S. D. PANDIT ( 1 ) DR. PRITI daughter of Shri Mool Chand and five others have filed the petition bearing No. 295/95 and Dr. Reena Gosain and two others have filed petition bearing No. 317/95, to quash the list, prepared by respondent Nos. 1 and 4, of the Junior Resident Medical Officers. As both the petitions are raising one and the same controversy they are being disposed of by this common judgement. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS have completed their degree course for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery and they have also completed their internships. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement on 10. 11,1994 inviting applications for 46 posts of Junior Resident Doctors. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioners had applied in the prescribed format. They were called for interview on 16. 1. 1995 but actually they were not interviewed but on 19. 1. 1995 the respondent No. 2 published a list of 46 candidates. According to the petitioners the said list was prepared without taking any interviews and without following the due procedure. It is further alleged that the said list includes the names of some persons who are not at all eligible for the said post. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned list should be scrapped and respondents 1, 2 and 4 be directed to hold proper interviews and selection. ( 3 ) WE had issued show cause notice to the respondents. In pursuance to the show cause notice respondent No. 4 has put in his counter affidavit in which it has been stated that in all 494 applications were received out of which 52 were in scheduled castes category, 19 in the scheduled tribes category and the remaining in the general category. Thereafter a Staff Selection Board under the Chairmanship of Dr. S. K. Choudhary, Medical Superintendent, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, was appointed and the said Staff Selection Board decided to meet on 16. 1. 1995 and decided to prepare a merit list after taking into consideration the choices of individuals as regards the discipline based strictly on merit list. As per the said decision letters were issued for interviews and all the candidates who attended on the date of interview were called for interview one by one in order of merit and they were given the discipline of their choice, subject to availability. As per the said decision letters were issued for interviews and all the candidates who attended on the date of interview were called for interview one by one in order of merit and they were given the discipline of their choice, subject to availability. Persons who were not present on that day were not at all considered. Thus. the said list was prepared purely on merit and a waiting list was also prepared and the names of the petitioners are appearing in the said waiting list. Affidavit of Shri U. R. Kapoor. Joint Secretary (Medical), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, has been filed alongwith the merit list. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that there was no illegality in preparing the said waiting list and that the petition is devoid of any merits and the same should be dismissed. ( 4 ) IT is vehemently urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the respondents that the list was prepared purely on merit was incorrect and in support of this submission he drew our attention to the candidate at serial No. 190 and that candidates at serial No. 381 to 391 were having more percentage of marks than the candidates appearing above their serial number. This position, however, is made quite clear by the additional affidavit of Mr. U. R. Kapoor wherein it is stated that though the individuals at serial No. 190 as well as 381 to 391 had not cleared their final examination in M. B. B. S. in the first attempt, they had cleared the said examination in the second attempt. The individuals who have cleared the examination in the first attempt were given preference over the persons who had cleared the examination on second and subsequent attempts. Therefore, the giving of preference to the candidates who had cleared their final year M. B. B. S. examination in the first attempt over the repeaters could not be said to be improper or unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show that in preparing the impugned list merit was not considered by the authority. ( 5 ) IT is made quite clear by the respondents in their counter affidavits that applicants were called on 16. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show that in preparing the impugned list merit was not considered by the authority. ( 5 ) IT is made quite clear by the respondents in their counter affidavits that applicants were called on 16. 1. 1995 only for the purpose of ascertaining their choice of discipline and that there was no necessity to have any formal interview as such since the selection was made purely on merits. In case of making selections by giving some credits for the interview then respondents 1, 2 and 4 would have been compelled to have various committees for selection because in case of selection experts from each discipline in the medicine must be made members of the Selection Committee and that would have resulted into unnecessary loss of public funds as well as valuable time of medical experts. Therefore, that action of the respondents in making the selection purely on merits could not be said to be improper or illegal. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further urged before us that while making selection and while preparing the select list those persons who had completed their internship prior to 31. 12. 1993 are considered and they have been selected and, therefore, it is contrary to the advertisement issued by the contesting respondents. For this purpose, he invited our attention to the advertisement. The eligibility condition as given in the advertisement reads as follows:- ELIGIBILITY: Candidates who have passed the Final MBBS examination from a recognised University and have completed compulsory rotatory internship on or after 31. 12. 1993 or will be completing intership by 31. 12. 1994 and are registered with Medical Council of India/state Medical Council will be eligible. Further the candidates who have done house job for a period not exceeding 6 months after 31. 12. 1993 will be considered. Those who have done house job for one year need not apply. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners the respondents ought to have considered the candidates who have completed their internships only on or after 31. 12. 1993 and till 31. 12. 1994. But if the said clause of the advertisement is read carefully then it would be quite clear that the authorities never intended to debar the persons who had completed the internship prior to 31. 12. 1993. 12. 1993 and till 31. 12. 1994. But if the said clause of the advertisement is read carefully then it would be quite clear that the authorities never intended to debar the persons who had completed the internship prior to 31. 12. 1993. It is also pertinent to note that if they had intended to debar the persons who had completed their internship prior to 31. 12. 1993 then they would have stated in the advertisement that those person who have completed their internship between 31. 12. 1993 and 31. 12. 1994 alone were entitled to apply for the post advertised. The term "candidates who have completed their internship on 31. 12. 1993" would obviously mean persons who have completed theirinternship prior to that date irrespective of the fact as on what prior date. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that applicants who had completed their internships prior to 31. 12. 1993 were not to be considered by the contesting respondents. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussion above, we hold that both the petitions are devoid of any merit. We accordingly dismiss the same but in the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.