DR ANUJ SHARMA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PR SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

2026:JHHC:28253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1786 of 2021
Dr. Anuj Sharma, aged about 39 years, son of Shri R.K. Sharma,
resident of A-1, Vinayak Enclave, Navin Mitra Lane, Circular Road,
P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, having
its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi-
834002.
2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS), (An autonomous
Institute under Government of Jharkhand), through its Director, having
its office at Bariatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi-834009,
Jharkhand.
3. Principal, Dental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science
(RIMS), having its office at Bariatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District
Ranchi-834009, Jharkhand.
4. Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Father’s name not known to the
Petitioner, at present working as Lecturer, Department of Periodontology
& Oral Implantology, Dental Institute , Rajendra Institute of Medical
Science Bariatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi-834009,
Jharkhand. …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilipi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Kathuria, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate
For the RIMS : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No.4 : Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II

CAV on : 27.08.2026. Delivered on: 14.09.2026.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for
the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting
aside the Reasoned Order passed by Respondent No.3-Director, RIMS,
contained in Memo No. 4522/RIMS dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure-16), wherein
the claim of the Petitioner for appointment as Lecturer in the Department of
Periodontology and Oral Implantology in Dental Institute of RIMS has been
rejected and, further, appointment of Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma (Respondent
No.4) has been considered to be valid for the said post.
1

2026:JHHC:28253

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction to call for and
quash the entire proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee of Respondent-RIMS
including its report dated 26.10.2018, wherein it has been declared that the
Petitioner is ineligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer
in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology in Dental Institute
of RIMS on the alleged ground that Petitioner does not have three years
teaching experience in the subject of specialization.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of
Declaration, declaring the appointment of Respondent No.4 by Respondent-
RIMS on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology and Oral
Implantology in Dental Institute of RIMS, as illegal and contrary to the terms
and conditions of the Advertisement as well as contrary to the letter and spirit
of the decision dated 24th September, 2018 passed by Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 582 of 2017 (Annexure-10).
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of
Mandamus, directing the Respondent-RIMS to appoint the Petitioner on the
post of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology
in Dental Institute of RIMS along with all consequential benefits including
consequential seniority.
(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as to
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. As per the pleadings, Respondent No. 2–RIMS issued an
advertisement being Advertisement No. 7581 dated 07.11.2015 which
was posted in its website inviting applications from applicants with
complete Bio-data to fill up the posts under different departments of
Dental Institute of RIMS. The Petitioner was having requisite eligibility
criteria for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Department of
Periodontology & Oral Implantology, submitted his application on
16.11.2015 for appointment on the said post in the requisite format as
prescribed by the advertisement.
4. For appointment to the post of Lecturer, eligibility criteria
prescribed in the advertisement was ‘MDS in concerned subject with
three years teaching experience as tutor/ Senior Resident in concerned
subject’ . A candidate was also required to submit the details of paper
published by the said candidate in State and International Journals along
with application. Clause 18 of the said advertisement mandated that, ‘the
age and experience of the candidate shall be counted as on
2

2026:JHHC:28253

30.11.2015’ . Hence, qualifying period under the advertisement was
prescribed as on 30.11.2015.
5. Petitioner was called for interview vide interview letter dated
14.03.2016. The interview letter specifically directed the Petitioner to be
present for interview on 01.04.2016 along with specified documents as
well as to bring along with him the documentary evidences and
photocopies of all his Research Publications, Index/Medicus,
National/International Journals.
6. On 01.04.2016, Petitioner appeared for the interview before
said authority along with requisite documents and photocopies of his
Research Publications in National and International Journals. It was
during the course of interview that the Petitioner and other candidates
were informed that marks would be allotted for academic qualification of
the candidates being 70 points out of the total points/marks of 100 and
further 30 points/marks would be awarded for the interview. During the
interview, Petitioner and other candidates were informed that marks of
academic would be awarded in the following manner:
(i) Maximum 25 points/marks on the basis of percentage obtained
in BDS examination;
(ii) Maximum 10 points/marks for having degree of MDS in
concerned subject;
(iii) It was pointed out that 02 points/marks would be deducted for
failure in MDS examination;
(iv) Maximum 15 points/marks would be awarded for
article/Journals published during the qualifying period. Each
Publication made in International Journal was to carry 4
points/marks, whereas Publications made in National Journals
were to carry 3 points/marks;
(v) Maximum 5 marks to be awarded for paper presentation in
National/International conference;
(vi) Maximum 15 points to be awarded for teaching experience.

