Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- We may as well begin this judgment with a prefatory sociological observation. The meaning of two common expressions teaching experience and teaching institution incarnated into a legal frame and subjected to forensic dissection and examination during three years of litigation makes up this bitter contest between a talented orthopaedic surgeon and two like rivals trying to break each other s academic bones to gain the post of Lecturer in Orthopaedics, one in each of two government medical colleges in Bihar. Our judicial bone-setting operation cannot undo the social fracture inflicted by this long expensive bout in court. Research and reform of the system is needed if the therapeutic value of law is to last and be not lost.

2. The two appeals before us, by special leave, unfold a musical-chair type situation where three candidates ran for two posts in the Government-run Patna and Dharbanga Medical Colleges. Inevitably one lost or, rather, was screened as ineligible, his British work and experience notwithstanding, and chagrined by his discomfiture, he, Dr. Mukherjee, challenged the whole selection by a writ petition on the short and ambitious ground that he was not only qualified but superior, with his bright British career, to the other two India-trained hands, Dr. Ram and Dr. Jamuar, but was illegally rejected as unqualified.

3. The main issue that arises and was argued before us by the State s counsel, supported by Shri Garg for the other candidates, is that the High Court, which allowed the writ petition, grievously erred in probing improperly into the concerned cabinet papers and upsetting government s orders of appointment, upholding the petitioner s eligibility and directing a reconsideration of the claims of all the contenders on certain untenable finding of fact and indefensible interpretation of law. Did the petitioner possess the prescribed qualifications for the post ? If he did, the High Court was right in directing the appointing authority to consider his claims. and if did not government rightly ignored his credentials for the post as an unqualified hand, despite his impressive British testimonials and good showing otherwise. Such is the compass of the dispute which is basically a technical question but, under our system, has to be decided by courts unaided by expert advice.

4. The case has taken three days of argument based on three heavy volumes of appeal records - mercifully less than the eight days of hearing in the High Court. The colossal consumption of forensic time investment of considerable litigation expense and the diversion of useful medical energy of three young specialists for three years in two rounds of writ contests are the heavy social price paid by the community for discovering through court - trained in law and not in medicine, and called upon to adventure into the nature of actual teaching experience and the names of approved teaching institutions beyond Indian frontiers. The question involved is as to whether the writ petitioner, a doctor who worked in hospitals in Britain under orthopaedics professors supposedly of great repute, had teaching experience in a teaching institution good enough under the Indian statute and for the Patna College. From Olympic team selection to orthopaedic expertise the judicial robes are invited to exercise umpire s jurisdiction under our system. Even were Judges angels, should they not fear to tread where perhaps others may rush in?

5. It is equally disturbing that Indian Courts, in contrast with some other modern judicial systems, are called upon to devote considerable time for oral arguments to decide controversial issues even of a simple or a short nature. Condensed submissions and capsuled briefs familiar in certain foreign jurisdictions and other reforms may perhaps with modifications, suit our genius. Here, in the higher Courts with mild exaggeration it may be remarked that Time rolls his ceaseless course and not unoften littl