The court emphasized that the experience obtained before the post graduation qualification and the one obtained after the post graduation qualification could not be equated, and thus, could not be combined. The court also highlighted the principle that a successor in office cannot review the conscious decision taken by its predecessor in office.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral). - This order shall dispose of CWP No. 18211 of 2017 and CWP No. 12216 of 2017, wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.10.2016, whereby; while reviewing the earlier order, the respondent University has granted approval to the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Reader in the Department of Repertory and the order dated 2.8.2017, whereby it has been ordered that date of joining of respondent No.5 as Reader in Department of Repertory be considered as 18.2.2013; and also the order dated 25.11.2012 for appointing respondent No.5 as Reader in 'Case Taking and Repertory (CTR).

2. The facts which are common to both the petitions are that the respondent No. 3 is running a homeopathic college and hospital in Chandigarh for conducting the under graduate courses in Homeopathy. The said college is regulated by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, the respondent No.4. For providing the staff requirements and the minimum standards of education, the Central Council of Homoeopathy have promulgated the regulations called Homoeopathy (Minimum Standards of Education) Regulations, 1983 (in short 'the regulations'), which have been amended from time to time, and has culminated into the Regulations of 2013.

3. The claim of the petitioner is that she had obtained MD Degree (in Repertory) in homoeopathy from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences in the year 2007. Thereafter, having undergone proper procedure of selection, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Case Taking and Repertory (CTR) vide letter dated 27.3.2009. Since then the petitioner was working as such. Later on the petitioner was confirmed as Lecturer in Repertory w.e.f. 1.4.2010. This appointment and confirmation of the petitioner was duly approved by the respondent University vide letter dated 15.3.2011.

4. On the other hand, respondent No. 5 was working as demonstrator with respondent No. 3 college since 6.8.2002. Later on, she was appointed as Lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology on ad hoc basis in the year 2007. When the post of Lecturer in Repertory was advertised in the year 2009, respondent No. 5 had also competed for that post alongwith the petitioner. However, she was found to be lower in merit as compared to the petitioner. Hence, she was not selected. But she had also applied for post of Lecturer in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the year 2009. Accordingly, she was selected as Lecturer in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and she submitted her joining as Lecturer on regular basis in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology on 1.4.2009. Since then she had been working as Lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in continuation.

5. To fulfill the norms of teaching staff in the college, the respondent No.3, Governing Body of the respondent college advertised one post of Reader in the Department of Case Taking and Repertory. The petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 5 both applied for the said post. Their applications were scrutinized by the duly constituted Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee; in its meeting held on 21.2.2012 found both, the petitioner, as well as, the respondent No. 5, to be ineligible for the post and the same was duly recorded in its proceedings. However, later on superseding the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the governing body-respondent No.3, took a decision that all those candidates who had applied for the post of Reader in Repertory, be called for interview; irrespective of their eligibility as determined by the Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 5 were called for interview. For conducting the selection, a statutory Selection Committee was required to be formulated, which was to include subject experts. Accordingly, the respondent college had requested the respondent University to nominate the subject experts as members of the Selection Committee. The respondent University had nominated the subject