' SHAH JEHAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner has questioned the appointment of respondent No.3 as Assistant Professor Paediatric Surgery being not qualified for want of the required experience and prescribed qualification published through advertisement in the Press dated 23-5-2002.
2. In brief, case of the petitioner is that he is serving as Acting Senior Registrar in the Department of Paediatric Surgery, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar. He qualified his M.B.B.S. In the year 1987 and F.C.P.S. In Paed Surgery in the year 1997. He entered in service as M.O. In the year 1989. After qualifying F.C.P.S. In Paed. Surgery in 1997, he was transferred to Paediatric Surgery Department in January, 1998 and is still serving in the said Department.
3. The Chief Executive, Khyber Teaching Hostal, Peshawar, respondent No.1, invited applications for various posts including one post of Assistant. Professor in "PAEDIATRIC SURGERY" through advertisement issued in Daily "Dawn" on 23rd May, 2002. Qualifications for the said post was as under:-- (a).. M.B.B.S. Or equivalent medical qualifications recognized by the Council;
(b) F.C.P.S./MS/MD in the respective subject or equivalent qualification in the specialty recognized by the Medical and Dental Council. Preference was said to be gig en to the candidates having at least one research paper as principal author in the relevant specialty to be published in the standard medical journal. The candidates must have three years teaching experience as Senior Registrar in the respective subject in a Teaching Hospital or equivalent experience recognized by the Medical and Dental Council.
4. The terms and conditions includes that applications shall be accompanied with complete bio data/academic documents which must reach to office of respondent No.1 on or before 10th June, 2002. The qualifications and experience advertised were in accordance with notification dated 11-1- 1999 issued by Health Department, Government of N.-W.F.P.
5. The petitioner along with respondents 3,4 and others applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Paediatric Surgery. Though the respondents 3 and 4 were lacking the prescribed qualifications but the Selection Committee after holding interview placed the petitioner subsequent to the respondents 3 and 4 in the merit list. Accepting the recommendations, respondent No.1 issued appointment order of respondent No.3 who was placed at serial number one of the merit list.
6. Respondent No.3 is alleged to be a qualified F.R.C.S. a post-Graduate qualification in General Surgery while the petitioner has qualified F.C.P.S. In Paediatric Surgery. Though respondent No.3 has not worked as Senior Registrar but he was awarded five marks which could be awarded only to those candidates who had worked as Senior Registrar and the petitioner is serving as Acting Senior Registrar in the Paediatric Surgery Department and entitled for the said marks. Respondent No.3 was also illegally granted five marks for publication in the concerned speciality in question as principal author and 0.5 marks upto 5 marks as maximum could be awarded to a candidate being a coauthor in a publication in the concerned speciality. Respondent No.3 had no publication as principal author but he was awarded 5.5. Marks. Respondent No.3 was illegally allotted 10 marks in interview which could be awarded to a candidate having F.C.P.S. Degree in the respective speciality with three years experience after post-Graduation and being principal author of a paper in the concerned specialty published in the Medical Journal. Respondent No. 4 was also wrongly placed at serial No.2 of the merit list being not qualified for want of requisite qualifications published in the advertisement. He qualified his F.C.P.S. In Paediatric Surgery in October, 1999 whereafter he has served for one and a half year as medical officer in general surgery department in the Federal Government Hospital, Islamabad and his total post-fellowship experience was three years. The three years' post fellowship experience must be in the concerned speciality and in the recognized teaching institutions while the Federal Government Hospital, Islamabad has no Paediatric Surgery Unit. His publication was a case report and could not be considered for the grant of 5 marks as principal author of a paper in the concerned speciality published in the Medical Journal. He was also wrongly granted one mark as co-author because he was lacking the merits of a principal author. Not being principal author, respondent No.4 was wrongly allotted 10 marks in interview. He was also wrongly allotted 3 marks for additional experience because no such document was placed on record.
7. The irregularities committed by the Selection Committee were also pointed out by Head of the PaediatricSurgery Department who was also member of the Selection Committee in his letter dated 20-9-2002 to the Appointing Authority.
