Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Dr. Bashir Ahmad Dar vs Skims on 7 June, 2018
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
Case no: Date of decision: 07.06.2018
SWP no.1019/2015
and
SWP no.1763/2016
Dr. Bashir Ahmad Dar v SKIMS & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Appearance:
For Petitioners: Mr. Moomin Khan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):
, Mr. Asif Ahmad Bhat, AAG.
i) Whether to be approved for law journal: YES ii) Whether to be approved for press media: YES
1. These are two writ petitions filed by one and the same writ petitioner. The basic grievance of the petitioner is projected in the first of these two writ petitions, namely, SWP no.1019/2015. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to narrate the facts underlying his grievance in the first writ petition.
2. The petitioner, working as an Additional Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS), had offered his candidature for the post Professor, Anesthesiology, advertised by SKIMS in terms of notification no.04 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014. The advertisement notice, apart from other conditions of eligibility, prescribed the following essential experience for medical candidates:
"Experience. - Essential for Medical Candidates:SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 1 of 18
14 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the subject of speciality after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto.
OR 12 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the subject of specialty after obtaining the degree of M. Ch. / DM (2 years or 5 years course recognized after MBBS) in the respective disciplines / subject or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto.
OR 11 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the subject of speciality for the candidates possessing
3 years recognized degree of DM / M. Ch. in the respective discipline /subject or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto."
The petitioner claimed to have more than the requisite teaching experience. However, he received a communication bearing endorsement no.SIMS:302 07 (XXXXI)/2014-3503 dated 30.12.2014 from the Sr. Administrative Officer (Policy), Member Secretary, Screening Committee of SKIMS, informing him that, while screening his application form, the Screening Committee constituted by the Government observed that his post MD teaching experience was 12 years 10 months & 14 days as against the requirement of 14 years and that he had worked in the Ministry of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for a period of 4 years, 10 months & 6 days which had not been counted as teaching experience . He was advised that before his application form for the post was considered, he should produce the teaching experience certificate from the teaching University Hospital of KSA for the period he had worked in KSA. The petitioner responded to the above said SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 2 of 18 communication vide his letter, explaining the teaching status of King Abdul Aziz Hospital (KAAH) MoH, KSA, where he was working during the period in question, and mentioning therein that he had submitted the work and experience certificate in English and Arabic. Apart from stating so, the petitioner also invited the attention of the respondent Institute to certain advertisement notices issued by 6 AIIMS institutions of the country in 2012 and 2013 which had prescribed only 13 years' teaching experience for the post of Professor reckoning with 3.3-4 AMPS Regulations.
3. Apparently, feeling that his candidature was not being accepted, he, on 25.05.2015, filed the writ petition, SWP no.1079/2015, with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to entertain the candidature of the petitioner for the post and to allow him to participate in the process of selection/appointment against the post. Alternatively, he prayed that respondents may be commanded to accord relaxation in teaching experience to him for the period the petitioner was allegedly falling short.
4. It may be mentioned here that when the petition first came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.05.2015, the Court, while issuing notice, on consideration of the matter, directed that the petitioner shall be admitted to selection process at his risk and responsibility and that result of such participation in the selection process shall abide by the directions of the Court.
5. It appears that the Apical Selection Committee of the Institute held its meetings and interviewed the candidates on 28.05.2015, 29.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 at Banquet Hall, MA Road, Srinagar. On 04.07.2015, the SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 3 of 18 petitioner made a motion, MP no.01/2015, to direct the respondents to declare his result. The Court, while disposing of the said MP on 06.07.2015, made an order directing the respondents to produce the result of the petitioner before the Court. This direction was repeated on 29.07.2015 and 11.08.2015.
6. Be that as it may, the Director of the Institute (SKIMS) on 11.09.2015 filed reply on behalf of the respondents. In para 4 thereof, the Director took the stand that the petitioner's application form was considered by the Screening Committee and having regard to the observation made by the Screening Committee, the petitioner was informed that he possessed the experience of 12 years 10 months and 14 days only as against the requisite experience of 14 years. It was further stated therein that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to buttress his case with regard to claim of having worked in KSA as there was nothing on record to suggest that while working in KSA, the petitioner had obtained any teaching experience in a teaching hospital. As far the petitioner's plea with regard to consideration of his case on the lines of eligibility and qualification prescribed by Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for various faculty posts in six All India Institutes of Medical Sciences as also the advertisement notice issued by the Recruitment Cell of AIIMS for the post of Professor, the respondents in the reply affidavit averred that in terms of SKIMS Faculty Members (Revised Pay) Rules 2000, notified vide SRO 378 of 2000 dated 18.10.2000 read with corrigendum and addendum dated 03.09.2009, the revised hierarchy faculty as per the first proviso was subject to such recruitment, promotion and selection process as is and shall be applicable in AIIMS, New Delhi, in relation to various faculty SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 4 of 18 positions in accordance with norms prescribed by Medical Council of India. It is further stated that the eligibility prescribed in the advertisement notice, including the experience of 14 years, is in tune with the MCI regulation, and that there can be no relaxation in the matter of experience. It is averred that the petitioner does not possess eligibility prescribed in the advertisement notice and, as such, has no right of consideration. It is further stated that in absence of being eligible, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be allowed to participate in the process of selection undertaken for appointment against the post put to advertisement under notice no.04 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014.
