Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. These two writ petitions involve similar issues and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urology), and in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990 the petitioner and respondent no. 4 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology pursuant to similar advertisements published on 22.5.1990 and 30th December, 1987 respectively. After appraisal of their relative merit, respondent no. 4 in both the writ petitions were selected for appointment, and aggrieved by their selection the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court challenging their selection and appointment. Though the facts in both the cases differ, the issues involved are similar. It would be convenient to first deal with the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 and the issues involved therein, including the issues common to both the writ petitions. Thereafter, I shall proceed to consider the facts and issues involved in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990. 2. At the threshold I may observe that after filing the writ petition, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 persisted in filing several supplementary affidavits bringing on record facts and pleas not pleaded in the writ petition. Thirteen such supplementary affidavits were filed, and the respondents also felt compelled to file their replies to those supplementary affidavits thus adding to the bulk of the brief which runs into 792 pages. This has made our task difficult, but I must appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by counsel for the parties who have sifted the facts with a view to highlight the real issues involved in these writ petitions. C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991 3. The petitioner in this writ petition is Dr. Ranbir Pd. Singh, the unsuccessful candidate who had applied for being selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, to which post respondent no. 4 Dr. Ajit Singh was appointed. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notification contained in Memo No. 410 (17) dated 9.7.1991, whereby respondent no. 4 was appointed as Assistant Professor, Urology, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital, on the basis cf the panel prepared by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement published in leading newspapers of the State on 22.5.1990. 4 was appointed as Assistant Professor, Urology, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital, on the basis cf the panel prepared by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement published in leading newspapers of the State on 22.5.1990. He has also prayed for quashing of the panel prepared on the basis of the same advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology in different medical colleges of the State of Bihar, and for a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh panel after considering the representation of the petitioner which had been filed by him within the stipulated period. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to award points to the petitioner for his teaching experience while holding the post of Registrar/Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, where he was pursuing his M. Ch. course during this period, which institution is recognised by the Medical Council of India. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to award points to the petitioner for the M. Ch. degree obtained by him, which is a Super- speciality in the subject of Urology. The case of the petitioner is that while he was the only candidate eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, the respondents have preferred respondent no. 4, who, according to him, was not even eligible for consideration in terms of the advertisement. 4. The averments in the writ petition are that the petitioner having obtained his M.B.B.S. degree in 1977 and having completed the internship and house job in surgery in the year 1979, joined M.S. course in general surgery. While he was pursuing his M.S. course he was selected for appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Bihar Health Service, which post he joined on 24.6.1981. The petitioner was granted study leave to complete his M.S. course and in the year 1983 the petitioner obtained the M.S. degree in general surgery. He thereafter rejoined service and on 6.6.1983 was posted as first Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Gandey in the district of Giridih, in a rural area, where he continued till 25.12.1987. On 26.12.1987 he joined the Christian Medical College, Vellore as a Registrar in the Department of Urology after obtaining leave from the Government of Bihar. He thereafter joined the M.Ch. On 26.12.1987 he joined the Christian Medical College, Vellore as a Registrar in the Department of Urology after obtaining leave from the Government of Bihar. He thereafter joined the M.Ch. course on 15.1.1989 in the same college for which he was granted study leave for two years and was pursuing the said course when the Government of Bihar published the advertisement in question for appointment on different posts in the different medical colleges of the State of Bihar including the posts of Assistant Professor. This advertisement was published on 25.5.1990 and related to the posts which were vacant or likely to fall vacant on or before 31st December, 1991. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Urology) and while doing so he claimed his teaching experience in the superspeciality of Urology of two years and six months. His case is that none of the candidates whose names were included in the provisional panel (Annexure/2) had the requisite teaching experience even for a period of six months in the superspeciality of Urology in an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting the M.B.B.S. course. He had also mentioned that he was pursuing the M.Ch. course which he was likely to complete by March 1991. 5. After the applications were received, the selection committee prepared a panel of candidates who were selected for appointment as Assistant Professor, and objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates. The petitioner whose name was not included in the panel filed a representation before the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar within the stipulated period making a grievance of the fact that no points had been awarded to him for his teaching experience and asserting his right to be awarded points for his teaching experience for a period of two years and six months, as per the terms of the advertisement. He claimed minimum of two points for his two and a half years teaching experience in the capacity of Registrar/Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore. It was alleged that his representation was not considered and the petitioner received no communication from the respondents. 6. In the provisional panel (Annexure/2) the name of respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 1, and it appeared from the provisional panel that he had been awarded three points for his teaching experience, even though respondent no. It was alleged that his representation was not considered and the petitioner received no communication from the respondents. 6. In the provisional panel (Annexure/2) the name of respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 1, and it appeared from the provisional panel that he had been awarded three points for his teaching experience, even though respondent no. 4 had no teaching experience at all in the superspeciality in any teaching institution recognised by the Medical Council of India. 7. The petitioner took the M.Ch. examination in March 1991 and thereafter joined his service under the State of Bihar on 25.3.1991. On 27.3.1991 the petitioner was declared successful in the M.Ch. examination. After obtaining the certificate from the Principal of Christian Medical College, Vellore, he submitted the same for his foremost consideration in view of clauses 3 and 19 of the advertisement, and rules and regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. 8. The petitioner has averred that respondent no. 4 obtained his M.B.B.S. degree in the year 1979, and his M.S. degree in the year 1984. He joined the State service in 1984 and was posted as Medical Officer at Punpun. Later he was deputed to work in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences as a senior resident in Urology. He was later appointed as lecturer in surgery and was deputed to work in the Department of Urology in the said institute. While working as such in the said institute, respondent no. 4 was selected for appointment as Assistant Professor, Urology, which has been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents as arbitrary, since his teaching experience of two years and six months in the super-speciality of Urology while working on the post of Registrar/Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, has been ignored. He has asserted that as Registrar/Senior Registrar he was assigned teaching work and in support thereof he has produced Annexure 9 series, the roster, chart etc. His case is that by 15th January, 1991 he had acquired three years teaching experience in the superspeciality of Urology in support of which he has produced a certificate dated 19.3.1991 (Annexure 9-A). Despite all these, the petitioner makes a grievance that he has arbitrarily not been awarded points for his teaching experience. As against this respondent no. His case is that by 15th January, 1991 he had acquired three years teaching experience in the superspeciality of Urology in support of which he has produced a certificate dated 19.3.1991 (Annexure 9-A). Despite all these, the petitioner makes a grievance that he has arbitrarily not been awarded points for his teaching experience. As against this respondent no. 4 has been given three points for his teaching experience in the superspeciality while working in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. The said institute is not a teaching institute recognised for conducting M.B.B.S. course by the Indian Medical Council. According to the petitioner, the said institute is not at all a teaching institution within the contemplation of the advertisement and, therefore, in terms of the advertisement respondent no. 4 was not even eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor (Urology) since the institute in which he was working was not an institute recognised by the Indian Medical Council for conducting M.B.B.S. course. The petitioner has relied upon the general instructions and criteria for evaluation of the candidates laying down norms for awarding points for academic qualifications and teaching experience (Annexure-6). Item no. 7 of the Table No. 9 of Annexure-6 contains the list of medical colleges of the State in which teaching experience may be acquired by a candidate. The list contains the names of only nine such medical colleges in Bihar, which does not include Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. 9. The petitioner has also challenged the eligibility of respondent no. 4 on the ground that respondent no. 4 stood disqualified for appointment for three years in terms of clause 14 of the advertisement since he was selected for appointment to the post of Resident Surgeon, Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi vide notification dated 19.5.90 (Annexure-13), which he did not join. He was, therefore, not eligible for consideration for appointment against a teaching post for a period of three years from that date. 10. The petitioner has contended in his writ petition that in terms of clause 19 of the advertisement his case required foremost consideration for appointment as he had obtained M.Ch. degree in the concerned superspeciality, namely, Urology, and had also two years and six months teaching experience in that super-speciality. His contention is that as was done in some other cases, the M.Ch. degree in the concerned superspeciality, namely, Urology, and had also two years and six months teaching experience in that super-speciality. His contention is that as was done in some other cases, the M.Ch. degree awarded to the petitioner, and the teaching experience acquired by him even after the last date for making the application in terms of the advertisement, should have been taken into consideration. He has referred to the cases of Dr. Smt. Rita Sinha, and Dr. Bikash Kumar Prasad in whose cases such favour had been shown. 11. The petitioner filed his writ petition on 3rd October, 1991, and on 7th August, 1992, he filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Urology in the Patna Medical College and Hospital was created on 26.6.91, as would be evident from Annexure-16. Thus Urology must be considered to be one of the superspecialities which was created in the future in terms of clause 3 (Ga) of the advertisement (Annexure-5). Since the superspeciality of Urology was constituted after the advertisement had been issued, his case was squarely covered by aforesaid clause 3 (Ga) of the advertisement. Since he had three years teaching experience in the concerned superspeciality he was entitled to foremost consideration for appointment and was entitled to be appointed even if he may have obtained lesser points than those candidates who did not possess three years teaching experience in the superspeciality. Reliance has been placed on the communication dated 27th June, 1991 addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar by the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar (Annexure-16) which shows that during the financial year 1991-92 for the period from 1.6.91 to 29.2.92 a sum of Rs. 55,805/- had been sanctioned to meet the expenses consequent upon the creation of the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, under the Department of Surgery in the Patna Medical College. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, the selected candidate, in which several objections have been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the persons empanelled in preference to the petitioner. 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, the selected candidate, in which several objections have been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the persons empanelled in preference to the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that in the writ petition the petitioner has challenged Annexure-2, which was the provisional panel, and subsequently after consideration of objections and necessary rectifications in the provisional panel, a final panel had been issued which is not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Thirdly, it is contended that the petitioner had made a false statement in the writ petition, which disentitled him to the grant of discretionary relief. The case of respondent no. 4 is that he passed the M.B.B.S. examination in the year 1979 and was awarded gold medal in surgery and medicine as also gold medal for securing the highest marks in the M.B.B.S. examination. He also topped the list of successful candidates for the award of degree in M.S. (General Surgery) in the year 1984. He thereafter joined the Bihar Health Service and after working as a Medical Officer, Punpun (rural posting) for over two years, he was deputed to work as Senior Resident in Urology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences on the basis of his selection pursuant to an All India advertisement. He had also registered himself for grant of Ph.D. in Surgery (Urology) in Patna University, and had conducted research work at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Several research papers have been published by him while he was working at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. 13. It is his case that clause 3 read with clause 19 of the advertisement makes it evident that the post graduate degree in general surgery (parent speciality) is essential, but preference has to be given to the candidates who have teaching/working/research experience, and/or a degree in the concerned superspeciality. Since this respondent had more than four years of teaching/working /research experience in Urology, he was bound to be given preference in terms of clause 19 of the advertisement. Since this respondent had more than four years of teaching/working /research experience in Urology, he was bound to be given preference in terms of clause 19 of the advertisement. He had more than four years teaching/working /research experience in Urology, on the cut off date i.e. 30th June, 1990, more than that of the petitioner and, therefore, even if the petitioner would have been found eligible, his name would have placed below the name of this respondent. 14. It is further contended that the requirement with regard to counting of teaching experience for the post of Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course is only relevant under clause 3 (Ka). This requirement is not necessary for clause 3 (Kha), which provides that the work done on any other approved/accepted teaching post shall count towards the teaching experience required by the advertisement. In any event, for judging suitability and eligibility for appointment as Assistant Professor it is the nature, quality and standard of the experience which matters and is relevant, and not whether the teaching is for M.B.B.S. course or any other course. Even for clause 3 (Ka) the reference to M.B.B.S. teaching and recognition by Medical Council of India, are only indicators of the nature, quality and standard of teaching in the institution concerned. it is not disputed that the M.B.B.S. course is not taught at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, nor is the said institution recognised for conducting M.B.B.S. course by the Medical Council of India. However, the institute has been declared to be a teaching institution, and in fact since the very beginning an active teaching programme has been carried out in all the Departments of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. There is a common teaching programme for the entire institute on Tuesday afternoons. The senior Residents teach the Senior House Officers who work in the Wards, outdoor patients, clinical operation theatres etc. Persons holding higher teaching posts, like Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor also perform similar function. There are daily, weekly and other teaching programmes, such as journal clubs, seminars, polygram conference, interdepartmental meetings, etc. in Departments including Urology. Faculty members including Senior Residents impart teaching and analyse teaching programmes. Persons holding higher teaching posts, like Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor also perform similar function. There are daily, weekly and other teaching programmes, such as journal clubs, seminars, polygram conference, interdepartmental meetings, etc. in Departments including Urology. Faculty members including Senior Residents impart teaching and analyse teaching programmes. Thus the very interaction between various academics, scholars, specialists, technical performance in course of working in any institution, results in imparting or acquiring of knowledge, wisdom, proficiency, leading to improvement and betterment of each of the workers including the Director, Principal, Professor etc. 15. It is, therefore, submitted that having worked as Senior Resident on a teaching post in Urology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, respondent no. 4 as well as one Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, who was at serial no. 11 in the provisional panel and at serial no. 2 in the final panel, acquired teaching experience of over four years in Urology on the cut off date. Respondent no. 4 was appointed Senior Resident in Urology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences on 25.2.1986 and he continued as such till 3.7.1989. On 4.7.1989 he was appointed Assistant Professor (Surgery) in the Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, and