8. Comments were called from respondents but they failed to furnish the same despite repeated notices and ultimately on 28-11-2002 the writ petition was admitted to full hearing. Subsequently, respondent No.1, Appointing Authority, expressed his desire to file written statement who was allowed to file the same. In his written statement, respondent No.1 has agitated that the service of the petitioner as Medical Officer does not relate Paediatric service. However, his posting in the Department of Paediatric Surgery in January 1998 was admitted. Respondent No.3 was contended to have his F.R.C.S. In the year 1993 while the petitioner qualified the same in 1997. Respondent No.3 was found to have more experience than the petitioner and also had more research work .As compared to the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 were stated to have better performance in the interview than the petitioner. Respondents 3 and 4 were found to have the requisite qualifications in the terms of the advertisement. He denied the petitioner's assertion that Federal Government Hospital, Islamabad has no Paediatric Surgery Unit. However, respondent No.1 has not commented upon the letter dated 20-9-2002 issued by the Head of the Department of Paediatric Surgery who was also a member of the Selection Committee.
9. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the written statement and has also placed on record certain additional documents in support of his contention.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on record and the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The petitioner who had qualified his M.B.B.S. In 1987 and F.C.P.S. In 1997 have submitted his experience certificate issued by Medical Superintendent K.T.H. Peshawar in the following terms:--
(a) As Medical Officer in Paediatric Surgery Unit with effect from 13-1-1998 to 5-11-2000 (2 years 9 months 22 days).
(b) As Medical Officer in Paediatric Surgery. Unit with effect from 5-11-2001 to 30-12-2001 (one, month 25 days).
(c) As Acting Senior Registrar in Paediatric Surgery Unit with effect from 31-12-2001 to 11-6-2002 (6 months 11 days).
12. Respondent No.3 in his curriculum vitae intimated that he qualified his M.B.B.S. In the year 1986 and his F.R.C.S. In 1993. As regards his experience, he allegedly worked as Senior House Officer Paediatric Plastic Surgery from January, 1990 to December, 1990 (one year) again as Senior House Officer Paediatric Surgery from September, 1992 to July, 1993 (about 11 months) and as Registrar in Paediatric Surgery from November, 1995 to June, 2000 (about 5 years and 2 months) and only for the last year, he has stated to have served in the capacity as Senior Registrar. It is pertinent to mention here that requisite experience was 3 years as Senior Registrar in the Paediatric Surgery and respondent No.3 as per his curriculum vitae, has served in the capacity of Senior Registrar for only one year in the concerned Speciality. However, the requisite documents were not attached with the application and even on the date of interview dated 5-8-2002.
13, Respondent No.4 has not furnished the detail of his qualifying M.B.B.S. However, he has shown to have qualified his F.C.P.S. In 1998. His fellowship experience was three years wherein for one and a half year, he has served as Medical Officer in General Surgery in Federal Government Hospital, Islamabad, the recognition of which as Teaching Hospital is also disputed and the availability of Paediatric Surgery Unit is also questioned by petitioner.
14. As regards. The publication, P.M.D.C. Islamabad in its letter No.PF.11-F-2002 (Journals) 782 dated 26-9-2002 approved the following criteria:-- ' Credit for publication of research papers:-
1. Credit may be given equal to 1st three authors which will be nominated by the principal author and will be notified to the Editor before publication.
10/10 (Full credit)
2. Letter to Editor. No credit
3. Case Report. No, credit ' It was also decided that a new name be given to Case Report i.e. "Evidence Based Clinical or Therapeutic Series" which will be consisted of minimum 10 pages and will be given credit to each paper.
15. Respondent No.3 has produced three publications as Case Report jointly with others wherein he is shown at No.2 among the authors. The publication is also disputed by the petitioner being not research paper and that respondent No.2 is not the principal author, thus could not be granted preference in terms of advertisement.
16. After holding the interview on 5-8-2002, petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were granted 50 marks each for their academic qualifications. (It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner and respondent No.4 have got post-Graduate qualification F.C.P.S. In Paediatric Surgery while respondent No.3 has qualified his post-Graduate Degree for F.R.C.S. In General Surgery). All the three were granted 5 marks each for publication as principal author but the respondent No.3 was granted 0.50 marks and respondent No.4 one mark for additional paper as principal co-author. All of them were granted 5 marks each for 3 years experience after post-Graduation and only respondent No.3 was granted 5 marks for 3 years experience as Senior Registrar. All of them were allotted 3 marks each for additional experience and 10 marks to each of them in interview for maximum criteria of F.C.P.S. Or equivalent three years experience after post-Graduation and one paper as principal author. The petitioner, respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 were allotted 4.86, 5.75 and 4.75 marks in verbal interview respectively. The total marks obtained by the petitioner, respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 are 77.86, 84.25 and 78.75 respectively.
