JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this court seeking for writ of certiorari or any other writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.08.2008 issued by the second respondent appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Professor in the 2nd respondent, as also order dated 01.02.2011 issued by 2nd respondent declaring probation and confirming the appointment of the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors in the Department of Surgery of the 2nd respondent. They have completed their Masters degree in their respective subjects and were recruited by the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a notification on 10.07.2008 calling for applications for appointment of Associate Professors. The educational qualification for the said post as per notification are as under : '5. EDUCATION QUALIFICATION :- For the post of Associate Professor :- 1. He/She must possess requisite recognized Post graduate qualification in the respective subject. He/She must have 5 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor in the subject concerned in MCI recognized Medical College. Desirable : Minimum of four Research Publications indexed in 1 Medicus/National Journals.' 3. The petitioners, therefore, submit that the candidate to be considered for appointment of Associate Professor ought to have had a minimum of 5 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor in the concerned subject in Medical Council of India (MCI for short) recognized college/s. The petitioners as also the 4th respondent and three other persons applied for the said post under the said notification. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was short of 45 days for completion of his 5 years experience as Assistant Professor and 2nd petitioner was short by 3 months to complete his 5 years experience. It is for this reason that the petitioners were not taken into consideration. 5. The 4th respondent, who had submitted her qualification contending that she had 5 years experience, was accepted and the 4th respondent was appointed as Associate Professor on 11.08.2008 on a probationary basis. 6. It is for this reason that the petitioners were not taken into consideration. 5. The 4th respondent, who had submitted her qualification contending that she had 5 years experience, was accepted and the 4th respondent was appointed as Associate Professor on 11.08.2008 on a probationary basis. 6. The petitioners aggrieved by the same took up the matter with the concerned authorities contending that the 4th respondent did not have the requisite experience of 5 years, though 4th respondent had stated as regards her qualification as under: Name of Institution From To Experience SDM Medical College 1-7-2003 30-6-2006 3 years Karuna Medical College 1-7-2006 31-10-2006 4 months KIMS Hubli (Ad-hoc) 2-11-2006 21-07-2008 1 year 8 months Total Experience 5 years 6.1. The valid teaching experience of the 4th respondent was as under: Name of institution From To Experience SDM medical College 26-7-2004 1-7-2006 1 year 11 months Karuna Medical College 29-9-2006 30-10-2006 1 month 2 days KIMS Hubli (Ad-hoc) 2-11-2006 21-07-2008 1 year 8 months Total Experience 3 years 8 months 6.2. Thus, the petitioners contended that the 4th respondent had a total experience of 3 years 8 months and was short of 16 months for completion of the 5 years requirement for being considered for appointment as an Associate Professor. 7. The 2nd petitioner gave a representation on 19.11.2009 to the 2nd respondent in this regard and called upon the 2nd respondent to rectify the injustice caused to him since his promotion was blocked. The 2nd respondent had also stated that since there was a vacancy in the post of Associate Professor stated to be three in numbers. However, only two posts have been filled up. He requested for grant of promotion as Associate Professor in surgery department from the date of his eligibility, i.e., 19.01.2009 when he completed 5 years and thereby keeping his seniority intact. A similar letter was addressed by the 1st petitioner on 20.11.2009 more or less on the same terms as stated by 2nd petitioner. 8. The petitioners in order to ascertain the teaching experience of the 4th respondent had approached the MCI seeking for details as regards the dates on which the colleges in which the 4th respondent had worked were recognized by the Medical Council of India, which were so furnished by the MCI. 8. The petitioners in order to ascertain the teaching experience of the 4th respondent had approached the MCI seeking for details as regards the dates on which the colleges in which the 4th respondent had worked were recognized by the Medical Council of India, which were so furnished by the MCI. On a further enquiry by the petitioner to the MCI as to the date from which the teaching experience of a candidate would have to be considered, the MCI vide letter dated 25.09.2009 replied by stating that the experience would be calculated from the date of the Letter Of Permission (LOP for short) issued for the establishment of the medical college by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health. 9. This information was received by the petitioners on 25.09.2009 from the MCI. The petitioners again followed up with the 2nd respondent stating that the qualification in terms of numbers of years of teaching experience has to be calculated from the date of issuance of LOP and therefore, as on the date of appointment of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent lacked in the minimum required teaching experience as per the notification issued. 10. Despite the same being informed to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had submitted the details of the 4th respondent as being an Associate Professor to MCI for the purpose of increase in the numbers of admissions of medical students from 100 to 150 and also declared probation and confirmed the appointment of 4th respondent as an Associate Professor. 