Order The petitioner in this application seeks quashing of an order dated September 28, 1996 (Annexure 15) by which respondent no.5 has been given appointment on the post of Registrar, Bihar Nurses Registration Council following a recommendation made in her favour by the Council in its meeting held on September 10, 1996. The impugned appointment is being made on the basis of an advertisement issued in the daily 'The Times of India' of 4.7.96 (annexure 6) with its corrigendum issued on 9.7.96 (annexure 7). The petitioner was herself a candidate in response to the advertisement but it is her grievance that respondent no.5 was selected and appointed disregarding the superior claim of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the selection and appointment of respondent no.5 on a number of grounds. It is not needed, however, to discuss all of them here or even to enumerate them as, in my opinion, this writ petition is fit to succeed on a very short point regarding the eligibility of respondent no.5 for being appointed as the Registrar of the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Mr. Jha submitted that respondent no.5 did not fulfil the eligibility criterion as required under regulation 3 (iii) and hence her appointment was bad and unsustainable in law. 3. At this stage, it may be noted that on April 1, 1992 the State Government framed the Bihar Nurses Registration Council (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Registrar) Regulation in exercise of powers under Section 8(1) of the Bihar Nurses Registration Act, 1985. Regulation 3 laid down the criteria regarding eligibility and qualification of the Registrar and sub-regulation (iii) provided that the Registrar shall be a registered Nurse/registered Mid-wife. It may further be noted that though the word 'registered' in not defined under regulation 2 containing the definition clauses but it provided that all other expressions not defined therein would have the same meaning as in the Act itself. From a perusal of the Act, it appears that the word 'Registered' is a defined expression and Section 2(i) of the Act defines the word as follows : "Registered" means registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 10." 4. From a perusal of the Act, it appears that the word 'Registered' is a defined expression and Section 2(i) of the Act defines the word as follows : "Registered" means registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 10." 4. Section 10 of the Act deals with the registration of nurses with the Council which according to its definition under Section 2(a) means the Bihar Nurses Registration Council established under Section 3 of the Act. Thus, from reading regulation 3(iii) and 2 along with Sections 2(i) and 2(a) and 10 of the Act, it becomes established that being registered as a Nurse and Mid-wife with the Bihar Nurses Registration Council is an essential condition for being appointed to the post of Registrar, Bihar Nurses Council. 5. Respondent no.5 in this case is admittedly not registered with the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. She was registered with the Punjab Nurses Registration Council on 22.11.1982. Her registration with the Punjab Nurses Registration Council does not appear to have been renewed either on an annual or five yearly basis and according to Mr. Jha even her registration with the Punjab Council was no longer in subsistence. Rejoinder affidavits on this point have been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and according to her the• registration with the Punjab Nurses Registration Council is an one time affair which does not require any annual or five yearly renewal. This aspect of the controversy, however, need not detain us here as the main point on which this application is being decided is whether respondent no.5 was required to be registered with the Bihar State Nurses Registration Council for being appointed as the Registrar of the Bihar Council. I have held above that registration with the Bihar Council was one of the essential requirements in the absence of which respondent no.5 was not qualified for being appointed as Registrar of the Council. 6. Mr. Prabhunath Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 submitted that the expression 'registered nurse' occurring in regulation 3(iii) simply meant being' registered with any of the Councils in any of the States of the country and not necessarily with the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon clause 9 of Bye--laws framed under Section 15 of the Bihar & Orissa Nurses Registration Act, 1935. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon clause 9 of Bye--laws framed under Section 15 of the Bihar & Orissa Nurses Registration Act, 1935. Clause 9 is in chapter IV which deals with fee payable for registration but before referring to clause 9 it would be appropriate to refer to Section 10(2) of the Bihar & Orissa Nurses Registration Act, 1935 which provides for registration with the Council on payment of prescribed fee. The amounts of registration fee as envisaged under Section 10(2) have actually been prescribed under clause 9 of the Bye-laws which is as follows : "9. All Nurses and Midwives other than those registered under any Registration Act in force in any other province in India with which principle of reciprocity of registration has been established shall pay a registration fee as noted below and which fee shall accompany the application for registration: (1) Rs. 10-0-0 for registration as a Nurse. (2) Rs. 10-0-0 for registration as a Health Visitor. (3) Rs. 8-0-0 for registration as a Midwife. (4) Rs. 8-0-0 for registration as a Trained Dai. (5) Rs. 2-0-0 for registration as a Dai." 7. Thus, all that can be said on the basis of clause 9 of the Bye-laws is that a person registered in any other State having reciprocity with the Council in Bihar will not be required to pay any fee for being registered with the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Clause 9 of the Bye-laws certainly cannot be relied upon to dispense with the requirement of being registered with the Council in this State. 8. For the reasons stated, there is no option but to hold that respondent no.5 did not satisfy the eligibility criterion as contained in regulation 3(iii) of the Regulations and was, therefore, not qualified to be appointed on the post of Registrar, Bihar Nurses Registration Council. The impugned appointment order (annexure 15) as well as the impugned recommendation (annexure 12) must, therefore, be quashed and I hereby do so. The respondents are consequently directed to make appointment on the post of Registrar of the Council in accordance with law and from amongst the candidates qualified for the post. 9. In the result, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.