JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. - Both the writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as the points involved in these applications are, more or less, common. 2. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 261 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first case') initially challenged the allotment of points to respondent no. 4, Dr. Sheela Sinha and consequently her placement in the panel for appointment of Assistant Professor, Paediatrics/Neonatology prepared in the year 1990 wherein she has been placed above the petitioners. Later, the petitioners filed an application at flag 'X' seeking amendment in the relief portion of the writ application and thereby praying for quashing of the Notification No. 444 (17) dated 2.9.1992 issued by the Additional Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary to the Government, in the Department of Health appointing respondent no. 4 as Assistant Professor. Neonatology (Paediatrics) in Patna Medical College, Patna as also for addition of the said Additional Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary as party respondent no. 5 to the main writ application. In the said petition the petitioners also sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing notification no. 501 (17) dated 31.8.1989 issued by respondent no. 2, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder the teaching experience of respondent no. 4 for having worked as Resident, Paediatrics in the Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna during the period 20.8.1976 to 13.10.1977 was recognised. 2. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. In May, 1990 an advertisement was issued by the Joint Secretary to the State Government in the Health Department inviting applications for different teaching posts in the Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar, including the post of Assistant Professor, Neonatology. A photo copy of the said advertisement has been annexed as Annexure 1. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 along with several other candidates filed applications for appointment on different teaching posts in different Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar. According to the said advertisement, merit of the candidates was to be determined on the basis of the points allotted in different heads. 3. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 along with several other candidates filed applications for appointment on different teaching posts in different Medical Colleges of the State of Bihar. According to the said advertisement, merit of the candidates was to be determined on the basis of the points allotted in different heads. 3. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in the instant case, the only relevant clause of the said advertisement to be taken into consideration are as follows : ^^vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ;ksX;rk ewY;kadu fuEukafdr vadks ds vk/kkj ij gksxk % ¼3½ LukrdksRrj ;ksX;rk ds fy,& ¼v½ fo”k; fo’ks”k esa ,d ;k vf/kd fMIyksek ds fy, 1 vad ¼c½ fo”k; fo’ks”k esa ,e- Mh-@,e- ,l-@vesfjdk LisflfyVh cksMZ dk izek.k&i=@vU; lerqY; ;ksX;rk ds fy, 4 vad ¼l½ fo”k; fo’ks”k esa 11 uoacj 1978 ds iwoZ izkIr ,e- vkj- lh- ih-@,e- vkj- lh- vks- th-@,Q- vkj- lh- ,l- ds fy, ¼n½ mijksDr ¼c½ vkSj ¼l½ ,d lkFk izkIr 8 vad ¼d½ mijksDrk ¼c½ ,oa fof’k”V xzqi ds vU; fdlh fo”k; esa lerqY; ;ksX;rk ;k ih- ,p- Mh- ds fy, 6 vad ¼[k½ mijksDr ¼l½ ,oa fof’k”V fo”k; ds fdlh vU; fo”k; esa leku ;ksX;rk ds fy, 8 vad ¼x½ fo”k; esa ,e- ,l-@,e- Mh- rFkk mlh fof’k”Vrk esa ih- ,p- Mh- ds fy, 5 vad uksV % ¼1½ dqy vad] 8 vad rd lhfer gksxkA ¼2½ ,d gh fo”k; esa ,d ls vf/kd fo’ofo|ky; ls ,d gh ;ksX;rk izkIr djus ij vfrfjDr vad ns; ugha gksxkA ¼4½ xzkeh.k lsok ¼v½ vkosnu&i= izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk rd NksVkukxiqj izeaMy ,oa laFkkyijxuk dks NksM+dj vU: LFkkuksa ds vuqeaMy eq[;ky; ds lnj iz[kaMksa esa vofLFkr izkFkfed LokLF;&dsanzksa ,oia vU; E;qfufliy {ks=ksa ds ckgj izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa ,oa vLirkyksa esa dk;Zjr fpfdRldksa ,oa efgyk fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks izR;sd iwjh o”kZ dh lsok ds fy, 1 vad uksV % E;qfufliy {ks=ksa esa vofLFkr vLirkyksa ;k ftyk eq[;ky; ds lnj iz[kaMksa esa vofLFkr vLirkyksa@izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa esa dk;Zjr fpfdRldksa ,oa efgyk fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks ;g xzkeh.k vad ns; ugha gksxk] pkgs mldk dk;Z {ks= xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa D;ksa u iM+rk gksA ¼c½ vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk rd NksVkukxiqj izeaMy ,oa laFkky ijxuk ds vuqeaMy eq[;ky; ds lnj iz[kaMksa esa vofLFkr izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa ,oa vU; E;qfufliy {ks=ksa ds ckgj ds izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa ,oa vU; E;qfufliy {ks=ksa ds ckgj ds izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa ,oa vLirkyksa esa dk;Zjr fpfdRldksa ,oa efgyk fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh izR;sd iwjs o”kZ dh lsok ds fy, 1 1@2 vad uksV % NksVkukxiqj izeaMy ,oa laFkkyijixuk ds E;qfufliy {ks=ksa esa vofLFkr