Karnataka High Court
Dr. Roopa R. Nadig vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 3 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)KARLJ341
Bench: Ashok Bhan, R. Gururajan
ORDER
1. These petitions are filed by Dental Surgeons with regard to promotion to the Cadre of Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry by the respondents.
2. Writ Petition No. 21246 of 1998 is filed by Dr. Bharathi D. Deo challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 2-4-1998 in Application No. 1500 of 1996. The averments in the said petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Dental Surgeon by a notification dated 8-6-1984. Respondent 3-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was also appointed on the same date. The seniority between the petitioner and respondent 3 are as per Annexure-A. Petitioner reported for duty on 21-6-1984 and filed an application for selection to the postgraduate course against the seats reserved for in-service candidate. She was initially not selected, forcing her to file an Application No. 2543 of 1988. The same was allowed. Later, she was selected for the academic year 1989 and she completed her degree in Operative Dentistry in July 1991. She was selected by a Selection Committee to the teaching line to work on OOD as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry. She worked from 11-12-1992. Respondent 3-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was appointed as an Assistant Dental Surgeon in the Government Dental College in the non-teaching Department. She reported for duty on 9-8-1984. Petitioner was asked to handover charge of OOD Lecturer to Sri Shivananda Shetty on 20-10-1993. She handed over the same as per direction. She was waiting for posting as OOD Lecturer. On Mr. Shetty taking voluntary retirement, she was appointed as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry on 15-3-1994 in Government Dental College, Bangalore. She reported for duty on 16-3-1994. The provisional list of seniority of Lecturers was published on 10-7-1995. Her ranking is shown as Serial No. 1 as against respondent 3 being at Serial No. 2. However, there was a mistake in the list to the effect that the petitioner has been working as OOD Lecturer from 16-3-1994 ignoring her earlier working as OOD Lecturer in Operative Dentistry even from 11-12-1992 upto 20-10-1993. It is her case that respondent 3 was working in Operative Dentistry from January 1995 only during morning hours and in the afternoon she was working in the Department of Pedodontia. There arose a vacancy by promotion as Assistant Professor. The required qualification for the Assistant Professor is as under.--
Department of Operative Dentistry:
1 2 3Assistant Professors I. By promotion by selection from the cadre of Lecturers/Registrar/ Curator in OperativeDentistry.
For promotion and Direct Recruitment II.
If no suitable person is available for appointment by promotion under Cate-gory I, then by promotion by selection from the cadres and in the order of priority mentioned below. -
1. Qualifications:
(1) Should be the holder of a degree in Dentistry of any University established by Law in India; and
(i) Assistant Surgeons Grades I and II;
(2) Should have any of the postgraduate qualifications in Operative Dentistry specified in Annexure-C; and
(ii) Health Officers, Class-II-cum-Assistant Surgeons Class II;
(iii) Health Officer,Class-II.
III.
If no suitable person is available for appointment by promotion under Category II, then by direct recruitment.
(3) Should have teaching experience in Operative Dentistry of not less than three years in a post of Lec-turer/Registrar/Curat or or any higher post.
Only for Direct Recruitment:
1. Age Limit: 40 years.
2. Probation; Two years.
It is clear from the said memo that to get promotion as an Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry, one has to have a postgraduate qualification in Operative Dentistry and should have teaching experience in Operative Dentistry of not less than three years in a post of Lecturer/Registrar/Curator or any higher post. Petitioner has the requisite qualification and experience. She has worked as a Lecturer in Operative Dentistry for the long period as under.--
Y M D From 11-12-1992 upto 20-10-1993 0 10 10 From 16-3-1994 upto 20-2-1996 1 11 4 From 21-10-1993 upto 15-3-1994 0 4 25 Total 3 2 9 As against the petitioner's experience, respondent 3 has worked as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry from 5-1-1995 upto 20-2-1996 for a period of 1 year 1 month 15 days. Respondent 3 was promoted thereby denying the promotional post to the petitioner herein. Hence she filed a petition before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal seeking for relief of a direction to promote the petitioner as Assistant Professor from the date on which respondent 3-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was promoted and for quashing the promotional order dated 20-2-1996. Notices were issued and thereafter Tribunal heard the matter and after hearing, the Tribunal was of the view that "the petitioner would not meet the eligibility criteria as reflected in the Recruitment Rules for the purpose of being consid-
ered for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Professor as she has evidently not put in three years of teaching experience in Operative Dentistry"- In this view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected her application. It is against the said order, W.P. No. 21246 of 1998 is filed.
