Judgment 1. In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks following reliefs:— (i) Writ of mandamus declaring the advertisement notice 05 of 2014 dated 14-10-2014 as illegal and unconstitutional to the extent it excludes the non-medical candidates from the zone of consideration for being considered against the post of Professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. (ii) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to effect appropriate amendment/corrigendum to the advertisement notice bearing No. 05 of 2014 dated 14-10-2014 so as to consider non-medical candidates for the post in question. (iii) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner and thereto on the basis of qualification merit and experience consider the case of the petitioner for selection/appointment as against the post of Professor in the discipline of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition briefly stated in the petition are that:— (i) The petitioner possesses the qualification of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the subject of Bio Sciences. The petitioner was engaged as a Resident in the respondent institute and continues as such from 1st October 2000 till 14th October 2015 in the Respondent Institute. The petitioner having regard to the qualification possessed, sought consideration for being appointed as against the post of “Assistant Professor” in the “Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine”. After undergoing the process of selection and thereto on account of recommendation made by the Apical Selection Committee in favour of the petitioner and on its approval under and in terms of the addendum to the Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15th October 2005, the petitioner was appointed as an “Assistant Professor” in the discipline of “Immunology and Molecular Medicine”. It is submitted that for the appointment of Assistant Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine, the medical candidate as well as non-medical candidates are eligible as per the recruitment rules and the petitioner was selected and appointed as a non-medical candidate. (ii) That with regard to the merit and suitability of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Apical Selection committee for being considered for promotion as against the post of “Associate Professor” under the Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. (ii) That with regard to the merit and suitability of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Apical Selection committee for being considered for promotion as against the post of “Associate Professor” under the Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. The Apical Selection Committee on consideration of the case of the petitioner and having regard to the experience possessed was pleased to recommend the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner thereafter having regard to the qualification possessed, experience, merit and suitability was recommended for being promoted as against the post of Additional Professor. The recommendation so made was approved by the Chairman Governing Body, SKIMS resultant thereto in issuance of Government Order No. 63-SKIMS of 2013 dated 21-08-2013 whereby amongst others sanction was accorded to the promotion of the petitioner as against the post of “Additional Professor” in the “Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine”. (iii) That the petitioner to her credit has various publications. The petitioner has duly approached in the various conferences, symposiums and workshops and also possess Research Experience. Having regard to the teaching experience possessed by the petitioner on account of having worked as against the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professor and Additional Professor read with that of the other qualification/publications credited to the petitioner the petitioner has a right of consideration for being appointed/ promoted against the post of Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. With regard to the rule position, the petitioner has a right of consideration for being promoted as against the post of professor after completing a requisite service as against the post of Additional professor. (iv) That the post of Professor as available in the department can be filled up by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. The post is to be filled up as amongst the candidates possessing medical and well as non medical educational background. Notwithstanding the requirement of rules as aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 has issued Advertisement Notice bearing 05 of 2014 dated 14-10-2014 whereby the post is sought to be filled up as amongst the candidates possessing medical qualification only. The net effect of the advertisement notice is that the petitioner is being denuded of a right of consideration for being appointed as against the post of Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine under direct recruitment quota. The net effect of the advertisement notice is that the petitioner is being denuded of a right of consideration for being appointed as against the post of Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine under direct recruitment quota. (v) That immediately after issuance of the aforesaid Advertisement notice, the petitioner filed a detailed representation requesting therein that the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement notice be amended and the post be filled up by considering the candidates who are classified as non-medical candidates. (vi) That despite representation, the respondent No. 2-Director Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Science, Soura, Srinagar has not taken any decision in the matter. On the contrary the last date of receipt of applications has expired and thereto in all probability the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2014 dated 14-10-2014, to the extent it restricts the zone of consideration for being appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine as amongst the candidate who possess medical qualification, the petitioner challenges the same on the following grounds:— (i) That the “Department of Immunology” was created and conceptualized as “Laborary Department”. The department was re-designated as that of the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine in the year 2004. Having regard to the nature of the job of the faculty of the immunology and Molecular Medicine Department the candidates possessing medical as well as non-medical qualifications are eligible for being appointed as a faculty members. In this regard it is to be submitted that at the time the post of Assistant Professor as available in the “Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine” was sought to be filled up, the respondents took up the matter with that of the AIIMS, New Delhi seeking the requisite information with regard to the qualification required for being appointed against the post. In response, the respondents were informed that though there is no post of Assistant Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine at AIIMS, the department of Transplantation Immunology and Immunogenetics exist in AIIMS and the qualification for the post as available is that of considering candidates possessing medical as well as non-medical educational background and the proof of that is the communication dated 17-08-2005. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the appointments in the department have been made as amongst the candidates possessing medical as well as non-medical educational background. Despite the position with regard to the recruitment being unambiguous, the respondent No. 2 has without any justifiable cause or reason restricted the zone of consideration to that of the candidates possessing medical background under and in terms of the advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2014 dated 14-10-2014. (ii) That the qualification as prescribed for medical candidates in the advertisement notice appears to have been transmitted from the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India prescribing the minimum qualification for teachers in medical institute as applicable to the discipline of immunology. It is submitted here that the respondents cannot take recourse under law to the “Regulations” framed for the “Department of Immunology” for the simple reason that the “Department of Immunology” is a super specialty discipline. In the present case, the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine as being operational in the respondent institute is not a super specialty department. The work in the department is restricted to that of Laboratory based diagnosis only. It is in this view of the matter that the criteria for appointment in vogue at AIIMS for appointment as against the post of Assistant Professor was made applicable by the respondents at the time the appointment by direct recruitment were made as against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. The respondents, as such, under law cannot restrict the zone of consideration to that of medical candidates only. (iii) That the post of Professor as available in the Department of Molecular medicine has been filled up by a direct recruitment by appointment of non-medical background professors namely Dr. M. Salauddin and Dr. Mushtaq Ahamd Sidiqui till the year 2012. Not only that even the AIIMS and PGI Chandigarh have filled up the post of Professor by direct recruitment as amongst the candidates possessing medical as well as non-medical qualifications. That is for the reason that he department is construed as a pre-clinical specialty and not that of a super specialty. Mushtaq Ahamd Sidiqui till the year 2012. Not only that even the AIIMS and PGI Chandigarh have filled up the post of Professor by direct recruitment as amongst the candidates possessing medical as well as non-medical qualifications. That is for the reason that he department is construed as a pre-clinical specialty and not that of a super specialty. (iv) That it appears quite ironical that a candidate is eligible for being promoted as against the post of Professor in the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine but having regard to the terms and conditions of the Advertisement Notice dated 14-10-2014, cannot be selected/appointed against the post of Professor by the direct recruitment. Such a proposition is not countenance by law. Even otherwise it looks quite unreasonable and illogical. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply in which they have stated that:— (i) As far as SKIMS is concerned, the substantive post of Professor and Assistant professor are filled under direct recruitment. The in-service faculty members of SKIMS from the level of Assistant Professor to Additional professors are elevated/promoted to next higher post/grade in terms of Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. The relevant rule position is given as under:— Direct Recruitment: The substantive post of professor and Assistant Professor are filled under direct recruitment from amongst the persons possessing requisite qualification prescribed by Medical Council of India. Promotion Scheme (under AMPS) The In-service faculty members of SKIMS (Assistant Professors and Associate professors0 with 03 years regular service and Additional Professor with 04 years besides fulfilling other requirement are considered for promotion to the grade/post of Associate Professor, Additional Professor and professor respectively on the recommendations of Apical Selection Committee. It is to be noted here that SKIMS vide Advertisement Notice 01 of 2004 dated 31-12-2004 invited application from eligible candidates for the post of Professor and Assistant professor under direct recruitment in various specialties, which included post of “Assistant professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine”. Among other petitioner Dr. Dil Aforza possessing following qualification and experience applied for the post Assistant Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine: Qualification; (i) M.Sc (Bio-science) from Jamia Milia Islamia New Delhi. (ii) Ph. D from Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi Experience: Jr. Resident (Immunology and Molecular Medicine) from 01-10-2000 till 31-12-2004. Amongst others, the candidature of Dr. Among other petitioner Dr. Dil Aforza possessing following qualification and experience applied for the post Assistant Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine: Qualification; (i) M.Sc (Bio-science) from Jamia Milia Islamia New Delhi. (ii) Ph. D from Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi Experience: Jr. Resident (Immunology and Molecular Medicine) from 01-10-2000 till 31-12-2004. Amongst others, the candidature of Dr. Dil Aforze was placed before the Apical Selection Committee with the mention that the qualification as prescribed by MCI and AIIMS, New Delhi (Medical/Non-Medical) as under: Qualification prescribed by MCI for Immunology DM (Immunology/or MD (Medicine)/MD (Pediatric)/MD (Pathology); cum – experience in a recognized Immunology Department. Qualification prescribed by AIIMS for Histocopability and Immunology Genetics For Medical candidates: (i) MBBS For Non-Medical Candidates: (ii) MD/MS in Anatomy /Biochemistry/ Microbiology/Pathology/ Immunology/Genetics. (iii) A Doctorate Degree from recognized University. The Apical Selection Committee met in August 25-29 and October 05 2005 and while assessing Dr. Dil Aforze for the post of Assistant Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine. It also needs a mention here that the Apical Selection Committee in the said meeting while taking into consideration the clarification letter from Mr. VP. Gupta, Registrar AIIMS New Delhi bearing No. F.4-1/2004-Acad-I dated September 28 204 recommended appointment of several candidate for the faculty appointment in super specialty disciplines, which includes appointment of one Dr. Baldev Singh Wazir possessing MS (General Surgery) as Professor urology. The Hon’ble Court in SWP No. 1122/2005 titled Dr. M. Saleem Wani Vs. State and Ors. quashed the appointment of Dr. Baldev Singh as professor Urology on the grounds that he does not possess the requisite qualification viz M. Ch (Urology) as prescribed by Medical Council of India. (ii) That in terms of the AMPS Rules, petitioner Dr. Dil Aforze after acquiring requisite service has been elevated/promoted to the grade/post of Associate professor and Additional Professor accordingly. (iii) it is to be submitted that as per SRO 283 dated 03-09-2009 rad with corrigendum dated 15-1-2010 the faculty shall be subjected to such recruitment/priomot9ion as well as selection process as is and shall be applicable in AIIMS New Delhi in relation to faculty positions in accordance with the norms prescribed by Medical Council of India and in view of that, the answering respondent SKIMS has prescribed the qualification for the post of Professor Immunology as per MCI norms. (iv) That the MCI has not prescribed qualification of the department of Immunology till 1995, however MCI in the year 1997 recommended the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Immunology, which has been notified by MCI and in its 1998 regulations prescribed minimum qualification for recruitment of teachers in medical institutes which included the department of Immunology. (v) That the post of Professors and Assistant Professors are filled in terms of the recruitment rules prescribed by MCI and the in service faculty members of SKIMS from the level of Assistant/Associate/Additional professors are promoted to the next higher post/grade viz Associate professors/Additional professors in terms of AMPS Rules. 5. Respondent No. 3 has also filed her reply in which she has stated that:— (i) The petitioner who seeks promotion on the post as such can be considered for the same by the department under AMPS scheme as and when she is eligible for the same otherwise mere appointment of the petitioner in the “Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine” of the institute which was ab-initio illegal and dehors to rules will not vest with her any right to be considered for the post of Professor when she lacks the qualification eligibility for the same set out in the MCI Rules which is the admitted position in the subject matter. (ii) That the answering respondent herein who is substantively holding the post of additional professor in the department of immunology and Molecular Medicine in the respondent department possessing the requisite qualification and experience which is prescribed under the MCI Rules for the post of professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine which qualification and experience has been shown in the advertisement notice dated 14-10-2014 by the respondent institute applied within time for the said post in response to the supra advertisement notice. It is apt to mention here that the answering respondent herein is the only candidate who has applied for the said post within the cut of date possessing the requisite qualification and experience as per the supra advertisement notice and was sure to be considered for the said post by selection committee. It is apt to mention here that the answering respondent herein is the only candidate who has applied for the said post within the cut of date possessing the requisite qualification and experience as per the supra advertisement notice and was sure to be considered for the said post by selection committee. (iii) That before the respondents could have initiated the interview process for the above advertised post of Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine by following the MCI Rules as well as the recruitment rules of the respondent Institute by considering the answering respondent for the same, the petitioner in the above titled writ petition on mere surmise and conjectures admittedly lacking eligibility of qualification as well as experience as prescribed under the supra advertisement notice assailed the same through the above writ petition by halting the whole selection process which action of the petitioner has not only deprived the answering respondent being considered for the said post but have also unnecessarily delayed the whole selection process for the said post from last six months without any reasons or justification. 