ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment order dated 20.4.2015, whereby the respondent No.3 – Dr.T.Durganna has been appointed as a Medical Superintendent. He is also aggrieved by the fact that he has not been appointed on the said post. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 26.2.1985, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka,. On 2.7.1991, he jointed the post of Assistant Professor with the Bangalore Medical College & Research Centre. After eight years of experience, he was promoted, in the year 1999, to the post of Associate Professor. In 2003, he was promoted as Professor. In 2007, he was appointed as the Head of Department of ENT Department of the Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute, working at Sri Venkateshwara ENT Institute, at Victoria Hospital. 3. On 9.10.2014, the respondent No.2 – Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Medical Superintendent in Victoria Hospital. Since the petitioner and respondent No.3 were eligible for the said post, they applied for the said post. On 13.3.2015, the Selection Committee made its recommendation in favour of respondent No.3. On 18.3.2015, the Governing Council of respondent No.2 approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In pursuance of the resolution passed by the Governing Council, on 20.4.2015, an appointment letter was issued to the respondent No.3. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr.H.N.Shashidhara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the C & R Rules applicable to respondent No.2 clearly lays down the experience eligibility required for the post of Medical Superintendent. One of the eligibility requirements is that “the candidate should have the administrative experience of at least two years as Head of the Department”. However, the respondent No.3 does not have the administrative experience of more than five months as the Head of Department. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent No.3 does not have the required experience, still the Selection Committee has recommended his name overlooking the fact that the petitioner has been working as Head of Department from 2007 till 2015. Therefore, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is contrary to the C & R Rules. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.3 deserves to be set aside. 5. Therefore, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is contrary to the C & R Rules. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.3 deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms.Sumana Baliga, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended that respondent No.2 is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India (`the MCI’ for short). According to the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India, the eligibility criteria for the post of Medical Superintendent is that “a person who possess a recognized Post Graduate medical qualification from a recognized institute and who has 10 years of administrative experience”. According to her, in the C & R Rules, the word “experience” has been defined. Since respondent No.3 possessed administrative experience of 10 years, he was selected for the sad post. Secondly, as there was a complaint against the petitioner and as a show cause notice had been issued to him on 4.12.2014, he was not selected to the said post. Taking a clue from the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr.B.M.Arun, the learned counsel for respondent No.3, has further argued that Item No.3 of Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the appointment of Medical Superintendent requires that “the candidate should have administrative experience of at least 02 years as Head of the Department.” According to the learned counsel, Item No.3 has to be read in harmoniously with Item No.6, namely, the definition of “administrative experience”. According to Item No.6, the “administrative experience” for the said post shall consists of “Professor and Head of the Department, Associate Professor in charge of the Unit, Hostel Warden, Resident Medical Officer, Administrator of Primary Health Centre, District Medical Officer, District Surgeon, Programme Officer, and State Level Officer.” According to the learned counsel, since the respondent No.3 had discharged his duties as a Hostel Warden for a period of two years, therefore, he has fulfilled the requirement as given in Item No.3, i.e., having “an administrative experience of at least two years.” Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Selection Committee was certainly justified n recommending the name of respondent No.3. Lastly, that the word “department” has no where been defined in the C & R Rules. Lastly, that the word “department” has no where been defined in the C & R Rules. Therefore, relying on the case of State, through Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kulwant Singh { (2003) 9 SCC 193 }, the learned counsel has pleaded that even for the purpose of C & R Rules, a loose definition has to be given to the word “department”. Hence, even a Hostel Warden would be deemed to be the Head of the Department and even a Resident Medical Officer would equally be deemed to be a Head of the Department. Thus, by harmonious reading of Item Nos.3 and 6, the respondent No.3 should be deemed to be the Head of the Department and should be deemed to have the experience of two years as the Head of the Department. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The reliance being placed on the case of Kulwant Sing (supra), is highly misplaced. The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case was “whether the Narcotics Control Bureau which is not a statutory authority created under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, but has been created by the Central Government in exercise of its power under the Act, is a department of the Central Government or not?” It is in this context that in Paras23 and 24 of the Report, the Hon’ble Supreme court has opined as under : “ 23. The word “department” by its very nature, is not capable of a precise definition. Given its ordinary meaning in the context of governmental function, it connotes a branch or division of government administration. For the sake of convenience the government work is divided subject wise or function wise, and each such division may be called a department. The word “department” is capable of a wider meaning as also a narrower meaning. The meaning of the word may differ having regard to the context in which it is used. Rule 2 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 provides – “The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the ministries, departments, secretariats and offices specified in the First Schedule to these Rules (all of which are hereinafter referred to as `departments’). 24. Rule 2 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 provides – “The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the ministries, departments, secretariats and offices specified in the First Schedule to these Rules (all of which are hereinafter referred to as `departments’). 24. In the absence of any precise definition of the word “department” it must be given its natural and ordinary meaning, unless the legal context in which the word is used requires a different meaning.” 