Patna High Court
Dr.Narendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 March, 2015
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11185 of 2012
===========================================================
Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh S/O Late Ramnandan Singh R/O Vill.- Dhanpurva,
P.S.- Sasaram, District- Sasaram, At Present Residing At Annapurna Complex, Flat
No. 303, Near P.N. Anglo School, Naya Tola, District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Department Of Health,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman 15 Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna
3. The Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg
(Bailey Road), Patna
4. The Examination Controller Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal GA1
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 19-03-2015
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application
reads as follows:-
"1A. For issuance of writ of Mandamus directing
Respondents to consider petitioner for appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor, Department of ENT in
the Medical College & Hospital situated within the
State of Bihar under Department of Health in
pursuance to the Advertisement no.23/11."
B. For a direction to the Respondents to provisionally
allow petitioner to participate in the interview or in
alternative to keep one post reserved till pendency of
the present case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the
aforementioned prayer, has submitted that the petitioner, despite
fulfilling the requirement in the advertisement published by the Bihar
Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as „the
Commission‟), has been denied opportunity of being considered for
the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Ear, Nose &
Throat (ENT) for the various government medical colleges and
hospitals.
4. Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner,
in this regard has basically concentrated on the aspect that the
Commission has deprived the petitioner of the points that he ought to
have been given for publication in journal.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned
counsel for the Commission, has explained that the petitioner did not
fulfill the requirement for grant of point/marks for publication in
journal and, as such, there is no flaw in the decision of the
Commission in not calling the petitioner for interview, inasmuch as,
he had secured only 8 marks for his academic qualification whereas
the minimum cutoff was 10 marks for the candidates who had been
called for interview.
6. In order to appreciate the submission of the parties, it
would be necessary to take note of the relevant facts. The
Commission on the basis of request sent by the Health Department
Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 3
had published an advertisement in the month of July, 2011 bearing
Advertisement No. 23/11 for appointment of the doctors on the post
of Assistant Professor in the Department of ENT for medical colleges
and hospitals. The petitioner also had filed his application for the post
of Assistant Professor in response to the Advertisement no.23/11 and,
according to him, as per the instruction given in the advertisement, he
was eligible for giving 20 points/marks for his educational
qualification but, when he was not screened by the Commission on
account of his being given only 8 point/marks, he had submitted his
representation with all relevant papers including his articles published
in the journals but, the Commission did not issue the interview call
letter to the petitioner for the interview which was to be held on
9.7.2012wherein only 7 candidates were called for interview against 8 posts.
7. The Commission in its counter affidavit has explained that it has followed the uniform criteria for filling up the post of Assistant Professor in all the different departments of the medical colleges and hospitals and since the petitioner had secured only 8 points in the evaluation made by the seven member experts team, he was not called for interview as the minimum cutoff fixed by the Commission was 10 point/marks. In this regard, it has been explained that the Expert Committee had awarded the petitioner 2 marks for discussion in MBBS and further 2 marks for securing more Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 4 than 55% marks in the subject of his specialty and 4 marks for having M.D. ENT Degree.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission it has been specifically stated that though the petitioner had submitted his 7 publications in different medical journals but, the Committee of seven Experts had not given him any marks for those publications and, in this regard, the Commission had also informed the petitioner vide letter no. 3331 dated 5.6.2012 that as he had not secured the minimum cutoff 10 points/marks for being called for interview as provided in the advertisement itself, he was not called for interview.
