Swati Sinku Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Judgment

1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As mentioned above in the cause title.

2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As stated in the above cause title.

3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J WRIT PETITiQN (S) No.1727 of 2011 WRIT PETITIQN_(S) No.2267 of 2010 WRIT PETITION (S) No.2805 of 2010 WRIT PETITION (S) No.4755 of 2010 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1231 of 201 1 WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1389 of 2011 WRIT PETITiON (S) No. 1390 of 2011 WRIT PETITIQNJSUio. 1438 of 2011 WRIT PETITION (S) No.6349 of 2011 WRIT PETITION (S) No.4001 of 2011 WRIT PETITION (S) No.4159 of 2011 AND WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1491 of 2011 Post for Judgment on 29/03/2009 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J WRIT PETITION IS) No. 1727 of2011 Dr. Karalesh Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s others WRITPETITION (SlNp.2267_of 2010 PETITIONER Swati Sinku Kujur Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION (SLNo.2805 of 2010 PETITIONERS Dr. Santosh Singh Patel 8s others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Vs. WRIT PETIT1QN (S) No.4755 of 2010 PETITIONERS Dr. Mrithunjay Rathore & others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh SE others Vs. WRIT PETITION (S) No.1231 of 2011 PETITIONERS Dr. Sumeet Tripathi and others Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh SE others •'^ ^' WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1389 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1390 of 2011 Dr. Usha Joshi Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhatdsgarh 8s others WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1438 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Suprava Patel and another Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION (S) No.6349 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Pratibha Khosla Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 65 others WRIT PETITION (S) No.4001 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8s another 1\'^ ^) WRIT PETITION (S) No.4159 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Usha Joshi Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8s others AND WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1491 of 2011 PETITIONER Dr. Diyya Sahu Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh SE others Appearance: Shri Prashun Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S. No.1727/2011. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S.2267/2010. Shri B.P. Shanna, counsel forthe petitioners in W.P.S. No.2805 /2010. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S. No.4755/2010. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S.No. 1231/2011, 1390/2011 &W.P.S.4159/2011. Shri Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S.1389/2011 & W.P.S.4001/2011. Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.S. 1438/201 1 & W.P.S. No. 1491/2011. Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.S.6349/2011. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate along-with Shri Y.C. Sharma, Sliri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ashish Shrivastava for the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission. PSC. Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Sliri A.N. Bhakta, Shri Prafull Bharat, Shri R.S. Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Sudhir Verma, Shri Marhas, Shri Manoj Paranjpe Prateek Sharma, Shri Alok Bakshi , Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Anup Majumdar, Shri Manoj Mishra, Shri Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Shri Sandeep Dubey for the respective respondents. Dr.Pratibha Khosla, respondent no.16 in person JUDGMENT/ ORDER ( S ^.03.2012)

1. This batch of writ petitions concerns with the advertisement dated 27.9.2008 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for 'PSC') inviting applications recruitment of the posts of Assistant Professor (clinical and / non-clinical) and Demonstrator. ^ Challenge has been thrown to the select list published for non- clinical as well as appointment made for clinical posts of Assistant Professor in the medical colleges in the State. In W.P(S).No. 1727/2011 petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Jain has challenged selection of the private respondents 4 to 24 as Assistant Professors, on various non-clinical subjects. Two other writ petitions i.e., W.P(S). No.2267/2010 (Swati Sinku Kujur Vs. State and others) and W.P.S. 2805/2010 (Dr. Santosh Singh Patel and others Vs. State), have been preferred to challenge the appointment of private respondents as Assistant Professors in different clinical subjects. Since the main arguments ha.ve been raised in W.P(S). 1727/2011 and the documents filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents in this writ petition have been referred to in course of argument, this Court shall deal with the issue with respect to the facts and documents of this writ petition and the said writ petition shall hereinafter be referred to as Writ Petition of Kamlesh Jain.

3. In the writ petition of Kamlesh Jain, prayer has been made for quashing order No.l783/189/2010/Chayan

10.03.2011 along-with letters dated 06.05.2010 8s 01.05.2010 which have been made part of Annexure P-1. The Public Service Commission (PSC) invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors by issuing advertisement dated

27.9.2008. In the said advertisement, 82 vacancies ofAssistant Professor (clinical subjects) and 47 vacancies for Assistant Professor (non-clinical subjects) were notified. The last date for submission of / 01.11.2008. However, by issuing an addendum/corrigendum application form was mentioned as ^ on 15.05.2009 (Annexure P-3), the last date for subraission of application forms was extended to 08.6.2009. There was some niodification in the number of vacancies in as much as instead of 82 posts of Assistant Professor in Clinical subjects the modified advertisement invited applications for 87 number of posts and similarly instead of 47 vacancies for non-clinical departments 68 vacancies were notified. Dr. Kamlesh Jain submitted his application dated 25.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) for the post of Assistant Professor (PSM) as mentioned in the writ petition. His candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not fill up the name of the department and name of the post as required and mentioned in the advertisement giving rise to filing ofW.P.(S) No. 1673/2010 seeking issuance ofwrit of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to issue call letter to hiin for the interview scheduled to be held on

19.4.2010. In this writ petition, he stated that he is fully qualified and had filled the application correctly and yet no call letter was issued. This earlier writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain i.e., W.P(S).No.l673/2010 was dismissed by this Court on

26.04.2010 inter-alia holding that

5. Dr. Jain, petitioner in person, submits that the subject mentioned in the application form i.e., Department of Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) comes within the department of PSM, thus it cannot be held that the petitioner has not given the concerned department wherefor, he has applied for appointment on the post ofAssistant Professor.

6. Contention of the petitioner is noticed to be rejected on the simple ground that a candidate was required to fill only department, mentioned in the advertisement. There such department Department of Health and Family Welfare (Medical So<) Education), in CIause-B of the posts in non-clinical department in the advertisement.

7. The next contention of the petitioner' that in case of Demonstrators, an opportunity to the candidates were given to specify branch in the application within a period of 15 days, the same was not done in case of the petitioner.

Mr. Sharma, response, submits learned counsel for PSC, is no provision for In case entertaining any rectification in the application. of Demonstrators in the original advertisement dated

27.9.2008, there were eight branches specified in the advertisement. A candidate who has obtained MBBS degree was eligible for consideration of appointment and selection on the post of Demonstrator branches. Since maximum number of the candidates did in all .the not mention their branches, by advertisement and corrigendum dated 15.5.2009 (Annexure P/5) specifically mentioned in paras 7 8s 8 that the candidates making an application for the post of Demonstrators have to submit separate application for separate subject. it was Accordingly, notices were issued to the Demonstrators, this was not done in the case ofAssistant Professor (Non- CIinicaI department), as there is no ambiguity in the advertisement or application form.

9. Heard the petitioner in person and learned It appears that the counsel appearing for the parties. essential Deinonstrators, qualifications, being the same for all the eight branches, applied for all branches. Thus, it became necessary to having regard intimate them that they should make an application for one branch only.

10. In case of appointment of the Assistant Professor (Non-clinical department) which is the subject the qualification for different matter of the petition, departments were different, as is evident from clause 4(B) the petitioner of the advertisement. ^ cannot claim intimation enabling him to correct Even otherwise, ^r department in the application form, as the departments were cleariy given in the advertisement form and even the educational qualification, which were different for all the specifically departments, were advertisement. The petitioner cannot take any advantage on the ground that demonstrators were intimated for submission of their specific branches. The petitioner has failed to fill up correct department in the application for provided which he made an application for selection and recruitment. Thus the action of the respondent/PSC cannot be faulted with. For reasons mentioned hereinabove, petition fails and is hereby dismissed." Sd/ xxx Judge

4. Dr. Kamlesh Jain did not prefer any writ appeal against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge and thus the said issue concerning rejection of petitioner's candidature has become final. The interviews of all the eligible candidates were held from 19U1 ofApril, to 30a ofApril, 2010 and the select list was published on 01.05.2010 and thereafter recommendations were made by PSC on 06.05.2010. It appears that several complaints were made to the State Government as well as to His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh who made it over to the State Government and thereafter enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted. Based on the report (Annexure P- 12), the Government sent memo to the Public Service Commission on 09th August 2010 (Annexure P-13) requesting the PSC to re-examine the select list. From Annexure P-1, it appears V Government to the PSC in October and November, 2010 as also issued by the State letters were similar ^o in February 2011 and referring to all these communications, the Public Service Commission informed the State Government that the decision taken by the Commission with regard to the eligibility of a candidate is final and the Enquiry Officer appointed by the State Government has no authority to comment upon the recruitment made by the PSC impliedly observing that the State Government should not interfere in the process of recruitment. It has also been stated therein that the Commission has not favoured or victimized any individual and all the applicants have been treated alike. However, considering the request of the State Government, name of two candidates of non-clinical department namely Dr. Usha Joshi and Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi were deleted from the select list as they were selected inspite of there being substantial defects in their application forms. For rest of the selected candidates, Commission, on re-examination, found that there has been no error in scrutiny of their application forms and their selection as published earlier remains intact. The Coinmission also informed that selection and recommendation of Dr. Namrita Kishore Kashyap (clinical/gynecology/antenatal officer) is also withdrawn as there was substantial defect in her application. It is this decision of the PSC which is under challenge in this writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain.

