Rajinder Singh & Ors. vs State and others

The appointments of lecturers in Govt. Medical College, Jammu, in relaxation of eligibility and on adhoc basis have been challenged in these

petitioners on a number of grounds with the prayer for a direction to remove"" them from their respective places of postings being the usurpers of

public offices. It is prayed in the alternative that the petitioners be appointed as lecturers in various departments of the Medical' College, Jammu.

Such petitioners who are Registrars have further prayed that the respondents be restrained from disturbing their place of postings till they attain 3

years teaching experience for being eligible to apply for the post of lecturers in their respective faculties in the Central Government Institutes.

In another batch of petitions prayer is made for issuing appropriate directions to the respondents to allow the petitioners therein to continue as

Registrars in the Medical College, Jammu, with a direction to the respondents for not appointing any other person to the aforesaid posts of

Registrars against the posts held by them. It is also prayed that the petitionerRegistrars be allowed to complete their 3 years term and directions be

issued to the respondents to appoint them as Lecturers by relaxation of the rules

Writ Petitions No. 153/88, 134/89, 168/50, 178/90 and 541/90 pertain to first category (Lecturers) as referred to hereinabove whereas Writ

Petitions No. 833/88,208/89,181/90,360/90 and 429/90 pertain to the second category (Registrars).

It is alleged by the petitioners that a number of vacant posts of lecturers exist in the two medical colleges of the State which have not been filled up

by the respondents in accordance with the rules applicable in the case. It is submitted that the respondent namely, Dr, M. Bakhshi, Dr. Tariq

Parvez Azad, Dr, Narrinder Mohan, Dr. Jatinder Singh, Dr. Raj kumar Sharma, Dr. Jai Pal Singh and Dr. R Gupta, were initially appointed as at

hoc lechers and permitted to continue to hold the posts despite expiry of period of more than 3, years. Respondent Dr. M, Bakhshi is alleged to

have been appointed as permanent lecturer arbitrarily and without the legal authority Respondent. Dr. Tariq Parvez and Dr. Narrinder Mohan are

also alleged to have been appointed in the same manner. It is alleged that on account of continuous appointments of the aforesaid doctors as

lecturers, the chances of the petitioners and other eligible candidates for appointment as lecturers in the medical colleges of the State have been

made bleak. It is alleged that the petitioner fundamental right of equality under Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the federal Constitution have been violated.

It is further alleged that the respondents have prescribed 3 years experience of teaching as Registrars for being eligible to be considered for the

post of lecturer and no doctor is permitted to serve more than 2 years for the post of Registrar under the orders issued by the respondentState.

The appointment of the respondents on adhoc basis is alleged to be viotalive of the Jammu & Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service

Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as he Rules'). It is alleged that the appointments have been made without reference to the Public

Service Commission (for short PSC) or advertising the posts and affording all the eligible candidates an opportunity to apply and' be considered

for appointment to the aforesaid posts.

In Writ Petition No. 168/90 besides the appointments of Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad and Dr. Narrinder Mohan, adhoc appointment of Dr. Anita

Shaima has also been challenged. It is alleged that the adhoc appointees are usurpers of the public offices and liable to be retrieved by the issuance

of a writ of quo warranto. Confined retention of respondent No. 7, Dr. Paramjit Singh as Registrar has also been challenged being malafide' with a

view to facilitate his appointment as lecturer after completion of 3 years experience as Registrar. The relaxation of qualiilcations ordered by the

Government is alleged to be without the authority of law. It is alleged that last PSC was held for 'he appointment of lecturers in the medical colleges

in the State in the year 1986 and thereafter the posts of lecturers were never advertised through the PSC denying all the eligible candidates to

apply and be considered for the posts of lecturers.

In Writ Petition No. 178/90, appointment of Dr. Sudhir Bhagotra and Dr. R. K. Mengi, as lecturers in relaxation of the rules has been challendged

on the same grounds with a further prayer for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to hold the post of

Registrars till selection to the post of lecturer is made.

In Writ Petition No. 541/90, besides the appointment of Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad, Dr. Narrinder Mohan, the appointment of Dr.A.Q. Salaria, has

been challenged by the petitioner on identical grounds.

In Writ Petition No. 153/88, a prayer has been made to quash the selection of respondents 4,5,6,7,8 & 9 therein as lecturers in the Deptt. of

Medicine in Govt. Medical College, Jammu, with a further prayer for the issuance of a command to respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner as

lecturer in the Dept. of Medicine in the said college. It is, however, admitted that the appointments of the aforesaid respondents have been made

by the Government vide orders impugned herein dated 1.6.1987 on the recommendation of the PSC. It is, however, alleged that as the respondent

Dr. Krishen Lal Gupta has not joined the post of lecturer despite his appointment, a direction be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner

in his place as he possessed the requisite qualifications and was erroneously not considered for appointment by the PSC. It is alleged that the PSC

wrongly held the petitioner not possessing the requisite qualification of teaching experience.

In Writ Petitions No. 833/88, 208/89, 181/90, 360/90 and 429/90 it is alleged by the petitioners that they have completed their MD/MS in

various disciplines and were selected for the post of Registrar for a period of 2 years. It is submitted that the petitioners were entitled to hold the

posts of Registrars for a period of 3 years' is order to be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of lecturer, within and outside the

State, It is submitted that under the rules governing the selection of lecturer, a candidate is required to have teaching experience of 3 years and if

the petitioners are not permitted to remain posted as Registrars for a period 3 years, they will not be in a position to compete with others who

were allowed to held the posts of lecturers for the aforesaid period of 3 years and disallowing the others is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

In Writ Petition No. 208/89, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment as Regsitrar as per Covt,

order No. 633HME of 1984 dated 19.9.1984 more him the respondents from applying or enforcing Covt. Order No. 670 HME of 1982 dated

13.10JP32

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentState in Writ Petition No. 134/89, it is submitted that the writ petition filed was

misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the respondents have issued notification No. 19PSC of 1989 dated 20.9.1989 inviting

applications for the appointment to the posts of lecturers in various disciplines in the Medical College, Jammu It is submitted that the notification

(AnnexureRI) comprehensively deals with the details of all the disciplines, qualifications, experience etc. It is stated that whenever vacancies are

available in whatever discipline, the posts are advertised and filled upon the recomendations of the PSC. It is submitted that adhoc adjustment

against a post does not confer any statutory right upon the appointee. Respondents Dr. Jatinder Singh, Dr. Rajkumar Sharma, Dr. Jai Paul Singh,

are alleged to have filed writ petitions and obtained orders from the Court and the appointment of Dr. M. Bakhshi has been quashed by this Court

vide a detailed judgment Appointment of Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad, respondent No, 4, is stated to be subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed

by him and respondent Dr. Narrinder Mohan has been appointed in relaxation of the rules. It is claimed that no fundamental or legal right of the

petitioner has been violated.