6. The writ petition was admitted on 02-06-2015. The respondent No. 1 and 2 had treated the reply as counter affidavit. The respondent No. 3 has fled the counter affidavit wherein it is stated:— (i) That the petitioner was not eligible and entitled to apply for the post of Assistant Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine. She as well as the answering respondent applied for the said post. There were also many other candidates who had applied for various other posts in different disciplines. It was, however vide Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005 that sanction was accorded to the appointment of 11 doctors in different disciplines of SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar. The answering respondent, on the recommendations of the Apical Selection Committee was also selected for the post of Assistant professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine and she figured in the said order at serial No. 02. The order dated 15-10-2005 would show that the petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine. It is however vide order dated 02-11-2005 that it was directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have figured for appointment as Assistant Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine in the pay scale of Rs. 11625-325-15200 at serial No. 03 in the government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005. It is however vide order dated 02-11-2005 that it was directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have figured for appointment as Assistant Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine in the pay scale of Rs. 11625-325-15200 at serial No. 03 in the government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005. In the order dated 15-10-2005, the answering respondent figured at serial No. 02 in order of merit. The order dated 15-10-2005 seems to have been issued just to accommodate the petitioner on the post of Assistant professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine, in disregarded of the fact that she did not possess the eligibility or qualification prescribed for the post. (ii) That the petitioner as well as the answering respondent were promoted to the post of Additional Professor Government Order dated 21-08-2013 under AMPs in which petitioner figured in the said order at serial No. 14 and the answering respondent figured at serial No. 09 which shows that answering respondent was ahead in merit than the petitioner. (iii) That the petitioner does not possess the eligibility and qualification prescribed for the post of Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine, therefore she has no right to seek her selection and appointment for the post. (iv) That in terms of the advertisement Notice dated 14-10-2014 the post of Professor immunology and Molecular Medicine is to be filled through direct recruitment. In the advertisement notice it is nowhere mentioned that the qualification prescribed for the post of professor is for the candidates possessing both medical and non medical educational background. (v) That the application filed by the petitioner has been examined by the official respondents and it has been found that as the post of Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine is to be filled from amongst persons possessing the qualifications as per the Medical Council of India Regulations and the post was also advertised with the same qualification and experience and as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and experience therefore the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the official respondents. (vi) That the petitioner has been selected and appointed against the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine in violation of law because the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine by the MCI were not possessed by her. (vi) That the petitioner has been selected and appointed against the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine in violation of law because the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine by the MCI were not possessed by her. The communication dated 17-08-2005 of Registrar AIIMS cannot supersede the qualification prescribed the Medical Council of India for the post of Assistant professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine. (vii) That the appointment of Dr. M. Salauddina and Dr. Mushtaq Ahamd Sidiqui cannot be cited as precedent by the petitioner for her appointment against the post of Professor. It is further submitted that the MCI has not prescribed qualification for the “Department of Immunology till 1995”. It was in the year 1997 that the MCI prescribed the eligibility and qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine which have been notified by the MCI in terms of the Regulations of 1998 prescribing minimum qualification for recruitment of teachers in the medical instituted which includes the department of Immunology as well. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit wherein it is stated: (i) That in order to adjudicate upon the question, reflected herein above, some facts, relevant and material, need to be submitted for appreciation of this Court viz. (a) Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura (SKIMS in short) a hospital was established as a trust; however it is authorized to grant degrees by virtue of Sheri Kashmir institute of Medical Sciences (Grant of Degrees) Act, 1983. (b) SKIMS is now a tertiary hospital and a university recognized under Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short “UGC Act”). The SKIMS, thus, being a university grants degrees both Medical as well as Non Medical. (c) SKIMS has many faculties broadly classified as Medicine and Allied; Other; Supportive Service and Surgery and Allied. The Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine falls under the category of “other departments” and provides routine and advanced laboratory services to the patients and also awards degrees in M.Sc; MLT&Phd on its academic side. The department does not grant any medical Degree requiring MCI recognition. The department, it may be submitted does not require and is, not, therefore, recognized by MCI. The department does not grant any medical Degree requiring MCI recognition. The department, it may be submitted does not require and is, not, therefore, recognized by MCI. (d) SKIMS has been appointing teaching faculty to the department of immunology and Molecular Medicine both from Medical and Non Medical candidates. The advertisement notification including the one under which the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed as Assistant Professor, is enclosed herewith this rejoinder as R3 elucidating the fact that both Medical and Non Medical candidates were made eligible for appointed in the department. Appointees, both Medical and Non Medical wer, thereafter promoted to the higher positions as Associate professor and Additional Professors on the basis of seniority. It goes well to submit that both petitioners as well as respondent No. 3 are presently holding the post of Additional Professor in the department and through a mode of promotion can be appointed to the post of Professor. (e) The only post of professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine has been held by one Professor Musthaq Sidiqui, one Prof. Salah-ud-din both being Non Medical candidate. It may be interesting to note that at the present the post of Professor in the department is held by Zaffar A. Shah one of three the first two were appointed through selection on open. Post and other one through selection on open post and other one through promotion. All that three incumbents were only Ph. D’s none of them had Medical Degree. It was therefore never a case of the department being falling under MCI regulations. The impugned notification is issued only to non suit the petitioner and adjust the respondent No. 3 on the said post, therefore impugned advertisement especially prescription of qualification therein smacks of arbitrariness and malafides. (f) The SKIMS is a university and the department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine is a non medical department therefore the department ought to be governed by University Grants Commission (Minimum qualification for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Means for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)Regulations 2009 (hereinafter called UGC Regulations) but not under Minimum qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998. (g) In terms of the UGC Regulations Qualifications of Ph. (g) In terms of the UGC Regulations Qualifications of Ph. D is a compulsory requirement with at least 10 publications and/ or research/policy papers in indexed/ISBN/ISSN numbered journals and with 10 years teaching experience. Respondent No. 3 in all such parameters is not at all eligible for the said post of Professor. (h) The expert in the Selection Committee that took the instant selection process namely Sunil Arora, PGI Chandigarh is also Ph. D in Non-Medical Subject. (ii) Respondent No. 3 does not fulfil the eligibility qualification prescribed in the impugned notification. The said respondent being M.D (Microbiology) does not require two years special training in Immunology in recognized institution. The respondent No. 3 lacks this basic qualification Neither has she obtained such a special training in immunology nor is Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine, SKIMS recognized by MCI. (iii) Petitioner also feels it appropriate to submit that the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine in SKIMS is not a super specialty department. It does not fulfill the criteria of being a super specialty department. AS already submitted, Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine SKIMS provides routine and advanced laboratory services to the patients and also awards degrees in MSc; MLT and Phd on its academic side. The department does not grant any Medical degree in super specialty requiring MCI recognition. (iv) The advertisement notification is illegal by dint of inconsistency it is fraught with vis a vis Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations 1998. It would be suffice if appreciated that the advertisement skips requisite qualification Non Medical Candidate altogether and makes mention of requisite qualification for Medical candidate only thus illegally excludes the Non Medical candidates. The advertisement Notification is tailor made only to accommodate respondent No. 3 and exclude petitioner from