JUDGEMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): Admission to the Post Graduate MDS course by in-service BDS Doctors is the subject matter of the Controversy in this petition. There is no dispute or controversy in this petition about such admission by the BDS Doctors against direct recruitment quota as this petition is confined only to the admission relating to in-service BDS Doctors. 2. The respondents invited applications from eligible candidates for such admission. The eligibility criteria, inter-alia, stipulated that to qualify for admission in MDS course the in-service BDS Doctors (hereinafter referred to as MO (Dental) J should be regularly appointed MO (Dental) and should have either rendered two years service in a tribal/difficult area or should have rendered five years service in a rural area. 3.Note: Vide order passed on 28th June, 2006 in CWP No. 452 of 2006 and other connected petitions, this Court has adversely commented upon some aspects of the aforesaid eligibility criteria relating to rendering of rural service of five years but that order has nothing to do with the issues involved for consideration in this case. 4. To more properly understand and appreciate the contours of the controversy we reproduce verbatim the aforesaid eligibility criteria which is contained in Para 3.3 of the Prospectus for admission:- "3.3 To qualify for admission to Degree Course (MDS) such regular Medical Officer (Dental).will be eligible who:- i) are regularly appointed as Medical Officer (Dental). However adhoc/contract service followed by regular service will be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of admission, ii) candidates should have completed two years in tribal/difficult areas. Difficult areas shall be-as defined vide Govt. of H.P. Dep’t. of Personnel Instruction No. Per (AP-, C) B (19)-1/94 dated 22.6.1999 and subsequent instructions thereof if any. OR iii) have completed five years in rural area which may or may not include tribal/difficult areas notified by the Govt. and applicable to the departmental candidates from time to time. iv) Should have minimum fifteen year service for superannuation after completing P.G. Course." 5. Is the petitioner eligible for admission? This is a very interesting question being posed before us for our consideration. The question has assumed interesting dimensions because of the peculiar facts. 6. The petitioner, undoubtedly, is a BDS Doctor. But that is the only simple aspect of the matter. Is the petitioner eligible for admission? This is a very interesting question being posed before us for our consideration. The question has assumed interesting dimensions because of the peculiar facts. 6. The petitioner, undoubtedly, is a BDS Doctor. But that is the only simple aspect of the matter. The difficult, controversial aspect is that till 11th March, 2005 ie petitioner was not born on the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Dental Service. Till his date, she was not actually an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Government, she was born on the cadre of, and was in the service of Government of Jammu & Kashmir. On 20th April, 2002 she, by virtue of being taken on deputation by Himachal Pradesh Government from Jammu & Kashmir Government was posted, while being on deputation, to Community Health Centre, Chirgaon. Notification No. health-A-B (6)/1/2001 dated 20th April, 2002 indicates about such posting of the petitioner. Her name figures at serial No.5. This Notification also indicates that the petitioner’s husband Dr. Vikas Fotedar was also posted at the same time to Community Health Centre, Chirgaon as a Block Medical Officer (BMO). It is the undisputed case of the parties that the petitioner remained posted in Chirgaon for lore than two years. The parties of course are at variance whether Chirgaon falls the category of a "difficult area" or not. Whereas the petitioners contention is at Chirgaon is a difficult area, the contention of the respondents, particularly tying upon Notification No. Health-B97)-1/2000 dated 15th November, 2003, is lat Chirgaon is only a rural area and that it is not a difficult area. In view of order that we propose to pass in this case, this controversy need not detain us. 7. The admitted case of the petitioner is that she had completed aforesaid two years in the aforesaid difficult area before 11th March, 2005 when she came to e appointed into H.P. Dental Service. It was vide Notification No. Health-A-B (2)-3/2002 dated 11th March, 2005 that while being on deputation the petitioner was absorbed, with immediate effect in the service of H.P. Government. For ready reference, this order reads thus:- "Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Health & Family Welfare No. Health-A-B(2)-33/2002, dated Shimloa-171002, the 11th March, 2005 NOTIFICATION The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to absorb Dr. (Mrs). For ready reference, this order reads thus:- "Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Health & Family Welfare No. Health-A-B(2)-33/2002, dated Shimloa-171002, the 11th March, 2005 NOTIFICATION The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to absorb Dr. (Mrs). Shailee Bhatt, MO (Dental) in the H.P. State Dental Health services on regular basis with immediate effect in the public interest whose services were taken earlier on deputation basis from the Jammu & Kashmir Government. By Order, Dr. P.C. Kapoor, Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh." 8. Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General has stated before us that even though in the reply filed by respondent No.1 the objection regarding the petitioners ineligibility on account of her not rendering service in a difficult area after her regular appointment has not been taken, but the stand of the State Government is that on this ground the petitioner is not eligible for selection or admission in the MDS Course. 9. The aforesaid facts thus now indicate the precise issue to be decided by us. The issue is whether the period spent by the petitioner in Chirgaon (supposedly) a difficult area) should be treated for the purposes of her eligibility forf admission in MDS Course because rendering two years service in a tribal/difficult area or five years service in a rural area by a MO (Dental) candidate is a sine qua non to admission in the MDS Course. Our view is that the petitioner is not eligible and we taken this view for the following reasons. 10. As we have noticed, clause 3.3 of the prospectus clearly stipulates that no qualify for admission, only "such a regular Medical Officer" would be eligible who apart from being regularly appointed has rendered a complete two years service in a difficult area. We are of the opinion that rendering of two years service in a difficult area has to be an event post appointment. When we use the expression "post appointment" our clear intention is to suggest that it has to be an appointment on regular basis in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Our attention was drawn to the following sentence occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause 3.3 which reads thus:- "(i).........However adhoc/contract service followed by regular service will be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of admission." 11. Our attention was drawn to the following sentence occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause 3.3 which reads thus:- "(i).........However adhoc/contract service followed by regular service will be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of admission." 11. Either this sentence is superfluous or at best it should have been appended as an explanation to and after clause (ii) and (iii) to explain that adhoc and contract service could have been included for computing the service rendered in a difficult area or in a rural area. Whether it is superfluous or it sought to have been appended as an explanation, the fact remains that service rendered on deputation, meaning thereby the service rendered by such a candidates who did not belong to the Government of Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time is not included in this expression because this expression only relates to adhoc/contract service. Adhoc/contract service as used in this expression, undoubtedly, means adhoc/contract service rendered under the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Before 11th March, 2005 the petitioner was neither rendering adhoc nor contract j service under the Government of Himachal Pradesh. She was an employee of Jammu & Kashmir Government and was serving in Himachal Pradesh only on imputation. She had no lien in or upon the service in the Government of Himachal Pradesh in any manner. She was retaining her lien in the service of Jammu & Kashmir State. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the petitioner is not eligible. The petition is dismissed in limine. CMP No. 839 of 2006. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application shall also stand dismissed.