ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. These writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner against the same parties, grievances differ and the facts remain the same. Therefore, the learned counsel Shri V.R. Sarathy appearing for the petitioner submits that if Writ Petition No.104876 of 2021 is decided, the other writ petitions become academic. Therefore, the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.104876 of 2021 is noted and considered. 2. The third respondent, the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”, for short) an autonomous Institution, in which staffing pattern, payment of salary and other things are under the Medical Council of India Regulations and the AICTE Regulations, insofar as the pay scale is concerned. It transpires that, on 15.03.2005, the Medical Council of India amended its Regulations and in terms of the amendment, declared the post of Health Educator to be re- designated as Health Educator cum Lecturer. Then comes the Medical Council of India Regulations of the year 2009, which depicted minimum requirements for MBBS Admission Regulations. In this, the post of Health Educator remained a Health Educator, but did not depict itself to be the Health Educator cum Lecturer. The respondent-Institution sought to fill up the one post of Health Educator, therefore called for a walk- in-interview. The petitioner participates in the said interview, emerges successful and is appointed as Health Educator in the Department of Community Medicine at the third respondent on 22.04.2010. After the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner registered a claim that he should have been appointed as a Health Educator cum Lecturer and it was an error. One Shri S. R. Itagmat, who was a Biostatistician / Tutor at the Community Medicine Department, who was appointed along with the petitioner, was immediately re-designated as Assistant Professor on 07.10.2011. The same treatment was not meted out to the petitioner. It is the averment in the petition that, the Institute realising the mistake of wrong designation of the petitioner, rectified it and designated the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer in terms of the Medical Council of India Regulations. 3. The third respondent then forwards a communication to the State seeking approval of the action of the Governing Council of the third respondent in re-designating the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer in place of Health Educator that was all along the petitioner being described of. 3. The third respondent then forwards a communication to the State seeking approval of the action of the Governing Council of the third respondent in re-designating the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer in place of Health Educator that was all along the petitioner being described of. The Government declines to approve the action of the Governing Council of the third respondent on the score that there is no sanctioned vacant post of Health Educator cum Lecturer, what was available was only Health Educator. Therefore, the approval was not granted. On the strength of the approval not being granted, the action of the third respondent began against the petitioner by directing recovery of salary that was paid in the post of Health Educator cum Lecturer from out of the salary of the petitioner and re- designating the petitioner back to the post of Health Educator. All these actions have been called in question in the case at hand and the off-shoot of the present petition is what is called in question or preceding actions are called in question in the companion petitions. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.V.R.Sarathy and Sri.Vishwanath Hegde appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt.Girija Hiremath for the respondent Nos.2 and 4-State, learned counsel Sri.Aravind Kulkarni for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Anoop G. Deshpande for the respondent No.5. 5. The learned counsel Shri V.R. Sarathy along with Shri Viswanath Hegde would vehemently contend that the petitioner had to be appointed as Health Educator cum Lecturer as the notification was issued pursuant to the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which by then had declared the post to be known as Health Educator cum Lecturer as the very Medical Council of India Regulations described, Statistician cum Lecturer. Therefore, the learned counsel submits it was an error on the part of the third respondent in calling or appointing the petitioner as Health Educator only in place of Health Educator cum Lecturer. Realising the mistake, the Governing Council of the third respondent then resolved to re-designate the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer, which need not have been approved by the State, but a communication is sent for approval and the approval is turned down. 6. Realising the mistake, the Governing Council of the third respondent then resolved to re-designate the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer, which need not have been approved by the State, but a communication is sent for approval and the approval is turned down. 6. The learned counsel taking this Court through the Medical Council of India Regulations then and now would submit that Health Educator cum Lecturer is the nomenclature that is subsisting today and would submit that the petitioner should be entitled to the post of Health Educator cum Lecturer as it is what is found in the MCI Regulations. 