vLirkyksa ,oa ftyk eq[;ky; ds lnj iz[kaMksa esa vofLFkr vLirkyksa@izkFkfed LokLF; dsanzksa esa dk;Zjr fpfdRldksa ,oa efgyk fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dks ;g xzkeh.k vad ns; ugha gksxk] pkgs mudk dk;Z {ks= xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa D;ksa u iM+rk gSA ¼l½ fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa ukWu&fDyfudy fo”k; esa izn’kZd@V;waVj ds in ij dk;Z djus ds fy, izR;sd iwjh o”kZ dh lsok ds fy, 1 vad ¼n½ lqj{kk lsok esa fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa izR;sd iwjh o”kZ dh lsok ds fy, 1 vad ¼bZ½ vkosnu&i= izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk rd eysfj;k] Qysfj;k] dq”B ,oa ;{ek dk;Zdze ds varxZr fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa fd;s x;s izR;sd iwjh o”kZ dh lsok ds fy, 1 1@2 vad uksV % fuca/kd ,oa lgk;d izk/;kid ds in ds fy, vf/kdre 7 vad vuqekU; gksxk rFkk vkoklh; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] funs’kd] lgk;d fDyfudy iSFksyksftLV ds inks ads fy, vf/kdre 3 vad fn;k tk;sxkA vkoklh; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ds fy, izFke 2 o”kksZa dk xzkeh.k lsok ;k ukWu&fDyfudy fo”k; esa V;wVj ds :i esa lsok ds fy, dksbZ vad ns; ugha gksxkA ¼5½ ‘kS{kf.kd vuqHko ds fy, ¼v½ vkosnu&i= izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk rd lgk;d izk/;kid ds in ds fy, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj”kn~ }kjk Hkkjr esa ekU;rk izkIr fdlh fpfdRlk f’k{k.k laLFkku esa Lohd`r vkoklh; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh@fuca/kd dk in nksuksa tksM+dj dk;Z vuqHko ds fy, izR;sd iwjs o”kZ ds vuqHko ds fy, 1 vad ¼3 vad vf/kdre vuqekU;½^^A 4. Accordingly, a panel for Assistant Professor of Paediatrics was prepared, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4. From perusal of the said panel it appears that the total point awarded to the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 was 31.50, 31.00 and 27.00 respectively whereas the total point awarded to respondent no. 4 was 32.00. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 2 whereas petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 were placed at serials no. 4, 5 and 12 respectively. However, this was later amended vide Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in which the total point awarded to respondent no. 4 and petitioner no. 2 remained unchanged whereas the total point of petitioner no. 1 was reduced to 31.00 and in the case of petitioner no. 3 it was increased to 31.00. Accordingly, the said panel was rearranged and respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 2 whereas petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 were placed at serial no. 3, 4 and 6 respectively. 5. The case of the petitioners is that respondent no. 4 was entitled for only 30 points instead of 32 points awarded to her as per the terms of the advertisement. It is contended that according to the aforementioned clause in the advertisement 3 points are to be allotted for having completed three years of service as Resident and 3 points are to be allotted for having completed 3 years of service as Registrar in a Medical College and in the event of having completed full term on both the said posts the maximum points to be allotted is 5'. Further, it is contended that so far allotment of points for the post-graduate degree and diploma is concerned, the same is to be given against the degrees or diploma which are recognised for making a person eligible for being considered to be appointed in the Health Services of the State Government. Further, it is contended that so far allotment of points for the post-graduate degree and diploma is concerned, the same is to be given against the degrees or diploma which are recognised for making a person eligible for being considered to be appointed in the Health Services of the State Government. It should also be recognised by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it is stated that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Council has granted recognition to the post-graduate degrees or diplomas obtained by a candidate outside the country in the subject included in the third schedule part II of the said Act, but, according to the petitioners, the post-graduate diploma in Paediatrics of United Kingdom is not included in the said schedule. Further, it is stated that the qualification acquired in the United Kingdom prior to 11th November, 1978 is only recognised qualification. 6. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no. 4 was appointed in the State Government service on 14.10.1977 as Civil Assistant Surgeon and was posted at Makhdumpur Block where she worked till 4.12.1978. Thereafter she went to the United Kingdom and obtained her post-graduate degree in child health in the year 1982. Thus, it is contended that the said diploma cannot be taken into account for adjudging her suitability or merit for appointment as Assistant Professor, Paediatrics/Neonatology. She was again posted on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in the office of Civil Surgeon, Hajipur (Vaishali) against the leave reserved post of 4.7.84 where she worked till 13.9.1986. Thereafter she was appointed as Registrar vide Notification dated 12.9.1986 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Health Department (Annexure 3), Thus, it is contended that respondent no. 4 had not acquired two years' experience on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon and she could not be given any point for having obtained post-graduate diploma in child health from the United Kingdom. 