8. Obviously, the word “department” is a loose term used in Government bureaucracy. Even the Government of India makes it amply clear by stating that the business of Government of India shall be transacted through Ministries, Departments and Secretariats. Therefore, the word “department” has not been concretized in the Central Government administration. However, in an educational institution like a medical college, the word “department” is very well understood. It has a specific meaning. The University is first of all divided subject wise and function wise. In the University, there are bound to be departments of English, Sociology, Psychology of Political Science, and the Physical Sciences. Therefore, in an educational institution, the word “department” is not loosely understood, but has a specific meaning. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the word “department” has not been defined in the C & R Rules, would not lead to the logical inference that the word “department” is being used loosely in an educational institution. Hence, the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh (supra) which deals primarily with department under the Government, the said observation cannot be transported while dealing with an educational institution like medical college. 9. The experience eligibility as laid down by the C & R Rules is as under : Medical 1. xxxxx Superintendent 2. xxxxx of the affiliated teaching hospital 3. Candidate should have administrative experience of at least 02 years as Head of the Department. 4. Candidates shall satisfy Medical Council of India Norms for appointment to the said post. 5. Maximum upper age limit Limit for the said post shall be 02 years earlier to superannuation. 6. xxxxx Superintendent 2. xxxxx of the affiliated teaching hospital 3. Candidate should have administrative experience of at least 02 years as Head of the Department. 4. Candidates shall satisfy Medical Council of India Norms for appointment to the said post. 5. Maximum upper age limit Limit for the said post shall be 02 years earlier to superannuation. 6. Administrative Experience For the said post consists of: i Professor and Head of the Department ii Associate Professor incharge of the Unit iii Hostel Warden iv Resident Medical Officer v Administrator of Primary Health Centre vi District Medical Officer vii) District Surgeon viii Programme Officer ix) State Level Officer The guidelines issued by the MCI for the post of Medical Superintendent is as under : Post Academic qualifications Director/Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching hospital Should possess a recognised post graduate medical qualification from a recognized Institution with 10 years Administrative experience. 10. A bare perusal of the Rules clearly reveal that while Item No.6 defines the meaning of administrative experience for the said post as consisting of nine different positions, Item No.3 is absolutely specific as to the requirement of administrative experience, for, it used the word “as”. The use of word “as” cannot be ignored. The word “as” means “in the capacity of.” Item No.3 clearly states that the administrative experience has to be in the capacity of Head of the Department. It does, therefore, narrows down the definition of the word “administrative experience” as enumerated in Item No.6. Since Medical Superintendent is expected to carry out the administrative duties, therefore, the requirement is that the person must have the administrative experience as Head of the department. Therefore, the use of the word “administrative experience” used in Item No.3, cannot be substituted by the broad definition contained in Item No.6. If the intention was to use the word “administrative experience” as defined in Item No.6, then, there was no need to use the word “as”. Then, Item No.3 was free to be couched in the terms, “the candidate who have administrative experience of at least two years.” The use of the word “as” clearly revels that the administrative experience has to be that of only in the capacity of Head of the Department, and not otherwise. 11. Then, Item No.3 was free to be couched in the terms, “the candidate who have administrative experience of at least two years.” The use of the word “as” clearly revels that the administrative experience has to be that of only in the capacity of Head of the Department, and not otherwise. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 is unjustified in claiming that since the term “department” has not been defined, therefore, even a Hostel Warden would be deemed to be Head of a Department. Such a proposition only needs to be uttered to be rejected. For, it is well known that a Hostel Warden can never be the Head of the Department, as the Hostel Warden is not the Head of the Department of a University. A hostel is a place where boarding and lodging is provided to the students of the University. The Hostel Warden’s duty is merely supervisory in nature to ensure that the students are properly admitted to a hostel, and to ensure that they maintain discipline as residents of the hostel. Running a hostel is not a different department, to which a person is appointed. Therefore, merely having experience of being a Hostel Warden for two years cannot be equated with having an administrative experience of being the Head of a Department. 12. Admittedly, respondent No.3 only has five months experience as Head of a Department, and has two years of experience as Hostel Warden. But, his two years of experience as a Hostel Warden cannot be treated as having two years of experience as Head of a Department. Therefore, obviously, the respondent No.3 does not have the eligibility requirement of experience of two years as Head of a Department as warranted by the C & R Rules. This aspect that he did not have the eligibility experience requirement seems to have escaped the notice of the Selection Committee, or, at worse, it has been ignored by the Selection Committee. But, nonetheless, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is apparently in contravention of the requirements of the C & R Rules. 13. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pleaded that there was a complaint which was lodged against the petitioner and a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.12.2014 with regard to the complaint. But, nonetheless, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is apparently in contravention of the requirements of the C & R Rules. 13. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has pleaded that there was a complaint which was lodged against the petitioner and a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner on 4.12.2014 with regard to the complaint. But, mere issuance of a notice and the pendency of the complaint could not have prevented the petitioner from being selected. For, till the Selection Committee met on 13.3.2015, no departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, even the pendency of a complaint and the issuance of a show cause notice would not have been a hurdle to the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the said post. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Petition is, hereby, allowed. The appointment order dated 20.4.2015 issued in favour of Mr.T.Durganna – respondent No.3, is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to reconvene the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee is directed to make its recommendations considering the record which was available to it on 13.3.2015. The process of selection shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.