Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 887 (KAR)

DR. B. C. SRINIVAS v. DR. N. M. PRASAD

2003-10-23

K.RAMANNA, S.R.NAYAK

body2003
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) ALL these writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and Order dated 28th december, 2001 passed in W. P. Nos. 32531 of 2001; 27812 of 2001 and 28198 of 2001;, wa. Nos. 669 and 671 of 2002 are filed by the fifth respondent in W. P. No. 32531 of 2001; W. A nos. 336-338 of 2002 by Respondent No. 15 in W. P. No. 32531 of 2001; WA No. 318 of 2002; w. A Nos. 665 and 666 of 2002 are by Respondent Nos. 20, 17 and 16 in W. P. No. 32531 of 2001 respectively; W. A No. 674 and 675 of 2002 by Respondent No. 7 and 8 respectively; W. A. No. 744 of 2002 by Respondent No. 10 in W. P. No. 32531 of 2002. The dispute brought before the court relates to selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in Cardiology and cardio-Thoracic Surgery. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief may be noted first and they are as follows: The Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') established in Bangalore is said to be a premier Institute in the field and it was established in order to achieve the avowed object of having an advanced Cardiac Centre for heart diseases, research training and ancillary activities like that of providing total and comprehensive care to Cardio thoracic patients and imparting and educating the public regarding control of various heart diseases and abnormalities found prevalent in our country. The Institute is a Society registered under the provisions of the karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is not in dispute that it is an instrumentality of the state Government, as such, is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. Therefore, its actions are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 12 of the constitution. The Institute has formed Service Rules for Pay, Recruitment Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions, apart from framing rules and regulations to administer the institute. In the Institute there are three main Departments, viz. , Cardiology, Cardiothoracic surgery and Anaesthesiology. ( 3 ) THE Institute on an earlier occasion had favoured certain employees with promotions out of turn basis in the cadres of Assistant Surgeons and Lecturers. In the Institute there are three main Departments, viz. , Cardiology, Cardiothoracic surgery and Anaesthesiology. ( 3 ) THE Institute on an earlier occasion had favoured certain employees with promotions out of turn basis in the cadres of Assistant Surgeons and Lecturers. Certain Writ Petitions were filed before this Court assailing the said action of the Institute, which ultimately culminated in w. A. Nos. 7590 and 7591 of 2000, WA No. 7592 of 2000 and WA. Nos. 7637 to 7640 of 2000. Those Writ Appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 30. 03. 2001 quashing the action of the Institute in promoting and appointing certain Assistant surgeons and lecturers. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeals held that such of those who had served as lecturers in the Department of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery can avail an opportunity of participating in the selection process for recruitment to the post of assistant Professors provided they are found to be eligible for the same and have comparative merit for holding those posts. The Division Bench further held that for providing the process of selection by direct recruitment, the Institute has devised a mechanism for inspiring its faculty members to work with more involvement and devotion in order to achieve excellence in their field and serving cardiac patients with commitment. The employees of the Institute who had questioned the said action of the Institute were Respondent No. 1 Dr. N. M. Prasad, Respondent no. 5 Dr. T. R. Raghu, Respondent No. 6 Dr. Prabhavathi, Respondent No. 9 Dr. P. G. Girish, respondent No. 10 Dr. S. Shankar, Respondent No. 12 Dr. R. Ramesh, Respondent No. 15 Dr. Venugopal Ramarao, Respondent No. 16 Dr. Kumsi Sridhar, Respondent No. 17 Dr. Prabhuswamy, Respondent No. 18 Dr. Giridhar Kamalapurkar. ( 4 ) THE Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the W. A Nos. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch issued the following directions in para 65 of the judgment: "i) The two cadres of the Institute namely those of "assistant Surgeons" and "lecturers" were never been merged or amalgamated into a single cadre and the two still exists as a separate and independent cadres. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch issued the following directions in para 65 of the judgment: "i) The two cadres of the Institute namely those of "assistant Surgeons" and "lecturers" were never been merged or amalgamated into a single cadre and the two still exists as a separate and independent cadres. ii) The Official Memorandum dated 7th December 1991, issued by the Director, permitting change of cadre and/or conversion of 14 Assistant Surgeons as lecturers pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Appointments dated 30. 11. 