7. According to the petitioners the maximum points for which respondent no. 4 had not acquired two years' experience on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon and she could not be given any point for having obtained post-graduate diploma in child health from the United Kingdom. 7. According to the petitioners the maximum points for which respondent no. 4 was entitled for having worked on the post of Registrar in view of the Government Notification dated 30.4.1981 issued by the Health Department, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 3/A, could not, in any event, exceed more then 3 points, but from perusal of the tentative panel, as contained in Annexure 4, it would appear that for teaching experience respondent no 4 was given 4 points and for postgraduate degree 5 points whereas for post-graduate degree a candidate is entitled to get only 4 points and for the postgraduate diploma 1 point. Thus, according to the petitioners, respondent no. 4 who obtained a post-graduate degree in Paediatrics is entitled to only 4 points on that account and similarly, she having worked only on the post of Registrar is entitled to get 3 points and not 4. In other words, according to them, 2 extra points have been allotted to respondent no. 4 illegally and in complete contravention of the norms and regulations laid down in the advertisement. 8. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is stated that as the petitioners were not aware of the qualification and bio-data of respondent no. 4, they could not raise objections soon after the circulation of the tentative panel but they having come to know about the discrepancies filed representations before respondent authorities. In the said representation it was stated that respondent no. 4 could not be allotted more than 3 points and should not be allotted any point for the post-graduate diploma in child health obtained from the United Kingdom for the reason that any such degree after 1978 was not recognised by the Council for the purposes of appointment on any teaching and non-teaching post. Further, it has been contended that, despite the fact that there was no vacancy available at Patna, the Cabinet Minister malafide passed order for appointment of Respondent no. 4 as Assistant Professor, Neonatology. Thus, in this regard from the averments made in the petition it appears that malafide is sought to be alleged against the Cabinet Minister but she has not been made party. 4 as Assistant Professor, Neonatology. Thus, in this regard from the averments made in the petition it appears that malafide is sought to be alleged against the Cabinet Minister but she has not been made party. In that view of the matter, I do not wish to take note of the facts, in detail, in this regard. 9. Counter and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 in which, inter alia, it is stated that 32.00 points have rightly been assigned to the respondent no. 4. It is further stated that the answering respondent is given 1 point for rural services whereas petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3, 5.50 points 7.00 points and 6 points respectively for the same. It is further stated that answering respondent is entitled to 4.00 points for teaching experience and 5.00 points for post-graduate degree/diploma which has rightly been allotted to her as shown in the panel. In the supplementary counter affidavit, inter alia, it is stated that the University of Wales College of Medicine is a recognised institution for teaching/working experience abroad as would be evident from the proceedings of the Screening Committee which states as follows : "This Committee has made its recommendation on the basis of teaching experience gained in a recognised teaching institution in India or where there is clear evidence of teaching experience gained in a recognised institution abroad, Wales National Medical School Hospital Cradiff, University of Cardiff." Thus, it is contended that respondent no. 4 has working experience in a recognised institution. As per Clause 19 of the advertisement which, inter alia, provides that a Doctor having working experience shall be given preference, thus the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for. 10. Respondent No. 4 has also mentioned about her academic qualification in the first counter affidavit wherein it is stated that she did her M.B.B.S. from Patna Medical College in the year 1972 and secured honours in three subject, viz., Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology. She was awarded 6 gold medals for her excellent performance during her medical academic career. She was awarded Mary Joseph Gold Medal for obtaining the highest aggregate marks at the final M.B.B.S. Part II examination. She was also awarded Sarojini Devi Raj Kishore Prasad