KAN SINGH, J—In this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution certain appointments of Professors and Readers in Surgery made by the Government (vide their order dated 21-2-69 Annexure 13) under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Special Selection Rules, 1967 are impugned.

2. The petitioner Dr. S. M. Gupta had entered the service of the State of Rajasthan in 1955 as CAS Class I. He was appointed as a Junior Specialist in 1962 and appointed to officiate as Lecturer in Surgery on 28-2-67. He came to be promoted as Officiating Reader in Surgery on 23 8 67. Five posts of Professors, 11 posts of Readers and 17 posts of Lecturers were advertised for being filled in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Special Selection Rules, 1967, hereinafter to be referred as the "1967 Rules". He applied for the post of a Professor in accordance with the 1967 Rules. Like others he was called for interview by the Special Recruitment Board constituted under the 1967 Rules. He appeared before the Board and found that out of 5 members of the Board only 4 were present and Dr. S.C. Mehta, the Director of Medical and Health Services, was not present. As a result of the assessment said to have been made by the Board and on the basis of the recommendations made by it the Government made the appointments vide Ex. 13.

3. In assailing the validity of these appointments Dr. S. M. Gupta contends that the Board was not properly constituted in as much as Dr. S. C. Mehta had not sat for interview which was taken by only 4 of the members. It is submitted that the Board had not come into existence on account of the absence of Dr. S.G. Mehta with the result that the recommendations made by the body functioning as the Board as also the Government order Ex. 13 stood vitiated. Apart from this it was contended that Dr. D. G. Ojha, Dr. P. L. Rishi and Dr. M. N Katju had not even appeared for interview before the alleged Selection Board and yet they came to be appointed as Professors. Dr. Gupta further averred that the alleged Selection Board had fixed 15 out of the 30 marks as the minimum marks for considering a candidate suitable for appointment as a Reader and Dr. Gupta claims that he had secured 17-1/2 marks and was thus quite suitable for appointment as a Reader and yet his name was not recommended by the alleged Selection Board to the Government for appointment. Dr. Guptas name was recommended for appointment as a Lecturer in Sur-gury and in Ex. 13 Dr. Guptas name appears at No. 1 in the list of Lecturers in Surgery. Dr. Guptas case further is that his name was rejected for appointment as Reader on extraneous considerations and therefore, the recommendations of the alleged Selection Board were vitiated on that ground as well.

4. The writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan and Dr. M.C. Mehta, respondent No. 14. Other respondents have not chosen to appear.

5. In the Governments reply which was signed by Shri Gopesh Bhatt, Dy. Secretary, Medical & Health Department, it was denied that Dr. S. G. Mehta was absent at the time the candidates, including the petitioner, for the posts of Readers were interviewed. It was submitted that all the members of the Selection Board were present at the interview. However, on 23-4-69 Dr. S. G. Mehta, Director of Medical & Health Services, filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had not attended the meetings of the Selection Board on 24th and 25th October, 1968 when candidates eligible for teaching posts in the Department of Surgery were interviewed by the Board. It was further stated by him that he had signed the report of the Special Selection Board recommending candidates for appointment to various teaching posts in Surgery and other subjects, after going through the contents of the report and that he had agreed to the marks allotted to various candidates by the Special Selection Board and had signed the mark sheet and the report, after going through the contents ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document