17. So far the case of respondent No.4 is concerned, undisputedly he qualified his F.C.P.S. In the year 1999 and he had not yet completed three years service after post-graduation on the date specified for submission of applications in the advertisement. Thus he was not eligible at all in the terms of advertisement.
18. The prescribed qualification for the post in question in the terms of advertisement was M.B.B.S. Or equivalent medical qualification recognized by the Council and F.C.P.S./MS/MD in the respective subject or equivalent qualification in the specialty, recognized by the Council. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 possessed the qualification of M.BB.S. And F.R.C.S. In the General Surgery which has got the alleged equivalence with the F.C.P.S. Being recognized by the 'P.M.D.C. The basic qualification for the post was F.C.P.S. In the respective subject and a candidate having a post graduate qualification of F.R.C.S. Could only be considered if a qualified candidate having F.C.P.S./MS/MD is found not available but in the presence of F.C.P.S./MS/MD candidates in the respective specialty of Paediatric Surgery, then there would be no justification for considering the candidates qualified F.R.C.S. In the General Surgery. Respondent No.3 has qualified his M.B.B.S. In the year 1983 and has qualified his F.R.C.S., a post graduate qualification, in the General Surgery in the year 1993.
' As compared to respondent No.3, the petitioner has qualified his M.B.B.S. In the 1987 and has got post-Graduate qualification of F.C.P.S. In the year 1997. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was qualified in the concerned specialty in the terms of advertisement while the post-Graduate qualification of respondent No.3 was not in the respective subject of Paediatric Surgery.
19. In the terms of advertisement, preference was stated to be given to the candidates having at least research paper as principal author in the relevant speciality published in the standard Medical Journal. The respondent No.3 is stated to have authored publications titled.
1. Congenital segmental dilation of the duodenum-differental.
2. Intra-thoracic liver (ectopic)-a diagnostic dilemma (Paediatric Surgery Intenational July, 2001).
3. Crystic pre-sacral Teratoma (type iv) a rare cause of neonation bowel and bladder outlet obstruction case report.
20. As per P.M.D.C. Rules, rule 2 (c) (d) (e), the publications must be published in the Standard Medical Journal and under the guideline 7 (3), the case report must consist of ten cases and the candidates should be granted credit of one paper. The credit could be given only to a principal author or a principal co-author. The said publications were not proved to have been published in the Standard Medical Journal in terms of P.M.D.C. Rules and the said publications were not containing ten cases as required under the guidelines circulated by P.M.D.C. Respondent No.3 is neither principal author not'the said publications are regarding research work but only a case-law report and he is not even a principal author of any publication. In these circumstances, respondent No.3 could not get the benefit of publications relied upon by him before the Public Service Commission.
21. In addition to the qualifications, it was also intimated in the advertisement that candidates must possess three years experience as Senior Registrar in the respective subject in a Teaching Hospital or equivalent experience recognized by the Council. As per Curriculum Vitae of respondent No.3, he was appointed as Registrar in Paediatric Surgery in the capacity of Senior Registrar from July, 2000 and was still working as such when he applied for the advertised post. The said period comes to two years and that to as Registrar allegedly in the capacity of Senior Registrar. Prior to that he was allegedly appointed as Registrar in Paediatric Surgery in November, 1995 and continued as such till June, 2000 wherein for the last year he has allegedly served in the Senior Registrar capacity. This period comes to five years and two months,in the Royal Alexandra Hosptal for Sick Childern Brighton. In his Curriculum Vitae, he has served in the Our Lady's Hospital for sick children, Crumlin, Dublin as Senor House Officer in Paediatric Surgery from September, 1992 to July, 1993. This service cannot be considered as required experience published through advertisement. He has also shown to have worked as Senior House Officer in Paediatric Accident/Emergency, Orthopaedics and Paediatric Plastic Surgery in the aforesaid hospital of Crumlin, Dublin from July, 1990 to December, 1990 but this experience is also not worth-consideration in the terms of advertisement. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has not furnished the requisite certificates alongwith his application which were required to reach the office of respondent No.1 before 10-6-2002. Even the experience certificates were not available with respondent No.3 on the date of interview i.e. 5-8-2002. The impugned appointment order was issued on 11-9-2002. The required experience certificates were sent by Southampton University Hospital NSH Trust through Fax on 11-9-2002. The validity of those certificates were questioned being not issued by Competent Authority and these were issued by Consultant Paediaric and Neonatal Surgeon. There is also apparent conflict in the Curriculum Vitae furnished by respondent No.3 and the certificates which were sent through Fax belatedly in the sense that as regards his service in the Southampton Hospital U.K. From July, 2000 to December, 2002, he has shown himself to be appointed as Registrar and has worked in the capacity of Senior Registrar while the certificate reveals that he has served in the said Hospital as Senior Registrar from July, 2000 to August 2002. Likewise his information through Curriculum Vitae regarding his service in the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Brighton, England from November, 1995 to June, 2000 and in the last year he had worked as Senior Registrar Paediatric Surgery but the certificates issued by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, he has served as Registrar from November, 1995 to June, 2000 and for the last two years, he had worked in the capacity of Senior Registrar. These conflicts in the Curriculum Vitae furnished by respondent No.3 and the certificates issued by Head of the concerned hospital also make the alleged experience of respondent No.3 as Registrar/Senior Registrar in Paediatric Surgery doubtful. This is also not clear from the certificates that those Hospitals were Teaching Hospitals.