the zoon of consideration. The impugned Advertisement notification is therefore arbitrary and violate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (v) The selection Committee is wrongly constituted. The Expert did not possess any medical degree but was Ph.D in Non Medical Subject. (vi) Respondent No. 3 is simple post graduate i.e. M. D. (Microbiology) while as petitioner possesses Doctoral Degree. Petitioner alone is competent under law to guide Research Scholars, students in the pursuit of awarding of degree of M. SC and Ph.D by the department. On the contrary respondent No. 3 is incompetent to teach/guide research scholars pursing doctoral courses. (vi) Respondent No. 3 is simple post graduate i.e. M. D. (Microbiology) while as petitioner possesses Doctoral Degree. Petitioner alone is competent under law to guide Research Scholars, students in the pursuit of awarding of degree of M. SC and Ph.D by the department. On the contrary respondent No. 3 is incompetent to teach/guide research scholars pursing doctoral courses. (vii) That whole selection process was conducted by respondents in a complete biased manner. The respondents have shown resentment while entertaining the candidature of the petitioner after t his Hon’ble Court passed an ad interim direction dated 02-06-2015 the interview committee did not exhibit real and apparent bias while conducting viva voice of the petitioner. After the interview was over by the expert expressly stated that he was under instructions from Director to award fewer marks to the petitioner than respondent No. 3. Though the petitioner performed exceedingly well in the interview, but she apprehends that she has been awarded fewer marks than the respondent No. 3 in viva voice. 8. Petitioner filed application for impleading Dr. Shwokat Ali Zargar, Director SKIMS and professor Sunil Arora PGI Chandigarh and this Court vide order dated 14-07-2015 allowed the application and respondents were given liberty to file objections. Respondent No. 3 filed the objections wherein it is stated as under:— (i) That the petitioner has stated in the application that she has already filed rejoinder affidavit to the reply filed by the official respondents as well as private respondents had has pleaded bias in the hands of interview committee especially Expert and Director. She has not however indicated in the application as to what kind of bias the Director or the expert had against the petitioner. The answering respondent has been interviewed pursuant to orders of t his Court and the result of the interview is not as yet known though it has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 20-07-2015. The application has been filed only to prolong the disposal of the writ petition, as such same deserves to be dismissed. 9. Reply has also been filed by the impleaded respondent Dr. Sunil Arora, PGI MER Chandigarh wherein he stated that:— (i) The impleaded respondent received the copy of the notice in the application (for 28-07-2015 N/03-08-2015 C) vide registered post on 05-08-2015 at Chandigarh. 9. Reply has also been filed by the impleaded respondent Dr. Sunil Arora, PGI MER Chandigarh wherein he stated that:— (i) The impleaded respondent received the copy of the notice in the application (for 28-07-2015 N/03-08-2015 C) vide registered post on 05-08-2015 at Chandigarh. Since the copy of notice itself was received after the date fixed before this Hon’ble Court, hence the instant reply could not be filed earlier. (ii) That the allegations levelled in the application with regard to the conduct of the interview in biased manner are baseless, wrong and hence vehemently denied. (iii) That as far as the impleaded respondent is concerned, the interview in question was conducted in a most fair and impartial manner and the marks in the interview were awarded purely on the basis of performance of the candidate during the interview. That all the members of the interview board present at the time of interview unanimously agreed and signed the score sheet of the candidates. 10. Petitioner has also filed application for bringing on record certain additional documents. Respondent No. 3 has filed objections to that application wherein it is stated that:— i. That the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner before the Hon’ble court has no relevance for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has passed the Masters of Science examination of the Jamia Millia Islamia held in the year 1992 in Bio-Science. She has also got the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D) from Jamia Millia Islamia in the subject of Bio-Sciences,. In that view of the matter, she was not eligible and entitled to be appointed as Assistant Professor in Immunology and Molecular Medicines. She however managed her appointment as such, in terms of order dated 20.11.2005. ii. That it is relevant to mention here that in terms of advertisement notification dated 31.12.2004, candidates seeking consideration against the post of Assistant Professor had to possess Post Graduate Qualification i.e, Master’s Degree in the discipline/allied subject and a Doctorate Degree of a recognized university. She however managed her appointment as such, in terms of order dated 20.11.2005. ii. That it is relevant to mention here that in terms of advertisement notification dated 31.12.2004, candidates seeking consideration against the post of Assistant Professor had to possess Post Graduate Qualification i.e, Master’s Degree in the discipline/allied subject and a Doctorate Degree of a recognized university. M. SC Bio Science is not a Master’s degree in the discipline /allied subject in so far as the post of Assistant Professor in Immunology and Molecular Medicine is concerned, in that view of the matter, the petitioner was not eligible or entitled to apply against the post of Assistant Professor in response to the advertisement notice dated 31.12.2004. She however not only applied for the post but got selected and appointed in terms of order dated 20.11.2005 which order at the fact of it has been conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit. The writ petition filed by the petitioner for seeking her consideration against the post of Professor in Immunology and Molecular Medicine, is not therefore maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. iii. That after 2005, the respondents have issued advertisement notice No. 04 of 2009 dated 25.6.2009 and advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2012 dated 08.08.2012 with regard to the filling of the posts of Assistant Professor and Professor in the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. In both the advertisement notices, he has been stated that the qualification, essential for non-medical candidates (wherever required) should be Post Graduate qualification i.e,. Master’s Degree in the discipline/allied subject as specified by Medical Council of India for teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations for various specialties and a Doctorate Degree as a specified by MCI for teachers in Medical Institution Regulations for various specialties. In the advertisement notice dated 25.6.2009 it has been stated that the candidate seeking consideration against the post of Assistant Professor, from amongst the non-medical candidates, wherever required, should possess PG qualification i.e, Master’s Degree in the discipline/allied subject as specified by MCI for teachers in Medical Institution Regulation for various specialties. In terms of the advertisement Notice dated 08.08.2012, applications have been invited for filling the posts of Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine, and it has been stated that the candidates should possess M. D (Immunology)/M.D (Medicine) or M. D (Pathology) or MD (Microbiology) or M. D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in immunology. In terms of the advertisement Notice dated 08.08.2012, applications have been invited for filling the posts of Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine, and it has been stated that the candidates should possess M. D (Immunology)/M.D (Medicine) or M. D (Pathology) or MD (Microbiology) or M. D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in immunology. IN response to the advertisement Notice dated 08.08.2012 alongwith the recommendation of the screening committee. The petitioner does not possess the qualification required for the post of Professor as such on the analogy of Dr. Shah Zaffar Amin her candidature has very rightly been rejected. iv. That the advertisement Notice dated 05.09.2016 which has been placed by the petitioner on record, also shows that a candidate seeking condonation against the post of Assistant Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine, from amongst the non-medical candidates, should possess M SC Molecular Medicine/M. Sc Bio-Technology/related fields with Ph. D. The petitioner who belongs to the non-,medical category cannot claim that she possess the qualifications prescribed by the advertisement notice dated 05.09.2016 because she has passed M. SC in Bio Science and has also obtained Ph. D degree in the same subject viz Bio-Sciences. Her claim that she should be considered against the advertisement notice dated 14.10.2014 is therefore manifestly erroneous and consequently the writ petition filed by her deserves to be dismissed. v. That it is well settled proposition of law that if a wrong is committed by any authority, it cannot be repeated again. The petitioner was wrongly appointed against the post of assistant Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine on 20.11.2005. She cannot therefore on account of having been appointed as Assistant Professor on 20.11.2005 in violation of Rules and Regulations, claim that she should be considered for the post of Professor Immunology and Molecular Medicine and she be allowed to compete in the process of selection initiated in terms of advertisement notice date 14.10.2014. in that view of the matter also, the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. vi. That the Medical Council of India, has prescribed the following qualification for the post of Professor in Immunology M. D (Immunology)/M.D (Medicine) or M. D. (Pathology) Or M. D (Microbiology) Or M.D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in Immunology. in that view of the matter also, the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. vi. That the Medical Council of India, has prescribed the following qualification for the post of Professor in Immunology M. D (Immunology)/M.D (Medicine) or M. D. (Pathology) Or M. D (Microbiology) Or M.D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in Immunology. The petitioner does not possess any of the qualifications, prescribed by the Medical Council of India and therefore, she cannot claim that she should be also considered for the post of Professor in the process initiated in terms of the advertisement notice dated 14.10.2014. 