he worked in the said institute in the said capacity till 9th July, 1991 when he was appointed as Assistant Professor, Urology, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital pursuant to the impugned order of appointment (Annexure/1). According to respondent no. 4 the post of Senior Resident as well as the post of Assistant Professor held by him at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, were teaching posts, and in recognition of this fact the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 1, both in the provisional panel as well as in the final panel. It is averred that Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences was constituted under the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Act (Act 10 of 1984). As would be evident from the provisions of the Act the institute was created with a view to train high level specialists of the health service and to impart continuous teaching programmes and grant degrees, diplomas etc. This was done after obtaining prior assent of the Medical Council of India as well as the assent of the President of India. As would be evident from the provisions of the Act the institute was created with a view to train high level specialists of the health service and to impart continuous teaching programmes and grant degrees, diplomas etc. This was done after obtaining prior assent of the Medical Council of India as well as the assent of the President of India. A nominee of the Medical Council of India is a member of the Governing Body and Executive Council of the Institute. In fact, the State Government had taken a policy decision prior to the appointment of Senior Residents in the Institute that the benefit of teaching experience would be given to the Senior Residents etc. in the Institute. It was on this understanding that respondent no. 4 and others had applied for the post of Senior Resident in Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. It is further submitted that it would be unreasonable and arbitrary not to count the teaching experience acquired while working in the said institute, since other similar institutions like P.G.I., Chandigarh, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lucknow recognised the teaching experience gained by the medical officers working in the said institute. In fact, on the basis of such experience gained at the institute, appointments have been made to higher teaching posts in different medical institutes in the country. The respondent has cited nine such examples. Annexure C/4 on which reliance is placed by respondent no. 4 is resolution of the Board of Governors in which it was decided that the persons selected for the post of Senior Resident may be appointed for a tenure of three years with the benefit of teaching experience. This does not appear to be a policy decision of the Government of Bihar, though one of the members of the Board of Governors is the Project Officer-cum Deputy Secretary of the Government of Bihar, who also functions as the Secretary to the Board of Governors. 16. Replying to the claim of the petitioner based on his having acquired M.Ch. degree in Urology, it has been submitted that on the cut off date i.e., the last date on which the applications had to be filed pursuant to the advertisement, namely, 30th June, 1990, the petitioner had not been conferred the said degree and was still pursuing the course. Subsequent acquisition of M.Ch. degree in Urology, it has been submitted that on the cut off date i.e., the last date on which the applications had to be filed pursuant to the advertisement, namely, 30th June, 1990, the petitioner had not been conferred the said degree and was still pursuing the course. Subsequent acquisition of M.Ch. degree would not confer on him any benefit because on the cut off date the petitioner did not have such degree or teaching experience. If he possessed such a degree and had the requisite teaching experience in the superspeciality, his claim may have been given foremost consideration, but even so, respondent no. 4 having the longest teaching experience of four years and four months in the said super-speciality would have ranked above him. A candidate having a degree in super-speciality is only entitled to be given preference at par with the preference given for working experience in such superspeciality. While respondent no. 4 had the requisite experience of over four years on the cut off date, the petitioner was not even entitled to preference since he did not possess on the relevant date a degree in the superspeciality or the requisite teaching experience. Respondent no.4 has also challenged the assertion of the petitioner that he had filed a petition or representation against the provisional panel, since his enquiry revealed that the petitioner had not filed any such objection or representation. 17. On the question of disqualification of respondent no. 4 it has been submitted that reliance on the notification (Annexure- 13) in this connection by the petitioner is misconceived. The answering respondent was selected for appointment as Resident Surgeon on the basis of 1987 Panel but at the time when the notification (Annexure-13) was issued in the year 1990, the answering respondent was on study leave and had gone to the United Kingdom and the United States of America for higher training in Urology. It was, therefore, not possible for him to join the post of Resident Surgeon even if he so desired, In any event, the notification (Annexure-13) only provides that in case the selected candidate did not join the post, his posting order shall be cancelled, and thereafter he shall not be posted again in that subject on the basis of 1987 Panel. The bar, therefore, does not apply to selection for and appointment as Assistant Professor, Urology, based on the 1990 panel prepared in pursuance of the advertisement published on 22.5.1990. 18. The answering respondent has also sought to distinguish the cases of Dr. Rita Sinha and Dr. Bikash Kumar Prasad and submitted that any relaxation granted to them must be considered in the light of special facts relating to their cases. In Dr. Rita Sinhas case, since no candidate fulfilled the essential qualification for a large number of years, Dr. Rita Sinha was appointed, even though she had obtained D.C.II. degree after the cut off date. Dr. Bikash Kumar Prasad had only been granted points for working experience and was not given any point for teaching experience. 19. In its counter-affidavit the State of Bihar has supported the case of respondent no. 4. It has been averred that the petitioner was not at all eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, on the relevant date i.e. 30th June, 1990. He had neither the post graduate degree in the superspeciality of Urology nor had he teaching experience or working experience of three years in Urology. On the other hand, respondent no. 4 possessed teaching experience and working experience well over three years in the superspeciality of Urology by virtue of having worked as the Senior Resident in the Department of Urology at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. It is submitted that apart from weightage/ recognition to be given to the persons working as Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital where M.B.B.S. was taught and which was recognised by the Medical Council of India, similar weightage/recog- nition has also to be given to the persons who have worked on other recognised junior teaching posts. Relying upon clause 19 of the advertisement it is submitted that while the post graduate degree in the parent speciality would be essential, foremost consideration would be given to candidates having three years teaching experience, but persons who have a degree in the superspeciality or have got experience of research or working experience in the superspeciality would only be given preference. On the relevant date i.e. on 30th June, 1990 the petitioner as well as respondent no. On the relevant date i.e. on 30th June, 1990 the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 had the requisite post graduate degree in the parent speciality as they were both M.S. in General Surgery, but respondent no.4 had approved/accepted teaching experience in Urology of over four years and, therefore, his name was placed at the top of the panel. 20. It has also been averred that the petitioner has made a false statement that he had filed an objection against the provisional panel to which objections were invited. The petitioner had not filed any such objection while some other candidates had filed objections, against the provisional panel which were considered and a final panel was prepared in February 1991, even before the petitioner acquired M.Ch. degree. The provisional panel was duly rectified keeping in view the objections filed by some of the candidates and in fact one Dr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, whose name appeared at serial no.11 of the provisional panel was placed at serial no. 2 in the final panel. Similarly, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh whose name was included in the list of ineligible candidates, was placed at serial no. 3 of the final panel having regard to his objections. 21. It is also the case of the State that according to the information received by it, active teaching programme is carried on in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and that Senior Residents, Lecturers, Assistant Professors etc. are engaged in teaching work apart from clinical work. The claim of the petitioner based on his M.Ch. degree in Urology is challenged on the ground that the said degree was conferred upon him in April 1991, much after the cut off date, and much after the preparation of the final panel. On the other hand, respondent no.4 had the requisite teaching and working experience against the approved accepted post. As regards the disqualification of respondent no. 4 on the ground that he had earlier failed to join the post for which he was selected on the basis of 1997 Panel, the State has fully supported the plea of respondent no. 4. 22. As regards special treatment meted out to two of the doctors mentioned in paragraph no. 38 of the writ petition, it is submitted that those cases are not comparable and the case of respondent no. 4 stands on a different footing. 23. 4. 22. As regards special treatment meted out to two of the doctors mentioned in paragraph no. 38 of the writ petition, it is submitted that those cases are not comparable and the case of respondent no. 4 stands on a different footing. 23. A counter-affidavit has also been tiled on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. The counter-affidavit affirmed by the Director of the Institute states that the said institute was established by Act 10 of 1984 dated 23.3.1984. The objectives of the institution as laid down in section 2(iv) are the development and continuity of educational programme and to award degrees, diplomas and certificates and post graduate degrees. The faculty members working in the institution have been appointed on the same criteria, namely, qualification and experience as are applicable to similar appointments made in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. The posts of Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. exist in the institute. Senior Residents and Senior House Officers are also appointed to get training in various superspecialities. The faculty members of the institute were engaged in teaching work in various institutions of the country before joining the institute, and some of them have been appointed examiners in different medical examinations in different universities of the country. A two year B.Sc. medical laboratory technician course was started in the year 1986 and a batch of four students passed in the year 1988. The institute organises seminars and discussions as teaching programme for Senior Residents and Senior House Officers in various Departments of the institute. There was no degree /diploma/ certificate medical course of studies in the institute, but the institute was in correspondence with the National Board of Examination and Medicai Council of India to get recognised for post graduate courses of study. The National Board of Examination by its letter dated 19th April, 1990, communicated its approval for training of candidates to appear in the examination conducted by the Board in Urology. Subsequently, on 28.12.90 the National Board of Examination also approved the training and examination in gastroenterology at the institute for a period of three years. These courses were started in the year 1990 and two students in Urology and three students in gastroenterology were taught at the institute. The recognition is expected to be extended from time to time by the National Board of Examination. These courses were started in the year 1990 and two students in Urology and three students in gastroenterology were taught at the institute. The recognition is expected to be extended from time to time by the National Board of Examination. It is expected that very soon all other Departments in the institute will go for inspection so that a training course for the concerned specialities can also be started. As far as courses in super-specialities, such as D.M. and M.Ch. is concerned, approval of the Medical Council of India is essential. In this connection the institute has been advised by the Medical Council of India that the institute should either get affiliated to an university or get the status of deemed university from the University Grants Commission from September 1992. The Medical Council of India has inspected the institute on 27th March, 1993 pursuant to the request to be allowed to start D.M. Gastroenterology and M.Ch. Urology courses. 24. On these facts it is submitted that the said institute is functioning as a teaching institute. 25. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 bringing on record the resolution of the Board of Governors dated 19.6.1984, whereby it was resolved that in respect of Senior Residents, the person selected for the post may be appointed for a tenure of three years with the benefit of teaching experience. It has also been stated that the institute applied for accredition for diploma, National Board Examination in the year 1988, and the same was granted in the year 1990. In addition, the copies of inter-departmental teaching programmes, seminars, guest lectures, academic activity conducted by the institute in the past, have also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit. 26. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder to the counter- affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the stand taken by him in the writ petition. Apart from the rejoinder filed by the petitioner large number of supplementary affidavits have been filed by him from time to time, and the respondents have also filed their respective replies to such supplementary affidavits. It is not possible to deal with each one of them at this stage to avoid further prolixity, but while considering the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, relevant averments in the supplementary affidavits and their replies shall be noticed. 27. It is not possible to deal with each one of them at this stage to avoid further prolixity, but while considering the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, relevant averments in the supplementary affidavits and their replies shall be noticed. 27. As would be noticed from the pleadings of the parties, while the petitioner challenges the eligibility of respondent no. 4 for his selection and appointment as Assistant Professor of Urology, respondent no. 4 also challenges the eligibility of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the same post. Both the candidates have M.S. degrees in their parent speciality, namely, general surgery, while the petitioner rests his claim on the basis of M.Ch. degree obtained by him later, and the consequent teaching experience gained by him, respondent no. 4 has defended his claim by reference to the teaching/working experience in the superspeciality of Urology while working at the Indira Gandhi institute of Medical Sciences as Senior Resident and thereafter as Assistant Professor (Surgery) in the Department of Urology. 28 There is a fierce contest between the parties in these two writ petitions, and none of them have given up even an inch in favour of the other. Apart from submissions on merit, respondent no. 4 has also challenged the maintainability of this writ petition on several grounds. Four objections to the maintainability of the writ petition were urged on behalf of respondent no. 4 and seriously pressed. It was firstly urged that this writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has failed to challenge the final panel prepared by the respondents. He has only challenged the provisional panel which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He having failed to challenge the final panel, which has been annexed as Annexures-A and A/4 to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State and respondent no. 4 respectively, the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. Secondly, it has been urged that the petitioner has not arrayed as party respondents the other candidates whose names find place in the provisional panel as also in the final panel and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him, nor can the aforesaid panels be quashed. 4 respectively, the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. Secondly, it has been urged that the petitioner has not arrayed as party respondents the other candidates whose names find place in the provisional panel as also in the final panel and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him, nor can the aforesaid panels be quashed. Thirdly, it is submitted that the petitioner has knowingly tried to mislead this Court by relying upon Annexure-21 in support of his contention that even according to the Government, the Indira Gandhi Institute was not a teaching institution. Lastly, it is alleged that the petitioner has made a false assertion in the writ petition and in his supplementary affidavit stating that he had submitted a written objection to the provisional panel prepared by the respondents, which in fact he had not done. When challenged, he averred further facts which are proved to be false. This also disentitles the petitioner to the grant of any discretionary relief. 29. Since these objections were seriously pressed at the bar on behalf of respondent No. 4, I proceed to deal with them. 30. It is true that the petitioner has only challenged the provisional panel as stated by the respondents to which objections were invited. After consideration of objections, final shape was given to the panel after necessary rectification. The petitioner ought to have challenged the said final panel and therefore, technically speaking, there is substance in the submission urged on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the petitioner has failed to challenge the final panel. Upon preparation of the final panel, the provisional panel ceased to have any force. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that the plea of the petitioner is that he was the only candidate who had obtained M.Ch. degree and therefore, in terms of clause 3 (c)/3 (ga) of the advertisement, his case should have been considered foremost. He ought to have been given the first position in the panel. Rather than doing so, respondent no. 4 was given the first position in the provisional panel, and in the final panel as well his name was shown at serial no.1. He ought to have been given the first position in the panel. Rather than doing so, respondent no. 4 was given the first position in the provisional panel, and in the final panel as well his name was shown at serial no.1. He, therefore, submitted that since there was only one post of Assistant Professor, Urology, and the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to the first position in the panel prepared by the respondent, he had only challenged the selection of respondent no. 4. Since the position of the aforesaid respondent remained the same in the final panel, the objection was merely technical. 