5. Shri Prashun Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has vehemently argued and has challenged the select list raainly on the following grounds: (a) that the entire selection suffers and is vitiated because of clearance of the application forms and consideration of the candidature of private respondents despite there being several defects in their applications, more so when similar defect of the petitioner has been made basis for rej'ection ofhis candidature/application; (b) that the private respondents or most of them do not have requisite experience and as such they were not eligible for consideration of their names, yet the PSC has cleared their candidatures and included thein in the select list which is arbitrary and illegal; (c) the preparation of select is against constitutional scheme of appointment in as much as the constitutional scheme would presuppose selection and appointment through fair and transparent procedure and not by approving candidature of such candidates who are ineligible and not qualified for the post; (d) inspite of dismissal of his earlier writ petition seeking relief for himself, the present writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain is maintainable because while approving the candidature of other candidates, the PSC has violated the mandate ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution.

6. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava appearing in W.P(S). No.2267/2010 (Swati Sinku Kujur Vs. State) and Shri Kshitiz Sharma, appearing in W.P (S). No.2805/2010 (Dr. Santosh Singh Patel and others Vs. State) both concerning challenge to the appointments already made for posts ofAssistant Professor in clinical department have challenged the selection/appointment on the ground that the impugned selection, only after interviewing the candidates is illegal. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava has further argued that petitioner is more experienced than 10 n respondents 3 8s 4 who do not have even the requisite experience as per the advertisement, therefore, the petitioner should selected appointments respondents 3 8s 4 deserve to be set aside. Both the learned counsel would further there were several discrepancies in the application forms of selected candidates and yet they have been selected which is per-se illegal and arbitrary. According to them, the amended MCI Regulation came into force with effect from 03rd of November, 2010. However, by this time, the interviews were over which took place between 16th January, 2010 to 30U1 January 2010 (for clinical department), therefore, such candidates who lack in requisite experience cannot be declared to have the requisite experience on the strength of amended MCI Regulation. It has been further argued that the stand of PSC to the.effect that the application forms have been scrutinized by the experts is not correct in as much as by the tirae Annexure R-2/4 filed by the PSC was issued, the interyiews were already over. Mr. Kshitiz Sharma has referred to defects/discrepancies in the application forms of private respondents who have been arrayed as respondents 4 to 63.

8. Resisting the arguments raised by the petitioners Dr. Kamlesh Jain, Dr. Swati Sinku Kujur and Dr. Santosh Singh Patel and others, learned Senior Advocate Dr. N.K.Shukla along-with Shri Y.C. Sharma, Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ashish Shrivastava appearing on behalf of PSC have raised the following submissions: A candidate who has completed his M.D., M.S. course is mandatorily required to impart teaching in the medical college ..iW-7;.&'..~~-'''W.. 11 ~^^ for the entire duration of course i.e., for 3 years, therefore, the experience shown by each of the private respondents/selected candidates in their application forms is over and above the said experience of 3 years and more over in view of the amended MCI Regulation, they are fully qualified ris a vis the experience clause in the advertisement. They would submit that the PSC has prepared a check list at the time of scrutiny of application form, which goes to substantiate that the scrutiny has been made by the experts after due application of mind and all the candidates have been treated alike and there is absolutely no discrimination or arbitrariness while scrutinizing the forms of individual candidates. They would further submit absence of any pleading or factual foundation about the malice in fact or malice in law, the scrutiny made by the PSC which is otherwise flnal and binding cannot be challenged. It has been put-forth by them that the High Level Committee including one expert has made the scrutiny, therefore, the findings about the eligibility of the candidate cannot be questioned in these writ proceedings. It has also been vehemently argued that writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain is not maintainable as he himself found ineligible, therefore, he cannot challenge the selection of other candidates and likewise petitioners Dr. Swati Sinku Kujur, Santosh Singh Patel and others having participated in the selection process, their wnt petitions are also not maintainable.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission have further argued that the present petition is hit by the principles of res judicata as the earlier writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain has already been dismissed by this Court; that 12 r\- the petitioner who cannot claim relief for himself is also not entitled to claim relief challenging selection of other candidates; Annexure P-1 is only a recomrnendation in the form of correspondence, therefore, it cannot be challenged; petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Jain belongs tQ only one faculty of PSM, therefore, he cannot challenge the entire select list containing selection for all the faculties of non-clinical branch; petition having been filed on 28.3.2011 i.e., after almost a year from 01.05.2010 when the select list was published, the same is barred under the principles of delay and laches and corrections have been made by the candidates during the period between the first advertisement and the corrigendum and no candidate has been permitted to make any correction of substantial nature after the last date for filling/submission ofform was over.

10. Learned counsel Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Shri A.N. Bhakta, Shri Prafull Bharat, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Shri Sudhir Verina, Shri Prateek Sharnia, Shri Alok Bakshi , Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Anup Majumdar, Shri Manoj Mishra, Shri Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Shri Sandeep Dubey and Dr.Pratibha Khosla, respondent no.l6 appearing in person have reiterated the submissions raade by learned counsels appearing for Public Service Commission and have further submitted that proper pleadings have not been made as required under Rule 44 of the C.G. High Court Rules; no relief has been claimed for by Dr. Kamlesh Jain for himself, therefore, it is in the nature of PIL, no allegations have been levelleved against some of the private respondents, therefore, the petition is frivolous and vexatious against / Pr&tibha Khosla appearing in person has argued that eariier them. Dr. 13 writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain has already been dismissed and there being no violation of any of his fundamental or statutory right, therefore, his subsequent writ petition is not maintainable. She would submit that Dr. Kamlesh Jain is already working as Assistant Professor on contract basis and this petition has been prefen-ed to obtain repeated extension of his contract appointment which too was made on the basis of interview only, therefore, the petitioner having obtained job only on the basis of interview cannot challenge the regular selection by the same procedure. She would also submit that the petitioner was aware of the terms of advertisement and did not raise any objection and in fact he challenged rejection of his candidature with an intention to participate in the selection process and having failed in his writ petition, he has now preferred this malafide writ petition. She has further argued the petitioner has objected to her professional degree whereas the petitioners own professional degree is more than 4 years old and he had not filed mark sheet of M.D. examination or notification of the result. According to her, the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has not filed his complete application form along-with his writ petition. She would vehemently argue that the petitioner has printed a distorted picture of the entire process to derive personal gain and is seeking a roving enquiry with respect to candidatures of each of the private respondents, which cannot be permitted under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same has already been cleared by an expert body. She has alleged that the petitioner guilty of misleading information about herself i.e., respondent no.16. Referring various applications/ 14 ^ ^ certificates submitted by Dr. Kamlesh Jain, she would submit that his name as well as his father is mentioned differently in different documents and in his domicile certificate, mentioned as if he is residing with guardian whereas his father is alive. Thus according to her, to claim appointment in the State of Chhattisgarh, Dr. Kamlesh Jain has relied on a domicile certificate which is not proper.

