Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 636 (JK)

J&K Public Service Commission v. Mushtaq Ahmad

2013-11-04

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL, Virender Singh

body2013
Per Kotwal, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 10.06.2011, whereby writ petition bearing SWP No. 163/ 2011 filed by the respondent Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad has been allowed. For the similarity of issues involved in both the cases, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by his common judgment. 2. We have perused the record. 3. Facts, which are necessary to dispose of these appeals, are, briefly, these: 3.1. Vide vacancy Notification No. 9-PSC of 2010 dated 26.08.2010 inter alia six vacancies of lecturer in Anesthesiology in the Government Medical College, Jammu were advertised by the appellant-Jammu and Kashmir, Public Service Commission (for short the Commission). Category wise breakup of the vacancies was as under: 1. O.M = 4 2. RBA = 1 3. ST = 1 Total = 6 3.2. Appellant, Dr. Ajay Kumar (herein after referred to as the appellant) and respondent, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed (herein after referred to as the writ petitioner) applied for the vacancy under RBA Category. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the vacancy Notification, selection process was completed and the Commission notified the select list vide Notice dated 12.01.2011. Appellant came to be selected under the RBA category. The writ petitioner was not. On the recommendation of the Commission, appellant has been appointed as Lecturer in the Government Medical College, Jammu vide Government Order No. 79 HMC of 2011 dated 28.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner challenged the selection and the appointment of appellant in the writ petition No. 163/2011, which came to be allowed vide the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge. Appellant as well as the Commission, have assailed the judgment and order of the learned single Judge in these Letters Patent Appeal. 3.3. The essential eligibility qualification for the post of Lecturer in Anesthesiology given in the vacancy Notification was `MD/MS (Anesthesiology) DFACS Specialty Board of Anesthesiology (USA) or equivalent qualification'. Besides the qualification, eligibility also required experience `as Registrar/Tutor, Demonstrator/Tutor or a Senior Resident for a period of two years in a recognized Teaching Medical Institution recognized by Medical Counsel of India or the University of Jammu/Kashmir. The teaching experience, if any, gained before or during post graduation studentship shall not be considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer'. 4. The teaching experience, if any, gained before or during post graduation studentship shall not be considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer'. 4. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner as also the appellant at the relevant time were possessed of the minimum eligibility qualification as they both are MD (Anesthesiology). It is also not disputed that both of them possessed the requisite experience too. Dispute, however, has arisen as regards the benefit of additional marks for higher qualification as contemplated under Rule 51 (B) (ii) of the Jammu and Kashmir, Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (for short, the 1980 Rules). 5. It may be important to state here, before proceeding ahead, that the 1980 Rules are the regulatory procedural rules framed by the Commission for conduct of its business. Rule 51 of these Rules govern the process of assessment at the selection, which is solely by means of an interview, like the one involved in this case. Perusal of Rule 51 as amended from time to time would show that, besides assigning marks for performance of a candidate in the viva-voce test, percentage of marks obtained in the minimum eligibility qualification and the experience prescribed for the post as per the concerned service rules, reflected in the vacancy Notification, under par (ii) of the Rule, provision is made for allotting marks for Higher Qualification. 6. Dispute, as a matter of fact, relates to the availability of two marks to the writ petitioner for two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology possessed by him. It, however, is undisputed that the writ petitioner is possessed of two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology, which he obtained prior to acquiring of the minimum requisite qualification of MD (Anesthesiology) for the post. 7. Question that arose for consideration before the learned Writ Court and now arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the Commission should have awarded the writ petitioner, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad, two marks for the two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology held by him as contemplated under Rule 51 (B) (ii) of the 1980 Rules. 8. The facts relevant in context of the above question, which are undisputed and necessary for determination of the question, are these: "Writ petitioner secured 51 marks in the interview and the appellant secured 51.50. Cutoff point for selection to the post under RBA category was 51.50. 