3

2026:JHHC:28253

7. Pursuant to interview held on 1.4.2016, results of successful
candidates were published by Respondent No.2 on its website contained
in Memo No. 10370 dated 18.08.2016. One Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma
(Respondent No.4) was selected as successful candidate to the post of
Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology
pursuant to Advertisement dated 07.11.2015.
8. It is the case of Petitioner that Respondent No.4 was selected
for appointment on the post of Lecturer even though Respondent No.4
did not have any International/National Publications to his credit on the
qualifying date i.e. 30.11.2015. Whereas, on the other hand, Petitioner
had published almost 16 International Journals and was having an
excellent academic career record.
9. No details regarding individual marks awarded to one or the
other candidates were uploaded by Respondents and, under said
circumstances, Petitioner filed application under Right to Information
Act and it was disclosed to Petitioner that he secured 64.05 marks,
whereas Respondent No.4 secured 70.85 marks. Out of aforesaid 70.85
marks awarded to Respondent No.4, 08 marks were awarded pertaining
to publication in a Journal, which was beyond the cut-off date i.e.
30.11.2015. If, aforesaid 08 marks would not have been awarded to
Respondent No.4, Petitioner’s marks would have been the highest
entitling him for appointment. Accordingly, Petitioner filed writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 293 of 2017 for quashing the decision taken by
Respondent-RIMS awarding 08 marks to Respondent No.4.
10. In the Writ Petition, Counter Affidavit was filed by
Respondent-RIMS, wherein it admitted that marks were awarded to
Respondent No.4 for International Publication published beyond the cut-
off date i.e. 30.11.2015. However, said decision was justified by
contending that marks were awarded to the Respondent, as publications
were made prior to the date of Interview i.e. 01.04.2016.
4

2026:JHHC:28253

11. Arguments of Respondent-RIMS were accepted by learned
Writ Court and vide Order dated 03.11.2017, W.P.(S) No. 293 of 2017
was dismissed.
12. Petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 582
of 2017 against aforesaid Order of Single Judge, which was duly
considered by Division Bench of this Court and vide Judgment and order
dated 24.09.2018, Judgment of the Single Judge was set aside.
13. The Division Bench held that Respondent no.4 was wrongly
awarded marks for International Publication and accordingly
Respondent–RIMS was directed to recast Score sheets of the Petitioner
and Respondent No.4 as regards allocation of points in relation to
weightage given to Publications excluding any Publication produced by
Respondent No.4 after 30.11.2015 from the zone of assessment. Division
Bench further directed that selection of Respondent No.4 was not being
immediately invalidated, but, if Respondent No.4 has already been
appointed and after recasting of score sheets and computation of total
points if it is found that Petitioner has scored more marks than
Respondent No.4, then in that event appointment of Respondent No.4
would stand invalidated. Subsequently, Petitioner being the second-best
candidate on the basis of present evaluation would be declared successful
and all consequential steps would be taken. Aforesaid exercise was to be
completed within a period of 12 weeks.
14. Respondent-RIMS for the very first time submitted before the
Division Bench that Petitioner did not have sufficient teaching
experience in concerned subject without there being any such pleadings
in its Counter Affidavit. The Division Bench did not make any comment
on the qualification of Petitioner, and observed that in the event if there
is any mistake as suggested by Respondent–RIMS, then the authorities
would take steps in accordance with law.
15. Respondent No.4 secured 70.85 marks out of which 08 marks
were awarded to him for Publication after 30.11.2015, and as per the
Division Bench order, aforesaid 8 marks were to be deducted from the
5