7. Contrary wise, the learned counsel Shri Aravind Kulkarni appearing for the Institute would vehemently refute the submission contending that the post of Health Educator was never declared to be a teaching post, it is always a non-teaching post and therefore, there is no question of declaration of Health Educator to be equivalent to Lecturer or Assistant Professor as the case would be. The learned counsel would submit that the case of Shri S. R. Itagmat was that a Statistician, was a Tutor and a Tutor was always a Lecturer therefore the designation of Statistician to be a Lecturer was in tune with the Regulations. Therefore, the error was rectified right after the appointment of Shri S. R. Itagmat. The learned counsel would further submit that the Government has declined to approve the resolution of the Governing Council which re-designated the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer. 8. Therefore, the Institute was left with no choice but to recover the entire amount from the salary of the petitioner as it was an error committed by the Institute to hand over the re- designation and all consequential benefits thereon. He would submit that the issue should not be decided only looking at 2005 or 2018 Regulations. There are Regulations in the year 2009 pursuant to which the recruitment took place or walk-in- interview took place. Therefore, in the 2009 Regulations, what is found, is only Health Educator and not Health Educator cum Lecturer. 9. He would submit that the issue should not be decided only looking at 2005 or 2018 Regulations. There are Regulations in the year 2009 pursuant to which the recruitment took place or walk-in- interview took place. Therefore, in the 2009 Regulations, what is found, is only Health Educator and not Health Educator cum Lecturer. 9. The learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel Shri Aravind Kulkarni, but however would submit, the State has played its role only in indicating that there cannot be an appointment or a re-designation to a post that is not sanctioned as Health Educator cum Lecturer was not a post that was sanctioned or available in the Institute. No fault can be found with the communication of the State to the Institution, is the submission of the learned HCGP. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the re-designation of the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer is in tune with law or wanting in law, for which it is necessary to trace the history of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India and the nomenclature depicted therein qua, the qualification of the petitioner. The post of Health Educator carries with it necessary qualification. The qualification for Health Educator is as follows: “B. (i) Must be a holder of a Master Degree in Sociology or Anthropology or Physiology or Political Science or Geography or History or Economics from a recognised University/Institute.” 12. In terms in the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the Health Educator is to be filled up by direct recruitment and promotion to the tune of 50% each. One should be a holder of Master's Degree in Sociology or Anthropology or Psychology or Political Science or Geography or History or Economics of a University established by Law in India. The said qualification that is necessary may be for State pay scale. There is no change in qualification even under the Medical Council of India. 13. Now let me consider the Regulations of the Medical Council of India notified from time to time. On 15.03.2005, the Medical Council of India makes Regulations further to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000. There is no change in qualification even under the Medical Council of India. 13. Now let me consider the Regulations of the Medical Council of India notified from time to time. On 15.03.2005, the Medical Council of India makes Regulations further to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000. The third respondent, a Medical College and Research Institute, is not in dispute. It is a teaching hospital. The staff requirements of a teaching hospital in terms of the Regulations, is as follows: “B. Staff requirements: (1) The minimum staff required in each of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Community Medicine shall be: Sl No. Title Quantity 1 Professor or Associate Professor One 2 Assistant Professor Two Provided that the department of Community Medicine shall also have: (a) Epidemiologist-cum-Lecturer (b) Statistician-cum-Lecturer (c) Health Educator-cum-Lecturer” 14. Insofar as the Department of Community Medicine in which the petitioner is appointed, there are three posts; one Epidemiologists, the other Statistician and the Health Educator. To all the three the nomenclature is, Epidemiologist cum Lecturer, Statistician cum Lecturer and Health Educator cum Lecturer. This was the Regulations prevailing then. Then comes the Regulations of the year 2009, the 2009 Regulations were concerning minimum requirements of 150 MBBS admissions annually in Regulations. Here there was nothing said about the Regulations of the running a Medical College, it was only concerning a 150 MBBS admission. Nonetheless, the post of Health Educator here also is found. The requirements, Department Wise are noticed in Clause 12. In Department of Community Medicine, what is seen is the Health Educator is left as Health Educator. It is not in the Department of Community Medicine, but it is the staff for Rural Training Health Center including field work and Epidemiological Studies. Therefore, this cannot be projected by the Institute to say that Health Educator for a training Health Center for including field work and Epidemiological Studies would be taken note of and not the Regulations that prevailed for the purpose of the staff in a teaching hospital. Then comes the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner pursuant to walk-in-interview is as follows: “LETTER OF APPOINTMENT SHRI MANJUNATH NADUVINAMANI is appointed as HEALTH EDUCATOR in the DEPARTMENT OF P & SM in the pay scale of Rs.8825-225-9500-250-10500-300- 12300-350-14400-400-16000. His appointment is subject to the following terms and conditions.” 