8. The facts relevant in context of the above question, which are undisputed and necessary for determination of the question, are these: "Writ petitioner secured 51 marks in the interview and the appellant secured 51.50. Cutoff point for selection to the post under RBA category was 51.50. There was difference of 0.5 only in the marks of writ petitioner and the appellant. If, however, had the writ petitioner been awarded two marks for the two years' Post Graduate Diploma possessed by him, he would have crossed the cutoff point, stolen a march over the appellant and been selected and appointed. Here lies the focal point of dispute." 9. Contextually, we have apprised ourselves, as it needs to be stated, that imparting of Postgraduate Medical Education is governed by Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, issued by the Medical Council of India, Regulation 10(1) whereof provides for the `PERIOD OF TRAINING' for award of Postgraduate Degree, that is, master of Medicine (MD)/Master of surgery (MS). Period of training for obtaining the MD and MS Degree is prescribed as three years. However, the period of training for students already possessing two years' Postgraduate diploma in the same subject is prescribed as two years. Regulations 10(l) verbatim reads: "10: PERIOD OF TRAINING The period of training for the award of various postgraduate degrees or diplomas shall be as follows: (1) Doctor of Medicine (M.D)/Master of Surgery (M.S) The period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination. Provided that in the case of students possessing a recognized two year postgraduate diploma course in the same subject, the period of training, including the period of examination, shall be two years. " 10. Identical requirement stands incorporated in the University Statute 4.1(a) 11. It is undisputed that the appellant, Dr. Ajay Gupta has obtained Post-graduate Degree (MD) in Anesthesiology after undergoing training for prescribed three years' period. On the other hand, writ petitioner, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed had first obtained postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology in a prescribed two years course. He was later selected for degree course in the same subject and because of his possessing two years' diploma he was awarded MD Degree after undergoing training for shortened period of two years. 12. On the other hand, writ petitioner, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed had first obtained postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology in a prescribed two years course. He was later selected for degree course in the same subject and because of his possessing two years' diploma he was awarded MD Degree after undergoing training for shortened period of two years. 12. The short grievance projected by the writ petitioner before the learned Writ Court was that the Commission did not give the requisite and permissible weighting to and award him two marks for the additional qualification of two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology possessed by him. He urged that had the benefit of two marks been given to him, he would have secured 53 marks, his grade would have gone beyond the cutoff point of 51.50 and he would have been selected for the lone post under RBA category having secured more marks than the appellant. Writ petitioner, thus, sought quashing of the selection and appointment of appellant by a Writ of Certiorari contending also that by depriving him of the two marks his fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India has been violated. He also sought a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint him under the RBA category. 13. Writ petition came to be contested by the Commission (respondent No. 2), appellant (respondent No. 4) and the Administrative Department (respondent no. 1.) by filing individual affidavits on their behalf. The identical stand projected by the Commission and the appellant was that since because of his possessing the said two years' Postgraduate Diploma, the writ petitioner was awarded MD Degree in Anesthesiology after undergoing shortened training period of two years instead of prescribed three years so additional benefit for the same Diploma was not possible. The Administrative Department, however, did not take any specific stand in this context contending that the selection process was conducted by the Commission. 14. The stand projected by the Commission and the appellant, however, did not find favour of the learned Writ Court and was rejected observing that `'awarding degree is entirely a different issue which falls within the domain of University/ education Institution concerned. However, in what circumstances it is granted to for the educational Institution to decide. 