2026:JHHC:28253

marks of Respondent No.4 which would have left Respondent No.4 with
a total mark of only 62.85 as against the total marks being 64.05 marks
secured by Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner automatically would become
entitled for appointment under the advertisement in question.
16. Respondent No.4 filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court
being SLP (Civil) Diary No. 41913 of 2018 but said SLP was withdrawn
by Respondent No.4 on 02.08.2019.
17. Pursuant to order passed by the Division Bench, Petitioner
filed representation on 22.10.2018 before Respondent–RIMS requesting
the said authority to act in terms of the Judgment of the Division Bench
and to consider the case of Petitioner for appointment after recasting of
the score-sheet. However, no steps were taken by Respondent – RIMS
for recasting of the score-sheets as directed by the Division Bench even
after receiving representation dated 22.10.2018 of the Petitioner.
18. On the contrary, a letter dated 09.01.2019 was issued to
Petitioner asking him to give certain clarifications in respect of his
experience certificate pertaining to Vananchal Dental College &
Hospital (VDCH), Garhwa . Petitioner furnished his reply dated
24.01.2019 giving his explanation relating to his teaching experience in
VDCH, Garhwa. Despite Petitioner submitting requisite documents
before Respondent –RIMS, he was not issued any appointment letter
after recasting of the score-sheet and reducing the marks of Respondent
No.4.
19. Petitioner again filed a representation dated 19.03.2019 before
Respondent – RIMS which was followed with another reminder
representation dated 17.09.2019. Respondent-RIMS was sitting over
Petitioner’s representation and the order of the Division Bench was not
being complied with, hence, Petitioner filed a contempt petition being
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 481 of 2020 before this Court for non-
compliance of the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed in LPA No. 582 of
2017 . During pendency of the Contempt case, Petitioner was
communicated a reasoned order contained in Memo No. 4522/RIMS
6

2026:JHHC:28253

dated 13.11.2020 by Respondent–RIMS wherein for the first time it was
stated that score-sheet of Respondent No.4 has been re-casted and final
marks given to Respondent No.4 was reduced from 70.85 to 62.85.
20. However, Respondent–RIMS rejected the candidature of
Petitioner from being appointed pursuant to advertisement in question by
stating that Petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the
advertisement as Petitioner does not have three years teaching experience
as Tutor /Senior Resident in concerned subject.
21. Prior to declaring the Petitioner ineligible under the
advertisement by virtue of the impugned order no opportunity of hearing
was given to Petitioner and only a letter dated 09.01.2019 was issued
seeking certain clarifications from Petitioner.
22. Respondent–RIMS has held that teaching experience of 3
years of Petitioner as ‘Senior Resident’ in RIMS cannot be considered as
the said teaching experience is not in subject of Specialization i.e.
Periodontology and Oral Implantology , and on that basis Petitioner has
been declared ineligible under the advertisement.
Stand of the Petitioner
23. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Ld. Counsel, assisted by Ms. Sakshi
Kathuria, Advocate, submitted that impugned order passed by
Respondent No.2-Director, RIMS contained in Memo No. 4522/RIMS
dated 13.11.2020 and the report of Scrutiny Committee dated
26.10.2018, wherein candidature of Petitioner was rejected on the ground
that Petitioner does not possess requisite teaching experience in
concerned department, is completely illegal and contrary to the
guidelines issued by Dental Council of India. While referring to the letter
th
of Dental Council of India dated 13 July, 2018 , it was submitted that
Dental Council of India, in its reply to R.T.I. application of Petitioner,
specifically stated that there is no bar on a dental faculty working in a
Medical College to join a Dental College or to count his/her past service
rendered in a Medical College to become undergraduate Dental faculty.
However, in the said letter it was further clarified that in order to become
7

2026:JHHC:28253

Post Graduate faculty at a Dental College, experience of U.G. student at
a Dental College for a minimum period of three years is required.
24. Further, reference was given to similar Advertisement being
Advertisement No. 928 dated 06.03.2019 issued by Dental Institute of
Respondent-RIMS for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer, wherein
similar teaching experience of three years as Tutor/Senior Resident in
concerned subject was provided. Reference was given to Advertisement
No. 1067 dated 02.04.2020 wherein advertisement was issued for
appointment on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer by Dental
Institute of Respondent-RIMS and one person Dr. Harsh Priyank was
appointed who was also having experience of Sr. Resident in RIMS
Medical College. Further reference was given to the case of Dr. Virendra
Kumar Prajapati, who was earlier working only in Dental Department of
RIMS Medical College, and, at present working as Professor and Head of
Department of Oral Surgery in Dental Institute of Respondent RIMS. It
was submitted that said person was also having experience only in
Medical College of RIMS, but, upon creation of Dental Institute by
RIMS when all Dental Departments of RIMS were shifted under
Autonomous Institute i.e. Dental Institute of RIMS, said person was
appointed as Head of Department of Oral Surgery . It was further
submitted that while Petitioner was working as Sr. Resident in RIMS,
admittedly he discharged his duties in Dental Department and since MDS
qualification was in the subject ‘Periodontology and Oral
Implantolaogy’, Petitioner was working in said sub-department of Dental
Department of RIMS. It was submitted that under Dental Department,
there were 9 sub-departments of various subjects and person having
specialization in specified subject was required to perform his duty in
concerned sub-department where, admittedly, teaching experience was
obtained.
25. In view of above, it has been submitted that impugned order
passed by Respondent-RIMS is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Stand of the Respondent-RIMS
8