3. W.P. No. 37488 of 1998 is filed by Dr. Roopa R. Nadig (respondent 3 in the earlier petition) challenging the order Annexure-J, dated 2-12-1998 quashing her appointment as Assistant Professor. The facts in brief are as under.--
Dr. Roopa R. Nadig, (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') acquired the qualification of B.D.S. Degree and was selected by the K.P.S.C. She was appointed as an Assistant Dental Surgeon by an order dated 8-6-1984. She completed her probationary period on 9-8-1986. She acquired Master's Degree in Dental Surgery (M.D.S. in Operative Dentistry) during August 1990. The Karnataka Medical Services (Teaching Technical Personnel in Medical and Dental Colleges) Recruitment Rules, 1964 (for short "rules") provided for appointment of Lecturers in Karnataka Medical Services both by direct recruitment as well as by allowing change in cadre/transfer from amongst the Assistant Surgeons Grades I and II, Health Officers, Class-II-cum-Assistant Dental Surgeons (Class-II) who possess Degree in Medicine of any University established by law in India and who possess the Postgraduate qualification in the specified subject/disciplines as contained in the Rules. The Government of Karnataka invited applications for appointment of Lecturers in the Department of Medical Education by permanent transfers of Assistant Surgeons and pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Lecturer (Operative Dentistry) seeking permission for allowing change of cadre. She was permitted to work on deputation from 29-6-1991 as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry and posted to work in the Government Dental College, Bangalore for a period of one year. She reported for duty on 5-7-1991. She continued to work as a Lecturer (Operative Dentistry). According to her, though she was permitted to change her cadre as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry on 24-6-1991, she filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No. 1444 of 1994 seeking for a declaration that the appointment of the petitioner (Dr. Roopa R. Nadig) as a Lecturer in Operative Dentistry from 5-7-1991 is an appointment made on permanent basis in accordance with rules. Tribunal disposed of the said application on 5-12-1995 directing the State Government to take a decision afresh regarding the date from which the petitioner should be considered as Lecturer for the purpose of seniority etc. She was also allowed to change her cadre as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry by the respondents. She is senior to respondent 4-Dr. M. Kala in the cadre of Assistant Surgeon and she was permitted to change her cadre as a Lecturer in Operative Dentistry by the State Government and that she reported for duty on 5-7-1991 whereas respondent 4 was appointed as a Lecturer on OOD basis with effect from 20-7-1992. Her name was included in the provisional seniority list of Lecturers over and above the name of respondent 4-Dr. M. Kala. She was shown as serial No. 3 by the respondent.
4. Her promotion was challenged by respondent 4-Dr. M. Kala before the Tribunal in Application No. 2778 of 1996. Tribunal heard the matter and after hearing, the Tribunal passed considered order as at Annexure-J. Tribunal in its order at para 14 has ruled as under.--
"Therefore, though the fourth respondent is senior to the applicant and holds a Master's Degree in Operative Dentistry, since she had not completed teaching experience of three years as Lecturer in Operative Dentistry, she could not have been promoted as Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry. Her promotion is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the order promoting the fourth respondent to the cadre of Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry do not stand to reason and the same is definitely against the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20-2-1996 is set aside".
Aggrieved against the said order, respondent 4 before the Tribunal and petitioner filed petitions challenging the said order. Both these petitions were tagged and were to be heard by the Tribunal. However, the petition filed by the petitioner was heard by a Single Member of the Bench and an order was passed rejecting the same.