22. The petitioner has properly appended with his application for the post in question within due time the requisite academic certificates and experience certificates. The said documents reveal that petitioner was possessing the requisite qualifications of M.B.B.S. And F.C.P.S. In the concerned Speciality and he has worked for three years in Teaching Hospital in Paediatric Surgery Unit after getting his post-Graduate qualification of F.C.P.S. In 1997. After his induction in the Paediatric Unit as Specialist on the subject, he remained Incharge of the Unit and was serving as Senior Registrar. It is pertinent to mention here that at present he is performing his duty as consultant and overall incharge of the Paediatric Surgery Unit. As regards his research publications, he has produced his Article "Alvarado Scoring System in the disgnosis of acute Appendicts in children" by the petitioner as principal author which was published in journal of Medical Sciences.. He has also supplied his thesis on the "Hypospadias", a research paper, and he was issued a certificate by the Head of Department of Paediatric Surgery in the children Hospital. P1MG certifying that the petitioner, a post-Graduate student, has completed his dissertation as partial requirement in FGPP-II in the said hospital.
23. After holding the interview of four candidates, one Muhammad Ayub Khan was placed in the bottom of merit list and he is not party to the present litigation, respondent No.3 was allotted 84.25 marks in total which includes 50 marks for qualification plus 5 marks as principal author plus.50 marks for additional paper as principal/co-author plus 5 marks for three years experience as post- Graduate plus 5 marks for three years experience as Senior Registrar plus 3 marks as additional experience plus 10 marks as minimum criteria for FCPS or equivalent plus three years experience as post-Graduate and one paper as principal author and 5.75 for verbal interview. The petitioner was allotted 77.68 marks which includes 50 marks for prescribed qualification plus 5 marks for one paper as principal author plus 5 marks for his three years post-Graduate experience plus 3 marks for his additional experience, plus 10 marks as minimum criteria of F.C.P.S., plus three years experience after post-Graduation and one paper as principal author plus 4.86 of verbal interview.
The comparison of the marks sheets of the petitioner and respondent No.3 would show that respondent No.3 was granted 0.50 marks for additional paper as principal/co-author, 5 marks for his alleged 3 years experience as Senior Registrar but the petitioner was not given any marks in these headings and respondent No.3 was also granted .89 marks more than the petitioner in verbal interview. As noted earlier, the interview was held on 5-8-2002 and on the said date, no certificate of experience as Senior Registrar was available with the Selection Committee. Thus the experience 5 marks for three years post-Graduate service and 5 marks for three years service as Senior Registrar were wrongly allotted to him. Likewise, 3 marks for additional experience was also wrongly granted to him for want of documentary proof. Over and above the marks, referred to above, respondent No.3 was also considered equal to the petitioner in granting marks for qualification because the petitioner was possessing post-Graduate qualification in the concerned subject/speciality while respondent No.3 was possessing equivalent post-Graduate degree. On the availability of candidates in the particular subject/speciality, the equivalent of other subjects/specialties become redundant or at least preference should be given to the candidates having qualification in the concerned subject over those who are possessing speciality in general subjects and not in the particular subject. The marking shown in the merit list is not reasonable and not in accordance with law and justice. Respondent No.3 and also respondent No.4 were wrongly allotted more marks than the petitioner.