2026:JHHC:28253

26. Per contra , Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing for
Respondent-RIMS vehemently opposed the writ application and while
referring to his Counter Affidavit, submitted that RIMS framed ‘RIMS
Regulations, 2014’ which was notified on 08.09.2014 and under the said
Regulations, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer,
a person was required to have teaching experience of three years in
concerned subject.
27. It was submitted that although Petitioner was working in
Dental Department of Respondent-RIMS and was having teaching
experience of three years, but it cannot be said that he has teaching
experience in concerned subject i.e. ‘Periodontology and Oral
Implantolaogy’ , for which he applied under concerned advertisement.
While distinguishing the case of Dr. V.K. Prajapati, it was argued that
Dr. V.K. Prajapati was appointed prior to coming into force RIMS
Regulations, 2014 and after creation of Autonomous Institute i.e. Dental
Institute of RIMS , being Dental College, Dental Department of RIMS
stood transferred and became part of Dental Institute of RIMS and
services of Dr. V.K. Prajapati was also transferred under said
Autonomous Institute, who was already working in Dental Department
of RIMS. Thus, his case cannot be equated with that of Petitioner.
28. Mr. Singh further tried to distinguish the case of Dr. Harsh
Priyank by referring to Annexure H/3 of Counter Affidavit, but on
specific question being put by this Court as to how his experience as Sr.
Resident in Dental Department of RIMS was counted as teaching
experience in concerned subject pursuant to subsequent Advertisement
issued by Respondent-RIMS, (reference may be made to Para-18 of the
Counter Affidavit), it was submitted that there has been some
departure/deviation from the provisions contained in RIMS Regulations,
2014, but said departure by itself cannot entitle the Petitioner to seek
appointment in RIMS especially when Petitioner was not having teaching
experience in concerned subject.
Stand of the Respondent No.4
9

2026:JHHC:28253

29. Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.4, supported the stand taken by Respondent-RIMS. In
addition, she argued that after Division Bench Judgment of this Court,
Respondent-RIMS re-casted the mark-sheet and reduced the marks of
Respondent No.4 by 8 marks by excluding the publication submitted by
Respondent No.4 after 30.11.2015. However, still Respondent No.4 was
found eligible for being appointed and, accordingly, Respondent No.4
was allowed to continue in service and now almost about 10 years have
elapsed since he joined his services.
30. It was argued that at this point of time, if Respondent No.4’s
services are disturbed, Respondent No.4 would suffer irreparable loss
and injury for no fault of his own as it is Respondent-RIMS who has
rejected the candidature of Writ Petitioner.
31. I have considered rival submissions made across the bar and
carefully perused the terms of the Advertisement, the Judgment dated
th
24 September, 2018 rendered by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 582
of 2017 and all relevant records.
32. From the detailed facts narrated hereinabove, it is an
undisputed fact that Petitioner has teaching experience of three years as
Sr. Resident in Dental Department of Respondent-RIMS. It is further an
undisputed fact that it is the same Dental Department of Respondent-
RIMS, which stood subsequently transferred and merged with
Autonomous Institute being Dental Institute of RIMS. As per
communication of Dental Council of India, contained in Letter No. 3671
th
dated 13 July, 2018, teaching experience obtained in a Medical College
can be counted to become a Dental faculty of Undergraduate level, but in
order to become a post-graduate faculty at Dental College, teaching and
training experience to Undergraduate students only at a Dental College
can be counted.
In other words, even if a person has not worked in a
specialized Dental College but has worked and is having teaching
experience in a Medical College having Dental Department, his/her
10