Gold Medal for obtaining the highest percentage of marks in the aggregate at the final M.B.B.S. examination. She was awarded Mary Joseph Gold Medal for obtaining the highest aggregate marks at the final M.B.B.S. Part II examination. She was also awarded Sarojini Devi Raj Kishore Prasad Gold Medal for obtaining the highest percentage of marks in the aggregate at the final M.B.B.S. examination. She had also distinction of receiving Dr. Batukdeo Prasad Verma Gold Medal for securing highest marks in surgery at the final M.B.B.S. examination. She was also conferred with the distinction of obtaining Stephenson Gold Medal for standing first in the surgery at the final M.B.B.S. examination. She has further the privilege of receiving Dr. Sidheshwari Prasad Memorial Gold Medal for standing first in Physiology amongst the regular successful candidates of the final M.B.B.S. examination. She was also awarded P.C. Talent prize for securing the highest marks in the aggregate of Part I and II of the final M.B.B.S. examination taken together. She had also obtained diploma in child health from the Royal College of Physicians at London in the year 1982 and M.R.C.P from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland in the year 1983, in addition, she passed the M.D. examination in Paediatrics from the Patna University in the year 1976. Thus, she claims that her academic excellence is much superior to the petitioners. 11. In paragraph 8 of the first counter affidavit it is also stated that respondent no. 4 did her M. D. in Paediatrics in the year 1976 and joined Nalanda Medical College which was recognised for imparting M.B.B.S. education on 25.8.1976 as Resident Physician in the department of Paediatrics which is a teaching post where she worked till 10.10.1977. Thus, it is contended that she worked on a teaching post in a college which is recognised by the Council and the State Government by Notification dated 31.8.1989 also recognised her teaching experience for the said period, vide Annexure A/1 and was, accordingly, assigned one point for the same. As regards the allegation regarding non-availability and/or creation of post, the statements made in the writ application have been controverted in the counter affidavit or it is stated in this regard that the said statements are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 12. The allocation of points for rural services has been challenged by respondent no. As regards the allegation regarding non-availability and/or creation of post, the statements made in the writ application have been controverted in the counter affidavit or it is stated in this regard that the said statements are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 12. The allocation of points for rural services has been challenged by respondent no. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the second case'), as according to her, the allocation of rural points depends upon fortuitous circumstances and the employees have no right or choice to their place of posting. Further, it is contended that there is no nexus and/or relevancy in allocating the points for the rural services for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor. In this regard Mr. Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. A submitted that this matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others ( AIR 1986 S.C. 1877 ) and also before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 364 – Paras 14 and 15) in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court has placed reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 13. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first case, submitted that according to the terms of the advertisement, points are to be allotted only for such experience on teaching posts which is gained in a Medical College recognised by the Council for imparting training in M.B.B.S. Course. He also ventured to submit that the Nalanda Medical College and Hospital was recognised by the Council after 1978 and, therefore, even assuming that respondent no. 4 worked as Resident Medical Officer in the said College during the period claimed by her, she is not entitled for any point. According to the learned counsel, she is also not entitled for any point for her diploma in the United Kingdom because admittedly it has been obtained after 11th November, 1978. Thus, he submitted that respondent no. 4 is entitled for only 30 points and not 32 points as wrongly awarded to her. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the point awarded to respondent no. Thus, he submitted that respondent no. 4 is entitled for only 30 points and not 32 points as wrongly awarded to her. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the point awarded to respondent no. 4 for diploma in child health from Royal College of the United Kingdom is not admissible as per clause 21 (6) of the advertisement (Annexure 1) and she is also not entitled for one point when she worked as Resident Physician in N.M.C.H. 14. In my opinion, there is no merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 4 is not entitled for one point for her teaching experience as Resident Physician in N.M.C.H. from 25.8.1976 to 13.10.1977, the challenge of which by the petitioners is solely on the ground that the said institution was not recognised before 1978 for which the foundational facts in this regard have not been stated anywhere by the petitioners. On the contrary, as already stated above, respondent no. 4 in paragraph 8 of the first counter affidavit has specifically stated that she worked after completing her M.D. in Paediatrics in the year 1976 and joined Nalanda Medical College which was recognised for imparting M.B.B.S. education on 25.8.1976 as Resident Physician and worked in that capacity till 13.10.1977. Further it is reiterated that she worked on a teaching post of Resident in a College which was recognised by the Council for imparting M.B.B.S. education. 15. However, in regard to the admissibility of the point awarded to respondent no. 4 for diploma in Child Health from Royal College, United Kingdom, Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 in the first case, submitted that the very premises on which the petitioners have proceeded that point can only be given to the degrees or diploma recognised by the Council is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted that for the purpose of eligibility for appointment, the basic qualification prescribed/recognised by the Council will be binding but so far as the experience pertaining to any degree or diploma is concerned, its recognition by the Council is not sine qua non and that it is the discretion of the employer to assign points for such degrees or diploma which is not the basic qualification for such appointment. It was also submitted by him that the credibility of diploma in child health from Royal College of Physicians at London which is an institute of repute is permissible for being considered by the employer irrespective of the fact as to whether the same is recognised by the Councilor not. He further submitted that in fact, the answering respondent is claiming her appointment on the post of Assistant Professor on the basis of M. O. degree in Paediatrics which makes her eligible for consideration and not on the basis of the aforesaid diploma. Thus, according to him, inclusion or non-inclusion of diploma in Part II of the Indian Medical Council Act has no relevance to the question involved in the present writ application. 16. From a bare perusal of sub-clause (3) of clause 21 of the advertisement (Annexure 1) it would appear that for the purpose of determination of merit one point is to be awarded for post-graduate qualification. Under sub-clause (Sa) of sub-clause (3), 4 points are to be allotted for M.D./ M.S./ certificate from America Speciality Board/ other equivalent qualification in the subject concerned and under sub-clause (a) for additional diploma one point is to be allotted under sub-clause (Sa) of sub-clause (3), if a candidate has obtained M.R.C.P/ M.R.C.O.G./ F.R.C.S. in the subject concerned before 11th November, 1978, then he shall be entitled for six points and a candidate obtained both (Sa) and (Sa), as stated above, will be entitled for 8 points. However, Mr. Singh in this regard referred to sub-clause (Ga) of sub-clause (2) of clause 2 of the said advertisement which read as follows: ^^lgk;d izk/;kid ,oa fuca/kd ¼jftLVªkj½ ds in ds fy, vkosndksa dks mlh fof’k”Vrk] ftlesa vkosnu gks] ,e- Mh-] ,e- ,l-] ,e- vkj- lh- ,l- ¼;w- ds-½] ,e- vkj- lh- ih- ¼;w- ds-½] ,e- vkj- lh- vks- th- ¼;w- ds-½ ;k vesfjdu cksMZ vkWQ Lisfl;fyVh ;k vU; dksbZ LukrdksRrj ;ksX;rk] ftls Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj”kn~ }kjk mi;qZDr miyfC/k;ksa ds lerqY; ekuk x;k gks] izkIr gksuk vfuok;Z gSA fnukad 11 uoEcj] 1978 ds ckn ;w- ds- ls izkIr LukrdksRrj mikf/k;ksa dks ekU;rk ugha nh tk;sxhA^^ 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the aforementioned requirement in the advertisement for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor a candidate will only be entitled for consideration of his case if he holds any of the qualification referred to therein which has the recognition of the Council and it is also submitted that the post-graduate degree obtained from the United Kingdom after 11th November, 1978 is not to be recognised. Thus, according to him, sub-clause (da) of sub-clause (3) of clause 21 will have to be read with the requirement in sub-clause (Ga) of sub-clause (2) of clause 2 and, consequently, according to him, the diploma obtained by respondent no. 4 from the United Kingdom after 11th November, 1978 will not make her entitled for any point on that score. 18. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Clause 2 deals with the minimum eligibility in general in respect of the educational qualification and experience whereas the provision for determination of merit on the basis of allocation of points as provided in the end of the advertisement is entirely different from the eligibility. For the purpose of eligibility it is no doubt that the qualifications mentioned in sub-clause (Gha) must have the recognition of the Council and in that context post-graduate degrees/diplomas obtained from the United Kingdom after 11th November, 1978 will not have any recognition for the purpose of eligibility. But for the purpose of allocation of points, in my opinion, there is no such bar in respect of the allocation of points as against the qualifications mentioned in sub-clause (Ba) of clause 3 for evaluating the merit of the candidates. Thus, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard and I also do not find any infirmity in the points allocated to the petitioners for postgraduate diploma obtained by her from Royal College of Physicians at London. 