Jharkhand High Court
Dr. M.B. Jayaprakash Son Of G. Basavanna vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 23 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:38631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6236 of 2025
----
Dr. M.B. Jayaprakash son of G. Basavanna, resident of Flat No.405, Block A,
Pebble Bay Apartment, PO PS Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Additional Chief Secretary, Department
of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, PO
PS Doranda, District Ranchi.
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, through its Director,
having Office at RIMS, Bariatu, PO PS Bariatu, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Dean, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, having Office
at RIMS, Bariatu, PO PS Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC I
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 16.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 23.12.2025 Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Advertisement No.2971 dated 11.10.2025 (Annexure 5, at page 123-125 of the writ petition) issued under the signature of Dean, Rajendra Institution of Medical Sciences, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as RIMS), whereby and whereunder the post for Principal has been advertised for the Dental Institute under Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi where the eligibility criteria has been fixed as "25 years standing in the profession after Post Graduation and minimum 5 years of Administrative Experience".
2. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main challenge in this writ petition is the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondents in the advertisement, to the extent by which it has prescribed "25 years standing in profession after Post Graduation". The petitioner is aggrieved by this clause only.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions imposed in the advertisement is contrary to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the RIMS Regulations, -: 1 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 2014") framed under the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the RIMS Act, 2002") governing the issue. When Regulations have been framed and eligibility criteria is prescribed, the same must be followed and any advertisement cannot run contrary to the prescribed statutory Regulations. In this case, RIMS Regulations of 2014 do not prescribe 25 years standing in the profession after Post Graduation. Inclusion of the words "after Post Graduation" is contrary to the Regulations. Further 25 years standing in profession, should be the entire standing in medical profession and not exclusively the profession of teaching within the medical field. As per him, Clause 1(iii) of the eligibility criteria in the advertisement has a different connotation, which would be evident if read in conjunction with Clause 1(ii). As per him, if 25 years standing in profession is construed to be teaching profession, then the teaching experience mandated in Clause 1(ii) gets reasonably diluted, rather is nullified. The eligibility criteria in Clause 1(ii) of the advertisement is in terms of the RIMS Regulations, 2014, thus, the advertisement and its interpretation cannot be in such a manner to render the eligibility criteria in Clause 1(ii) nugatory. He argued that the words "after Post Graduation", in Clause 1(iii) of the advertisement, cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature as no advertisement can clarify statutory provision, that too by inserting the words "after Post Graduation", which will run contrary to the Rules or Regulations. If any Rule or Regulation has to be clarified, it has to be done only by an amendment and not by way of any advertisement. Thus, he submitted that inserting the words "after Post Graduation" is absolutely arbitrary and "25 years standing in the profession" should be construed as 25 years in medical profession and not exclusively the teaching profession.
4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the affairs including recruitment etc. of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences are governed by (i) Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002; (ii) Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 2002; and (iii) Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 2014. By referring to Rule 11 of RIMS Rules, 2002, he submitted that all teaching posts are to be filled through open advertisement on the recommendation of the Standing Selection Committee. He further referred to Clauses 6(II), 9(B) and 11(1) of RIMS Regulations, 2014 and submitted that these clauses require that all teaching cadre posts must be filled by the Governing Body through open advertisement. He contended that Principal, Dental College is a teaching post, duly sanctioned by the State Government vide Memo No.88(II)/Ranchi dated -: 2 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 11.05.2015. He argued that the impugned advertisement is fully compliant to the statutory provisions governing the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences. He also contended that the petitioner has not cited any specific DCI Regulation or NMC Guidelines saying that the post of Principal is required to be filled only by promotion from amongst in-house faculty, nor the petitioner has challenged the vires of RIMS Rules and Regulations. He contended that Section 12 of the RIMS Act, 2002 gives full administrative and financial powers to the Governing Body including matters relating to recruitment. He contended that the eligibility criteria (i) 25 years standing in the profession after post-graduation; and (ii) minimum 5 years administrative experience are clarificatory and no amendment has been made to the statutory provisions, hence, Section 32 of the RIMS Act, 2002 (framing of new regulations) does not apply. He contended that the clarification was issued after numerous representations seeking interpretation on experience criteria. He submitted that RIMS Regulation, 2014 prescribes "25 years standing in profession" as essential qualification. He argued that "profession" refers to teaching profession exclusively since Principal is a teaching post and further teaching experience presupposes post graduate qualification (MDS). He argued that even assuming that the experience prescribed in the advertisement is higher than the same provided in the Regulation, as per Section 12 of the RIMS Act, 2002, the Governing Body is legally empowered to prescribe higher qualifications, but not lower ones. While countering the submissions of the petitioner citing example of AIIMS Centre for Dental Excellence, he argued that it is only a department; the post "Chief of Centre" is only a designated post and not a statutory teaching cadre post. He further argued that Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences is bound only by its own statutes, rules and regulations and not governed or guided by practices followed by other institutions. On these very grounds, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
5. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences is an autonomous institution and is governed by RIMS Act, RIMS Rules and RIMS Regulations. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the RIMS Rules, 2002) have been framed in exercise of powers conferred in Section 31 and Sub Section (1) of the RIMS Act, 2002. RIMS Regulations, 2014 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 of the RIMS Act, 2002. Rule 11 of the RIMS Rule, 2002 provides that all the -: 3 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 posts of teaching cadre shall be filled up through open advertisement to be appointed by the Governing Body and on recommendations of the Permanent Selection Committee. Rule 11(1)(ii) of the RIMS Rules, 2002 provides that educational qualification and experience for all posts of teaching cadre shall be same as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, Nursing Council of India or any other such statutory councils. RIMS Regulations, 2014 has a statutory backing, inasmuch as the same has been promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 32 of the RIMS Act.
