in the subject of Oral Pathology and was not therefore, eligible for admission in the subject of Orthodontia. As regards Dr. Mrs. S.O. Dhivare, who was at serial No. 2 in the Merit list, it is urged that she had done her B.D.S. from Bombay University and was thereafter working in the Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Bombay because of which, she was ineligible for admission to the M.D.S. course. In Nagpur College, in view of Rule 10(b) and Rule 11 of the Rules for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Courses. 9. As regards Dr. Dental College and Hospital, Bombay because of which, she was ineligible for admission to the M.D.S. course. In Nagpur College, in view of Rule 10(b) and Rule 11 of the Rules for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Courses. 9. As regards Dr. S.M. Patil who was at serial No. 3 in the Merit List in Orthodontia, it is stated in the Additional affidavit of the petitioner that he was working as Dental Surgeon in the Govt. Dental College and Hospital Bombay and was thus ineligible for admission in the M.D.S. Course in the Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur in view of Rules 10(b) and 11 of the Rules for admission. As regards Dr. S.A. Meshram, who was at serial No. 4 in the Merit list in the subject of Orthodontia, it is stated in the Additional affidavit of the petitioner that she was then working as Dental Surgeon in Govt. Hospital, Chandrapur, but was not selected by the Public Service Commission, because of which the petitioner had preference over her in view of the Rule 10(c) of the Rules for admission. Further, her application was also not received through proper channel. It is then stated in the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner that she had completed her probation period as Dental Surgeon on 26-11-1992 and had been confirmed in the Post of Dental Surgeon from the said date. 10. After the above additional affidavit was filed, the respondent No. 2 Dean has also filed additional submissions, in which it is stated that the Post of Lecturer and Dental Surgeon belong to the distinct cadres. It is pointed out that the post of Dental Surgeon is clinical post and that of a Lecturer is a teaching post. It is also then pointed out that the Lecturer who gets admission in the M.D.S. Course has to continue to teach while prosecuting his/her M.D.S. course while the Dental Surgeon has likewise to continue to do clinical work in the Hospital. It is thus submitted that the Dental Surgeon can never get the advantage of teaching and therefore, as per rule, he must have three years experience as Dental Surgeon for getting admission in M.D.S. Course. It is thus submitted that the Dental Surgeon can never get the advantage of teaching and therefore, as per rule, he must have three years experience as Dental Surgeon for getting admission in M.D.S. Course. It is therefore, urged that the requirement of three years experience in Rule 10(b) for a Dental Surgeon to get admission in M.D.S. course is not arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 114 of the Constitution of India. It is also emphasised that the Dental Surgeon can never become Lecturer by promotion and it is only by direct recruitment i.e. by an independent application and on selection that he/she can become a lecturer. 11. In reply to the submissions in the Additional Affidavit of the petitioner, regarding the candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the Merit list in the subject of Orthodontia, it is pointed out in the additional submissions by the respondent no. 2 Dean that the candidate at serial No. 1 in the said Merit List viz. Dr. Mrs. M.S. Choudhari, the respondent No. 4 was not in eligible for admission to the M.D.S. Course in the subject of Orthodontia because there is no rule which would debar any candidate from applying and from getting admission to the M.D.S. Course, if he/she has already done her M.D.S. Course in any other subject. The respondent No. 2 has challenged the construction sought to be placed upon rule 10(b) on behalf of the petitioner. It is thus submitted that when Dr. Smt. M.S. Choudhari, the respondent no. 4 had more marks than the petitioner, in the subject of Orthodontia, her admission in the said subject was legal and justified. It is further pointed out that, Dr. Smt. M.S. Choudhari had done her M.D.S. Course in other subject viz, Oral Pathology independently and not as an in-service candidate. 12. As regards the candidates at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 in the Merit List, it is submitted in additional submissions filed by the respondent No. 2 that they have done their B.D.S. Examination from the Nagpur University and therefore, as per Rule 11.b of the rules for admissions, they are entitled to apply for M.D.S. Course in the respondent No. 2 college. However, since the petitioner has not joined them as parties, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any relief in this Petition. However, since the petitioner has not joined them as parties, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any relief in this Petition. It is in the light of the above submissions of the parties, that we have to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 13. As regards the challenge to the requirement of three years experience for the Dental Surgeon prescribed under rule 10(b) of the rules for admission on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory because no such minimum experience is prescribed for the Lecturer in rule 10(a) of the said Rules for admission, what is material to be seen is that the respondent no. 4 is given admission in the subject of Orthodontia not as a Lecturer, but as a Dental Surgeon like the petitioner. In fact, all the five candidates in the Merit List in the subject of Orthodontia are Dental Surgeons. Further, it has to be seen that the respondent No. 4 admittedly has received higher marks than the petitioner and is therefore, placed at Serial No. 1 in the Merit list in the subject of Orthodontia. She also possesses the requisite and further of three years experience as Dental Surgeon, which fact is not in dispute. The only grievance made by the petitioner, so far as the admission given to the respondent no. 4 is concerned is that she has already done and is already holding the qualifications of M.D.S. in the subject of Oral Pathology and therefore, she is not entitled to get admission for the said Post Graduate Degree Course in the subject of Orthodontia against the seat reserved for in-service candidate. If the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is answered against her, it is not necessary to decide the challenge about the validity of the requirement of three years experience for Dental Surgeon in rule 10(b) of the Rules for admission, because then the petitioner cannot complain of any discrimination vis-a-vis a Lecturer for whom no such requirement of experience is prescribed under rule 10(a) of the Rules for admission. It is, therefore, necessary to consider first the question whether the admission given to the respondent No. 4 in the subject of Orthodontia was illegal and wrongful. 