11. The petitioners contend that the petitioners were following up with the 2nd respondent and expecting a resolution to the grievances raised by them and believed that the 2nd respondent would take note of the applicable law and take necessary action if not in cancelling the appointment of 4th respondent at least the appointing the petitioners as Associate Professors. But, however, since the same was not done, the petitioners left with no option, have approached this court by filing the above petition. 12. The 2nd respondent filed its objections contending that the petition is not maintainable in terms of MCI Act, 1956 and bye-laws of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, without in any manner substantiating such a contention. 12. The 2nd respondent filed its objections contending that the petition is not maintainable in terms of MCI Act, 1956 and bye-laws of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi, without in any manner substantiating such a contention. The 2nd respondent defended the appointment of the 4th respondent by stating that the same was in accordance with the requirements, and 4th respondent has completed 5 years of teaching experience from a recognized institution. 13. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent placed the entire matter relating to the appointment of Associate Professor before the governing council - 3rd respondent of which the Chairman is the Minister of Medical Education, had cleared and said appointment, therefore, the appointment of the 4th respondent could not be faulted with. 14. As regards the contention that during the inspection by the MCI of the 2nd respondent on 25th and 26th February 2010, 4th respondent was not considered as a teaching faculty. 2nd respondent states that the 2nd respondent thereafter had taken up the matter with MCI and MCI had accepted the appointment of 4th respondent being satisfied with the submissions made. 15. The appointment of the 4th respondent being accepted by the MCI, the MCI after verification and inspection allowed the increase of intake, i.e., 100 to 150 students from the Academic year 2010-11 and in the notation dated 29.03.2010 made by the MCI 4th respondents experience has been considered adequate and she has been counted. The 2nd respondent therefore contends that the objection of the petitioner dated 18.03.2010 addressed to the Secretary, MCI is deemed to have been rejected. The 2nd respondent, therefore, contends that the details furnished by 4th respondent as regards her experience is proper and correct and that 4th respondent was eligible to be considered for appointment as Associate Professor. 16. The 4th respondent on appearance filed her objections giving the details of her education and teaching experience and states that she was eligible in terms of the notification issued. She had worked in SDM Medical College, Dharwad as Assistant Professor from 01.07.2006 to 13.06.2006, in Karuna Medical College, the Department of General Surgery from 01.07.2006 to 31.10.2006 and in KIMS, i.e., in 2nd respondent from 02.11.2006 to 21.07.2008, in all amounting to 5 years. She had worked in SDM Medical College, Dharwad as Assistant Professor from 01.07.2006 to 13.06.2006, in Karuna Medical College, the Department of General Surgery from 01.07.2006 to 31.10.2006 and in KIMS, i.e., in 2nd respondent from 02.11.2006 to 21.07.2008, in all amounting to 5 years. She submits that the experience certificates have been issued by the colleges concerned, and that is what she has submitted to the authorities of the 2nd respondent. 4th respondent also submits that she was not just a graduate of MBBS, but she has also obtained a gold medal in final year MBBS in surgery apart from obtaining other prizes in relation thereto. Therefore, she is well qualified in terms of numbers of years of experience as per the details furnished by the colleges where she worked. 17. On the basis of the above, the 4th respondent submits that the details being furnished are proper, there being no fraud committed by her. They cannot be any fault found with the 4th respondent., She was not aware of the calculation of the qualification from LOP date, nobody asked her about it at the time of appointment, and it was for respondent No.2 to have a look into it. 18. Based on the above, the 4th respondent submits that the petition as filed is liable to be dismissed, and her appointment being proper cannot be questioned in the manner sought to be done by the petitioner. 19. After having argued the matter for some time, all the counsel had initially stated that they would explore some form of settlement. However, no settlement was arrived at, more so, since some proposals which were put forth by the petitioners and the 4th respondent were not acceptable to the 2nd respondent. It appears that it was due to nonacceptance of the proposals by the 2nd respondent that no settlement could be arrived at between the petitioners and the 4th respondent. 20. Sri. Ravi Hegde learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that the reference date for consideration of qualification being the date of issuance of LOP for the establishment of a college, the experience as contended or alleged by 4th respondent prior to the grant of LOP cannot be taken into consideration. If that experience is not taken into consideration, the appointment of 4th respondent would be invalid. If that experience is not taken into consideration, the appointment of 4th respondent would be invalid. If the application of the 4th respondent is to be considered the applications filed by the petitioners ought also to have been considered by the 2nd respondent. He contends that the 2nd respondent has favoured the 4th respondent by appointing her and the same has been done on account of political patronage. The appointment of 4th respondent being for consideration otherwise than the eligibility of 4th respondent, the same not being in accordance with applicable guidelines, such appointment cannot be countenanced either in law or facts. 