In the counter affidavit filed by Dr. Narrinder Mohan, respondent it is submitted that the writ petition filed against him was not maintainable. The

aforesaid respondent has detailed his academic career and submitted that he' was selected as B grade specialist but he preferred to be absorbed in

the Medical Education Department against the post of lecturer which carries lesser pay scale than the pay scale of Bgrade specialist His

respresentation is stated to have been considered by the Government who in relaxation of therules, directed his appointment as lecturer in

obstetrics and Gynaecology in Medical College, Jammu, The aforesaid respondent has claimed various publications to his credit and the details of

which have been mentioned in his counter affidavit. He is further alleged to have rendered service in various research projects. He claims to the

working as coinvestigator in research projects in Phase I clinical studies of OF5H, contraceptive vaccine in male volunteers and PhaseII clinical

trial department, the contraceptive efficiency of NET nasal spray in women. He claims to be involved in diagonatic services and clinical grade to

women with certain institutions and awarded International Diabetic Foundation Training Fellowship for intensive training in the field of pregnancy

and diabetes at Ulf University in West Germany. He claims to be actively associated with various symposiums and workshops. He has also listed

the other services rendered by him in various fields. He has admitted that he was not considered for appointment as lecturer by the PSC but claims

to have been considered for the higher post of BGrade specialist.

Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad, respondent, in his ounteraffidavit has submitted that his work conduct and performance has been excellant and he carried

unblemished record with his best career. He has stated that, he was selected against the post of Registrar in surgery in 1985 and was appointed as

lecturer on adhoc basis on 21.1.1987. He also claims to have been appointed as Bgrade Surgeon Specialist, in Health, Family Welfare and

Medical Education Department vide order No. 413HD of 1987 dated 23.9.1987 and on account of his hard work performance, dedication and

devotion to duties, was finally appointed as lecturer in surgery in relaxation of the rules vide Govt. order No. 796HME of 1988 dated 19.9.1988.

The relaxation as allowed strictly according to the rules which cannot be challenged by any of the petitioners. He claims to be possessing the

teaching experience and other requisite educational qualifications under the rules. It is submitted that the rule of reference for selection to the PSC

is only directory in nature and not mandatory.

Adhoc appointments of the other respondents has been admitted but without giving any explanation. It is submitted that as adhoc appointment

does not confer any right upon the appointee, no writ petition can be filed against si'.ch appointments.

In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the PSC it is submitted that the teaching experience for appointment to the post of lecturers under the

relevant rules, was now only 2 years and not 3 years as alleged by some petitioners. It is admitted that the respondents Tariq Parvez Azad and Dr.

Narrinder Mohan, were never recommended by the PSC for appointment in relaxation of the rules as lecturers. It is submitted that the PSC was

not consulted while making selection for the post of Registrars or for adhoc appointments of lecturers. It is, however stated that the

respondentstate have referred some posts of lecturers in the disciplines of Crthopaedics and Gynaecology in December, 1989, to the PSC which

have been advertised vide notifications No. 90A of 1989 dated 28/29.12.89 and No. 3PSC of 1990 dated 5.3.1990. The qualification and

experience provided for the post of lecturer in the Medical Education Department under the relevant rules is MD/MS in the respective discipline

plus leaching 'experience as sanctioned vide SRQ225 dated 29.6,1988, It is submitted that as and when the vacancies of lecturers in the Medical

Education Department are referred by the concerned department to the PSC same shall be advertised and thereafter selection made out of the

eligible candidates with the assistance of the experts in the line and, m accordance with the rules of business of the PSC.

In his counter affidavit,Dr. Sudhir Bhagotra has admitted his initial appointment as lecturer in adhoc basis for a period of 6 months vide Govt. order

No. 486HME of 1988 dated 24.5.1988 and thereafter permanent appointment in relaxation of the rules vide Govt, Order No. 1104HME of 1988

dated 27.12.1988. He claims to have filed writ petition in this Court wherein a direction has been given not to disturb him from his present place of

posting as lecturer in the department of Ophthalmology, Govt. Medical College, Jammu. It is submitted that the petitioners are not eligibleto be

appointed as lecturers. He claims to have been appointed as lecturer on the basis of the recommendation made by the principal of the Medical

College, Jammu

In Civil Misc. Petition No. 3176.'of 1990 filed by Dr. Raj kumar Sharma it is prayed in the additional grounds taken that the selection of

respondents 4 to 9 as per Govt. order No. 168.HME of 1987 dated 1.6.1987 made on the basis of the criteria prescribed by Rule 51 of the PSC

Business and Procedure Rules, was arbitrary and discriminatory as the rule does cot ensure the objective evaluation of the merit of the candidates

who had appeared before the PSC. It is alleged that the PSC Business and Procedures Rules, do not indicate as to how 100 marks reserved for

viva voce test have been further subdivided and whether there had been at all any subdivision. It is submitted that out of 140 marks, 25 marks, are

given to every candidate who has attained the postgraduation irrespective of merit in MS and out of remaining 115 marks, 5 are meant for higher

qualification another 5 for sportsmen and 5 are meant for gradation in NCC. course, Out of the remaining J05 marks ICO marks are left for

interview which makes the ratio higher and disproportionate.