1991 was ultra vires the powers of the said board as also the Director and as such it was void ab initio and non est in the eye of law. iii) Since there was no merger of cadres of the Assistant Surgeons and the Lecturers and also for other infirmities as noticed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the combined final seniority list published on 31. 8. 1999 is unsustainable in law and accordingly it was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. iv) The promotions granted to five doctors from the Department of Cardiology and three doctors from the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery to the post of Assistant Professors under official memorandum dated 8. 5. 1997 were void from inception and therefore the learned Single Judge had rightly quashed the same. v) The amendment to the C and R rules made by the Governing Council under its resolution dated 21. 3. 1994 was well within its competence and do not suffer from any infirmity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness requiring any interference by this Court. The process of appointment to the post of Assistant Professors now has to be initiated only in accordance with the amended C and R rules calling for applications from all the eligible candidates whether serving within the Institute or by the process of direct recruitment. vi) Anyhow keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Assistant surgeons and Lecturers serving in the department of the Institute shall be permitted to participate in the recruitment process by granting; a) relaxation in age limit as an one time measure; and b) due credence will be given for the teaching experience acquired by the Assistant Surgeons while serving in the cadre of Lecturers pursuant to the official memorandum dated 7. 12. 1991 though the same has been held to be ultra vires by us. 12. 1991 though the same has been held to be ultra vires by us. vii) The Institute will initiate the process of filling up of the posts of Assistant Professors on or before 30. 4. 2001 and it should be completed in accordance with law as early as possible, latest by 15. 5. 2001. " ( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, the Governing Council of the Institute held an emergency meeting on 10. 03. 2000 and decided to have an administrator in place of the Director and accordingly moved the Government to appoint an administrator for the Institute. Accordingly, the Government of karnataka appointed the then Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Department, as administrator of the Institute vide its order dated 16. 03. 2000 to exercise all the powers of the director of the Institute. The appointment of the administrator was assailed before this Court in w. P. 8635 of 2001 and when that Writ Petition was pending the Government of Karnataka on 13. 08. 2001 withdrew the order dated 16. 03. 2000 and consequently the Writ Petition No. 8635 of 2001 was disposed of as infructuous. It is a matter of record that the Administrator did not participate in the affairs of the Institute after 13. 08. 2001. In the meanwhile, it appears, in the meeting held on 02. 12. 2000, the Finance Committee had approved creation of additional 273 posts in the Institute in various cadres in view of the shifting of the Hospital to the new location. The said 273 posts included 7 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 5 posts of Assistant professor of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. The Governing Council of the Institute, it appears, approved the above decision taken to create additional posts and also the action taken in appointing the administrator, vide its resolution dated 12. 03. 2001. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch, the Institute issued a notification dated 21. 04. 03. 2001. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch, the Institute issued a notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and the same was published in indian Express inviting applications from the eligible / suitable candidates for filling up of 5 posts of Assistant Professors of Cardiology and 3 posts of Assistant Professors of cardio--Thoracic Surgery, while indicating the minimum qualification, experience as also the conditions as were set out in the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch with regard to the qualification criteria for evaluation of eligible candidates for selection on merits. ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the notification, the doctors who were employed in the Institute applied for the posts. The selection Committee headed by the administrator and other members including Dr. N. Prabhudev, Professor and Head of Department, Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, considered the applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Cardiology and Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and segregated the applications of the eligible candidates from those of the ineligible candidates by assigning reasons. The record of the meeting states that Dr. N. Prabhudev objected to the applications of Dr. Kumsi Sridhar, respondent No. 16; Dr. H. P. Prabhuswamy, respondent No. 17 and Dr. Venugopal Ramarao, respondent No. 15 on the ground that their applications were not routed through the Head of Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery while empowering the chairman to take the final decision. It appears that by about the said time the hospital located in victoria Hospital Complex was to be shifted to the new SJIC Campus and a decision was taken on 29. 