JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Oncology at Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH), Guwahati. His initial appointment as Registrar in the same department was on recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission through Notification dated 17.7.2009, to which post he joined on 1.8.2009. His present rank as Assistant Professor came about vide Notification dated 4.8.2011, with date of joining on 5.8.2011. 2. In so far as creation of posts for Oncology Department in GMCH is concerned, the Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department vide Notification dated 19.3.2008 had conveyed the sanction of the Governor of Assam towards creation of 29 (twenty nine) posts for the said department, inclusive of 2 (two) posts in the rank of Associate Professor of Oncology, which is the next promotional post from the rank of Assistant Professor. 3. An Agenda Note was prepared by the Appointing Authority for the Selection Committee Meeting that was scheduled on 22.11.2013 for filling up certain vacant posts by way of promotion in the various departments of the Medical Colleges of the State for the year 2013. The name of the petitioner found place in the Agenda Note against one of the sanctioned post of Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology and under the particular columns, it was shown that he had joined as Assistant Professor on 5.8.2011 and had completed 2 (two) years in the said rank. The Selection Committee which sat on the scheduled date i.e. 22.11.2013 rendered opinion to the effect that there was no eligible candidate for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Oncology Department. The first chapter ended here. 4. The following year, another Agenda Note was prepared for the Selection Committee Meeting scheduled for 9.9.2014 towards filling up the vacant posts on promotion in the various departments of the Medical Colleges of the State. The petitioner’s name again featured. The Selection Committee sat on the scheduled date and in so far as consideration for filling up the post of Associate Professor in Oncology Department is concerned, an opinion was again rendered to the effect that there was no eligible faculty deserving recommendation. The petitioner’s name again featured. The Selection Committee sat on the scheduled date and in so far as consideration for filling up the post of Associate Professor in Oncology Department is concerned, an opinion was again rendered to the effect that there was no eligible faculty deserving recommendation. The Selection Committee suggested that a candidate must have 2 (two) years training in the concerned discipline from an institution recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in order to get promotion as Associate Professor as per the norms set down by MCI. 5. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner, have placed the following facts to say that denial of promotion was a product of non-application of mind, discriminatory, not supported by the MCI norms under the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 1998) and a departure from the relevant provisions under the Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2008). To start with, Mr. Dutta makes reference to the Annexure-3 document, which is a Certificate dated 27.8.2012, issued under the hand of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (B) Department, certifying that the petitioner has been working in the Department of Oncology and Haematology, GMCH, for giving oncological service like treatment of Leukaemia etc. since 1.8.2009 and have completed 3 (three) years and the said period during which he rendered service may be counted as Special Training in Haematology and Oncology. The Certificate also indicated that the Institute is recognized by the Medical Council of India. Reference is also made to the Annexure-8 document dated 8.1.2014, which was made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said document pertains to a Note of the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department reflecting, inter-alia, that the petitioner being related to Super Speciality Department and having 2 (two) years service as Assistant Professor, qualifies him for promotion to the next higher post of Associate Professor in the particular discipline. Another letter dated 20.9.2014 (apparently issued after the second-time selection on 9.9.2004), issued by the same authority, is referred to. The said letter records the issuance of the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and the same being available in the Government File at Sl. 148C. Another letter dated 20.9.2014 (apparently issued after the second-time selection on 9.9.2004), issued by the same authority, is referred to. The said letter records the issuance of the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and the same being available in the Government File at Sl. 148C. The letter also makes mention that the Department of Oncology is not a department finding place in the list of departments recognized by MCI as Super Speciality Department. The MCI norms only makes mention of “Medical Oncology” and “Surgical Oncology”, and to this end the relevant papers finds place in the Government File at Sl. 149C to 153C. Also, a view was expressed in the said letter dated 20.9.2014 that considering the facts so highlighted, the Government may take a decision, as it deems fit and proper, with regard to promotion of the petitioner. These are the salient documents, referred to by Mr. Dutta, for consideration of the Court, in support of his contentions vis-à-vis the Rules of 2008, which will be noticed in this judgment. 