14. It is, therefore, necessary to consider first the question whether the admission given to the respondent No. 4 in the subject of Orthodontia was illegal and wrongful. 14. In considering the said question, it is necessary to bear in mind that there are no rules framed by the State Government either under the Rules for Admission or in regard to the conditions of service of in-service personnel that an in-service candidate who already possesses M.D.S. Degree would not be eligible to apply for admission in M.D.S. course again in another subject as an in-service candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however urged before us that rule 10 relating to the reservation for in-service personnel needs to be read down in this regard, because the policy underlying the reservation for in-service personnel, is that each Govt. servant covered under the said category should get an opportunity to improve or better his prospects by obtaining Post Graduate Degree in Dental Surgery. 15. To appreciate the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant, rules relating to reservation for in-service candidates. Rule 8(b) of the Rules for admission would show that 15% or minimum two seats of the total seats in Post-Graduate degree course in all the subjects taken together for registration available in a year in each college have to be reserved for in-service personnel of the Government of Maharashtra in respective colleges provided the total number of seats available for admission in respective colleges is more than 10 and in case the total number of seats available in respective colleges is less than 10, then one seat has to be reserved for in-service personnel. 16. Rule 10(a) lays down that a Lecturer in the services of the State Government appointed by nomination through M.P.S.C. in the subject of appointment would be eligible to apply for admission provided he/she possesses good record of service and conduct. In the event, the candidates applying for admission in the reserved category of in-service personnel is more than the number of seats reserved for the said category, the selection is made on the basis of over-all merit without giving any weightage to caste or religion. In the event, the candidates applying for admission in the reserved category of in-service personnel is more than the number of seats reserved for the said category, the selection is made on the basis of over-all merit without giving any weightage to caste or religion. Rule 10(b) provides that an eligible dental surgeon with three years minimum experience as Dental Surgeon or an equivalent Post in recognised Dental College and Hospital or a Dental Department of recognised Dental College and Hospital Civil Hospital/Primary Health Centre/Government Hospital or other such institutions recognised by the Government of Maharashtra is eligible for the subject of the department in which he/she is serving for a reserved seat meant for "In-Service Personnel." The condition laid down is that, he/she should produce a No Objection Certificate from the Head of his Institution and the permission of the Government of Maharashtra in case where he/she has to seek long leave deputation in order to take up such an admission at a Dental College. He has also to undertake to serve the Government of Maharashtra at least for a period of five years or pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in default. 17. Rule 10(c) gives preference for selection in this reserved category of in-service personnel which shows that lecturers are given first preference to Dental Surgeon/Personnel working in equivalent post. Rule 10(d) then lays down the conditions upon which the admission can be granted to the in-service personnel in the subject of their appointment. The said conditions are as follows:- i) That they are eligible for M.D.S. Courses as per rules prescribed by the University and the Government from time to time. ii) That the University and the Government of Maharashtra allow them to take up M.D.S. Course while in service. iii) That their undergoing M.D.S. training does not adversely interfere with the working of the department, if they are given leave or deputed to take up the M.D.S. Course and iv) They continue in Government service till the completition of the course. 18. iii) That their undergoing M.D.S. training does not adversely interfere with the working of the department, if they are given leave or deputed to take up the M.D.S. Course and iv) They continue in Government service till the completition of the course. 18. The conditions which are important for our purpose are that apart from eligibility as per rules for admission, permission from the University and the Government is necessary for In-service candidates taking the M.D.S. Course while in service and further that prosecution of his/her studies should not adversely interfere with the working of his/her department, if he is given leave/deputed to take up the M.D.S. Course. 