05. 2001 to consider the inclusion of 7 posts of Assistant Professors of Cardiology and 5 posts of Assistant Professors of Cardi-Thoracic Surgery which had the approval of the Finance committee and Governing Council of the Institute. As a result, Corrigendum Notification dated 05. 07. 2001 was published in Indian Express issue dated 07. 07. 2001 for selection and appointment to 7 additional posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 5 posts of Assistant professor of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. ( 8 ) THE Selection Committee was headed by the administrator of the Institute, as Chairman and it consisted of four other members, two special invitees and one Member Secretary. 07. 2001 for selection and appointment to 7 additional posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 5 posts of Assistant professor of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. ( 8 ) THE Selection Committee was headed by the administrator of the Institute, as Chairman and it consisted of four other members, two special invitees and one Member Secretary. The Selection committee deliberated on the selection of candidates while extending benefits to such of those candidates who were entitled to the same in accordance with the direction of the Division Bench issued in the judgment in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch. The Selection Committee vide its proceeding dated 20. 07. 2001 prepared the list of selected candidates for the posts advertised. ( 9 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, Dr. Dinesh R. respondent No. 21 and Dr. S. Shankar, respondent no. 10 herein filed W. P. No. 27812 of 2001 and W. P. No. 28198 of 2001 respectively, questioning the validity of the Corrigendum. Dr. N. M. Prasad, the first respondent herein also filed W. P. No. 32531 of 2001 calling in question the validity of the corrigendum as well as the list of selected candidates. In W. P. No. 27812 of 2001 filed by Dr. R. Dinesh, it was stated that he has completed Diploma in Cardio-Thoracic Surgery from the National Board of Examinations, new Delhi and has received the certificate for the examination held in June 1997. Dr. Dinesh has also stated that he has secured Master of Chirugiae (Branch II Thoracic Surgery) held in July 1988, from Mumbai University. It was also stated by him that he filed his application for the post of Assistant Professor Cardio Thoracic Surgery on 16. 07. 2001 pursuant to the corrigendum. ( 10 ) THE learned Single Judge clubbed all the three Writ Petitions and heard them together. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned corrigendum is not sustainable in law and contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 7390-91 of 2000 and batch. It was also contended by the petitioners that the participation of the administrator in the selection process vitiated the selection. It was also contended that the benefit of the order of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch was extended to some ineligible candidates. It was also contended by the petitioners that the participation of the administrator in the selection process vitiated the selection. It was also contended that the benefit of the order of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch was extended to some ineligible candidates. ( 11 ) THE learned Single Judge having heard the parties found that the issuance of the impugned corrigendum is illegal being violative of the judgment of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch and, therefore, the whole selection process is vitiated. So opining the learned Judge by judgment and order dated 28. 12. 2001 allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the selections made pursuant to the notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 and issued the following directions: "a direction is issued to the Institute to initiate process of filling up of the post of Assistant professors strictly in terms of the directions contained in para 65 of the judgment and complete the same in accordance with law as early as possible, latest by 15. 2. 2002. In so far as remaining selections are concerned, liberty is reserved to the respondents to commence selection process in accordance with law. " Hence these appeals by the aggrieved selected candidates for the post of Assistant Professor of cardiology and Assistant Professor of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. ( 12 ) WE have heard Sri Pramod N. Kathavi, Sri Ram Mohan Reddy, Sri M. S. Narayana, Sri S. C. Venkatesh, Sri Sridhar Prabhu for appellants Sri S. V. Narasimhan learned Counsel for appellant in W. A No. 744 of 2002 who is also one of the respondents in the connected writ appeals, Sri s. M. Chandashekar, Sri B. C. Prabhakar and C. K. Subramanya, Sri G. Mahantesh, Sri M. R. Shylendra and Sr. B. H. Lakshmish learned Counsel for respondents and DR. N. M. Prasad, Party in person and perused the judgments. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the division Bench of this Court in its judgments dated 30. 03. 2001 in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch had clearly spelt out that the seniority list published on 13. 08. N. M. Prasad, Party in person and perused the judgments. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the division Bench of this Court in its judgments dated 30. 03. 2001 in W. A No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch had clearly spelt out that the seniority list published on 13. 08. 1999 treating 14 Assistant surgeons as lecturers and giving them seniority by taking into account their entry into the cadre of Assistant Surgeons was ex facie illegal and that the official memorandum dated 08. 05. 1997 according promotion to the posts of Assistant Professors was not made by assessing the comparative merit of all eligible candidates. The learned Single Judge has seriously erred in law in not taking into account the above important finding recorded by the Division Bench while recording the finding that the initially advertised 8 posts ought to have been filled separately and that the additional 12 posts advertised in the corrrigendum should have been filled by a separate selection process and that the Institute ought not to have filled all the posts by common selection method. It was also contended that the learned Judge has failed to notice that the benefits of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A No. 7590- 91 of 2000 and batch would enure to not only those candidates who are parties to the judgment of the Division Bench but also to others similarly circumstanced. It was contended that the learned Judge misconstrued the notification and the corrigendum and wrongly held that the benefits of the judgment of the division Bench would not enure to other applicants who are not parties to the writ appeals. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the contesting respondents it was contended that the direction issued by the division Bench of this Court, in W. A No7590-91 of 2000 and batch apply only to 8 posts originally notified in the notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and not to additional posts advertised by way of Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001. It was also contended on behalf of them that one-time concession directed to be extended by the Division Bench in para-65 of its Judgment was available only to the writ petitioners therein and not to others and that too with regard to only 8 posts initially advertised. 07. 2001. It was also contended on behalf of them that one-time concession directed to be extended by the Division Bench in para-65 of its Judgment was available only to the writ petitioners therein and not to others and that too with regard to only 8 posts initially advertised. It was also contended that relaxation of age should not have been extended to all applicants as has been done in the corrigendum. Sri B. C. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the Institute was also heard in the matter. ( 14 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties the point that arises for decision is whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge is justified and legal. ( 15 ) THE learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petitions mainly on two grounds, viz. , (i) that the posts advertised in the Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 should have been dealt with separately and the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench in writ Appeal No. 7590-91 of 2000 and batch should have been extended only to 8 posts advertised in the Notifications and not to additional posts added in the corrigendum issued on 05. 07. 2001 and (ii) that the participation of the administrator in the selection process vitiated the selection itself because his appointment is legally unsustainable. ( 16 ) WE are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge in recording the above two findings has slipped into an apparent error. A careful reading of the judgment of the Division bench shows that the Division Bench did not either explicitly or implicitly direct the Institute to extend the benefit of relaxation in age and teaching experience acquired by the candidates as assistant Surgeons either only to the writ petitioners therein or only to 8 posts advertised in the employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 As could be seen from the judgment of the Division bench dated 30th March, 2001 in Writ Appeal 7592 of 2000 and batch, the Division Bench had clearly spelt out that the seniority list published on 31-08. 1999 treating 14 Assistant Surgeons as lecturers and giving them seniority by taking into account their entry into the cadre of Assistant surgeons was ex facie illegal. The Division Bench also held that the official memorandum dated 08. 05. 1999 treating 14 Assistant Surgeons as lecturers and giving them seniority by taking into account their entry into the cadre of Assistant surgeons was ex facie illegal. The Division Bench also held that the official memorandum dated 08. 05. 