The petitioners seeking their appointment as lecturers have prayed that the criterion prescribed by the respondents and the method of selection Js

illegal. It is submitted that Govt. Order No, 670HME of J982 dated 13 10,1982, stands superseded by a subsequent Govt. Order No. 633HV1E

of 1984 dated 19.9.1984. It is submitted that vide Govt. Order No. 341HME of 1983 dated 15.6.1983, ten doctors were appointed as

Registrars in different specialities and vide Govt. Order No. 8IHME of 1985 dated 26.1.1985, Dr. Bhupinder Singh Pathania and Dr. Tariq

Parvez Azad were appointed in the Department of Surgery without enforcing and applying the condition of eligibility prescribed by the 1982

Order. It is alternatively submitted that even if Govt. Older of 1982 is held to be subsisting and enforceable, same ultra vires of the Constitution

being arbitrary and irrational. 100 per cent reservation has been made for the candidates who have active physical stay with the Director of Health

Services for a period of 2 years after graduation and the others who do not have any such stay are deprived of their right for consideration and

appointment to the posts. The classification made by Govt. Order No. 670HMB of 1932 between the doctors who have active physical service in

Health Department for a period of 2 years and others who do not have such service is alleged to have no nexus with the object sought to be

achieved. The aforesaid Govt. Order is termed to be irrational and discriminatory. It is submitted that according to the rules framed by the Medical

Council of India (MCI, for short) the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Registrar is MBSS and not two years active physical service

after post graduation. The petitioners seeking appointment as Registrars are holding such posts, have submitted that the respondentstate have an

obligation to allow them to appoint and permit them to hold the posts of Registrars for being eligible to be appointed as lecturers in the Medical

colleges of the State.

The writ petitions pertaining to the appointment of the have been contested by the respondent on the grounds that a committee was constituted for

making the selection to the posts of Registrars on the basis of Govt. Order No. 143HME of 1988 dated 2y.2.1988. The petitioners are alleged 10

be ineligible fur being considered for the appointment to the posts of Registrars as they did not possess, the requisite qualification as required by

Govt. Order No. 6/0HME 1982. It is submitted that the doctors applying for the posts of Registrars should have completed two years minimum

physical active service with the: Health Department, it is submitted that Govt. Cider No. 633HME of 1984 has not been .passed in supersession of

Govt. Order No. 670 HME of 1982. The latter order only prescribes the method for allotment of marks for selection of candidates to the posts of

Registrars. It is submitted that the scheme devised by both the orders is that before only postgraduate doctor can be considered for the

appointment of the Registrar, he must have compleed two years minimum physical active service with the Health Department which has been done

with, a view to provide expert facilities to rural masses who are stated to have been deprived of the same, by the senior postgraduate doctors. Dr.

Tariq Parvez Azad and Dr. Bhupindar Singh were appointed in relaxation of the minimum active service condition. The Registrars are appointed

with a' view to acquaint them with the working of the teaching faculty in the medical college subject to various conditions imposed by different

orders issued by the Government from time to time. It is a process where the postgraduate doctors must have served with the Director of Health

Services for atleast a period of 2 years after doing their postgraduation which may fetch them maximum 5 members otherwise rural service before

postgraduation also yields 5 points, one point being reserved for one year and maximum being 5 years. The post of the Registrar is claimed to be a

tenure post and no doctor can claim a rgith to remain posted on the said post after the tenure period. It is further submitted that the petitioners

under the garb of the writ petitions want to seek a direction which, according to the respondents, has the effect of amending the service rules. The

schedule prescribing 3 years for the post of Registrar has been amended by virtue of SRO225 and the tenure for the post of Registrarship has

been reduced to 2 years. Most of the petitioners have already completed the tenure prescribed and are continuing to hold the said posts even after

the expiry of 3 years on the basis of the interim orders obtained.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

So far as the appointment of Dr. M. Bakhshi as lecturer in relaxation of qualification bar as prescribed under the rules is concerned, the same

stands already set aside vide order passed in writ petition No. 628 of 1988, Dr. Sunil Gupta V. State and others decided on 16111989.

The appointment of lecturers in the Medical Education Department is governed by the rules framed vide SRO517 dated 19.9.1979. Under rule 7

only such persons who possess the qualification, and fulfil the requirement of recruitment prescribed for that post in Schedulelf attached with the

rules, are eligible to be appointed. The PSC has the power .to recommend for consideration, to the government, for appointment of a person to a

post in the service who otherwise is not eligible under the rules, but in the opinion of the PSC, possessed exceptional merit as well as professional

experience of high order in his speciality and the Government shall consider such a case after obtaining the views of the MCI Under rule 8 the

selection to the post"" of teaching wing of the service; has to be made by the PSC/DPC having regard to the academic qualifications of the

candidates, teaching experience, research experience and publication and previous record, if any. Appointments to the service can be made by

direct recruitment or by promotion by selection. While considering a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto the Court is under on

obligation to enquire judicially into the lagality of the order or the authority by which the alleged usurper"" of a public office was holding the office. la

such proceeding the respondent is called upon to show as to under what right he was holding the office and if enquiry leads to the findings that the

holder of the office has no valid title under it, the Court has to issue a writ of quo warranto ousting him from that office, The Supreme Court in

University of Mysore V. G. D. Gobindarao and anr.AIR 19S5 SC 491, held :

In other words, the procedure of quo warranto so confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control execution action in the matter of

making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to

which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf they tend

to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to

continue to hold them as aresult of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue

writ of quo warranto is poperly invoked, the usuirper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to ocoupy it. It is thus clear that

before acititzen can claim a writ of quo warranto he must satisfy the Court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by

usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in

accordance with law or not.

A perusal of the rules shows that the appointments can be made only if a person is eligible to the appointment under rule 7 of the Rules and not

otherwise. The condition of eligibility can be relaxed only under proviso to subrule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules which provides :

Provided that the Commission may recommend, for consideration by the Government, the appointment of a person to a post in the service who

otherwise not eligible under these rules is, opinion of the Commision possessing exceptional merit as well as professional experience of high order

in his speciality. Such a case will he considered by the Government after obtaining the views of the Medical Council of India;

The order relaxing the condition of eligibility can be passed by the Government only upon the recommendations of the PSC and after obtaining the

views of the MCT. The respondents Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad, Dr. Narrinder Mohan, Dr. Sudhir Bhagotra and Dr. B, K. Mengi, have admittedly

been appointed as Lecturers on permanent basis in relaxation of the rules and the eligibility clause. None of the respondents have stated that their

case was recommended by the PSC or that the Government had passed the order after obtaining the views of the MCI. This court in Dr. Sunil

Gupta's case (supra), has already held:

Admittedly, the Commission did not recommend the case of respondent No. 2 for the appointment to the post of lecturer as was done by the

order impugned in this writ petition nor the Govt. obtained the views of the Medical Council of India in this behalf. Faced with this situation Mr.