6. In so far as the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent No. 1 is concerned, Mr. Dutta submits that one of the reasons assigned at paragraph 4 thereof for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion, that is, for not having “diploma in 2 years training in Oncology from recognized Medical Institute as prescribed under the Medical Council of India guidelines”, is a far cry and certainly not a requirement under the MCI norms. According to Mr. Dutta, the said statement singularly lacks due application of mind. To buttress his argument, Mr. Dutta makes reference to the Regulations of 1998 to demonstrate that there is no requirement of a diploma of 2 years training. Referring to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Dutta submits that it does not lie in the mouth of the State Respondents to say that the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 is not a valid document for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor. 7. Coming to the Rules of 2008, the contention of Mr. Dutta is that the same had been flouted while undertaking the selection exercise for promotion, both in the Selection Committee Meeting dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014. 7. Coming to the Rules of 2008, the contention of Mr. Dutta is that the same had been flouted while undertaking the selection exercise for promotion, both in the Selection Committee Meeting dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014. Reliance is placed in Rule 14 thereof, particularly sub-rule (2), which obligates the Appointing Authority to furnish to the Selection Board a host of documents and information, as specified therein, in respect of officers eligible for promotion. Clause (e) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 covers “any other documents and information as may be considered necessary by the Appointing Authority or required by the Board”. In this context, Mr. Dutta submits that the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and all relevant papers available in the Government File, as mentioned in the Annexure-9 document dated 20.9.2014, ought to have been furnished by the Appointing Authority to the Selection Board so that a just decision could be reached. Failing to do so, it is submitted, amounted to non-compliance of Rule 14(2). Further argument advanced is in respect of sub-rule (6) of Rule 14, which imposes onus on the Appointing Authority to consider if any change is necessary in the select list of the Board, having regard to the character roll and personal files of the Officer concerned. It is submitted that obligation is cast on the Appointing Authority to consider the necessity of any change, if just and proper, and if any change is necessary, to inform the Board of the changes proposed. In turn, the Board, after taking into account the comments, if any, would approve the list finally with such modification. This exercise under sub-rule (6), according to Mr. Dutta, was not done despite the fact that the Appointing Authority was aware and had access to the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and the papers available in the Government File. Reliance is also placed in Rule 15 of the Rules of 2008 to question the legality of the views expressed in the Selection Committee Meetings dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014. Members constituting the Selection Board is prescribed under Rule 15. Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 15 stipulates that apart from the officers at clause 1,2,3,4 of sub-rule (1), the Board must have co-opted members in case of posts below the level of Principal. Such co-opted members, under sub-rule (2), are the Principal cum Chief Superintendent of the Medical College and a Subject Expert of the concerned discipline. Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 15 stipulates that apart from the officers at clause 1,2,3,4 of sub-rule (1), the Board must have co-opted members in case of posts below the level of Principal. Such co-opted members, under sub-rule (2), are the Principal cum Chief Superintendent of the Medical College and a Subject Expert of the concerned discipline. This point is raised for a two-fold submission. Firstly, there were no co-opted members included in the Selection Board Meeting dated 22.11.2013 and even in the next Meeting dated 9.9.2014, although the Selection Board comprised of total 10(ten) members with as many as 6 (six) co-opted members, there are no signatures of any of the co-opted members endorsing the recommendations/views of the Board. Secondly, in the absence of the co-opted member in the capacity of a Subject Expert, the Selection Board, in both the meetings, could not have concluded that there was no eligible candidate/faculty for promotion/recommendation. According to Mr. Dutta, the view expressed in the second meeting dated 9.9.2014 that a candidate is required to have 2 (two) years training in the concerned discipline, the said aspect could have been clarified if Subject Expert had been present in the panel, who could have rendered expert views as to whether the petitioner, who have rendered service for treatment of Leukaemia since 1.8.2009, can be treated as an Assistant Professor of Medical Oncology, in terms of the MCI norms under the Regulations of 1998. Mr. Dutta adds that the Oncology Department of GMCH includes both Medical Oncology and Surgical Oncology. On the above aspects, it is stated that both the selections stood vitiated and that the end averments made in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit-in-opposition do not have any legs to stand on. 8. Discriminatory actions on the part of the state respondents is also made by making illustration to the case of one Dr. Mridul Kr. Sarma, who was a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in the Oncology Department, GMCH in both the selection exercise. Whereas in the first selection dated 22.11.2013, Mr. Sarma was not considered on ground that the Selection Committee did not find any candidate eligible for promotion, however, in the subsequent selection dated 9.9.2014, his name was recommended for promotion. Similarly situated persons, albeit to two different posts in the Oncology Department of GMCH, being measured with different yardsticks, is made the basis of discrimination. Sarma was not considered on ground that the Selection Committee did not find any candidate eligible for promotion, however, in the subsequent selection dated 9.9.2014, his name was recommended for promotion. Similarly situated persons, albeit to two different posts in the Oncology Department of GMCH, being measured with different yardsticks, is made the basis of discrimination. At this stage, this Court would clarify that the ground of discriminatory action on the part of the state respondents vis-à-vis the case of Dr. Mridul Kr. Sarma is not pursued, in as much as, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner. There is no whisper to that effect in the entire pleadings. 