JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 8.4.1999 issued by the Respondents. Institute promoting the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Professor under the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991 (hereinafter called "the Rules") and also the Order dated 1.6.1999 issued by the said Respondents whereby some Time Scale promotees including the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 were allowed to be adjusted against regular post of Assistant Professor. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Kotiswar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 3. For better appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties, it may be appropriate to set out the brief facts of the case. On the recommendation of a Selection Committee, the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Chief Resident in the Department of Medicine in the Regional Medical College (now re-named as Regional Institute of Medical Sciences or "RIMS" for short) under the North Eastern Regional Medical Society vide Order dated 24.9.1980. Thereafter, on the recommendation of Anr. Selection Committee, the appointment of the Petitioner as Registrar in the same Department was regularised w.e.f. 31.10.1983. 4. It would appear that in the year 1992, the Regional Medical College ("RMC" for short) published the final seniority list of Registrars, Demonstrators, Medical Officer/C.M.O., wherein the name of the Petitioner appeared at S1. No. 33 while the name of the Private Respondent, who at that time was serving as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) appeared at S1. No. 63 vide the memorandum dated 20.8.1992. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Petitioner was given promotion as Senior Registrar in the same Department w.e.f. 19.2.1993. Some Ors. were also given such promotion with which we are not concerned. Again, by the order dated 27.11.1995, the Petitioner along with Ors. were confirmed to the post of Senior Registrar. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 was initially appointed as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) which is a non-teaching post in the same Institution w.e.f. 23.10.1984 and that the said Respondent obtained post graduate degree in Medicine (M.D.) in the year 1992. were confirmed to the post of Senior Registrar. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 was initially appointed as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) which is a non-teaching post in the same Institution w.e.f. 23.10.1984 and that the said Respondent obtained post graduate degree in Medicine (M.D.) in the year 1992. At this stage, it may also be noted that the Petitioner obtained post graduate degree in Medicine (M.D.) in the year 1996. The private Respondent joined the Department of Medicine on 22.11.1993 as Registrar on transfer from the Department of Community Medicine. According to the Petitioner, by the time the said Respondent joined the post of Registrar in the Department of Medicine, she was already serving as Senior Registrar, which is a higher grade and as such the private Respondent is junior to her. 6. It appears that the erstwhile North Eastern Regional Medical College Society was renamed as the Society of Regional Institute of Medical Sciences and accordingly the name of the Institution also got charged to "Regional Institute of Medical Sciences" (RIMS for short) in the year 1995. It may also be noted that the erstwhile N.E.R. M.C. Society had introduced the Time Scale Promotion policy under the Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991, which continued to be followed by the new Society. 7. According to the Petitioner, since the private Respondent was transferred from a non-teaching post of Medical Officer in the Department of Community Medicine to the teaching post of Registrar in the Department of Medicine only on 22.11.1993, she would be eligible for Time Scale Promotion from the post of Registrar to the post of Assistant Professor only on 22.11.2003 by which time she will have rendered 10 years of regular service in a teaching post. 8. It is the case of the Petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee held on 4.3.1999, the private Respondent was given time scale promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine w.e.f. 1.2.1995 vide the order dated 8.4.1999 whereas the Petitioner was given time scale promotion of Assistant Professor only w.e.f. 1.2.1998 vide the order dated 8.4.1999. It is contended by the Petitioner that the private Respondent could not have been given such promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1995 is view of the provisions of Rule 6(F)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules in as much as she had not by then rendered 10 years of service in a teaching post. It is, therefore, submitted that the promotion of the private Respondent, being illegal as contrary to the Rules, is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that even if the promotion of the private Respondent is not set aside, the seniority of the Petitioner should be maintained vis-a-vis the private Respondent. 9. The Respondent No. 1 to 4 resisted the writ petition and filed their counter-affidavit in which it was, inter alia, denied that the post of Medical officer (S.P.M.) under the Department of Community Medicine held by the private Respondent is not a teaching post. It is stated therein that as per the recommendation of the Medical Council of India (MCI), the private Respondent belonged to a teaching post. As the private Respondent rendered service as M.O.S.P.M. (Community Medicine) since the year 1984 and obtained M.D. (Medicine) in the year 1992, she was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 1.2.1995 in terms of the said Rules. It is further submitted that as per the recommendation of the M.C.I., the service of the private Respondent in the Department of Community Medicine was to be reckoned as regular teaching service and as such, she was rightly given time scale promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1995 by counting the service rendered by her in the Department of Community Medicine. According to the Respondents, since the Petitioner obtained her P.G. Degree only in June, 1996, notwithstanding her rendering more than 10 years of regular service, she could be and was rightly given promotion to the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 1.2.1998 i.e. 1 year after her obtaining P.G. Degree. The Respondents, therefore, submit that the claim of the Petitioner is unreasonable and is liable to be rejected. Though the private Respondent did not file counter affidavit, she through her counsel supported the case of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the course of hearing. 