G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the selection of respondent No. 6 for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery).
(2.) THE fads necessary for deciding the issue raised in the petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement Annexure P. 1 issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission'), the petitioner and respondent No. 6. applied for recruitment as Senior Lecturer (Paediairic Surgery') - At one stage, the application of respondent No. 6 was rejected by the Commission on the ground that he did not possess the post graduate qualification in the speciality concerned i.e. Paediatric Surgery, bui after considering his representation (Annexure p.6), which was forded (forwarded ?) by Dr. Janak Raj Arora, Professor and Head of Department of Paediatric Surgery, Government Medical College, Patiala (respondent No. 5) with favourable recommendations, the Commission re - viewed its decision and called him for selection and ultimately recommended his name for appointment against the advertised post. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 on the grounds that he does not possess one of the essential qualifications, i.e., post graduate degree in Paediatric Surgery prescribed under Rule .9 read with Appendix 'C' of the Punjab Medical Education State Service (Class II) Rules, 1979 (for short, 'the 1979 Rules') and that one of the experts, namely, Dr. Janak Raj Arora was biased in his favour.
(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 4, respondents No. 2 and respondent No. 6 have filed separate written statements to contest the petitioner's challenge to the selection of respondent No. 6. According to respondents No. 1 and 4, respondent No. 6 was treated eligible for the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery) because in the post other persons, namely, Dr. Janak Raj Arora and Dr. Kulwant Singh were appointed on that post by promotion in 1982 and 1986 respectively despite the fact that they did not have post graduate qualification in Paediatric Surgery and Dr. Charanjit Singh, who was M.S. (Surgery) was appointed as Senior Lecturer in Urology in 1991 on the recommendations of the Commission. They have relied on the decision of the Single Bench m Dr. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab,, 1994(1) SCT 727 (P&H) :, 1992(8) SLR 1 to support their plea that respondent No. 6 is eligible to be appointed as Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery). They have also averred that M.Ch., which is a post -doctoral degree, has not been included in Appendix 'C' annexed to the 1979 Rules and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as an essential qualification for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery). In their written statement, respondents No. 2 and 3 have also averred that the qualification of M. Ch. (Paediatric Surgery) has not been incorporated in the 1979 Rules and, therefore, the candidates having the qualification of M.S. (Surgery) were considered eligible for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery). They have relied on letter No. 1/3/S5 - 2ss3/17887 dated 11.9.1989 sent by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health and Family Planning Department to the Commission in the matter of selection for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Urology) and have averred that keeping in view the policy decision taken by the government to treat a candidate possessing M.S. (General Surgery) eligible for appointment in a relating speciality, the Commission had treated respondent No. 6 eligible for the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery). In his written statement, respondent No. 6 has challenged the very maintainability of the writ petition by alleging that the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court by not producing the complete copy of the advertisement. According to him, the Commission had advertised the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery) alongwith the post of Assistant Professor (Plastic Surgery) for which M.Ch. (Plastic Surgery) was shown as essential qualification, but with a view to mislead the Court, the petitioner has annexed only a part of the advertisement. On merits, he has averred that the degree of M.S. (General Surgery) has throughout been treated sufficient to entitle a candidate to be considered for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer and, therefore, the decision of the Commission to interview him cannot be termed as illegal or ultra vires to the 1979 Rules. In paragraph 5 of the written statement, he has given the particulars of Dr. S.N. Mittal, Dr. R.K. Jin -dal, Dr. A.K. Goel, Dr. Amarjeet Sharma, Dr. Charan -jit Singh, Dr. Janak Raj Arora, Dr. Kulwant Singh Ded, Dr. Balwinder Singh Gill, Dr. Navdeep Singh Gogia and Dr. Varinder Singh to show that they were appointed as Professor, Assistant Professor (Urology), Senior Lecturers (Urology)/Paediatric Surgery/Cardi -ology/Nephrology in different years despite the fact that they were having post graduate qualification of M.S. (General Surgery) or M.D. (Medicine) and not in the speciality of Urology, Paediatric Surgery, Cardiology or Nephrology. According to him, this should be treated as sufficient to confer legitimacy to his selection for appointment as Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery), Respondent No. 6 has also relied on notification No. 7 (16) -5HB -III -79/15044 dated 27.9.1982 and the prospectus issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for admission to post graduate courses to show that M.Ch. (Paediatric Surgery) is a super speciality and not a subject for post graduate courses to show that M.Ch. (Paediatric Surgery) is a post -doctoral qualification and not a postgraduate degree and, therefore, the decision of the Commission to consider his candidature on the strength of post graduate degree in General Surgery cannot be declared illegal. Shri Ashok Sharma Nabhewala argued that the selection of respondent No. 6 for appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery) should be declared illegal and quashed because on the last date fixed for receipt of application; i.e. 29.3.1993, he did not possess one of the essential qualifications prescribed under the 1979 Rules, i.e. post graduate Qualification in Paediatric Surgery. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the expression "post graduate qualification in the particular speciality" used in Appendix 'C' attached to the 1979 Rules and argued that a candidate who does not possess post graduate qualification in Paediatric Surgery cannot be treated eligible for appointment as Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Surgery). He referred to the Schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act') to show that the degree of Master of Surgery is being awarded by different universities and institutions in the country in different specialities like General Surgery, Paediatric Surgery, Ophthalmology, Anatomy, Obst. and Gynae, E.N.T., Plastic Surgery, Forensic Surgery, Neuro Surgery and Anaesthology and submitted that the expression "particular speciality" used in Appendix 'C' cannot be interpreted anything other that M.S. in Paediatric Surgery and a candidate not possessing that degree cannot be considered eligible for appointment as Senior Lecturer (Paediatric Sur - gery).;