14. The stand projected by the Commission and the appellant, however, did not find favour of the learned Writ Court and was rejected observing that `'awarding degree is entirely a different issue which falls within the domain of University/ education Institution concerned. However, in what circumstances it is granted to for the educational Institution to decide. Once a degree has been passed it is not for the selection body to enquire into as to in what circumstances the degree has obtained. Fixing of two marks for two years diploma course is independent of the grounds on which degree is obtained as there is no restriction provided in Rule 51 in this respect" Respondents also projected before the learned Writ Court the `Note' appearing below Clause B (ii) in Rule 51 which reads "Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained" and urged that marks awarded shall be far the highest degree obtained as such two marks for Postgraduates diploma could not have been claimed. This, however, too did not find favour of the learned Writ Court and was rejected observing that "The diploma course is shown independent of the degree in the said rule and the purpose is to grant two additional marks to the candidates who have besides obtaining a degree in a particular subject also obtained two years diploma course in the subject" Learned Writ Court therefore, allowed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to two marks as he is possessed of two years diploma in the same subject and directed the Commission and the official respondents to reconsider the matter. 15. Heard Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of Appellant, Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel on behalf of Commission and Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of writ petitioner. 16. Appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and order principally on the similar line in which the selection and appointment of appellant Dr. Ajay Kumar was defended by them before the learned Writ Court. It is also urged on behalf of the Commission that, it being a premier Selection Authority created under the Constitution of the State, deserves precedence and primacy in interpreting its own Rule. Ajay Kumar was defended by them before the learned Writ Court. It is also urged on behalf of the Commission that, it being a premier Selection Authority created under the Constitution of the State, deserves precedence and primacy in interpreting its own Rule. It is urged further that it is the past and consistent practice of the Commission to award marks for those additional qualifications under Rule 51 that are higher and independent of minimum requisite qualification and the learned Writ Court has erred in interpretation of the said Rule. It is also urged that in absence of any mala fides having been pleaded and established, it was not open for the learned Writ Court to interfere with the opinion of the Commission, which is assisted by a subject matter expert in conducting the interview. 17. Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the Commission, while reiterating the contentions stated in the appeal, would say that Rule 51 contemplates weighting to the higher qualification, which has to be higher than or in any case in addition to the minimum prescribed qualification. In this context, learned counsel pointed out that Rule 51 as applicable at the relevant time was the one as amended vide Notification No. 01 PSC/Adm/ 2007 dated 28.12.2007, which clearly contemplates additional marks for `higher qualification' and in that this Rule is substantially different than the Rule as amended vide Notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004, wrongly referred to by the writ petitioner and relied upon by the learned Writ Court. Mr. Amin would, thus, conclude that the Diploma, which had been the basis of two years MD degree course of the writ petitioner, can be treated neither higher nor additional qualification to the minimum prescribed qualification so the view taken by the premier Selection Authority should not have been interfered by the learned Writ Court. Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin relied upon Basavaiah v. Dr. H. L. Ramesh and Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 372 . 18. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset urged vehemently that the diploma acquired by the writ petitioner became non existence with his securing admission to shortened course of MD and being awarded MD degree after that course. Mr. Bhardwaj would say that the diploma possessed by the writ petitioner could not have been and cannot be treated as higher or additional qualification giving entitlement for additional marks under Rule, 51. Mr. Mr. Bhardwaj would say that the diploma possessed by the writ petitioner could not have been and cannot be treated as higher or additional qualification giving entitlement for additional marks under Rule, 51. Mr. Bhardwaj would say further that the additional qualification contemplated under Rule 51 would be one having been obtained after the prescribed minimum qualification. Dilating his point Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that, having failed in securing admission to three years' MD Course, the writ petitioner could secure admission to two years' diploma course in Anesthesiolgy. On the basis of this diploma he could manage admission to the shortened MD course in Anesthesiology. The diploma therefore, besides having subsumed into the degree, cannot be said to be higher or additional qualification than the MD Degree also because it was secured prior to acquiring the diploma. Mr. Bhardwaj would say further that the writ petitioner while referring to and quoting the Rule 51 in the writ petition had deliberately omitted the Note below B(ii) in Rule 51, which reads "Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained". In this behalf, learned counsel submitted that additional marks are to be allotted only for maximum qualification which in this case was the MD Degree so marks could not have been allotted for the diploma, which was a lower qualification. In support of this submission, Mr. Bhardwaj relied upon Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, 2004 (2) JKJ 25 [SC]. Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that the writ petitioner has now also been appointed to a similar post so equity too is not in his favour. 19. Per contra, Mr. R. A. Jan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner supported the impugned judgment. Mr. Jan would say that what is contemplated under Rule 51 is the additional qualification, which for all practical purposes would mean the qualification other than the minimum prescribed qualification. Learned counsel refuted the contention that the writ petitioner, having secured MD Degree in a short duration course, would make the diploma nonexistent. He submitted that before the Writ Court, Commission or the appellant had not denied the additional qualification of the writ petitioner so they now cannot fall back to past practice. Mr. Learned counsel refuted the contention that the writ petitioner, having secured MD Degree in a short duration course, would make the diploma nonexistent. He submitted that before the Writ Court, Commission or the appellant had not denied the additional qualification of the writ petitioner so they now cannot fall back to past practice. Mr. Jan submitted finally that the "Note" existing in the Rule cannot be interpreted in the way as sought by learned counsel for the appellant and that the meaning of the Note is that if one is having all or more than one additional qualifications stated in Rule, 51, benefit would be given for the highest one only. In support, Mr. Jan relied upon Vijay Sayal & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4023 . 20. We would first of all state and explain the rule position under Rule 51 of the 1980 Rules. 21. With the assistance of Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel the Commission, we have found that Rule 51 as originally existing in the 1980 Rules came to be recast vide Notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25. 10. 2004, followed by Notification No. 01-PSC/Adm. 2007 dated 28.12.2007 and latest by Notification No. PSC-EX/11/44 dated 30.3.2011. 22. Point raised by Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin is that writ petitioner had deliberately relied upon the Rule as recast vide notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004 though the Rule applicable at the relevant time was one as recast vide Notification No. 01- PSC/Adm. 2007 dated 28.12.2007.We agree with the contention of Mr. Amin to the extent of the applicability of the Rule as amended vide Notification dated 28.12.2007, given that the vacancy Notification, pursuant to and in furtherance whereof the selection in question has been made, was issued in the year, 2010 and the selection process was complete prior to the recasting of the Rule in the year 2011. We, therefore, also agree that the Writ petitioner in the writ petition had wrongly relied upon and quoted Rule 51 as recast vides Notification No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004, which came to be similarly reproduced in the impugned judgment and order and relied upon by the learned Writ Court. We, however, stop short of saying that this was deliberately done because we could not arrive at such conclusion. 23. We, however, stop short of saying that this was deliberately done because we could not arrive at such conclusion. 23. In order to appreciate the question arising herein and as we see a significant change in the rule position as recast vide notification dated 28.12.2007, we hereafter quote Rule 51 in both the forms, shorn of the unessential. 24. Rule 51 as recast vide notification dated No. 164-PSC of 2004 dated 25.10.2004: "51. The assessment at a selection which is solely by means of an interview shall be based on the following principles: A. Performance of the candidate in the viva-voce test - 50 Marks. B. Academic Merit. i. percentage of marks obtained in the degree (i.e. Minimum) qualification prescribed for the post - 30 marks ii. Where a Bachelors Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification: a) One year Postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject -01 Mark b) Two years postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject -02 marks c) Post graduate degree in the concerned subject e.g. M.A/ M.Sc/ M.Tech/ MD/Ms/ M.Phil/ equivalent - 03 marks d) Ph. D/DM/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 05 marks Where a Masters Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification: a) One year Postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 01 Marks b) Two years postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject -02 marks c) M. Phil/Equivalent - 03 marks d) Ph. D/DM/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 05 marks Note: Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained. Where Ph. D Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification: For Post Doctoral Degree/Fellowship up to a maximum of 05 marks C) Experience acquired by the candidate in the concerned Specialty/sub-Specialty subject/discipline 05 marks For every full year beyond eligibility requirements 01 marks subject to a maximum of 05 marks D) ............... 