9. From the pleadings on record, it would transpire that there is no dispute on any other issue save and except the award of points/marks for publication in the journals. The Commission in fact for the post of Assistant Professor in different subjects had laid down qualification as also the mode of calculation of the points/marks for educational qualification and the same for the purpose of clarity and convenience is quoted herein below:-
'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk@vuqHko& fo0 la0 06@201 ls fo-la- 37@2011 rd ds fy, fnukad 31-07-2011 dks ¼d½ fo"k; fo'ks"k eas LukrdksRrj mikf/k ,oa blds mijkUr rhu o"kksZa dk lhfu;j jsftMsaM@V;wVj ds in dk 'kS{kf.kd vuqHkoA ¼[k½ lqij&Lis'kfyVh foHkkxksa@bdkbZ;ksa ds fy, Mh0,e0@,e0lh0,p0 dh dkykof/k dks mi;qZDr ds rgr ik=rk gsrq x.kuk dh tk,xhA ¼x½ jkT; LokLF; lsok ds inkf/kdkjh tks Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn }kjk ekU;rk izkIr v/;kiu fpfdRlky; esa de ls de Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 5 rhu o"kksZa rd jsftMsaM@lhfu;j jsftMsaB@V;wVj ds :i esa dkZ dj pqds gksa mDr in ds fy, vkosnu nsus gsrq lqik= gksx a sA ¼?k½ jkT; ds fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa vLirkyksa esa fcgkj jkT; LokLF; lsok laoxz ds lafonkjr V;wVj@lhfu;j jsftMsaV@lgk;d iz/;kid] ftUgsa 03¼rhu½ o"kksZa dk 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko izkir gSa Hkh mDr 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu nsus ds fy, lqik= gksaxsA mez lhek& fo0la0 06@2011 ls fo0 la0 37@2011 rd ds fy, fnukad 31-5-2011 ds vf/kdre vukjf{kr oxZ ds fy, 45 o"kZ fiNM+k oxZ@vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds fy, 50 o"kZ] efgyk ¼vukjf{kr fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ½ ds fy, 50 o"kZ rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tu tkfr ds fy, 50 o"kZA fcgkj jkT; LokLF; lsok laoxZ esa dk;Zjr fpfdRldksa ds fy, mez lhek dk dksbZ ca/kst ugha gksxkA dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx fcgkj ds ladYi Kkikad 62] fnukad 05-01-2007 ds vkyksd esa fodykaxksa dks mDr vf/kdre mez lhek esa 10 o"kksaZ dh NwV vuqekU; gSA dzkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj ds i=kad 2447] fnukad 06-03-1990 ds vkyksd esa HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks mez lhek esa 03 o"kZ rFkk izfrj{kk lsok esa fcrk;h x;h lsok vof/k ds ;ksx ds lerqY; fj;klr nh tk;sxh] c'krsZ fd mudh okLrfod mez vkosnu nsus dh frfFk dks 53 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksA dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkz ds ladYi Kkikad 2374 fnukad 16-07-2007 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj ljdkj ds ljdkjh lsodksa dks tks rhu o"kksZa dh fujUrj lsok iw.kZ dj pqds gksa mPprj osrueku dh lsok@lEoxZ esa tkus ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 05 ¼ikap½ o"kksZas dh NwV vuqekU; gSA p;u dk vk/kkj& fo0la0 06@2011 ls fo0 la0 37@2011 rd ds fy, 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ijA 1- 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ds fy, & 80 vad 2- ewY;kadu& vH;fFkZ;ksa dh rqyukRed es/kk vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr ;Fkkiznf'kZr ewY;kadu vad vkaofVr fd, tk,axs& 70% ls vf/kd 65% ls vf/kd 60% ls vf/kd 55% ls vf/kd 50% ls vf/kd ¼d½ ,e0ch0ch0,l0 dh rhu Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 6 fo'ofo|ky; ijh{kk esa dqy izkIrkad 5 4 3 2 1 uksV& ,d vFkok ,d ls vf/kd ,e0ch0ch0,l0 ijh{kkvksa esa vuqRrhZ.k gksus dh n'kk esa fo'ks"k ,e0ch0ch0,l0 ijh{kk ds fy, dqy izkIrkadksa dh x.kuk lacfa /kr fo"k;ksa esa mRrhZ.k vkSj vuqrhZ.k vadksa dk vkSlr izkIr dj dh tk,xhA ¼[k½ Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dh vuq'kalkvkska ds vuqlkj fof'k"V 5 4 3 2 1 fo"k; vFkok vkosfnr fo"k;