19. It is useful to quote the relevant passage from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Digvijai Singh Goel v. Lucknow University and others (I.L.R. 1971 2 All. 19. It is useful to quote the relevant passage from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Digvijai Singh Goel v. Lucknow University and others (I.L.R. 1971 2 All. 146) wherein the High Court was considering the scope and object of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act held that "the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act is to regulate medical practice in India by persons possessing recognised qualifications and to eliminate such practice by unqualified persons. The object of the Act is not to prescribe essential qualifications requisite for a teacher in the University or Medical Institutions. The necessary qualifications for appointment will have to be prescribed under the Luck now University Act or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder and consequently the non-recognition of these qualifications under the Indian Medical Council Act, will be wholly irrelevant. The provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act cannot curtail the power of the University or its Executive councilor its selection committee in the matter of prescribing the requisite qualifications or their equivalence. The power under S.20 of the Medical Council Act would not include, the power to prescribe the requisite qualifications for a teacher." Further, the Court, as regards the equivalence of University degree for the purpose of appointment as a teacher, held, as follows: "Whether a particular foreign degree is or is not equivalent to a corresponding Indian degree for the purposes of appointment as a teacher properly falls for determination by the selection committee and its experts. The court should not readily transgress upon that privilege unless there is a breach of a mandatory statutory provision." 20. Now I revert back to the challenge made by respondent no. 4 in her writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 1991 in regard to the allocation of point for rural services rendered by the respective candidates. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the cases, submitted that there is no illegality in the allocation of points for rural services inasmuch as the same will create interest in Medical Graduates entering in the service to render service in the rural areas. Thus, according to him, there is nexus in allocation of points for rural services. Thus, according to him, there is nexus in allocation of points for rural services. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the manner in awarding point for rural services may be bad but the provision itself on that account cannot be held to be unreasonable. In my opinion, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State inasmuch as an employee has no control over his posting and thus, the said point is dependent on fortuitous circumstances in the hands of the State authority. If a candidate is not given posting in the rural area he in any manner cannot be held responsible for not extending his services in the rural area. Thus, in my opinion, to get additional point for rendering service in the rural area is solely dependent on the sweet will of the State Government and a candidate may be deprived of the same without there being any fault on his part. Further, I do not find any nexus or relevancy in allocation of the points for rendering services in the rural area. 21. It is true that there cannot be any dispute regarding desirability to give some incentive to the doctors to go to the rural areas as in the urban area we find umpteen number of doctors whereas rural areas are mostly neglected. But, in my opinion, that alone will not be sufficient to overcome the said problem. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others ( AIR 1986 S.C. 1877 ) has considered this aspect while dealing with the case where weightage of 15% of the total marks obtained by a candidate for tile services rendered in the rural area was given for admission in MBBS/BOS courses and Post-graduate Medical courses. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others ( AIR 1986 S.C. 1877 ) has considered this aspect while dealing with the case where weightage of 15% of the total marks obtained by a candidate for tile services rendered in the rural area was given for admission in MBBS/BOS courses and Post-graduate Medical courses. The Supreme Court on consideration of the reasons why our doctors are not persuaded to go to the rural areas in order to serve the rural masses who are badly in need of medical assistance such as, attraction of urban life, the prospect of building up a lucrative practice which may be possible only in urban cities, lack of proper facilities and inadequate supply of necessary medicines and above all absence of social commitment and lack of desire to serve the poor and the disadvantaged, held that there are some difficulties which has to be overcome if the doctors may move to the rural area. Further, their Lordships expressed that by merely offering a weightage of 15% to a doctor for three years rural service would not be able to bring about a migration of doctors from the urban to the rural areas. The Supreme Court also expressed doubt that such candidate getting a weightage of 15% would go to tile rural area after he has got M.D. or M.S. degree and, accordingly their Lordships held that no weightage will be given to rural service rendered by him, so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned. 22. In my opinion, similar is the position in the case of appointment of Assistant Professor also. Neither it is in the hands of the candidates to extend their services in the rural areas nor after their appointment as Assistant Professor will have any occasion to extend their services in the rural areas inasmuch as after their appointment as Assistant Professor they are required to teach students in a Medical College which is generally established in urban areas. Moreover, there appears to be no nexus for giving any point for the services rendered in rural areas for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in a Medical College inasmuch as there cannot be any expectation from the candidates who have served in the rural areas that he would acquire any special knowledge for teaching in a Medical College. Moreover, there appears to be no nexus for giving any point for the services rendered in rural areas for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in a Medical College inasmuch as there cannot be any expectation from the candidates who have served in the rural areas that he would acquire any special knowledge for teaching in a Medical College. Further, it cannot be forgotten that the facilities available in the rural area are such that one cannot even imagine of a doctor serving in that area after acquiring any special knowledge for the purpose of teaching of the students in Medical College. 23. However, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others (supra) stating that it was a case concerning admission in the post graduate course of Medical Science and not a case of appointment in the Medical College. It was contended by the learned Government Pleader No. V that it will create interest if such an incentive is given to a doctor in order to create interest in them to render service in the rural area and thus, it is a relevant fact showing additional experience of the candidate concerned. 24. I do not find any substance in the said submission for two reasons, firstly, as I have already held that the posting of the doctors in the rural areas is merely dependent upon fortuitous circumstances and there is nothing in his hands. In my opinion, such incentive is not in any manner going to either help the doctor or improve the situation in persuading doctor to go to the rural areas in order to serve the rural masses. Secondly, in my opinion, a factum (rendering service in rural area) which is found to be irrelevant by the Supreme Court for admission in All India seat and by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 364) in the case of the candidates seeking admission to the seat within the State on the same parity of reasoning cannot be held to be a relevant factor for appointment of teacher in a Medical College. Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 364) in the case of the candidates seeking admission to the seat within the State on the same parity of reasoning cannot be held to be a relevant factor for appointment of teacher in a Medical College. The aim and object of giving some weightages of marks/points for rural service is to take services of the incoming doctors in the State service as an incentive for participation in the National Health Programme or to serve the rural masses who are badly in need of medical assistance. I have already held above that such an incentive has no obvious connection with the merit/knowledge of the candidate seeking appointment as teacher in Medical College where he/she has to teach the students on the basis of their knowledge and academic attainments: The spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar (supra) is for "super specialities" in other words, the only relevant criteria to select the best is to see their academic attainments and nothing else. 25. Thus, in my opinion, such appointment cannot be allowed to be made on the basis of any irrelevant factors such as by awarding additional points for rendering rural service. Thus, on this account also if the points awarded to the petitioners as well as of respondent no. 4 for rendering service in rural areas are withdrawn and deducted, still respondent no. 4 will have edge over the petitioners. 26. Accordingly, the second case succeeds and as I do not find any merit in the first case the same is dismissed but without costs.