Bakhshi urged that the State .had inherent sovereign powers to relax the rules without adhering to the proviso to rule 7 of the rules applicable in the

case. I am unable to agree with"" the argument of Mr. Bakhshi, because once a provision is made in the stature"" or the service rules, the same had

to be followed strictly. The inherent sovereign powers,, if any, were obdicated in favour of the Commission and the Medical Council of India by

virtue of a proviso added to rub 7 of the J&K Medical Service (Gazetted), Rules, 1979. The respondents who have not complied with 'the

mandate of the proviso to rule 7 cannot justify the appointment of respondent no: 2 to the post of Lecturer, MD (Cardiology) vide order impugned

in this writ petition"".

The appointment to the public posts which have been held to be a national property cannot be made in an arbitrary manner or without adherence

to the rules applicable. Every citizen who is eligible has a right of equality for consideration to the appointment to a pubic office, alongwith other

similarly situated Under Art. 16 of the Constitution of India, The provisions of Art. 16 guarantee equality of apportunity to all the citizens in the

matter of employment. No executive action or administrative order can take away the fundamental right of equality as enshrined by this Article. The

respondents cannot be allowed to pick and choose the Persons according to their whims and caprice and without, providing any guidelines for the

purpose of appointment to the public posts. The respondent doctors who have been appointed as lecturers in relaxation of the eligibility clause,

have tried to show that they possess exceptional merit ""and were entitled to be appointed in relaxation of the eligibility clause under proviso to

subrule (1) and rule 7 of the Rules, but, the respondent state who have passed the impugned orders in their favour, has not explained in their

counteraffidavits) or objections the reasons for their appointment in relaxation of the eligibility clause or the rules. It has been contended by the

official respondents that they were not under an obligation to refer the posts to the PSC for appointment to the post of lecturer and possessed an

inherent right to make appointments to the aforesaid posts, under the rules which, Inter alia, allowed them to relax the eligibility clause. The scheme

of the rules clearly shows that the appointments to the service are envisaged to be made through the PSC. Rule 2 (b) defines the PSC to mean the

J&K Public Service Commission and rule 7 provides that the order of relaxation can be passed only upon the recommendation of the FSC. Rule 8

is very specific in terms to provide the selection to the post of leaching wing of the service by the PSC or the DPC having regard to various

'factors specified therein. It is also rot disputed that the posts in the Medical Education Department had earlier been filled only through the ISC. No

person is shown to have been appointed to the service without the recommendation of the PSC except the respondents whose appointments, in

relaxation of the rules, have been challenged in these petitions. It, therefore, follows that the initial appointments to the posts in the Medical

Education service can be' made only through the PSC and the appointments by promotion can be made by ' the Departmental Promotion

Committee. The respondents, in fact, have .stated in their counteraffidavit that they have already advertised the posts of lecturers through the PSC.

Otherwise also the fundamental right guaranteed under Art, 16 of the Constitution cannot be safeguarded unless the posts are advertised and filled

up through an independent agency. It if, however, submitted that the provisions for referring the posts to the PSC is directory and not mandatory.

The submission has no force in view of the unambiguous provisions made in the rules"" applicable in the case. The recommendations of the PS3

may be directory and notmandatory but the reference of posts to the PSC in the case of filling up the vacancies under the rules is mandatory and

there is no ascape for the stare to avoid reference of the posts to the PSC for direct appointment and to the DPC in case of appointments by

promotion. The acknowledged position is that right to public employment is a new form of property which is not only a vast source of patronage

for the Government but is also a great source of living and happiness for the citizens of the country. The Supreme Court in state of Madras v.

Chander Bahadur AIR 1983. SC 803has already held that ""Public employment was property of She nation which has to be shared equally,

subject to the qualification necessary for holding the office of the post."" As the public employment is the property of the nation, liable to be shared

equally by all the citizens on the basis of the qualifications, it bars unbridled and unguided powers to make the appointments without compliance of

the provisions and the rules framed for the purpose of such employment. The Petitioner who' claim to be eligible, for public employment i.e. the

post of lecturers in the Medical colleges of the State, were required to be treated equally alongwith the respondents, selected and appointed. The

right of equality of opportunity has been denied to the lecturers were appointed in relaxation of the rules were never advertised and the eligible

candidates denied the opportunity of competing with these who were appointed. It was held by the Supreme Court in Ramna Daya Ram Shetty v.

International Airport Authority of India and Ors. AIR 1979 S. C, 1628, that with the tramandous expansion of the welfare and social service

functions, engrossing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of activities"" by the state, the power of the executive

to effect the lives of the citizens has streadily grown. Attainment of socio economic justice renders it necessary to structure the power of the

executive so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. It is unthinkable that in a democracy' governed by the rule of law, the executive,

government or any of its functionary, is possessed of arbitrary powers over the interests of the individuals. Every action of the Government a

democratic set up Must be shown to have been done with reasons and should be free from arbitrariness. In a welfare State, Government pours

forthwith wealth, money, benefits, service, contracts, quotas and licences which are taking traditional forms of wealth. Such powers have to be

exercised judicially and in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution and avoiding the violation of fundamental rights. The Government cannot

be permitted to confer favours only in favour of those who have particular qualities or political affiliations or personal .influences or religious faith

etc. which is bound to be favourable by the executive passing the orders.

Under Art. 320 of the federal Constitution and Sec. 133 of the State Constitution, a duty has been entrusted to the I SC to conduct examination

for appointments of the services of the State and has to be consulted by the Government on all matters relating .to the method of recruitment to

civil services and for civil posts on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and

transfers form one service to another and on the suitability of the candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers' and all disciplinary

matters effecting a person serving under the Government including memorial or petitions relating to such matters. The words ""shall be consulted

used in Sec. 133 of the State Constitution and in Art.,320 of the federal Constitution cannot always be construed in the sense that undoubtedly on

consultation the action of the executive is to be declared null and vaid but such consultation would be mandatory when the word ""shall"" is used in a

rule or regulation made by {he Government for the purposes of making selection. While interpreting the provisions of rule 5 (2) (b) of the Indian

Forest Service (Additional Recruitment) Regulations,, 1966, the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. H. P. Shethia and others etc, etc. AIR 1978