9. On the facts above, Mr. Dutta submits that the exercise carried out for promotion was utterly mechanical and without due application of mind. Further, interference of this Court is warranted to the views expressed by the Selection Committee holding the petitioner as being not eligible for promotion, with direction to the respondents concerned to undertake a review exercise by setting aside the minutes of the Selection Committee Meetings dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 10. Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondents, makes a short and precise rebuttal. He submits that the petitioner is an Assistant Professor of Oncology. Going by the MCI norms under the Regulations of 1998, the eligibility condition with regard to teaching experience for promotion to the post of Associate Professor is that the candidate must be an Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Medical Oncology or Surgical Oncology with two years teaching experience in a recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted, that he lacks the required experience, either in Medical Oncology or in Surgical Oncology. Mr. Choudhury reiterates that the petitioner is only an Assistant Professor of Oncology and belongs to the Oncology Department of GMCH, which department does not find mention in the list of departments recognized by the MCI as a Super Speciality Department. According to Mr. Choudhury, MCI guidelines only makes reference to “Medical Oncology” and “Surgical Oncology”. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials on record. First and foremost is to understand the first requirement under the Regulations of 1998 to be eligible to be a Reader/Associate Professor. According to Mr. Choudhury, MCI guidelines only makes reference to “Medical Oncology” and “Surgical Oncology”. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials on record. First and foremost is to understand the first requirement under the Regulations of 1998 to be eligible to be a Reader/Associate Professor. GMCH has a Department of Oncology with 2 (two) sanctioned posts of Associate Professor of Oncology. Medical Oncology and Surgical Oncology are the Super Specialties professed under the said Department. The eligibility conditions takes within its fold that the aspirant to the post of Associate Professor must have teaching experience as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Medical Oncology/Surgical Oncology for 2 (two) years in a recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution. What is Medical Oncology or Surgical Oncology and the experience going with it, are not qualified in the Regulations of 1998. Nor this Court would like to venture into territories which are exclusively in the domain of subject experts/specialists. 12. Without any controversy, the petitioner has been an Assistant Professor in the Department of Oncology, GMCH since 5.8.2011 and had completed 2 (two) years in the said rank by the time the first Selection Committee Meeting had sat on 22.11.2013, not to speak of the subsequent Meeting on 9.9.2014. Also, not in dispute, on both occasions the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Associate Professor had stood for consideration. The shortcomings in the Meetings are in respect of the disregard displayed by the Appointing Authority to furnish to the Selection Committee the required documents and information necessary for the Committee/Board to reach a judicious conclusion. Shortcoming also extends to the absence of the co-opted member, in the capacity of a Subject Expert of the concerned discipline, in both the Meetings. The consequence of there being no Subject Expert in the panel of members of the Selection Board/Committee has significance and cannot be disregarded. 13. The Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department had issued the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 certifying that the period of rendering Oncological service by the petitioner, like treatment of leaukaemia etc. since 1.8.2009 stands to be counted as special training in haematology and oncology. 13. The Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department had issued the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 certifying that the period of rendering Oncological service by the petitioner, like treatment of leaukaemia etc. since 1.8.2009 stands to be counted as special training in haematology and oncology. The Annexure-8 document dated 8.1.2014 also reflects a Note of the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department, so made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, that he being related to the Super Speciality department with 2 (two) years service as Assistant Professor in the discipline concerned, makes him qualified for promotion to the next higher post of Associate Professor in the said discipline. These documents, apart from the documents in the concerned Government File at Sl. 149C to 153C, find no discussion or consideration in the Selection Committee Meetings. 14. Views expressed by the Selection Committee/Selection Board, in both the meetings dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014, are practically one and the same. It is a summary rejection by holding that there was no eligible candidate/faculty deserving recommendation for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology. Views added in the second Meeting dated 9.9.2014 is that a candidate must have 2 (two) years training in the concerned discipline in order to get promotion as per the MCI norms. Minutes of both the meetings do not disclose any reference made to the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and/or documents and information, in possession of the Health & Family Welfare (B) Department, which were required to be made available to the Selection Committee under the Rules of 2008. There is no mention/discussion of any expert opinion being taken into confidence while giving its views as to the lack of any candidate deserving recommendation for promotion. Apparently, the necessary documents and information were not furnished to it by the Appointing Authority in terms of the Rules of 2008. The requirement of 2 (two) years training, either in Medical Oncology or Surgical Oncology, is certainly a set norm of the MCI, but to impute that the petitioner did not possess the required training without even obtaining the opinion of a Subject Expert vis-à-vis the experience at his disposition, supported by the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 and the other documents and information available in the Government File, would not provide sanctity and immunity to the actions of the State Respondents. 