(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant, while working as an Assistant Professor, was promoted as an Associate Professor in Neurosurgery, by proceedings dated 17/9/1993. In the meanwhile, Dr Basant Kumar Singh, Respondent 7, had already filed a writ petition claiming the right for promotion as an Associate Professor, Neurosurgery. During its pendency, the promotion of the appellant came to be made. Therefore, the writ petition was amended questioning the promotion of the appellant. The High court in the impugned order dated 12/1/1994 in CWJC No. 2832 of 1993 allowed the writ petition, set aside the promotion of the appellant and directed the respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the judgment of this court in Arun Kumar Agrawal (Dr) v. State of Bihar. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3) THE controversy lies in a short compass. Admittedly, the appellant is not possessed of the qualification prescribed for super-speciality, namely, M.Ch. Admittedly, both the appellant and Respondent 7 had the qualification as M.S. General Surgery. In addition, 7th respondent had the qualification of M.Ch. in the speciality concerned, namely, Neurosurgery, acquired in 1989. The question, therefore, is whether the direction issued by the High court to consider the case in the light of the abovesaid judgment, is correct in law. The Medical council of India has framed the regulations under Section 33(j) the Indian Medical council Act, 1956. Clause (a) is for the Professor/Associate Professor which reads as under: Post Academic Qualification Teaching/Research Experience

(a) Professor/ M.Ch. in speciality (a) As Reader, Asstt. Prof. in

Associate concerned after respective subjects for 3

Professor M.S./P.R.C.S. years in a medical college

after requisite postgraduate qualification.

M.S./P.R.C.S. or an

equivalent qualification in

Surgery with two years

special training in the

speciality concerned or

Speciality Board (USA) in

the speciality concerned.

(b) Reader/ -do- (b) As Registrar of an

Asstt. equivalent post for at least 3

Professor years in respective subjects

or allied subjects in a

teaching institution.

¤äf

(4) SHRI M.L. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, states M.Ch. in the speciality concerned after M.S./F.R.C.S or M.S. or F.R.C.S. or a qualification equivalent in Surgery with two years special training in the speciality concerned or Speciality Board (USA) in the speciality concerned, would be to mean that the requirement of acquiring the qualification of M.Ch. is not a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Associate Professor from the post of Assistant Professor. Since the appellant had put in more than 15 years experience as an Assistant Professor and also in the speciality concerned i.e. Neurosurgery, he is entitled to be considered and the High court was not right in directing to consider the case in the light of the judgment of this court in Arun Kumar Agrawal case. He strongly relied upon the judgment of this court in Govt. of A.P. v. Dr R. Murali Babu Rao.

(5) WHERE the language of the Act is clear and explicit, the court must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. The interjection of the preposition or at the underlined place amounts to judicial legislation or supplying omission which is impermissible in the process of construction of the Regulation. So we cannot read the Regulation in the manner suggested by the counsel. M.Ch. is a super-speciality. The Associate Professor is to teach the students in that subject or guide the research student. So the Regulation intended to prescribe M.Ch. after M.S. is a must. It is clear from what we read after M.S. or F.R.C.S. In Dr Murali Babu Rao case, admittedly Dr G. Subramanyam, Dr A. Rajagopala Raju and Dr Soghra Begum who already had M.D. (Cardiology) and put in required experience as