S. C. 1214 held':

The words 'shall then be referred to the commission for advice, by the Central Government alongwith"" appear to be of a mandatory character and

government only cl. (a) but all the other clauses viz. (b) and (c). Thus, a plain .interpretation of Regulation 5. would show that the requirements

mentioned in cls. (a), (b) and (c) must be complied with before the recommendation is sent to the Commission. Clause (b) clearly states that where

eligible officers of the State Forest Service are not found suitable, reasons must be given by the Beard for their noniniclusion in the select list. This

provision, in our opinion, is in public interest and has been made with a view to avoid aroitrary or capricious exercise of discretion by the Board,

and also to p event any hostile discrimination. The word' adjudge' is a very strong term and indicates that the Board must be satisfied that a person

is not suitable and the requirement for giving reasons has been enjoined for the purpose of proving that the Board was not only satisfied but has

given, grounds of its satisfaction so as to exclude possibility of any oblique or extraneous consideration. In these circumstances, therefore, we are

unable to agree with the counsel for the appellant that the requirement of giving reasons as contained in Regulation 3 (2) (b) is merely an idle

formality and it is a substantial compliance with the said clause if the Board peruses the confidential rolls of officers and forwords the record to the

Commission. Another purpose served by this provision is that the Commission would be in a position to know the views of the Selection Board

and the reasons given by it for excluding a particular candidate so that it may verify the correctness of the reasons given by the Board with the

record forwarded by the Board. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the provisions for giving reasons by Regulation 5 (2) (b) are

mandatory and must be complied with. It is not disputed in the present case that the Board had not complied with this part of the provision of

Regulation 5 and this was sufficient to vitiate the selection made by the Board. Mr. Bhatt, relied on an unreported decision of the Kerala High

Court where, in a very summary fasion, the said High Court has held that there was no requirement in the Regulation that reasons should be given,

In this connection, the High Court of Kerala observed as follows :

It is to be observed that there is 'no such requirement in the Rules with which we are concerned in the instant case. Being, so, it would be

inappropriate to import any requirement of recording the reasons for selection in this case.

The High Court does not appear to have applied its mind to the language used 'in S. 5 (2) (b) of the Regulation, nor has it considered the avowed

purpose of this provision which is undoubtedly in public interest. In these circumstance, therefore, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view

taken by the Kerala High Court on this point and we overrule the same.

In view of the settled proposition of law by various judgements of the High Courts and the apex Court, it is well established that reference of the

pests the PSC may not be necessary under the Constitutional provision but if a provision is made for consultation or reference of the posts to the

PSC, same is mandatory and binding in the absence of which appointments made cannot be held to be legally valid and binding. Otherwise also the

appointments of respondents, Dr. M. Bakhshi, Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad, Dr. Narrinder Mohan, .Dr. Sudhir Bhagotra and Dr. B. FC, Mengi, have

been made in relaxation of the rules completely ignoring the proviso to subrule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules which cannot be sustained. The

appointment of the lecturers in relaxation of the eligibility clause are, therefore, illegal and liable to be quashed.

Appointments of Dr. Jatinder Singh, Dr. Raj Kumar, Dr. B. B. Gupta, Dr. Anita Sharma and Dr. A. Q. Salaria, as lecturers on adhoc basis have

been challenged on the ground of being village of the rules and the constitutional provisions. It is submitted that there is no provision in the rules for

appointment to any post in the service on adhoc basis. It is alleged that the aforesaid respondents were appointed as lecturers on adhoc basis mala

fide and for extraneous considerations. A perusal of the rules shows that no authority is conferred upon the respondents to make appointments to

any post in the service on adhoc basis. Under rule 5 of the Rules the appointments can be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion by

selection, Appointments contemplated by rule 5 do not envisage the adhoc appointments Rule 8 also does not authorise the respondents to make

appointments in the service on adhoc basis. However, under rule. 16 of the Rules, is provided that"" in regard to matters not specifically covered by

these rules or by orders issued there under, the members of the service shall be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the State Civil

Service in general in so far as they are not inconsistent with the reference"". Subrule (4) of Rule 25 of the J&K. Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short, 1956 Rules) provides :

Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen, to fill immediately a

vacancy by promotion from a lower category, and "" where promotion in accordance with these rules would involve undue dealy or expenditure or

cause administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may promote a person otherwise than in accordance with these rules temporarily until

a person is promoted in accordance with these rules, but such temporary promotion shall in no case exceed three months on each occasion.

This Court in Writ Petition No. 162 of 1978Ajit Kumar V. State others, decided on 2831989, held;

The petitioner has however, drawn my attention towards rule 25 of the J&K Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and urged that under

subrule (4) of the said rule the temporary promotion of a Government Servant cannot exceed three months on one occasion. There is force in the

argument of the petitioner in as much as the impugned order does not specify the period for which respondent Mo. 4 is shown to have been

temporarily promoted as Head Clerk against a vacant post. I have been told that respondent No. 4 continues to hold the post of Head Clerk from

the year 1978. on the basis of the impugned order dated 29th Sept. 1978. The impugned order by which respondent No. 4 was temporarily

promoted without specifying any period being in contravention of the provisions of subrule (4) of rule 25 cannot be upheld.

The view taken in Ajit Kumar's case (supra) was confirmed again by this Gourt in Writ Petition No. 506/87Moh'd Aslam and 6thers V. State and

others decided on 3.4.1989. The Supreme Court in Rattan Lal and others V. State of Haryana and others1985 (4) SCC 43, held, The policy of

adhocism followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Articles"" 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a situation

cannot be permitted to lost any longer. It is needles to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer"". The Supreme

Court strongly depricated the policy under which adhoc appointments were made being deterimenta both to the appointes and also to those who

.are deprived of appointments. In that case the state Government of Haryana was directed to take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in

accordance with the relevant rules and allow all those who were holding the posts on adhoc basis to remain en those posts till the vacancies are

duly filed up. The teachers who were working on such adhoc basis were also permitted to apply for being appointed regularly on these post, if the

/possessed the prescribed qualifications, it was further observed that the Government may consider sympathetically the question of relaxing the

qualification of maximum age prescribed for the appointment to the posts in the case of these who have been the victim of the system of adhoc

appointments.

Adhoc appointments cannot be permitted to hang over the heads of the appointees as domecle's sword for an iudefinite period. It was held by the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Usha Kapoor V. State of Punjab and others1988 (1) SLR. 395) that such an interim and stop gap arrangement

was neither"" legally permissible nor administratively conducive for the efficiency of the service, ft was further observed that adhoc employment

cannot be allowed to continue for indefinite period which ultimately may adversely affect the rights of such appointee after the lapse of time when

regular selections are made in consultation with the PSC. The respondents have not satisfactorily explained any circumstance justifying the

appointments as lecturers in the Medical Education Department of the State on adhoc basis particularly when eligible candidates were available

and were insisting for their appointment through the agency of the PSC and in accordance with the rule applicable. If the respondents are

authorised to make adhoc appointments without any basis or guidelines, there is every livelihood of favouritism and nepotism which is surely to

adversly affect the meritorious candidates as is alleged to have been done in these cases. Clean administration and selection of efficient doctors is

the paramount consideration envisaged by the rules and expected from a government commuted to the cause of the people weddded to the rule of

law and under an obligation to ensure the nonbreach of the fundamental rights enshrined .in PartIII of the Constitution of India. It is also in the

interest of the State that the appointments in the service are made in such a manner which is free from any doubt and inspires confidence among the

members of the service. Adhoc appointments not only negate the fundamental rights of equality but also adversely affects the appointees and all

such other persons who are eligible to be appointed as Lecturers.

Rule 25 of the 1956 Rules envisages the temporary promotion only in the public interest and in cases of emergency which arise and could not have

been foreseen by the authority. The appointing authority has to show the adnoc appointments to be made in public interest and, in the emergency

as envisagency under the aforesaid rule. Otherwise also rule 23 of the 1956 Rules, directs the appoitnments of probationers to substantive

vacancies in the permanent cadre of the category for which the was selected under the relevant rules. Rule 23, therefore, envisages the selection on

probation and subsequent appointment when a substantive vacancy arises in the permanent cadre of the categery for which such person was

selected. It, therefore, follows that normally initially adhoc appointment is not permissible under rules and only such persons who have been

selected and earlier appointed oq probation can be permanently absorbed in the service. However, if special circumstances exist as are envisaged

under rule 25 of the 1956 Rules, meant for promotion, the same test be applied for appointments on temporary basis for the duration envisaged

therein and adhoc appointments cannot in any way be allowed to exceed the period prescribed under the aforesaid rule.

Under the circumstances the appointments of Dr. Jatinder Singh, Dr. Raj Kumar, Dr. B. B. Gupta, Dr. Anita Sharma and Dr. A. Q. Salaria as

adhoc lecturers which is being continued for the last so many years being against the constitutional provisions, service rules and authoritative

pronouncements of various High Courts is liable to be set aside.

In Writ petition No. 153 of 1988 selection of respondents A to 9 as lecturers in the Deptt. of Medicins in the Medical College, Jammu, has been

challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner was wrongfully deprived of consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer allegedly on

the ground of his not possessing the requisite experience. A perusal of AnnexurePG which is a telegram sent to the petitioner by the PSC

specifying therein shows that he was called for interview purely on provisional basis subject to determination of his eligibility. It is submitted that the

condition of requisite 3 years teaching experience for being considered as Lecturer is illegal and arbitrary in nature. Ft is further alleged that

respondents 4, 5 & 6 in that writ petition did not have the requisite teaching experience in general medicine after their post graduation. It is,

however, submitted on behalf of the respondents that under para 4 of the Rules 50 percent of the period spent by the candidate in projecting DM

course has to be counted towards teaching experience. Under rule 17 of the Rules it is provided that if any question arises relating to the

interpretation of the Rules, matter shall be referred to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. Para 4 of the general note

issued under the rules, provides;

50% of the time spent in recognised research under the Indian Council of Medical Research or a University or a Medical College after obtaining

the requisite postgraduate qualification shall be counted towards teaching experience in the same or an allied subject provided that the remaining

50% of the teaching experience shall be regular teaching experience.

In view of the objections, the rules and the note issued, it cannot be said that respondents 4 to 6 did not possess the requisite qualification and

experience and their appointment was liable to be quashed.

The appointments of 7, 8 & 9 in that writ petition is sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner possessed better merit then

those respondents throughout his career which made their selection illegal. The respondents have categorically stated in their counteraffidavit that

selection has been based on over all assessment of the performance of the candidates at the interview, their acade in attainment, experience, sports

and N. C. C. etc. All the claims of each and every candidates were taken into account at the time of assessing their suitability on the basis of which

respondents 4 to 9 were found suitable by the PSC and recommended for appointment accordingly. There does not appear to be, any illegality in

the selection of respondents 7, 8 & 9 were found suitable by the PSC and recommended for appointment accordingly. There does not appear to

be any illegality in the selection of respondents 7 to 9 and their appointment subsequently as lecturers in the Medical Education Department. The

allegations of the petitioners made against respondents 4 to 5 are vague and ambiguous which cannot be made a basis for quashing their selection.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner in that petition that as one of the respondents namely, Dr. Krishan Lal Gupta, has not joined the post

despite selection, his vacancy be filled up after declaring the petitioner to be eligible for such appointment on the basis of his merit and possessing

the requisite teaching experience. The petitioner in support of his claim of teaching experience produced a certificate from Medical College,

Rohtak, from where he had passed post graduation. The respondents have specifically stated that the said college is not a medical Institution

recognised by the MCI for the purpose of counting of teaching experience during the postgraduation and he was, thus, no t even eligible. The

petitioner was called upon for interview in compliance to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 869/85 filed by some candidates

alleging therein that the condition of experience was not legal and valid. The Court further directed that the candidates who did not possess the

requisite 3 years experience as Registrars be interviewed at their own risk and responsibility. The respondents, as a matter of fairely, and allowing

the concession to all such applicants who suffered the ineligibility on account of that ground, decided to call all of them for interview on provisional

basis subject to determination of eligibility and ensured that opportunities were afforded to all similarly circumstanced candidates. The Writ Petition

No. 869/85 was ultimately dismissed on 15.4.1987 in consequence of which respondents 4 to 9 were selected.

Schedule II of the rules provides the minimum teaching/research experience as such:

S. Subject Designation Minimum Minimum teaching/research,

No. of the post qualifi experience

cation.

X X XX XX XX XX

PHYSIOLOGY (a) XX XX XX XX XX

(b) XX XX XX XX XX

(c)' XX XX I XX XX XX

(d) Lecturer XX As Demonsttarer/Tutor in Phy

siology, Registrar/Tutor or an equivalent post in Medicine for three years in a Medical College or a recognised medical teaching institution such a&

AIIMS New Delhi, PGI Chandigarh, JTMER Pondichery, and such other institutions as art recognised by the Medical Council of India of which

one year should be after postgraduation qualification.