24. Dr. Fazal Rehman, Head of Paediatric Surgery Department in K.T.H., Peshawar addressed a letter to respondent No.1 on 20-9-2002 wherein the following defects in the impugned order were pointed out:-- "(1) Interview was held at 6.00 p.m. And due to shortage of time it was decided that as subject specialist I will ask only one question from each candidate and nobody else in the Committee will ask any question. As rest of the Committee members did not ask any question and my question was highly specialized, the rest of the Committee members giving marks without asking any question is against interview norms.
(2) Candidate No.1 on merit list has not done any Senior Registrar job and has been awarded 5 marks for this.
(3) Candidate No.2 has worked in General Surgery as Federal Govt. Hospital, Islamabad for 1 1/2 year where there is no Paediatric Surgery Unit and has been awarded marks for the experience- which is against the rules.
(4) Candidate No.2 is co-author in one article and 1st author in a case report and he has been given full mark for these.
(5) I have indicated only few points and if you can provide me with photocopies of the complete bio data of candidates I am sure I can pin-point more incidences of favoritism to few candidates."'
25. It is already noted that the concerned respondent has not replied of the relevant para regarding the aforesaid defects in the 'interview proceedings in the written statement, thus establish to be correct being not rebutted.
26. The Medical Superintendent, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar has issued an experience certificate in the petitioner's name which reveals that the petitioner has worked as Medical Officer in the Paediatric Surgical Unit from 13-1-1998 to 5-11-2000 and from 5-11-2001 to 30-12-2001. He has also certified his working as Acting Senior Registrar in the Paediatric Surgical Unit since 31-12-2001 till the issuance of certificate i.e. 11-6-2002. The petitioner has worked for all the times in the Paediatric Surgical Unit in the Teaching Hospital in Pakistan while respondent No.3 has alleged to have worked in the Paediatric Surgery in the hospitals abroad. This is also not clear from the Curriculum Vitae furnished by respondent No.3 and the certificates issued by Consultant of the Universities abroad as to whether those hospitals wherein respondent No.3 has performed the duty were in fact Teaching Hospitals. All these circumstances are sufficient to hold that respondent No.3 could not establish himself entitled for the experience marks as compared to the petitioner.
27. It is pertinent to mention here that under section 32 of the Regulation of P.M.D.C., preference is to be given to the qualifications from Pakistani Universities over equivalent qualifications obtained from abroad but the Selection Committee has overlooked the said Regulation of P.M.D.C. In allocation of marks to the petitioner and respondent No.3.
28. It will not be out of place to mention here that by introducing Institutional Based Practice (I.B.P.) by the Provincial Government of N.-W,F.P., some senior Specialist doctors did not accept the policy and opted to resign from the Government service which created an acute shortage of the specialists in the various specilities in the local hospitals. To overcome this difficulty/shortage of the specialists, the Provincial Government advertised the various posts of Assistant Professors in the advertisement subject-matter of present case. Respondent No.3 was abroad when the advertisement was published in the Daily "Dawn". Though he applied for the post by submitting his Curriculum Vitae and on his appointment, he submitted arrival report on 21-9-2002 but the same day went back to England, the place of his posting and returned to Pakistan in the third week of December, 2002 and joined the Unit. Once again he left the country on 27-1-2003 and came back to Pakistan on 21-5-2003. On 8-7-2003 he once again left for England and did not return till August, 2003. His visits abroad at all the aforesaid occasions were not with due permission of the Health Department. His conduct is also noticeable in view of the urgency of the filling the posts in question due to resignation of the senior doctors in the country.
29. Under the PM&DC Regulations for the appointment of teachers and examiners in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, the eligibility for appointment of Assistant Professor is as follows:-- ' Basic Qualification ' M.B.B.S. Or equivalent medical qualifications recognized/ registered by the PM&DC.
' Additional Post-Graduate Qualification ' F.C.P.S./M.S./MD in the respective Speciality.
OR ' Other equivalent qualification in the speciality recognized/registered by the PM&DC.
' Experience ' Three years teaching/practical experience in the respective speciality in the recognized institution in order of following preference:-- ' IST PREFERENCE ' Teaching experience.
' 2ND PREFERENCE ' Practical experience after Post-Graduation.
' 3RD PREFERENCE ' Practical experience before Post-Graduation.
' Remarks ' The holders of additional qualification like M.C.P.S. Shall not be eligible for appointment/promotion as Senior Registrar, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor for 'which holders of higher diploma/degree are only eligible.