5. Both these petitions were heard together by this Court on several days. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the contesting parties before us. Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appeared for writ petitioner Dr. Roopa R. Nadig and Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel appeared for writ petitioner Dr. Bharathi D. Deo. Sri M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel appeared for respondent 4-Dr. M. Kala in W.P. No. 37488 of 1998 and Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appeared for respondents-State. Learned Counsel took us through various pleadings and documents in support of their respective contentions.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel at great length and perused the record. We pass the common judgment in view of interlinkage of facts in both the cases.
7. Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr. Bharathi D. Deo, writ petitioner in W.P. No. 21246 of 1998 contended that the petitioner was appointed on 8-6-1984 and on the same date respondent 3 was appointed. She was selected by K.P.S.C. and her ranking is at Serial No. 6 as against 13 of respondent 3. She obtained a Master's Degree in July 1991 and is working as Operative Dentistry Surgeon. He further argued that the rules required a Master's Degree in Operative Dentistry in addition to three years' experience in Operative Dentistry. His client has put in minimum three years' experience. He invited our attention to the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Tribunal has gone wrong in holding that she has not put in three years' period of experience in Operative Dentistry. While so doing, according to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the three years' experience as stated in para 17 which reads as under.--
Y M D From 11-12-1992 upto 20-10-1993 0 10 10 From 16-3-1994 upto 20-2-1996 1 11 4 From 21-10-1993 upto 15-3-1994 0 4 25 Total 3 2 9 If only this has been taken into consideration, the petitioner would have succeeded before the Tribunal. He also invited our attention to the notification dated 8-6-1984 and the order of the Government dated 6-10-1994, the Seniority list at Annexure-E, the Government Order dated 14-6-1995 at Annexure-G and contended that the Tribunal has not looked into these documents to hold against his client. He stated that his client has not only the minimum educational qualification, but also experience in teaching. Therefore, he contended that respondent 3 could not have been promoted in supersession of his client. He also invited our attention to the pleadings before the Tribunal in this regard. He also argued that even otherwise respondent 3 has not worked in Operative Dentistry and therefore she is ineligible for consideration as a Professor as held by the Selection Committee. In conclusion he contested the denial of promotion and argued that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in arriving at a finding contrary to the material on record.
8. Per contra, Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 3 argued that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the case of the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner does not have the minimal three years' experience. It is his case that if the rules prescribe three years' experience, there cannot be any relaxation in the matter. He also invited our attention to the Government Order dated 14-6-1995 which clearly goes to show that this period cannot be treated as a compulsory waiting period. On the other hand, the petitioner has been repatriated to the Department and therefore she does not have minimal experience. Learned Government Advocate on the basis of the material contended that the Government is fully justified in promoting respondent 3 being next senior to the petitioner herein with sufficient postgraduate qualification in addition to the experience in terms of the Rules. He supported the order of the Tribunal.
9. W.P. No. 37488 of 1998.--In this case, the petitioner is Dr. Roopa R. Nadig who is respondent 3 in the other case. In this case, as mentioned earlier, Tribunal has not non-suited the petitioner on the ground that the applicant-petitioner-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig would not meet the eligibility criteria as provided in the Rules for the purpose of being considered for promotion to the Cadre of Assistant Professor as she has evidently not put in three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry, The Tribunal, in its order, has set aside the promotion of the petitioner in its order at the instance of Dr. M. Kala another aspirant for the promotional post. Mr. Jois, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner found fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal and questioned the same on various grounds. He essentially argued that his client holds a Master's Degree in Operative Dentistry. She also has three years' experience and the finding is contrary to the material on record. He invited our attention to the various documents in support of his case. In particular, he referred to the certificate Annexure-B, dated 17th October, 1993, Certificate dated 20th October, 1997, the seniority list at page 27, notification dated 29-5-1993, order dated 13-6-1996 issued by the Principal and the order of the University dated 15-3-1995 and the Schedule cancelling orders to contend that the Tribunal's finding requires reconsideration. He also argued that the selection has been made by a Selection Committee and that cannot be set aside by a Court without appreciating the material on record. He also relied on the Rules and contended that three years' experience in the post of Lecturer/Registrar/Curator is only necessary and no insistence can be done towards experience in Operative Dentistry only as held by the Tribunal.