However, the minimum teaching/research experience in the rules was substituted vide SRO225 of 1988 dated 29.6.1988, which provided :

As Registrar/Tutor, Demonstrator/Tutor of a Senior Resident for a period of two years in a recognised teaching Medical Institution recognised by

the Medical Council of India or University of Kashmir/Jammu.

It is also well settled that the appointing authority has the power to prescribe the qualifications for the post which should, however, not be

unreasonable or contrary to the constitutional guarantees. The Courts cannot substitute their opinion for the opinion of the appointing authority in

the matters of prescribing the qualifications for the post including the teaching experience. The teaching experience prescribed is not alleged to have

been based upon any whimsical or capricious decision of the appointing authority and has to be shown to be rational,"" intended to achieve the

objective of appointing the only meritorious candidates to the posts of lecturers. The rule regarding experience appears to have been relaxed on the

representations made by the students and the recommendation made by the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Jammu, vide his letter No.

JMC/Estf/GD/101/108 dated 2. 2, 1987 (AnnexurePK in W. P. No. 153/88) wherein it was stated.

In order to tie over the difficulty being faced by the doctors, it is requested that either the tenure of Registership be enhanced from 2 to 3 years or

the recruitment rules be suitably amended so as to provide 2 years teaching experience for the post of Lecturer or as laid down by the Medical

Council of India.

Admittedly, the petitioner, Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, did not possess the requisite teaching experience at the time of selection and appointment and

was, therefore, rightly not selected. Allowing the petitioner to be appointed in relaxation of the eligibility and experience, would adversely affect a

number of similarly situated persons who had appeared in the interview but were not selected on the ground of their not possessing requisite

experience eligibility. The more fact that one of the doctors has not joined despite his selection does not confer any additional right upon the

petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer for which he did not possess the requisite, qualification at the relevant time.

So far the post of Registrar is concerned, it has been admitted that the same is a tenure post for which appointments have been made by the Govt.

according to the criteria prescribed in accordance with Govt. Orders No. 670HME and 633HME of 1984. The main grievance of the petitioners

holding the posts of Registrars was that they had a right to held the post' for a period of 3 years in order to be eligible to be appointed to the post

of lecturers and could not be removed from the posts of Registrars before 'hat term. The argument of the petitioners has lost all its force after the

amendment of the minimum teaching/research experience made in the rules vide SRO225 dated 29.6.1988 prescribing two years experience as

Registrar in teaching medical institution recognised by the M3for the University of Kashmir/Jammu, The petitioners, therefore, can have no genuine

grievance on this ground and prefer any claim to remain posted to the tenure post of Registrar for more than the tenure post of two years.

The record shows that the petitioners Dr. Paramjit Singh, Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli and Dr. Ranbir Singh, were holding the posts of Registrars on

the basis of the orders of the Court for periods of more than 4 years. It will not be out of place to mention that Dr. Sunil Gupta is holding the post

of Registrar from 9,4.1985, Dr. Vinay Rampal and Dr. Jaspal Singh are holding the post for more than 3 years. Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Dr.

Mohan Lal, Dr. Romesh Singh, Dr. Surrinder Kumar, Dr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Dr Mandeep Singh, Dr. Savitri Gulhati, Dr. B. B. Kapoor, Dr.

Koushal Kishore, Dr. Anil, Dr. Yudhishtar Vir Gupta Dr. Naini Dogra, Dr. Rajinder Singh, Dr. Ashok Gupta and Dr. Vijay Sabbarwal are holding

the said posts for the lust more than 2 years.

It is contended on behalf of all the petitioners who are holding the posts of Registrars that they are entitled to remain posted as Registrar for a

period of 3 years to be eligible for appointment to the posts as lecturers outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir where, according to them, the

minimum period prescribed for such post is 3 years. It is submitted that as no selection, has been made in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to the

posts of lecturers, for the last so many years, their chances of appointment in the ""state being bleak, they are entitled to become eligible for

competing outside the State. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the allgeations of the petitioners in this behalf are vague and

ambiguous and that the respondents are not under any legal or constitutional obligations to make the petitioners eligible for selection outside the

State o1' Jammu & Kashmir by permitting them to remain posted as Registrars to the tenure posts which is limited for a period of 2 years only.

There is force in the argument of the respondents as the allegations of the petitioners are vague and ambiguous. It is alleged only in writ petition No.

134/89 that at least 3 years teaching experience as Registrar is prescribed in PGI Chandigarh, and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New

Delhi.

Equallity of opportunity as envisaged under Arts. 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution is equality among equals and cannot be stretched to an extent for

becoming equal with others are not similarly situated. If the contention of the petitionars is accepted for allowing' them to remain posted as

Registrars for 3 years being eligible to be selected as lecturers in the other Institutions in the country an argument can be advanced at a subsequent

stage to allow them to remain posted on those posts for longer duration for being eligible to 'posts of lecturers in the medical institutions outside the

country as well. All the doctors who are posted in the State have been equally treated by the respondents by virtue of the rules as amended upto

date and no discrimination has bean made ""warranting any interference by this Court. No doctor has a vested or legal right to remain posted to the

tenure post of Registrar for more than 2 year. The respondents are also obliged not to make any discrimination in the matter of period of tenure of

Registrars and are under a further obligation to appoint new doctors to the aforesaid posts immediately after the expiry of the period for tenure

post of the registrar earlier appointed so that a large number of doctors are available for selection to the posts of lecturers in the Medical Education

Department. Most of the petitioners have otherwise succeeded in overstaying the period prescribed or the period claimed by them to hold the

posts of Registrars on the basis of the orders obtained from the Courts for which the respondent State also appears to have not taken any effective

step for vacation of the same.

Some of the doctors who are postgraduates and have claimed their appointments as Registrars on the basis of Govt. Order No. 633HME of 1984

have further prayed that the respondents be restrained from applying and enforcing Govt. Order No. 670HME of 1982 dated 13. 10. 1982

which, according to them, stands superseded vide subsequent Govt. Order. It is alternatively prayed that Govt. Order No.670HME of 1982 be

quashed beingunconstitutional and arbitrary.