1997 according approval for promotion of certain candidates to the posts of Assistant professor was not made by assessing the comparative merit of all the eligible candidates. The division Bench in its order has held as under: "as a matter of fact no efforts were made to invite all eligible lecturers to participate in the selection process on the basis of their relative merit as of fact they had not even be called for interview. Therefore, on this ground as well the entire process of promotion stood vitiated. " the Division Bench further held as follows: "in the present case for the reason that the petitioners herein, who had been serving as lecturers in the department of Cardiology and Cadiothoracic Surgery can still avail the opportunity of participating in the selection process for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professors provided they are found to be eligible for the same and have competitive merit for holding such post. They cannot make a grievances that their opportunities for recruitment to the higher post has been shut down; On the other hand, by providing the process of selection by direct recruitment the Institute has devised a mechanism for inspiring its faculty members to work with more involvement and devotion in order to achieve excellence in their service and to serve cardiac patient with commitment to higher performance. " ( 17 ) THE learned Single Judge having failed to notice and consider the above finding recorded by the Division Bench has come to a wrong conclusion that the initial employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 for filling up of 8 posts should have been done separately and the filling up of 12 posts advertised in the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 should have been done separately and the combined/clubbed selection made by the Institute is therefore not in accordance with law and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench in W. A No. 7592 of 2000 and batch. 07. 2001 should have been done separately and the combined/clubbed selection made by the Institute is therefore not in accordance with law and contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench in W. A No. 7592 of 2000 and batch. The division Bench in subparagraph (v) of paragraph 65 of the judgment made it very clear that the process of appointment of Assistant Professor has to be initiated only in accordance with the amended C and R Rules after calling for applications from all eligible candidates whether serving within the Institute or by a process of direct recruitment. In granting relaxation in age limit as one-time measure and also giving due credence to the teaching experience acquired by them in the cadre of lecturers pursuant to the Official Memorandum dated 07. 12. 1991 though the said notification is held by the Division Bench to be ultra vires, we do not find either remotely or implicitly any statement or observation made by the Division Bench on the basis of which it could possibly be said that the relaxation directed by the Division Bench was available only to the writ petitioners therein or applicable to only 8 posts initially advertised by the Institute vide employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001. It also needs to be noticed that the Division Bench in its judgment dated 30th March, 2001 in Writ Appeal 7592 of 2000 and batch has opined that it is necessary to recruit doctors with prescribed qualifications to work with commitment, involvement and devotion in order to achieve excellence in their service and to serve cardiac patients with expertise and competency. It was also held by the Division Bench that the Institute was meant for providing education and training in super specialties concerning heart ailments and, therefore, it was appropriate that the best of talented doctors were invited to occupy the teaching posts like that of Assistant Professor in the faculty of the Institute. Looking from any angle, no exception could be taken to the action of the Institute in clubbing of 24 posts and selecting the eligible candidates for the posts by way of a common / consolidated selection process. ( 18 ) THERE is no merit in the contention that the additional 12 posts were created subsequent to issuance of Employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001. ( 18 ) THERE is no merit in the contention that the additional 12 posts were created subsequent to issuance of Employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001. It is seen from the records that the finance Committee of the Institute in its meeting held on 02. 12. 2000 had approved the creation of 273 additional posts in the Institute in various cadres to meet the manpower requirement of the Institute consequent upon the expansion of its activities and the shifting of the hospital to the new location and the said 273 posts included 7 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 5 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery. The decision of the Finance Committee was approved by the Governing Council of the Institute vide its resolution dated 12-03-2001. Therefore, it is quite clear that the additional 12 posts were created even before the Division bench disposed of the Writ Appeals 7592 of 2000 and batch on 30th March 2001. In the case of regular appointment; the conditions precedent for initiation of the process of recruitment are the existence of posts and vacancies for such posts. It is settled by the judgment of the Supreme court in J and K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. DR. NARINDER MOHAN, AIR1994 SC 1808 , [1994 (68 )FLR363 ], JT1993 (6 )SC 593 , (1994 )I llj780 SC , 1993 (4 )SCALE597 , (1994 )2 SCC630 , [1993 ]supp3 SCR900 , 1994 (1 )SLJ218 (SC ) that the Government or any other public recruiting agency need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arise. It is left to the discretion of the employer to consider as to how many posts are required to be filled at a particular point of time keeping in mind the manpower requirement of the establishment to carry out its functions and duties. Simply because only 8 posts were initially advertised in the Notification dated 21. 