leqg esa izkIr vad uksV& fdlh fof'k"V fo"k; vFkok vkosfnr fof'k"V lewg esa vuqRrhZ.k gksus dh n'kk esa mRrhZ.k vkSj vuqrhZ.k vadksa dk vkSlr ml fo"k; esa izkIr fd;k x;k vad le>k tk,xkA ¼x½ Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ dh vuq'kalk ds vuqlkj ;FkkifjHkkf"kr fo"k;ksa vFkok fo"k; lewg] ftlds fy, vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gS] eSa vkWulZ ¼izfr"Bk½ ¼?k½ vU; fo"k;ksa es vkWulZ gjsd vU; fo"k; ds fy, 1 vad ¼M+½ fof'k"V fo"k; esa ,d vFkok ,d ls 1 vad vf/kd fMIyksek ¼p½ ,e0Mh0@,e0,l0 vFkok fof'k"V fo"k; esa Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ 4 vad }kjk lerqY; le>kh tkusokyh vgZrk ¼N½ ,e0Mh0 vFkok ,e0,l0 vFkok fof'k"V 6 vad fo"k; esa Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ }kjk lerqY; le>kh tkusokyh vgZrk vkSj vU; ,e0Mh0 vFkok ,e0,l0 vFkok Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ lerqY; le>kh tkusokyh vgZrk vFkok fof'k"V lewg esa ls fdlh vU; fo"k; esa ih-,p-Mh-
uksV& ;w0ds0 dh mikf/;ksa tSls ,e0vkj0lh0ih0] ,Q0vkj0lh0,l0 vkfn tks 1977 esa vFkok mlds ckn izkIr dh xbZ gS ds fy, dksbZ vad vkoafVr ugha fd;k tk,xkA 3 ,e0ch0ch0,l0 dh rhu fo'ofo|ky; ijh{kk esa ls gjsd vuqRrhZ.k ijh{kk ds fy, ,d vad dks dVkSrh dh tk;A ijh{kk esa rhu ckj ls vf/kd vuqRrhZ.k gksus ij vH;FkhZ bldk ik= ugha gksxkA 4- uhps ;Fkkof.kZr ekU;rkizkIr if=dkvksa ¼tuZyksa½ esa eq[; ys[kd ds :i es ekSfyd izdk'ku ds fy, vH;FkhZ dks uhps ;Fkkminf'kZr vfrfjDr vad vkaofVr fd, tk;saxsA vH;FkhZ dks fdlh izdk'ku dk eq[; ys[kd ekuk tk,xk] ;fn og ml fo"k; ds izHkkjh izk/;kid vFkok foHkkxk/;{k ftlds v/khu og viuk ys[k ¼isij½ rS;kj fd;k gS ls bl vk'k; dk izek.k i= izLrqr djsaA ¼d½ vf/kdre 2 ¼nks½ vadksa ds v/;;u fcgkj jkT; fpfdRlk tuZy esa gjsd izdk'ku ds fy, 1 ¼,d½ vadA ¼[k½ vf/kdre 10 vadksa ds v/;/khu vf[ky Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk tuZy tks vf[ky Hkkjrh; lkslkbVh vFkok la?k dk vkf/kdkfjd eq[ki= gS vFkok fons'kh fpfdRlk tuZy tks ln`'k jk"Vzh; vFkok varjk"Vzh; lkslkbVh vFkok la?k dk vkf/kdkfjd eq[ki= gS esa gjsd izdk'ku ds fy, 2 ¼nks½ vadA Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 7 5- lgk;d iz/;kid ds :i esa fu;qfDr dk ik= gksus ds fy, vF;FkhZ dk de ls de 10 vad izkIr gksuk pkfg,A 6- lk{kkRdkj ds fy,& 20 vadA** (underlining for emphasis)
10. As noted above, there is no dispute with regard to the award of marks to the petitioner for his MBBS and MD and it is only the marks/points for publication in journals as specified in Clause No.4, this Court has to decide as to whether the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement for award of marks/points for his seven publications in journals. Clause-4 of the advertisement as with regard to award of points/marks in the journals will leave nothing for speculation that such publication had to be made in the recognized medical journals for original publication as a main author. The expression "Main Author" had also been clarified by stating in the advertisement itself that a candidate will be treated to be the main writer if he would produce a certificate of the Professor or Head of the Department under whom he has prepared such paper.
11. It is this aspect of the matter which was specifically gone into by a Seven Member Team of expert doctors, who had screened the application of 32 subjects including ENT. The seven members of the Committee were doctor (i) Dr. Sohan Prasad Chaudhary, Principal, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College, Gaya (ii) Dr. S. N. Sharma, Professor in the Department Physiology, Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 8 Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna (iii) Dr. Gajendra Kishore Thakur, Professor in the Department of Radiology/Supertendent, Srikrishna Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur (iv) Khurshid Alam, Professor, Department of Anatomy, P.M.C.H., Patna (v) Dr. Subodh Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Nalanda Medical College, Patna (vi) Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, P.M.C.H., Patna (vii) Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Nalanda Medical College, Patna.
