JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Arunkumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned G.A., Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Advocate and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petition has challenged the promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT) in the Health Department, Government of Manipur along with 5 others vide order dated 30.07.2012, on the recommendation of the DPC held in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission on 26.06.2012. 3. The main grounds taken in challenging the promotion of the respondent No. 4 to the post of MRT may be stated as follows. Firstly, it has been contended that the respondent No. 4 is not trained in Medical Record Technician course of at least 6(six) months duration from a recognised institution which is an essential qualification for promotion. Secondly, it has been also alleged that the respondent No. 4 is not a graduate and the recruitment rules give preference to the graduates at the time of promotion and since the petitioner is a graduate he ought to have been given preference over the respondent No. 4, who is not a graduate. 4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions it will be necessary to refer to the recruitment rules for the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT) in the Health Department, Government of Manipur. As per the recruitment rules for the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT), 50% of the posts are to be filled up by promotion from amongst Grade III employees and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment as per Notification dated 3rd September, 2011. In case of promotion, Grade-III employees with Graduation and non-Graduation who are trained in Medical Record Technician Course are eligible for consideration and the Non Graduates can be considered if Graduates are not available. The relevant portions of the recruitment rules are reproduced herein-below: “No. 1/30/88-RR/DP Imphal, the 3rd September, 2011 M.P.S.C. Form-8. RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF MEDICAL RECORD TECHNICIAN (MRT) IN HEALTH DEPARMENT, MANIPUR. 1. Designation of posts Medical Record Technician (MRT) 2. No. of posts 11 (Eleven) 3. Classification GCS Class-II/Gr. B (Gazetted) 4. Scale of pay Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. (pre-revised) [Corresponding Pay Band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- p.m. as per MS(RP) Rules, 2010] 5. 1. Designation of posts Medical Record Technician (MRT) 2. No. of posts 11 (Eleven) 3. Classification GCS Class-II/Gr. B (Gazetted) 4. Scale of pay Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. (pre-revised) [Corresponding Pay Band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- p.m. as per MS(RP) Rules, 2010] 5. Whether selection post or non-selection post Selection 6. Age for direct recruits 35 (thirty-five) years & below (upper age limit is relaxable for Govt. servants appointed under the Govt. of Manipur to the extent of the period of continuous services put in the post/service and by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and by 3 years for OBC candidates and a Govt. servant who belongs to SC/ST/OBC will get the facility admissible to a Govt. servant in addition to the relaxation admissible to SC/ST/OBC candidates.) 7. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits ESSENTIAL: Graduate of a recognised University. DESIRABLE : Knowledge of Manipuri and Hindi 8. Whether age and educational qualification prescribed for the direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees. N.A. 9. Period of probation, if any 2 (two) years 10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods. 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment 11. In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion/ deputation/transfer to be made Promotion: 1. Grade-III employees with Graduation having 2 (two) years regular service in the grade and trained in Medical Record Technician course of at least 6 (six) months duration from a recognized Institution. If not available, 2. Non-graduate Grade-III employees having 5 (five) years regular service in the grade and trained in Medical Record Technician course of atleast 6 (six) months duration from a recognized Institution. 12. If a DPC exists what is its compositions Class-II D.P.C. 13. Circumstances in which MPSC is to be consulted in making recruitment As required under MPSC (Exemption from consultation) Regulations, 1972 5. In respect of Grade-III Graduate employees the other requirement is possession of 2 years regular service in the grade whereas for non-Graduate Grade-III employees they must have minimum 5 years of regular service in the grade. Both the categories must have been trained in the Medical Record Technician Course for at least 6 months duration from a recognised institution. 6. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Both the categories must have been trained in the Medical Record Technician Course for at least 6 months duration from a recognised institution. 6. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel submits that the respondent No. 4 had undergone training in Medical Record Officer (MRO) course which is not same as the Medical Record Technician (MRT) course, which is the stipulated requirement under the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Medical Record Technician. Mr. Paonam submits that respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have claimed that the MRO course also covers the curriculum for MRT course and as such by implication a person having undergone MRO course would be deemed to have undergone training in MRT course. According to the petitioner, the said contention of respondents is not permissible in as much as there is no such provision under the rules providing that all such persons who had undergone MRO training course are to be treated as having undertaken training in the said Medical Record Technician course or are also eligible for promotion. He submits that such an interpretation would amount to adding certain new provisions in the recruitment rules which is impermissible.” 7. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the recruitment rules make it clear that preference is to be given to the Graduate employees and only when Graduate employees are not available, the question of considering the non-Graduates would arise. It has been contended that the petitioner is a Grade-III Graduate employee having more than 2 years service in the Grade and also trained in MRT course of 6 months duration from a recognised university. Therefore, promotion of the respondent No. 4 who is a non-Graduate and also not trained in MRT course by ignoring the petitioner is not permissible. 8. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel further submits that though the respondent No. 4 is not a Graduate, she claims herself to be a Graduate having passed BA in Statistics from Liberal College at Imphal. He contends that even if the respondent No. 4 undertook the said Graduation course, since it was without authorisation, it cannot be given recognition for the purpose of promotion. 9. In this regard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Rabindranath Barman Vs. Gauhati High Court and Anr., 2012 (2) GLT 111 and Nongmaithem Rajen Singh Vs. 9. In this regard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Rabindranath Barman Vs. Gauhati High Court and Anr., 2012 (2) GLT 111 and Nongmaithem Rajen Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 7. In the aforesaid case of Rabindranath Barman (supra), the Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner who had obtained degree in Law while serving in the Gauhati High Court without proper authorisation was held to be misconduct because of which he was proceeded in a departmental enquiry and the Gauhati High Court upheld it as a misconduct to undertake LL.B course without permission. In the case of Nongmaithem Rajen Singh (supra) also the Gauhati High Court held that if a person obtains graduation certificate without authorisation, it amounts to misconduct and person who commits misconduct cannot be rewarded by promotion to the next higher post. It has been, therefore, submitted that in the present case, as the respondent No. 4 obtained graduation certificate without authorisation from the authority it amounts to misconduct and cannot be given the benefit of promotion on the basis of graduation obtained by her during service without authorisation. 10. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was sent for undertaking training in MRT course specifically for the purpose of utilising his service for efficient functioning of Medical Record System/Department as clearly mentioned in the letter dated 01.12.2010 of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India while selecting the petitioner for undertaking the said course of MRT. The said letter specifically mentions that the petitioner will be allowed to join the course subject to submission of a certificate from the sponsoring authority to the effect that the persons working as CSSD Tech. is/are feeder category for the post of Medical Record Technician and after the training his services will be appropriately utilized for efficient functioning of the Medical Record System/Department. According to Mr. is/are feeder category for the post of Medical Record Technician and after the training his services will be appropriately utilized for efficient functioning of the Medical Record System/Department. According to Mr. Paonam, this letter therefore, makes it very clear that the petitioner had been selected and sent for undertaking course in Medical Record Technician (MRT) Training Course for the purpose of utilization of his service at the higher post and as such, non consideration of the petitioner for promotion when the petitioner fulfils all the eligible criteria and instead recommending the respondent No. 4 who does not fulfil the essential criteria is not permissible in law. 11. It has been submitted that, on the contrary, when the respondent No. 4 was sponsored for undergoing the training course in Medical Record Officer (MRO), no such stipulation was mentioned as in the case of petitioner which provided for utilising service of the petitioner on completion of the MRT course. Further, it has been also stated that the letter dated 28.02.2012 issued by the Deputy Director, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India clarifying about the training course of MRO that it covers curriculum of the MRT course, which is relied on by the respondents, was only a private communication and the same was not notified for public information and it also does not state that MRO is equivalent to MRT course. The letter merely says that MRO training course curriculum includes all the curriculum covered in MRT course and based on the facts given, one may draw conclusions accordingly. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Director AIIMS Vs. Dr. Nikhil Tandon, (1996) 7 SCC 741 and referring to para 13 thereof, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel submits that if the respondent No. 4 had undergone a training in MRO course, the same is for the purpose of appointment to the post of MRO as provided in the recruitment rules for the post of MRO which is the next higher post to the post of Medical Record Technician and not for promotion to the post of MRT. He further contends that in any event, such a recognition/equivalence by the authority must be by a general order published for the information of all concerned and it cannot be decided in a given case for the purpose of that case as held in the aforesaid case. 12. He further contends that in any event, such a recognition/equivalence by the authority must be by a general order published for the information of all concerned and it cannot be decided in a given case for the purpose of that case as held in the aforesaid case. 12. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, however, contradicts the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent is not a Graduate. He submits that the respondent No. 4 is very much a Graduate. Mr. Mohendro submits that the petitioner had completed Graduate course in Statistics in the year 2000 after having obtained necessary permission from the competent authority for appearing the examination as a private candidate as evident from the Annexures-D/10 to D/13 (collectively) annexed to the writ petition. He submits that the respondent no. 4 entered service as an undergraduate under the Scheme of die-in-harness. Subsequently, she passed the Degree Course as a private candidate under Manipur University. It has been stated that she had applied to the Director of Health Service for permitting her to appear in the examinations as a private candidate and the Director granted leave as sought for, to enable her to appear in the examination and after her graduation, she duly communicated to the authorities about her graduation and accordingly this qualification was entered in her service book. Therefore, Mr. Mohendro contends that as the Respondent No. 4 had obtained Graduation degree as a private candidate after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority, it cannot be said that it was unauthorised. 13. Mr. Mohendro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further submits that the respondent No. 4 can be said to have been trained in MRT course in as much she had already completed the MRO course, which includes the curriculum for MRT course as already mentioned in the letter dated 28.02.2012 of the Deputy Director, Central Bureau of Health Intelligence (CBHI). Since the respondent No. 4 had already undergone MRO course, she would be deemed to have undergone the MRT Course as explained in the letter dated 8th February, 2012 (Annexure D/7) of the Deputy Director, CBHI. The said letter dated 08.02.2012 states that the CBHI conducts Training for Medical Record officers & Medical Record Technician through its training centers at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi & JIPMER Puducherry. The said letter dated 08.02.2012 states that the CBHI conducts Training for Medical Record officers & Medical Record Technician through its training centers at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi & JIPMER Puducherry. It further states that the duration of MRO course is of 12 months whereas, MRT course is of 6 months and the person who has been already trained in MRO course is not considered for MRT course since the MRO Training curriculum course is more elaborate. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 contends that she could not be penalised for not undertaking the inferior MRT course after she had already completed the superior and more elaborate course of MRO. Therefore, it has been submitted by Mr. Mohendro that even if the recruitment rules do not specifically mention training in MRO as the requisite qualification, by clear implication, it can be read into it in as much as a person who had undergone training in MRO can be said to have completed the course of MRT as well, and as such there is no illegality or irregularity in the recommendation of the respondent No. 4. 14. Mr. S. Nepolean, learned G.A. submits that the stand of the State respondents is the same as had already taken by the private respondent No. 4 and these are all based on official communications. Mr. Nepolean further submits that the authorities had furnished the list of all eligible candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 to the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the respondent no. 4 was treated to have undergone MRT course, in view of the fact that MRO course is for 1 year and MRT for 6 months and MRO training course covers all the syllabus made for MRT course as mentioned in the letter of the CBHI and accordingly, the persons having undergone MRO course training will be deemed to have undergone MRT course as required under the recruitment rules. 15. Mr. H. Samarjeet, learned Counsel for the MPSC has also submitted in similar lines as the State respondents as well as the private respondent no. 4 and relying on the affidavit filed by the MPSC contended that since the private respondent no. 15. Mr. H. Samarjeet, learned Counsel for the MPSC has also submitted in similar lines as the State respondents as well as the private respondent no. 4 and relying on the affidavit filed by the MPSC contended that since the private respondent no. 4 had already passed the Medical Record Officer Training Course of 1 year duration which was inclusive of 6 (six) months’ syllabus of Medical Record Technician Course, the respondent No. 4 was found eligible for promotion to the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT) in the Medical Health and Family Welfare Service, Manipur by the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 26.06.2012 and as such, there is no irregularity in recommending the private respondent No. 4. The MPSC found that the respondent No. 4 was eligible under the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of MRT. 16. As regards the issue of the respondent No. 4 being a Graduate, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings of the DPC held on 26.06.2012 reflects that the respondent No. 4 has been treated as a non-graduate. Though the MPSC has subsequently stated in the additional affidavit filed on 29.01.2015 that the mistake which occurred in the DPC proceedings was purely a printing mistake as the respondent No. 4 had passed B.A. from Liberal College in the year 1999 is not believable. 17. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel submits that it is highly improbable that such a mistake could have occurred due to printing mistake as stated by the MPSC as it was clearly reflected in the DPC proceeding that the petitioner was treated as a non-graduate. Mr. H.S. Paonam submits that even if the respondent No. 4 is stated to be a Graduate, the MPSC did not treat him to be so, but treated her as an Under-graduate as mentioned in the DPC proceeding. Mr. H.S. Paonam also submits that as regards undergoing Graduation Course, whatever permission was sought by the respondent No. 4 was only in respect of only one year, though the BA in Statistics is a 3 years’ course which also involves certain practical examinations and nothing has been disclosed as to how the respondent No. 4 obtained or was granted the permission to undergo the said 3 years course in Statistics. Hence, the claim that the respondent no. 4 is a graduate ought not be accepted. Hence, the claim that the respondent no. 4 is a graduate ought not be accepted. Even otherwise also, since the graduation was obtained without proper authorisation from the competent authority, it amounts to misconduct and her graduation qualification can not be used for considering promotion to a higher post. 18. In order to decide the issue as regards the requirement of MRT training course as mentioned in the recruitment rules, the following aspects may be kept in mind. First of all, the essential qualifications mentioned in the recruitment rules only refer normally to the minimum standard required or expected from the candidates for appointment. Therefore, except for the requirement of age, which usually provides an upper limit, requirements relating to educational qualification or experience are the minimum standards which the candidates are supposed to possess to be eligible for appointment. Therefore, unless the rules clearly indicate to the contrary, possession of higher degree or qualification or experience, more than the minimum requirement cannot be a disqualification or disadvantage. In fact, if a person possesses more than the minimum requirement, where merit is of prime consideration as in the case of a selection post, such person having more qualifications or experience would claim to have more advantage in any such competition. Thus, it can be concluded that unless otherwise intended under the rules, possession of qualifications or experience more than the minimum eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules cannot be a drawback or disqualification. Of course, such higher qualification or experience must be in the field/area which has been specifically mentioned in the recruitment rules and cannot be in relation to which is different from what is laid down in the recruitment rules. In other words, any additional or higher qualification or experience in a field, not related to what is the mandatory requirement in the recruitment rules, cannot be considered to be relevant nor can be taken into consideration. Secondly, even though certain provision may not be specifically mentioned in the statute, by invoking the doctrine of necessary implication, if the necessary implication of a provision has the same effect and relevance in law as an expressed provision has, unless the relevance of what is necessarily applied is excluded by the use of clear words it can be read into the rules, as held in Needle Industries (India) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Vs. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd. and Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 333 . Thus, this Court would take the view that if a minimum qualification is required, it would be by necessary implication take into consideration the higher qualifications. If such higher qualification by necessary implication would have the same relevance and effectiveness as the expressed provision provided in the minimum qualification, unless it is impermissible to read such implication and explicitly excluded by the rules in clear terms, such higher qualification can be read into the rules. This Court would also like to add that such necessary implication which flows from the provision of a statute, however, cannot alter or change the character of the expressed provision nor can it enlarge the scope of the expressed provision. In other words, if by reading such higher qualification, it does not change the character of the expressed provision, such higher qualification can be read into the recruitment rules. 19. Thus, in the present case, we may examine whether the training in Medical Record Officers course can be said to be included by necessary implication of the expressed provision of requirement of training in Medical Record Technician Course which is provided in the recruitment rules. 20. It has been contended by the respondents, both official and private, supported by relevant records to show that the Medical Record Technician Training course is of 6 (six) months duration and the Medical Record Officers Training Course is of 12 (twelve) months duration which are offered by the same Institute, namely, Central Bureau of Health Intelligence (CBHI), Directorate General of Health Services. As per the documents produced, originated from the CBHI, these are in-service training courses and both these courses have the same syllabus and subject contents, the only difference being that while the MRT Training Course is limited to 6 (six) months only, the MRO Training Course runs up to 12 (twelve) months and this training is of a more elaborate nature. In other words, a person trained in MRT course undertakes training in all the subjects which are included in the MRO course, but a person undertaking MRT course goes for a more precise and shortened form and a person undergoing MRO course undergoes similar training in the same subjects and syllabus but for an extended period with more elaborate and detailed training. This position has been clarified by the letter dated 08.02.2012 issued by the Office of the Central Bureau Health Intelligence, Directorate General of Health Services, Government of India in which it has been mentioned that the MRO training course at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi being conducted by the CBHI is one year duration and