04. 2001, that fact itself would not be a legal impediment for the Institute to call for applications by advertising 12 additional posts in the corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001. At this stage itself it needs to be noticed that in the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 it is stated that those candidates who have applied for the post in response to employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001, need not again apply for the posts in response to the corrigendum dated 05. 07. 07. 2001. At this stage itself it needs to be noticed that in the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 it is stated that those candidates who have applied for the post in response to employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001, need not again apply for the posts in response to the corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001. It is borne out from the records that as on 21. 04. 2001 itself there were totally 12 posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 8 posts in the cadre of assistant Professor of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. The action of the Institute in issuing the corrigendum calling for applications with regard to 12 additional posts of Assistant Professors was in accordance with law. In that regard, it needs to be noticed that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Narinder Mohan (supra) has negatived the suggestion that when recruitment has not been made in accordance with Rules for a number of years, it would not be proper to adopt a chain system of recruitment by notifying each year's vacancy for recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years since that would deprive all eligible persons from being considered for recruitment when they satisfied the prescribed requisite qualifications as on the date of inviting applications for recruitment. The consolidated selection process to recruit 12 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 8 posts of Assistant Professors of cardio-Thoracic Surgery initiated by the institute was in conformity with the above view of the apex Court. Be that as it may, whether all the existing vacancies and/or posts should be filled by one and common selection process or in installments falls within the domain of the administrative power of the Institute and the Court cannot usurp that power of the Institute. The courts are not concerned with expediency or utility or propriety of the recruitment but only with legality of the recruitment. Further, the Institute by issuing the Notification dated 21. 4. 2001 and the corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 initiated the common selection process to recruit/fill up 12 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 8 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardio-Thoracic surgery. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Institute in clubbing the applications received by it in response to Employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and corrigendum dated 05. 07. 07. 2001 initiated the common selection process to recruit/fill up 12 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and 8 posts of Assistant Professor of Cardio-Thoracic surgery. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Institute in clubbing the applications received by it in response to Employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 and selecting and appointing the candidates to the advertised posts by a common selection process. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that assuming that the additional posts were created subsequent to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal 7592 of 2000 and batch, even then, we cannot find any legal impediment for the institute to club the applications received by it in response to Employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and subsequent Corrigendum dated 05. 072001 and to select and appoint the candidates to the advertised posts by a common selection process. The learned Counsel for the respondents were not in a position to place any authority before us, on the basis of which the common selection process adopted by the Institute could be condemned as illegal or irregular ( 19 ) THE second reason stated by the learned Single Judge to allow the Writ Petitions, if we may say so, with humility and respect, is unsound and not acceptable to us. The learned Judge in the course of the impugned judgment has stated that since the Government chose to withdraw the notification dated 16. 03. 2000 issued by it appointing the administrator to the Institute to discharge duties and functions of the Director of the Institute when Writ Petition No. 8635 of 2001 calling in question that Notification was pending, that fact itself shows that the government itself felt that the appointment of the administrator is legally unsustainable. We do not find any reason or rhyme to infer or reach such a conclusion from the above fact. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the appointment of the administrator is not held to be illegal by any court. The order appointing the administrator till the Government withdrew the same on 13. 08. We do not find any reason or rhyme to infer or reach such a conclusion from the above fact. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the appointment of the administrator is not held to be illegal by any court. The order appointing the administrator till the Government withdrew the same on 13. 08. 2001 was in operation and it is nobody's case that the administrator participated in any aspect of the process of selection of the candidates to the posts of Assistant Professor of cardiology and Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery after 13. 08. 2001. Moreover, it also needs to be noticed that the administrator appointed by the Government could not have waited till the regular Director of the Institute assumed the office because the Division Bench of this Court in W. A No. 7592 and batch had directed the Institute to complete the selection of candidates to the post of Assistant Professor on or before 15. 05. 2001 and, therefore, the administrator appointed by the Government to discharge the duties and functions of the Director of the Institute was obligated to respect the order of the Court and take necessary steps without any loss of time. It is also relevant to notice that the State Government withdrew the Notification dated on 13. 08. 2001 after the completion of the entire process of selection. We are at a loss to understand how the participation of the administrator; in the facts and circumstances noticed above, could vitiate the selection process. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that the learned judge is not right in holding that the 'de facto doctrine' is not applicable to the facts of this case. Even assuming that the appointment of the administrator was illegal or irregular as contended by the writ petitioners, even then, the selection and appointment made by the Institute in pursuance of the employment Notification dated 21. 04. 2001 and the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 could not be nullified for the ground of participation of the administrator in the selection process having regard to the De facto doctrine. 04. 2001 and the Corrigendum dated 05. 07. 2001 could not be nullified for the ground of participation of the administrator in the selection process having regard to the De facto doctrine. The Supreme Court in GOKARAJU RANGARAJU v. STATE OF A. P. AIR1981 SC 1473 , 1981 Crilj876 , 1981 (1 )SCALE706 , (1981 )3 SCC132 , [1981 ]3 SCR474 speaking through CHINNAPPA REDDY J. , in para-4 of the judgment held thus: "the doctrine is now well established that "the acts of the Officers of de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of Officers de jure. (Pulin Behari v. King Emperor (1912)15 CAL. LJ 517 at p. 574 ). As one of us had occasion to point out earlier "the doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical experience. It is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and the protection of public and private interest. It avoids endless confusion and needless chaos. An illegal appointment may be set aside under proper appointment may be made, at the acts of those who hold office de facto are not so easily undone and. may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels if attempted to be undone. Hence the de fact doctrine" (vide Inmedisetti ramkrishnaiah sons V. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR1976 AP 193 ). An illegal appointment may be set aside under proper appointment may be made, at the acts of those who hold office de facto are not so easily undone and. may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels if attempted to be undone. Hence the de fact doctrine" (vide Inmedisetti ramkrishnaiah sons V. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR1976 AP 193 ). " Further, in the same case, the Supreme Court after considering the judgments in PULIN behari v. KING EMPEROR, (1912)15 CAL LJ 517, 574, INMEDISETTI ramkrishnaiah SONS v. STATE OF A. P. , AIR1976 AP 193 , milward v. THATCHER, (1787)2 TR 81,87, 100 ER 45, SCADDING v. LORANT, (1851)3 hlc 418; 15 JUR 955: 10 ER 164 (HL), RE JAMES (AN INSOLVENT), (1971)2 WLR 1: (1977) 1 ALL ER 364 (CA), STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CARROL (1871)38 CONN 449, L, re AIDRIDGE, (1893) 15 NZLR 361, NEW ZEALAND AND NORTON v. SHELBY county, (1886)118 US 425: 30 LED 178, P. S. MENON v. STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1970 ker 103, 170 , CHANDRA MOHAN v. STATE OF U. P. , (1967) 1 SCR 77 ) and certain passages from the Cooley Constitutional limitations and the Treatise of Black on Judgments while dealing with necessity and public policy of the de facto doctrine and efficacy of the judgments of a judge, de facto, held thus: "a Judge, de facto, therefore, is one who is not a mere intruder or usurper but one. who holds office, under colour of lawful authority, though his appointment is defective of his title to the office, judgments pronounced by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers and functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgments pronounced and acts done by a judge de jure. Such is the de facto doctrine, born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and endless mischief. There is yet another rule also based on public policy. The defective appointment of a de facto judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the judge except as a judge. The defective appointment of a de facto judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the judge except as a judge. Two litigants litigating their private titles cannot be permitted to bring in issue and litigate upon the title of a judge to his office. Otherwise so soon as a judge pronounces a judgment a litigation may be commended for a declaration that the judgment is void because the judge is no judge. A judge's title to his office cannot be brought into jeopardy in that fashion. Hence the rule against collateral attack on validity of judicial appointments. To question a judge's appointment in an appeal his judgment is, of course, such a collateral attack. " ( 20 ) IN that case while criminal revision and appeals were pending before the Andhra Pradesh high Court, the Supreme Court quashed the appointment of the Sessions Judges, who had heard those cases, on the ground that their appointment was in violation of the Article 233 of the constitution. Therefore upon, it was urged before the High Court that the judgments rendered by those judges were void and required to be set aside. The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected that contention. When the said judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was called in question before the Apex Court, the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal held as above. Since the administrator was appointed by the Government to discharge the duties and functions attached to the office of the Director of the Institute and the administrator so appointed participated in the selection process to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench in W. A 7592 of 2000 and batch and since the entire selection process war, completed before the government withdrew the notification appointing the administrator, de facto doctrine would squarely apply to the facts of this case even assuming that the appointment of the administrator was Illegal and irregular. ( 21 ) AT the time of hearing of the appeals, it was brought to our notice certain developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the writ appeals. It is stated that Dr. ( 21 ) AT the time of hearing of the appeals, it was brought to our notice certain developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the writ appeals. It is stated that Dr. Shankar who is the petitioner in W. P. 28198 of 2001 has been appointed to the post of Professor of Cardiology with effect from 22. 03. 2003. It is also stated that Dr. N. M. Prasad who is petitioner in W. P. No. 32531 of 2001 was also appointed to the post of Professor of Cardiology with effect from 04. 02. 2003. It is also stated that Dr. Dinesh who is the petitioner in W. P. NO. 27812 of 2001 resigned to the post of lecturer which he held in the Institute on 06. 07. 2002 and presently he is serving in Narayana Hrudayalaya, a well- known and reputed heart hospital in Bangalore. ( 22 ) BEFORE parting with this case, it also needs to be noticed that it is not permissible for the writ petitioners to call in question the validity and legality of the selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery having participated in the selection process. This position is well settled by the judgments of the apex Court in CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS. v. SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA and ORS. , ( 23 ) IN conclusion, we hold that the impugned selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant professor of Cardiology and Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery is not vitiated and on the other hand, the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Cardiology and Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery is legal, regular and in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 7590-91 of 2000, WA No. 7592 of 2000 and W. A No. 7637-40 of 2000. ( 24 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, with respect, we cannot sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We accordingly allow WA Nos. 336-338 of 2002, WA Nos. 318, 665 and 666 of 2002, WA Nos. 674-675 AND 728 of 2002 and WA No. 669-67i OF 2002 except WA no. 744 of 2002 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss WP Nos. 32531 of 2001, 27812 of 2001 and 28198 of 2001. We accordingly allow WA Nos. 336-338 of 2002, WA Nos. 318, 665 and 666 of 2002, WA Nos. 674-675 AND 728 of 2002 and WA No. 669-67i OF 2002 except WA no. 744 of 2002 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss WP Nos. 32531 of 2001, 27812 of 2001 and 28198 of 2001. Since we have set aside the order of the learned single Judge, the limited relief sought by the appellant in W. A No. 744 of 2002 would not survive for decision on merit. Accordingly WA No. 744 of 2002 is dismissed as unnecessary. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own respective costs in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions.