State of Bihar & Anr. v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHN,A !YER, J.-We ma:y as well begin this judgment with a prefatory sociological observation'. The meaning of two common expressions 'teaching experience' an.d 'teaching institution" incarna. etl mto a iegal frame and subjected to forensic dissection and examination during three years of litigation makes up this bitter contest b~t­ wcen a talented orthopaedip surgeon and two like rivals trying to break each other's academic bones· t<) gain the post of Lecturer in Orthopaedics, one in each of two government medical colleges in Bihar. Our judicial bone-setting operation cannot undo the social farcture inflicted by this long exper.isive bout in court. Research and reform of 'Im system is needed if the therupeutic value of Jaw is to last and be not lost. The two appeals before us, by special leave, unfold a musicalchair typ~ situation where three candidates ran for two posts in the government-run Patna and Dharbanga Medical Colleges.

Inevitably one lost or, rather, was screened as ineligible, his British work and cxrieri 0 nce n:itwithstanding, and, chagrined by his discomfiture, he Dr. Mukhcrj·~e, chal'enged the whole selection by a writ petition on the short and ambitious ground that he was not only qualified but rnperior, with his briuht British career, to the other two India-trained hands, Dr. Ram and Dr. Jamuar, but was illegally reiectcd as unqualified. The main iss4e what arises· and was argued before us by he State's counsel, supported by Shri Gar~ for the other candidates, is that the Hi\!h Cotirt, which allowed the writ p·:lition, grievously erred in probing improperly into the concerned Cabinet papers and unsc•tinir gnvernmen"s orders of apoointment, upholding the oetitioner's eligibility and directin~ a r·~consideration of the claims of all the contenders on certain urtenable finding of fact and indefensible interpretation of law. Did the petitioner possess the prescribed qualifications for the oost ?

If he did, the Hiirh Court was ri~lit in directing the appointing authority to consider his claims; and if did not. Q'QVPmmcnt ri11'1tlv il!J1ored his creden·ials for the oost as an unqualifit~d hand, dc:spite his impressive British testimonials and good showing BIHAR v. A. K· MUKHl!RJl!ll (Krishna Iyer, /,) otherwise. Such is the compass of the dispute which is basically a technical question but, under our system, has to be decided by courts .unaided by expert advice. The case has taken three days of argument based on three heavy volumes of appeal records-mercifully Jess than the eight days of :1caring in the.

High Court. · The colossal consumption of forensic time, investmen! of considerable litigation expense and the diversion of useful medical energy of three young specialists for three years in two rounds of writ contests are the heavy social price paid by the community for discovering through court-trained in law and not in medicine, and called upon to adventure into 'the nature:', of actual teaching experience and the names of approved leaching institutions beyond Indian frontiers. The question involved is as to whether the writ petitioner, a doctor . who worked in hospitals in Britain under orthopaedic professors supposedly of great repute, had . teaching experience in a teaching institution good enough under the Indian statute and for the Patna College. From Olympic team selection to orthopaedic expertise the judicial robes are invited to exercise umpire's jurisdiction under our system. Even were Judges angels, should they not fear to tread where perhaps others may rush in ?

If it equally disturbing that Indian Courts, in contrast with some other modern judicial systems, .are called upon to devote considerable time for oral arguments to decide 1:ontroversial issues even of a simple or. a short nature. Condensed .submissions and capsuled briefs, familiar in certain foreign jurisdictions, and other reforms may, perlJ qns, with modifications. suit our genius. Here, in the higher Courts, with mild exaggeration, it may be remarked that 'Time rolls his ceaseless course' and not unoften 'little fishes' .... 'talk like :whales'. The superstitious regard for long oral hearing and long sneaking nrrlPrS as a sacred safeguards of iustice may be counter-productive of the efficacy of law in the solution of social iSsues, thus diminishing the ultimate justness of legal justice.

Like in other complex modem operations, the processes of legal ju~tice call for management techniques and methodclogical reforms, anc1 definition of the range of operation for success. all of which must be the oublic concern of the Bench and the Bar (and the community) alike. animated by the social mission of shortenin~ tim~ and e:r.pense and becoming meaningful in securing iu<tice. These observaticins. made en n'lvsrmt, are orovoked by •he tricky m ·: · ~s of the lit:gation in which the parties here are caught and the frt., -~nt phenomena these tend to l:>e. The oetitioner b~fore the High Court. Dr. Mukherjee, is the tst rrsoondent in both the aooeals b0fore u8 while the State of Bihar. the Health Commissioner and the Health MiniMer are the aooellants in C.A. 1430 of 1974. The defeated doctors Dr. Ram and Dr. Jamu~r, w'i11~e a"'IOintments h:w~ b"en uryset bv the H;<!h Court, are the appellants in the connected appeal No. 1431 of 1974.

The ou~rrel is over whether the 1st resnondent could be consirlered for appointment. Certain peripheral contentions apart, the core of the fl 975) '},$.C.R. matter is the possession by Dr. Mukherjee of teaching experience 'as Reg;s,rar tor at least tnree years in ortaopaedics or' allied subjects in a teaching in.stitution'. Other basic qualifications ~t.atutorily l:tuJ u0.{11, he "Oit1J.Li:ed1y has. Prima facie he has worked for three years under apparently outstanding British orthopaedic surgeons. Nevertheless, we are called upon, in the absence of statutory definition, to pronounce upon the swficiency of this experienc1! vis a vis the relevant n:gulatious. Commonsens·:i suggests th!lt such technical questions should be judge-proof ~xcept in giaring cases, or malafide exercise. In th1:se sp.:ciauscd areas 1egaJ too1s may not work but we are enjoined· to decid·~ the legality of Government's order and so we shall. Art. 226 of the Constitution has come to be a universe! nostrum but judicial robes are not omnisci~nt.

The whole case turns on the precise construction of the burred expression 'teaching experience' in a 'teaching institution' oc:curring in the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, (h~reinafter c:alled the regulations and the Act, for short, respectively). The Act has created a statutory body designated the Medic:al Council of India, charged with technical and professional respomiibilities. Sectitm 33 vests power in the Council to make regulations, with the approval of the Government of India, laying down qualifications required for appointment of persons to the teaching and alli1:d posts in medical colleges! It is common ground that we are concemi:d with two such, medicar colleges and to two such posts. Under the relevant regulation, for a lecturer's post in orthopaedics, teaching experience in a teaching institution is a sine qua non. (We ignore some proposed chauge omitting '(teaching institution').

But w.hat is 'teaching experi·enc(~'? What is a 'teaching institution''? Too simple to deser11e an answer, one might be tempted to think; but too abstruse, when examined in the forensic crucible, to be disposed of in less than 59 pag.es b_y the High Court and less than several hours of argument i11 this Court. Lega'ese makes complex what looks simplex. Now to the further facts and the legal stances. The Government of Bihar took the view, while appointing lecturers in Orthopaedics, that t!:e first resoondent did no~ have the necessary teaching exp1:- rlence in a teaching. institution whereupon he sought refuge in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and filed C.W.J.C. 754 of 1972 cont·ndin~ that he had acquired tl)e required teaching expcrienc:e durim? the time he worked in the United Kingdom and was therefore entitled to be appointed lecturer. The State met the challenge on manv grounds.

Inter aliai it urged that the rule does not recoimi2:e teachin!'.! exPeriPnre eaired in a forl'.ie:n country. A circular Hta is~u·d bv the Deoutv Director of Health Services, dated April 14, 1961 m<1s a1so cited We a<>ree wit'1 the Hi~h Court (vidP. para 24 'of its judgment) . that the sairl circular though adooted bv Governm~nt on Julv 13. 197?. ha-I nn b0 ar1n!'.! on th~ crurial i•sue nf artnol t0 0~1'1- ing exoerience. The Court, however, quashed t'1e decision of Govem~ ment and directed it to reconsider the case of the 1st responrlent here'- in toe:et'ier with th"•~ of the · otlier two. Government examined the cases de novo in obdience to the direction of the Court but agai:n BlliAR v. A. K. MUKHERJEE (Krishna Iyer, 1.) held against th~ 1st respondent's eligibility. The aggrieved 1st respondent hurried to tile High Court again and succeeded a second time in persuading it to. quash the order and to issu~ a writ to the State to consiuer the claim of Dr. Mukherjee, the 1st respondent, findmg that he did possess the requisite experience.

In so doing the High Court called for and examined the C_abinet papers and other reports and notings of the officers, technical and admmistratlv~. The frustrated candidates and the aggrieved State have filed the two app~als assailing the judgment on the fol.owing principle ground~ : (i) That the t~aching experience in teaching institutions visualis~d by the regulations must be in India and not abroad. If this be valid, the 1st respondent would be clean bowled, since his qualifi~ations in this regard were attained in England. (ii) The post of Registrar filled by Dr. Mukherjee in England had not been shown to carry among its functions teaching, so that the length of occupancy of that office did not prove 'teaching experience' even assuming that British Medical Institutions could come within the purview of the regulations. (iii) In any view, the hospitalS, the the Universities to which they were linked, where Dr. Mukherjee worked were not proved to be teaching institµtions either recognised by the Medical Council of India Jr· regarded as such under the provisions of the British National Health Service Act.

(iv) The testimonials produced by the 1st respondent or ·at least some of them were not reliable and could not,. withodCfurther proof, be treated as probative of their contents. A few other arguments were addressed regarding relative seniority or length of teaching service and allied matters which are not germane to the determination of the issue before us. Maybe such considera · tion will. be pertinent when the appointing authority makes comparatiw evaluation among the candidates. The submission by Shri Jagdish Swaroop based on the dichotomy in the National H~alth Service Act, 1946(') between teaching a~ non-teaching hospi'als has no substance. It is true that under s. 11 (8) of that Act the Minister of Health is authorised to designate as a teaching hospital any hospital or group of hospitals which appears to him to provide for any university faci'itie's for undergraduate or post graduate clini- . cal teaching.

We have no ma\erial to find out whether hosoitaJs not so desienated do provide facilities for teaching nor the criteria and purpose guiding the Minister in exercising his power. Certainly it will be of great lielo to the l st resoondent to orove his <:.1se that •he hoSDitai he worked in was a techinq hoso•tal had it come under the notification of the Minister. The converse does not necessarily foJlow. We are concerned with an Indian situation and called uoon to construe words which are not defined ana therefore bear their natural (I) 9 & IOOer·rge 6 C. 81. SUPREME COIJlT REPORTS [197SJ 2 s.c.a. meaning. In this view we do not pr~d to examine whether the hospitals in which the 1st respondent claims to have gained teaching experience belong to the category designated under s.

11 ( 8) of the British Act. · Section 3 of the Indian Act makes it clear that the constitution and compos.ition1 10f a high powered Council ;if professional men v1.:•t~d witn the responsibility to oversee the conduct of examinations and ensure minimum standards .of medical edu~ation is dmong tlle objects of the statute. The Council has vast powers including the xole of consultant in some vital matters and according recognition of medical qual.ifications granted by institutions in India (s. 11), in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity (s. 12) and of degrees etc. granted by certain other institutions (s. 13). These three categories of medical institutions are covered by Schedules One to TI1ree of the Act. Section 14 relates to recogni<ion by the Government of India of medical qualifications granted by some other countries abroad, after consulting the Council.

Inspection, collcctvm nf information, granting and withdrawing of recognitiou and the like are als"o ancillary powers statutorily conferred on the Council. The regulation by the Council prescribing teac:hing experience for three years in :i t:achfog institutions have statutory status. The provisions of he Act form a <Conspectus and i'lurnine the meaning of the subsidiary legislation. The Council's regulation under s. 33 must be read in this background. It may straightway be mentioned that while the expressions 'medical institution' and 'approved .institution' are ddin~d (vide s. 2), _neither 'teaching experience' nor 'teaching institution' has been defined in the Act, rules or regulations. Simple Anglo Saxon, the framers must have presumed, must be cap11ble of easy , understanding and interpretation.

Nevertheless, counsel have argued at learned length on th~ semantics of th0se words although we are inclined to take not a pedantic nor artificial view of the import of these words but a simple commonsense idea of their m 1eaning. Of course, it would be natural to expect any authority (like the Bihar Government in this case) called upoti to construe these words useCI in the s~tting of a medical statute, if in doubt, to consult the high professional authority enjoying statutory status, viz., the Medical, Council of India. It was faintly suggessed at the bar that the Council had given a view once but modified it a Iitt'e somewhat later. We do not find any deviation nnd are not d;s1Josed to side-tr:ick ourse·ves in'o such non germane issues. Tf it were true that; national technical bodies were shaky on crucial occasions,.

( althougli ·we do no• find anything like that has happeru:·d here). thev lenct thcms<'lvr•. to the ~11«1icio11 t1>q1 nri>ssur" navs We are sure they will not exoose themselv1~s to this risk. In the present case the Governl)lent of Bihar is stated to have taken a policy decision not to con•ult th~ Medical Council of India~ While the apoointing authority is the State Government an<I the resoonsibility for final choice vests in it. it is· reasonable to consult bodies or authorities of :a high tcchnicnl level wheri .:the points in dispute are of a technical BIHAR v. A· K. MUKHERJEE (Krishfll' Iyer, /.) nature. To consult another is not to surrender to that other, but m.rely to seek assistance in the caretul exercise of public power.

All tlm we mean LO emp.1as1.Ze is that the plain words we have alrcad~ rt:f.::rred to, about the meaning of which the two sides have b~tut:d, shou1d be read having due regard to their normal import, statutory sct.1ug, prort:~s1onal ooiect ano msistence on standards. Snri J agdish Swarup, counsel for the State, took us through the various prov1s1ons of tne Act and empnas1sed that by and iaig~ tne medical institutions the Act had in view and ov:::r wnich the coundl had coutrol were Indian and uot foreign, and that thcreror.-: the · 'tcachmg institu~ions' and 'teaching experienc.:' specified in the regulat10ns m ques,1on also muse posess lnd1Jn flavour. Patriolism apart, it is apparent from the Act that it has recognized medical mstitut1ons in Umverslties without India (vide s. 12 and s. 14). The qucsrion is not therefore so simple as to be solved by reference to the Indian map.

This country, while rejecting colonial reve!'ence for British institutions has co·ntinued to accept and respect advances made in medical specialities abroad, including the United Kingdom and the United States, as is reflected in the Act. The India-bound construction is untenable. Equally extreme· and unsustainable is the specious plea of Shri Desai that any teaching experience .from any foreign teaching institution is good enough. Imagine teaching experience, acquired from some unmentionably under-developed country which is new to modern medicine being fobbed off on an Indian College 1 Reputed institutions noted for their. advanced courses of teaching and training cannot be ignored merely because they .bear a foreign badge. What we have to look for is to find guidelines within the framework of thll Act for fixing those foreign medical institutions. Such a nexus. mice discernible might light up the otherwise iii-lit expressions 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institutions'.

We have therefore to look, at the outset, for indicators in the Act . for deciding which foreign teach· ing institutions may safely fall within the scope of regulation. The whole object is to see that India gets highly qualified medical tC'9chers and this is served neither by narrow swadeshi nor by neo-colonialism. but by setting our sights on the lines of the statute. Indeed, the argument that the teaching institutions in India alone can be taken l'ote of had been urged and over-ruled in the first round of litigation by the High .Court and the State Government had virtually accepted that decision when it examined the case of Dr. Mukheriee in accor· dance with the direction 1in writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 754 of 1972.

Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out, we consider it right to reckon as competent and qualitatively acceptable those institutions which are linked with, or are recognised as teachin<>. institutions by the Universities and or~anisations in Schedule II and Schedule IIJ and recognised by the Central Government under s. t 4. Teachin~ institutions as such may be too wide if extended all over the globe but viewed in the perspective of the Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 certainly they cover institutions expressly embraced bv the provisions H · of the statute. If those institutions are good enoul!b for the imoortant purposes of ss. t 2, 13 and 14. it is reasonable to infer they are J?ood enoul!h for the teaching experience eained therefrom being rerkoned as satisfactory. In this ~w tht~oblem is whether the institutions referred to in the testimonials of Dr. Mukherjee come within the above recognised categories. We have also to see whether Dr. Mukhrjei:'s service in those institutions as a Registrar, even if assumed in his favour, amount to teaching experience.

We will deal with these two decisive ques.tions presently. We agree that bald expressions 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institutions' with blurred contours have been at the root of the controversy but, as Denning, L.J., in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher(!) observed : "When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and b.ame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the inte.ition of Parliament ... , and then he must supplement the written words so as to give 'force and life'· to the intention of legislature .... A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Ad had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they .would have straightencu it out ? He must then do as they wou'.d have done. A judg..! must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." We take the cue from these observations in ithe construction we have adopted above.

The Indian teaching institutions plea having been over-ruled earlier, its die-hard persistence this time is unfortunate. Even so, the 1st respondent must make out that his institutions fa!J within the species we have already indicated. Prima facie they do and there is no reason to suspect that the testimonials ;:>roduced by him are trumped up. Unless proved to the contrary they should be taken by a public authority acting bona fide at their face value. · Teaching (:xperience of the requisite period is another component of qualifications. A Registrar, the first respondent was, for three year:;. But did he teach during that term ? He did, if we read his certificates issued by professors like. Dr. Robert Roaf and Dr. . Gf:offrey Osbrone. The aooellants however have challenged their reliability. There are 6 certificates now on record and the 1st respondent is stated to have taken part in teaching work as Registrar.

You cannot expect to produce those surgeons in Patna in proof and unless serious circumstances militating against veracity exist · fair-minded administrators may, after expert conswtatiOns, rely on them. W ~ are sure Government will not depart from fair play in this case or stand on prestig(: on such an issue to stick to their earlier posiiions. The State has sug~ested that some clarificatory testimonials might have been procured later from the professors abroad. There is nothin~· wron~ in obtainin~ such testimonials to clarify the position and we: see no unusual bias in these testimonials from such outstanding Pro-· fessors of Orthopaedics in British Universities. (I) [1949] (2) All. E.R. 155, 164. BIHAR v. A. K. MUKHERJEE (Krishn~ Iyer, I.) The simpb question is whether a Registrar, like the petition1:r, did or cou,d acquire teaching experience.

On the language of those . documents there is some marginal doubt, in the sense that he is stated to have ·pdftrc1pa,e<1' or ·assisted' m teachmg. The contention of the other siue naturaliy is that 'assisting' or 'participatmg' is rlifferent from 'actual teaching'. While we are hesitant to swallow such a contention it is not for us to finally pronounce on it, the matter being csswtiaiy a technical one. Indeed we have restrained ourselves from finally starn1g whether the institutions in which Dr. Mukh~rjee has worked are tcac.h,ng ins_titutions and whether the Rcgistrai"s post in which he worked gave him such teaching experience. These two matters have to be decided by the appointing authority. Courts cannot and do not appoint petitioners to posts they claim but lay down the legal cri•eria and give the correct directions, the Executive being the organ of State to exercise the power to appoint but in conformity with the legal directions.

The S,ate Government being that authority has to take the ulti- . mate decision. There is some force in the grievance of counsel for the State that the Court should not ordinarily call for Cabinet pr.pers and start scrutinising the notings and reports of the various olficers marely because a writ petition challenging the order has been made. When a writ of certior{JJ'i is moved, the Court has the power to call for the record, but in case where mala {ides is not aileged or other special circumstances set out, sel)sitive materials in the possession of government may not routinely be sent for. The power of the Court is wide but will have to be exercised judicially and judiciously. having r~gard to the totality of circumstances, including the impropriety of every disgruntled party getting an opportunity to pry into the files of government. Of course, acts of public authorities must ordinarily be amenable to pub· ic scrutiny and not be hidden in suspicious secrecy.

We are not satisfied that the High Court in this case should necessarily have looked into the Cabinet papers and back records, but the question has not been argued, except to the extent of mentioning that the Court was not in order although the State Government had produced the document on a direction. We leave the matter at that, for th!s ,reason. What do the alleged infirmities add up to ? Shri Jagdish Swaroop rightly stressed that once the right to aP.point bclong-ed to Government the Court could not usurp it merely because it would have chosen a different person as better qualified or given a finer gloss or different construction to the regulation on the score of a set formula that relevant Circumstances had been excluded, irrelevant factors had influenced and such like grounds fami1iarly invented by parties to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226. True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a government servant.

Soeakiniz in olaintitudinous terms these propositions may deserve serious reflection. The Administration should not be thwarted in the usual course of makin11: aooointments because some-how it displeases i~dicial relish or the. Court does not agree with its estimate of the relative worth of th~ candidates. Is there violation ~f a fundamental right, illegality or akin error of law which vitiates the appoint- (1975) 2 s.C.lll. ment ? The overlooking of alleged superlative abilities claimed by Dr. Mukherjee is not of judicial concern but of public . resentment . and inJividual injustice, if wrongly discard1:d by an 11ppomting authonty·- in the absence of proof of bad faith or oblique ~xercise or other error of law. Nor is the corrective judicial review but an appeal to other deinocratic processes . which hold sanctions agair.st misdoings of any Administration and its minions. The Court is not to evaluate coinparatively but to adjudicate on legal flaws. Viewed in this perspective, was th<:

High Court right in issuing a writ'! We are disposed to say 'yes'. Undoubtedly, appointments to posts need not be accompanied ~y i:peaking orders or reasoned grounds. Then the wheels of Government will slow down to a grinding halt, tar~y as it is even otherwise. And comity of constitutional 101ttumentalities forbids unfrie1'diy interference where jurisdiction d<1es not clearly dist. Granting this institutional modus vivendi, has the Court gone away? No, and we will give our grounds. • While officious interference with c:very wrong government .order is not right, here the 1st respondent has complained of violation ,of the regulations which bind State and citizen alike. Although the Stato ne~d not alwa,ys make a reasoned q~der of appointment, re&$OJ18 relevant to the rules must animate the order. Moreover, an obligaticm to consider every qualified candidate is implicit in the 'equal opport1~~ nity' right enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Screening a candidate out of consideration altogether is illegal if the applica11t has eligibility under the regulations. And for such a drastic step refusal to evaluate comparatively, i.e., exclusion from the ring of competitor manifest grounds must appear on the record. Such being . E the legal perspective, let us test the p1resent order of government by those canons. The explanatory affidavit of the a1>pellant State and· the record• fairly produced by it before the Court disclose that Government lu11 adopted a turbid attitude. Did it disregard Dr. Mukherjee out of hand for want of Indian teaching experience in an Indian teaching instittL· tion? Shri Ja1:dish Swaroop's submission is that such experience ia essential. If so,; a violation of the regulation, as interpreted by us, baa been committed. Failing in this the State falls back on another basis that his foreign. experience is not shown to be from an approved teaching h?spital, which may be clever but not straightforward.

To b' cute m Court may not correspond with being correct in administration. The 1st respondent's case for the pOst bas not been considered from the legal angle. It was the duty of Government to be: satisfied, on reasonable materials, that (a) the U.K. hosoitals relied on by the 1st respondent am teaching institutions GD explained by us after a study of the spirit of the statute; (b) the posts of Registrar in which he worked for 3 year11 involved teaching functions, the question being looked at fairly, not !'Y sema.ntic hair-splitting. and quibbling on words like 'participating' 10 teachmg: (cl the testimonials or written testimony from any British (or Indian, for that matter) Orthopaedics Professor will be~ BIHAR v. A. K. MUKHERJEE (Krishna lyet, J.) taken at its faee value except where grave suspicion taints such document, high-placed academic men being assumed to be veracious in the absence of clear contrary indications; ( d)

Indian experience, if any, of the 1st respondent, will also be paid attention, provided it satisfied the dual tests contained in the regulation. We are satisfier! that the State has made short shrift of Dr. Mu1¢erjee by preliminary screening. The notings and reports and vacillaµng opinions entertained by Government, . at various stages do not detain µs as they are incidental to any administrative decision and cannot be espied with a suspicious eye by Court. Goveriµnental ways may not be familiar for forensic processes· b.ut for that reason cannot be suspected. We have already observed that at the first flush the 1st respondent looks like eligible and highly qualified but there may be more thari meets the eye. Government may investigate and be satisfied about the real qualifications.

In the interests of justice and in view of the ambiguous thinking on this question at administrative levels we regard it as necessary to give the candidates tim.e till the end of January, 1_975 to produce evidence of the 1st respondent's teaching experience in teaching institutions as interpreted by us. Government will give a fair consideration to the qualifications and relative worth of all the candidates. Length of teaching experience will certainly ·be a relevant-n9t necessarily dominant-factor. The quality <Jf their experience, their academic .attainments and the intellectual ability to stimulate students in the speciality and the investigative curiosity likely to be imparted to the alumni-these weighty considex:_ations will promote public weal in a country hungering for talented doctors.

Government's sole concern, We feel confident, will be to get the most capable, in the public interest and in the hope that this happy wish will not fail we proceed to issue the substantive declarations and directions. We declare the orders of appointment of the appellants iii C.A. No. 1431 of 1974 as bad in law and direct the appellants in C.A. 1430 of 1974 to reconsider de novo the appointments to the two posts of lecturers. In so doing, the State will act in conformity with the findings and observations made. above. The first respondent's eligibility on _the basis of the relevant regulation will be examined afresh before February 15, 1975, the parties, particularly the · 1st respondent, being at liberty to adduce materials to satisfy the State Government on hi~ qualifications (or otherwise) on or before the last day of January, 1975. Government will bo free to consult technical authorities of its own befor~ reaching a decision.

We do not preclude the right of the Administration to amv~ at its decision even earlier, fairly dealing with the situation since the sooner the appoint- 11-346 Sup. CI/75 (1975) 2 s.C:.R. ments are finali~d the better. While we hav~ indicated the bl'oad approach, it is within the ~wer and responsibility of Government to take all r~levant · considerations and exclude extraneous matters in making the final choice for the two posts. We make it clear that there is no . obligation to make any speaking order although there is nothing which stands in its \VBY In doing so. The appeals are dismissed, but we express our qistress that three years of two rounds of litiga· lion invo1Vi11g young specialists have held up the appointments to medical college posts thus hamparing_ the process of medical courses and adversely affecting student interest-a socio-legal syndrome which needs ~ closer diagnostic procedure.

It will, therefore, be the duty of the Government not to delay the making of fresh appointments after receipt of such materials, if any, as may be produced by the candidates. With these observations, we dismiss the appeals with c:osts against the State only, and only in favour of Respondent Dr. Mukherjee. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.