12. Let it be noted that the petitioner along with his application had submitted certain certificate of Professor and Head of the Department of ENT, PMCH, Patna which for the sake of clarity and convenience, is quoted hereinbelow:-
"This is to certify that Dr. NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH, R.S.C. (E.N.T.) Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna is the original author of the under mentioned topics published in different following Medical Journals:-
Name of Topic Name of Details of
Journal Journals
1. Long standing I.M.J. Calcutta Vol.87, No.1-
unusual dangerous Jan.93
foreign body in
Trachea.
2. Chronic I.M.J. Calcutta Vol.87 No.-3,
inflammatory parotid March 93
tumour......
3. Pleomorphic I.M.J. Calcutta Vol.87 No.4,
Salivary adenoma of April, 1993
Hard palate & gum.
4. Inhaled F.B. in left I.M.J. Calcutta Vol.87 No.5,
Bronchus. May, 1993.
5. Haemangioma of I.M.J. Calcutta Vol.87 No.6
the Lateral wall of June, 1993
Nose
6. Giant cell Epulis Patna Journal Vol.66(6) 136-
of Medicine, 137
Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 9
Bihar
7. Salivary adenoma Patna Journal No.66(6) 138-
of Hardplate of Medicine, 139
Bihar
Sd./-
(Dr. B.P. Saha)
Professor & Head of the Department of E.N.T. Patna Medical-1 College & Hospital Patna- 800 004 (Bihar)"
13. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it would not transpire as to whether the publications of the petitioner in the journals were his original research publication. That apart, the aforesaid Seven Members Team of doctors had found that the seven publications were only a case report which could not fulfill the requirement of original research publication. It was on this ground that the Seven Member Team of experts had held the petitioner not to be entitled for grant of any points/marks for his publications in the journals and, to that extent, it would be relevant to quote the remarks given by the Seven Member Team of experts, which reads as follows:-
"The applicant has attached altogether seven publications. Five of them are in Indian Medical Journal and two are in Patna Journal of Medicine. The seven publications are "Case Report" publication and do not come under the purview of original research publication. Hence no points were awarded for Case Report publication."
14. Thus, the only question would be as to whether the aforesaid decision taken by the Expert Body of 7 members holding the petitioner to be not entitled for grant of any marks/points for his so- Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 10 called 7 publications in the Medical Journals was vitiated in any manner so as to hold that the petitioner though qualified was wrongly held ineligible for appearing in interview on account of having not secured at least 10 marks/points as given in the advertisement itself.
15. The Commission has enclosed copies of all the seven publications of the petitioner which go to show that they are case report which cannot be held to be original research work. Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Commission in fact had produced a copy of the Medical Journal to show that in every journal, there was a specific part denoting research papers by the contributors under the head of Original Research Work which was quite distinguishable to the case history or case report included in the other parts of the same journal.
16. As a matter of fact, the original research work or original publication was not only to be certified by the Head of the Department/Professor stating that such publications were original research work but, they have to fulfill the requirement of 'Maulik Prakashan'. All the 7 publications claimed by the petitioner, being case history, did not fulfill the requirement of original work and, as such, this Court does not find any error in the decision taken by the Commission, which had to screen the application not only on the basis of requirement laid down in the advertisement but, also in view of the report of the 7 member Expert Team. To that extent, it would be Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 11 relevant to quote paragraph nos. 11 to 15 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-
"10. That it is stated that the application of the petitioner namely Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Roll No. 23025, was examined by the Seven Members Expert Committee of the Doctors constituted by the Department and 08 marks was allotted to him as against mandatory 10 marks. Therefore, on the ground of securing less than 10 (ten) marks (points), the petitioner was considered ineligible.
11. That it is evident from the above report that the Expert Committee of Doctors has awarded 02 marks to the petitioner for securing more than 55% marks in MBBS, further 02 marks for securing more than 55% marks in the subject of specialty and 04 marks for having M.D. ENT Degree, thus totaling 08 marks. It is quite clear that as per conditions mentioned in the Advertisement the petitioner had to secure minimum 10 marks for being eligible to be called for the interview. The petitioner failed to secure minimum 10 marks; therefore, he was not called for interview.
12. That it is stated that the petitioner with his application form submitted a certificate issued by the Head of the ENT Department, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna, who has certified that the petitioner is the original author of seven topics published in different medical journals. The said publications were not taken into consideration as they were case reports and no pint was awarded for the said.