6. To fill up the post of Principal, Dental Institute under Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, an advertisement being Advertisement No.2971 dated 11.10.2025 was floated. The advertisement contained, on amongst others, an eligibility criteria at 1 (iii), which prescribed requirement of "Twenty-five years standing in the profession after Post Graduation (MDS) and minimum five years of Administrative Experience". The main and the only challenge in this writ petition is to the eligibility criteria, especially Clause 1(iii) of the Advertisement.
7. It is the argument of the petitioner that there is a conflict between the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement and the eligibility criteria which is prescribed in the RIMS Regulations, 2014. At this stage, for better appreciation and to have better understanding of the difference between the eligibility qualification as enumerated in the RIMS Regulations, 2014 and the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement, the relevant extracts of the RIMS Regulations, 2014 and the relevant extracts of the advertisement needs to be quoted below in a tabular format:-
RIMS REGULATIONS, 2014 Advertisement No.2971 dated 11.10.2025 Eligibility Criteria
1. PRINCIPAL: (i) Master of Dental Surgery from recognized Dental Institute / College.
(ii) In addition to the teaching/research experience of not less than 10 years, experience as a professor of not less Essential than five years (total 15 years) in a (Principal/Dean) Qualification/Experience:
a. A postgraduate Dental Institution shall be considered.
qualification in (iii) Twenty - five years standing in the
Medicine or Surgery or
Public Health and their profession after Post Graduation (MDS)
Branches
and minimum five years of
b. Teaching and/research
experience of not less Administrative Experience..
than ten years.
c. Twenty-five years (iv) The maximum age limit for the post
standing in the of Principal shall be 62 (sixty two) years.
Profession.
Extensive practical & Extensive practical & Administrative
Administrative experience
experience in the field of Medical Relief, Medical in the field of Medical Relief, Medical Research, Research, Medical Education or Public Health Medical Education or Public Health Organization and adequate experience of running Organization and an important scientific educational institution -: 4 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 adequate experience of either as its Head or Head of a Department.
running an important
scientific educational
institution either as its
Heads or Head of a
Department.
8. From a bare perusal of both the provisions, it is clear that as per the RIMS Regulations, 2014, which is statutory in nature, as per Clause (c), the qualification is only Twenty-five years standing in the Profession. The advertisement, which was published has prescribed a different eligibility criteria from what is prescribed in the RIMS Regulations, 2014 by adding a few words. As per the advertisement, Clause 1(iii), the qualification should be "Twenty-five years standing in Profession after Post Graduation (MDS) and minimum five years of Administrative Experience" [emphasis supplied by me].
The petitioner is aggrieved by inclusion of the phrase "after Post Graduation"
as inserted in the advertisement. From perusal of the RIMS Regulations, 2014, I find that there is nothing to suggest that Twenty-five years standing in the Profession, should be after obtaining Post Graduation Degree, but as per the advertisement, Twenty-five years standing in Profession should be after Post Graduation. Inserting the phrase "after Post Graduation" in the advertisement, in fact, has the effect of changing the RIMS Regulations, 2014. The essential qualification 'c', as contained in the Table-I at Schedule III of RIMS Regulations, 2014 for the post of Principal/Dean, as stated earlier, is only Twenty-five years standing in Profession. It does not put any additional rider, that the said period of Twenty-five years should be after obtaining Post Graduation. Thus, in my opinion, there is a direct conflict between the advertisement and the statutory Regulations.