31. I am of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, should not be thrown out on this technical ground. The petitioner is only interested in challenging the selection of respondent no. 4 and he has not challenged the inclusion of other names in the panel. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as against other candidates whose names are included in the panel. The petitioner can only be permitted to challenge the eligibility of respondent no. 4. 32. The second objection is interrelated with the first objection, namely, that the other candidates whose names find place in the panel have not been made parties in the writ petition. To this also the reply of counsel for the petitioner is the same, namely, that he does not seek any relief against other candidates. He has confined his submissions to challenge the eligibility of respondent no. 4 and to sup- port his plea that in terms of Clause [3 (c)] 3 (ga) of the advertisement he ought to have been placed at serial no. 1 of the panel. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition only on this ground. No doubt, as earlier observed, the petitioner cannot seek any relief against the candidates who are not parties in the writ petition. 33. The third objection relates to reliance placed by the petitioner upon a letter written by the Joint Secretary of the Govt. of Bihar addressed to the Deputy Secretary in the Rajyapal Secretariat, Annexure-21 dated 18.12.96. Relying upon this document, the petitioner submitted that even the Govt. 33. The third objection relates to reliance placed by the petitioner upon a letter written by the Joint Secretary of the Govt. of Bihar addressed to the Deputy Secretary in the Rajyapal Secretariat, Annexure-21 dated 18.12.96. Relying upon this document, the petitioner submitted that even the Govt. of Bihar had taken the view as early as in the year 1986 that Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences was not a teaching institution, nor was it affiliated to the Patna University. Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that there was some confusion in the matter, but the same had been clarified and it was explained that the aforesaid letter, in fact, related to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology and not to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. By inadvertance, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences was mentioned in the last two paragraphs of the letter, instead of Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology. While in the penultimate paragraph necessary correction had been effected, in the last paragraph the mistake remained by inadvertance. 34. Counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that this writ petition was directed to be heard together with writ petition being CWJC No. 1022 of 1990. The letter dated 18.12.1996 (Annexure-21) had been filed in the writ petition also by the petitioner as Annexure-14 (annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in that writ petition on 21.2.1990). In reply thereto, a counter af- fidavit was filed in that writ petition on 9.8.1991 in which it was explained that under the statutes of the Patna University teachers working in educational institutions for a certain continuous period could be permitted by the academic council to appear at the post graduate examination conducted by the University. Taking advantage of the statute the teachers of the Patna Medical College were enjoying the benefit of appearing at the post graduate medical examination of the Patna University without being admitted through the post graduate medical admission test. Later, teachers of other medical colleges of Bihar also started taking advantage of the statute. The State Government by letter dated 6.8.85 extended the benefit to persons holding the post of Assistant Director in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, although the post was not a teaching post. This was strongly objected to by the Bihar State Health Services Association. Later, teachers of other medical colleges of Bihar also started taking advantage of the statute. The State Government by letter dated 6.8.85 extended the benefit to persons holding the post of Assistant Director in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, although the post was not a teaching post. This was strongly objected to by the Bihar State Health Services Association. It was also realised by the Government that such benefit could not be extended to the teachers, as it was against the rules and directions of the Medical Council of India. It was in these circumstances that the Government decided to write to the Chancellor on the subject and in the context the letter in question dated 18.12.86 was prepared for the approval of the Joint Secretary. In the draft, which was put up for approval, by inadvertence Indira Gandhi Ayurvigyan Sansthan instead of Indira Gandhi Hriday Rog Sansthan was mentioned. Before approving and signing the draft, although the correction was made at one place by penning through Ayurvigyan and substituting Hriday Rog, by oversight such correction was not made in the last paragraph of the letter. It was, therefore, explained that the mention of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences in the last paragraph of the letter was a mistake, and it really referred to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology. It also appears that the aforesaid counter-affidavit filed by the State in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990 along with its annexures was annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 on 23.3.93 in the instant writ petition. The original draft which was approved containing the necessary correction was Annexure-ll to the supplementary counter-affidavit of the State. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the petitioner knew fully well that Annexure-21 dated 18.12.86 contained an apparent mistake and yet he persisted in his plea that the State Government had declared Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences not to be a teaching institution. The petitioner was aware of the mistake and yet attempted to mislead this Court. 35. I have carefully perused the material brought on record and it is no doubt true that the facts as stated on behalf of respondent no. 4 are correct. The petitioner was aware of the mistake and yet attempted to mislead this Court. 35. I have carefully perused the material brought on record and it is no doubt true that the facts as stated on behalf of respondent no. 4 are correct. However, I do not feel inclined to dismiss the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was relying upon a document which contained an apparent mistake as explained by the respondent-State. Even on the basis of submission urged on behalf of respondent no. 4, it must be held that the confusion was created on account of necessary correction not being carried out in Annexure-21, the letter dated 18.12.86. In such a situation, even if the petitioner places reliance upon the said document, the respondents may explain the mistake which had occurred, but that cannot be a ground for rejecting the writ petition outright. 36. The last objection relates to the plea of the petitioner that he had filed an objection to the provisional panel prepared by the respondent-authorities. In the writ petition the petitioner has no doubt stated in paragraph no. 16 that he had filed such an objection before the Secretary to the Government within the stipulated period for filing objections. In paragraph no. 41 he has stated that the respondents without considering his objection issued appointment letter in favour of respondent no. 4. The above averments in the writ petition were challenged by respondent no. 4 as also by the State, in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf. But the petitioner reiterated the fact regarding his filing objection in paragraph no. 15 of his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. In his rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the petitioner again stated that he had filed his objection within the stipulated period which was received on 6.8.90 and it was docketed in the receipt section in the diary of the Health Department being docket no. 3389. The petitioner called upon the respondents to produce the file which would prove the facts averred by the petitioner. 37. A supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 3.4.93 in which it has been stated that the provisional panel with a rejection list was received in the Department in the month of November 1990. 3389. The petitioner called upon the respondents to produce the file which would prove the facts averred by the petitioner. 37. A supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 3.4.93 in which it has been stated that the provisional panel with a rejection list was received in the Department in the month of November 1990. Thereafter a copy of the provisional panel along with the rejection list was sent to the Medical Colleges and other officers under Health Department letter no. (sic) 3 12.90 annexed as Annexure-C. Pursuant to the said letter a notice was published in the daily newspaper Hindustan Times on 12.12.90 inviting objections to the provisional panel from the aggrieved candidates. A copy of the said notice has been produced as Annexure-D to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It was further stated in the aforesaid supplementary affidavit that docket no. 3389 dated 6.8.90 related to an application filed by the petitioner for his deputation, and this was evident from a perusal of the diary register of the Department of Health and the endorsement made therein, though the original application was not readily available. The file was produced before the Court for its perusal. 38. From the above facts it is apparent that the provisional panel was prepared in the month of November 1990, and objections were invited in the month of December 1990. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner could not have objected to the provisional panel on 6.8.90. It appears to me that taking advantage of the application filed by him for his deputation, the petitioner averred in the writ petition that he had filed his objection to the provisional panel, little realising that by then the provisional panel had not been prepared. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner conducted himself in this manner. The facts disclose that in reality the petitioner had never objected to the provisional panel. However, in view of his conduct, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the points awarded to the candidates as shown in the provisional panel and the final panel. He never objected to the awarding of points to the candidates whose names were included in the provisional list. Even after the final panel was prepared, the petitioner never challenged that panel in the instant writ petition. He never objected to the awarding of points to the candidates whose names were included in the provisional list. Even after the final panel was prepared, the petitioner never challenged that panel in the instant writ petition. However, his sub-missions in so far as they relate to the legal issues involved on the basis of facts which are established on record cannot be rejected on this ground alone. 39. Having disposed of the preliminary objections urged on behalf of respondent no. 4, I shall now proceed to consider the submissions urged on behalf of the parties on the merit of the case. 40. Before considering the rival sub-missions it would be useful to notice the relevant clauses of the advertisement which was published on 22nd May, 1990, and was published in all leading newspapers on that date. Applications had been invited from eligible candidates for filling up several posts in the medical colleges and the medical college hospitals. The posts to be filled up pursuant to the advertisement were those which were vacant, and the vacancies that may exist upto 31st December, 1991. It appears that the advertisement is in the same terms as the one earlier issued on 19.12.87 which came up for consideration before this Court and thereafter before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Bihar and ors. (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1514). The relevant clauses of the advertisement which are in vernacular had been translated in this court and extracted in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The same clauses of the advertisement fall for consideration in these cases and, therefore, the translation of the relevant clauses as reproduced in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court are extracted in this judgment, subject to some changes in clause 3 (A) corresponding to 3 (Ka) in the advertisement and clause 19. The minor changes in the translation in the aforesaid two clauses is only with a view to make explicit what is otherwise implicit in the translated clauses as extracted in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The minor changes in the translation in the aforesaid two clauses is only with a view to make explicit what is otherwise implicit in the translated clauses as extracted in the judgment of the Supreme Court. The relevant clauses of the advertisement (Annexure-5) with which we are concerned in the instant case are the following : Clause 2 (C) : "For the post of Assistant Professor and Registrar it will be essential for the candidate to have obtained in the same speciality for which the application is being made, M.D., M.S., F.R.C.S. (U.K.), M.R.C.O.G. (U.K.) or American Board of Speciality or any other post graduate qualification considered by the Medical Council of India as equivalent to the aforesaid degrees. Post graduate qualification obtained from the U.K. after November 11, 1976 shall not be granted recognition." Clause 3 : "For Assistant Professor : (a) Officers who have worked as Resident/Registrar, or on both the aforesaid posts, in the same speciality, in an educational hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course, alone can apply, (b) Service on any other accepted /acknowledged teaching post (Jr. Surgeon/Jr. Physician) in the same subject for which the application is being made shall be considered equivalent to Registrar/Resident. (c) In addition to the other conditions Resident /Registrar in the concerned subject or medical officers having a minimum of three years experience on the two posts shall alone be eligible to apply. This, however, shall not be essential for Radiology, Skin & V.D., Anaesthesia, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Plastic Surgery or any speciality to be constituted in future, nor shall it be essential to obtain the prescribed minimum of 15 points for being posted in these subjects. In these subjects, however, in case one or more than one such candidates are available who have obtained three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality, then in that situation, the Medical Officers having such experience shall be entitled to foremost consideration for appointment and they shall be appointed although they might have obtained less points than those candidates who do not possess three years teaching experience". Clause 3(f) (Cha): "It is essential to obtain 15 points for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, however, for the specialities enumerated in the aforesaid clause 3 the minimum point shall be 6. Clause 3(f) (Cha): "It is essential to obtain 15 points for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, however, for the specialities enumerated in the aforesaid clause 3 the minimum point shall be 6. In case, candidates obtaining the aforesaid points are not available in the desired number then the Government, in order to fill up the vacancies, shall have the right to relax the minimum points". Clause 18 : "For the post of Registrar and Resident Doctor in the units (specialities) of Cardiology, Car-diotheracic Surgery, Neurosurgery, Gastroenterology, Paediatric Surgery and Kidney in addition to the necessity of fulfilling the conditions, contained in clauses 4 and 6 respectively, preference shall be given for working experience in the concerned subject". Clause 19 : "For appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the aforesaid major superspecialities, the degree and the teaching experience in the related basic (parent) subject as enumerated in clause 3 will be essential. However, those having degrees, research work or working experience in the super-speciality shall be given preference. 41. As earlier observed, the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 have challenged the eligibility of each other. It was submitted on behalf of respondent no.4 that the petitioner was himself not eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, as he did not have the necessary three years teaching experience in that speciality. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that he had the necessary teaching experience and further that he also held M.Ch. degree which entitled him to foremost consideration under clause 3(c) {3(ga)} of the advertisement. 42. In his writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he had obtained M.B.B.S. degree in the year 1977 and the M.S. degree in the year 1983. in between he joined the Bihar Health Service as a Civil Assistant Surgeon on 24.6.1981. After completing his M.S. course he was again posted as First Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Gandey in the district of Giridih, where he worked till 25.12.87. On 26.12.87 he joined as Registrar in Urology in the Christian Medical College, Vellore. Thereafter, he joined the M.Ch. course on 15.1.89. He obtained the M.Ch. degree on 27th March, 1991. While he was pursuing his M.Ch. course the advertisement in question was published in the newspapers on 25.5.90 and he had applied in response thereto for appointment as Assisant Professor, Urology. Thereafter, he joined the M.Ch. course on 15.1.89. He obtained the M.Ch. degree on 27th March, 1991. While he was pursuing his M.Ch. course the advertisement in question was published in the newspapers on 25.5.90 and he had applied in response thereto for appointment as Assisant Professor, Urology. He has relied upon the certificate issued by the Principal of the Christian Medical College, Vellore dated 19.3.91 (Annexure 9-A) which is to the effect that the petitioner had worked in that institution in the Department of Urology from 26.12.87 to 15.1.91. He had held the post of Registrar (Non. P.G.) in Urology from 26.12.87 to 15.1.89 and of Registrar (P.G. trainee) in Urology from 16.1.89 to 15.1.91. He has also relied upon Annexure-9 to show that while working as Registrar and Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore he was entrusted with teaching work which is also supported by Annexure-11, a certificate issued by the Professor and Head of Urology Unit II, certifying that during his tenure he was involved in all aspects of Urology teaching and care. In paragraph nos. 23 and 28 of his writ petition the petitioner has averred that the respondents have arbitrarily not included the name of the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Professors, although he had teaching experience of two years and six months in the superspeciality of Urology, working on the post of Registrar and Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore. It is quite apparent that the petitioner has claimed teaching experience of only two and a half years in the writ petition filed by him. This appears to be so on account of the fact that the advertisement was published on 25.5.90, and the last date for submitting applications was 30th June, 1990. If the said cut off date is taken into account, the petitioner has rightly claimed teaching experience of only two and a half years in his writ petition commencing from 26.12.87 and ending on 30th June, 1990. The petitioner thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 7.8.92 in which he stated that the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology was created in the Patna Medical College and Hospital on 20.6.91 vide Notification dated 26.9.91 (Annexure-16). He, therefore, submitted that in terms of clause 3 (ga) of the advertisement the superspeciality of Urology came under the category of "any speciality to be constituted in future". He, therefore, submitted that in terms of clause 3 (ga) of the advertisement the superspeciality of Urology came under the category of "any speciality to be constituted in future". Since the speciality was constituted on 26.6.91, he was the only candidate who had three years teaching experience in Urology and he was, therefore, entitled to foremost consideration for appointment, as he alone was eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. It was also argued relying upon clause 19 of the advertisement that since the petitioner held M.Ch. degree in the speciality of Urology, he was entitled to preference. 43. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that the petitioner did not possess three years teaching experience on the last date for filing of applications pursuant to the advertisement i.e. on 30th June, 1990. In terms of clause 3 (Ga), in order to claim foremost consideration the candidate had to satisfy the condition that he had three years teaching experience in the said speciality, which the petitioner did not admittedly possess. 44. In his writ petition the petitioner had claimed two and half years teaching experience in the said speciality i.e. from 26th December 1987 to 30th June, 1990. However, it was submitted on his behalf that Urology should be considered to be a speciality created in future in terms of clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement since the post of Assistant Professor, Urology under the department of surgery was for the first time created on 20th June, 1991. It was, therefore, submitted that the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement got extended to 20th June, 1991, the date on which the post of Assistant Professor, Urology was created. If this extended date was taken into consideration, he had the requisite three years teaching experience in that speciality and was, therefore, entitled to foremost consideration for appointment, even if he had been awarded less points than other candidates who did not have three years teaching experience. 45. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement which prescribed 30th June, 1990 as the last date for the submission of applications. 45. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement which prescribed 30th June, 1990 as the last date for the submission of applications. Assuming that Urology as a speciality was created for the first time on 20th June, 1991, even so the petitioner had to fulfil the eligibility conditions laid down in the advertisement on 30th June, 1990. Clause 3 (Ga) in terms provides that foremost consideration should be given to a candidate who had three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality mentioned therein, and in specialities constituted in future. As rightly submitted by counsel for the respondents, if on 30th June,1990 the petitioner had obtained his M.Ch. degree he would have been entitled to foremost consideration, and it did not matter even if he had secured less points than other candidates who did not have three years teaching experience in the speciality of Urology. In the instant case the petitioner himself claimed only two and half years teaching experience in his writ petition, and he sought to add a few months more to his teaching experience by reference to the date on which the post of Assistant Professor, Urology was created. It cannot be disputed that on the cut off date, namely, 30th June, 1990 he did not have three years teaching experience in Urology. The respondents have also not disputed his teaching experience of two and half years i.e. for the period from 26.12.87 to 30th June, 1990, but they are right in their submission that the eligibility conditions laid down in clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement had to be fulfilled on 30th June, 1990 and not on any subsequent date. In Dr. M.V. Nair vs. Union of India [JT 1993(1) S.C. (255)] it was observed by the Supreme Court that it is well-settled that suitability and eligibility has to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date. In the instant case the notification itself specifies 30th June, 1990 as the last date for filing of applications in response to the advertisement. The decision in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Alpana, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 reiterates the same principle. In the instant case the notification itself specifies 30th June, 1990 as the last date for filing of applications in response to the advertisement. The decision in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Alpana, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 reiterates the same principle. In that case the advertisement required the candidates to possess the degree of bachelor of law on the last late fixed for receipt of applications, which a was August 20, 1998. The candidates were required to produce an attested copy of the law degree examination certificate and marksheet thereof. The Court observed that a candidate who had not passed the law degree examination before August 20, 1998, would obviously not be in a position to comply with this requirement. The respondent in that case had appeared at such examination and was awaiting the result which was declared some time in October 1998. Though she was allowed to take the examination by the Public Service Commission, she was not called for the oral test which compelled her to move the High Court. The High Court by interim order directed the Public Service Commission to interview her and while finally disposing of the writ petition directed the Public Service Commission not only to declare the result, but further directed that her name should be forwarded to the Government for appointment, and the Government should, if necessary, create a supernumerary post and appoint her thereon. Disapproving the directions made by the High Court the Supreme Court held that the facts of the case revealed that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1998. No rule or practice was shown to have existed which permitted to entertain her application. The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her in the interview. It was observed that the approach of the High Court could not be supported by any rule or prevalent practice nor could it be supported on equitable consideration. The Court found it difficult to give recognition to such approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applicatioins. The Court found it difficult to give recognition to such approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applicatioins. If once such approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interview til! the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court applies squarely to the facts of this case. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the requisite teaching experience of three years on the date of advertisement. There may have been many others like him who did not apply having regard to the terms of the advertisement. If therefore, the case of the petitioner was allowed to be considered on the basis of his acquiring eligibility later, that would certainly breach Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be permitted. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kr. Sharma and others vs. Chandrashekar [ (1997) 4 S.C.C. 18 ]. The Court was considering the review petition preferred by the petitioner. It was held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications, constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 1977(1) PLJR (SC) 131 (State of Bihar and another vs. Ramesh Chandra and another), I do not find anything in the aforesaid judgment which lays down any principle to the contrary. It cannot act contrary to it. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 1977(1) PLJR (SC) 131 (State of Bihar and another vs. Ramesh Chandra and another), I do not find anything in the aforesaid judgment which lays down any principle to the contrary. The Supreme Court in that case considered the eligibility of the candidates by reference to the conditions of eligibility as laid down by the State Government and it was held that appointment of Dr. Chandrashekar could not be regarded as arbitrary or illegal as he fulfilled the necessary conditions of eligibility. 46. Reliance placed upon clauses 18 and 19 of the advertisement is also of no avail to the petitioner. In my view, clauses 18 and 19 have to be read together since clause 18 mentions the various specialities and clause 19 provides that candidates having a degree in the aforesaid superspecialities, research work, or work experience, in such specialities will be given preference. Urology is not one of the specialities mentioned in clause 18 of the advertisement. The use of the word aforesaid in clause 19 necessarily implies the super-specialities mentioned in clause 18 of the advertisement. In this connection it is worth noticing clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement which refers to some other specialities, including specialities to be constituted in future, and gives a preferential treatment to those candidates who have three years or more of teaching experience in the aforesaid specialities, though they may have secured less points than other candidates who did not possess such teaching experience. The preferential treatment under clause 3(ga) must be confined to the specialities mentioned therein. The preferential treatment under clause 19 for candidates possessing a degree in the superspeciality, or research work or experience in the superspeciality concerned, must refer to the specialities mentioned in clause 18. Clause 3(ga) on the one hand, and clauses 18 and 19 on the other deal with two sets of specialities/superspecialities and provide preferential treatment to the candidates concerned who fulfil the condi- tions laid down therein. It would, therefore, not be permissible to read clause 3(ga) with clause 19, so as to give to the candidates concerned who are governed by clause 3 (ga), the preferential treatment contemplated by clause 19. 47. It would, therefore, not be permissible to read clause 3(ga) with clause 19, so as to give to the candidates concerned who are governed by clause 3 (ga), the preferential treatment contemplated by clause 19. 47. Counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekher [1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 611]. It is, no doubt, true that in that case the candidates who had acquired the necessary degree after the last date mentioned in the advertisement were considered eligible for appointment. The majority view relied upon rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules, and further upheld the claim of such candidates on the ground that by inclusion of such candidates the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. R.M. Sahai, J., however, partly dissented from the view taken by the majority, and was of the view that Rule 37 relied upon by the majority could not be extended by analogy to selection and competition held by other bodies. He therefore, held that the rule framed under one statute cannot be invoked for carrying out the objective of another enactment. He held that the appellants were not qualified and were not entitled to apply and their applications could not be entertained. By the adoption of such method they got an unfair advantage over those, who for lack of knowledge of Governments intention, did not apply. The language of the notification must have prevented large number of candidates who must have appeared in the B.E. examination from applying, as they were not qualified in terms of it, whereas others of same group or class stood to gain due to intention of Government which was not known to a common man and was put up before the High Court in reply to the writ filed by the respondent. However, on the question of relief to be granted, he took the view that if ail the candidates were considered to be eligible, there was no justification for placing the appellants, who were not qualified on the date of the application, as junior to the respondents who had applied earlier and were qualified. However, on the question of relief to be granted, he took the view that if ail the candidates were considered to be eligible, there was no justification for placing the appellants, who were not qualified on the date of the application, as junior to the respondents who had applied earlier and were qualified. He, therefore, agreed with the majority view that the candidates found better qualified and securing higher marks could not be placed junior to others. Once the appellants were held to be eligible, may be not strictly under law, but on equitable considerations, then it was wholly unjust to place them junior and under those who in the same examination secured lesser marks. The aforesaid judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharmas case came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Alpana (supra) and Ahmadi, J (as he then was) explained and distinguished the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharmas case, confining the same to the special facts of that case and the equities involved. As a matter of law he held that those who were not possessed of the degree on the last date for receipt of the applications as mentioned in the advertisement, were not entitled to consideration for selection. 48. What is, however, most significant is the fact that the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) was reviewed by the Supreme Court and the said judgment is reported in [(1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 18]. The reviewing Bench did not approve of the principle laid down in Ashok Kumar Sharma and held that where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged on that date and that date alone. The person who acquired the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The Bench approved the dissenting opinion of Sahai, J. in Ashok Kumar Sharma on the question of law and held that he was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. However, on the question of relief to be granted, the court did not feel inclined to interfere therewith, as the matter lay within the realm of discretion and was a case of moulding the relief in exercise of courts power under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, on the question of relief to be granted, the court did not feel inclined to interfere therewith, as the matter lay within the realm of discretion and was a case of moulding the relief in exercise of courts power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench also noticed the fact that the 33 respondents were appointed as far back as in the year 1984 and had earned two promotions. The review petitioners and others similarly placed had also been promoted once. Their Lordships were of the view that upturning the inter se seniority at this distance of time was not justified and equitable. In view of this judgment it must be held that the law as laid down by the majority in Ashok Kumar Sharma [1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 611] has not been approved by the Supreme Court, and the minority view of Sahai, J. was approved holding that the concerned respondents were not eligible for consideration and appointment. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the first judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma must, therefore, be rejected, and it must be held that on the date specified in the advertisement, the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility as laid down in clause 3(Ka) or [3 (Ga)/3(a) or (c)] of the advertisement. His case was, therefore, rightly excluded from consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology. 49. It was then sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner that in at least two cases, the candidates who did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement, but who acquired such qualification later, were considered eligible and appointed. No doubt, those candidates were not applicants for the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, but the State has acted in a discriminatory manner by giving them a benefit which was denied to the petitioner. 50. The respondents have on the other hand contended that those candidates are not parties in this writ petition and therefore the validity of their appointments cannot be examined in this proceeding. However, the facts brought on record at best show that they were considered for appointment in the special facts of their cases, which are absent in the instant case. The respondents have on the other hand contended that those candidates are not parties in this writ petition and therefore the validity of their appointments cannot be examined in this proceeding. However, the facts brought on record at best show that they were considered for appointment in the special facts of their cases, which are absent in the instant case. Moreover, even if it is assumed that they were shown an illegal favour, the petitioner cannot claim similar favour by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution. 51. In my view, if t have correctly understood the law, it is that the eligibility conditions must be fulfilled on the last date for making the application or the date specified in the advertisement. No candidate can be given the benefit of eligibility acquired after such date. If that is done, that would itself breach Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also settled law that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality, if the candidates who are said to have been shown such favour were before this Court, and their appointments were challenged, the Court would have quashed their appointments rather than direct the State to bestow similar il- legal favour on the petitioner. The submission must, therefore, be rejected. 52. I shall now consider the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that for several reasons respondent no.4 was also not eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Urology as he also did not fulfil the eligibility conditions, apart from the fact that he was debarred from being considered for appointment against a teaching post. I shall first take up for consideration the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4 was debarred from being considered for appointment to a teaching post. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that by an earlier notification dated 19.5.90, respondent no.4 was appointed as a Resident (Surgery) in the Ranchi Medical College Hospital at Ranchi. Despite his appointment, the petitioner did not join the said post within the period prescribed in the aforesaid notification, which has been annexed as Annexure-13. It was, therefore, submitted that as provided in the said notification the respondent no.4 was disqualified from being considered for appointment against a teaching post for a period of three years. Despite his appointment, the petitioner did not join the said post within the period prescribed in the aforesaid notification, which has been annexed as Annexure-13. It was, therefore, submitted that as provided in the said notification the respondent no.4 was disqualified from being considered for appointment against a teaching post for a period of three years. On a reading of the notification I find that respondent no.4 was indeed appointed as a Resident in the Department of Surgery at the R.M.C.H., Ranchi. The notification provided that the medical officers were required to join their posts within a period of two weeks from the date of issuance of the notification, and they shall not be allowed to join after the expiry of that period. The concerned authorities were instructed to inform the Department immediately if a candidate did not join within the prescribed period, so that his posting may be cancelled and some other medical officer from the panel may be posted. The notification also provides that if the concerned medical officer did not take charge of his post within the period prescribed, the posting order shall be cancelled and in future he shall not be again posted in that subject on the basis of 1987 Panel. 53. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that there is nothing in this notification which provides that a candidate posted under the said notification shall be disqualified from appointment for a period of three years, if he failed to join his post within the prescribed period. The only consequence of a selected candidate not joining within the prescribed period was that he could not later claim a posting in the same subject on the basis of the same panel i.e. on the basis of 1987 Panel. I find considerable force in the submission urged on behalf of the respondents that there is nothing in the aforesaid notification (Annexure-13) which has the effect of disqualifying respondent no.4 from consideration for appointment against any teaching post for a period of three years. 54. Counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the advertisement pursuant to which the respondent no.4 was selected for appointment as Resident (Surgery). 54. Counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the advertisement pursuant to which the respondent no.4 was selected for appointment as Resident (Surgery). Clause 14 of that advertisement did provide that if a candidate selected for appointment did not join the post, then for a period of three years he shall not be considered eligible for applying, or for being appointed, to a teaching post. He, therefore, submitted that in terms of the advertisement, the respondent no.4 could not be permitted to apply, nor could he be appointed for a period of 3 years from the date of appointment i.e. 19.5.90. His application should not therefore, have been entertained for the post of Asst. Professor, Urology pursuant to the advertisement with which we are concerned in this case. 55. The submission is attractive, but devoid of force. No doubt, in such a case it is open to the State Government to debar a candidate who does not join despite his selection. But it is equally open to the Government not to enforce such a provision at all. No doubt, in doing so it cannot act in a selective manner resulting in discrimination, but it may grant the benefit of non enforcement of the said clause in the advertisement to all concerned. There is no rule which provides for such disqualification or bar, and the condition in the advertisement is at best an administrative order which may be relaxed and not given effect to. It may even be modified by the Government by another administrative order. What is, however, significant is that the Government should not act in a discriminatory mariner, and the enforcement or non- enforcement should not be on a selective basis. 56. It is apparent that while notifying the appointment by notification dated 19.5.90, the Government did not enforce clause 14 of the advertisement, but modified the same by providing that candidates who failed to join within the prescribed period shall not again be appointed in the same subject on the basis of the same panel i.e., 1987 Panel. This relaxation was granted in favour of all candidates, and not only respondent no.4. The relaxation granted therefore, did not result in any sort of discrimination. 57. This relaxation was granted in favour of all candidates, and not only respondent no.4. The relaxation granted therefore, did not result in any sort of discrimination. 57. Counsel for respondent no.4 further submitted that even if there is a provision in any notification or rule which provides for such a disqualification, that cannot mean that without anything more the candidate shall be automatically disqualified. A candidate may incur such dis- qualification if he deliberately does not join the post to which he is appointed, but there may be cases in which a candidate may not be able to join the post despite his best efforts on account of circumstances beyond his control. In such cases, before an order debarring him is passed, he must be given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. Unless the conduct of the appointee is found to be culpable, the quasi-penal provision providing for disqualification will not be attracted. It is, therefore, necessary that before a selected candidate can be said to have been debarred from future consideration for appointment for a specified period, there must be a specific order passed by the Government debarring him from further consideration against any teaching post for a period of three years. In doing so, the Government has to take into account the conduct of the appointee concerned, and if it comes to the conclusion that the appointee was not at fault, and could not join on account of reasons beyond his control, the Government may condone the delay on his part and pass appropriate orders. The Government no doubt reserves a right to debar a defaulting appointee who fails to join his post within the period prescribed, but such an order can be passed only if it is found that the default on the part of the candidate was deliberate, and not on account of circumstances beyond his control. In the instant case counsel was at pains to explain that respondent no.4 during the relevant period was in a foreign country where he had gone for studies and training after obtaining leave. He had left this country on 29.4.90 for London. The panel was of the year 1987, though the notification relating to his appointment was issued on 19.5.90. In the instant case counsel was at pains to explain that respondent no.4 during the relevant period was in a foreign country where he had gone for studies and training after obtaining leave. He had left this country on 29.4.90 for London. The panel was of the year 1987, though the notification relating to his appointment was issued on 19.5.90. If given an opportunity to explain, he would have satisfied the Government that for reasons beyond his control he could not join the post within the time granted by the notification. 58. The submission urged on behalf of respondent no.4 has force and must be accepted. If a condition is laid down in any administrative order, or even a rule, providing that on failure of a candidate to join the post for which he has been selected, he shall stand disqualified from further consideration for appointment for a period of three years, the candidate does not get disqualified automatically. If that condition is enforced the competent authority must pass an order and communicate to the candidate concerned that he has been debarred, or that it is proposed to debar him. In such a case the candidate concerned may represent to the Government and explain the circumstances which prevented him from joining the post within the period prescribed. It may be that on account of reasons beyond the control of the candidate, he was not able to join the post within the period prescribed. If his explanation is found to be satisfactory, the competent authority may not enforce that condition in the order or rule. However, if it is established that the candidate deliberately did not join the post within the period prescribed, the order debarring him from future consideration may be affirmed. It is not just and fair to punish a person who is not responsible for the act of omission or commission complained of. There may be cases where for good reasons a candidate may not be able to join his post within the prescribed period. Take for example, the case of a candidate who while on his way to join the post meets with an accident and is thereafter admitted to a hospital for several days. Would it be fair in such a case to debar him from future consideration? Obviously the answer must be in the negative. Take for example, the case of a candidate who while on his way to join the post meets with an accident and is thereafter admitted to a hospital for several days. Would it be fair in such a case to debar him from future consideration? Obviously the answer must be in the negative. This principle has been invoked by the Supreme Court to strike down an order passed under a service rule which provided for automatic termination of service on account of absence of an employee from duty for a specified period. The rule clearly violated Article 311 of the Constitution as it did not give an opportunity to concerned employee to explain his conduct. (See AIR 1971 SC 1409 Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar). The same principle was again invoked in a case relating to a landlord-tenant dispute. The Act provided that the arrears of rent as determined by the Court shall be deposited by the tenant within a specified period, failing which his defence against ejectment shall be struck off. This High Court consistenly took the view that in case of default the mandatory provision of the Act operated, and the Court had no option but to strike off the defence of the tenant against ejectment. Overruling this view the Supreme Court invoked the provision of section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and read into the provision a power in the Court to grant extension of time in appropriate cases. (See Ganesh Pd. Sah Keshri vs. Lakshmi Narain Gupta, A.I.R. 1985 SC 964). I am, therefore, of the considered view that before a clause providing for disqualification or debarment is given effect, the concerned candidate must be given an opportunity to explain his conduct, and a final order may be passed by the competent authority only thereafter. In the instant case respondent no.4 was never informed by the Government that he had been debarred in terms of clause 14 of the advertisement. Instead the notification dated 19.5.90 only stated that in case the selected candidates failed to join within the period prescribed, they shall not be considered later for appointment in the same subject on the basis of 1987 panel. Instead the notification dated 19.5.90 only stated that in case the selected candidates failed to join within the period prescribed, they shall not be considered later for appointment in the same subject on the basis of 1987 panel. Obviously, the Government did not intend to invoke clause 14 of the advertisement in the case of any defaulting candidate, and instead provided only for their disqualification for being considered for appointment in the same subject on the basis of 1987 Panel. 59. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1988 PLJR 84 (Dr. Ramji Pande vs. State of Bihar etc.). I have carefully perused that decision and from the report it appears that the concerned candidates were informed of the Government decision that their cases for promotion shall not be considered for the next three years. The petitioners in those cases had not challenged that order. In any event, the facts of the cases disclose that the concerned candidates had deliberately not joined the post to which they were promoted on purely persona! grounds, and none of them had contended that for reasons beyond their control, it had not been possible for them to join the post within the period prescribed. In fact, the Court examined the facts of each of the cases before it and found that none of the petitioners could establish that he was prevented by reasonable cause from joining the post on promotion or joining in future. I, therefore, hold that even if respondent no.4 failed to join his post pursuant to the notification dated 19.5.90, he did not stand disqualified from consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, pursuant to the advertisement which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition. 60. The second ground on which the eligibility of respondent no.4 has been challenged is that he was not a member of the Bihar Health Service, which was one of the conditions of eligibility as laid down in the advertisement in question (Annexure-5). This has been strongly resisted by counsel for respondent no.4 who submitted that there is nothing to show that respondent no.4 had ceased to be a member of the Bihar Health Service on the relevant date. This has been strongly resisted by counsel for respondent no.4 who submitted that there is nothing to show that respondent no.4 had ceased to be a member of the Bihar Health Service on the relevant date. It is not in dispute that respondent no.4 was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Bihar Health Service vide Notification dated 4.8.83, and he joined in the office of Civil Surgeon, Hajipur on 11.8.83. Later he was posted at Punpun Primary Health Centre, where he joined on 6.7.84. By order of the Government of Bihar dated 11.2.86 respondent no.4 was deputed to Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences to work there on deputation for a period of three years. Respondent no.4 was called upon to inform the Government within a period of six months as to whether he wanted to serve the Health Department or the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, as would be evident from the letter of the Government of Bihar (Annexure 35 dated 14.2.86). The aforesaid respondent joined the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences as Senior Resident, Urology, on 25.2.86 as would be evident from Annexure B/4, a certificate issued by the Director of the said institute. According to respondent no.4 he had informed the State Government that he wanted to continue in Government service after completion of his deputation at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. It has been so stated in paragraph no. 32 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondent on 24.2.94. The petitioner has himself stated in pararaph no. 11 of his fifth supplementary affidavit filed on 29.6.93 that the Government issued an order on 15.6.90 extending the deputation of respondent no.4 for a further period till 24.2.91. A copy of the said Government order has been annexed as Annexure-36 to the said supplementary counter-affidavit. On these facts, it cannot be said that on the date of the advertisement or even on the last date for filing of applications, the petitioner was not a member of the Bihar Health Service. It is quite clear from Annexure-36 that his deputation was extended by the Government of Bihar till 24.2.1981, whereas the last date for filing applications pursuant to the advertisement was 30th June, 1990. It is quite clear from Annexure-36 that his deputation was extended by the Government of Bihar till 24.2.1981, whereas the last date for filing applications pursuant to the advertisement was 30th June, 1990. Counsel for respondent no.4 rightly submitted that appointment of respondent no.4 to the Bihar Health Service cannot be deemed to have been terminated unless it is shown that by an order of the Government his appointment stood terminated. Even the letter of appointment issued in favour of respondent no.4 (Annexure-1) dated 9.7.91 shows that the aforesaid respondent was on deputation to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. 61. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while on deputation to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor (Surgery) on 4.7.1989 and continued to hold that post till he was appointed by the impugned order, Annexure-1. It, therefore, followed that upon his promotion in a substantive capacity, respondent no.4 ceased to be a member of the Bihar Health Service, because under rule 67 of the Bihar Service Code a Government servant cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time. The submission is misconceived. The petitioner was on deputation to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences where he was initially working as a Senior Resident and was thereafter appointed as an Assistant Professor. Since he was on deputation he did not hold either of the posts in a substantive capacity. In fact, a deputationist cannot hold any post while on deputation on a substantive basis. He has no right to hold such post on substantive basis because his deputation may be terminated at any time and he may be recalled to his parent department. In such a situation, he cannot claim a right to hold the post which he was holding while on deputation. The appointment of respondent No.4 as Assistant Professor did not change the legal status of respondent no.4 and he continued to be in the service of the Govt. of Bihar as a member of Bihar Health Service on deputation to the Institute. It is not unusual to grant promotion and higher pay scale to a Government employee working on deputation, when an officer junior to him is granted promotion in the parent department. of Bihar as a member of Bihar Health Service on deputation to the Institute. It is not unusual to grant promotion and higher pay scale to a Government employee working on deputation, when an officer junior to him is granted promotion in the parent department. The mere fact that such an officer is granted promotion in the organisation where he is serving as a consequence of his promotion in the parent department, does not change his legal status. Moreover, in the absence of a specific order terminating the service of a Government servant it cannot be inferred that his service stood terminated merely because in the organisation where he was working on deputation he had been granted a promotion, or had been appointed to a higher post. 62. I, therefore, find that there is no material on record to show that the appointment of respondent no.4 to the Bihar Health Service was at any time terminated by the State of Bihar. In fact, it is established that he was working on deputation in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, and the period of deputation was extended from time to time till he was appointed by the impugned order (Annexure-1) as Assistant Professor, Urology in the Patna Medical College & Hospital. The second objection of the petitioner is also rejected, and it is held that respondent no.4 continued as a member of the Bihar Health Service while serving the Institute on deputation and, therefore, satisfied the eligibility condition laid down in the advertisement. 63. The question then arises whether respondent no.4 was eligible for being considered and selected for appointment as Assistant Professor, Urology. The claim of respondent no.4 is three fold. Firstly, it was submitted that having the requisite work experience as laid down in clause 3(ka) of the advertisement, respondent no.4 was eligible for such appointment. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if respondent no.4 did not fulfil the condition laid down in clause 3(ka), he was eligible under clause 3(kha) which lays down an eligibility condition separate and distinct from the condition laid down in clause 3(ka). Lastly, it was submitted that the case of respondent no.4 in any event is covered by Clause 3(ga) read with clause 19 of the advertisement under which he was rightly preferred for the post. Lastly, it was submitted that the case of respondent no.4 in any event is covered by Clause 3(ga) read with clause 19 of the advertisement under which he was rightly preferred for the post. The stand of respondent No.4 has been fully supported by the State of Bihar, but has been strongly contested by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that respondent No.4 did not fulfil the condition laid down in clause 3(ka) of the advertisement since he had not worked for the requisite period in a teaching hospital conducting MBBS course approved by the Medical Council of India. It was further submitted that clause 3(kha) does not lay down any alternative condition of eligibility, but merely lays down a rule of equivalence treating junior surgeon/junior physician as equivalent to the post of Registrar/Resident. Lastly, it was submitted that respondent No.4 could not get any benefit under clause 3(ga) or clause 19 of the advertisement since he had not the necessary basic qualification under clause 3(ka). 