STATE OF BIHAR Vs. ASIS KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We may as well begin this judgment with a prefatory sociological observation. The meaning of two common expressions 'teaching experience' and 'teaching institution' incarnated into a legal frame and subjected to forensic dissection and examination during three years of litigation makes up this bitter contest between a talented orthopaedic surgeon and two like rivals trying to break each other's academic bones to gain the post of Lecturer in Orthopaedics, one in each of two government medical colleges in Bihar. Our judicial bone-setting operation cannot undo the social fracture inflicted by this long expensive bout in court. Research and reform of the system is needed if the therapeutic value of law is to last and be not lost.

(2.) The two appeals before us, by special leave, unfold a musical-chair type situation where three candidates ran for two posts in the Government-run Patna and Dharbanga Medical Colleges. Inevitably one lost or, rather, was screened as ineligible, his British work and experience notwithstanding, and chagrined by his discomfiture, he, Dr. Mukherjee, challenged the whole selection by a writ petition on the short and ambitious ground that he was not only qualified but superior, with his bright British career, to the other two India-trained hands, Dr. Ram and Dr. Jamuar, but was illegally rejected as unqualified.

(3.) The main issue that arises and was argued before us by the State's counsel, supported by Shri Garg for the other candidates, is that the High Court, which allowed the writ petition, grievously erred in probing improperly into the concerned cabinet papers and upsetting government's orders of appointment, upholding the petitioner's eligibility and directing a reconsideration of the claims of all the contenders on certain untenable finding of fact and indefensible interpretation of law. Did the petitioner possess the prescribed qualifications for the post If he did, the High Court was right in directing the appointing authority to consider his claims. and if did not government rightly ignored his credentials for the post as an unqualified hand, despite his impressive British testimonials and good showing otherwise. Such is the compass of the dispute which is basically a technical question but, under our system, has to be decided by courts unaided by expert advice.