11. The petitioner has annexed with the petition following documents:— (a) Copy of the order dated 15th October 2005 whereby petitioner was appointed as an Assistant professor in the discipline of Immunology and Molecular Medicine. (b) Copy of the order dated 21-08-2013 whereby amongst others petitioner was also promoted as Additional Professor under AMPS. (c) Copy of the credentials possessed by the petitioner in the form of curriculum vitae. (d) Copy of the Advertisement Notice dated 14-10-2014 whereby post of Professor in the field of Immunology and Molecular medicine under Direct Recruitment in SKIMS was advertised. (e) Copy of the representation dated 16-10-2014 whereby eligibility criteria as prescribed under advertisement notice was sought to be amended. (f) Copy of the communication addressed by Registrar, AIIMS New Delhi to Administrative officer SKIMS, Srinagar. 12. The respondent No.3 who has filed reply as said above has annexed following documents:— (i) Copy of extract of Rule of SKIMS whereby amongst others rule position fore the post of Professor is also mentioned. (ii) Copy of the MD Certificate of respondent No. 3. (iii) Copy of the Certificate of Senior Residency dated 06-05-2006 of respondent No. 3 given by Director SKIMS. (iv) Copy of the experience certificate of respondent No.3 dated 21-10-2014 (v) Copy of the Attendance register of Sopore Public School where amongst others name of respondent No. 8 is shown. 13. The petitioner who has filed rejoinder as stated above has annexed following documents with it: (i) Copy of the Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005 for appointment of faculty in SKIMS. (ii) Copy of the Addendum to Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005. 13. The petitioner who has filed rejoinder as stated above has annexed following documents with it: (i) Copy of the Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005 for appointment of faculty in SKIMS. (ii) Copy of the Addendum to Government Order No. 40-SKIMS of 2005 dated 15-10-2005. (iii) Copy of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 dated 31st December 2004 whereby posts of Professor and Assistant Professor were invited by SKIMS. (iv) Copy of the Advertisement No. 02 of 2006 dated 31st May 2006 whereby posts of Professor and Assistant Professor were invited by SKIMS. (v) Copy of the Advertisement No. 02 of 2007 dated 06th October 2007 whereby posts of Professor and Assistant Professor were invited by SKIMS. (vi) Copy of the publication dated Nil whereby petitioner is executive Member of Indian Immunology Society and has numerous research works to her credit. 14. The respondent No. 3 has filed objections to the application filed by the petitioner for placing additional documents on record wherein she has annexed following documents: (i) `Copy of certificate No. 910972 issued to petitioner by Jamia Milia Islamia. (ii) Copy of the Advertisement No. 04 of 2009 dated 25th June 2009 whereby amongst other posts post of Assistant Professor were invited by SKIMS. (iii) Copy of the Advertisement No. 14 of 2012 dated 8th August 2012 whereby amongst other posts post of Professor were invited by SKIMS. (iv) Copy of the recommendation of the Screening Committee (2012-2013.) 15. The petitioner has filed application to bring on record certain documents which includes:— (i) Copy of the Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2016.dated 5th September 2016 whereby various posts were advertised by SKIMS. (ii) Copy of the Advertisement Notice No. 02 2016. whereby various posts were advertised by SKIMS. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very prelude has made reference of “Annexure D” of the petition wherein essential qualification for direct recruitment of the post of Professor is specified and the candidature is restricted to medical candidate. Qualification is prescribed as:— Qualification Essential for Medical Candidates: D. M (Immunology) M. d (Medicine) or M. D (Pathology) or M. D. (Microbiology) or M. D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in immunology Experience required in terms of the advertisement notice is contended to be in breach of MCI norms. Qualification is prescribed as:— Qualification Essential for Medical Candidates: D. M (Immunology) M. d (Medicine) or M. D (Pathology) or M. D. (Microbiology) or M. D (Pediatrics) with two years special training in immunology Experience required in terms of the advertisement notice is contended to be in breach of MCI norms. Non-medical stream having been kept out of the consideration zone in terms of the said notification according to him is not countenanced by law according to him. Further according to him it would be irrational to allow a candidate to be promoted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor while belonging to a non-medical stream but when the post is filled through direct recruitment, the eligibility criteria and the qualification so prescribed would be scrapped. The Advertisement notices No. 01 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004, 02 of 2006 dated 31.5.2006 and 02 of 2007 dated 06.10.2007 with regard to post of Professor did not exclude non-medical candidates from applying for the post of Professor. Reference in this regard has been made to said notices as:— Advertisement Notice dated 31.12.2004 .........Qualification-Essential for Non-Medical candidate i. Post graduate qualification e.g. Master’s Degree in the discipline/Allied subject. ii. A Doctorate Degree of a recognized University Experience – Essential for Non-Medical Candidates: 14 years teaching and/or research experience in a discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree. Advertisement Notice dated 31.5.2006: ...............Qualification-Essential for Non-Medical candidates (wherever required):— (i) Post Graduate qualification e.g. Master’s Degree in the discipline/Allied subject. (ii) A Doctorate Degree of a recognized University. Experience – Essential for Non-Medical Candidates: 14 years teaching and/or research experience in a discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree. Advertisement Notice dated 06.10.2007 ...............Qualification-Essential for Non-Medical Candidates (wherever required) 1. Post graduate qualification e.g. Master’s Degree in the Discipline/Allied subject as specified by Medical Council of India for teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations for various specialties. 2. A Doctorate Degree of a recognized University. Experience – Essential for Non-Medical Candidates: 14 years teaching and/or research experience in a discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree. 18. The argument has been put forth to canvass that the qualification prescribed in terms of the impugned order was tailor made to accommodate a person of their choice by the respondents. Same is without any legal basis. Experience – Essential for Non-Medical Candidates: 14 years teaching and/or research experience in a discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree. 18. The argument has been put forth to canvass that the qualification prescribed in terms of the impugned order was tailor made to accommodate a person of their choice by the respondents. Same is without any legal basis. It is being specifically contended that the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Science, Soura (for short SKIMS hereinafter) being a University due to awarding of degrees in various disciplines, is to be governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations/ norms, instead of Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations/norms viz-a-viz appointment of Professor in the relevant disciplines by direct recruitment. The course adopted by the SKIMS according to him is thus ultra vires to basic Statute. Explaining the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine is not a medical faculty but a clinical laboratory. MCI according to him does not recognize the department. Previous instances referred also in the petition of holding the post of Professor is of Dr. M. Salauddin, Dr. Mushtaq Ahamd Sidiqui and Dr. Zafar Shah Amin from non-medical stream according to him. Respondent No. 3 according to him does not possess the special training which is required for holding assignment and discharge of duties connected therewith. Petitioner has qualification of “Doctorate” in the concerned subject whereas the respondent No. 3 is not so is also being canvassed. MCH or DM can be treated to be super specialty but not the PhD which clearly indicate that the norms which have to be adopted under law should not exclude the non-medical candidates. Respondent Institute having not traversed the allegations levelled against the experts the court is required to take same true and declare appointment made illegal, is also being submitted. 