10. He also argued that the Tribunal having negatived the petition of Dr. Bharathi D. Deo, ought not to have interfered in this petition and set aside her promotion.
11. He also argued technically speaking the Single Member of the Tribunal cannot decide the dispute under the Scheme of the act. The same is to be decided only by a Bench consisting of two Members of the Tribunal. Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that the selection of Dr. Roopa R. Nadig is unsustainable since she failed to comply with the legal requirement of three years' experience in Operative Dentistry. He further argued that the so-called three years' experience as contended by Sri Subramanya Jois has no factual foundation. In fact, he invited our attention to the orders of the Tribunal to show that the respondent-Authorities did not provide the necessary material before the Tribunal in that regard. He supported the order.
12. During the course of arguments, we have, by an order dated 8-7-1999, directed the learned Government Advocate to produce relevant records with regard to the contention of Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel on the question of compulsory waiting period enabling his client to complete three years in terms of the Rule. Records were also produced before us.
13. In the light of these rival submissions, the following questions emerge for our consideration.--
"(1) Whether the petitioner-Dr. Bharathi D. Deo is eligible in terms of the Recruitment Rules for consideration to the promotional post and whether she had completed the three years' experience period in terms of the rule entitling her for consideration to the promotional post?
(2) Whether the petitioner-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig has acquired the eligible criteria of three years of teaching experience in Operative Dentistry in terms of the Recruitment Rules for appointment as an Assistant Professor?
(3) Whether the order by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal challenged in W.P. No. 37488 of 1998 is contrary to Administrative Tribunals Act"?
14. Regarding Point No. 3.--We would consider the last question and answer the same in the first instance since it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act provides for adjudicatory process by a Division Bench consisting of two Members and also disposal of cases by a Single Member. Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provide for an order being issued in the matter of disposal by a Single Member from 2-6-1997. The same is produced before us. In addition to the order dated 2-6-1997, another order dated 25th March, 1998 is also produced in this regard. The order sheet maintained by the Tribunal is filed along with the statement of objections dated 18-2-1999. An application was filed by Dr. M. Kala in Application No. 2778 of 1996 (W.P. No. 37488 of 1998). Initially the said application of Dr. Kala was heard by a Division Bench from time to time. In fact, in the order dated 12-3-1998, it was ordered to delink the Application No. 1500 of 1996 filed by Dr. Bharathi. Subsequently the matter has been heard by a Single Member.
15. Sri Jois, learned Counsel contended before us that the facts of this case would show that the matter required to be heard by two members of the Tribunal. It is not one of those matters that could be disposed of by a Single Member. It is his complaint that an application which a Division Bench heard the matter, it could not be subsequently heard by a Single Member. Per contra, as mentioned earlier, Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel argued that though the matter required to be heard by two Members, in the absence of any objection to the matter being heard by a Single Member, no fault can be found with the Tribunal. He further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indermani Kirtipal v Union of India and Others, to contend that it is no longer open to an unsuccessful party to do so and at a later stage or plead that a Single Member had no jurisdiction. The other case had been heard by a Division Bench and in the said case the Division Bench has passed an order non-suiting the petitioner-Dr. Bharathi on the ground of lack of experience for three years. Moreover, since the very issue involved in this case has been considered in the other application and the judgment in that application is before us in the writ petition. In the circumstances, we have to answer the various questions raised in both the cases in this order. Writ petitions filed by both the unsuccessful candidates were clubbed and common arguments have also been heard by this Court with regard to the contention raised in both the petitions. In the circumstances, the passing of an order by a Single Member should not deter us from considering the merits of the matter. Even if there is a technical law of hearing of the application by a Single Member, the relief of remand on account of the flaw would not serve anybody's purpose in view of the very question raised in the companion writ petition. In these circumstances, we hold that this contention requires to be rejected on the peculiar facts of this case.