13. That it is stated that the Commission accordingly vide its letter no.3331 dated 05.06.2012 informed the petitioner that he couldn't secure mandatory 10 (ten) points to be eligible for being called for the interview, as prescribed by the conditions of the Advertisement.
14. That it is also relevant to state here that the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 12 made a representation on 21.05.2012 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) before the Commission. The said representation was duly considered by the Expert Committee which opined that the petitioner has attached all together seven publications, five of them are in Indian Medical Council and two are in Patna Journal of Medicine. The said seven publications are "Case Report" publications and do not come under the purview of original research publication. Hence, no points are awarded for "Case Report" publications.
15. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the respondents have not acted arbitrarily and illegally but has acted in the light earnest and in a just and transparent manner. The petitioner couldn't secure the mandatory 10 (ten) points, so his candidature has rightly been rejected."
17. This Court, having regard to the aforesaid in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit over the decision of the expert Committee, consisting of 07 specialist teachers of Medical Colleges of each of the separate faculty. These teachers of Medical Colleges had full knowledge not only as to the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement but also scope and meaning for judging the requirement for awarding of points to the candidates for publication of their articles in the Medical Journal which, as noted above, was to be of the nature of original research publication. The body of the 07 experts however had evaluated the articles submitted by the petitioner to have been not fulfilling the requirement of its being original research publication.
18. The question therefore would as to what extent there Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 13 could be judicial review over such assessment made by the team of experts. It is by now well settled that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 should be slow to interfere with the opinion of the selection committee particularly when such a committee consisted of experts being men of high status and also had unquestionable integrity. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Institute Mental Health & Neuro Science v. K.Kalyana Raman reported in 1992 (2) SCC 481 and of this Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Sinha v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science reported in 1993 (1) SLJ
67.
19. The Supreme Court has also, in the case of University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of Dr. J.P.Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141, emphasized that the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts. In the case of Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746, the Apex Court has pointed out that when an appointment has been made on recommendation of experts, judicial review is limited to overseeing whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule. The Court should have due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the selection committee and its recommendation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 14
20. In any event the expression "Original Research Publication" would invariably mean some new discovery which cannot be said to be by way of a case report. A case report is based on an observation which cannot be equated with original research work. In the present case, this Court has also carefully examined all the seven case reports produced by the petitioner which have been enclosed by the Commission in the counter affidavit and from their bare perusal they do not fulfil the requirement of its being "original research work". Such publication in order to be assessed as original research work infact has to disclose the discovery of new technology or advanced technology. The "original research work", therefore, cannot be by way of a case history.
21. It was in this context that on 28.6.2013, this Court had given opportunity to the petitioner to produce any authentic material to show that whatever publications were submitted by the petitioner for evaluation would amount to original research publication and that the case report will also amount to original research publication.
22. Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner, however could not produce any such material to show that the case history would amount to original publication. As a matter of fact, the stand taken by the respondent Commission in the counter affidavit with regard to the case history being not at par or equivalent to the Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 15 original research work/original publication could also not be successfully controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner however being failed to adduce any clinching evidence that seven case history of the petitioner published in Medical Journals would amount to its being original research publication had made an alternative submission that the Medical Council of India has now done away with the concept of selection and appointment on the post of teachers in Medical Colleges on the basis of evaluation of publication in Medical Journal. In this regard he has placed reliance on paragraph no. 11 of the reply to the counter affidavit of the petitioner which reads as follows:-
"That presently the requirement of publication of journal have been omitted from the qualification by the Medical Council of Indian and instead of that minimum experience of 6 years of hospital having 300 beds has be inducted vide amendment dated 6.8.2012. Petitioner has experienced of more than 20 years of 2500 bed hospital."
24. In the considered opinion of this court this alternative submission will also be of no avail. The charged criteria since 6.8.2012 cannot be made applicable in the case of selection process undergone and completed on the basis of an advertisement of the year 2011. The law in this regard is also well settled by the Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 that selection has to be made on Patna High Court CWJC No.11185 of 2012 16 the basis of rules as prevailing on the date of advertisement.
25. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned discussions, this Court would not find any error in the decision of the Commission of declaring the petitioner ineligible for being called for interview as admittedly he had secured only 8 point/marks whereas the minimum cut off fixed in the advertisement itself was 10 points/marks.
26. That being so, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court Dated the 19th March 2015 A.F.R./Rishi/-
U