19. Mr. Shah Amir, learned AAG submits that the allegations levelled against the expert has been already negated in terms of the affidavit filed by respondents. It is emphatically stated by the said expert that the accusation of the favour made in favour of a particular candidate was uncalled and no advice or assertion, like this was made by the Director of the Institute. It is emphatically stated by the said expert that the accusation of the favour made in favour of a particular candidate was uncalled and no advice or assertion, like this was made by the Director of the Institute. It is also being stated that the Court is required to take note of the fact that there are various positons prior to the holding of the post of Professor by the candidates which include Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. Right of consideration would accordingly accrue in favour of the candidate who have required eligibility according to the norms fixed by the SKIMS in terms of the relevant statute. The statute does not insist on the length of the service, it rather says that the candidates who have held the post of Associate Professor for a period of four years. In light of the pleadings on record, the petition is to be considered and rejoinder filed has to be ignored. A plea which was not been raised in terms of the writ petition cannot be considered according to him. Furthermore, it is being submitted that the rejoinder is needed to be submitted to explain the things and the points raised in terms of the counter and an additional ground intended to be relied for grant of relief would require the amendment to be sought, for which the leave is necessitated to be prayed to be granted. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also submitted that a new case has been put forth in terms of the rejoinder which is not warranted under law. In this regard he take reliance on the judgment of this in case titled Mohd. Tufail & anr. Vs. State of J&K and Ors. 2014 (2) JKJ 409 [HC]. It would be quite appropriate to quote para 8 (c) of the said judgment as:— “The stand taken by the appellants in the rejoinder affidavit cannot come basis to mould relief in their favour, inasmuch as, no such pleas were taken in the writ petition and a new case was set up in the rejoinder affidavit. Respondents had thus no opportunity to meet the new case set up by the appellants. In the writ petition, petitioners have to plead the facts and annex evidence therewith. Respondents had thus no opportunity to meet the new case set up by the appellants. In the writ petition, petitioners have to plead the facts and annex evidence therewith. The appellants in this case should have amended the writ petition, if they had to plead further facts so as to enable the respondents to take a stand. The pleas taken in the rejoinder affidavit thus could not be considered by the writ Court and for same reasoning cannot be considered by this Bench also. 21. It would be only a plea which the respondents would have opportunity to rebut which court has to take into consideration in considering the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled J. Ranga Swamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 535 learned counsel submits that in para 6 of the judgment it is enunciated that it would not be for the court to assess the comparative merit of the candidates and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. It was observed by their Lordship in the judgment that if so advised, the petitioner may move the college, university, Government, Indian Medical Council or other appropriate authorities for a review of the prescribed qualifications. It would be proper to have glance of the relevant extract of the judgment as:— “So far as the second plea is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner does not have, while the respondent has, a doctorate in nuclear physics. The plea of the petitioner is that, for efficient discharge of the duties of the post in question, the diploma in radiological physics (as applied in Medicine) from the Bhabha Atomic Research center (BARC) held by him is more relevant than a doctorate in nuclear physics. It is submitted that in all corresponding posts elsewhere, a diploma in radiological physics is insisted upon and that, even in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all other physicists working in the line, except the respondent, have the diploma of the BARC. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefor is nothing unusual. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefor is nothing unusual. Petitioner also stated before us that, to the best of his knowledge, there is no doctorate course anywhere in India in radiological physics. That is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclear physics has been prescribed. There is nothing prima facie preposterous about this requirement. It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. It will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to move the college, university, Government, Indian Medical Council or other appropriate authorities for a review of the prescribed qualifications and we hope that, if a doctorate in nuclear physics is so absolutely irrelevant for the post in question as is sought to be made out by the petitioner, the authorities concerned will take expeditious steps to revise the necessary qualifications needed for the post appropriately. But, on the qualifications as they stand today, the petitioner is not eligible to the post and cannot legitimately complain against his non-selection. In one of the petitions decided by their Lordship covered by judgment, the petitioner had requested the Tribunal to declare the action of the State of Andhra Pradesh in "isolating and framing the rules for the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics and converting the non-gazetted post held by the 4th respondent, Shri D.K. Subranmanyam Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'), as gazetted and in appointing the 4th respondent to the said post as bad"; The other (R.P. 69/84) contained a prayer to declare the Government order by which the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics at the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, was upgraded to that of Professor of Radiological Physics and G.O. Ms. No. 651 dated 20.10.83, promoting the 3rd respondent (respondent 4 in the earlier petition) as Professor in Radiological Physics as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Tribunal discussed the various points raised by petitioner but ultimately disposed of both petitions with certain directions regarding the regularisation of and the grant of certain allowances to the petitioner. This was on 23rd April, 1984. No. 651 dated 20.10.83, promoting the 3rd respondent (respondent 4 in the earlier petition) as Professor in Radiological Physics as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Tribunal discussed the various points raised by petitioner but ultimately disposed of both petitions with certain directions regarding the regularisation of and the grant of certain allowances to the petitioner. This was on 23rd April, 1984. A review petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner (No. 607/84), which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24.12.84. 22. The appointment of Dr. M. Salauddin, Dr. Mushtaq Ahamd Sidiqui and Dr. Zafar Shah Amin had not been made viz-a-viz direct quota and so the analogy would not be applicable according to Mr. Qayoom. The petitioner would have no entitlement to be considered for the post as she has not submitted her candidature is also submitted. Order of rejection of her continuation has not been challenged by her. He in this regard has referred to Annexure R-1 and contended that the petitioner cannot take benefit of the order passed on 2nd June 2015 by this Court and claim entitlement to the post of Professor. “Match Patch Theory” would not be applicable to bring the petitioner within the zone of consideration is also stated. Expert committee has its own job and it is not for the court to evaluate what has been done by the experts. In this regard reliance has been placed on case titled Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others AIR 1999 SC 2894 . 23. Continuing with his arguments, he contended that the State Government/ University/SKIMS cannot make a rule which will run contrary to the regulations framed by the MCI. He in this regard has made reference of the judgment of this Court in case titled Dr. Baldev Singh Wazir Vs. Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura Sgr. And Ors. S.L. J 2013 403. Paras 8, 18 and 46 are relevant to be quoted hereunder:— “Para 8. He in this regard has made reference of the judgment of this Court in case titled Dr. Baldev Singh Wazir Vs. Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura Sgr. And Ors. S.L. J 2013 403. Paras 8, 18 and 46 are relevant to be quoted hereunder:— “Para 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.2.2013 passed by the learned writ court in SWP No. 2521/2011 would show that the learned Writ Court, while taking up the question as regards appellant’s eligibility for the post of Professor of Urology, has taken the view that in terms of Schedule-II to the “the Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” (for short MCI Regulations of 1998) issued by the Medical Council of India, the qualification for the post of Professor of Urology is M.Ch. (Urology), the MCI Regulations have overriding effect on any law, Rules, Regulations or Government instructions made by the State Government on the subject land, and, therefore, the appellant does not have the qualification prescribed under the MCI Regulations for the post of Professor of urology as he admittedly was not having M. Ch. (Urology) degree to his credit. Not only that, learned Writ court also observed that the appellant was appointed as Assistant professor/ Associate Professor in General Surgery so he in these circumstances did not possess the requisite experience too for the post of Professor of urology.” Para 18: “We have gone through the impugned judgment and could not persuade ourselves to disagree with the finding recorded by the learned Writ Court as regards supremacy of the MCI Regulations, 1998 over the Rules of 2000 relied upon by the appellant. Having viewed so, we are equally not persuaded to disagree with the view t5aken by the learned Writ Court that appellant, as he is not M. Ch. In Urology, does not possess the qualification prescribed under MCI Regulations for the post of Professor of urology”. Para 46: “To say at the cost of repetition, material on the record would show and it is not disputed that the appellant all through his career in the respondent-Institute has rendered valuable contributions in the Department of Urology, while being a member of the faculty of the General Surgery. This had been the stand taken by the Institute in its reply to SWP No. 112/2005. This had been the stand taken by the Institute in its reply to SWP No. 112/2005. But the contribution, howsoever timely and valuable cannot be substitute for eligible for appointment to a post.” 24. In rebuttal Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Dr. Baldev Singh’s case would not be attracted in the matter. Affidavit filed by the SKIMS that it is a “super specialty”, has to be considered in light of the submissions made in the petition and rejoinder. It is a non-medical department according to him and this qualification was prescribed only in the year 2014 which smacks malafides and bias on the part of the respondents according to him. MCI according to him prescribed qualification for the Department of “Immunology” and not for super specialty referred by the respondents. Subsequent events ought to be considered by the court while granting relief is being also put forth by Mr. Azhar while relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Rameshwar and Others Vs. Jot Ram and Others 1976 1 SCC 194 . It would be proper to reproduce para 9 of the judgment as under:— “The impact of subsequent happenings may now be spelt out. First, its bearing on the right of action, second, on the nature of the relief and third, on its importance to create or destroy substantive rights. Where the nature of the relief as originally sought, has become obsolete or unserviceable or a new form of relief will be more efficacious on account of developments subsequent to the suit or even during the appellate stage, it is but fair that the relief is moulded, varied or re-shaped in the light of dated facts. Patterson(4) illustrates this position. It is important that the party claiming the relief or change of relief must have the same right from which either the first or the modified remedy may flow. Subsequent events in the course of the case cannot be constitutive of substantive rights enforceable in that very litigation except in a narrow category (later spelt out) but may influence the equitable jurisdiction to mould reliefs. Conversely, where rights have already vested in a party, they cannot be nullified or negated by subsequent events save where there is a change in the law and it is made applicable at any stage. Conversely, where rights have already vested in a party, they cannot be nullified or negated by subsequent events save where there is a change in the law and it is made applicable at any stage. Lachmeshwar Prasad Shuku v. Keswar Lal Chaudhuri(1) falls in this category. Courts of justice may, when the compelling equities of a case oblige them, shape reliefs cannot rights- to make them justly relevant in the updated circumstances. Where the relief is discretionary, courts may exercise this jurisdiction to avoid injustice. Likewise, where the right to the remedy depends, under the statute itself, on the presence or absence of certain basic facts at the time the relief is to in ultimately granted, the Court, even in appeal, can take note of such supervening facts with fundamental impact. Venkateswarlu (supra), read in its statutory setting, falls in this category. Where a cause o action is deficient but later events have made up the deficiency, the Court may, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, permit amendment and continue the proceeding, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. All these are done only in exceptional situations and just cannot be done if the statute, on which the legal proceeding is based, inhibits, by its scheme or otherwise, such change in cause of action or relief. The primary concern of the court is to implement the justice of the legislation. Rights vested by virtue of a statute cannot be divested by this equitable doctrine (See Chokalingam Chetty: 54 Mad.L.J. 88 P.C.). The law stated in Ramji Lal v. the State of Punjab (2) is sound:— “Courts do very often take notice of events that happen. The primary concern of the court is to implement the justice of the legislation. Rights vested by virtue of a statute cannot be divested by this equitable doctrine (See Chokalingam Chetty: 54 Mad.L.J. 88 P.C.). The law stated in Ramji Lal v. the State of Punjab (2) is sound:— “Courts do very often take notice of events that happen. subsequent to the filing of suits and at times even those that have occurred during the appellate stage and permit pleadings to be amended for including a prayer for relief on the basis of such events but this is ordinarily done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or when the original relief claimed has, by reason of change in the circumstances, become inappropriate and not when the plaintiff's suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment (see Steward v. The North Metropolitan Tramways Company (1885) 16 Q.B.D. 178) and a fresh suit by him would be so barred by limitation.” One may as well add that while taking cautious judicial cognizance of 'post-natal' events, even for the limited and exceptional purposes explained earlier, no court will countenance a party altering, by his own manipulation. a change in situation and plead for relief on the altered basis. 25. Item No. 28 of the page 24 of additional document issued by All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi which is under the nomenclature of “Assistant Professor of Transplant Immunology and Immunogenetics” provides the eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant professor in the discipline of Immunology. Same is reproduced below:— 28. Assistant Professor of Transplant Immunology and Immunogenetics Essential Qualification for Medical Candidates (i) M.B.B.S (ii) A post graduate qualification i.e. M.D/M.S in Anatomy/Biochemistry/Microbiology/Pathology/Immunology Genetics (iii) Three years teaching and/or research experience in as recognized institution in the subject of specialty after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS in Anatomy/Biochemistry /Microbiology /Pathology/Immunology/Genetics or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto. For Non-Medical Candidates (i) A postgraduate qualification, i.e. Master Degree in the discipline of Anatomy/ Biochemistry/ Microbiology/ Pathology/Immunology or Genetics. (ii) A Doctorate Degree of a recognized University. (iii) Three years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree or qualification recognized equivalent thereto. 26. Considered the rival arguments. 27. For Non-Medical Candidates (i) A postgraduate qualification, i.e. Master Degree in the discipline of Anatomy/ Biochemistry/ Microbiology/ Pathology/Immunology or Genetics. (ii) A Doctorate Degree of a recognized University. (iii) Three years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the discipline/subject concerned after obtaining the Doctorate Degree or qualification recognized equivalent thereto. 26. Considered the rival arguments. 27. It requires to be noted here that in the petition filed, the relief has been claimed for issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the advertisement Notice 05 of 2014 dated October 14, 2014 as illegal and unconstitutional to the extent of exclusion of the non-medical candidates, from zone of consideration, for the post of Professor in the “Department of Immunology and Molecular Medicine”. Rule or regulation or norm in terms of which said advertisement Notice issued has not been prayed to be declared unconstitutional on account of what is attributed to this advertisement Notice. 