ORDER The writ petitioner has filed the present application praying, inter alia:- (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the order No. MA - 1017-HPT/32M-19 dated 18th March 1989 appointing and/or confirming the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as lecturers and subsequent promotion order No. H/MA/76/HPT/32M-54-89 dated 10th January, 1990 of the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Professor in Nephrology Unit in IPGME & R SSKM Hopsital, Calcutta. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to appoint to the teaching post of Lecturer in the Unit or Department of Nephrology, IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital, Calcutta in West Bengal or any other Hospital or Institution with Nephrology as subject for teaching from persons adequately qualified according to the prescription of the respondent No. 5 and accepted by the respondent No. 1 from Doctors in West Bengal Health Service and consider your petitioner for appointment to such post and if found qualified to appoint him with effect from 11th January, 1988. (c) A writ of and/or an order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 forthwith cancel, withdraw and rescind the exemption clause in Notification No. Health/MA/2328/HPT/32M-2-85 dated July 1, 1987 or the portion thereof creating an alleged exception from the qualification prescribed; (d) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.5 to discharge its statutory duties and ensure compliance by the Department of Medicine, Calcutta and IPGME & R SSKM, Hospital, Calcutta with the requirements of qualifications of staff, standards of living appointment and promotion of teaching personnel in Nephrology Unit under the Department of Medicine; (e) Rule in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) above. (f) Injunction be granted restraining the respondent No. 1 from granting any promotion to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 till the disposal of the application or identifying any teaching in Nephrology without considering your petitioner for appointment and giving reasons if he is not appointed; (g) Injunction restraining the respondents from making any posting or promotion on the basis of selection made pursuant to the circular No. 1107 dated October 8, 1987 and Notification No. Health/MA/2328/HPT/32-M-2-85 dated July 1, 1987 in the Department of Medicine. (h) Ad interim order of injunction be granted directing the respondent Nos. (h) Ad interim order of injunction be granted directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to allow your petitioner to teach as Lecturer in the Department of Nephrology IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital, Calcutta, a post Graudate Teaching Institute. (i) Injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by themselves or their servants or agents from in any way interfering with your petitioner service inter alia by transferring him out of IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital, Calcutta to places or situation where there is no Nephrology Unit of Departmet except for appointing your petitioner as Nephro-logist and/or in a teaching post in the Department or Unit of Nephrorology of IPGME & R, SSKM, Hospital or elsewhere in West Bengal should the respondent No. 1 open a Nephrology Faculty Unit in some other Hospital Institution in West Bengal. (J) An interim order in terms of prayers (f) to (i) above. (k) Such further and/or other order or orders be made and/or directions given as will give complete relief to your petitioner. 2. It is stated in details that the writ petitioner has brilliant academic career standing first in the order of merit in the final examination of Medical graduation held by the University of Calcutta in December 1977 and obtaining several Medals in different subjects. He has obtained his M. D. in Medicine from the University of Calcutta in June, 1982 and joined the Health Service of the respondent No.1, State of West Bengal, at a Rural Hospital at Kakdwip in January, 1982. He fulfilled the required rural service between January 16, 1982 and December 31, 1985. By a Notification dated December 31, 1985 the petitioner was permitted to undertake the D.M. (Nephrology) course of study and training at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh for a period of two years with effect from the date of commencement of the course and accordingly the petitioner was placed on Training Reserve of the cadre of the West Bengal Health Service for the said period. It is alleged that the petitioner was released from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh on 31.12.87 after completion of his two years training on return. The petitioner was placed as Supernumerary Duty Medical Officer, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta from 11th January 1988. It is alleged that the petitioner was released from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh on 31.12.87 after completion of his two years training on return. The petitioner was placed as Supernumerary Duty Medical Officer, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta from 11th January 1988. It is placed on record that the respondent No. 1 asked for applications for empanelment of lecturers in different disciplines vide circular No. 1107 dated 8th October 1987 and Circular Nos. 1111(300) dated 4th December 1987. Pursuant thereto the petitioner allegedly submitted application in prescribed forms along with all relevant documents on 6.1.1988. Whlie awaiting the selection and subsequent posting as Lecturer, Nephrology, the petitioner requested interim posting as consultant Nephrologist;. On repeated request he was posted as Supernumerary Medical Officer to act as Nephrologist, IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital. Calcutta in December 1988. In May 1988 the petitioner obtained the Diplomate from National Board (Nephrology) New Delhi, after obtaining prior permission from respondent No. 1. It is stated that the petitioner was initially considered by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to be not eligible for lecturer for Nephrology in terms of the Circular No. 1107 dated 8.10.1987 because he had been declared to have been passed his DM (Nephrology) degree on 1.1.1988 i.e. one day after the stipulated date i.e. 31.12.1987. 3. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that in the State of West Bengal the only Nephrology Unit is at the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, SSKM Hospital, Calcutta with two posts of teachers, lecturer and the respondent No. 5 has prescribed standard of post graduate medical education for the guidance of the Universities. It is further placed on record that the petitioner along with other members of West Bengal Health Service applied for empanelment and the respondents namely Dr. Jayanta Bose, Dr. Gautam Majumdar and the petitioner were empanelled and listed in the order aforesaid according to seniority although none of the said two of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 fulfilled the requirements prescribed by the respondent No. 5 and the accepted for teaching appointment by the respondent No. 5 and accepted for teaching appointment by the respondent No. 1 in the circulars and the selection was made on the basis of papers and interview. It is contended that earlier the said respondent Nos. 6 and 7 fulfilled the requirements prescribed by the respondent No. 5 and the accepted for teaching appointment by the respondent No. 5 and accepted for teaching appointment by the respondent No. 1 in the circulars and the selection was made on the basis of papers and interview. It is contended that earlier the said respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been appointed as ad hoc lecturers in Nephrology in October 1985 in violation of the guidelines prescribed by the respondent No.5. 4. The writ petitioner has made specifically allegations that the respondent No. 6 and 7 have been appointed as Ad hoc Lecturers in Nephrology Unit of Department of Medicine, IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital in October 1985 violation MCI Guidelines. The said two respondents, according to the petitioner are not eligible for empanelment as Lecturer, Nephrology. ft is highlighted that the petitioner is only eligible candidate for the post of Lecturer, Nephrology as per the guidelines of the respondent No. 5 and accepted by the respondent No. 1 as the minimum criteria as would be evident from Circular No. 1107 dated October 8, 1987. It is pointed out that by a purported order No. Health/MA-1117 /HPT/31-N-19-88 dated March 18, 1989, the appointments of Dr. Jayanta Bose and Dr. Goutam Majumdar, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Lecturers were regularised by the respondent No.1, and the claims of the petitioner has been ignored. The petitioner, however by an application dated July 28, 1988 applied to the Director (Medical Education) Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal. requesting for appropriate posting although he has been empanelled as Lecturer in Nephrology. The grievance of the petitioner is that his specialisation remains un-utilised and the petitioner has deliberately been kept as a supernumerary officer under the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who are above the petitioner in seniority in the Medical Service but they did not have the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Lecturer (Nephrology). The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent No.1 to 4 did not take any step to redress the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has sought for reliefs as indicated above on the ground that the appointment of the respondent Nos. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent No.1 to 4 did not take any step to redress the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has sought for reliefs as indicated above on the ground that the appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and their confirmation as Lecturers and subsequent promotion of respondent No. 6 as Assistant Professor in Nephrology Unit of IPGME & R, SSKM Hospital, Calcutta is illegal. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the State respondents No. 1 to 4 by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition sworn by an Assistant Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal. It is disclosed, inter alia, that the petitioner cannot become an incumbent of full-time post simultaneously between the period January, 1982 when he joined West Bengal Health Service and June, 1982 when, after joining West Bengal Health Service, he remained a fulltime post graduate student of Calcutta University and obtained his M.D. Degree in June, 1982. It is stated that the applications were invited from those who qualified themselves on or before 31.12.1987. But the petitioner did not qualify on 31.12.1987 as he did not obtain D. M. degree by that date. The petitioner qualified himself on 1.1.1988 that is beyond the cut off date. It is further stated that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have fulfilled the guidelines prescribed by the Government. The question of M.C.I. guidelines does not arise at all in as much as the government servants are controlled and guided by Government guidelines and circulars. It is indicated that requirements of rural service have since been abolished. It is contended that while the Government is making effort to start M. Ch. Course for Urology at IPGME & R, there is no immediate plan to start D.M. Course in Nephrology. The respondent No.6 has been promoted as he was found eligible while the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Lecturer in terms of the guidelines of the Government. The other allegations of the writ petitioner have been controverted. 6. The petitioner has, however, filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the points raised in the main writ petition and he has also stated that he joined the Health Service of the respondent No. 1 on 16th January 1982. Before joining he had on 30th December 1981 submitted his thesis for his M.D. degree. 