S M GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution certain appointments of Professors and Readers in Surgery made by the Government (vide their order dated 21-2-69 Annexure 13) under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Special Selection Rules, 1967 are impugned.

(2.) THE petitioner Dr. S. M. Gupta had entered the service of the State of Rajasthan in 1955 as CAS Class I. He was appointed as a Junior Specialist in 1962 and appointed to officiate as Lecturer in Surgery on 28-2-67. He came to be promoted as Officiating Reader in Surgery on 23 8 67. Five posts of Professors, 11 posts of Readers and 17 posts of Lecturers were advertised for being filled in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Special Selection Rules, 1967, hereinafter to be referred as the "1967 Rules". He applied for the post of a Professor in accordance with the 1967 Rules. Like others he was called for interview by the Special Recruitment Board constituted under the 1967 Rules. He appeared before the Board and found that out of 5 members of the Board only 4 were present and Dr. S. C. Mehta, the Director of Medical and Health Services, was not present. As a result of the assessment said to have been made by the Board and on the basis of the recommendations made by it the Government made the appointments vide Ex. 13.

(3.) SHRI G. M. Lodha, learned counsel for the respondent, however, argued that the provision was only directory. He relied on certain observations made in Atma Singh vs. State 1 ). In that case the learned Judges were dealing with the question of preparation of electoral rolls under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The learned Judges quoted a passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 1lth Ed. page 369, wherein it was observed that "where the prescriptions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and where the invalidation of acts done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, yet not promote the essential aims of the legislature, such prescriptions seem to be generally understood as mere instructions for the guidance of those on whom the duty is imposed or in other words, as directory only. "