Govt. Order No. 670HME of 1982 13.10,1982 provides :

It is hereby ordered that no postgraduate doctor will be considered for appointment as Registrars or otherwise in the Medical Colleges/Associated

Hospitals, Srinagar/Jammu unless he has completed 2 (two) years minimum active physical service in the Health Department.

Govt. order No. 633HME of' 1984 dated 19.9.1984 provides :

In suspersession of Govt. Order No. 460HME of 1984 dated 5. 7. 1984, it is hereby ordered that system ofmaking for criteria on merit of

applicants for selection as Registrars/Demonstrators and House Officers in Medical Colleges and its associated hospital of the State shall

henceforth be made in accordance with the provisions indicated in the statements following the annexures A&B to this order.

Again Annexure A to Govt, Order No, 633IIME of I9S4 (supra) provides :

System of allotment of marks for selection of candidates for appointment as Registrars/Demonstrators in Govt. Medical College, Jammu, Srinagar

:

Criterion

Total Mark 100

Academic Career 40

(Passed all examinations of MBBS in

1st attempt (40)

1 Failure in MBBS Professional (Deduct 3 marks)

for every subsequent attempt).

Distinction Scholarship/Honours/ Medical/ Certificates

House Job :

a. Excellent (5)

b. Very good (3)

c. Good (1)

4: Rural service prior to Post Graduation (one year of Rural will yield one point, Maximum upto five years of Rural Services)

Field Service after Post Graduation (One year Field (5)

Service with Director, Health Services after Post

Graduation will yield 1 point maximum upto 5 years)

Post Gradution Examination :

M. D/M.S. (20) .

Diploma (10)

Professional publications in Standard Medical Journal (2 for each

Max. 10)

8 Viva Vice; (10)

It is urged that as separate marks are provided for rural service prior to the post graduation and field service, after postgraduation, the authorities

at the most can dedust or reduce the additional marks provided for field service after post graduation but cannot deprive the doctors from being

appointed as Registrars their failure to have completed two years minimum active physical service in the Health Department after postgraduatioan,

A perusal of the aforesaid two Govt. Orders and the system of allotment of marks clearly shows that Govt. Order No. 670FLvIE of 1982 has not

at all been superseded by Govt. Order No. 633HME of 1984. The latter Govt. Order of 1984 only prescribes the system of making for a criteria '

on merit of the applicants for selection as Registrar/Demonstrators and House Officers in the Medical Colleges and the Associated Hospitals in the

state. The 1984 Govt. Order, in fact, is a complementary and supplementary to the 1982 Govt. Order. Govt Order of 1984 only prescribes '

criteria for selection and system of allotment of marks for appointment as Registrars/Demonstrators in Medical Colleges and does not in any way

supersede the clause of eligibilty as prescribed by the J982 Govt. Order. The advertisement notice (Annexure PA) dated 5.10.1988 shows that

the selection to the posts of Registrars was to be made in accordance with the instructions prescribed by the Government for the purpose from

time to time and on the basis of combined result of the academic merit and performance of duties. Appointments are to be governed by the terms

and conditions laid down by the Government. The condition prescribed vide Govt. Order of 1982 has justified by the respondents to have been

made with a view to provide expert facilities to the rural masses who generally are deprived of medical assistance by the senior postgraduate

doctors. It is submitted that the condition imposed by Govt. Order No. 670HME of 1982 is in ' the interest of she public at large with the object of

providing better medical services in the rural areas as well as where majority of the poor masses live. The condition can neither be termed as

irrational nor held illegal. A perusal of Govt. Order No. 633HME of 1984, would show that the Government had passed the same in supersession

of Govt. Order No. 46GHME or' 1984 dated 5.7.1984. Aforesaid Govt. Order No. 460 of 1984 was passed in supersession of Govt. Order

No. 102 of 1973 dated 189.1973 prescribing the system of marking for assessment of merit for selection as Registrar/Demonstrators, Govt.

Order of 1982 did not deal with the system of allotment of marks for selection of candidates for appointments as Registrars/Demonstrators, in the

Govt. Medical Colleges in the State. Neither directly nor impliedly the Govt. Order of 1982 has been repealed or can be said to be nonexistant.

The rependent have given cogent grounds in support of the aforesaid Govt. order and the petitioners have not been in a position to show any

ground for quashing the aforesaid Govt. Order (No. 670HME of 1982) which is neither illegal nor unconstituional.

Under the circumstances these writ petitions are disposed of with the following findings ane directions :

(i) Appointment of Dr. M, Bakhshi, Dr. Tariq Parvez Azad. Dr. Narrinder Mohan, Dr. Sudhir Bhagotra and Dr. B. K. Mengi as lecturers in

relaxation of the rules vide the orders impugned in these petitions are quashed;

(ii) Appointments of Dr. Jatinder Singh, Dr.. Raj Kumar Sharma Dr. Jai Paul Singh, Dr. B. B. Gupta, Dr. Anita Sharma and Dr. A.Q. Salaria as

adhoc lecturers vide orders impugned in the writ petitiors are quashed;

(iii) The respondents who are presently holding posts of lecturers and adhoc lecturers shall continue on the posts for a period of 3 (three) months

only whereafter the posts held by then shall be deemed to have been vacated;

(iv) Respondents are directed to fill up the posts of lecturers on permanent basis through the PSC within a period of 3 months positively;

(v) Respondents whose selection has been quashed and who possess prescribed qualifications may also apply for being appointed regularly for the

pests and the Government may consider sympathetically the question of relaxation of qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to

these posts, if any one of them has crossed the upper age limit during the period of his appointment as lecturer or adhoc lecturer;

(vi) Government Order No. 670HME of 1982 dated 13,10.1982 is upheld with a direction to the respondents to make appointments to the tenure

posts of Registrars immediately on the basis of the aforesaid Govt. Order and according to the system of allotment of marks as provided by Govt.

Order No. 633HME of J9S4 dated 19.9.1984;

(vii) All the tenure posts of Registrars 'held by the petitioners and others for more than 2 years are declared to have fallen vacant with immediate

effect;

(viii) Govt. Order No. 168HME of 1987 dated 1.6.1987 is upheld. The post of lecturer, which is lying vacant on account of nonjoining of Dr.

K.L. Gupta shall be filled up according to the rules and directions given hereinabove;

(ix) All the stay orders granted by the Court in relation to the posts of lecturers, adboc lecturers and Registrars are hereby vacated and the

connected CMP's disposed of.

(x) The parties are directed to bear their own costs;