19. Rule 11 of the Rules for admission then places certain restrictions upon the candidates applying in the reserved category of in-service personnel. Clause (a) thereof provides that the candidates serving in Dental Colleges in the Government of Maharashtra are eligible to apply to the same institution where they are working, even though they have obtained their B.D.S. degree from any other institution. Clause (b) then provides that candidates serving in other places under the Government of Maharashtra can apply to those colleges from where they obtained their B.D.S. degree provided the said College is also in Maharashtra and provided further that the said college has M.D.S. Course in the subject concerned. It further provides that any candidate not covered under the above provisions can apply for admission to M.D.S. course in any College in Maharashtra. 20. From the conspectus of the said rules it is clear that the Post-Graduate admission contemplated to be given to in-service candidates is in the subject of their appointment in the case of Lecturers as provided in rule 10(a) and in the subject of the department in which a Dental Surgeons or a persons in equivalent posts is working as provided in rule 10(b) of the rules for admission. That the admission is in the subject of appointment is further emphasized by rule 10(d), which lays down the conditions for admission of in-service personnel to the M.D.S. Course. Since the candidates concerned in the instant case including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 as all Dental Surgeons, the admission can be given to them in the subject of their department as provided in rule 10(b) of the Rules for admission. Since the candidates concerned in the instant case including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 as all Dental Surgeons, the admission can be given to them in the subject of their department as provided in rule 10(b) of the Rules for admission. The fact that their names are contained in the Merit List in the subject of Orthodontia would mean that all of them are working in the department of Orthodontia. The fact that the petitioner herself is working in the department of Orthodontia as Dental Surgeon is clear from her letter dated 24-8-92 addressed to the Joint Director (Dental) Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Bombay in respect of her admission in the subject of Orthodontia. Similarly, it is clear from the title clause of the instant Petition that the petitioner herself has shown the respondent No. 4 to be working as Dental Surgeon in the Department of Orthodontia. 21. It is clear from the Scheme of Rules 10(a) and 10(b) that its object it to enable the in-service candidates to acquire Post-graduate qualifications in the subject of their appointment or the subject of their department as the case may be and in that sense to permit them to improve their qualifications which would be beneficial to their departments. The question which is material for the purpose of admission to the Post Graduate Dental Course is whether an in-service candidate has obtained M.D.S. Degree in the subject of his appointment or as the case may be, the subject of her department as referred to in Rule 10(a) or 10(b) respectively. If it is not, the fact that he/she has obtained Post Graduate qualifications in another subject is immaterial because the purpose of the above rules is that he/she should have Post Graduate qualifications in the subject of appointment or the subject of the department where he/she is working. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to see how the respondent No. 4 can be refused admission in the subject of Orthodontia on the ground that she had obtained M.D.S. Degree in another subject i.e. Oral Pathology. 22. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to see how the respondent No. 4 can be refused admission in the subject of Orthodontia on the ground that she had obtained M.D.S. Degree in another subject i.e. Oral Pathology. 22. On facts, it is clear that the respondent No. 4 is working as a Dental Surgeon in the Department of Orthodontia because as herein before referred to in the title clause of the petitioner, the petitioner has herself described her as Dental Surgen in the department of Orthodontia in the Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur. In the above view although it is not necessary to decide, there is also some force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the Post Graduate Degree in Oral Pathology obtained by the respondent No. 4 was not as an in-service candidate, but was as a regular student. We cannot, therefore, give effect to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that from the point of view of the criteria that the admission to the in-service candidates are meant for improving their prospects, the respondent No. 4 should not have been given admission, since she had already obtained M.D.S. Degree in another subject. 23. Since the admission to the M.D.S. Course in Orthodontia of the respondent No. 4 who is also a Dental Surgeon can thus be upheld on merits, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the requirement of three years experience as Dental Surgeon in rule 10(b) for admission to the Post Graduate Degree course is arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For consideration of the above question, there are now other difficulties also, because at present as informed to us by the learned counsel for the petitiner, the criteria for appointment of a Lecturer is a Post Graduate Degree, although for the Dental Surgeon, the criteria is B.D.S. as before. It would therefore, be necessary now to consider the impact of the above criteria of Post Graduate Degree for appointment as Lecturer while considering the validity of the requirement of three years experience for Dental Surgeons, particularly because there may be in-service lecturers, who do not possess the Post Graduate qualifications, and therefore, their claims may have to be considered on preferential basis. It would not therefore, be proper to decide the above question of validity in the instant petition. 24. As we have upheld the admission given to the respondent No. 4 on merits, it is not necessary for us to consider the question whether the candidates at serial Nos. 3 and 4 who are above the petitioner in the Merit List in the subject of Orthodontia are necessary to be joined as parties and whether in their absence the instant Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the instant Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed..