Point of Law: In any event, their impression that rights came to be vested on party respondents on impugned notifications of RCC being published, is forensically flawed because it is now very well settled that mere making of application or for that matter, even inclusion in a rank list will not inure to any candidate any vested right to be appointed.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner claims to be fully qualified to be appointed as a Professor (Surgical Oncology), in the services of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC); but when it issued Ext.P1 notification calling for candidates who were already working in its services — for being selected and appointed in the said post — he found that it contained qualifications which were in variance with that prescribed by the Regulations of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) [now the National Medical Commission (NMC)].

2. The petitioner thus approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.19248 of 2017, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, whereby, the MCI was directed to consider the validity of the qualifications in Ext.P1 notification viz-a-viz their Regulations and to take a decision as to whether selection can be permitted on its basis. This led to Ext.P6 order being issued by the erstwhile MCI, affirming that the qualifications shown in Ext.P1 were contrary to their Regulations.

3. It transpires that the RCC, in compliance with Ext.P6, issued Exts.P7 and P8 fresh notifications calling for candidates from the open market, as well as from among Doctors within their services, prescribing qualifications as are stipulated under the ‘Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998’ (‘Regulations 1998’ for short) of the MCI.

4. The afore two notifications were issued nearly 2½ years after Ext.P6 was issued, and by then the ‘Regulations 1998’ had undergone two amendments — through Exts.P9 and P10 notifications of the erstwhile MCI, dated 07.06.2019 and 12.02.2020, respectively.

5. Through the first afore amendment notification of the MCI, namely Ext.P9, the qualification for the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) was diluted from what was mentioned in Ext.P6; while, through the subsequent Ext.P10 notification, dated 12.02.2020, the position was restored. However, Ext.P10 carried a stipulation that there would be a ‘transitory period of two years’ from its date; and that, during such period, the ‘Regulations 1998’, as it stood amended through Ext.P9 notification, would remain in force.

6. It is based on the above that the RCC issued Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, stipulating the qualifications to the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) as enumerated in Ext.P9; which has now caused the petitioner to have approached this Court through this writ petition, challenging it.

7. Sri. R.T. Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner, very strongly argued that Exts.P7 and P8 notifications could not have been issued containing the qualifications as prescribed in Ext.P9, as far as the post of Professor (Surgical Oncology) is concerned because, by the time it was issued, Ext.P10 notification dated 12.02.2020, had come into play. He contended that the ‘transitory period of two years’ in Ext.P10 only applied to the requirements of “Teaching and Research Experience” and not to “Academic Qualifications” mentioned therein; and hence that the invitation to candidates with qualifications not in conformity with the same, was not merely untenable but illegal. He relied on the contents of Ext.P10 in substantiation, particularly the placing of the words ‘transitory period of two years’ within the column under ‘Teaching and Research Experience’, to drive home the point that, as far as the “Academic Qualifications” are concerned, the prescriptions therein would apply and no other.

8. After arguing as afore, Sri. R.T. Pradeep then predicated that Exts.P7 and P8 notifications, in any event, cannot be now operated by the RCC because, on 14.02.2022, the ‘Regulations 1998’ were repealed by the “Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022” (Regulations, 2022) issued by the NMC, which, while effecting such, saves only the appointments made under it prior to the repeal. He argued that, therefore, by all permutations of reasoning, Exts.P7 and P8 notifications have been rendered inoperable at this time; and that the RCC m