10. The Respondents, therefore, submit that the claim of the Petitioner is unreasonable and is liable to be rejected. Though the private Respondent did not file counter affidavit, she through her counsel supported the case of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the course of hearing. 10. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner was appointed as Registrar in the Department of Medicine on a regular basis with effect from 31.10,1983 and she obtained her Post Graduate Degree in Medicine only in the year 1996. There is also no dispute that the post of Registrar held by the Petitioner in the Department of Medicine is a teaching post. It is also an admitted position of the parties that since the Petitioner obtained her Post Graduate degree (M.D.) in the year 1996, she became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Time Scale Promotion on 1.2.1998 i.e. one year after obtaining her M.D. Degree. There is also no dispute at the bar that the private Respondent joined the post of Registrar in the Department of Medicine on transfer from the Department of Community Medicine w.e.f. 22.11.1993 and that prior to that she was working as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) in the Department of Medicine w.e.f. 23.10.1984 and also that she obtained her Post Graduate Degree in Medicine as early as 1992. 11. On the aforesaid undisputed facts, the question to be determined is whether the private Respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Time Scale Promotion Rule w.e.f. 1.2.1995. In order to resolve this controversy, it will be necessary to refer to the Rules relating to promotion of Assistant Professor under the said Rule. Rule 6(F) is the relevant provision, which read thus: 6(F). Promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Non-functional) from Registrar. Demonstrator. Resident Pathologist. Resident Anaesthesiologist. Senior Tutor. I.O.s (Teaching). Sr., Resident with P.G. Degree holder (Scale Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000/-) i) They must have requisite and recognised Post Graduate qualification as per M.C.I. norms. ii) They must render 10 years of regular service in the teaching posts. iii) Within 10 years of regular teaching service as the case may be they should have minimum 1 year of teaching experience after obtaining P.G. Degree. iv) Special relaxation shall be made for 1 year and 2 years for those who have joined the College after Post Graduation and Super Specialities respectively. iii) Within 10 years of regular teaching service as the case may be they should have minimum 1 year of teaching experience after obtaining P.G. Degree. iv) Special relaxation shall be made for 1 year and 2 years for those who have joined the College after Post Graduation and Super Specialities respectively. v) This will be only personal designation. vi) Combined authorised strength of the post of the respective sub-cadres from which these posts are upgraded will not be altered. vii) The promotion shall be made on the basis of Common eligibility list covering all officers in the respective sub-cadres without regard to any specialities. viii) The promotee under the scheme shall have to carry out their duties of original posts till they are adjusted against any regular vacancies. ix) Provided that in the event of any such officer declining to carry out his/her duty of the original post from which he/she was promoted under the Time Scale Promotion, the authority may, in the public interest, withdraw the personal promotion of Assistant Professor given to him/her. x) Recommendation of D.P.C. on seniority cum-fitness will be required. ix) This group of promotees will be junior to those who are already holding the post of Assistant Professor on a regular basis. xii) Not more than 30% shall be upgraded in a year. xiii) In such case if post Graduate allowance is enjoyed earlier, will be discontinued. The provision of Rule (F)(ii) shows that the candidate must have rendered 10 years of regular service in a teaching post. It is again prescribed in Rule (F)(iii) that within 10 years of regular teaching service, such candidates must have a minimum of 1 year teaching experience after obtaining P.G. Degree. It is thus obvious that rendering 10 years of regular service should be in a teaching post and within such 10 years of teaching service on a regular basis, having a minimum of one year of teaching experience after obtaining P.G. Degree is the sine quo non for becoming eligible for promotion to the said post of Assistant Professor. In view of this, the crucial point for decision is whether the service rendered by the private Respondent as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) between 23.10.1984 and 22.11.1993 can be said to be a service rendered in a teaching post. In view of this, the crucial point for decision is whether the service rendered by the private Respondent as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) between 23.10.1984 and 22.11.1993 can be said to be a service rendered in a teaching post. The term "teaching post" is defined by Clause 3(g) of the Rules to mean all post in the Grade of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Registrar, Demonstrator, Senior Resident, Senior Tutor, Resident Pathologist, Resident Anaesthesiologist and equivalent posts under the Society. From the definition, it becomes apparent that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) is not expressly included within the definition of a teaching post. However, it is the contention of Mr. B.P. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) is an equivalent post and that on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, the service of the private Respondent in the Department of Community Medicine was reckoned as regular teaching post. My attention is drawn to Regulation on Undergraduate Medical Education of the Medical Council of India (Annexure-C/1) wherein it is stated that as far as the teaching of Community Medicine is concerned, Health/Medical Officer in the service who have adequate field experience should be utilised for teaching of community medicine by giving them appropriate status, if necessary. From this, according to the counsel for the Respondents, it cannot be disputed that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.)/Community Medicine is a teaching post. He also submits that under Rule 6(F) of the Time Scale Promotion, the promotion to the post of Assistant Professor is to be made from amongst Registrar, Demonstrator, Resident Pathologist, Senior Resident, Resident Anaesthesiologist, Senior Tutor, H.O. (Teaching), who have the requisite P.G. Degree and rendered 10 years teaching service with a minimum of 1 year after obtaining P.G. Degree as per the marginal note of Clause 6 of the Rules. The post of M.O. (Teaching), according to the learned Counsel for RIMS, refers to the post of Lady Medical Officer (S.P.M.) held by the private Respondent and as such, the services rendered by her in that capacity is a service rendered in a "teaching post.". 12. In the definition of the term "Registrar Grade" in Clause 3(d) of the Rules, the following posts, namely, Registrar, Demonstrator, Resident Pathologist, Resident Anaesthesiologist, Senior Tutor, Senior Resident, Medical Officer (Teaching & Non-teaching) are included. 12. In the definition of the term "Registrar Grade" in Clause 3(d) of the Rules, the following posts, namely, Registrar, Demonstrator, Resident Pathologist, Resident Anaesthesiologist, Senior Tutor, Senior Resident, Medical Officer (Teaching & Non-teaching) are included. But, interestingly, the definition of "teaching post" in Clause 3(2) of the Rules does not mention the post of Medical Officer (teaching or non-teaching). This shows that all the posts in the Registrar Grade are not necessarily teaching posts. In order to constitute a teaching post, the post must be one in which there is imparting of instruction according to the general curriculum of the Institution. The exclusion of Medical Officer whether teaching or non-teaching in the definition of the term "teaching post", which is a restrictive definition by the use of the word "means" and not "includes" in the definition of the term "Registrar Grade", appears to be significant. It is the cardinal principal of construction that when a word has been defined in the interpretation clause, prima facie that definition governs wherever the word is used in the body of the statute. Therefore, the definition of the term "teaching post" in clause 3(g) shall necessarily govern the meaning of "teaching post" wherever it appears in the Rules. The posts specifically named as teaching posts in Clause 3(g) of the Rules are those posts which are considered to be normal teaching posts, and as such, there is no difficulty in recognising them as teaching posts. On the other hand, the post of Medical Officer cannot be normally held to be teaching posts. This is evident from the said recommendation of the Medical Council of India, the case of Medical Officer/Health Officer, who can be engaged in the teaching of Community Medicine. To my mind, therefore, there may be some Medical/Health Officers who do not hold normal teaching posts but have nevertheless adequate field experience and whose services are accordingly utilised for teaching of Community Medicine under such circumstances. These Medical Officers fulfilling the above conditions and are engaged as such can be treated as holding posts equivalent to teaching posts. In my considered view, it is with a view to deal with certain situations as contemplated above that a provision appears to have been made to declare/recognise an equivalent teaching post in Clause 3(g) of the Rules. These Medical Officers fulfilling the above conditions and are engaged as such can be treated as holding posts equivalent to teaching posts. In my considered view, it is with a view to deal with certain situations as contemplated above that a provision appears to have been made to declare/recognise an equivalent teaching post in Clause 3(g) of the Rules. Therefore, such of the Medical/Health Officers who actually render teaching posts but are not recognised avoiding posts equivalent to teaching posts can nevertheless be held to be holding posts equivalent to "teaching post" in terms of Clause 3(g) of the Rules. 13. Having held that some posts including the posts of Medical Officers can be treated as holding posts equivalent to teaching posts, the next question to be determined is whether there are materials before the Selection Committee to hold that the posts of Medical Officer (S.P.M.), Community Medicine held by the private Respondent prior to her transfer to the Department of Medicine as Registrar is a teaching post or a post equivalent thereto. The proceedings of the Selection Committee placed before me do not indicate the existence of such materials. On the contrary, the Selection Committee appeared to have proceeded with on the assumption that the private Respondent was holding a teaching post and accordingly recommended her for the said promotion w.e.f. 1.2.1995. It can thus be safely concluded that the Selection Committee without any materials has assumed the service rendered by the private Respondent as Medical Officer (S.RM.) as a teaching post and not merely an equivalent of a teaching post. Can this be the correct view in law. 14. As observed earlier, for becoming eligible for time scale promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Rule, rendering of service in a teaching post for 10 years is the condition precedent. This is mandatory in nature. There is no dispute to this view even at the bar. It is a settled law that while conditions of service can be relaxed, condition of recruitment cannot be relaxed. Again, as pointed Out earlier, the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) is not one of the teaching