16. Regarding Point No. 2.--Dr. Bharathi, as mentioned in the earlier para, had been appointed as Assistant Dental Surgeon in the year 1984 under Serial No. 1. She has also completed both her postgraduate course after a litigation in the very Tribunal in Application No. 5175 of 1991. It is also on record that she was appointed as a Lecturer in Operative Dentistry on 15-3-1994 as OOD Lecturer in Government Denial College, Bangalore. It is her case that even during the period between 11-12-1992 and 15-3-1994, she has worked as a Lecturer in Operative Dentistry and therefore she has the necessary three years' experience. Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel in initial stage of arguments contended that her case has to be treated as 'compulsory waiting period' and the period between 1992 and 1994 is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of three years' experience. The Tribunal, in its detailed order, has ruled that the applicant-petitioner who was working as a Lecturer on OOD basis from 11-12-1992, came to be relieved on 20-10-1993 and thereafter, after a break-up period of five months, came to be appointed as Lecturer on 15-3-1994. The petitioner has also given break-up period which we have extracted above. If this period is treated as compulsory waiting period, certainly the Tribunal is wrong in rejecting her claim. But however, this period cannot be termed as 'compulsory waiting period'. Elaborate arguments have been advanced on this issue with reference to the various documents. However, suffice for the purpose of this case, to refer to the document namely the order of the Government dated 14-6-1998 in the matter of treating her break-up period as 'compulsory waiting period'. The said order deals with treatment of the period by the Government. The same is not questioned by Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel. The said order read as a whole, would show that Dr. Bharathi was relieved on 21-10-1993 and consequent upon the leave vacancy of Shivananda Shetty, she has been appointed. She was not given any appointment order for this period. Her leave has been treated as leave without pay. Learned Counsel Sri G.S. Visweswara fairly later submitted that the material facts would not support the contention of 'compulsory period of waiting' as contended by him and therefore we hold that his client does not have the necessary experience of three years for the purpose of selection. Therefore, in the light of these material facts, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was justified in its order holding that she lacks the eligibility criteria in terms of the Rules, of three years teaching experience in Operative Dentistry.
17. Regarding Point No. 3.--The Recruitment Rules read as under.--
Department of Operative Dentistry:
1 2 3Assistant Professors I. By promotion by selection from the cadre of Lecturers/Registrar/ Curator in OperativeDentistry.
For promotion and Direct Recruitment II.
If no suitable person is available for appointment by promotion under Cate-gory I, then by promotion by selection from the cadres and in the order of priority mentioned below. -
1. Qualifications:
(1) Should be the holder of a degree in Dentistry of any University established by Law in India; and
(i) Assistant Surgeons Grades I and II;
(2) Should have any of the postgraduate qualifications in Operative Dentistry specified in Annexure-C; and
(ii) Health Officers, Class-II-cum-Assistant Surgeons Class II;
(iii) Health Officer,Class-II.
III.
If no suitable person is available for appointment by promotion under Category II, then by direct recruitment.
(3) Should have teaching experience in Operative Dentistry of not less than three years in a post of Lec-turer/Registrar/Curat or or any higher post.
Only for Direct Recruitment:
1. Age Limit: 40 years.
2. Probation; Two years.
Admittedly, it is a specialised responsible promotional post from the cadre of Lecturer to the cadre of Assistant Professor. Rules have been framed and those rules provide the minimal qualification and experience for the post of Assistant Professor i.e., in the case of an Assistant Surgeon, for appointment on promotion, in addition to qualification a teaching experience in Operative Dentistry of not less than three years in a post of Lecturer/Registrar/Curator or any other higher post. It is the specific contention of Sri G.S. Visweswara and Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig, the promoted candidate, does not have the necessary three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry in terms of the rules. Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel argued that a specific contention had been raised by him in the petition filed before the Tribunal that she does not have the three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. While answering this criticism, Mr. Jois, learned Counsel, took us through the various pleadings and wanted us to hold that the Government rightly promoted her.