02 Marks E) ............." 25. Rule 51 as recast vide notification dated No. notification No. 01-PSC/ Adm. 2007 dated 28.12.2007: "51. The assessment at a selection, which is solely by means of an interview shall be based on the following principles: A. Performance of the candidate in the viva-voce test - 50 Marks B. Academic Merit i. percentage of marks obtained in the degree (i.e. Minimum) qualification prescribed for the post. -30 marks Provided..................... ii. Additional marks for Higher Qualification. The assessment at a selection, which is solely by means of an interview shall be based on the following principles: A. Performance of the candidate in the viva-voce test - 50 Marks B. Academic Merit i. percentage of marks obtained in the degree (i.e. Minimum) qualification prescribed for the post. -30 marks Provided..................... ii. Additional marks for Higher Qualification. a) Where a Bachelors Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification i) One year Postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 01 Mark ii) Two years postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject -02 marks iii) Post graduate degree in the concerned subject e.g. M.A/ M.Sc/ M.Tech/ MD/Ms/M.Phil/ equivalent - 03 marks iv) Ph. D/DM/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 05 marks (b) where a Masters Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification: i) One year Postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 01 Marks ii) Two years postgraduate Diploma/Equivalent in the concerned subject -02 marks iii) M. Phil/Equivalent - 03 marks iv) Ph. D/DM/Equivalent in the concerned subject - 05 marks Note: Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained. (c) Where Ph. D Degree is prescribed as the minimum qualification: For Post Doctoral Degree - 05 marks C) Experience acquired by the candidate in the concerned Specialty/sub-Specialty subject/discipline -05 marks D) ........................... 02 Marks E) ................" 26. As we have indicated herein above, the question arising in these appeals is to be adjudged on the touch stone of the Rule as recast vide notification dated 28.12.2007. We shall at the appropriate stage hereafter under lie the significant change in Rule 51 after its recast vide notification dated 28.12.2007. We, however, start with taking up the effect and meaning of the `Note' (supra) existing below the list of additional qualifications named in Rule 51. 27. This `Note' reads, "Marks awarded shall be only for the highest degree obtained". Meaning of the said `Note' is discernible from the interpretation given to a similar Note, existing in the "criteria/ formula" adopted in selection of candidates for post of Naib Tehsildar by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab by Their Lordships in Vijay Sayal's case (supra) referred to by learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Meaning of the said `Note' is discernible from the interpretation given to a similar Note, existing in the "criteria/ formula" adopted in selection of candidates for post of Naib Tehsildar by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab by Their Lordships in Vijay Sayal's case (supra) referred to by learned counsel for the writ petitioner. When more than one additional qualification in descending order are provided in the criteria (Rules) and a candidate possesses more than one additional qualification, the additional marks available for the highest qualification are to be given and not for all the additional qualifications. To make it bit more clear, if in the present case there were a candidate possessing, besides the minimum prescribed qualification of MD, two years post graduation diploma and M. Phil, he would have been awarded marks only for the M. Phil and not for the both. In that, the `Note' appearing in Rule 51 has no bearing with or correlation with minimum prescribed qualification vis a vis an additional qualification. Effect of the `Note' operates inter se the additional qualifications only. Submission in this context made by Mr. Bhardwaj, therefore, seems a bit misconceived and cannot persuade us to interpret the `Note' in the manner as projected by him. 28. It has been urged on behalf of the Commission that Commission must have precedence in interpreting the rules framed by it. In this behalf we, however, at the outset refuse to accept Commission's plea of past practice of giving marks to the qualification which are higher to and independent of the minimum requisite qualification for the reason that plea to the extent of the past practice was not taken in Commission's reply to the writ petition and therefore, the writ petitioner did not have opportunity to meet the same. As regards the Commission's right to interpret the rules framed by it, reply is discernible from Basavaiah's case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the Commission. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court after recapping the sequence of case law on the point have made important observation in para 38, which reads: "38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." 