7. Meanwhile, the respondents on 03.11.2015 finally filed MP no.03/2015 submitting a copy of the minutes of the meeting held by the Screening Committee. The minutes read as under:
"Department of Anaesthesia Prof. Ashok Kumar Saxena, Department of Anaesthesiology DU>B Hospital, New Delhi, assisted the Selerction Commitgtee as technical expert. (Professor under direct recruitment) In terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of SWP No.1019/2015 dated 27.05.2015, titled Dr. Bashir Ahmad Dar V/S SKIMS & Ors., the Apical Selection Committee had interaction with Dr. Bashir Ahmad Dar, Additional Professor, Anaesthesiology, SKIMS and during interaction Dr. Bashir was informed by the Committee that he is not eligible for the post of Professor Anaesthesiology, under direct recruitment on account of lacking requisite experience and Dr. Bashir Ahmad was advised by the Committee to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable the Institute to re-advertise the post. Dr. Bashir Ahmad agreed with his consent he was not interviewed."SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 5 of 18
8. After the respondents filed the reply affidavit on 11.09.2015 on the aforesaid lines, and produced the minutes of the Selection Committee accompanying MP no.03/2015 presented before the Registry on 03.11.2015, the petitioner, on 01.12.2015 filed a supplementary affidavit in terms of MP no.04/2015. Therein, relying on the Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 as amended upto May 2015, the petitioner averred that these Regulations prescribed just three years teaching experience as Reader/Associate Professor in a recognised medical College for the post of Professor, Anaesthesiology, which the petitioner duly possessed, having worked as Associate Professor at SKIMS from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2013. The petitioner further averred that going by the breakup of the total experience from Senior Resident onwards, the Regulations prescribe a total teaching experience of 10 years - 3 years as Senior Resident required for the post of Assistant Professor; 4 years as Assistant Professor required for the post of Associate Professor; and 3 years as Associate Professor required for the post of Professor. The petitioner, in this connection, further relied on a communication bearing no.MCI- 12(1)/2014-Med.Misc dated 09.04.2014 read with its corrigendum issued by the Medical Council of India to the Health Secretaries of all the States, with emphasis to strictly enforce the teaching cadres as prescribed in the MCI Teaches Eligibility Qualification Regulation, 1998 for all the MCI approved/recognized Medical Institutes. Having stated so, the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit reiterated that notwithstanding the above, he possessed the requisite experience of 14 years as per the breakup given by him, quoted hereinabove in the tabulated form. The petitioner also brought on record the document obtained by him under Right to SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 6 of 18 Information Act from the SKIMS to demonstrate that experience of Doctors from Hospitals located outside the country, especially KSA, has been taken into account by the Screening Committee both for promotions and direct recruitment of Doctors. The petitioner in the supplementary affidavit pleaded for equal treatment with these Doctors. The petitioner also disputed and denied the statement made in the minutes of the Apical Selection Committee that he had agreed to withdraw the petition, as being false, untrue and bundle of lies aimed at defeating the rights of the petitioner.
9. The respondents responded to the supplementary affidavit and filed reply thereto. Therein, they have relied on SRO 378 dated 18.10.2000 read with SRO 283 dated 03.09.2010 whereunder the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Faculty Members (Revised Pay) Rules have been promulgated. It is stated that in the said Rules it is provided that the revised hierarchy of the Faculty shall be subject to such recruitment, promotion and selection process as is applicable in AIIMS, New Delhi in relation to various faculty positions in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It is specifically averred that as far as experience is concerned, the Recruitment Rules of AIIMS, New Delhi, provide fourteen years' teaching experience after obtaining the qualifying degree of MD/MS, and that it was pursuant to the said rules that the experience essential for medical candidates was prescribed in the advertisement notification no.04 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014.