9. It is well settled that if there is conflict between advertisement and the statutory rules, it is the Rules, which is to be followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Kumar versus State of U.P. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 at paragraph 27, has held as under: -
27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription.
Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC -: 5 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 (L&S) 1870]. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p.512) "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.""
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, again, in the case of ESI Corpn. versus Union of India, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 392 at paragraph 20 thereof, while relying on the judgment in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1870] ("Malik Mazhar Sultan"), has reiterated the principle as under:-
"20. The advertisements issued by the appellant mentioned that the DACP scheme would be applicable for its recruits. However, it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. In Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1870] ("Malik Mazhar Sultan") a two-Judge Bench of this Court clarified that an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. The Court considered the eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 against an erroneous advertisement issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission and held : (SCC p. 512, para 21) "21. ..."-: 6 :-
2025:JHHC:38631 Thus, it is clear that no advertisement can deviate from any statutory regulations. In this case, I find that there is clear deviation in the advertisement from the Regulations. Including the words "after Post Graduation" in Clause 1(iii), in the Advertisement published for appointment of Principal in the Dental Institute, has the effect of tinkering the statutory Regulations. A Regulation, which is framed in terms of powers conferred under the Act, can only be tinkered with or clarified by an amendment. By inserting the phrase in the advertisement, an attempt has been made to amend the statutory Regulations in a manner not recognized by law.
10. Further, it is an admitted fact that Post Graduation is the sine qua non for teaching. Experience of teaching is necessary for the post of Principal as per Clause 'b' of Table I at Schedule III of the RIMS Regulations, 2014. As per the said clause, teaching experience should not be less than 10 (ten) years. Unless a doctor possesses the Post Graduate qualification, he cannot become a teacher. Thus, the teaching experience after Post Graduation for the post of Principal, as per the RIMS Regulations, 2014 is not less than ten years. This ten years is minimum experience as per Clause 'b' of Table I at Schedule III of RIMS Regulations, 2014. No doubt, this bare minimum experience can be enhanced also. The RIMS, if so wishes can keep this teaching experience to Twenty-five years, but they have not done so as per Clause 1(ii) of the advertisement. As per the advertisement, the teaching/ research experience has been prescribed in Clause 1(ii), which is not less than 10 years. Further, experience as a professor of not less than five years is also a mandate. Thus, total teaching experience is 15 years. There is no illegality in the said clause 1(ii) which mandates teaching experience.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the word 'Profession' used in Clause 1(iii) of the advertisement refers only to teaching Profession. This Court is not in agreement with such argument. The teaching experience necessary for appointment in teaching cadre is exclusively provided in Clause 'b' of Table I at Schedule III of the RIMS Regulations, 2014 and in the advertisement, it is Clause 1(ii) of the Eligibility Criteria. Clause 1(ii) and Clause 1(iii) in the advertisement cannot be equated. They operate independently. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, then both these clauses will relate to teaching experience. This will make both the clauses self-contradictory, inasmuch as Clause 1(ii) prescribes 15 years of teaching experience and Clause 1(iii) prescribes 25 years of -: 7 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 teaching experience (as a person can only be a teacher after obtaining Post Graduation Degree).
12. For better clarity, if I again analyse the eligibility criteria mentioned in RIMS Regulations, 2014, I find that Clause 'b' of Table I at Schedule III of the RIMS Regulations, 2014 provides for a tenure of not less than ten years of teaching experience and whereas Clause 'c' thereof prescribes Twenty-five years standing in the profession. This word 'profession' by no means can be said to be teaching profession. If this Twenty-five years standing is taken to be in teaching profession (as argued by the counsel for the respondents), then there was no necessity for incorporating Clause 'b' in the said table at Schedule III of the Regulations. Further, if this Twenty-five years is to be treated to be teaching profession, then there is glaring contradiction between Clause 'b' and Clause 'c' of the Regulations. Thus, in my view, "standing in the profession" is to be construed to be standing in the medical profession and cannot be related to the teaching profession. This interpretation will give constructive meaning to both these Clause 'b' and Clause 'c' of the Regulations. Interpretation, which the respondents want to put forth, will negate and eliminate Clause 'b'. Interpretation of any particular clause in the Regulations cannot be done in such a manner to negate any other clause. Each clause has a purpose and none can be said to be ornamental or ineffective. Interpretation of a particular clause cannot be made in such a manner to make another clause invalid or non-functional. Accepting the argument of the respondents will make one clause of the Regulations inoperative. Thus, in my opinion, in the advertisement also in Clause 1(iii), phrase "standing in the Profession" would mean standing in the medical profession and not the teaching profession exclusively.
