Judgment

DUA, J.- These three appeal (Civil Appeal Nos. 1818-1819 and 1820 of 1968) with certificate of fitness presented by Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi are directed against a common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and as they raise common questions, they are being disposed of by one Judgment. Civil Appeal No. 1818 of 1968 is concerned with the challenge to the appointment of Dr. D. G. Ojha as Principal of Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner. He was appointed a Professor of Surgery and Officiating Principal of the said College on March 2, 1964. At the time of his appointment, he was officiating as Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan at Jaipur. Civil Appeal No. 1819 of 1968 is concerned with the challenge to the appointment of Dr. P. D. Mathur on July 13, 1965 as Professor of Surgery and Officiating Principal of Rabindra Nath Tagore Medical College,Udaipur. This order of appointment was subsequently superseded aad Dr. Mathur was appointed as Professor of Surgery and Principal of Rabindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur with effect from the date of his taking over charge. It may be pointed out that Dr. Mathur s appointment as a Professor of Surgery was not challenged either in the High Court or before us and his appointment as Principal alone was assailed in this Court. Civil Appeal No. 1820 is concerned with the challenge to the appointment of Dr. Rishi dated July 28, 1966 as Principal of Medical College, Jodhpur. The appointment was made on a purely temporary and adhoc basis till further orders. On December 31, 1966, this order was partially modified in so far as Dr. Rishi s remuneration is concerned, but his appointment as Professor of Surgery and Principal of Medical College was re-affirmed to be on a purely temporary and adhoc basis. The challenge to these three appointments by means of writ petitions failed in the Rajasthan High Court and the present appeals are directed against the common order of that Court. In the High Court, it was common ground between the parties that Dr. Ojha, Dr. Rishi and Dr. Mathur did possess academic qualifications prescribed by the University Ordinance and it was also not disputed there that these respondents had acquired the qualifications prescribed by Rule 30(4) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 (hereafter called the Collegiate Branch Rules). The High Court made the following observations in the impugned order :-

"We would, however, observe that Rule 30(4) empowers the State Government to make only a temporary or officiating appointment and the appointments of Dr. Ojha, and Dr. Rishi will be deemed to be temporary or officiating even though these words may not have been used in the orders of their appointments as Professors of Surgery. Learned Advocate General has also conceded that the Government cannot make permanent appointments under Rule 30(4) and the omission of the words temporary or officiating in the orders was by mistake. It is, therefore, not necessary to pursue the matter any further as these appointments will be considered only as temporary or officiating."

These observations deserve to be borne in mind while dealing with the present appeals. The High Court further took the view that the qualifications relating to teaching experience were directory and not mandatory and in view of the fact that the University was not objecting to the impugned appointments, that Court did not consider it proper, in its judicial discretion, to interfere in proceedings for quo-warranto at the instance of the appellant. In this connection, it was observed that the breach of the relevant Ordinance No. 65 could have afforded a ground for the University to withdraw affiliation of the Colleges concerned, but it was not open to the appellant to found his claim on this grievance.

2. In this Court, the question raised principally centres round the validity and effect of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 30 contained in Part VIII of the Collegiate Bran