2026:JHHC:28253

teaching experience can be counted for being appointed as a faculty in
Dental College of ‘Undergraduate level”.
33. Admittedly, the post advertised of Assistant Professor/Lecturer
was for teaching to students of Undergraduate level in Dental Institute of
RIMS. Thus, as per DCI guidelines, teaching experience of Petitioner in
RIMS Medical College should have been validly counted for his
appointment in Dental College i.e. Autonomous Dental Institute of RIMS .
34. Now, the only question which remains to be answered is
whether teaching experience of the Petitioner in RIMS Medical College
under Dental Department can be said to be of concerned subject. It is an
admitted fact that under Dental Department of Respondent-RIMS, there
were 12 separate sub-departments and persons posted as Sr. Resident in
RIMS Dental Department were required to impart teaching only in
concerned subject in which they were specializing.
It is further not in dispute that Dental Department of RIMS
stood converted/merged into an Autonomous Dental College i.e. Dental
Institute of RIMS, and, Dental Department of RIMS ceased to exist.
35. It is also not in dispute that in present Dental College, there is
a Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology for which
advertisements were issued for appointment on the post of
Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
Petitioner has completed his B.D.S. course from MCODS,
Mangalore (Manipal University) and Manipal University is a premier
Institute for both B.D.S. and M.D.S. courses. Further, Petitioner has
completed his M.D.S. course in Periodontology which includes Oral
Implantology .
Thus, when Petitioner was working as Sr. Resident, RIMS, he
was already possessing the Degree of M.D.S. in concerned subject and as
a Resident Teacher he was required to impart education in concerned
subject apart from performing other general duties.
36. Respondent-RIMS, in its Counter Affidavit has specifically
admitted that services of Dr. V.K. Prajapati, who was appointed in
11

2026:JHHC:28253

Dental Wing of RIMS, stood transferred in Dental Institute of RIMS
upon creation of Autonomous Institute and it has been further admitted
that said transfer was necessary as Dental Department of RIMS, on
account of creation of Autonomous Institute i.e. Dental Institute of RIMS ,
was closed.
It has been specifically pleaded in Counter Affidavit that on
account of closure of Dental Department of RIMS, all sanctioned and
vacant posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in Dental
Department of RIMS were transferred and absorbed in Dental Institute.
37. It is correct that the case of Petitioner cannot be compared with
that of Dr. V.K. Prajapati, but at the same time, this Court cannot lose
sight of the fact that Petitioner was working as Senior Resident in
Dentistry Department of RIMS which was subsequently closed and all its
employees were transferred to Dental Institute of RIMS being an
Autonomous Body.
38. While Petitioner was performing his duties as Senior Resident
in RIMS under Dentistry Department , admittedly, Petitioner discharged
his duties in concerned subject as he was having specialization in
concerned subject only. As per Dental Council of India guidelines,
teaching experience in a Medical College having Dental Department can
be counted for appointment as faculty for teaching to Undergraduate
faculty i.e. B.D.S. course.
It would be travesty of justice, if Petitioner, who was working
under Respondent-RIMS as Senior Resident/Tutor in its Dentistry
Department is not allowed to count his teaching experience, merely
because, at the relevant time, RIMS was only having a Dental
Department and was not having a separate Dental College.
39. Almost identical issue came up for consideration before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dr. M.C. Gupta and Ors.
Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta and ors’., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339 . In
the said case, High Court of Allahabad has quashed selection of two
candidates on the post of Professor in Medicines on the ground that said
12

2026:JHHC:28253

persons were not having teaching experience of five years in subject
‘Medicines’ which was required under the Regulations/Advertisement.
Aforesaid persons approached Hon’ble Supreme Court and it
was their case that they were having Degree of M.D. Cardiology, which
is under the Department of Medicines, and were having requisite
teaching experience in the specialized subject and, thus, contended that
decision of High Court was incorrect.
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said Judgment, held that,
normally, the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion
expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala-fide against
them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the
decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the
problems they face than the courts.
The twilight zone of Court’s interference in appointment to
posts requiring technical experience should ordinarily be left on
decisions of the experts. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce rule of law,
may interfere in a writ petition under Article 226 when expert’s decisions
are, on the face of it, perverse and contrary to Regulations and/or
Advertisement itself.
In the aforesaid background, Hon’ble Supreme Court
examined the issue ‘whether teaching /research experience in
Cardiology would satisfy the experience qualification for the post of
Professor in Medicines’ . In Para-10 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it was held as under:-
“10. The controversy centres round the connotation of the expression
‘medicine’. Does it include cardiology or is cardiology a separate branch?
Section 2(f) of the Act defines medicine to mean modern scientific medicine
in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include
veterinary medicine and surgery. This is too wide a definition to assist us in
the problem posed for the decision of the Court. In the world of medical
science there are general subjects and specialties. Medicine and surgery
are general subjects. To wit, cardiology is a speciality in medicine and
orthopaedics is a speciality in surgery. Even the regulation from page 8
onwards bears the heading ‘Specialist Branches under Medicine and
Surgery’. Cardiology finds its place as a specialist branch under medicine.
The relevant regulation requires teaching/research experience in medicine.
Contention is, if any one who has teaching/research experience in
13

2026:JHHC:28253

cadiology, could he be said to have such experience in medicine? In this
context, we must recall Regulation 4 which provides that 40% of the time
spent in recognized research after obtaining the requisite post-graduate
qualification shall be counted towards teaching experience in the same or
allied subject provided that 50% of the teaching experience shall be the
regular teaching experience. If research in allied subject can be taken to
satisfy the requisite experience, teaching experience shall be the regular
teach experience. If research in allied subject can be taken to satisfy the
requisite experience, teaching experience in a speciality under the general
head could not be put on an inferior footing. Undoubtedly, if the post is in a
specialist department, the requisite teaching/research experience will have
to be the speciality. To illustrate, if one were to qualify for being appointed
as Professor/ Associate Professor of Cardiology, his teaching experience
must be in cardiology though his research experience could as well be in
cardiology or allied subject. A person having such experience in the
general subject medicine cannot qualify for the speciality. That is what
distinguishes the speciality from the general subject. This becomes clear
from the fact that in a number of hospitals there may not be posts in
specialist branches and someone working in the general department may
be assigned to do the work of specialist branches. If a particular hospital
has not got cardiology as a specialist branch, a Reader or Assistant
Professor in the Department of Medicine may be required to look after
cardiology cases and teaching of cardiology as a subject. In that event he
is certainly a Reader/Assistant Professor in Medicine teaching one of the
subjects, viz., cardiology which again forms part of the general curriculum
of the subject of medicine. Therefore, it is not proper to divorce a specialist
branch subject from the general subject. It cannot be seriously contended
that medicine does not include cardiology. To be qualified for the specialist
branch of cardiology, the minimum academic qualification is M.D.
(Medicine). This would clearly show that after acquiring the general
qualification one can take the specialist branch. If any other approach is
adopted it would work to the disadvantage of the person who while being
posted in the Department of Medicine, is asked to teach a subject which is
necessary for being taught for qualifying for M.D. but which can be styled
as speciality. He would simultaneously be denied the teaching experience
in the subject of medicine. An extreme argument was urged that in adopting
this approach it may be that somebody may be working in different
specialist branches such as neurology, gastroenterology, psychiatry, etc.
and each one would qualify for being appointed as Professor of Medicine
without having even a tickle or experience on the subject of general
medicine. This wild apprehension need not deter us because it should be
first remembered that any one going into specialist branch under medicine
has to be M.D. (Medicine). Thereafter, if he wants to become a professor in
the specialist branch such as cardiology, the academic qualification
required is to hold a degree of D.M. in the specialist branch. This becomes
clear from a perusal of the regulations. It is not necessary, therefore, to go
into the dictionary meaning of the expression ‘medicine’ to determine
whether it includes cardiology. The Medical Council of India, a body
composed of experts have in the regulations clearly manifested the
approach when they said that cardiology is a specialist branch under
medicine. Ipso facto, medicine includes cardiology. It was not disputed that
one qualifying for M.D. (Medicine) has to learn the subject of cardiology.
And it must be remembered that the four experts aiding and advising the
commission have considered teaching experience in cardiology as teaching
experience in medicine. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the Commission
in terms states that medicine is a wide and general subject and includes
14