10. The above is the case of the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents insofar as writ petition, SWP no. 1019/2015, is concerned.
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 7 of 1811. So far as the other writ petition, SWP no.1763/2016, is concerned, it so happened that during the pendency of the above first writ petition of the petitioner, the respondents issued advertisement notice no.07 of 2016 dated 05.09.2016, notifying the very same post of Professor Anaesthesiology which was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition. This constrained the petitioner to file his second writ petition, SWP no.1763/2016. challenging the said advertisement notice to the extent it advertised the post in question, inter alia, on the ground of the same being aimed at defeating the course of justice chosen by him. Obviously, since the Court was seized of the matter in the earlier writ petition, SWP no. 1019/2015, and there was an interim direction dated 27.05.2015 in operation and subsisting to admit the petitioner to the selection process, of course, at his own risk and responsibility followed by several repeated directions passed by the Court requiring the respondents to produce the result of such interview of the petitioner conducted pursuant to the aforesaid interim direction, the advertisement of the post was certainly an action non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, when the petitioner's aforesaid second writ petition was listed before the Court on 11.11.2016, the operation of the advertisement notice to the extent it notified the post of Professor, Anaesthesiology, was stayed and the respondents were restrained from proceeding ahead with any selection process vis-a-vis the post pursuant to the said advertisement notice.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the original records. In response, he produced the photocopies of the following documents:
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 8 of 18i) minutes of the joint meeting of Standing Finance Committee and Standing Academic Committee of SKIMS held on 15.10.2004 at 3.00 PM in the Committee room of Civil Secretariat, Srinagar;
ii) communication no.SIMS 302 02 (XXIX)2004-2377 dated 22.12.2004 addressed by the Director SKIMS, to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister for approval of the decisions;
iii) communication no. SIMS 302 07 (XXXIX)/2011/1871 dated 26.05.2012 addressed by the Director, SKIMS, to the Dean Medical Faculty, AIIMS, New Delhi, seeking copy of latest criteria and experience required for appointment to the post of Professor under direct recruitment;
iv) photocopy of the Schedule of recruitment and qualification for the Faculty and posts at the AIIMS, New Delhi received pursuant to aforesaid communication dated 26.05.2012;
v) advertisement notice no.04 of 2014;
vi) application form of the petitioner;
vii) recommendation of the Screening Committee (which
appear to have been prepared on 21.04.2015); and
viii) minutes of XXXV Apical Selection Committee meeting of SKIMS held from May 28th to 29th & June 5th, 2015 at Banquet Hall, MA Road, Srinagar.
I would come later to what these documents or some of them bring to surface.
13. I think, at this stage, it becomes imperative to state the basic case of the petitioner on which he first approached this Court. Essentially, his case was founded on his plea that he possessed the requisite teaching experience and, to support that plea, he, claiming to have a total of 18 years and 11 days of teaching experience till the cut of date, gave the SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 9 of 18 following post-doctoral period-wise break up of such experience in his writ petition:
S. Post held From To Period
no.
Years Months Days
1 Senior Resident 16.07.1996 09.01.1998 01 05 24
(SKIM)
2 Post Doctoral Fellow 16.01.1998 15.01.1999 01 00 00
(SR) in NIMS,
Hyderabad
3 Senior Resident 01.02.1999 18.12.2000 01 10 17
(SKIM)
4 Anaesthesia & 03.01.2001 09.11.2005 04 10 06
Intensive Care
Specialist, KAAH,
Makkah, (KSA).
5 Assistant Professor 10.11.2005 30.06.2010 04 07 20
(SKIMS)
6 Associate 01.07.2010 30.06.2013 03 00 00
Professor (SKIMS)
7 Additional 01.07.2013 01.08.2014 (Date 01 01 01
Professor (SKIMS)
of adv.)
Total 17 11 08
As seen above, the break-up of the teaching experience given by the petitioner in his writ petition, roughly, comes to 17 years, 11 months and 08 days, not 18 years and 11 days. In any case, according to the petitioner, thus, he possessed the requisite teaching experience of 14 years. In this regard, it may also be mentioned that when the petitioner received communication dated 30.12.2014 informing him that the period of 4 years, 10 months and 6 days he had worked in KSA had not been counted as teaching experience and was required to produce teaching experience certificate from the concerned University Hospital of KSA, the petitioner responded to the said communication vide his letter, which appears to have been received by the addressee on 13.03.2015, explaining the teaching status of King Abdul Aziz Hospital (KAAH) MoH, KSA, where he was working during the period in question, and mentioning therein that he had submitted the work and experience certificate in English and Arabic. So, his fundamental case was that he SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 10 of 18 possessed the requisite teaching experience. Then, simultaneously, he took the alternate plea of grant of relaxation in the teaching experience, stating that certain doctors working in the SKIMS had been granted such relaxation. Then, the petitioner thirdly pleaded that the Medical Council of India Regulations, governing and regulating the selection and appointment to such posts, prescribed 13 years of teaching experience for the post of Professor. The petitioner in this connection also referred to the advertisement notices issued by various All India Institutes of Medical Science of the country as well. It would be appropriate to deal with the above three points raised by the petitioner one by one.