11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has perused the documents available on record and on the basis of pleadings and arguments, the following issues appear to be emerging for decision: (i) Whether the procedure adopted for scrutiny of application forms was arbitraiy and illegal ? (ii) Whether the PSC has cleared candidatures of such candidates and included them in select list who do requisite qualification of having not possess teaching experience of three years as Resident Doctor/ Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor as per MCI Regulation 1998 ? (iii) Whether selection only on the basis of interview is illegal and not in conformity with rules •? (iv) Whether the writ petition of Kamlesh Jain is maintainable in view of dismissal of his earlier writ petition and also for the reason that he has been declared ineligible ? (v) Whether the writ petitions of Swati Singh Kujur and Santosh others Singh Patel maintainable as these petitioners have challenged 15 ^ the selection and the procedure after participating therein ? (vi) Whether the State Government has power to order an enquiiy with respect to an on going selection of Public Service Commission, a constitutional body created under Article 315 of the Constitution ? (vii) Whether Dr. Kamlesh Jain can challenge the non-clinical candidates selection posts/departments when he himself had applied for only one department i.e., PSM ? (viii) Whether the scrutiny made and decision taken with respect to eligibility of a candidate can be challenged in writ proceedings ?

12. Questions No.lfiiiZ (i) Whether procedure adopted scrutiny application forms was arbitrary and illegal ? And (ii) Whether the PSC has cleared candidatures of such candidates and included them in select list who do not possess requisite qualification attaching experience of three years as Resident Doctor/Registrar/Demonstrator/ Tutor as per MCI Regulation 1998 ? According to the petitioner, the procedure adopted for scrutiny of application forms was not only faulty but the PSC has chosen to inform few candidates about the deficiencies in the applications which should have been made with all the candidates and further that such candidates who do not have teaching experience of three years as Resident Doctors of Registrar/demonstrator/tutor as per MCI Regulation have been selected which vitiates the entire list. Replying to these, the 16 PSC has argued that only such candidates were informed whose forms carry minor defects which were not substantial so as to reject them out-rightly. It is submitted by PSC that as per the terms of advertisement it was in the doraain of PSC to have informed the candidates depending upon the nature of defect and no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed. It has further been argued that MCI regulation as amended on 3rd November, 2010 would be applicable in the present case.

13. It appears that in the advertisement issued on 27.9.2008 the last date for submission of application forms was declared as 01.11.2008. However, an addendum/corrigendum was issued on 15.5.2009 extending the last date of submission of application form till 08.06.2009. In the first advertisement, it was mentioned in Para 17(a) that one applicant can submit only one application and if more than one application are submitted by any candidate all the applications shall be rejected. However, vide Para 7 corrigendum advertisement, this paragraph was deleted meaning thereby that a candidate can move or submit more than one application. It has been informed by the Public Service Commission that corrections were made by the candidates during the period between the first advertisement and corrigendum and corrections have not been entertained after the last date of submission of forms mentioned in the corrigendum. The scrutiny of application forms have been made by the Public Service Commission with the assistance of two experts who were summoned from Medical College, Raipur in the subject of Pharmacology and likewise for other subjects. / After the primary scrutiny, check list was prepared and 17 n) thereafter the candidates were informed about minor defects. However, no information was sent to such candidates whose applications suffer from material defect like Dr. Kamlesh Jain who failed to niention the name of the veiy departinent in which he wanted to apply. Thus PSC has not adopted any pick and chose policy while rejecting the candidature of such applicants whose forms suffer from material defects and by informing the other candidates whose forms carry minor defects. Under Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules, satisfaction of the Commission about the eligibility is final. It is also to be kept in mind that petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Jain preferred writ petition which has already been dismissed by this Court.

14. Therefore, the question concerning the nature of defect in case of Dr. Kamlesh Jain cannot be reopened. In the matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Sekhar 1993 (Supp) 2 SCC 62Jf, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that some candidates did pass the B.E. Civil Examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview and by allowing the candidates to appear in the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merit, the recruiting authority was able to get best talents available and it was certainly in public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. It has been further held that it was in public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been declared late, the candidates were fully qualified on the dates of interview, therefore, too much technical view cannot be taken and the results announced by the recruiting authority have, therefore, to be upheld.

15. In the case before this Court, the MCI Regulation of1998 prescribed the qualification for Assistant Professor/lecturer as requisite recognized postgraduate qualification in the subject and 3 years teaching experience in the subject in a recognized medical college as Resident/Registrar/ Adniinistrator/Tutor. By amendment dated 3rd November, 2010, the minimum qualification for teachers in Medical Institution Regulation 1998 for the post of Assistant Professor/lecturer has been substituted and the amended regulation declared the minimum qualification to be No.l candidates possessing M.D/M.S. degree for MCI recognized medical Colleges—,three teaching experience subject Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor a recognized medical college either during the post-graduation course or after obtaining postgraduate degree in the subject. For the candidates possessing DNB qualification from MCI recognized medical colleges/central institutes where there are no MD/MS courses running; 3 years teaching experience in the subject in a recognized medical college either during DNB course or after DNB qualification, the concemed candidate would also be required one year additional teaching/research experience in the concerned subject in a recognized inedical college after obtaining DNB qualification. For the candidates possessing DNB qualification MCI recognized medical colleges/central institute where there are MD/MS course ^ ninning; 3 years teaching experience in the subject in a 19 recognized medical college either during the DNB course or after obtaining DNB qualification.

16. On a reading of the minimum qualification clause from the MCI Regulation as mentioned above, it would clearly appear that earlier the requirement was of postgraduate qualification together with 3 years teaching experience in the subject as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor. However, it is matter of common knowledge and learned counsel for the parties agreed to this position that while undertaking MD/MS course in a medical college or institute where MBBS courses are also taught, a PG student is compulsority required to teach undergraduate MBBS students as a resident doctor. However, in several recognized institutes/hospitals an undergraduate is also recruited as a Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor, but in absence of any undergraduate course being available in the said medical college or hospital, the candidate does not gain any teaching experience. Thus an M.D/M.S student from a recognized medical college where undergraduate course is available is mandatorily required undergraduate students and it is this context the PSC in the present case issued a communication to the State Government who in turn sought advice from Director, Medical Education to the effect as to when an MD/MS student is required to teach undergraduates why a separate teaching experience of 3 years as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor has been sought for in the advertisement. To this query, the Director Medical Education informed the State Government who in turn informed the Commission that since in many postgraduate / ipstitutes like PGI Chhandigarh, there are no undergraduate ^ 20 ^ courses available and an MD/MS student does not get any opportunity to teach undergraduates, the advertisement has made it clear that apart from MD/MS degree teaching experience as Resident/ Registrar/ Demonstrator/ Tutor is required. However, that does not mean that when the said teaching experience of three years has been acquired while conducting MD/MS course, the said experience shall not be counted and an additional experience of three years after completing a postgraduate course would be necessary. It appears, to remove this anomaly, MCI Regulation made the amendment dated 3Id November, 2010 clarifying the position that teaching experience of three years may be acquired by MD/MS students at the time ofconducting courses or after acquiring the MD/MS degree.

17. Even otherwise, as earlier discussed, the advertisement having not stated that the teaching experience of three years as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor acquired after MD/MS course and the MCI Regulation of 1998 also having not clarified it before 3rd November, 2010 that teaching experience of three years acquired during the MD/MS course would not be sufficient or in other wards the said experience shall have to be gained after completing the MD/MS course, the Conimission after seeking clariflcation from State Government/DME has not committed any irregularity or illegality by counting the experience gained during the MD/MS course as sufficient for the purpose of moving the application.

18. Even at the risk of repetition, this court would again like to discuss that in the MCI Regulation of 1998, the initial requirement • for being eligible to be appointed as Assistant 21 Professor was (i) requisite recognized postgraduate qualification in the subject; and (ii) 3 years teaching experience in the subject in a recognized medical college as Resident/Registrar/ Denionstrator/Tutor. It nowhere says that the teaching experience acquired as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/ Tutor should be acquired after passingMD/MS examination. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said teachin; experience acquired at the time of conducting MD/MS course vvould not be recognized, because, as earlier discussed if this interpretation is permitted, petitioner Dr. Karalesh Jain himself would be ineligible because after his appointment as Assistant Professor, he has not gained any teaching experience but had worked at all point of time with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is also not the case of the petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Jain that three years teaching experience acquired by selected candidates acquired Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor, therefore, on a plain reading of the experience clause as it stood before the amendment dated 3rd November, 2010, the requirement was of teaching experience as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/ Tutor without there being any rider that the said acquisition of experience should be after/in addition to the experience gained while conducting MD/MS course._ In this view of the matter and as there is no denial that all the selected candidates have acquired the experience as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/ Tutor, they do not lack in requisite experience and their selection on this count cannot be held to be illegal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the amendment dated 3rd No.vember, 2010 in MCI Regulation of 1998 is thus in the T1 t? nature of clarification or declaratory and in any case, in view of the above interpretation made by this Court, the amendment does not have the effect of holding that if the earlier experience has been acquired during MD/MS course, it cannot be recognized.

19. In fact, the subsequent amendment of 3rd November, 2010 in the MCI Regulation only strengthens the procedure adopted by the Commission w's a vis treating experience obtained during MD/MS as sufficient experience. Thus this court is of the considered opinion that the Commission has not committed any illegality in processing the forms of such candidates who had mentioned the experience of less than 3 years in the particular column of the application to mean that the said experience is over and above the teaching experience of three years which they have acquired during MD/MS course.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken through this Court to the application forms of respondents to point out defects like nonfilling of Columns No.17 & 18, defects in caste certificate, defects in OBC certificate, defect in declaration about not being covered within the definition of creamy layer etc. The argument regarding creamy layer and the benefit of age relaxation obtained by some candidates are referred only to be rejected in as much as under the notification dated 14th October 2004 issued by department of Personal and Training, Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India filed by Respondent no.5, 14, 19 & 24 along-with their return, it has been clarified by the Central Gjsvernment that the creamy layer status of a candidate is 'determined on tHe basis of the status of his parents and not on 23 the basis of his own status or income or on the basis of status or income of his/her spouse. Therefore, while determining the creamy layer status of a person the status or the income of the candidate himself or of his/her spouse shall not be taken into account.

21. With regard to non-filing ofColumns No.17 & 18 it has to be seen that the said column is about previous dismissal from service or conviction or criminal antecedent or if the candidate has been debarred previously by the said PSC or UPSC. It has been stated by the counsels appearing for PSC that almost all the candidates have left these columns blank. Therefore, all the candidates have been treated alike and no form has been rejected on this ground, othenvise, more than 90% forms would have been rejected. The private respondents have explained from the language contents paragraphs/columns, it appears that these columns were to be filled in only when there is previous conviction/ criminal antecedents/dismissal or removal or debarring and since none of the candidates suffers from any such defect or stigma, no further information was required to be submitted and therefore, these columns have been left blank by majority of the candidates. They would also submit that even otherwise before making actual appointment, criminal antecedents are verified by the State Govemment. Therefore, the objection or the argument of the petitioner in this regard has no substance. It is also to be noted that petitioners have neither alleged nor produced any material before this Court that any of the private respondent suffers from defect in candidature on account bf previous dismissal or reraoval from service or from previous asariSi'.x. :.•—.:. 24 conviction or criminal antecedent, therefore, mere non-filling of Column 17/18 does not result in rejection of candidature.

22. In the matter of Madanlal Vs. State of J&K. and others 1995 3 SCC 486, it has been held that while considering the challenge to a recruitment or selection made by PSC the writ court does not sit as an appellate Court and is therefore not entitled to dwell upon each and every aspect of the matter howsoever minor or insignificant it may be.

23. !n the matter of Secretary (Health), Departinent of Health and Famlly Welfare V. Dr. Anita Puri and others (1996) 6 SCC 282 it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Para 9 of the judgment that when a selection is made by an expert body like the PSC which is also devised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the field for which the selection is to be made, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of malafide made established. It would be prudent and safe for the court to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers the suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant facts then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation.

24. In the present case, the medical colleges of Raipur and Jagdalpur were short of faculties as informed by learned Additional Advocate General. The inspection team of MCI was to visit the colleges for granting recognition, therefore, to come ^ the acute shortage of faculties the Commission was 25 ^ required to speed up the recruitment and in that process minor defects in the applications have been ignored. However, substantial defects have been acted upon. Similar arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the public service commission. Thus in the given circumstances, this Court finds that the procedure adopted for scrutiny of application forms was not arbitrary more so when no allegation of malafide or bias or bungling or corruption has been alleged against any member of PSC or the expert.

25. It has been argued on' behalf of the petitioners that some certificates of having experience or of having M.D/M.S or concerning caste certificate or domicile or income certificate has been submitted later on. Therefore, there is substantial defect in the procedure for scrutiny and on account of such acceptance of certificates after closure of the date of submission of application forms, the selection is vitiated and illegal. In this context, apart froin what has been discussed above, it is profitable to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Charless K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, AIR 1980 SC 1230 wherein the following has been laid down in para 20 : i "20. There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last datefor application, not later. Proofof having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of it. Has the candidate in fact, secured a having got diploma before the final date of application for admission It is to the degree course? That is the primary question. prudent to produce evidence of the diploma alongwith the •iipplication, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date 26 ^ on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic through a diploma for which extra mark is excellence, granted, can not be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the the diploma and is not an factum of possession of independent factor. The prospectus does say : (4) (b) : 10% to Diploma holders in the selection of candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses in the respective subjects or sub-specialties.

13. Certificates to be produced:- In all cases true copies of the following docum.ents have to be produced :- XXX XXX XXX (k) Any other certificates required along-with the application. Thi's composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date, what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sen.se. unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to if it But invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a inanner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board is to make procedure not handmaid but the mistress andfonn not as subservient to substance but as supenor to the essence. .

26. - Yet again, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of *~ Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and others, 2004 AIR •• 27 "bT- SCW 5699 had held in Para 7 that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof regarding eligibility qualification need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. In this judgment, their Lordships have relied on Para 20 8s 24 of the judgment of Charless K. Skaria (supra).

27. Ouestion Nos. 3 & 5 : (iii) Whether the selection only on the basis of inten/iew is illegal and not in conformity with rules ? And (v) Whether the writ petitions of Swati Singh Kujur and Santosh Singh Patel and others are maintainable as these petitioners have challenged the selection and the procedure after participating therein ? In W.P(S). No.2267/2010 (Swati Singh Kujur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), challenge has been made to selection of private respondents 3 8s 4 and also for directing respondent no.2 to select the petitioner. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondent to formulate the scheme for awarding marks in the interview and to conduct interview afresh.

28. In W.P(S). No.2805/2010 (Dr. Santosh Singh Patel and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), appointment of private respondents 4 to 63 has been challenged without making any prayer for their own selection or consideration.

29. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have applied for their selection as Assistant Professors in different faculties of clinical departments and after clearing their candidatures, they were interviewed and having failed therein, they have preferred the writ- petition in June, 2010. The private respondents were appointed vide Annexure P-1 issued on 09.4.2010 and since 28 thereafter, they have been working on the appointed posts for last about 2 years. When the respondents raised objection the maintainability of this writ petition after having participated in the selection process it has been argued that they are not challenging the process of recruitment but the challenge is to the illegality coinmitted while executing the process, therefore, the writ petition is niaintainable.

30. In the matters of G.Sarana (Dr.j V. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585; P.S. Gopinathan V. State of Kerala (2008) 7 SCC 70; Union oflndia v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) S SCC 100 and K. H. Siraj v. High Court ofKerala (2006) 6 SCC 395, Hon'ble the Apex Court has applied the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence to hold that a candidate who is aware of the selection procedure and has taken a chance without any protest by appearing in the selection process cannot turn back to state that the procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. Relying on the above referred cases, Hon'ble the Apex Court in a recent decision Vijendra Kumar Verm.a Vs. Public Servlce Cominission 2011 (1) SCC 150 has held in paragraphs 24 to 28 : "24. When the list of successful candidates in the written examination uias published in. such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of interview, the aforesaid criteria was calling him for reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minim.um. bench mark of a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of selection process. All the candidates knew -—"»n«iNfflffMS 29 the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge thereby Microsoft operation meaning computer Operating System and Microsoft Office operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot tum back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction.

25. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of. the Supreme Court in G. Sarana (Dr.j v. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585 wherein also a similar stand was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had declared that candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter alia reads thus: (SCC p.591) "15. ... He to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. it is not noui open to him to tuni Having done so, round and question Committee." constitution

26. SCC 70, In P.S. Gopinathan v. State ofKerala, (2008) 7 this Court relying on the above principle held thus ; (SCCp. 84, Para 44) "44. ... Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointmen.t dated

15.7.1992 issued by the Govemor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream qn the basis of option given to him he cannot tum back and challenge the conditions. He could haue opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does ^ not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-offdate or for that matter any other condition. therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is The High Court, estopped and precluded from questioni.ng the said order dated 14.01.1992. the application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Surana (Dr.) Vs. Uniuersity of Lucknow......."

27. In Union oflndia V. S. VinodhKum.ar (2007) 8 SCC 100: atpara 18, it was held that (SCC p.107) is also well settled that °18. ...It candidates who had taken part process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same." in the selection

28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 395 in para 72 & 74, candidates who participated in the knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could it was held that the interview with not tum around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."

31. In the present case also, the petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement, submitted their application forms and when their candidatures were cleared and they were called for interview, any protest either representation or by taking recourse to legal remedies on the ground that selection only on the basis of interview is not permissible, instead, they chose to take a chance hoping for their selection through process of interview only and once they have been declared unsuccessful and others have been appointed who are working on the post for the last two years, 31 this writ petition was filed challenging the procedure and seeking quashment of appointments of private respondents 4 to

63. In para 12 of the advertisement, the procedure for selection was clearly narrated in detail. In the said paragraph, it has been mentioned that merely because a candidate is qualified and eligible, he is not entitled to be called for the interview. When the applicants are large in numbers the Commission may adopt procedure of short-listing or may proceed to hold a written examination for minimizing the number of candidates for interview and further that if the commission decides to proceed for short-listing by holding written examination the syllabus thereof shall be informed to the candidates by issuing separate advertisement. On proper interpretation and understanding the said paragraph 12 of the advertisement would mean that written examination for short- listing shall be conducted only when the applicants are large in number. Otherwise the selection shall be made by holding interview. Thus the procedure for making selection only on the basis of interview was made known to all the applicants in advance and yet the candidates including the petitioners have chosen to respond to the advertisement and appeared for interview. They have thus acquiesced with the procedure and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Vijendra Kumar Venna (supra) they are estopped from challenging the selection process or the selection of private respondents. The subject recruitment is governed by set of statutory rules enacted in exercise of powers under Article 309 of Constitution of India. The rules are known as C.G.Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1987. 32 5 V-' Rule 6 read with rule 7 of the Rules of 1987 makes provision regarding method of recruitment. Rule 6, 10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

6. Methods of recruitinent.—(1) Recruitment to the service, after the commencement of these rules shall be by the following methods, namely :- (a) By direct recruitment by selection-competitive examination; (b) By promotion of the members of the service; transfer of persons who (c) By hold in substantive capacity such posts services, as may be specified in this behalf. in such a The number of persons recruited under (2) clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in Schedule II of the number of duty posts, (as specified in Schedule I). (3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purposes of filling any particular vacancy or vacancies in the service as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment, and the number of persons to be recruited by each method, shall be deterrained on each occasion by the Government consultation with Commission. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- (4) rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of the service so require the Government may with prior concurrence of the Department personal Adminstration Reform 8s Training adopt such method of recruitment to the service other than those specified in said sub-rule, for such post as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.

10. Coininission's decision eligibility of candidate shall be final.—Thedecision of the commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for selection/admission to the examination shall be final and candidate to whora certificate of admission has not been issued by the Commission shall not be interviewed/admitted to the examination.by the Commission.

11. Direct Recruitment Selection/ competitive examiaatioa.—* (l) A competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be held intervals the Governraent, may, consultation with the commission, from time to time, determine. Note.—*(2) The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with such orders as the Government, may from time to time, issued in consultation with the Cominission. (3) 15 percent and 18 percent of the available vacancies for direct recruitment shall be reserved for candidates who are members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively. (4) In filling vacancies reserved candidates who are members of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes considered appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list referred to in rule 12 irrespective of their relative rank as coinpared with other candidates. (5) Candidates belonging scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, declared commission to be suitable for appointment to the service with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration inay be appointed to the vacancies reserved for the candidates of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be under sub-rule (3). candidates sufficient member If a (6) belonging to the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes are not available for filling all the vacancies reserved for them, the remaining vacancies shall be re- advertised twice if selection is to be made by interviews ,<• 34 exclusively for these candidates. If even after re- advertisement any vacancies remain unfilled, they shall be filled from among the general candidates and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, during the subsequent selection: Provided that the total number of vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (including the vacancies carried forward) shall not at any time exceed forty five percent of the total vacancies advertised. * Direct Recruitinent by Selection (1) Selection for recruitment to the service shall be held at such intervals as the Government may, consultation with the commission, from time to time, determine. (2) The selection of candidates for the service shall be made by the Commission after interviewing them.

32. Thus under the Recruitment Rules itself, it is provided that selection to the post covered under the rules can be made by interview only. Clause 12 of the advertisement also makes it clear that written test shall be conducted for short-listing of the candidates only when applicants are large in numbers meaning thereby that the candidates are less in numbers, selection shall be made through interview. There is no averment in the writ petition that selection only through interview is not permissible under the rules nor there is any pleading that the petitioners were misled or prejudiced in any manner as they-failed to understand the method of recruitment which shall be undertaken by the Commission. In addition, 35 there is no whisper of any allegation that any member of the interview Board had acted malafidely or were related to any of the selected candidate or the process of interview was otherwise vitiated for any extraneous consideration. In the absence of foundational facts having been averred about prejudice or malice in fact or large scale manipulation or bungling, this Court ordinarily would not sit as an appellate court to reassess the relative merit of the candidates who have appeared in the interview so as to substitute its own opinion the opinion rendered by the interview Board which includes one subject expert.

33. In the matter of Madanlal Vs. State ofJ&K. and others 1995 3 SCC 486, it has again been held that the petitioners having took a chance to get themselves selected by appearing in the oral interview and thus took a calculated chance cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In the said case, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in the matter of Omprakash Shukla Vs. Kailash Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supplementary SCC 285 wherein it has been laid down that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without prejudice and when he found that he would not succeed in examination, he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

34. In the matter of Madanlal (Supra), it has also been held in Para 10 of the Judgment that the court cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merit of the candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the 36 ^9,^a petitioners successfully urge before the Court that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It has also been held that it is for the interviewing committee to judge the relative merits of the candidates. Therefore, the assessment made on merits by expert committee cannot be brought challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. It has further been laid down in Madanlal's case (supra) that when concerned rule does not provide for any separate assessment of marks for candidates at viva voce examination faculty-wise, the interviewing committee has to keep in view the over all performance of the candidates at the oral interview. In para 14 of the judgment in case of Madan Lal (supraj it has been held as under: "14. ........ It may also be mentioned at this stage that decision of this Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State ofT.N. (1971) 1 SCC 38 was later considered by this Court in the case ofLila Dhar V. State ofRajasthan (1981) In Lila Dhar Case, this Court distinguishing 4 SCC 159. the ratio in. Peeriakaruppan case observed as under : (SCC p. 166. para 9) : "It is true that in Peeriakaruppan case the Court held that the non-allocation of marks under various heads in the interuiew test was illegal but that was because the instructions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded It at the interview on the basis offive distinct tests. was thought that thefailure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. But, the case before us, the rule merely and generatly indicate the criteria to be considered in the interview 37 y-y tes( without dividing the interview test into distinct, ifwe may so call them, sub-tests." The aforesaid decision in Lila Dhar case was approued by a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Bhagwati, J, as he then was in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417. This aspect was also considered later by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. in. Keshav Ram Pal (Dr) v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, 1 SCC 671. An identical contention Allahaba, (1986) conceming viva voce test conducted by the interview board which had not subdivided the total marks into subheads u'as rejected in that case was rejected in that case. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Dwision Bench observed that the Interview Board was not under any obligation to subdivide the marks under various heads. T/ie court noted that the basis ofselection in that case was to assess the candidate's academ.ie attainments, technical experience, administratwe experience and suitability for In the light ofthat rule it was held by thepost ofPrincipal. this Court in the aforesaid decision that the interview board was not under any obligation to subdiuide the marks under uarious heads. Almost an identical position obtains in the present case. Consequently, it must be held that there was no obligation for faculty wise as mentioned the first contention therefore fails and is i'n Rule 10(l)(b). rejected:

35. In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. M. Farida others (1976) 4 SCC 153, a. constitution Bench of HonTsle the Supreme Court held that whether a block mark should be given after the interview on a consideration of the qualities evinced by a candidate or marks are to be allotted separately under each head depends upon rule regulating examination and further that it would not be correct to assume as general proposltion that in every case where the interviewing body is 38 ^ asked to take into consideration several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and separate marks should be allotted under each head; on the contrary where the rules do not contain a clear direction it would be reasonable in such cases to suppose that the intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test and further apprehension of arbitrary allotment in block marks is in no way lessened if marks are allotted separately. In the said case before the Supreme Court the test was referred in the rules as "personality test , the object of which was to assess the personal suitability of the candidate for the service or the services for which they have applied. Therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that it seems hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities and it was never intended that separate marks be allotted for several qualities. It was ultimately held that the interviewing body was right in awarding block marks on a total impression of the personality of each candidate.

36. In the matter of J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) and others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and others, 1980 (3) SCC 418 it has been held that there is no Haw in the methodology of interviews as a process to pick out the best.

37. In Para-11 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has cautioned about the blind veneration of marks at examination as the main measure of merit. Referring to social scientists and educational avant garde may find it faults in our system of education and condemn the unscientific aspects of marks as the measure of merit. After these observations, the Supreme Court approved the method of selection only by interview 39 subject, however, to adherence to principles of reasonableness, fair plays, non-arbitrariness etc.

38. In the oft quoted and referred case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rafasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has dealt with the questions as to when recruitment should be made after holding written examination and interview both and when personality test-interview may be the only way to select a candidate for a particular service. After referring to several literature/thesis and recommendations of Kothari Committee on recruitment policy and selection methods, it has been held thus in paragraphs 6 & 9 :

6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the rn.an himself and "the twain shall meet for aproper selection. examination and interview test are to be essential features ofproper setection, the question may ari.se as to the weight to be attached respectwely to them. In the case of Ifnot written admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has per turitten be given to performance in the examination. The importance to be attached to the interview-test must be mirdm.al. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib Sehravadi,and other cases. On the other hand, in the case ofsewices to which recruitment has necessarilu to be made from persons of mature personalitii, interview test may be the only wav, subject to basic and essential academic and yrofessional reauirements being satisfied. To subiect such persons to a written examination mav yield unfruitful and neciatwe results, apart from its beina an act of crueltv to those oersons. There are, of course, mantl services to which recruitment is made from youncier candidates whose 40 o personaljties are on the threshold of developm.ent and who show signs of great promise, and the discemino mav in an. interview-test, catch a glimpse of the future personalitii. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personalitv promise, some weiciht has to be ciiven, thouqh not much too areat a It must weiqht, to the interview-test. There cannot be anv rule of thumb reciarding the precise weight to be given. i/any from service to service according to the reciuirements of the service, the minim.um qualifications prescribed, the age groupfrom which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview-test is proposed It is not for courts by experts. to pronounce upon it untess exaggerated weight has been giuen with proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious It is a matterfor research. importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit ofthe Union Public Service Commission.

9. Both the cases cited before us Periakaruppan case and Ajay Hasia were cases of admission to colleges. We have already pointed out that the provision. for marks for interview (es( need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges in Periakaruppan case, and entry into public services. even in the case of college admission the Court obserued : (SCC p.44, para 15) In fact, While we do feel the marks allotted for interview are on the high side and it may be appropriate for the Govemment to re-examine the question, we are unable to uphold the contention that it was not within the power of the Govemment to provide such high marks for that there was any arbitrary exercise of interview or power. It is true that in Periakaruppan case the Court held that the non-allocation of marks under various heads in the interview-test was illegal but that was because the instructions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on the basis offive distinct tests. It was -thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head 41 \ ^ or distinct test was an illegality. But, in the case before us, the rule merely and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview test without dividing the interview test into distinct, if we my so call them, subtests. We do not think that Periakaruppan case, which, as we said, deals with adrrussion to a college, affords any true guidance to us. Ajay Hasia case was also a case of admission to a college. The Court while upholding inteniiew-test as not though unsatisfactory and capable of abuse, made the following obseruation : (SCC p. 744, para 18) irrelevant irrational We. would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of the oral interview test as presently public employment, held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary (est and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men. ofhigh integrity, caliber and qualification. The Court then proceeded to consider the next question raised before them, whether the allocation of 33 1/3 per cent of the total marks for the interview test vitiated the selection It was held that it did procedure as arbitrary and unreasonable. and reference was made to the fact that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service the marks allocated for the interview-test were only 12.2 per cent of the total. It was then observed: (SCC p.746. para 19) Under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 per cent ofthe total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. The observations of the Court were made, primarily, connection with the problem of admission to colleges, where^ naturallii, The words academic performance must "or even in the matter of pubUc importance. employment" occurring in the first extracted passage and th^ reference to the marks allocated for the interview test in_the Indian Administrative Service examination were not intended to 42 ^/ \° lav down anii wj.de, qeneral rule^that the same principle that applied in the matter ofadmission to collecjes also applied in the matter of recruitment to public seryic.es. The observation relatina to vublic emploiiment was per incuriam since the matter did not fall for the consideration_of the Court in that case. Nor do we think that the Court intended anv wide construction of their observation. As alreadv observed by us the weiciht to be aiven to the interview test should depend on the reouirement of the service to which recruitment is made, the source-material available for recruitment, the composition of the Interview Board and several like factors. Ordinarilii recruitment to public services is reaulated bv rules made under the uroviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and we would be usurpinQ a function which is not ours, if we tni to redetennine the__appropriate method of selection and the relative weiaht to be attached to the various tests. Ifwe do that we would be re-writing the rules but we guard ourselves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. There is none in the present case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order regarding costs. (Emphasis supplied)

39. In the light of what has been held in J.P. Kulshreshtha (supra); Farida (supra) and Lila Dhar (supra), this Court is required to satisfy itself as to the nature of service or the level of maturity of the candidate so as to test the criteria for selection only on the basis of interview as a reasonable criteria. Admittedly, each of the intending candidates has already undergone his Post-graduation course in different medical branches whether clinical or non-clinical. They have imparted teaching for three years to the undergraduate medical students. Many of them are already teaching in different medical departments on contract basis. Therefore, it is not a case where the candidates ^ personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the 43 \ ,.3 personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later part of life so that greater weight is to be attached to the written examination and minimum weight is to be attached to interview test which ordinarily happens in admission to professional colleges or recruitment services in the lower cadre. Thus from the level of maturity of the candidates who appeared in the selection process and since the services to which recruitment is to be made from persons of mature personality like Assistant Professors in various clinical or non-clinical departments in the medical colleges of the State, interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic professional requirement satisfied and this court has no hesitation in holding so.

40. QUESTIONS 4& 7 (iv) Whether the writ petition of Kamlesh Jain is maintainable in view of dismissal of his earlier writ petition and also for the reason that he has been declared ineligible ? And (vii) Whether Dr. Kamlesh Jain can challenge the non-clinical candidates selection posts/departments when he himself had applied for only one department i.e., PSM ? Admittedly, petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Jain had preferred W.P(S).No.l673 of 2010 challenging the non-issuance of call letter to him and seeking a direction to the Commission to issue a call letter for the interview to be held on 19.4.2010. This writ petition came to be dismissed on 26.4.2010. He did 44 <,0^ not prefer any writ appeal and thus the said judgment has become final against him. As a consequence, he was declared ineligible to compete for recruitment as Assistant Professor. It has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner was ineligible he cannot challenge the process of recruitment.

41. In the matter of Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar (1973) 1 SCC 485, it has been held that a candidate who was not eligible for consideration for appointment had no right to question the appointment since he was not aggrieved. Thus, the petitioner, if at all can be said to be aggrieved against the selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (PSM) because he had applied for the said post only and since he was not eligible for appointment for any other non-clinical subjects, his writ.petition challenging the entire list is not maintainable. The vvrit petition may be maintainable inspite of dismissal of his earlier writ petition, but for the reason that he was declared ineligible to compete on account of substantial defect in this application form, which has attained finality after rejection of his writ petition, the instant writ petition is not maintainable as he has no locus to challenge the entire select list or even for the post of Assistant Professor (PSM) because he was ineligible for appointment.

42. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner, at best, can challenge the selection of such candidates, who have been selected on the post of Assistant Professor (PSM) and he • has no locus to challenge selection of Assistant Professor for 1 fother non-clinical departments/subjects. 45 \

43. Question Np.6 Whether the State Government has power to order an enquiry with respect to an on going selection of Public Service Commission, a constitutional body created under Article 315 ofthe Constitution? In the case on hand, when the recruitment process was going on, complaints were made to the State Government as well as to His Excellency Governor of Chhattisgarh who made over the matter to the State Government. An enquiiy was ordered by the State Government which has been conducted by one Deputy Secretary, in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The enquiry report refers to complaints made by the petitioners Dr. Kamlesh Jain in W.P(S).No. 1727/2011, Dr. Amrish Verma Dr. Sanjay Verma W.P.(S).No.2805/2010. Admittedly, Dr. Kamlesh Jain preferred complaint after dismissal of his writ petition. Materials have been placed on record to indicate that though Dr. Kamlesh Jain is appointed as Assistant Professor, but in fact he is attached in the State Health Resources Center, the department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh. He worked on the said post from 15.3.2004 to 15.09.2006 as Programme Coordinator, and joined as Assistant Professor in Medical College, Raipur on 22.03.2006 and thereafter from

20.04.2006, he was associated with the State Government in the Department of Health and Family Welfare as Technical Consultant for Health Sector Reforms to State Health Resources Center, Raipur and took additional charge of State \ Programme Manager from 28.3.2008 to 30.09.2008. If his contention about non-application of amended MCI Regulation 46 T) \ dated 3rd November, 2010 is accepted then he too is not qualifled for the post in as much as since after 15.03.2004 he has never worked on any teaching post/job and whatever experience he has acquired was during the period when he conducted his MD/MS course.

44. Be that as it may, the State Government in the circumstances known to it, because the record of enquiry has not been produced before this court, held an enquiry on the complaints made to it and by submitting a report it tried to influence the process of recruitment.

45. This Court shall not refer to the flndings of enquiiy because in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has already found that the process of recruitment is not vitiated nor any illegality has been committed by the Public Service Commission while processing or scrutinizing the application forms. The issue to be addressed is whether such an enquiry is permissible under the constitutional scheme concerning establishment, constitution and functioning of the Public Service Commission. More so, when no allegation of any malpractice or favouritism or malafide exercise of power has been alleged in the complaint nor has been submitted in the course of enquiry and when an enquiry has been made whether the PSC is under any obligation to proceed in accordance with the dictates of the State Government or to proceed in accordance with law keeping in view the object for which the Commission is constituted.

46. While delivering the presidential address on 26th November, 1949, His Excellency the then President of India Dr. Rajendra ^ Prasadji had declared that "Our Constitution has devised certain 47 •S) ^ independent agencies to deal with particular matters. Thus the Public Seruice Commission was provided for both the Union of India and the State Govemments and placed such Commission on independent footing so that they may discharge their duties without being influenced by the Executive. One of the things against which, we have to guard is that there can be no room so far as it is humanly possible for jobbery, nepotism and favouritism. I think the provision which we have introduced into our Constitution will be very helpful in this direction." It is with this pious object, the PSC has been constituted so as to make it independent and uninHuenced by the executive.

47. In the rnatter of State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin and. others 1987 jSupp) SCC 401, the following has been laid down in paragraph 30 : "30. Before we close we would like to refer certain aspects which came to our notice during the hearing ofthe case relating to the functioning of the Public Service Commission, candidates selection appointment to the Judicial Service. We were distressed to find that the Public Service Commission has been d'lanQina the norm.s fbced bii for considerin.ci suitabilitu of candidates at the behest of the State Govenzment after the declaration of results. We have noticed that while making selectionfor appointment to the U.P. Judicial Seruice the Commission had initially fixed 40 per cent aggregate marks and minimum 35 per cent inarks for viua voce test and on that basis it had recommended ;i'st of 46 candidates only. Later on at the instance of the State Govem.ment it reduced the standard of 40 per cent marks in aggregate to 35 per cent and on that basis, forwarded a list of 33 candidates to the govemment for apportion to the service. Again at the behest of the State ' Govemment and with a view to implement the decisioii of the high level committee consisting of Chief Justice, Chief 48 \ Minister and the Chairm.an of the Commission forwarded name of 37 candidates in 1974 ignoring the norms fbced by it for judging the suitability of candidates. The Coinmission is an independent expert bodu. It has to act in an independent manner in makinq the selection. on the prescribed norms. It mav consult the State Covemment and the Hicih Court in prescribina the nonns for judciina the suitabilitv of candidates if no nonns are prescribed in the Rules. It mail consult the State Govemment and the Hiah Court in prescribinq _the norms for Tudqinq the suitabilitii of candidates if no nonns are prescribed in the Rules. Once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of the competitive examination and submits list ofthe suitable candidates to the govem.ment it should not reopen the selection. bv lowerinq down the norms instance Govemment. If the practice of revisinq the result of competitive examination bv changing norms is followed there will be confusion and the people will lose faith in the institution of the Public Service Commission and the authenticitv ofselection. The State Govemment had made a preposterous unsuccessful candidates of 1967, 1968, 1969 should be the Commission that suggestion to selected and recommended for appointment by ignoring the marks obtained by them in viva voce test. If Commission had accepted the govemment's suggestion and forwarded the list and appointments had been made in 1975 as was done in the case of unplaced candidates of 1970 Examination, it would have made a mockery of the entire system. We are of the opinion that Convnission should take firm stand in these matters in makina the selection in accordance with the norms fixed fcu law or fbced bii it in accordance with law uninfluenced bu the directions of the State Govem.ment unsupported by the Rules." tEmphasis Suppliedf 49

48. In the light of what has been held by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that in the midstream of selection process/ recruitment, the State Government should ordinarily refrain from holding enquiry on the basis of complaints made to it by any individual challenging the procedure adopted by the F>ublic Service Commission unless the State Goyernment is possessed with unimpeachable evidence to the effect that the ongoing selection is vitiated on account of large scale corruption, bungling or is otherwise tainted with proved bias or favouritism. An aggrieved party may at any time approach the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction on any permissible grounds if and when there is flagrant violation of procedure or the Commission is acting contrary to the mandatory provisions statutes. In fact, Dr. Kamlesh Jain had approached the High Court and havin; failed in his writ petition, he lodged complaint and got succeeded in ordering an enquiry by the State Government. This is an unfortunate situation and the State Governments should ordinarily avoid such steps, which tend to interfere in the process of recruitment. If this is allowed to happen, then no recruitment undertaken by the Commission can be completed within time and tendency of executive interference in the matter of recruitment would become a routine which shall ultimately affect the independence of the Commission. When the select list drawn by the Commission is recommendatory, it is always open for the State Government to take a decision receipt of recommendation. However, issuing directions to the Commission to proceed to make recruitment 50 ^^ o on its dictates would ultimately deal with the independence and constitutional status of Commission. It is for this reason, this Court is not ready to consider the Hndings of the enquiry as it has tested the process of recruitment and legality of the select list on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time.

49. W.P(S). No.4755 of 2010 Dr. Mrithyunjay Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.PISI.No.1231 of 2011 Dr. Sumeet Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No. 1390 of 2011 Dr. Usha Joshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No. 1438 of 2011 Dr. Suprava Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No.1491 of 2011 Dr. Divya Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No.6349 of 2011 Dr. Pratibha Khosla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 51 ^ \\ These writ petitions have been preferred by candidates whose names find place in the select list of non-clinical departments, which is under challenge in the writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain. In these writ petitions, prayer has been made against the State Government to implement the select list and issue order of appointment in their favour. Since in the earlier part of this judgment, this Court has dismissed the writ petitions of Dr. Kamlesh Jain, Dr. Swati Sinku Kujur and Dr. Santosh Singh Patel and others, it will remain open for the State Government to take decision regarding implementation of the select concerning non-clinical department. Thus these writ petitions are disposed of (except for petitioner Dr. Usha Joshi) with a direction to the State Government to take decision regarding implementation of the select list of non-clinical department as soon as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

50. W.P(S|. No. 1389 pf 2011 Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No.l390of201l Dr. Usha Joshi & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others These writ petitions were initially filed seeking implementation of the select list of non-clinical department. However, by subsequent decision, the Public Service Commission has withdrawn tl^e recommendation made in favour of Dr. Suresh 52 ^'i Kumar Dwivedi andDr. Usha Joshi. Therefore, the writ petitions in so far as it concerns the above said two petitioners have been rendered infructuous. Thus W.P.(S).No. 1389/11 is dismissed as infructuous and W.P(S).No. 1390/2011 in so far as it relates to petitioner No. 1 Usha Joshi is also dismissed as infructuous in part.

51. W.P(S). No. 4001 of 2011 Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P(S). No. 41^59 of 2011 Dr. Usha Joshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others Petitioner Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Physiology) whereas petitioner Dr. Usha Joshi applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) in non- clinical departments of medical college pursuant tb the subject advertisement. Their application forms were processed and scrutinized and thereafter call letters were issued to them for interview and on the strength of their performance in interview, their names were included in the select list published on 01.05.2010. However, subsequently after receipt of complaint and conduct of enquiry referred in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and on the request of State Government for reconsideration, the Public Service Commission deleted their names from select list without assigning any reason as to the nature of defect in their candidatures. In the order Annexure P-1 filed in both the writ petitions, it has been mentioned in para 4.1 that after re- 53 \^ scrutiny of the application forms, defects were found in the application forms of both the candidates, therefore, names are deleted from the select list. Adraittedly, both the petitioners were not given opportunity of being heard before deleting their names from the select list.

52. In course of arguments, it has been informed by all the parties that pursuant to the interim order by this Court in the writ petition of Dr. Kamlesh Jain and Dr. Mrityunjay .Rathore, no further action has been taken to appoint any of the candidates whose names were recommended by the PSC and thus the posts on which the petitioners namely Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and Dr. Usha Joshi were initially included in the select list are still lying vacant.

53. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and Mr. Anup Majumdar appearing on behalf of Dr. Usha Joshi have argued that defect of similar nature as has been mentioned in the return filed by the Public Service Commission was made by one of selected candidates Dr. Shikha Jangde and yet she has been selected and appointed and the petitioners treated discriminately. They would submit the Public Service Commission ought not to have acted on the pressure of the State Government as it is an independent constitutional body and further that once the forms were processed and interviews were held and the names have also been included in the select list, any defect in the form has no relevance if the petitioners otherwise possess essential qualification. They would submit that no reason worth the name has been mentioned in the 54 v^ impugned order and in fact even copies of the said order have not been supplied to them.

54. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission as well as the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State have argued that merely because their names appeared in the select list, the petitioners do not acquire any right of appointment and their candidature can be cancelled at any time. It has been submitted by learned counsel for PSC that minor defects in the forms have been ignored but the application forms of these two petitioners suffer from major mistakes, therefore, it is not a case of discrimination and in any case, the petitioners cannot claim negative equality.

55. In the earlier part of this judgment, this Court has referred to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matters of Charless K.Skaria (Supra) a.nd Dolly Chhanda (supra) for the proposition that every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.

56. True, it is that no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even his name found place in the select list, yet the State or for that matter the Public Service Commission does not enjoy any unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment or to drop a candidate's name from the select list and more so when the entire select is not dropped or abandoned, but candidates have been picked up without assigning any specific reason in the impugned order.

57. In the matter Munna Rai v. Union of India and others (2000) 9 SC^ 283, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that 55 \1 cancellation of a candidate's name from the select list and the reasons assigned therefor are subject to judicial scrutiny. In the said case, a candidate was denied appointment on the ground that she failed to mention in the application form that she is a graduate and the minimum qualification required was a matriculate, therefore, she has adopted dubious method for being selected. The Supreme Court held that the reason for cancellation of the select list was not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational.

58. When the facts of the present case are analyzed in the light of the above referred decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that the Public Service Commission did not find any defect in the application at the beginning and the same was processed. It was clearly understood by PSC as to in what subject and department, petitioners submitted application forms, therefore, they were called for interview specifically mentioning that they are required to be interviewed for the post for which they have applied. Though the order itself does not mention specifically as to the nature of defect which the application suffered, but it has been stated in course of argument that both the petitioners failed to mention the naine of department of the non-clinical branch, for which, they had submitted their application forms. It is strange as to how when the name of department was not mentioned, the PSC processesed the forms and called them for interview for the post/subject for which they had filled the forms and not for any other subject/department. It appears that the PSC was acting the dictates of the State Government and rejected application forms in spite of the fact that these two petitioners 56 \^ do not lack in essential qualification or they are not othen-vise ineligible for appearing in the recruitment test. As a matter of fact, on the strength of their overall performance, they have been selected by the Public Service Commission including the expert. When a person has been selected on raerits after interviewing him, it is too late to reject their application forms after holding interview and selecting them.

59. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Girijesh Shrivastava v. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 707. The said judgment is about non- maintainability of PIL in service matters. Since the petitioner has applied for the post and the writ petition has been filed claiming writ of certiorari the said judgment is not applicable. In the matter of Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others (2010) 9 SCC 655, the decision of the Supreme Court is again for the proposition that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. Therefore that judgment is also not applicable. The judgment of Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association -vs- R.K. Jain, (2010) 8 SCC 281 is about rights of Whistleblower and his character. Therefore, the said judgment is also not applicable. The judgment of £ast Coast Railway and another v. M. Appa Rao and others (2010) 7 SCC 678 is about extent of judicial review on the ground of arbitrariness pertaining to cancellation of selection test/ recruitment process. This Court has already examined the issuc and has found that the procedure followed by PSC is not arbitrai-y, therefore, this judgment is also not applicable. The judgment of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment ;Board and another v. K. Shyain Kumar and others (2010J 57 \^ 6 SCC 614 is regarding use of CBI report, procedural impropriety in conducting recruitment and irrationality of the decision. This Court has examined the issue in detail while considering the extent of interference which can be made in the recruitment drawn by PSC which is a constitutional body. After quoting the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquiddin (Supra), this Court has found that the State Government should not interfere and PSC should not be inHuenced by the dictates of the State Government in course recruitment drawn by it, therefore, this judgment of Chairman, All India Recruitment Board (supra) dealing with recruitment made by Railway Board is also not applicable. The other judgments relied upon by the petitioners are about changing the rules of the game in the midst of selection that is changing qualiHcation prescribed advertisement. However, this Court has interpreted MCI Regulation of 1998 and has found that experience gained as Resident/Registrar/ Demonstrator/Tutor was already there in the unamended regulation without mentioning that the said experience has acquired after passing MD/MS examination. Therefore, as per the pre-amended regulation also, the private respondents were qualified and in any case the petitioner also possessed similar experience, therefore, JLidgments relied by the petitioners on this count are also not applicable.

60. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions of Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi and Dr. Usha Joshi deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, it is ••Id that the decision contained in Para 4.1 of the impugned 58 order is quashed and the inclusion of name of these two petitioners in the previously published select list shall remain intact.

61. In the result: (1) W.P(S). No.1727/2011 (Dr. Kamlesh Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) is dismissed. (2) W.P(S).No.2267/2010 (Swati Sinku Kujur vs. State ofC.G. and others) dismissed. 'is (3) W.P(S).2805/10 (Dr. Santosh Singh Patel -vs- State of C.G. andothers) is dismissed. (4) W.P(S).No.4755 of 2010 (Dr.Mrithyunjay Rathore v. State of C.G. and others); W.P(S). 1231/2011 (Dr. Sumeet Tripathi & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others); W.P(S). 1390/20i2 (Dr. Usha Joshi vs. State of C.G. & others) no.2; in part with respect petitioner W.P(S).No. 1438/2011 (Dr. Supraua Patel & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others; W.P(S). 1491/2011 (Dr. Divya Sahu -vs- State of Chhattisgarh and others); W.P(S).No.6349/2011 (Dr. Pratibha Khosla vs. State of C. G. and others) are disposed of with a direction to the State Government decision regarding implementation select of non-clinical department as soon as possibly and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified . copy of this order. (5) W.P(S).No. 1389/2011 (Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and W.P(S).No.l390 of 2011 (Dr. Usha Joshi & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersj with respect to petitioner No.l Usha Joshi, are dismissed as infructuous. (6) W.P(S).No.4001/2011 (Dr. Suresh Kumar Dwivedi -vs- State of, Chhattisgarh and others) and W.P(S).No.4159/ 59 ^^ 2011(Dr. Usha Joshi -vs- State of C.G. and others) are Their inclusion in the previously published allowed. select list shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumai Mishra Judge Lo^1