18. We have gone through the pleadings and arguments urged before us. In this regard, admittedly Smt. Dr. Roopa R. Nadig is holding a Master's Degree. Her case is that she did have teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. She has no doubt changed the cadre from the cadre of Assistant Dental Surgeon to the Lecturer in a Dental College. Since Dr. Bharathi was ineligible in terms of the rules, her case has been rightly considered by the respondent according to Mr. Jois. He referred to us the various documents which form part of the present writ petitions. It is no doubt true that she was working as a Lecturer, but the question is as to whether she worked as a Lecturer and has three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. The Certificates on which heavy reliance is placed by Mr. Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e.. Exs. B(1), dated 29th September, 1992 and B(2), dated 20th October, 1997 have been issued by the Principal, Government Dental College. These two certificates state that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was working as a Lecturer (Operative Dentistry) (Conservative Dentistry) in Government Dental College, Bangalore since 5th July, 1991. The second certificate also refers to her involvement in undergraduate and postgraduate teaching experience in conservative dentistry. There is no positive certificate evidencing her having worked for three years in Operative Dentistry in terms of the rule. In terms of our earlier order, we called for the records to ascertain as to whether she has worked in the Government College in Coimbatore. The documents have been filed before us and her name is not found in the Attendance Register in the Operative Dentistry Department to prove her case of three years' teaching experience. However, an Official Memorandum dated 17-12-1994 was also produced before us which also states that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was a Lecturer, Room No. 4 (Operative Dentistry) in the morning and at Pedodontia Department in the afternoon. It is also stated that she was to continue as a Lecturer to take the lectures of paedogenic as schedule. The further documents relied on by Mr. Jois, learned Counsel, also do not in any way support her case. He relied on the certificate issued by the Principal on 13-6-1996 to contend that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was working as a Lecturer in the Department of Operative Dentistry and Pedodontia is an allied subject of Operative Dentistry. This certificate and her having conducted as an Examiner in Operative Dentistry does not by itself prove that she had three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. Tribunal in its detailed order has ruled that the petitioner-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig has not completed teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. This finding is based on material placed before him. We do not find any material to differ from the factual conclusion in spite of Mr. Jois's vehement argument that she has three years' experience. We also fail to understand as to how her teaching in Pedodontia can be equated to the teaching experience of Operative Dentistry. The promoted post is one of an Assistant Professor, a responsible position in the College. We can take judicial notice that unless the Professor has sufficient knowledge and teaching experience in terms of the Rules in a specialised subject, it may not be possible for her to impart teaching of a specialised subject. The selection committee in their wisdom has categorically stated that there should be a minimum of three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. When experts in unequivocal terms have prescribed certain qualifications, Courts cannot water down such minimal qualification by interfering thereby ruining the very essential condition of teaching experience for the promotional post. Mr. Jois however argued that Pedodontia is part of Operative Dentistry, He referred to her having worked under said division. Assuming that she worked for sometime, that by itself does not exempt the three years' teaching experience in terms of the rules. He referred to us the Dental Council of India Regulations. Even the said regulations do not say that Pedodontia is equated to the Operative Dentistry. His further reliance of the certificate issued by the Principal, Government Dental College, Annexure-B is of no assistance. Working in Operative Dentistry Department is different from teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. Being an examiner also does not mean that a teaching experience is thereby obtained by a candidate. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed at Annexure-P to contend that she had necessary three years' experience in Operative Dentistry. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Jois to come to a conclusion that she had the experience as contended by him. His further argument of the three years' experience in a post without teaching experience in Operative Dentistry also cannot be accepted. When certain eligible criteria is laid down by an expert body for a responsible position and post, unless and until the aspiring candidate acquires minimal qualification, no promotion can be given. There is no room for doubt in the case on hand that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig did not have the necessary three years' teaching experience as held by the Tribunal. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal.