14. Let me first deal with the petitioner's plea of grant of relaxation. In this connection, it would suffice to say that law is settled that the conditions of recruitment cannot be relaxed unless the recruitment rules, in themselves, provide for relaxation of the condition of recruitment. There is nothing brought on record or to the notice of the Court to demonstrate that the petitioner has been discriminated on this Court. Therefore, and in any case, this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction cannot make any such directions to relax the conditions of recruitment.
15. So far as the point concerning the Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 as amended from time to time is concerned, the learned counsel on both sides made submissions for and against the point that qualifications or teaching experience prescribed in the Regulations have to be strictly adhered to and that such qualifications and experience can be altered only by, or be subject to, any law made by a State SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 11 of 18 Legislature. Learned counsel on both sides cited and relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Gupta v State of J&K, SWP no.188/2011, decided on 07.05.2013, and the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to therein, in MCI v State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131, and the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastafa v State of MP, (1999) 7 SCC 120. In this regard, it is to be borne in mind that the petitioner has not challenged the advertisement notice no.04 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014 or the experience prescribed therein vis-a-vis the post in question, nor has he challenged the communication dated 30.12.2014. That being the position, I think, it would be an exercise of academic nature only to go into this aspect of the matter. The Court would proceed to delve into this question whether the Institute could prescribe experience over and above the minimum experience prescribed by the MCI Regulations or whether the Institute could legally adopt the qualification or experience prescribed by AIIMS, New Delhi, for purposes of determining the validity of the advertisement notice in question or the experience prescribed therein. It may be mentioned here that AIIMS, New Delhi, has laid down the qualifications and experience in exercise of the powers emanating from Section 29 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 which Act is not applicable to the SKIMS in any manner of thought, So, even if the Court would delve into this aspect of the matter and comes to a conclusion that the Institute could not legally do so, the Court cannot grant any relief in consequence of such finding or determination, for, the notice or the prescribing of such experience is not under challenge in the petition. The petitioner, as mentioned earlier, has only prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to entertain his candidature and to allow him to SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 12 of 18 participate in the selection process and, in the alternative, to grant him relaxation. Had there been a prayer for Certiorari, the position would have been different. Therefore, it would be futile to go into this point.
16. Now, I come to the main plea of the petitioner about the period spent by him working in the Ministry of Health in KSA. He claims it to be teaching experience. To buttress his contention, the petitioner in his representation dated 13.03.2015 addressed to the Member Secretary, Screening Committee in response to the latter's communication dated 30.12.2014, explained how King Abdul Aziz Hospital (KAAH), Ministry of Health, KSA, was imparting training to students and teaching in-house residents, and how he had worked and gained teaching experience there. Therein, the petitioner also mentioned that he had submitted the work and experience certificates in English and Arabic. However, the respondents in their reply have stated that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to buttress his case with regard to his claim of having worked in KSA, but there was nothing on record to suggest that while working in KSA, the petitioner had obtained any teaching experience in a teaching hospital. So, it is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner had worked in KAAH, MoH, KSA, for the period claimed by him.
17. The whole case, therefore, boils down to establishing by the petitioner that he had gained such teaching experience while working in Saudi Arabia. There are counter claims in this regard, in that whereas the petitioner states that he submitted the certificates in English and Arabic before the respondents, the respondents claim there is nothing on record to establish it. The only way of finding the truth in this regard was to call for the original records and peruse the same, which was, in fact, done.
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 13 of 18But perusal of the records so produced and enumerated above and the averments made by the respondents in their reply demonstrate that all has not been fair on the part of the respondents and that there has been something fishy. This is demonstrated by the following factors:
i) The Member Secretary of the Screening Committee informed the petitioner in terms of communication dated 30.12.2014 that, while screening his application form, the Screening Committee observed that his post MD teaching experience was 12 years, 10 months and 14 days against the requirement of 14 years, and that his working in Ministry of KSA for a period of 4 years, 10 months and 6 days had not been counted as teaching experience.
ii) The record produced by the respondents contains the recommendation of the Screening Committee. It states that the Screening Committee scrutinized the faculty applications received in response to Advertisement Notice no.02 of 2014 dated July 05, 2014 and Notice no.04 of 2014 dated August 01, 2014 and notice no.05 of 2014 dated October 14, 2014 and that the findings of Screening Committee are mentioned against each candidate department-wise. In the Department of Anesthesiology, against the name of the petitioner, in column 4th, under the heading 'observations/deficiency', it simply records "lacking post M.D. teaching experience"; nothing more, and then in column 5th, under the heading "Remarks" it records "Not eligible". Firstly, it is nowhere recorded SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 14 of 18 therein that the petitioner did not support his claim by certificates or documents or that the documents produced by him were considered, but the same did not establish that the petitioner had attained such teaching experience while working in KSA. Secondly, though these recommendations are not dated, but on its second page (actually numbered as page 6 of 6) yet, one of the members of the Committee, namely, Dr. Saleem Najar, Prof. & Head, Nephrology, while signing these recommendations has given the date as '21.04.15' under his signature; meaning thereby that the Screening Committee scrutinized the applications forms and/or prepared its recommendations on 21.04.2015, i.e., much after 30.12.2014, the date the petitioner had been informed about the findings of the Screening Committee. How could this be possible, unless the exercise was tainted. This goes to show that the case of the petitioner has not been fairly considered and/or dealt with.
iii) When the Court vide its interim direction dated 27.05.2015 ordered that the petitioner shall be admitted to selection process at his risk and responsibility, the respondents in para 5 of their reply filed on 11.09.2015 made a specific averment that in absence of being eligible, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be allowed to participate in the process of selection undertaken for appointment against the post put to advertisement under notice no.04 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014. Then, as is depicted in the records produced by the respondents, the Apical Selection Committee in its SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 15 of 18 minutes specifically mentioned that the Committee had interaction with the petitioner and that during such interaction he was informed by the Committee that he was not eligible for the post under direct recruitment on account of lacking requisite experience. Obviously, it is clearly stated that he was not considered despite the Court direction. The respondents have thus exhibited a wholly unwarranted attitude even towards express orders of the Court. It is not again shown why the petitioner was not eligible for the post under direct recruitment.
From the above factors, one thing is established beyond any doubt that the documents/certificates produced by the petitioner to .support his claim of having acquired teaching experience while working in KAAH, MoH KSA have not been considered or taken into account. The petitioner's fundamental right of consideration has thus been violated.
18. Now, the question is what direction can be given at this stage. The Court itself does not have the expertise in this regard, nor can it assume to itself the power of the Expert Body to determine the petitioner's eligibility; this has to be left to, and to be done by, the competent authority, i.e., the Screening Committee of the Institute. As seen above, their previous exercise on this count has not been above suspicion and, therefore, cannot be said to have been fair. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice, therefore, it is provided as under:
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 16 of 18i) That in order to establish his claim of having gained teaching experience for the period in question while working in KAAH, MoH KSA, the petitioner shall produce documentary proof before the Member Secretary, Screening Committee, within a period of one month from today;
ii) Within a week of the receipt of such documents from the petitioner, the Member Secretary shall place the same before the Screening Committee for scrutiny and according of consideration to such documents;
iii) In the event, the Screening Committee is satisfied about the claim of the petitioner, the respondents shall convene the Apical Selection Committee and proceed ahead with the selection process in accordance with the applicable norms.
In the event the Screening Committee is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim, the result of their such finding, together with reasons, shall be communicated to the petitioner by a speaking order for his information. Thereafter, the respondent-Institute would be free to start a fresh recruitment process vis-à-vis the post in question.
The writ petition, SWP no. 1019/2015, is accordingly, disposed of with the above directions.
19. So far as the petitioner's second writ petition, SWP no.1763/2016, is concerned, I have already said that the advertisement of the post during the pendency of the petitioner's first writ petition and during the currency of the interim direction was certainly an action non-est in the eyes of law.
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 17 of 18Such action cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. The advertisement notice no.07 of 2016 dated 05.09.2016 to the extent it advertised the post of Professor, Anaesthesiology, deserves to be set aside. It is so ordered and the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to that extent.
20. No order as to costs.
21. The records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents are returned to him in the open Court.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar, 07.06.2018 Syed Ayaz, Secretary.
SWP no. 1019/2015 c/w swp no. 1763/16 Page 18 of 18