2026:JHHC:28253

cardiology whereas for the post of Professor of Cardiology a further two
years’ special training in cardiology of D.M. in cardiology after M.D. in
medicine has been laid down as a requisite qualification by the Medical
Council. It is further stated that teaching experience in cardiology will
make the person eligible for the post of Professor of Medicine. That was
the view of the experts who assisted the Commission. Incidentally it may be
mentioned that Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2
and 3 took serious exception to giving any weight to the counter-affidavit
because it has not been sworn to by any expert aiding or advising the
Commission or by any officer or Member of the Commission but by an
Upper Division Assistant whose source of knowledge is the legal advice
tendered to him. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit the deponent says that he
has been deputed by the Commission to file the counter-affidavit on their
behalf and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to in the
affidavit. It is our sad experience that responsible authorities avoid filing
affidavits in courts when it behoves them to assist the court and facilitate
the decision of the questions brought before the court but on this account
alone we would not wholly ignore the counter-affidavit.

40. A bare perusal of aforesaid decision would show that if a
person is having specialist Degree and is imparting teaching in specialist
Department, requisite teaching/research experience will have to be in the
said specialty. In the present case, Petitioner’s M.D.S. degree was in
concerned subject and, admittedly, he was teaching in Respondent-RIMS
in Dental Department. Thus, teaching/ research experience of Petitioner
would be counted in concerned subject i.e. in specialty subject.
41. Apart from above, Petitioner specifically gave illustration of
the cases of Dr. Ruchi Mitra, Dr. Rachna Kaushik and Dr. Harsh Priyank
and stated that teaching experience of aforesaid persons as Senior
Resident/Tutor in Dental Department of RIMS was counted as valid
teaching experience in concerned subject, under similar advertisement
issued subsequently. Respondent-RIMS in its Counter Affidavit has not
given any specific reply to the aforesaid averments of Writ Petitioner
and, in Paras 17 and 18 of the Counter Affidavit dated 03.12.2021,
following reply has been given:-
That so far as the case of experience of Dr. Ruchi Mitra, Dr. Rachna
“17.
Kaushik and Dr. Harsh Priyank are concerned, their status vis-à-vis
the petitioner is entirely different.
18. That assuming (though not admitting) that there has been some
departure deviation from the provisions contained in RIMS
Regulations, 2014 and terms and conditions of Advertisement in any
particular case(s) the Petitioner cannot take advantage of that on the
ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. It is hit by the doctrine of negative equality.
15

2026:JHHC:28253

It is a settled proposition of law that there is no equality in
illegality. This is notwithstanding the fact that there has been no such
deviation or departure from relevant statutory provisions specially the
essential requirement of experience in any case after RIMS
Regulations, 2014 came into force.”

42. I have carefully perused Annexure-H series, and, in Annexure-
H series, so far as Dr. Ruchi Mitra is concerned, it has been stated that
she has been provisionally selected in Advertisement No. 928 dated
06.03.2019 and was given chance to prove her eligibility, but was not
later allowed to appear for interview as she was not found eligible.
Along with aforesaid comment, an Annexure being Annexure-03 Page
No. 08-12, is said to have been enclosed, but said document has not been
filed by Respondent-RIMS along with its Counter Affidavit.
43. Petitioner in his Rejoinder Affidavit has annexed the
information supplied under Right to Information Act regarding Dr.
Ruchi Mitra and from bare perusal of said document, it would be evident
that Dr. Ruchi Mitra was permitted to appear in interview and even
marks were allotted to her for both, teaching experience and interview,
and, she was declared as wait-list candidate in respect of Advertisement
No. 928 dated 06.03.2019.
44. So far as Dr. Rachna Kaushik is concerned, in Annexure-H
series, it is noted that she was only having experience in Dental
Department of Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur. However,
despite stating aforesaid fact, it has been mentioned that her marks can,
at best, be reduced by 4 points for having teaching experience of two
years, but same has not been done as there was no direction against her
by High Court.
45. A careful perusal of aforesaid documents would clearly reveal
that in respect of Dr. Rachna Kaushik, Respondent-RIMS itself treated
her teaching experience in Dental Department of Medical College to be a
valid criterion for her appointment.
46. So far as Dr. Harsh Priyank is concerned, in Annexure-H
series, it has been mentioned that Dr. Harsh Priyank’s teaching
experience as Senior Resident/Tutor of RIMS was not considered, but
16

