A.K.Ganguly, J.

1. Since there was some urgency in the matter, the , matter was heard at some length at the admission stage itself and is being disposed of by this judgment. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification No. 236 dated 16.7.1997, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. Under the said notification dated 16.7.1997 tie appointment of respondent No. 4 Dr. Shekhar Choudhary to Nalanda Medical College Hospital, Patna in the Eye Department as an Assistant Professor from 1993 panel has been ordered.

2. The main ground of challenge to the said appointment by the petitioner is based on the interpretation of the advertisement notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of respondent No. 4 could not have been made possible but for relaxation of his teaching experience by 23 days.

3. According to the petitioner the cut off date for counting teaching experience is 31st January, 1993 and on that date respondent No. 4 had not completed three years teaching experience. Learned Counsel further states that this requirement of three years teaching experience is an essential qualification fixed by the Medical Council of India and the said qualification cannot be relaxed in favour of respondent No. 4. In support of the said submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexure-3 which purports to be the recommendation of the Medical Council of India on the Teachers and Visiting physicians/Surgeons etc. in Medical Colleges and attached Hospitals for undergraduate and post-graduate teaching. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a chart showing the required academic qualification for the post of Reader/Assistant Professor on the subject Ophthalmology required by the Medical Council of India. There are two categories. The first category is about the educational qualification and second category is about the teaching experience and in the said teaching experience it has been stated that at least three years teaching experience in Ophthalmology or allied subjects in a teaching institution is required. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement notice there are provisions of relaxation in Clause 9. In the said provision it has been made very clear that there cannot be any change of relaxation in the essential qualification provided by the Medical Council of India authorities.

4. The word Aharta came up for some interpretation in the context of Clause 9 of the advertisement and the power of relaxation by the State Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the word Aharta it may mean qualification but such qualification is not necessarily confined to educational qualification alone. Such qualification may also include the educational qualification plus teaching experience. In other words learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present context Aharta means eligibility and in support of the said contention learned Counsel referred to Article 58 of the Constitution of India. Article 58 of the Constitution prescribes the eligibility condition for election for the post of President. The learned Counsel submits that in an authorised Hindi version of Article 58 of the Constitution the word eligible has been translated as Aharta. Therefore, relying on the said translation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that here also the teaching experience should be included within the expression Aharta to mean eligibility conditions. Therefore, on a proper interpretation of Clause 9 of the advertisement, it should mean that the State Government has no power of relaxation of teaching experience which is ah eligibility condition fixed by the Medical Council of India for the post of Assistant Professor in q