64. A few facts which are not in dispute may first be noticed. The Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences is not an institution recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting the MBBS course. In fact, the institute does not have the MBBS course and does not admit students for the said course or even for any Post Graduate Course, such as, M.S. or M.D. As is evident from Annexure-25, a communication received from the Medical Council of India, the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences is not even recognised by the Medical Council of India. The said Institute does not award any degree or diploma, such as, MBBS, M.S. M.D. etc. Only in the year 1990 on getting recognition from the National Board of Examination it is conducting some courses not even recognised as equivalent to M.B.B.S or M.S., M.D. etc. The Institute is neither a deemed University nor is it affiliated to any University. On these facts the petitioner strongly contended that respondent no.4 could not claim benefit of experience of having worked in such a institute, because in terms clause 3(ka) lays down that for the post of Assistant Professor, a candidate should have worked on the post of Resident/Registrar, or on both the posts in a teaching hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting the MBBS course. It was contended on behalf of respondent no.4 that Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences is a teaching institution and active teaching programme is being carried out in all the departments of the Institute. The Senior Residents teach the Senior House Officers who work jn the wards etc., while persons holding higher teaching posts also perform similar functions. There are daily, weekly and other teaching programmes such as, journal clubs, seminars etc. There is, therefore, an interaction be- tween various academics, scholars, specialists and that results in imparting or acquiring of knowledge, wisdom and proficiency leading to improvement and betterment of those teaching and those being taught. Counsel for respondent no.4 referred to the averments in the writ petition regarding the teaching work done by Residents and Registrars of the Institute. It was submitted on his behalf that it is not necessary that in order to be a teaching institute, the teacher must necessarily teach the students pursuing the M.B.B.S. course or for securing any other such degree. The nature and quality of experience was material, and therefore teaching experience was not to be construed in a pedantic manner. Even if they were teaching, though not for a degree course, the Residents/Registrars etc. of the institute must be given benefit under clause 3{ka) of the advertisement. In this connection, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar, vs. A. K. Mukherjee ( AIR 1975 SC 192 ). As it appears from the report, in that case, the regulation provided for teaching experience as Registrar for at least three years in Orthopaedics or allied subjects in teaching institution". The respondent in that case had worked for three years under apparently outstanding British Orthopaedic Surgeons. However, in the absence of statutory definition the Court was called upon to pronounce upon the sufficiency of this experience vis-a-vis the relevant regulation. The meaning of the two common expressions "teaching experience" and "teaching institution" fell for consideration before the Court. The issue to be decided in that case was whether the respondent had teaching experience in a teaching institution good enough under the Indian statute and for Patna Medical College & Hospital. The Court noticed that while the expressions "medical institution" and "approved institution" were defined under section 2, neither teaching experience nor teaching institution had been defined in the Act, rules or regulations. The Court noticed that while the expressions "medical institution" and "approved institution" were defined under section 2, neither teaching experience nor teaching institution had been defined in the Act, rules or regulations. The observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision must, therefore, be considered in the factual background of the case and the nature of the issues involved. 65 In the instant case, the facts are quite different. Clause 3(a) of the advertisement does not merely state that a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor should have worked as Resident /Registrar in that speciality in a teaching hospital, but further provides that the teaching hospital must be one which has the recognition of the Medical Council of India for conducting the M.B.B.S. course. There is, therefore, no uncertainty in the advertisement as was there in the regulation which was considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, which merely provided for teaching experience in a teaching institutioin in the concerned or allied subject. In the instant case even the post/posts against which the candidate should have worked have been clearly specified, namely, the post of Resident or Registrar. Similarly, the teaching institution has also been specified as one which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course. In terms, therefore, clause 3(ka) provides that only such candidates shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor who have worked against the post of Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course. The language of the clause is clear and permits no ambiguity. Having regard to the clear language of the advertisement, it would not be possible to read into that clause experience acquired in any other teaching institute or hospital which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course. No doubt, the advertisement lays down the minimum requirement, and if there be a teaching hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting courses higher than MBBS, such as M.S., M.D., M.Ch, etc. such a teaching hospital shall be deemed to be included in clause 3 (ka). No doubt, the advertisement lays down the minimum requirement, and if there be a teaching hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting courses higher than MBBS, such as M.S., M.D., M.Ch, etc. such a teaching hospital shall be deemed to be included in clause 3 (ka). Having regard to the express language employed in the advertisement in clause 3(ka), it is not permissible to the Court to read into it something which is not implied, even by necessary implication, if not by express terms. In my view the work experience to be acquired must be against the post of Registrar/Resident {subject to clause 3 (Kha)}, and the teaching hospital must be one recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting at least M.B.B.S. course, if not higher courses. It, therefore, excludes any other teaching institution which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting atleast the M.B.B.S. course. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with counsel for respondent no.4 who submitted that teaching hospital must be given a wide meaning so as to include even those teaching hospitals where some teaching work was being done though the said teaching institute was not recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course or any higher course. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the work experience of respondent no.4 gained by him while working in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences has to be excluded, while considering his eligibility under clause 3(Ka) of the advertisement. Respondent no.4 has not claimed work experience in the requisite speciality in any other teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. This view is also supported by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Director, AllMS vs. Nikhil Tandon ( AIR 1996 SC 3161 ) wherein it was held that mere equivalence was not enough, it must also be recognised as equivalent. In the instant case the advertisement lays down as a condition that the teaching hospital must be recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course. There is nothing in the advertisement, or in any rule, regulation, etc. which provides that any other teaching hospital shall be considered as equivalent to such teaching hospital. 66. In the instant case the advertisement lays down as a condition that the teaching hospital must be recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course. There is nothing in the advertisement, or in any rule, regulation, etc. which provides that any other teaching hospital shall be considered as equivalent to such teaching hospital. 66. Alternatively, it was submitted on behalf of respondent no.4 that clauses 3(Ka) and 3(Kha) lay down conditions of eligibility which are in the alternative. Even if a candidate is not eligible under clause 3(Ka), he may be selected for appointment if he is eligible under clause 3(Kha). In my view, this submission also has no force. Clause 3(kha) to my mind only lays down a rule of equivalence and provides that the experience gained by the candidate in the subject for which he has applied on other sanctioned junior teaching posts, such as, Junior Surgeon /Junior Physician, shall be considered to be equivalent to service on the post of Registrar/Resident. Clause 3(ka) mentions the post of Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital approved by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. Clause 3(kha) only provides that if there are other sanctioned teaching posts, such as, Junior Surgeon /Junior Physician, the experience gained against such post shall be equivalent to the experience gained while working as Registrar/Resident. It does not mean that such sanctioned junior teaching posts may not be in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS Course. The posts mentioned in clause 3(ka) as weii as other sanctioned junior posts referred to in clause 3(kha) must exist in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. Thus the two clauses do not provide for eligibility conditions in the alternative, but clause 3(kha) only explains clause 3(ka) by providing that experience gained against a sanctioned junior teaching post shall be equivalent to experience gained against the post of Registrar/Resident. I am, therefore, not persuaded to hold that a person holding a sanctioned teaching post in a teaching institution, even if not recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course, would become eligible for the post of Assistant Professor under clause 3(kha). If such a meaning is given to clause 3(kha) it would result in serious hardships and unreasonable consequences. If such a meaning is given to clause 3(kha) it would result in serious hardships and unreasonable consequences. If the submission is to be accepted, a Resident/Registrar working in a teaching hospital which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting MBBS course would be excluded from consideration, while a candidate having worked against any other sanctioned junior teaching post in the same hospital would be considered eligible. Neither on the express language of clauses 3(ka) and 3(kha), nor by necessary implication, is it possible to accept the submission of counsel for respondent No.4 that clause 3(kha) lays down an alternative condition of eligibility. In my view, it only lays down a rule of equivalence and provides that experience gained against the post of Resi- dent/Registrar mentioned in Clause 3(ka) shall be equivalent to experience gained against any other sanctioned junior teaching post. The condition common to both is that the posts must relate to a teaching hospital which is recognised by the Medical Council of India for teaching MBBS course. 67. This takes me to a consideration of the claim of respondent no.4 based on clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement. The case pleaded by the aforesaid respondent is that though the requirement of counting of working experience on the post of Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course is relevant for clause 3(ka), this requirement is not necessary in clause 3(ga). Clause 3(Ga) provides in express terms that the requirement of clauses 3(Ka) and 3(Kha) shall not be essential for Radiology, Skin & V.D., Nephrology, Neurosurgery and specialities to be constituted in future, nor shall it be essential to obtain prescribed minimum 15 points for being posted in these subjects. However, in these subjects if one or more than one such candidates are available who have three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality, then in that situation the medical officers having such experience shall be entitled to foremost consideration for appointment and they shall be appointed although they might have obtained less points than those candidates who did not have three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality. It was submitted before us that for the purpose of clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement, it was not necessary that the candidate should have worked against the post of Resident/Registrar for three years in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India. The only requirement was that he should have three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality, apart from the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Clause 3(Ga) does not in terms refer to teaching experience gained while teaching in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. Such teaching experience may have been acquired by the candidate while teaching in other institutions which, in the opinion of the appointing authority, enabled the candidate to acquire teaching experience of the nature and quality required for the purpose of teaching in any of the Medical Colleges of Bihar. It was, therefore, submitted that even if it is assumed that for the purpose of clause 3(Ka) the experience gained while working on the post of Resident/Registrar in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences was not to be counted, under clause 3(ga) the teaching experience gained while working on such post in the said institute was relevant. The same submission was reiterated by counsel for the State. The submission is that having regard to the nature of teaching work and the standard of instructions imparted at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, the appointing authority was justified in taking into consideration the teaching experience acquired by a Resident/Registrar teaching in that institute, even if it was not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Unlike clause 3(Ka), clause 3(Ga) does not in express terms provide for teaching experience gained in any particular type of institution. Considerable reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ashish Kumar Mukherjee (supra). I have earlier noticed this judgment while interpreting clause 3(Ka) of the advertisement to find out its true meaning and im- port. However, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court deserves to be considered in the light of the submissions advanced by reference to clause 3(Ga). 68. In Ashish Kumar Mukherjees case, for appointment to the post of lecturer in Orthopaedics the requirement under the relevant regulation was that the candidate must possess teaching experience in a teaching institution. However, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court deserves to be considered in the light of the submissions advanced by reference to clause 3(Ga). 68. In Ashish Kumar Mukherjees case, for appointment to the post of lecturer in Orthopaedics the requirement under the relevant regulation was that the candidate must possess teaching experience in a teaching institution. The meaning of the two common expressions "teaching experience" and "teaching institution" was at the root of the controversy before the court. The respondent in the case claimed teaching experience as Registrar for at least three years in Orthopaedics or allied subjects in a teaching institution and produced prima facie material to satisfy the court that he had worked for three years under apparently outstanding British Orthopaedic Surgeons. The court was called upon, in the absence of statutory definition, to pronounce upon the sufficiency of this experience vis-a-vis the relevant regulation. The stand of the State that the rule did not recognise teaching experience gained in a foreign country was rejected. The court observed that it was concerned with an Indian situation and called upon to construe words which are not defined, and therefore bear their natural meaning. In the absence of any definition in the Act, rules or regulations of these terms, the court was not inclined to take a pedantic or artificial view of the import of these words, but a simple common sense idea of their meaning. It was observed that it is advisable for the appointing authority to consult bodies or authorities of high technical level when the points in dispute are of technical nature, so that it could get useful assistance in the crucial exercise of public power. The expressions "teaching experience" and "teaching institution" should be read having due regard to their normal import, statutory setting, professional object and insistence on standards. The approach which the Court must adopt in such cases is the one suggested by Denning, L.J. in (1949) 2 All. E.R. 155 which is reproduced below. "When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament.......and then he must supplement the written words so as to give force and life to the intention of legislature. E.R. 155 which is reproduced below. "When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament.......and then he must supplement the written words so as to give force and life to the intention of legislature. A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." After considering all aspects of the matter, the court held that it was the duty of the Government to be satisfied on reasonable materials that the U.K. hospitals relied on by the first respondent were teaching institutions, and that the post of Registrar in which he claimed to have worked for three years involved teaching functions, the question being looked at fairly, not by semantic hairsplitting and quibbling. The court, therefore, gave certain directions and directed the Government to investigate and be satisfied about the real qualification after considering the evidence that may be produced before it by the parties. 