T.N. Singh J. - (1.)STATE professes, it is carrying out the 'socio -constitutional' mandate of the Directive Principles to improve public health. How ? By banning the 'private' practice of 'Government doctors' of a particular class. Writ Petitioners -not mere medicos, but medical teachers protest and call it a subterfuge. They are aggrieved mainly by State's infringement, according to them, of their fundamental right to carry on their profession issues raised are indeed vital impinging, as they do, upon matters like public interest and public policy but rather importantly for this Court, the question of Rule of Law.
(2.)THOUGH arguments were advanced to us by learned Counsel on all aspects of the lies and we ungrudgingly beard them least public interest may seem jeopardised we propose, however, to limit our discussion and decision within a narrow campus. Indeed judicial discipline forbids us to act otherwise -constitutional issues demand a high -precision treatment. They are to be touched only by an electronic prod at the finest point. We would not, therefore, forage in open add. But, we cannot lay out frugally the factual mater as stakes on both side are high.
Counsel suggested that we hear analogously three writ petitions became Petitioners in all these petitions have a common character and are fighting for a common cause and in all these petitions a common grievance is orchestrated impugning validity of a single order. Counsel submitted that the pleadings in writ petition No. 754/84 be treated as common and basic to all the cases. Accordingly in the course of arguments counsel made reference to the Annexures only of Civil Rule No. 754/84. Indeed Respondents 1 -3, State of Assam and its instrumentalities, filed a common return in this case. While 4th Respondent. Accountant General, Assam, Shillong, neither filed any return nor entered appearance in any of the cases. Learned Advocate General, Assam, appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the return filed in the first case be treated as the common return in all cases.

(3.)ALTOGETHER 52 teachers of Gauhati Medical College have joined in Civil Rule No. 754/84 while in Civil Rule No. 770/84 (second case) 37 teachers of the Assam Medical College at Dibrugarh and in Civil Rule No. 783/84 (third case) 22 teachers of Silchar Medical College have joined the chorus. We may state however that in point of time the Assam Medical College at Dibrugarh is the oldest coming up sometime in 1947 after which came the Gauhati Medical College in 1960 and then Silchar Medical College in 1970. In the Colleges at Dibrugarh and Gauhati there are Post -Graduate level courses and research works are also undertaken. These two Colleges have earned recognition of the Indian Council of Medical Research for carrying out research works. In the rust case the 1st Petitioner is the Principal and Head of the Deptt, of Medicine in the College at Gauhati and the other Petitioners are Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in different disciplines as also in the other two cases except that Petitioner No. 22 in the third case is the Registrar in the Dentistry Department of the College at Silchar. Most of the Petitioners it is claimed and is also admitted, have high academic qualifications and also training in different disciplines and are generally accepted as "specialists'' in their respective disciplines.
;