is more elaborate than the 6 (six) months MRT course conducted at the same Hospital by the CHBI. Further, the MRO training course includes all the curriculum and syllabus covered in MRT course. It has been further explained in the letter dated 08.02.2012 of the Deputy Director of the CBHI that a person who has already been trained in MRO Training Course by any of their training centres is not considered for MRT training, since the MRO Training curriculum course is more elaborate. It has been, therefore, emphasised that the training course of the MRO is much more elaborate than what is being offered in the MRT course and the MRO training course not only covers the MRT course but also more elaborate. Thus, it can be also said that a person who has undergone training in MRO course can be no doubt be said to have undergone the training in MRT course, by necessary implication of this recruitment rules, as it has been clarified by the competent authority. A person trained in MRO course is more qualified than MRT course which is the minimum requirement. A person who has undergone MRO course would have undergone all the necessary training required under MRT and hence, possesses the attributes of similarity/equivalence of the MRT and in fact, more than equivalent. 21. Therefore, this Court would hold that possession of qualification of having undergone training in MRO training course is not only as good as having undergone the MRT training course but also more than it and he can be deemed to have possessed the qualification of having undergone MRT training course as required under recruitment rules. In that event, it can be said that respondent No. 4 possessed the aforesaid qualification of having undergone MRT training course of at least 6 months duration from a recognised institute as required under the recruitment rules. 22. Now, we will deal with the issue of the graduation of the respondent no.4 which the petitioner alleges the respondent No. 4 is not. The fact that the respondent no. 22. Now, we will deal with the issue of the graduation of the respondent no.4 which the petitioner alleges the respondent No. 4 is not. The fact that the respondent no. 4 has completed degree course and hence a Graduate, has not been seriously disputed by the petitioner. The main objection of the petitioner seems to be that the respondent no. 4 completed the graduation while in service without obtaining permission from the competent authority and as such, such degree obtained without prior permission of the competent authority cannot be taken into account for service benefits like promotion. 23. In this regard, the respondent no. 4 has asserted in her reply affidavit filed on 9th October, 2014 that she had pursued the degree course as a private candidate under the Manipur University and she had applied for permission to appear in the examinations by making applications at the relevant time to the Director, Health Services, supported by relevant documents, which were duly also granted by the Director. What transpires from the aforesaid affidavits and documents relied on by the respondent no. 4 is that the respondent no. 4 had kept informed the authorities of her pursuing the degree course and the authorities were fully aware of her appearing in examinations for completing the degree course and the authority also granted permission to appear in the examinations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 4 was undergoing the degree course surrupticiously and without any permission from the authority. The respondent no. 4 also stated that after completion of the degree course in 2000 the same was duly communicated to the authority and it was duly entered in her service records. There is nothing on record to show that the authority or anyone had raised any objection or taken any exception to the aforesaid act of the respondent no. 4 nor the authorities had taken any action against her for any alleged lapses relating to the respondent No. 4 undergoing the degree course. Interestingly, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder or reply affidavit to controvert the assertions made by the respondent no. 4 in her reply affidavit dated 9th October, 2014. 24. 4 nor the authorities had taken any action against her for any alleged lapses relating to the respondent No. 4 undergoing the degree course. Interestingly, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder or reply affidavit to controvert the assertions made by the respondent no. 4 in her reply affidavit dated 9th October, 2014. 24. Consideration of the entire pleadings would also reveal that the petitioner had filed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the respondent No.4 had not undergone MRT Training Course which is an essential requirement as per the recruitment rules. In the entire writ petition, there is not a whisper of the respondent no. 4 of being a non-graduate. The entire emphasis in the writ petition was on the issue of respondent no. 4 not having undergone the MRT training course. It was only later that the petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 11th September, 2013 stating that the petitioner came to know very recently that the respondent no. 4 is only an Undergraduate as can be verified from the proceedings of the DPC and that the respondent no. 4 had undergone graduation without obtaining necessary permission for undergoing such course. In response to the said additional affidavit, the respondent no. 4 filed a detailed reply affidavit on 19.10.2014 pleading the aforesaid facts as mentioned above. 