21. Sri. Vidyashankar G.Dalwai, learned council for 2nd respondent submits that the fact that MCI has accepted the appointment of 4th respondent as an Associate Professor would establish that the process followed by 2nd respondent is proper. Furthermore, the initial appointment was also approved by the Governing Council represented by its Chairman in the proceedings on 10.06.2010 and hence, the appointment of the 4th respondent cannot be faulted with and the 2nd respondent has complied with all the requirements as applicable for such appointment. 22. Sri.K.L.Patil learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent would contend that the 4th respondent has applied for the post in terms of notification. She requested her employer to furnish work experience letters. In furtherance of which, work experience letters were so furnished by her employer. The notification issued by 2nd respondent does not in any manner prescribe that the experience has to be counted from the date of issuance of LOP nor was she aware by the MCI requirement in relation thereto. 4th respondent has not suppressed any information nor is any false statement made by her. She only submitted experience letters as furnished to her. Her qualification, merit is established by a gold medal that she has been awarded apart from various other prizes for merit. Therefore, her appointment cannot be faulted with. 23. Heard Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri.V.S.Kalasoormath, learned council for 1st respondent, Sri. Vidyashankar G.Dalwai, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for 4th respondent and perused the records. 24. The notification dated 10.07.2008 issued calling for applications to the posts would indicate that a person applying for the post should have had prior five years teaching experience as an Associate Professor in the subject concerned in an MCI recognized Medical College. 24. The notification dated 10.07.2008 issued calling for applications to the posts would indicate that a person applying for the post should have had prior five years teaching experience as an Associate Professor in the subject concerned in an MCI recognized Medical College. Though notification does not make any reference to the LOP, the fact that the notification speaks of a MCI recognized medical college would itself impliedly incorporate the condition that during the entire tenure of the candidate as an Associate Professor, the concerned institution/medical college ought to have been approved and/or recognised by MCI. This could definitely relate back to LOP being issued for such a college. It cannot be disputed that only on a LOP being issued that the medical college can be established and/or function. The functioning of a medical college prior to issuance of the LOP would be improper if not illegal. 25. The LOP dated 26.07.2004 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health to Shri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society would indicate that the said LOP had been issued for the establishment of a new medical college in the name and style of SDM College for Medical Sciences and Hospital. That would necessarily imply that the college was not in existence as on that date and was proposed to be established. 26. Similarly LOP dated 20.09.2006 issued to Safe Development Alms Trust, Karuna Hospital Complex also provides for the establishment of a new medical college in the name and style of Karuna Medical College at Palakkad, Kerala by Safe Development Alms Trust. This would also indicate that as on that date, there was no medical college established prior to that date. 27. The recognition of the college as contended relying on the letter of MCI would be from the date of issuance of LOP vide MCI letter dated 25.08.2009. If the above is taken into consideration, valid teaching experience of the 4th respondent in respect of SDM College of Medical Sciences and Hospital would have to be considered from 26.07.2004 and in respect of Karuna Medical College would have to considered from 20.09.2006. The qualification of the 4th respondent otherwise than the teaching experience as an Associate Professor is not in question in the present petition. The qualification of the 4th respondent otherwise than the teaching experience as an Associate Professor is not in question in the present petition. What is only questioned is the period from which the valid teaching experience of the 4th respondent could be considered for the purpose of calculating the educational qualification of the candidate/4th respondent in terms of the notification dated 10.07.2008. 28. The certificate issued by SDM College of Medical Sciences and Hospital dated 11.09.2006 indicates that 4th respondent was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery on a probationary basis from 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2006, i.e., for a period which includes a period prior to the issuance of LOP to the said college, which was so issued on 26.07.2004. Thus, the period from 01.07.2003 to 26.07.2004 could not have been considered. 29. Similarly, the certificate issued by Karuna Medical College Hospital dated 03.11.2006 indicates that she was working in the Department of General Surgery from 01.07.2006 to 31.10.2006, which is also prior to the issuance of LOP on 20.09.2006. Thus, the period from 01.07.2006 to 20.09.2006 could not have been considered. 30. If the rule relating to LOP is applied, 4th respondent will not qualify the requirement of the notification dated 10.07.2008 and her application ought to have been rejected by the 2nd respondent as done in the case of petitioners herein, though such rejection was not made with reference to LOP but was made holding that they did not have the requisite experience, thereby indicating that the requisite experience as indicated in the notification was a condition precedent for consideration of the application submitted by a candidate. 31. There is some force in the contention of the counsel for the 4th respondent that they she has acted on certificates issued by those two colleges and therefore she cannot be faulted with. 4th respondent is an individual doctor who had requested for certificates, and those certificates were provided by the respective colleges which inturn she submitted to the 2nd respondent. Thus, since no other malafides are imputed in respect of those certificates, it would have to be held that the 4th respondent has acted bonafide in submitting her application along with the necessary enclosures. 32. This does not, however, negate the responsibility of an educational institution like the 2nd respondent. Thus, since no other malafides are imputed in respect of those certificates, it would have to be held that the 4th respondent has acted bonafide in submitting her application along with the necessary enclosures. 32. This does not, however, negate the responsibility of an educational institution like the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent while appointing any person to a post of teaching, more so, when it is for the post of Associate Professor wherein the said person would be teaching the future doctors ought to undertake due diligence, verify the details and thereafter act on the same. The 2nd Respondent cannot divest itself of its responsibility and obligation by merely stating that it has relied upon the certificate submitted to it. 33. The defence raised by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent acted on the certificates furnished by the 4th respondent could have been accepted by this Court if not for the protest letters issued by the petitioners as far back as on 19.11.2009, the 2nd respondent ought to have corrected the mistake at that point of time itself. Since by way of the letter dated 19.11.2009 of 2nd petitioner and letter dated 20.11.2009 of the 1st petitioner, 2nd respondent was put on notice about the deficiency if the qualification of the 4th respondent, on the same being bought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent ought also to have conceded that she does not have the requisite experience. 34. 2nd respondent, instead of doing so, had submitted the details of 4th respondent as an Associate Professor for the purposes of an increase in the intake of 2nd respondent-college. It is needless to say that if the adequate numbers of Associate Professor are not available for the 2nd respondent, the increase in the intake would not have been granted by MCI. Thus, apart from not having followed the necessary procedure for appointing a qualified person as an Associate Professor which is a senior position in a medical college, which post comes just below the Professor and Head of Department, 2nd respondent has wrongly made use of such improper appointment to obtain an increase in the intake of its college and thereby increase its revenues. This appears to be the reason why the 2nd respondent has not acted on the representations of the petitioners herein. 35. This appears to be the reason why the 2nd respondent has not acted on the representations of the petitioners herein. 35. Though the 2nd respondent had initially committed a mistake in the appointment of 4th respondent, it was the bounden duty on the part of the 2nd respondent to rectify the mistake once the same was brought to its notice. Instead of doing so, 2nd respondent has sought to derive benefits from such appointment. Therefore, the conduct of the 2nd respondent and its concerned officials leaves much to be desired. 36. The 4th Respondent cannot now at this length of time be made to suffer on account of the defaults on part of the 2nd respondent, hence Iam unable to grant the prayers sought for in the petition. 37. It is submitted across the bar that the petitioners have been subsequently appointed as Associate professors, hence their interest in that regard is safeguarded and no further direction is required to be passed, except to direct the 2nd Respondent to make payment of the back - salary to the petitioners as Associate Professors from the date on which the 4th Respondent was appointed as an associate professor till the date they were infact appointed as Associate professors along with applicable increments. 38. The same does not however take away the liability of the 2nd respondent. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this is not the only case that the administration of 2nd respondent has defaulted. It is submitted that the administration of the 2nd Respondent has committed several lapses both on account of commission and omissions and the Government had appointed Justice Narayan Commission to enquire into the matter. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the said Commission has submitted its report and in the said report serious remarks have been made by the Commission as regards the appointment of the 4th respondent and the Government is yet to take action thereon. In view of the enquiry having already been conducted and report having been submitted, 1st respondent is directed to take action on the basis of the said report at the earliest at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In view of the enquiry having already been conducted and report having been submitted, 1st respondent is directed to take action on the basis of the said report at the earliest at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to furnish a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education. 39. The time-bound direction is issued since it is inexplicable as to how no action has been taken in such a serious matter. 40. In view of the above finding, the above Writ Petition is disposed of as under: ORDER a. The petitions are allowed in part. b. 2nd Respondent is directed to make payment of back salary/arrears to the petitioners as Associate Professors from the date on which the 4th Respondent was appointed as an associate professor till the date they were in fact appointed as Associate professors along with applicable increments till date within a period of 4 weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. c. 1st respondent is directed to take action on the Justice Narayan report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. d. The 2nd respondent is directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each as costs of this petition to the Petitioners, within 4 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.