29. In that case Their Lordships have inter alia referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in M. C. Gupta (Dr.)'s case (1979) 2 SCC 339 , where in para 7, the Supreme Court has held: "7............ When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching /research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be" 30. Now we take up the core question raised before the learned Writ Court and now raised in these appeals. The question is should the Commission have awarded the writ petitioner two marks for the two years' Postgraduate Diploma in Anesthesiology possessed by him. This question is required to be considered in backdrop of the factual position that the writ petitioner prior to the Postgraduate Degree (MD) was possessed of two years' Postgraduate Diploma in the same subject. Later he got admission in Postgraduate Degree (MD) in the same subject and because of his possessing the two years' Diploma he completed the post-graduation and was awarded the MD degree in shortened duration of two years as against regular duration of three years. 31. In this context, the different between Rule 51 as recast vide Notification dated 28. 12.2007, which applies in this case and Rule 51 as recast vide Notification dated 25.10.2004, which has been referred to by the writ Petitioner and relied upon by the learned Writ Court, assumes importance and needs to be underlined. 31. In this context, the different between Rule 51 as recast vide Notification dated 28. 12.2007, which applies in this case and Rule 51 as recast vide Notification dated 25.10.2004, which has been referred to by the writ Petitioner and relied upon by the learned Writ Court, assumes importance and needs to be underlined. It is important to note, which evidently the learned Writ Court could not, that in recasting the Rule vide Notification dated 28.12.2007 the qualifications other than the minimum requisite qualification named in part (B) (ii) of Rule 51,which give entitlement to a candidate for additional marks, have been clubbed in three categories, (a), (b) and (c) under a common Headnote `Additional Marks for Higher Qualification' Category (a) relates to the selections in which the bachelor's degree is the prescribed minimum qualification' Category (b) relates to the selections in which the Master's degree is the minimum qualification and category (c) relates to selections in which Ph.D is the minimum qualification. This Headnote did not exist in the Rule as recast vide Notification dated 25. 10.2004. Incorporation of this Head-note in Rule 51 cannot be said to have been made without any reason or meaninglessly. By incorporating this Headnote, obviously and undisputedly it becomes unambiguous that the qualification which gives entitlement to a candidate for additional marks under part (ii) (b) of Rule 51 should be higher than the minimum prescribed qualification for the post. 32. It, however, needs to be noted that the list of such higher qualifications in category (b) that relates to the selections in which the Master's degree is the minimum qualification also include qualifications like one year and two years Postgraduate Diploma, which normally may not be higher than the minimum prescribed qualification of Postgraduate Degree (MD/MS) but in that the reasonable interpretation of Rule would be that such higher qualifications, primarily, should be higher than the minimum prescribed qualification and at the most may include a qualification which is in addition to and independent of the minimum prescribed qualification. 33. In this case, given that the writ petitioner had been awarded the MD Degree after undergoing Postgraduate Diploma in a shortened period of two years because of his possessing the said Diploma, it would not be correct to say that the said Diploma can still be treated as an additional qualification independent of MD Degree. 33. In this case, given that the writ petitioner had been awarded the MD Degree after undergoing Postgraduate Diploma in a shortened period of two years because of his possessing the said Diploma, it would not be correct to say that the said Diploma can still be treated as an additional qualification independent of MD Degree. If two years diploma in such a case is treated as a higher qualification, the insertion of term `Additional Marks for Higher Qualification' as Headnote shall be rendered redundant and superfluous, which cannot be permitted. 34. In this view of the matter, we are not persuaded to concur with the view taken by the learned Writ Court that the awarding of Degree is entirely a different issue which falls within the domain of University/Education Institute concerned. View taken by the learned Writ Court, which was in oblivion to the recasting of the Rule 51, is not correct interpretation of the Rule. We are rather of a considered view that no case for interfering with the view taken by the Commission in not awarding two marks to the writ petitioner for the Diploma possessed by him is made out and the writ petition did not deserve to be allowed. 35. For aforementioned, we, while replying in negative the proposition involved in this case, find merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the same are allowed and judgment and order of the Writ Court is set aside and resultantly writ petition is also dismissed.