28. It is after filing the petition, that this court vide order dated 02.06.2015 made following arrangement for protection of interests of the parties, till the petition is decided while making observation as:— “Position of both petitioner and respondent No. 3 on the count of eligibility appears to be under eclipsed, therefore in the aforestated background, the, prima-facie case is carved out. For protection interest of both the parties, in the interests of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 that in case they contemplated to hold the interview of the candidates who have applied for the post of Professor, Immunology and Molecular Medicine in pursuance to advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2014 dated October 14, 2014, they shall hold the same. In the process shall also admit the petitioner a swell as respondent No. 3 6to interview., if petitioner and respondent No. 3 makes the grade, then their results shall not be declared until further orders from this Court. However, in the process, if some other candidates make the grade, then in that eventuality selection of such candidate shall carried into effect”. Petitioner has not thereafter amended the petition for grant of relief if any was necessitated to be passed on her appearance in the interview on the direction of this Court and if she had a grievance about same or the apprehension, she has expressed thereafter about the manner of holding the interview. Petitioner has not thereafter amended the petition for grant of relief if any was necessitated to be passed on her appearance in the interview on the direction of this Court and if she had a grievance about same or the apprehension, she has expressed thereafter about the manner of holding the interview. Rather she has filed application for arraying expert namely Professor Sunil Arora as party which has been allowed on 14.07.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 3 was impleaded as a party in terms of order dated 27.02.2015. 29. The result of the interview which had been conducted was directed by this court to be kept under sealed cover and have been submitted before the court. Rejoinder has been placed on record pursuant to filing of IA No. 01/2015 which was allowed by this court vide order dated 14.07.2015. In rejoinder so submitted petitioner has raised various pleas which as rightly submitted the other side do not come within the anatomical frame of original petition. Although respondent No. 3 has been joined as a party, yet leave has not been sought for amending the petition.. 30. It is one of the fundamental principles of pleadings that relief claimed should be properly worded and it should flow from the grounds pleaded for enforcing the claim at the time cause of action initially arose. Subsequent event or development brought to the notice of the court would not itself impel the court to grant or reshape the relief, as either for moulding of the relief or for grant of additional or alternative relief, the parties are likely to be affected and so should have to be given an opportunity to project their stand. They should also have a fair opportunity to meet it. Substance of right, sought to be enforced has to be examined ordinarily in light of pleadings as were originally available before the court. For grant of further relief stemmed with a right accruing during the pendency of the lis or which is necessitated by any development taking place at the instance of the party to the lis, would require the original petition to be amended, for which leave has to be sought and grant of same has thereafter to be considered. The development or an event happening subsequently but being only supplemental to earlier grounds put forth may not need a leave. The development or an event happening subsequently but being only supplemental to earlier grounds put forth may not need a leave. Each case thus has to be decided in individual facts and circumstances. Extended dimension of the case regarding the appearance of petitioner in interview pursuant to direction passed by this court and malafides attributed to the Screening Committee along with some other points referred in the rejoinder have to be considered accordingly. 31. The positon clearly emerges from the perusal of the facts and pleas noted above that the petitioner herein has not challenged at any count the rule on which the impugned notification is based. Respondent No. 3 has been categorical in stating that the petitioner was not even qualified to be selected at the debut of her career as she was holding a degree in “Bio Science” and thereafter had acquired “Master and Doctorate Degree” in the same subject. The respondents Institute as noted above has contended that they have proceeded in the matter in terms of the Rule 5 of the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Science Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1998. Rule 5 prescribes the qualification for the post of Professor as Post Graduate/Postdoctoral degree in the respective/relevant discipline as prescribed by Medical Council of India. The said Rule if militative of any of the rights of the petitioner herein has not been pleaded so, in terms of the writ petition nor any relief claimed for adjudicating the said rule as Ultra Vires to any constitutional or statutory provision. Petitioner’s case is not that she is possessive of qualification prescribed by the Medical Council of India i.e. M. D in relevant filed. In this view of the matter, the notification prayed to be adjudicated as null and void cannot be granted. It may be added that at the cost of the repetition that till the time Rule exists, notification which is based on the said Rule cannot said to be Ultra Vires to any statutory provision. Furthermore, the plea raised that ‘position’ of professor is being manned or has been so manned by non-medical professionals would not be itself sufficient to treat the eligibility criteria bad. Similarly, the contention raised that recruitment by promotion and direct method should have same qualification, too is not found of any substance on the criteria so prescribed is not shown to be antithesis to any Rule or statutory provision. 32. Similarly, the contention raised that recruitment by promotion and direct method should have same qualification, too is not found of any substance on the criteria so prescribed is not shown to be antithesis to any Rule or statutory provision. 32. The rationale put forth on behalf of the petitioner that UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the University and Colleges and measures for maintenance of the Standards in Higher Education 2010 (for short UGC Regulations 2010) would be applicable to the post of Professor as concerned discipline in which the post of Professor has to be filled is to be treated as a faculty of University requires to be gone into while having a focus on Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (Grant of Degrees) Act, 1983 which enables the University to award the degrees, diplomas, certificates etc. The permeable of the SKIMS reads as under:— “Sher-i-Kashmir institute of Medical Sciences has been recognized by the Medical Council of India as a teaching institution. It is proposed that the Institute be given the status of a University and vested with the statutory powers to provide for instruction and research in the branches of science of modern medicines and other allied sciences and also to hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles. Section 3 of the said Rule reads as under:— 3. Power of Institute.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the institute shall have and exercise the following powers and perform the following duties, namely:— (a) to provide for instruction and research in such branches of science of modem medicines and other allied sciences including physical and biological sciences, as the institute may think fit; (b) to hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles; (c) to confer honorary degree or other distinctions; (d) to fix, demand and receive fees and other incidental charges as may be prescribed by the regulations; (e) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary, incidental and conducive to the attainment of any of the aforesaid duties. Section 4 of the said Rules reads as:— 4. Section 4 of the said Rules reads as:— 4. Institute to be a University.—The institute shall for the purposes of section 3 of this Act, be deemed to be a University as if established by an Act of the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature. In UGC Regulations 1.1.1 it is provided that teachers in the faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India have to be applied. Regulations 4.4.1 of UGC Regulations would not be attracted in view of special provisions for Medical streams, being kept open to be prescribed under said Regulations. Even otherwise there is no pleadings on behalf of the petitioner that she possesses the qualification prescribed under Regulations 4.4.1 and the respondent-SKIMS could not deviate from the eligibility criteria fixed under Regulation 4.4.1. It would have been in presence of a specific pleading that the matter could have been elaboratively discussed in the light of the stand of both the sides and the respondents too would have been able to project their reply in light of the said pleadings. 33. The respondent Institute has not to be treated as a regular University or and thus, subject to regulatory mechanism of UGC for making appointment etc. for the post of teachers in the relevant discipline in accordance with above referred UGC Regulations, 2010. Plea of malafides or bias attributed to expert being a mere bald assertion, unaccompanied by any credible supportive material has to be treated misconceived besides being not worth to be entertained, in view of same not finding place in the pleadings of petitioner. 34. Viewing the matter in its totality, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out for quashing the impugned Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2014 dated 14.10.2014. The instant petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim direction shall stand vacated.