25. This Court is of the view that the present case can be distinguished from the decisions cited by the petitioner in Rabindranath Barman (supra) as well as in Nongmaithem Rajen Singh (supra). In Rabindranath Barman (supra), the petitioner therein was proceeded in a departmental enquiry in which he was charged of getting admission in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of LL.B course without obtaining permission from the competent authority, which was held to be proved, which was the subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition and in that context, the Court refused to interfere upholding that such an act amounts to misconduct. In the present case, such is not the situation. No enquiry had been initiated against the respondent no. 4 charging her of having undergone degree course without obtaining permission from the competent authority. In fact, the respondent No. 4 based on the documents produced before this Court claims that she had obtained permission from the competent authority, which this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve. No enquiry had been initiated against the respondent no. 4 charging her of having undergone degree course without obtaining permission from the competent authority. In fact, the respondent No. 4 based on the documents produced before this Court claims that she had obtained permission from the competent authority, which this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve. Hence, the said case is not applicable to the present case. 26. As regards the decision in Nongmaithem Rajen Singh (supra), it was held in that case that the Director of Fishery under whom the petitioner was serving took the stand that the matter regarding validity of the graduation certificate obtained by the private respondent therein without permission from the competent authority or without attending college is of the concern of the head of the institute and it is not the concern of the Department. Permission for pursuing the TDC/BA course in the college, according to the Director of Fishery, was to be taken care of by the head of the institute, i.e. the college and it is not concerned with the Department. Thus, in that context, there was a finding given by the Hon’ble High Court that the private respondent therein had obtained the graduation certificate as a regular candidate without obtaining permission from the competent authority. The Hon’ble High Court went into detail of the requirements regarding a regular candidate for completing TDC course which requires attendance of at least 75% of the classes which are held during office hours. Thus, in that context, the Hon’ble Court made the observation in para 11 thereof, which is reproduced herein-below: “11. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the affidavit in opposition filed by the private respondent No.4, categorically stating that the private respondent No.4 obtained his graduation certificate as regular candidate and not as a private candidate. The petitioner further stated that the Principal, Moirang College, issued certificate on 01.08.2000 clearly certifying that the private respondent No. 4 appeared TDC III Core (Pol. Sc.) examination of Manipur University in the year 1999 under Roll No.713316 as regular candidate and declared to have passed the examination in the 2nd class (Hons) as per result sheet issued by the Manipur University. Sc.) examination of Manipur University in the year 1999 under Roll No.713316 as regular candidate and declared to have passed the examination in the 2nd class (Hons) as per result sheet issued by the Manipur University. The said certificate issued by the Principal, Moirang College, from where private respondent No.4 appeared TDC III Core (Pol Sc.) Examination of the Manipur University in the year 1999 is also annexed as Annexure A/7 to the reply affidavit. On perusal of the said Certificate it is clear that the private respondent No.4 appeared TDC III Core (Pol Sc) Examination of the Manipur University in the year 1999 under Roll No.713316 as regular candidate and was declared to have passed the examination in the 2nd class (Hons) Division as per result sheet issued by the Manipur University.” From the above what can be seen is that (i) in that case, the private respondent therein had obtained the graduation certificate as a regular candidate and not as a private candidate; (ii) that he had undergone the aforesaid course without obtaining the permission of the competent authority, (iii) that for undergoing such degree course, one has to attend at least 75% of the classes which are held during office hours. In that context, the Hon’ble Court held that the act of the private respondent therein to undergo graduation course as a regular student without obtaining the permission of the competent authority amounts to misconduct and in such event, such person cannot be given any service benefits, including considering for promotion. 27. As already discussed above, the situation is different in the present case in as much as the respondent no. 4 in the present case had undergone graduation course as a private candidate and there is evidence to show that the respondent no. 4 had obtained permission from the competent authority for undergoing the course as can be seen from the permission granted to the respondent no. 4 by the office of the Director to appear in the examinations as pleaded in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 on 09.10.2014, which assertions have not been denied or controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision in Nongmaithem Rajen Singh (supra) is also not be applicable to the present case. 28. 4 on 09.10.2014, which assertions have not been denied or controverted by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision in Nongmaithem Rajen Singh (supra) is also not be applicable to the present case. 28. It has been also contended by the petitioner that the DPC which recommended the petitioner had made the observation that the respondent no. 4 is an Undergraduate as evident from the proceedings of the DPC. True, as recorded in the remark column of the proceedings of the DPC, the DPC had treated the respondent no.4 as an Undergraduate. This, however, has been clarified by the MPSC in the subsequent affidavit that it was a printing mistake. On perusal of the records produced before this Court, it is seen that the authorities had submitted all the relevant documents including the graduation certificate of the respondent no. 4 to the MPSC. The MPSC for reasons best known to them, which has been later explained as printing mistake, had remarked that the respondent no. 4 is an Undergraduate. However, when incontrovertible documents showing that the respondent no. 4 is graduate is available before the MPSC, and if the MPSC for certain reasons which has now been disclosed, had mistakenly treated the respondent no. 4 as Undergraduate, this observation of the MPSC cannot ignore the fact that the respondent no. 4 is a Graduate. In fact, the petitioner himself also has not denied that the respondent no.4 is a Graduate. His prime objection is that the respondent no. 4 had obtained the Graduation Certificate without prior permission of the competent authority. Therefore, in the face of the degree certificate which had been produced by the respondent no.4 and also furnished to the MPSC by the Department concerned, this Court is of the view that such remark of the MPSC treating the respondent no. 4 as an Undergraduate, cannot divest the status of the respondent no.4 as a Graduate and since the MPSC themselves have filed an affidavit clarifying that it was a printing mistake, this Court would accept the contention of the respondents that the respondent no. 4 is a Graduate. 29. This Court has also noted that before the DPC was held for promotion to the post of MRT, the respondent authority themselves had sought certain clarification from the CBHI. 4 is a Graduate. 29. This Court has also noted that before the DPC was held for promotion to the post of MRT, the respondent authority themselves had sought certain clarification from the CBHI. It seems the respondent no.4 had herself also sought clarification from the Director, CBHI as to whether passing of MRO Training Course may be treated as passing of MRT course. In the letter dated 10th February, 2012 written by the Administrative Officer, Medical Directorate, JN Hospital, Porompat which was under the Directorate of Health at the relevant time, to the Director, CBHI sought for certain clarification, the relevant portions of which are reproduced herein-below: “MOST IMMEDIATE GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MEDICAL DIRECTORATE, J.N. HOSPITAL, POROMPAT. No. G(Misc)/JNH-2012:/23 Imphal, the 10th February, 2012 To, The Director, CBHI (DGHS), Room No. 410 & 404, A-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 Subject:- A request to clarify as to whether passing of MRO course may be treated as passing of MRT course and completion of MRT course in respect of Smt. M. Bimolata Devi, MRA. Sir, With reference to letter No. Z22013/1/2009-CBHI, dated 20th May, 2009 (Copy enclosed as Copy-A) to the joint Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Health Dept. Imphal, Manipur that Smt. M. Bimolata Devi, Medical Record Assistance (MRA) of this hospital has successfully completed and passed the examination of 12 (Twelve) months course of Medical Record Officer (MRO) during the period from 01/07/2009 to 30/06/2010 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (Copy of Certificate and Mark sheet enclosed as copy-B and copy-C. Since Smt. M. Bimolata Devi did not undergo the 6 (six) months training course of MRT but has successfully completed and passed 12 (Twelve) months MRO training course, it is requested kindly to clarify as to whether her passing of MRO course from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi may be treated as passing of MRT or, completion of MRT course also. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.L. Lunneilal) Administrative Officer, Medical Directorate, J.N. Hospital, Porompat.” (Emphasis added) In response, the Deputy Director of CBHI replied as follows: To, Shri S.L. Lunneilal Administrative Officer Medical Directorate J.N. Hospital, Porompat, Imphal Manipur-795001 Subject:- A request to clarify as to whether passing of MRO course may be treated as passing of MRT course and completion of MRT course in respect of Smt. M. Bimolata Devi, MRA Regarding. Sir, Reference to your letter No. G(Misc)/JNH- 2012/23dated 10th February, 2012 on the above subject. In this connection, I am directed to inform you that “Medical Records Officer” “(MRO)” training course at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, being conducted by CBHI is of one year’s duration and is more elaborated then the six months “Medical Record Technician” “(MRT)” training course conducted at the same hospital by CBHI. Further, the MRO training course curriculum includes all the curriculum covered in MRT course. Based on the facts given above, you may draw conclusions accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Umed Singh) Deputy Director Copy for information to: Smt. M. Bimolata Devi, Medical Record Assistant, J.N. Hospital, Porompat, Imphal, Manipur- 795001.” 30. That in this regard it may be apposite to refer to the correspondence between the respondent no. 4 and the CBHI. The respondent no. 4 had written on 19.01.2012 to the Director, CBHI seeking clarification whether she having undertaken MRO Training Course would be required to undergo MRT Training Course as follows: “To, The Director, CBHI(DGHS), Room No. 410 & 404, A-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 Subject:- A request for written statement/Certificate, as clarification of non requirement of MRT course for those who has already completed MRO course. Sir, With reference to letter No. Z22013/1/2009-CBHI, dated 20th May, 2009 (Copy enclosed) to the joint Secretary (Health & F.W.), Govt. of Manipur Secretariate: Health Department, Imphal, I have the honour to state that I was selected to undergo the training course of Medical Record Officer (MRO) during the period from 1-7-2009 to 30- 6-2010 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and I was successfully completed (passed) the 12th (twelve) months training course (certificate and mark-sheet enclosed as copy-A and copy-B) But as per