15. Then comes the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner pursuant to walk-in-interview is as follows: “LETTER OF APPOINTMENT SHRI MANJUNATH NADUVINAMANI is appointed as HEALTH EDUCATOR in the DEPARTMENT OF P & SM in the pay scale of Rs.8825-225-9500-250-10500-300- 12300-350-14400-400-16000. His appointment is subject to the following terms and conditions.” 15. It depicts the petitioner to be a Health Educator. The petitioner then begins to register the claim that he should be re- designated as Health Educator cum Lecturer. Governing Council meets and accords such re-designation. In the teeth of the said claim comes the 2018 Regulations of the Medical Council of India. In the 2018 Regulations which comes as an amendment to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, the staff requirements in Appendix II is as follows: “B. Staff requirements: (1) The minimum staff required in each of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology and Community Medicine shall be: Sl No. Position Quantity 1 Professor or Associate Professor One 2 Assistant Professor Two Provided that the department of Community Medicine shall also have: a) Epidemiologist-cum-Lecturer b) Statistician-cum-Lecturer c) Health Educator-cum-Lecturer Provided further that the person in charge of a Unit shall not be below the rank of Associate Professor.” 16. Again what is found in 2005 Regulations is reiterated. The Epidemiologist, Statistician and Health Educator are all considered to be Lecturers. As a matter of fact the Statistician appointed on the same lines of the petitioner is already accorded is Statistician cum Assistant Professor and has been designated so even today. The plea of the petitioner meets its consideration at the hands of the Governing Council. The order comes to be passed re-designating the petitioner as Health Educator cum Lecturer. The order reads as follows: 17. This is communicated to the State for its approval. The approval is declined. It was sent to the State for its approval owing to obfuscation, by the Institute that the Health Educator cum Lecturer was not a post that was sanctioned. The Government rejects it on the ground that it was not a sanctioned post. The rejection leads to the impugned order. The impugned order leads the petitioner to be placed status quo ante as Health Educator and not as Lecturer. The Government rejects it on the ground that it was not a sanctioned post. The rejection leads to the impugned order. The impugned order leads the petitioner to be placed status quo ante as Health Educator and not as Lecturer. The communication and the order passed as a consequence of communication from the State are an error for the reason that Medical Council of India from 2005 or 2018 clearly depicts the staff requirements to be Health Educator cum Lecturer ostensibly so, as the qualification required is noted herein above. If the qualification is a Master's Degree and the job of the petitioner is to teach Community Medicine, it can hardly be said that it is not a teaching post. In the days where Physical Education is also treated as a Teacher, teaching Community Medicine obviously would undoubtedly be designated as a Lecturer. There was no error in the designation for the State to have declined the approval as it needed no sanctioned post as it was only a re-designation of the petitioner as Health Educator cum lecturer. 18. In that light, the impugned orders would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind and leads to its obliteration. 19. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the obliteration of the orders impugned. The Institute could not have recovered the amount that was paid to the petitioner as the re-designation and the payment were all in accordance with law. If recovery has been done by now from the hands of the petitioner as is contended, the entire amount that is recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition No.104876/2021 is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.09.2021 bearing No.KIMS.CV1(B)144/2021-22 issued by the 3 rd respondent as per Annexure-A stands quashed. iii. It is declared that the petitioner's designation as Health Educator cum Lecturer was in tune with law and the petitioner shall be continued to be designated as such. iv. All consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the impugned order shall flow to the benefit of the petitioner. iii. It is declared that the petitioner's designation as Health Educator cum Lecturer was in tune with law and the petitioner shall be continued to be designated as such. iv. All consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the impugned order shall flow to the benefit of the petitioner. v. The recovery, if any of an amount that is made on the impugned placement of the petitioner's designation status quo ante shall be refunded within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. vi. The compliance with the entire directions also shall be done within 12 weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. vii. In the light of reasons so rendered in the subject petition i.e., Writ Petition No.104876/2021, the Writ Petition No.145545/2020 and Writ Petition No.102239/2018 are rendered academic and are disposed as having become academic.