13. The phrase "after Post Graduation" in the advertisement has changed the clause prescribed in the RIMS Regulations, 2014, which is impermissible, thus, I hold that the respondents could not have clarified the period of Twenty-five years standing in Profession to be after Post Graduation, which is not the intention of the Regulations.
14. Argument of the State that the aforesaid phrase is only by way of clarification also cannot be accepted, as a clarification cannot be introduced by way of an advertisement. A legislative provision needs to be clarified in the same manner by which a legislature was promulgated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Assn. -: 8 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 604 at paragraph 13 thereof has held as under: -
"13. In Kamla Prasad Khetan v. Union of India [1975 SCR 1052 : AIR 1957 SC 676 : (1958) 2 LLJ 461], this Court considered the scope of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. At page 1068, the Court observed thus:
"... the power to issue an order under any Central Act includes a power to amend the order; but this power is subject to a very important qualification and the qualification is contained in the words 'exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any)'..."
The true scope and effect of the expression 'subject to the like conditions (if any)' occurring in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has been explained."
Further, in the case of Rajeev Suri versus DDA reported in (2022) 11 SCC 1 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 673.3 and 673.4 thereof has observed as under: -
"673.3. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act reads:
"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. - Where, by any Central Act or Regulations a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or Bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or Bye-laws so issued."
Mandate of this section would apply as there is nothing expressly or impliedly in Section 11-A that seeks to obliterate or even limit the need for public hearing. Silence does impede applicability of Rules 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Development Rules. Rather in terms of Section 21, silence enforces applicability of these Rules. Inconsistency is the test. In other words, the power to add to, amend, verify or rescind the Master Plan under Section 11-A are subject to the condition of public hearing as required by the Development Act, and the Development Rules, as they prescribe to enactment of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan. The procedure to modify the plan has to follow procedure as it would apply to approve and modify the initial plan. Therefore for modification of a plan, the BoEH has to be constituted and hearing has to be afforded to those who have submitted representations, suggestions and objections to the proposal -: 9 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 under consideration. Any amendment or modification of a plan under Section 11-A of the Development Act contrary to or dehors the procedure prescribed in Rules 4, 8 and 9 will be contrary to law.
673.4. Referring to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, in Kamla Prasad Khetan v. Union of India [Kamla Prasad Khetan v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 676] this Court had observed that the power to issue an order under the Central Act includes the power to amend an order, but this power is subject to an important qualification contained in the words "exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any)". Therefore, the amending or modifying order has to be made in the same manner as the original order and is subject to the same conditions that govern the making of the original order."
15. Further, a clarification is necessary when there is variance or ambiguity in the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others versus Dr. Manu and Another reported in (2023) 19 SCC 30, at paragraph 38 thereof has observed as under: -
"38. From the aforesaid authorities, the following principles could be culled out:
38.1. If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted.
38.2. In order for a subsequent order / provision / amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-
amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. 38.3. Merely because a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively."
16. In the present case, I find that there is no ambiguity in the statute, i.e., the RIMS Regulations, 2014 so as to call for any clarification of the -: 10 :- 2025:JHHC:38631 clause. It is the advertisement, which has created a confusion and has tinkered with the statutory eligibility clause prescribed under the Regulations. Thus, this advertisement issued by the respondents is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by the legislation.
16. Considering what has been discussed and held above, I am of the opinion that the eligibility clause in the advertisement, i.e. Clause 1(iii) is in excess of the powers conferred by the RIMS Regulations, 2014 and the same being not in consonance with it, needs to be quashed. Since Clause 1(iii) of the advertisement is bad and in conflict with the Regulations of RIMS, the same cannot be quashed in isolation. The entire advertisement consequentially also needs to be quashed. Thus, the Advertisement No.2971 dated 11.10.2025 (Annexure 5) issued under the signature of Dean, Rajendra Institution of Medical Sciences, Ranchi is hereby quashed. All consequential actions thereto, which might have been taken by the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi are also hereby quashed. This writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 23 December, 2025 Kumar/Cp-02 AFR Uploaded on 23.12.2025 -: 11 :-