30. Under para. 15 of the PM&DC Regulations, it is laid down as follows:-- "The experience gained in one speciality shall not be counted for appointment/promotion in other speciality in clinical subject. For example, experience gained in Orthopaedic Surgery cannot be counted for appointment/promotion in General Surgery. Similarly experience gained in Cardiology etc. Cannot be counted for appointment/promotion in General Medicine and vice versa. HoWever if there is no Separate Department of Cardiology, Neurology, Orthopaedic, etc. And the cases are dealt in the Department of Medicine and Surgery respectively then the experience gained in such departments can also be counted in General Medicine and General Surgery respectively for the purpose of appointment/promotion."
31. Under para. 18 of the said Regulation, it is provided as follows:- "The experience gained as a Senior Registrar inside or outside Pakistan recognized Teaching Hospitals by a person with the requisite post-Gradudate qualifications such as F.C.P.S. Etc. Should be counted as equivalent to Assistant Professor in a ratio of 2:1, for example, two years experience as Senior Registrar with the requisite post-Graduate qualifications be counted as equivalent to one year experience as Assistant Professor."
32. Para. 32 of the Regulations says:- "The qualifications of M D /M S /FC .P.S . /Ph . D ; M. Phil etc. In the respective subject awarded by Pakistan Universities will be preferred over the equivalent qualifications obtained outside Pakistan for the purpose of appointment in the Medical/Dental Institutions in Pakistan.
33. Respondent No.3 admittedly failed to supply the required certificates within the 'prescribed period and even at the time of interview. The Public Service Commission was required not to consider respondent No.3 for not producing his certificates at the time of submission of application in terms of advertisement. The certificates produced subsequently by respondent No.3 was also not acceptable being issued by Consultant and not by Head of the Department while under the Rules, certificates are required to be issued by the Head of the Department. The certificates are in conflict with the Curriculum Vitae submitted by respondent No.3 which makes the certificates of experience highly doubtful. Respondent No.3 was lacking the post-Graduate qualification in the concerned speciality and if his post-Graduate qualification of F.R.C.S. Is taken to be at par with the post-graduation qualification of the petitioner i.e. F.C.P.S., even then could not be given preference due to availability of candidates in the concerned speciality. Under the PM&DC Rules, noted above, the post-Graduate qualification obtained from Pakistan Universities shall be given preference over the qualification obtained from outside Pakistan for the purpose of appointment. Undisputedly, the petitioner has got his post-Graduate qualification in Pakistan while respondent No.3 obtained post- Graduate qualification from the Universities abroad and the petitioner was to be given preference over qualification of respondent No.3 which was also not in the speciality concerned but in General Surgery.
34. As noted earlier in this judgment, the letter of Dr. Fazal Rehman wherein he pointed out numerous irregularities/favouritism were not rebutted by the respondents, thus stands admitted.
Even otherwise, the perusal of merits sheets appended with the writ petition would show that respondent No.3 was granted 5 marks for three years experience as Senior Registrar but respondent No.3 is lacking such experience. Respondent No.3 was also wrongly granted 10 marks for minimum criteria for F.C.P.S. Or equivalent, three years experience after post-Graduation and one paper as principal author because he was lacking the postgraduate qualification in the concerned speciality and he has not produced any publication as principal author. Respondent No.3 was allowed 5 marks as principal author. However, he could be granted as 0.50 marks as co- author. Deducting the marks wrongly allotted to respondent No.3 i.e. 5 + 10 + 5 marks = 20 marks, the total marks obtained by respondent No.3 would come to 64.2.
35. Respondent No.4 was wrongly considered for the post because he was not eligible for want of three years experience after post-Graduation and strangely enough, he was allotted 5 marks for three years post-Graduate experience. Likewise, he was also wrongly granted 10 marks in the interview for minimum criteria of F.C.P.S. Plus three years experience after post-Graduation and by deducting these illegally granted marks to respondent No.4, even if, he is found eligible, his total marks would come to 63.75. The mark granted to the petitioner as 77.86 was not objected to by the respondents, thus stands admitted. In these circumstances, we found that the Selection Committee has done injustice to the petitioner and the appointment of respondent No.3 as Assistant Professor is against the PM&DC Rules/Regulations for appointment and arbitrary, thus illegal and could not be sustained.
36. In the light of the discussion made above, we accept this writ petition and direct respondent No.1 to rescind the appointment order of respondent No.3 and appoint the petitioner against the advertised post of Assistant Professor being fully qualified and eligible. No order as to costs.