2026:JHHC:28253

since Dr. Harsh Priyank produced seven years’ teaching experience in
recognized Dental College, i.e. Hazaribagh College of Dental Science &
Hospital, Hazaribagh, he was considered eligible for recruitment. Along
with Annexure-H series, a document being Annexure H/3 was annexed,
which shows that Dr. Harsh Priyank was only working as Reader and,
subsequently, as Professor in Hazaribagh College of Dental Science and
Hospital, and, not as a Tutor/Senior Resident in aforesaid College.
Petitioner specifically pleaded that experience of Dr. Harsh Priyank for
appointment was considered as that of Senior Resident in Dental
Department of RIMS and not of Hazaribagh Dental College.
47. It is relevant to note here that Respondent-RIMS, in earlier
round of litigation, being W.P.(S) No. 293 of 2017 and also in L.P.A. No.
582 of 2017 , never raised any written objection regarding eligibility of
Petitioner to participate in advertisement process. Only oral submissions
were made during the course of hearing before the Division Bench, and,
the Division Bench, vide Para-10 of its judgment, held as under:-
“10. ….. We have not made any comment on the qualification of
the appellant as the authorities themselves had passed him
on that score. In the event there is any mistake, as suggested
by Dr. Singh, it would be for the authorities to take steps in
accordance with law…”

48. Respondent-RIMS, on the strength of above-said observation,
passed a unilateral order declaring the Petitioner as ineligible. This
clearly reflects the manner in which Respondent-RIMS has proceeded
against Petitioner and it appears to this Court that Respondent-RIMS
acted with malice in law against the Petitioner as Petitioner has
questioned the authority of Respondent-RIMS.
49. In view of above cumulative facts, this Court has no hesitation
rd
to hold that impugned order passed by the 3 Respondent-RIMS,
contained in Memo No. 4522/RIMS dated 13.11.2020, by which
candidature of Petitioner in respect of Advertisement No. 7581 dated
07.11.2015 was rejected, is illegal and arbitrary and, accordingly, the
same is quashed.
17

2026:JHHC:28253

50. However, the question further arises as to whether
appointment of Respondent No.4, who has been appointed pursuant to
aforesaid advertisement, is required to be annulled and direction be
issued for appointment of Petitioner in place of Respondent No.4, or the
appointment of Respondent No.4 is required to be protected.
51. This Court is of the considered opinion that Respondent No.4
participated pursuant to advertisement process and even after the
Judgment and order passed by the Division Bench, Respondent-RIMS
has allowed Respondent No.4 to continue on the post by declaring the
candidature of Petitioner as ineligible. Respondent No. 4 has nothing to
do with the decision of Respondent-RIMS as he was not privy to such
decision.
Under the said circumstances, if, at this stage, appointment of
Respondent No.4 is set aside by this Court due to illegality committed by
Respondent-RIMS, Respondent No.4 would suffer irreparable loss and
injury as he has already worked for about ten years and he might have
become overage for seeking fresh appointment at any place.
52. Thus, in order to balance equalities between Writ Petitioner
and Respondent No.4, this Court directs that Petitioner shall be
appointed by Respondent-RIMS in Dental Institute of RIMS on the post
of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology
with effect from the date when Respondent No.4 was appointed on the
said post, with all consequential benefits including seniority, revision of
pay-scale and promotion, if any, granted to Respondent No.4.
However, Writ Petitioner would not be entitled for any arrear
of salary or back wages as it is nowhere specifically pleaded by Writ
Petitioner that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere.
53. Respondent-RIMS should create a post of Lecturer and
consequential promotional post in Dental Institute of RIMS, if no post, at
present, is lying vacant with Respondent-RIMS.
Aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this Order.
18

2026:JHHC:28253

54. However, it is made clear that this Court is not inclined to
quash/set aside the appointment of Respondent No.4 and it is ordered
that he will be allowed to continue on his post.
55. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the
aforesaid terms. Pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of and there
shall be no order as to costs.

(Deepak Roshan, J)
Dated: 14/09/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R.

Uploaded on
18.09.2026


19