69 Relying upon this judgment counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that in the absence of any requirement of clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement that the teaching experience shall be gained in an institution which is recognised by the Medical Council of India, it was open to the appointing authority to consider the nature and quality of the teaching experience gained by the candidates in any teaching institute of repute, even if that was not recognised by the Medical Council of India. In this background it was urged that the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences has been created by an Act of legislature and as explained by counsel appearing on behalf of the institute, the said institute was established with the objective of establishing a premier institute for higher studies in medicine and with a view of development and continuity of educational programme and to award degrees, diplomas and certificates as also post graduate degrees. The faculty members have been appointed having regard to the qualifications and experience as are applicable to similar appointments made in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The posts of Professor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. exist in the institute and Senior Residents and Senior House Officers are also appointed to get training in various superspecialities. The faculty members of the institute were earlier engaged in teaching work in various reputed institutions of the country before joining the institute, and some of them are also appointed as examiners in different universities of the country. It organises seminars and discussions and teaching programmes for Senior Residents and Senior House Officers in the various Departments of the institute. The institute is in correspondence with the National Board of Examination as well as the Medical Council of India for recognition for conducting post graduate courses of study. In fact, the National Board of Examination by its letter dated 19th April, 1990, has already communicated its approval for imparting training to candidates to appear in the examination conducted by the Board in Urology. Later, similar training in Gastroenterology has also been approved by the National Board of Examination. It was, therefore, submitted that the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences has been conceived as a premier medical institute of the same standard as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences or Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lucknow and the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh. 70. In its counter-affidavit respondent no.4 has stated that many premier medical institutions in India have recognised the teaching experience gained by the persons working in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and the experience gained by them has always been recognised as the requisite teaching experience for appointment to the higher teaching posts in different medical institutes of the country. In this connection as many as nine cases have been cited. According to the said respondent, Dr. OP. Sharma was appointed Reader in Urology in the Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U. Varanasi on the basis of his experience as Assistant Professor, Urology in the said institute. Dr. G.Choudhary, was apppointed as Associate Professor, Gastroenterology at the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow on the basis of his experience as Assistant Professor Gastroenterology in the institute. Similarly, Dr. Sharma was appointed Reader in Urology in the Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U. Varanasi on the basis of his experience as Assistant Professor, Urology in the said institute. Dr. G.Choudhary, was apppointed as Associate Professor, Gastroenterology at the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow on the basis of his experience as Assistant Professor Gastroenterology in the institute. Similarly, Dr. Sumit Sur was appointed as Assistant Professor of Surgery in the University Medical College, Delhi University, on the basis of his experience as lecturer, Gastrointestinal surgery in the institute. Dr. M. Raza Fazal was also appointed as Assistant Professor of Urology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, on the basis of his experience as lecturer in Urology in the institute. Four other cases of Dr. Amit Gupta, Dr. Kulshrestha, Dr. V.V. Tantri and Dr. Jai Prakash have been cited who have also been appointed to prestigious medical institutes of this country on the basis of the experience gained by them against teaching posts in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Such instances have been cited with a view to substantiate the plea that the experience gained by medical officers holding teaching posts in the said institute is in no manner inferior to teaching experience gained in any other medical institute which may be recognised by the Medical Council of India. It was submitted that if other institutes of repute do recognise the value of the teaching experience gained by the officers holding teaching posts in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, there is no reason why such teaching experience should not be recognised for the purpose of appointment to the various Medical Colleges & Hospitals in the State of Bihar provided the candidate has other requisite qualifications. 71. The petitioner, however, submitted that the teaching experience contemplated under clause 3(Ga) must be read in the light of clause 3(Ka) which provides for work experience against the post of Resident/Registrar in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. It was, therefore, submitted that the benefit of teaching experience claimed under clause 3(Ga) must be one which was gained by the candidate concerned while teaching in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. It was, therefore, submitted that the benefit of teaching experience claimed under clause 3(Ga) must be one which was gained by the candidate concerned while teaching in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. At the outset I may notice that foremost consideration under clause (Ga) is applicable only to the specialities enumerated therein and the specialities to be constituted in future. Urology is not a speciality mentioned in clause 3(Ga), but according to the petitioner it is covered by the said clause because Urology as a speciality was constituted in future, when for the first time the post of Assistant Professor in Urology under the Department of Surgery was created on 27.6.1991. Respondent no.4 did not contest the stand of the petitioner on this score, obviously because it helps him as well. So far as the State is concerned, its clear stand is that respondent no.4 has been given the benefit of teaching experience under clause 3(Ga) and, therefore, it is also the stand of the State that Urology may be considered as a speciality constituted in future. That is why respondent no.4 has been preferred to other candidates who had secured higher points in accordance with the norms and criteria adopted by the Government, which was permissible under clause 3{Ga). I must, therefore proceed on the basis that Urology as a speciality comes within the category of specialities constituted in future contemplated by clause 3(Ga) of the advertisement. 72. Clauses 3(Ka) and (Kha) read together provide that for the post of Assistant Professor, Resident/Registrar or medical officers holding sanctioned junior teaching posts deemed to be equivalent, having worked on the posts in an educational hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for M.B.B.S. course alone can apply. However, clause (Ga) in express terms provides that this, however, shall not be essential for the specialities mentioned therein or any speciality to be constituted in future, nor shall it be essential to obtain prescribed minimum of 15 points for being posted in these subjects. However, clause (Ga) in express terms provides that this, however, shall not be essential for the specialities mentioned therein or any speciality to be constituted in future, nor shall it be essential to obtain prescribed minimum of 15 points for being posted in these subjects. In these subjects, however, in case one or more than one such candidates are available who have obtained three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality, then in that situation the Medi- cal Officers having such experience shall be entitled to foremost consideration for appointment and they shall be appointed although they might have obtained less points than those candidates who do not possess three years teaching experience. Thus, clause 3(Ga) overrides clauses 3(Ka) and 3(Kha) and ensures foremost consideration for appointment of those candidates who have three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality. Not only this, candidates with such teaching experience are also not required to obtain the prescribed minimum of 15 points, and they are to be given foremost consideration over and above those candidates who may have secured more points, but who do not possess three years teaching experience. In a nutshell, apart from other basic educational qualifications, three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality gets an overriding consideration under clause (Ga) for appointment of Assistant Professor in any of the specialities mentioned therein, or in specialities to be constituted in future. Such being the express language in clause 3(Ga), it is not possible to accept the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement of clause 3(Ka) may be read into clause 3(Ga) insisting upon such teaching experience being gained in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. Clause 3(Ga) is silent about the nature of institution where the teaching experience of three years is to be gained. If it was the intention of the Government to recognise only such teaching experience as was gained in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course, the words found in clause (Ka) to this effect could have been reproduced in clause (Ga) as well. If it was the intention of the Government to recognise only such teaching experience as was gained in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course, the words found in clause (Ka) to this effect could have been reproduced in clause (Ga) as well. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that clause 3(Ga) must be read independently of clause 3(Ka) and (Kha) and so read, clause 3(Ga) does not insist upon teaching experience being acquired while holding a teaching post in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. 73. The petitioner as well as respondent no.4 possessed the basic educational qualification required, namely, M.S. in surgery. Both of them at the relevant time were members of the Bihar Health Service. Respondent no.4 has been preferred because his teaching experience in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences of over four years has been recognised for the purpose of clause 3(Ga), whereas the petitioner who had such experience of two and a half years on the relevant date has not been selected. If the teaching experience gained by respondent no.4 while working in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences can be validly taken into consideration for the purpose of clause 3(Ga), undoubtedly on the relevant date he had more teaching experience than the petitioner and qualified under clause 3(Ga) as he had more than three years teaching experience, whereas the petitioner had only two and half years teaching experience, and was not therefore eligible for special treatment under that clause. 74. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appointing authority was justified in taking into account the teaching experience of respondent no.4 while he was working as Senior Resident/Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. The question to be answered is whether he had the requisite teaching experience contemplated by clause 3(Ga), a question basically technical in nature. 75. It is observed by the Supreme Court in Ashish Mukherjee that at times the court trained in law and not in medicine, is called upon to adventure into the nature of actual teaching experience to find out whether a doctor had the necessary teaching experience, good enough under the Indian statute and for the Patna College. 75. It is observed by the Supreme Court in Ashish Mukherjee that at times the court trained in law and not in medicine, is called upon to adventure into the nature of actual teaching experience to find out whether a doctor had the necessary teaching experience, good enough under the Indian statute and for the Patna College. In the absence of statutory definition the court is called upon to pronounce upon the sufficiency of the experience via-a-vis relative regulations. Commonsense suggests that such technicai questions should be judge-proof excepting the glaring cases of malafide exercise. While the appointing authority is the State Government, and the responsibility for final choice vests in it, it is reasonable to consult bodies or authorities of a high technical level when the points in dispute are of a technical nature. The expression "teaching experience" should be read having due regard to its normal import, statutory setting, professional object and insistence on standards. The Court observed that these are matters which have to be decided by the appointing authority. The courts cannot and do not appoint petitioners to posts they claim, but lay down the legal criteria and give the correct direction, the executive being the organ of the State to exercise the power to appoint but in conformity with the legal directions. The State Government being that authority has to take the ultimate decision. 76. I have earlier held that clause 3(Ga) does not insist upon teaching experience being acquired while serving against a teaching post in a teaching hospital recognised by the Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course. It is, therefore, open to the ap- pointing authority to consider the teaching experience in any other institution, even if not recognised by the Medical Council of India. The appointing authority has to be satisfied about the nature, quality and standard of teaching imparted in such institutions, and must be further satisfied that such teaching experience is qualitatively of a standard which makes the candidate eligible, suitable, and proficient, for teaching in any of the medical colleges in the State of Bihar. It is not disputed before us that a body of experts evaluated the relative merit and eligibility of the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement. It is not disputed before us that a body of experts evaluated the relative merit and eligibility of the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement. As observed by the Supreme Court, an expert body, or authority of a high technical level is in a better position to judge whether the teaching experience claimed by the candidate in a particular institution is of the requisite quality and standard which entitles him to foremost consideration under clause 3(Ga). It is on the basis of the recommendation of such an expert body that the State Government has appointed respondent no.4. The recommendation of such an expert body, when acted upon by the appointing authority, cannot be challenged except in glaring cases where it can be shown that the exercise of power is vitiated by mistake, malafide exercise or such other reasons. It was pointed out by counsel that the State of Bihar has also granted recognition to teaching experience gained while working on a teaching post in the aforesaid Institute. He brought to our notice Annexures FF/4 and FF/4-A, the advertisements published in the dailies in the year 1983 inviting applications for the posts of Resident Medical Officer in the Institute which provided that the candidates selected to depute against the aforesaid posts in the Institute shall be given the benefit of teaching experience of a junior teaching post. It cannot be disputed in the. facts of this case that teaching work is being done in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, and indeed it was submitted on behalf of respondent no. 4 that the discussions, seminars, etc. and the instructions imparted are of a higher standard than those for the M.B.B.S. course, even though the institute is not recognised for conducting M.B.B.S. course. If the requirement of clause 3(Ka) is not read into clause 3(Ga), there is no legal impediment in the way of the appointing authority to appoint a candidate who has gained the requisite teaching experience of three years or more in an institution which is not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Once this technicality is out of the way, the only matter to be considered is whether the teaching experience of the concerned candidate is qualitatively of the standard contemplated by clause 3(Ga). Once this technicality is out of the way, the only matter to be considered is whether the teaching experience of the concerned candidate is qualitatively of the standard contemplated by clause 3(Ga). This question can best be answered by a body of experts in medicine and indeed they have, after considering all aspects of the matter, given to respondent no.4 the benefit of teaching experience gained by him while working as Senior Resident/Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. There is nothing to show that the recommendation made by the body of experts was vitiated by malafide, or that it was based on a mistake of fact or on extraneous consideration. Indeed, the Board of Governors of the institute had earlier resolved that doctors who were appointed as Senior Resident etc. shall have the benefit of teaching experience. That by itself is not conclusive, but certainly relevant. Moreover, the teaching experience gained at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences is recognised by the premier medical institutions of this country, and persons who have held teaching posts in the said institute have been appointed to similar or higher teaching posts in the premier medical institutions of this country. If the State of Bihar has also recognised the teaching experience of such persons holding teaching post in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, that cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State Government itself has given the benefit of teaching experience to its Medical Officers who have been selected to work as Resident Medical Officer on deputation in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Annexures-FF/4 & FF/4-A). It is worth noticing that on the aoard of Governors of the said institute, which is created by an Act of legislature, there are members representing the Medical Council of India as well as the State of Bihar. Having regard to all aspects of the matter I have come to the conclusion that for the purpose of clause 3(Ga), the teaching experience gained by a candidate while holding a teaching post in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences can be taken into consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Urology, particularly when a body of experts have considered such experience to be adequate and of the requisite quality. I, therefore, hold that respondent no.4 was eligible under clause 3(Ga) to foremost consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urology), he having to his credit more than three years teaching experience while working as Senior Resident/Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. His appointment on the basis of recommendation of a body of experts is also not vitiated by mistake or malafide, nor is it contrary to any provision of law. Even if the teaching experience of the petitioner while working as Registrar/Senior Registrar in the Christian Medical College, Vellore is taken into account, on the relevant date he did not possess the requisite three years teaching experience and, therefore, was not entitled to foremost consideration under clause 3(Ga). I, therefore, find no illegality in the appointment of respondent no. 4 to the post of Assistant Professor (Urology) in the Patna Medical College and Hospital. C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990 77. in this writ petition the real contest is between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent no.4 on the other, both of whom were applicants for the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology, pursuant to the advertisement Annexure-3, dated 29.12.87. The advertisement in this case is in pari materia with the advertisement in C.W.J.C.No.6945 of 1991 though it was published much earlier. The last date for applying in response to the said advertisement was 31st January, 1988. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.4 to the only vacant post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology, in the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 78. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Bihar Health Service as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 1.9.71. On 12.6.78 he was appointed Resident Medical Officer (Medicine) in the Patna Medical College & Hospital, a junior teaching post with a fixed tenure of three years. He claims that while he was working as Resident Medical Officer, he was deputed to work as Resident Physician in Gastroenterology unit from 7.8.78 to 12.6.80. He relies upon Annexure-16 dated 13th July, 1988 issued by the Superintendent of Patna Medical College & Hospital in support of this fact. Thereafter on 16.11.81 he was appointed Registrar (Medicine), a junior teaching post, also a tenure post, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital. He relies upon Annexure-16 dated 13th July, 1988 issued by the Superintendent of Patna Medical College & Hospital in support of this fact. Thereafter on 16.11.81 he was appointed Registrar (Medicine), a junior teaching post, also a tenure post, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital. On 7.4.86 vide Annexure-2 he was appointed as Registrar, Gastroenterology, in the Patna Medical College & Hospital, and while he was working on the said post, the advertisement was issued inviting applications on 29.12.87 pursuant to which he applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology. The candidates were interviewed on 17.6.88 and in the said interview there was only a verification of the points claimed by the candidates as also the experience claimed by them. The candidates were also asked to sign the chart prepared. The petitioner was given the benefit of teaching experience only from 8.4.86 to 31.1.88 (the last date for making applications) and his earlier experience while working as a Resident Physician in the Gastroenterology unit from 7.8.78 to 12.6.80 was not taken into account for reckoning his teaching experience in the said speciality. However, his earlier experience was taken into account for the purpose of reckoning his teaching experience in general medicine only. It is not disputed that the petitioner and respondent no.4 held the degree of M.D. in general medicine. His grievance is that though respondent no.4 had no teaching experience in a college recognised by Medical Council of India for conducting M.B.B.S. course, respondent no.4 was given the benefit of teaching experience while working on the post of Senior Resident Surgeon in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. He was also given the benefit of teaching experience while working on the post of lecturer in medicine in the same institute. Aggrieved by the points allotted to him, he made a representation on 18.7.88 followed by several other representations. Despite his representations respondent no.4 was appointed against the only vacant post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology in the Patna Medical College and Hospital on 8.2.90. He had come to learn that respondent no.4 had also applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Medicine and Registrar, Medicine, but his claim of teaching experience was rejected for those posts. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that in the panel prepared for the purpose, respondent no.4 was placed at serial no.1 while other candidates were placed between serial nos. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that in the panel prepared for the purpose, respondent no.4 was placed at serial no.1 while other candidates were placed between serial nos. 2 and 7. The position of the petitioner in the panel was at serial no.8. According to the petitioner, even those paced between serial nos. 2 and 7 had no teaching experience in Gastroenterology. The petitioner claims that on the basis of his teaching experience he alone was entitled to be appointed as Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology. 79. Respondent no.4, on the other hand, claims that he has an excellent academic background. He topped the Ranchi University in the l.Sc. examination. In the M.B.B.S. examination he was awarded honours in seven out of ten subjects and was also awarded several gold medals. He was declared the best graduate of the year 1977. He was thereafter selected for the post graduate course of M.D.(Medicine) in the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh on the basis of all India competitive test. in the P.G.I., Chandigarh also he topped the list of candidates who were awarded the degree of M.D. in Medicine. In the year 1984 he was conferred the degree of Diplomate National Board of Examinations which is recognised as equivalent to M.R.C.P. by the Government of India as well as by the Medical Council of India. Reliance has been placed on Annexures 1 and 2 respectively in support of this claim. In the year 1988 he went to England and obtained the M.R.C.P. degree in a record time of only seven months. He had also to his credit many research papers and publications in national and international journals. 80. It is averred by respondent no.4 that a panel was initially prepared by a Board of experts which placed him at the top of the panel for the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology. The recommendation of the first Board of experts was reviewed by another Board of experts and again he was placed at the top of the list securing 33 points. The petitioner, on the other hand, secured only 20 points and was placed at number 8 in the panel. The petitioner had failed to show how the candidates who were placed between serial nos. 2 and 7 were not eligible, as he had produced no material in support of his allegation, apart from his bald statement. The petitioner, on the other hand, secured only 20 points and was placed at number 8 in the panel. The petitioner had failed to show how the candidates who were placed between serial nos. 2 and 7 were not eligible, as he had produced no material in support of his allegation, apart from his bald statement. An objection was raised that in the absence of the candidates whose names found place in the panel above the petitioner, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. Refuting the claim of the petitioner it has been averred that the petitioner did not have three years teaching experience in Gastroenterology till the cut off date. He had only one year ten months experience of teaching Gastroenterology while he was holding the post of Registrar, Gastroenterology, with effect from 8-4-86. The claim of the petitioner that he had been deputed to work as Resident Physician in the Gastroenterology unit from 7-8-78 to 12-6-80 has been challenged on the ground that there is no post of Resident in Gastroenterology in Patna Medical College and Hospital. No such post existed in the years 1978 and 1980 and no such post existed even on the date on which the counter-affidavit was affirmed. His claim was, therefore, patently false. Respondent no. 4 also placed reliance on clause 3(Kha) and claimed that the teaching experience in any other sanctioned post could also be counted as experience under clause 3 of the advertisement. In any event, it is submitted that since he had three years teaching experience and he had also secured the highest points, there was no question of any special treatment being given to the petitioner. He further submitted that he was deputed to work as Senior Resident Surgeon, Gastroenterology on the basis of selection made by open advertisement. He worked as Senior Resident Surgeon, Gastroenterology in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences from 27-7-84 onward till he was promoted as lecturer in medicine on 2-2-87. He has referred to the resolution of the Board of Governors of the Institute dated 19-6-84 which provided that the medical officers appointed as Senior Residents or on other teaching posts in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences shall be given the benefit of teaching experience. Signatories to this resolution were the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar and Deputy Secretary, Health, of the Government of Bihar. Signatories to this resolution were the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar and Deputy Secretary, Health, of the Government of Bihar. He has also referred to the teaching programmes conducted in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, and submitted that the quality of teaching experience gained at the said institute is of a qualitatively high order which was taken into account by the Board of experts. 81. The State of Bihar has also filed a counter-affidavit supporting the appointment of respondent no. 4. It was stated that while respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 1 in the panel prepared by the Board of experts securing 33 points, the petitioner has secured only 20 points and was placed at serial no. 8. The recommendation of the Board of experts was accepted by the Government. The State has also disputed the claim of the petitioner that he had the requisite teaching experience and it has been asserted that the petitioner had teaching experience in the subject of Gastroenterology only of one year and nine months as on the cut off date. It has further been stated that the petitioner was never posted as Resident in the Department of Gastroenterology and was only posted as a Resident in the Department of Medicine. Till date there was no post of Resident (Gastroenterology) in the Patna Medical College and Hospital. The claim of the petitioner was, therefore, false and could not be accepted. There is no full-fledged department of Gastroenterology in the Patna Medical College & Hospital and it had no Professor or Resident in the specaility of Gastroenterology. It is not disputed that respondent no. 4 has been functioning as Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology in the Patna Medical College & Hospital since 9th February, 1990. 82. It appears from Annexure-C annexed to the counter-affidavit of the State that respondent no. 4 had been recommended for appointment as Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology. He was also placed at serial no. 1 in the panel prepared for the post of Registrar (Gastroenterology). However, since his name had been recommended for the post of Assistant Professor (Gastroenterology), he was not recommended for appointment against these posts. 83. The claim of the petitioner that he had three years teaching experience in the speciality of Gastroenterology may first be considered. 1 in the panel prepared for the post of Registrar (Gastroenterology). However, since his name had been recommended for the post of Assistant Professor (Gastroenterology), he was not recommended for appointment against these posts. 83. The claim of the petitioner that he had three years teaching experience in the speciality of Gastroenterology may first be considered. It is not disputed that he was appointed as Registrar (Gastroenterology) in the Patna Medical College & Hospital on 7-4-86. The post of Registrar is a junior teaching post and it is not disputed before us that the petitioner is entitled to count his teaching experience while holding the aforesaid teaching post. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had teaching experience in the speciality of Gastroenterology from 8-4-86 till the last date specified for submission of applications pursuant to the advertisement i.e. 31-1-88. Thus, admittedly he has teaching experience of about a year and ten months. The period in dispute, during which also the petitioner claims to have gained teaching experience in the said speciality, is between 7-8-78 and 12-6-80. The case of the petitioner is that he held the post of Resident Medical Officer (Medicine) in the Patna Medical College & Hospital during this period but according to him he was asked to work as Resident Physician, Gastroenterology unit during this period. He, therefore, claims that he should be given the benefit of teaching experience during this period. This has been strongly disputed by the respondents. According to the State as well as respondent no. 4, there is no post of Resident in the speciality of Gastroenterology in the Patna Medical College and Hospital and, therefore, according to them this claim is false. The petitioner has produced Annexure-16, a certificate issued by the Administrator/ Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, which is dated 13th July, 1988. The certificate states that in the light of the recommendation of the Head of the Department of Medicine, Patna Medical College & Hospital it was certified that Dr. Ashok Kr. Sinha had worked as Resident Medical Officer in Gastroenterology unit from 7-8-78 to 12-6-1980. The certificate states that in the light of the recommendation of the Head of the Department of Medicine, Patna Medical College & Hospital it was certified that Dr. Ashok Kr. Sinha had worked as Resident Medical Officer in Gastroenterology unit from 7-8-78 to 12-6-1980. It would appear that this certificate has been issued in July 1988, and the person certifying the fact stated in the certificate has not certified the facts on the basis of his knowledge or on the basis of record, but on the recommendation of the Head of Department of Medicine of that College. One fails to understand how such a certificate could have been issued by the Administrator /Superintendent of the Hospital unless the same was borne out from the record. Moreover, the certificate has been issued on the recommendation of the Head of Department, Medicine, who has himself not certified this fact. It stands to reason that if the petitioner has really been deputed to work in the Gastroenterology unit during this period, there would at least be a chit of paper to support this fact. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to place much reliance on the certificate (Annexure-16), in the absence of any other documentary proof. The claim of the petitioner for teaching experience during this period must, therefore, be rejected. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner did not have three years teaching experience in the speciality of Gastroenterology on the basis of which he claimed foremost consideration under clause 3(Ga). Otherwise, the points awarded to him are far less than the points awarded to the petitioner. Even if the claim of the petitioner is to be considered under clause 3 (Ga), about which I entertain serious doubt, the benefit of special consideration under clause 3(Ga) could be given to him only if he had taught in the concerned speciality for a period of three years or more. Such not being the case, the petitioner is not entitled to foremost consideration, and his case had to be considered on the basis of points awarded to him in accordance with the norms and guidelines. Admittedly, a body of experts awarded him only 20 points as against 33 points awarded to respondent no. 4. 84. It may here be noticed that in view of the objection raised by respondent no. Admittedly, a body of experts awarded him only 20 points as against 33 points awarded to respondent no. 4. 84. It may here be noticed that in view of the objection raised by respondent no. 4, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the writ petition for addition cf parties so as to add those candidates who were placed between serial nos. 2 and 7 in the panel. That application was allowed on 23-7-90 and they were added as party respondents in the writ petition, and were also heard. Counsel appearing on their behalf has also supported respondent no. 4 on all issues. 85. Counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that respondent no. 4 does not claim either foremost consideration under clause 3(Ga) or preferential treatment under clause 19 of the advertisement. His claim is based on his having secured the highest number of point on the basis of his educational qualifications and his teaching experience. I have earlier held that clause 3(Ga) and clause 19 of the advertisement provide for foremost consideration and preferential treatment respectively in the specialities specified therein, if a candidate has the requisite additional qualification, such as three years teaching experience in the concerned speciality under clause 3(Ga) and degree research work or work experience in the specialities to which clause 19 applies. If the work/teaching experience of the petitioner in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences is taken into consideration, he certainly has more than three years work/teaching experience in the concerned speciality. It is not disputed that he fulfils the other educational qualifications laid down in the advertisement. He has also to his credit many research papers and publications published in the national and international journals for which he has been awarded points in accordance with the norms and guidelines. Clause 19 refers to the teaching experience enumerated in clause 3. I have already held that for the purpose of counting teaching experience under clause 3(Ga) the appointing authority may be justified in taking into account the teaching work assigned to a candidate while holding a teaching post in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. Thus respondent no. 4 without claiming any special treatment under clause 3(Ga) or clause 19, was entitled to appointment as he had secured the highest number of points and was placed at number one in the panel. Thus respondent no. 4 without claiming any special treatment under clause 3(Ga) or clause 19, was entitled to appointment as he had secured the highest number of points and was placed at number one in the panel. The panel was prepared by a body of experts and reviewed by another body of experts. It is no ones case that the Board of experts had acted malafide. In these circumstances, there appears to be no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 86. Before parting with this judgment I may only notice the submission urged on behalf of respondent no. 4 in both the cases that even if there was any error in the selection of the candidates, since the selection was by a body of experts, no interference by this court was called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it was shown that the decision was vitiated by malafide, which is not the case here. It was also submitted that respondent no. 4 in both the cases have been working on the post of Assistant Professor in their respective specialities for the last eight or nine years and, therefore, at this distance of time their appointment should not be quashed, even if this court was of the view that in the matter of selection the Board of experts had committed some error, though it has acted bonafide. Authorities were cited at the Bar to persuade us not to interfere with the appointment of respondent no. 4 in both the cases, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners in both the cases were not eligible for special treatment as they did not possess the requisite teaching experience in the specialities concerned. It was submitted that the respondent no. 4 in both the cases with their brilliant academic record had been placed at serial no. 1 of the panel for more than one post, but they had to accept the posts offered to them. If their appointments to the post are cancelled today after about nine years, they will suffer great hardship as they have already lost their chance of appointment against other posts for which they were found eligible and placed at serial number one in the panel. 87. If their appointments to the post are cancelled today after about nine years, they will suffer great hardship as they have already lost their chance of appointment against other posts for which they were found eligible and placed at serial number one in the panel. 87. In view of the findings recorded by me it is not necessary to go into these aspects of the matter since I have held that the petitioners in both the cases did not have the requisite teaching experience in the concerned specialities on the basis of which they claimed special treatment. On the other hand, respondent no. 4 in both the cases have been found to be eligible for such appointment and there appears to be no illegality in the order of the appointing authority accepting the recommendation of the body of experts entrusted with the job of assessing the eligibility and relative merit of the concerned candidates, and in appointing them pursuant to the said recommendations. 88. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. B.P.Sharma, J. 89 I agree.