posts defined in Clause 3(g) of the Rules. Therefore, this post can be included in the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Professor if it is recognised as the equivalent of a teaching post. Again, as pointed Out earlier, the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) is not one of the teaching posts defined in Clause 3(g) of the Rules. Therefore, this post can be included in the feeder post for promotion to Assistant Professor if it is recognised as the equivalent of a teaching post. Under what circumstances, a post can be said to be an equivalent post? Since the Rules are silent on the manner of or the procedure for recognising a post equivalent to a teaching post, it is competent for the Chairman of the Society to decide on the meaning of the word "equivalent" by involving Clause 11 of the Rule. However, there is no materials on record to show that the Chairman has taken a decision on this issue. The mode of recognition of a qualification as an equivalent of M.D. came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Director, AIIMS v. Dr. Nilchil Tandon (1996)7 SCC 741 . The Apex Court held that recognition must be by a general order/proceeding published for the information of all concerned and that it cannot be a matter decided in a given case for the purpose of that case. In the instant case also, no general order/proceeding has been placed before me to show that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) has been recognised by the Respondents-Institute as a post of equivalent to a teaching post under Clause 3(g) of the Rules. 15. Mr. B. P. Sahu, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Institute draws my attention to the marginal note of Rule 6(F) of the Rules to show that M.O. (Teaching) referred to therein is the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) held by the private Respondent prior to her transfer to the Department of Medicine. This submission appears to be impressive at the first blush but does not hold water on deeper consideration. In the first place, it is to be noted that the post of M.O. (Teaching) is not a designated teaching post in Clause 3(g) of the Rules. Secondly, which is more important, in the absence of any materials on record, it is not possible to say that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) and the post of Medical Officer (Teaching) refer to one and the same post. Secondly, which is more important, in the absence of any materials on record, it is not possible to say that the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) and the post of Medical Officer (Teaching) refer to one and the same post. As held earlier, in the absence of declaration or recognition made by the Institute in a general order/proceeding, the post of Medical Officer (S.P.M.) cannot be held to be a teaching post. Moreover, it has been held in a catena of decisions since C.I.T. v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai AIR 1950 SC 134 that marginal notes in an Indian Statute, as in Act of Parliament cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the Section. 16. In the instant case, the facts are that the private Respondent obtained Post Graduate Degree in 1992 but she joined the Department of Medicine on 22.11.1993 as Registrar and that prior to that she was working as Medical Officer (S.P.M.) w.e.f. 23.10.1984. In the view that I have taken that Medical Officer (S.P.M.) is not a teaching post or a post equivalent thereto, the past services rendered by her as M.O.(S.P.M.) cannot be counted as qualifying service for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. Since she joined the post of Registrar, which is a teaching post, in the Department of Medicine w.e.f. 22.11.1993, she was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor on 1.2.1995 not could she be eligible for the said promotion in 1998 in terms of Clause 6(F)(ii) of the Rules. To my mind, she can be held to be eligible for such promotion only on 22.11.2003. Therefore, the recommendation of the Selection Committee for promotion of the private Respondent to the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 1.2.1995 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Clause 6(F)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the promotion order dated 8.4.1999 and the order dated 1.6.1999 are illegal and are liable to be set aside. 17. It is, however, stated at the bar in the course of hearing that both the private Respondent and the Petitioner have been given further promotion to the post of Associate Professor during the pendency of this writ petition. The next question to be determined is what relief can be granted in view of the above subsequent development. 17. It is, however, stated at the bar in the course of hearing that both the private Respondent and the Petitioner have been given further promotion to the post of Associate Professor during the pendency of this writ petition. The next question to be determined is what relief can be granted in view of the above subsequent development. It is a settled law that this Court has the power to suitably mould the relief if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. There can be no dispute that the Petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor on 1.2.1998 when she was so promoted. Since the private Respondent is held to be not eligible for promotion to the same post till 22.11.2003, she cannot steal a march over the Petitioner. Therefore, without disturbing her promotions, the ends of justice will be met if she is made junior to the Petitioner. 18. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the Petitioner is hereby declared to be senior to the Respondent No. 5. This necessarily entails the quashing of the impugned selection proceeding and the order dated 4.3.1999 and dated 1.6.1999 in so far as the date of her promotion was made w.e.f. 1.2.1995, which I hereby do. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby directed to treat the Petitioner as senior to the Respondent No. 5 and re-draw/refix her seniority accordingly and give her consequential benefits due to her as per law. The exercise shall be completed by the said Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed