JUDGMENT Maibam B.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. N. PC Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 and Mr. Kh. Manihar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts: On 27.5.2004, an advertisement being No. B/561/2002-RIMS was issued by the Director, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (in short "RIMS"), Imphal inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts including one post of Assistant Professor of Microbiology in the RIMS, Imphal. As per the advertisement, qualification and teaching experience for the post should be strictly as per the recommendation of the Medical Council of India as approved by the Government of India and published in Part- III Section 4 of the Gazette of India dated 5.12.1998. The required academic qualification and teaching experience in respect of the post of Assistant Professor of Microbiology are mentioned in the said advertisement as follows: Post Academy qualification/Requisite graduate qualification in the Subject Teaching experience Asstt. Microbiology M.D. (Bacteriology) /M.D.(Microbiology)/MBBS with M. Sc. (Med. Bacteriology)/M. Sc. (Med. Microbiology) with Ph.D. (Med. Bacteriology)/M.Sc. (Med. Bact) with Ph.D. (Med. Bacteriology (Med. Bacteriology) with D. Sc. (Med. Bacteriology)/M.Sc. (Med. Microbiology with Ph. D. (Med. Microbiology)/M.Sc. (Med. Microbiology) with D. Sc. (Med. Micro biology)." Three years teaching experience in the subject in a recognized Medical college as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor. 2.1. The above said require academic qualifications and teaching experience mentioned in the advertisement are in consonance with the relevant provisions in respect of the post of Assistant Professor in the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 which was published in Part III, Section 4 of the Gazette of India dated 5.12.1998. A relevant policy decision in the matter pertaining to teaching appointments mentioned in the above said Regulations of 1998 is that a person possessing a recognized post graduate medical degree qualification and having three years Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor experience obtained during the training as a post graduate student is eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer in the respective broad speciality subject. 2.2 The Petitioner obtained his MD (Microbiology) from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and the private Respondent No. 4 obtained her MD (Microbiology) from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, (PGIMER in short), Chandigarh. 2.2 The Petitioner obtained his MD (Microbiology) from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and the private Respondent No. 4 obtained her MD (Microbiology) from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, (PGIMER in short), Chandigarh. Both of them claimed to have the requisite teaching experience. Three candidates including the Petitioner and private Respondent No. 4 were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 04.01.2005. The private Respondent No. 4 was recommended for appointment to the post. The selection of the private Respondent No. 4 for the post of Assistant Professor (Microbiology) was notified vide Notice dated 01.02.2005 issued by the Director, RIMS, Imphal. 2.3. On 16.02.2005, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said selection of the private Respondent No. 4 for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor, Microbiology, vide Notice dated 01.02.2005 on the ground that the selectee was not having the requisite teaching experience. However, accepting the said selection, on 21.02.2005, the concerned authority appointed the private Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor, Microbiology RIMS, subject to the outcome of the present writ petition, vide order issued by the Director, RIMS, Imphal. 3. The only issue which is required to be determined in this writ petition is if the private Respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite teaching experience for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Microbiology) in the RIMS, Imphal, at the time when she was recommended for the said post. 4. According to the learned Counsel of the writ Petitioner, the required three years teaching experience for the said post should have been gained in teaching MBBS students and as such, the private Respondent No. 4 who obtained her MD (Microbiology) degree from PGIMER, Chandigarh, where there was no MBBS course, could not have gained any teaching experience while studying the MD course. 5. On the other hand, according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, neither in the relevant advertisement nor in the relevant Regulations of 1998, there is anything to indicate that the require teaching experience of three years should have been gained in teaching MBBS students. Mr. 5. On the other hand, according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, neither in the relevant advertisement nor in the relevant Regulations of 1998, there is anything to indicate that the require teaching experience of three years should have been gained in teaching MBBS students. Mr. N.P.C. Singh, learned senior Counsel of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 submits that the relevant provisions of the said Regulations of 1998 regarding teaching experience are quite clear and free from any ambiguity or absurdity and as such, the words "experience in teaching under graduate students" cannot be read in the said provision. In this connection, the learned senior Counsel refers to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 187 and Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533 . 6. The learned Counsel of the Respondent No. 4 endorses the submissions of the learned senior counsel of the Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 and submits that the said private Respondent No. 4 gained the required three years teaching experience while studying MD (Microbiology) in PGIMER, Chandigarh, doing, among other things, tutorial works, presentation and participation in seminars, journal clubs, teaching M.Sc. Nursing students. Lab. Technicians and M.Sc. (Microbiology) students of the Institute. 7. It is already seen that as per the said advertisement, the teaching experience required in respect of the said post is of three years in the subject in a recognized Medical College as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/ Tutor. Further, as per the relevant decision in the matter pertaining to teaching appointments mentioned in the Regulations of 1998, a person possessing the recognized post graduate medical degree qualification and having three years Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutorial experience obtained during the training as a post graduate student is eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in the respect broad speciality subject. It is clear that a person having the recognized post graduate medical degree and three years Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor experience obtained during his training as a post graduate student is to be considered as having the requisite three years teaching experience for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer. There is no any requirement to the effect that the said teaching experience should be of teaching MBBS students. There is no any requirement to the effect that the said teaching experience should be of teaching MBBS students. It is also clear that the teaching experience can be gained by the person concerned during his training as a post graduate student. The submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner to the effect that the required teaching experience should have been gained only in teaching MBBS students is not acceptable in view of the clear specifications regarding teaching experience required for the post in the relevant advertisement read with the relevant provisions of the said Regulations of 1998. 8. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India took a decision on 2nd March, 1993 which was communicated to all the concerned by its Secretary, vide letter No. MCI-12(1)/74- Med/9066 dated 4.9.1974. The said decision is as follows: The Executive Committee resolved that the teaching experience of post graduate students who are (i) holding teaching appointment; or (ii) holding beds under their charge or (iii) doing tutorial work may be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of appointment of Lecturers in the Medical Colleges. 9. It is also ascertained that on 11.8.1997, Dean, PGIMER, Chandigarh, issued a Certificate (Annexure-B/1 to the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3) in connection with the teaching experience of Dr. Khuraijam Ranjana Devi (the private Respondent No. 4) as follows: POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Chandigarh-160012 (India) CERTIFICATE Certified that Dr. Khuraijam Ranjana Devi Registration No. 4788-PG-94 has undergone three year postgraduate course in Microbiology at this Institute as a Resident Teaching Fellow from July, 94 to June, 97. 2. While working as a Resident Teaching Fellow he/she held adequate responsibility in the department of Microbiology including teaching and tutorial. Such experience has to be counted as teaching experience for purposes of appointment as a lecturer in medical colleges in accordance with the provision of circular letter No. MCI-12(l)/74 Medical/9066 dated 4.9.74 from the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. 3. During his/her stay, here, his/her work and conduct were satisfactory. 10. The genuineness of the above said Certificate given by the Dean of the said Institute cannot be doubted merely on the ground that the said Institute is one only for post graduation and not for undergraduate studies. 3. During his/her stay, here, his/her work and conduct were satisfactory. 10. The genuineness of the above said Certificate given by the Dean of the said Institute cannot be doubted merely on the ground that the said Institute is one only for post graduation and not for undergraduate studies. It was a Certificate purportedly given by the concerned authority having knowledge on the matter by taking into consideration of the then existing decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India. It is already seen that the relevant existing policy decision in the matters pertaining to teaching appointments mentioned in the Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 is to the effect that a person possessing the recognized post graduate medical degree qualification and having three years Resident/ Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor experience obtained during the training as a post graduate student is eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer in the respective broad speciality subject. The above said existing policy decision is consistent with the decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India made on 2.3.1973 and communicated to all the concerned vide letter dated 4.9.1974. Apparently, in the Certificate issued by the Dean of the said Institute on 11.8.1997, the said decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India and not the policy decision mentioned in the Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 is mentioned only because the said decision of the Executive Committee was in existence at the relevant time. In any case, there is no conflict or inconsistency in between the said decision of the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India made on 2.3.1973 and the policy decision mentioned in the Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. There is no appreciable reason as to why a person having the requisite recognized post graduate qualification in the subject with teaching experience of three years as per terms of the said decision of the Executive Committee of Medical Council of India dated 2.3.1974 should not be considered as one having the necessary teaching experience as per terms of the policy decision mentioned in the Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. 11. In the present case, the Selection Committee apparently accepted the said Certificate issued by the Dean, PGIMER. Chandigarh and accepted the private Respondent No. 4's candidature as the one having the essential teaching experience of three years in the subject in a recognized Medical College as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor. 11. In the present case, the Selection Committee apparently accepted the said Certificate issued by the Dean, PGIMER. Chandigarh and accepted the private Respondent No. 4's candidature as the one having the essential teaching experience of three years in the subject in a recognized Medical College as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor. The Selection Committee, having satisfied about the possession of the essential academic qualification and teaching experience by the private Respondent No. 4, recommended her for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Microbiology. The concerned authority accepted the said recommendation of the Selection Committee and appointed the private Respondent No. 4 to the post subject to the outcome of this writ petition. 12. The Selection Committee has to be considered as an Expert Body constituted by the concerned competent authority for making selection and recommendation in respect of suitable candidate for giving appointment. In Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546 . the Hon'ble Apex Court, following its earlier decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao. AIR 1965 SC 491 observed that "normally it is wise and safe for the Court to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they faced than the Courts generally are." The same view has been expressed in several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court e.g., Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284 ; Umakant (Dr.) v. Dr Bhikalal Jain and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 105 ; Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College and Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 220 ; Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr. 1986 (Supp) SCC 740; P.M. Bhargava and Ors. v. University Grants Commission and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 661 ; Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 59 ; Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. v. Dr Rajkishore Tripathi and Anr. (1977) 1 SCC 279 ; Medical Council of India v. Sarang and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 and Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 . (2000) 3 SCC 59 ; Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. v. Dr Rajkishore Tripathi and Anr. (1977) 1 SCC 279 ; Medical Council of India v. Sarang and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 and Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 . Since the Selection Committee is an expert body, who is in the absence of anything to the contrary, expected to have the necessary knowledge in respect of the issue about possession or otherwise of the essential academic and teaching experience by the concerned candidates for the said post of Assistant Professor of Microbiology, in the absence of any perversity or other valid grounds, this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the opinion of the said expert body and take a contrary view. I do not find any perversity on the part of the Selection Committee in accepting the candidature of the private Respondent No. 4. I also do not find any valid reason for holding a view contrary to the view of the Selection Committee. 13. It is not a case of giving effect to the executive decision overriding the provision of Medical Institutions Regulation, 1998. Even though the private Respondent No. 4 passed her MD degree in 1997 while before the said Regulations of 1998 came into force on 5.12.1998, from the institutions where there were no MBBS students, she possessed the necessary academic qualification and teaching experience and as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in selecting her by the Selection Committee for the said post and also in appointing her by the concerned authority on the basis of the said selection. There was no requirement that the teaching experience should have been gained in teaching MBBS students or that the teaching experience of three years as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor in a recognized medical college should be gained only after the enforcement of the said Regulations of 1998. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner draws my attention to the proceedings of the 125th Session General Body Meeting of Medical Council of India vide No. MCI-6(2)/2003-Med dated 20.10.2003, sub-para No. 13.6 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, para No. 20 of the Minutes of the Post Graduate Committee, October, 1998, the Indian Medicos, April, 2009. However, in my considered opinion, none of the said references is of any help to the Petitioner's case. 14. Learned Counsel of the Petitioner draws my attention to the information said to have been furnished by the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi, in the capacity of a Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to various information sought by the Petitioner. On careful perusal of the materials before the Court in connection with the matter (Annexure/A-11 to the Addl. Affidavit of the Petitioner), none of the said information is relevant in the present case. One of the information sought by the Petitioner from the Medical Council of India is whether a person possessing a post graduate Certificate from an institution where there is no under graduate students (or non-teaching facility) and also without any teaching experiene thereafter, be eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor or not? The information said to have been given is "No". The said information sought by the Petitioner is, in my opinion, misleading and it is not relevant in the case. The issue involved in the case is whether the private Respondent No. 4, while undergoing M.D. (Microbiology) course in PGIMER, Chandigarh, acquired three years teaching experience as Resident/ Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor or not. In the absence of any indication in the relevant advertisement and said Regulations of 1998 to the effect that the said teaching experience should have been acquired in teaching under graduate students, the information sought by the Petitioner is not relevant in the case. Another information purportedly sought by the Petitioner was whether teaching of B.Sc. Nursing, M.Sc. Nursing students, M.Sc. (Microbiology) students. Laboratory Technicians, etc. could be considered to have taught under graduate students within the meaning of under graduate students stated herein above or not ? The information furnished in that regard was "No". The said information sought for is also misleading and not relevant in the present case. None of the information said to have been furnished by the Public Information Officer of the Medical Council of India is of any assistance in deciding the issue involved in the present case. 15. In the result, in view of the above findings, I do not think it necessary to consider the case any further. None of the information said to have been furnished by the Public Information Officer of the Medical Council of India is of any assistance in deciding the issue involved in the present case. 15. In the result, in view of the above findings, I do not think it necessary to consider the case any further. In my considered opinion, for reasons given above, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed in this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed