Teaching experience in a medical college dental department counts toward undergraduate dental faculty eligibility in the concerned specialty.

RIMS issued Advertisement No. 7581 dated 7 November 2015 for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, prescribing an MDS in the concerned subject with three years’ teaching experience as Tutor/Senior Resident in the concerned subject; experience was to be reckoned as on 30 November 2015.

The petitioner, who possessed an MDS in Periodontology and had served for three years as a Senior Resident in the Dental Department of RIMS, applied and appeared for interview.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Respondent No. 4, was initially selected. The petitioner challenged the award of eight marks to Respondent No. 4 for a publication made after the prescribed cut-off date. In LPA No. 582 of 2017, the Division Bench directed RIMS to recast the score sheets after excluding the post-cut-off publication and to appoint the petitioner if he thereby secured higher marks.

Upon recasting, Respondent No. 4’s marks fell from 70.85 to 62.85, whereas the petitioner had secured 64.05 marks.

RIMS nevertheless rejected the petitioner’s candidature by Memo No. 4522/RIMS dated 13 November 2020, holding that his experience as Senior Resident in the RIMS Dental Department was not teaching experience in the concerned subject of Periodontology and Oral Implantology.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions in Advertisement No. 7581, particularly the requirement of an MDS in the concerned subject with three years’ teaching experience as Tutor/Senior Resident in that subject.

It relied on the Dental Council of India’s clarification that teaching experience acquired in the Dental Department of a Medical College may be counted for appointment as undergraduate dental faculty, although postgraduate dental-faculty experience requires teaching and training experience in a Dental College.

The Court also applied the principle that specialist experience may constitute experience in the broader or corresponding subject where the candidate possesses the relevant specialist qualification and taught in that specialist field.

For this proposition, it relied on Dr. M.C. Gupta v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, (1979) 2 SCC 339, while recognising that courts ordinarily defer to expert opinions in academic matters but may intervene where the decision is perverse or contrary to the governing regulations or advertisement.

The Court further applied Article 226 principles against arbitrary administrative action and held that the doctrine of “negative equality” could not justify an otherwise arbitrary denial of eligibility.

The Court found that the petitioner had three years’ experience as a Senior Resident in RIMS’s Dental Department and that this department was subsequently transferred and merged into the autonomous Dental Institute of RIMS.

Since the advertised post involved teaching undergraduate dental students, the DCI clarification permitted the petitioner’s prior teaching experience in the Dental Department of a Medical College to be counted.

The Court further held that the petitioner possessed an MDS in Periodontology, which included Oral Implantology, and that Senior Residents in the Dental Department were required to teach in the subject in which they specialised. His experience therefore satisfied the requirement of teaching experience in the concerned subject.

The Court also noted that RIMS had not raised the petitioner’s eligibility as a written objection during the earlier litigation concerning the improper award of marks. The Division Bench had directed RIMS to act in accordance with law only if an actual eligibility defect was found; it had not authorised RIMS to unilaterally reject the petitioner on an untenable interpretation of the experience requirement.

RIMS’s inconsistent treatment of similarly situated candidates and its failure to provide a convincing explanation for its distinction between the petitioner and other dental faculty candidates reinforced the finding of arbitrariness and malice in law.

Although the petitioner became the higher-scoring eligible candidate after deduction of Respondent No. 4’s impermissible marks, the Court declined to disturb Respondent No. 4’s appointment because he had participated without apparent fault, had continued in service for approximately ten years, and would suffer serious prejudice from termination at that stage.

The Court therefore balanced the equities by protecting Respondent No. 4’s appointment while directing the creation of an additional post for the petitioner.

Memo No. 4522/RIMS dated 13 November 2020 and the consequential rejection of the petitioner were quashed.

RIMS was directed to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology with effect from the date of Respondent No. 4’s appointment, together with consequential seniority, pay-scale revision and promotional benefits, but without arrears of salary or back wages.

If necessary, RIMS was directed to create the post of Lecturer and consequential promotional post within eight weeks.

Respondent No. 4’s appointment was not quashed, and he was permitted to continue in service.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.