6. The petitioner has, however, filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the points raised in the main writ petition and he has also stated that he joined the Health Service of the respondent No. 1 on 16th January 1982. Before joining he had on 30th December 1981 submitted his thesis for his M.D. degree. He was given permission by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 20th April, 1982 to appear in the M.D. Examination while he was working as Medical Officer, Kakdwip Primary Health Centre. The said permission was however subject to the condition that the examination would not hamper the performance of his duties as Medical Officer. Pursuant to the said permission the petitioner duly appeared in M.D. examination in June 1982. The results of the said examination was announced sometime in September, 1982, and the respondent No.1 by an order dated 1st June, 1984 duly recognised the petitioner's M.D. degree. It is also averred that for admission to the Chandigarh Institute in the Super Speciality of Nephrology, he has to compete with several other candidates from all over India in an entrance examination, both written and clinical. There being one vacancy only in the Term at the said Institution for the D.M. (Nephrology), the petitioner got it because he came first in the said examination. The petitioner has denied that he did not qualify on 31st December 1987 as he had already annexed to the petition, certificate from the post-graduate institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, a duly recognised Institute by the respondent No. 5 dated 1.1.1988 that he was a resident teaching fellow from January 1986 to December 1987. The teaching experience was counted for the purpose of appointment of Lecturer according to the requirement of the Medical Council of India. It is further contended that the circular in page 38 dated 8th October 1987, required Medical Officers of the Health Service to possess requisite post-graudate/post Doctoral Qualification/Experience, as prescribed by the respondent No. 5 and also to fulfil the eligibility criteria as on 31.12.1987 for empanelment as Lecturer. All other allegations in the affidavit-in-opposition have been controverted. 7. No affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. Swapan Kumar Garai, learned Counsel, however appeared for respondent No.6, Dr. Jayanta Bose, and supported the stand taken by the respondent No. 1 to 4. 8. Having heard Mr. Balai Ch. All other allegations in the affidavit-in-opposition have been controverted. 7. No affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. Swapan Kumar Garai, learned Counsel, however appeared for respondent No.6, Dr. Jayanta Bose, and supported the stand taken by the respondent No. 1 to 4. 8. Having heard Mr. Balai Ch. Ray, for the writ petitioner, learned senior standing counsel for the State Respondents, and Mr. Garai for the respondent No. 6 and upon perusal of the mater materials on record, the only point of controversy that is arising in the instant case, is as to whether the petitioner can claim to be appointed as a Lecturer in Nephrology Department at IPGME & R at SSKM Hospital. It is strongly argued that although the petitioner is a brilliant scholar standing first in the M.B.B.S. examination and by obtaining several Gold Medals, and inspite of the fact that he was having his M.D. on the subject and completed the D.M. Course at Chandigarh and completed two years' term, but the result as published on 1.1.88. The dead line was drawn on 31.12.1987. As per the requirement, the petitioner cannot claim to have the qualification of D.M. on 31.12.1987 as his result was out on the next date that is on 1.1.88. 9. It is, however, not open to the petitioner to make any allegation whether the respondent No. 6 and 7 were appointed rightly or not as lecturers having proper qualification or otherwise. It is for the petitioner to convince this court as to whether he has sufficient qualification and his claim for appointment as Lecturer has been ignored and as to why he has been posted as a supernumerary Officer and his expertise is not being utilised for all practical purposes. It is not appreciated by this court as to why the certificates given by the Institute at Chandigarh that the petitioner fully completed two year course equivalent to experience would not he counted. Besides on the date of interview and at the time of making appointment the petitioner acquired the qualification. The matter ought to have been considered pragmatically and one day delay in publishing the result of D. M. Examination does not disentitle the petitioner to be considered for the post of Lecturer. 10. Besides on the date of interview and at the time of making appointment the petitioner acquired the qualification. The matter ought to have been considered pragmatically and one day delay in publishing the result of D. M. Examination does not disentitle the petitioner to be considered for the post of Lecturer. 10. With great anxiety this court has considered this matter in depth and is of the view that on the relevant date of making application, the petitioner had all the eligibilities and the publications of his result of D.M. examination having one day's late, should not have any impact upon the consideration as his qualification and experience as scrutinized by the Selection Board. In fact, the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibilities and there is no bar and/or impediment to allow the writ petition to command the respondents to take effective steps for posting the petitioner as Lecturer of the Nephrology Department in the manner as admissible in law and in terms of the advertisement caused at the instance of the said respondents. The petitioner is entitled to have all the benefits retrospectively in the manner as prescribed in law. Such steps have got to be taken within a period of three months from the date communication of this order. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Let an appropriate writ be issued accordingly. Application allowed.