Teaching experience in recognised foreign institutions may qualify for medical recruitment when regulations are read purposively and fairly.

Undefined eligibility terms in a medical recruitment scheme must be construed in light of the Act's purpose and regulatory context, so teaching experience was not confined to Indian institutions and could include recognised foreign teaching institutions. Service as a Registrar could also qualify where the duties involved teaching functions, and academic certificates were entitled to weight absent clear reason to doubt them. A candidate who met the regulatory standard was entitled to fair consideration; exclusion without correct application of the rules was illegal. Judicial review could set aside that illegality and require fresh consideration, while leaving the final appointment decision to the authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "teaching experience" in a "teaching institution" under the Medical Council regulations included experience gained in recognised foreign teaching institutions and whether service as a Registrar could amount to such teaching experience. (ii) Whether the State Government lawfully excluded the candidate from consideration and whether its appointment decision could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "teaching experience" in a "teaching institution" under the Medical Council regulations included experience gained in recognised foreign teaching institutions and whether service as a Registrar could amount to such teaching experience.

Analysis: The expressions were not defined in the statute or regulations and had to be construed in their natural sense, with regard to the statutory scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The regulatory context did not confine qualifying teaching experience to institutions in India only. Institutions abroad could be treated as acceptable where they answered the statutory standard and were linked with, or recognised by, institutions within the framework of the Act. The Court also accepted that a Registrar's duties could include teaching functions, and that certificates from responsible academic authorities could be relied upon unless there were clear reasons to doubt them.

Conclusion: Foreign teaching experience was not excluded as a matter of law, and the candidate's service as Registrar could qualify if it involved teaching functions in a recognised teaching institution.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government lawfully excluded the candidate from consideration and whether its appointment decision could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: An eligible candidate had to be fairly considered under the constitutional guarantees of equality and opportunity. If the Government screened out a candidate without applying the governing regulations correctly, the exclusion was illegal. While the appointing authority retained the power to make the final choice, that power had to be exercised on relevant considerations and after proper assessment of eligibility. Judicial review could correct illegality, but not usurp the power of appointment; the proper course was to require reconsideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The State's exclusion of the candidate from consideration was unsustainable, and the appointment process had to be reconsidered de novo under the correct legal criteria.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the challenged appointments were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the two lecturer posts in accordance with the governing regulations and constitutional standards.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a statutory recruitment scheme, undefined eligibility expressions must be construed in light of the Act's purpose and scheme, foreign teaching institutions are not automatically excluded if they satisfy that standard, and an eligible candidate cannot be denied fair consideration in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

---