19. Sri Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon certain decisions in support of his case. The first case is one in S.M. Bawankar v Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Tumsar and Others, to support his contention that this Court is not to substitute its opinion for opinion of Appointing Authority. In the case on hand the petitioner has no three years' teaching experience on facts. When the said opinion is contrary to the Rules, it cannot be said that this Court is precluded from differing from such conclusion on the set of available facts. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. The second judgment relied upon by Mr. Jois is Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v Union of India and Others. In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered the eligibility for promotion as Professor. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering with regard to the promotion to a Doctor working in special list Grade-II in teaching hospital. The question arose as to whether a Doctor working in special list Grade-II in a teaching hospital belonging to the Central Health Service is eligible for appointment or to promotion as Professor or Associate Professor. The Supreme Court considered the rule with regard to promotion and ruled that the said rule did not provide that the teaching experience gained in an ex officio capacity was not counted towards the requisite teaching experience. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court declared that the appellant had acquired the requisite teaching experience in terms of the rules. In the case on hand, the rules are so specific that it categorically states that a candidate shall have three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. When the rule is specific, it is not possible for us to consider in favour of the petitioner in the light of the judgment cited by Mr. Jois on the facts of the case read with eligibility rules. The rules in the present case is different from the rule in the said case and therefore the said case is wholly inapplicable and on the other hand, it supports the view of the Tribunal. The next case referred to by the learned Counsel is Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Others v State of Maharashtra and Others. Learned Counsel invited our attention to para 44-J at page 1628. This is also a case with regard to officiating service by the petitioner in that case. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision dealing with important questions concerning a particular service given after careful consideration should be respected. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has come to a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner does not have three years' teaching experience in Operative Dentistry. The said finding is confirmed by us. In the circumstances, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. Moreover, in the case on hand, it is nobody's case that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig had teaching experience in an officiating capacity. On the other hand, it is specifically pleaded in her working in teaching department of Pedodontia is inclusive and part of Operative Dentistry. Therefore, this case is also of no avail to the petitioner. The petitioner also referred to Reserve Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited and Others at page 1042. It is a well-known proposition with regard to interpretation. When the Rule is very clear, it is not possible to read something into the Rule for the purpose of either appointment or promotion. When there is some doubt in the matter of interpretation, then the context and the colour of the Rule can be taken into consideration in the light of the object of the Rule. But there is no such doubt in the case on hand. Therefore, this judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner. In the case on hand, though Mr. Jois, learned Counsel tried his best to satisfy us that Pedodontia is part of Orthodentistry (Operative Dentistry), there is no substance in the argument. This post of an Assistant Professor is of a specialised subject, and such specialised subject as per the rule requires a specialised teaching experience of three years in specialised subject. That being the object of the rule, we are unable to read anything in the rule to come to a conclusion that Pedodontia can be read into the Operative Dentistry. The Tribunal in our opinion, on consideration of the material facts, has come to a definite finding of fact that Dr. Roopa R. Nadig does not have the requisite experience. It is well-settled that a writ Court can interfere only when there is a basic error of fact requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. No such basic error or no such basic error of finding of fact has been pointed out to us by the petitioner. On the other hand, taking into the totality of the material facts placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in our opinion, has rightly come to the right conclusion in rejecting the contention of Dr. Nadig and has accepted the contentions of Dr. M. Kala. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Bharathi Deo and we also dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Roopa R. Nadig. We hold that both Dr. Bharathi Deo and Dr. Roopa R. Nadig did not have the necessary eligibility/teaching experience in terms of the Rule. They are excluded for consideration on account of ineligibility in terms of the Rule governing the case on hand. The only other candidate who can be considered is Dr. M. Kala, respondent 3. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of Dr. Kala for promotion if she is otherwise eligible in terms of the Rules for the said post. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.