Supreme Court rules in favor of lecturer applicant, directs Commission to reconsider.

The Supreme Court found that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had acted illegally in rejecting the appellant's application for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine. The Court determined that the appellant met all eligibility criteria, including possessing a recognized postgraduate degree and the required experience in Medico-legal work. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and directed the Commission to consider the appellant as a fully qualified candidate. Costs were awarded to the appellant from the respondents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's rejection of the appellant's application for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.
2. Eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.
3. Recognition of the appellant's postgraduate degree from the University of Bihar.
4. Appellant's experience in Medico-legal work.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's rejection of the appellant's application for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine:

The appellant challenged the legality of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's action in issuing a communication on July 21, 1973, stating that the appellant was not eligible for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine due to a lack of necessary academic qualifications. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Commission had acted illegally. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order and dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the Commission had indeed acted illegally by excluding the appellant from consideration based on an erroneous interpretation of the qualifications required.

2. Eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine:

Clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances prescribes the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, which include:

1. A basic University Degree or equivalent qualification entered in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
2. Registration under the State/Central Medical Registration Act.
3. Post-graduate qualification in the concerned subject.
4. Two years' experience of Medico-legal work.

The appellant possessed an M.B.B.S. degree from the University of Rajasthan and was duly registered under the Medical Registration Act. The Supreme Court found that the appellant met all the prescribed qualifications, including the postgraduate qualification and the required experience.

3. Recognition of the appellant's postgraduate degree from the University of Bihar:

The appellant held an M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, which is included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, as a recognized degree. The Supreme Court emphasized that a postgraduate medical degree awarded by a statutory Indian University and recognized by the Indian Medical Council must be accepted as valid throughout the country. The Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in requiring specific recognition of the appellant's degree by the University of Rajasthan, especially since the University of Rajasthan did not conduct postgraduate examinations in Forensic Medicine.

4. Appellant's experience in Medico-legal work:

The respondents contended that the appellant did not satisfy the requirement of two years' Medico-legal work experience. However, the Supreme Court found this contention to be without merit. The appellant had provided certificates from the Principal and Heads of Departments of Forensic Medicine in the concerned Medical Colleges, which confirmed that he had more than two years of Medico-legal work experience prior to the last date for receipt of applications.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was fully qualified for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and that the Commission had acted illegally in excluding him from consideration. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, with the modification that the Commission should treat the appellant as a fully qualified candidate. The appellant was awarded costs throughout from respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares.

---