15. 15. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 mandate the Appointing Authority to furnish to the Selection Board any other documents and information as may be considered necessary by the Appointing Authority or required by the Board. This is not just and empty formality, leaving it to the discretion of the Appointing Authority to hold back documents and information, which would otherwise go to yield transparency and fairness in action. Obligation is also cast upon the Selection Committee to rise above board and to satisfy itself that a just decision had been reached by having recourse to all documents and information necessary. That was not to be. 16. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2008, particularly sub-rule (2) thereof, envisages the presence of a co-opted member in the capacity of a Subject Expert of the discipline concerned, as part of the Selection Board. Minutes of both the meetings do not show the presence of a Subject Expert, whose opinion on the medical service rendered by the petitioner, whether it is in the nature of medical oncology or surgical oncology or none of the two, was essentially to have been obtained. There is indeed infraction of Rule 15(2) without a Subject Expert in the panel of the Selection Board in both the meetings. However, it would be inappropriate to cause interference with the recommendations made in the said meetings as because a host of other recommendations had also been made to other faculties, department-wise and rankwise, that had since been acted upon by making appointments by promotion. The discussions and findings of this Court are confined only to the case of the petitioner and none other. Prayer made in the writ petition is also to the extent of setting aside the action of the respondent authorities in denying promotion to the petitioner from his due date i.e. 20.12.2013 with further direction for considering his promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology with all retrospective benefits. 17. Turning to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent No. 1, the statements at paragraph 4 thereof to the effect that the petitioner’s case for promotion was not considered for not having diploma of 2 years training in Oncology from a recognized Medical Institute, the same do not find support from the MCI Regulations of 1998. This is a statement made out of context. This is a statement made out of context. In this respect, Rule 11(i)(ii) of the Rules of 2008 makes it amply clear that a member of the service holding the port of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale-I) is eligible for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (Senior Scale-II) in accordance with the MCI regulations. A close reading of the Regulations of 1998 do not envisage the requirement of a diploma of 2 years training, as stated in the said paragraph 4. Also, the statement at paragraph 6 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition to the effect that the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 is not a valid document as prescribed by the MCI guidelines for the purpose of promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the same do not find to reason. The MCI guidelines do not lay down any format for a Certificate to be deemed as a valid document nor the contents of the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 can be brushed under the carpet short of an opinion, as to its value, rendered by a Subject Expert. 18. The discussions above lead to the inevitable finding and decision that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology requires a re-look. Such exercise is to be made with a Subject Expert of the discipline concerned present as the co-opted member of the Selection Board. Accordingly, a direction is made to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to constitute a Selection Board in terms of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2008 for the purpose of considering the promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology and to furnish to the said Selection Board all documents and information pertaining to the petitioner in strict terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, together with the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure-3). While undertaking the exercise, the Selection Board shall not be influenced, in any manner, by the stand taken by the state respondents in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition wherein a statement is made that the Certificate dated 27.8.2012 is not a valid document. It shall be guided by the extant MCI regulations, as envisaged under clause (ii), sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of the Rules of 2008. It shall be guided by the extant MCI regulations, as envisaged under clause (ii), sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of the Rules of 2008. The entire exercise, in terms of the above, together with consequential steps that would be required to be taken by the Appointing Authority on the basis of the views/recommendation expressed by the Selection Board, be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from today. It is made clear that the prayer of the petitioner for retrospective promotion with consequential benefits stands negated. Only a fresh exercise is ordered to be taken as per directions above. Interference to the Selection Committee Meetings dated 22.11.2013 and 9.9.2014, is made only to the limited extent of the discussions and directions made above vis-à-vis the case of the petitioner alone. 19. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties are left to bear their own costs.