recruitment rules for the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT) in the Health Department Manipur, in case of recruitment by promotion it was required to complete the Medical Record Technician (MRT) course of at least 6 (six) months duration from a recognised Institution (copy enclosed as copy-C). In the light of the above information and since I had already completed the 12th (twelve) months training course of MRO and all the 6 (six) subjects (including viva voice) of MRO course are totally same but more elaborate than the course of MRT, I would like to request you to furnish a written statement or a certificate making clarification that MRT course has included in the MRO course and hence not required to undergo the 6th months training course of MRT. So that my higher authority may clear and convinced any doubt, and further necessary action may be taken up. I hope that you will consider my humble request and for such act of your kindness I shall ever remain grateful to you. Yours faithfully, Imphal The 19th Jan.2012 Sd/- (M. Bimolata Devi) Medical Record Assistant, J.N. Hospital, Imphal, 795001 Mobile no. 9612459885” (Emphasis added) In response, Deputy Director, CBHI replied on 08.02.2012 as follows: “Reference your E-mail above, it is to inform you that CBHI conducts Training for Medical Record officers & Medical Record Technician through its training centers Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi & JIPMER Puducherry. The duration of MRO course is of 12 months & for MRT it is of 6 months, the person who has already been trained in MRO Training course by any of our training centre, is not considered for MRT training since the MRO Training curriculum course is more elaborate. Further after examination of your documents attached with your requested it is observed that you have already been trained as an MRO through Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi during 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010 it is also informed that once any persons is trained as an MRO by any of our Training centre his/her application for MRT training will not be considered. CBHI In-service training are provided to enhance the working knowledge of participants. (Umed Singh) Deputy Director CBHI” (Emphasis added) 31. Therefore, these correspondences clearly establish that undergoing training course in MRO would satisfy the requirement of undergoing training in MRT course as mentioned in the recruitment rules. CBHI In-service training are provided to enhance the working knowledge of participants. (Umed Singh) Deputy Director CBHI” (Emphasis added) 31. Therefore, these correspondences clearly establish that undergoing training course in MRO would satisfy the requirement of undergoing training in MRT course as mentioned in the recruitment rules. Further, these correspondences, more particularly letters dated 10.02.2012 and 28.02.2012 clearly indicate that there was proper application of mind by the respondent authorities including the Manipur Public Service Commission for treating the respondent no.4 as having deemed to have possessed the essential requirement of having undergone training in MRT course as provided under recruitment rules and only thereafter, the respondent authorities included the name of the respondent no. 4 as an eligible candidate for promotion to the higher post of MRT and was recommended for promotion to the post of MRT. These acts indicate absence of any mala-fide or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities in recommending the respondent no. 4 for promotion. 32. The decision cited by the petitioners of Director, AIIMS Vs. Nikhil Tandon (Dr) (supra) is in the opinion of this Court not applicable to the present case. The issue which arose in that case was whether 2 years’ training at the Cambridge University undergone by the respondent therein while working for his Ph.D can be treated as a qualification equivalent to DM qualification. The Supreme Court held that such equivalence must be recognised by the AIIMS or at least by the Medical Council of India. Such is not the situation in the present case. Both the State Government and the MPSC, based on the letters of the CBHI have treated that a person having undergone training in MRO can be considered to have undergone training in MRT course also. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment that recognition must be by a general order/proceeding published for the information of all concerned and it cannot be a matter decided in a given case for the purpose of that case, must be confined to the context of the case therein. In the present case, the clarification by the CBHI was of a general nature, not only confined to the case of the respondent no. 4. The CBHI has explained generally that the training course in MRO covers the training course in MRT. In the present case, the clarification by the CBHI was of a general nature, not only confined to the case of the respondent no. 4. The CBHI has explained generally that the training course in MRO covers the training course in MRT. Further, it has been also clarified that a person who had undergone training course in MRO need not undergo training in MRT course. 33. It is now well established that generally the decision of a Selection Committee consisting of experts, in this case, constituted in association with the MPSC, should be respected. The DPC held in association with the MPSC had considered the respondent No. 4 to be eligible as regards the requirement of undergoing MRT Training Course in view of the fact that the respondent No. 4 had undertaken a more elaborate and detailed training course in MRO. This finding of the expert body, in absence of any bias or mala-fide ought to be respected. This Court does not find anything not to accept such an opinion/finding of the aforesaid expert body as regards the eligibility criteria. 34. For the reasons discussed above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, however, without any cost.