IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.439 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. H.L. VISHWANATH S/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMANACHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PRINCIPAL, PROFESSOR AND HOD OF BIOCHEMISTRY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-02 R/O: SAVI, No.119, 1ST MAIN MLA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND DEAN 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION BENGALURU-560 001 - 2 3 . THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009 4 . DR. DEEPAK SHIVANNA S/O A.C. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PROFESSOR ORTHOPAEDICS BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE BENGALURU R/O SAMPADA, No.82, 3RD MAIN 4TH A CROSS, BTM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE BENGALURU-560 068 5 . DR. H.V. MANOJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DIRECTOR CUM DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF ORTHOPAEDICS SRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE MEDICAL COLLEGE SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 6 . DR. P.K. DEVADAS DEPT. OF FOREINSIC MEDICINE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 7 . DR. H.S. SATISH DEPT. OF ENT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEACH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 8 . DR. T.K. RAMESH DEPT OF OPTHALMOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 3 9 . DR. C. NAGARAJ DEPT. OF PULMONARY MEDICINE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 10 . DR. R.S. RAGHAVENDRA RAO DEPT. OF ANAESTHESIA BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 11 . DR. A. SACHIDANANDA DEPT. OF DERMATOLOGY BANALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 12 . DR. C.R. JAYANTHI DEPT. OF PHARMACOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 13 . DR. K.S. MANJUNATH DEPT. OF ORTHOPAEDICS BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 14 . DR. K. RAMESH KRISHNA DEPT. OF ORTHOPAEDICS BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 4 15 . DR. MALINI K.V. DEPT. OF OBSTERIC AND GYNAECOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 16 . DR. ASHA D. BENAKAPPA DEPT. OF PAEDICTRIC BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 17 . DR. M. MAHESH BABU DEPT. OF ENT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 18 . DR. IQBAL AHMED DEPT. OF RADIOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 19 . DR. B.L. SUJATHA DEPT. OF OPTHALMOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 20 . DR. H. CHANDRASHEKAR DEPT. OF PSYCHIATRY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 5 21 . DR. K. SESHAGIRI RAO DEP OF SURGERY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 22 . DR. T.S. RANGANATH DEPT. OF PREVENTIVE AND SOCIAL MEDICINE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 23 . DR. SELVI THANGARAJ DEPT. OF PREVENTIVE AND SOCIAL MEDICINE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 24 . DR. C. SAVITHA DEPT. OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 25 . DR. GEETHA SHIVAMURTHY DEPT. OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 26 . DR. A. RAMALINGAIAH DEPT. OF ORTHOPAEDICS BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 6 27 . DR. K. RAVI DEPT. OF MEDICINE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 28 . DR. N.R. PRASHANTH DEPT. OF PSYCHIATRY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 29 . DR. B. VISHWANATH DEPT. OF ENT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 30 . DR. M.K. RAMESH DEPT. OF SURGERY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 31 . DR. HUDED SRIDEVI SANGANNA DEPT. OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 32 . DR. B.S. DAYANANDA DEPT. OF PATHOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 7 33 . DR. SIDDIQUE MUKMIL AHMED DEPT. OF PATHOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 34 . DR. M. NATARAJAN DEPT. OF PATHOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 35 . DR. A. GEETA DEPT. OF PHARMACOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 36 . DR. K.R. MAMATHA DEPT. OF PHARMACOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 37 . DR. R. SRILATHA DEPT. OF BLOOD BANK BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 38 . DR. KARUNA HARASUR DEPT. OF ANAESTHESIA BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 - 8 39 . DR. S. NARAYANA REDDY DEPT. OF PHARMACOLOGY BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 40 . DR. R. RAMACHANDRAIAH DEPT. OF ANAESTHESIA BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 41 . DR. S.S. NETHRA DEPT. OF ANAESTHESIA BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R. ROAD, FORT BENGALURU-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. C.H. DEVARAJ, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; V.C.O. DATED 05.07.2022, NOTICE TO R6 TO R13, R15 TO R21, R23, R25, R26, R33, R36 TO R39 & R41 ARE DISPENSED WITH; V.C.O. DATED 16.08.2022, NOTICE TO R5, R14, R22, R24, R27 TO R32, R34, R35 & R40 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a). SET-ASIDE THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.8306/2020 C/W W.P.No.14144/2018 AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 9 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The appellant herein was respondent No.3 in W.P.No.8306/2020 and respondent No.18 in W.P.No.14144/2018. W.P.No.8306/2020 was filed by respondent No.4 in this appeal, while W.P.No.14144/2018 was filed by respondent No.5. The first of the writ petitions was filed seeking to set aside the final combined seniority list of the professors dated 28.08.2019 issued by the Bengaluru Medical College and Research Institute ('BMCRI' for short) and the final combined seniority list of professors dated 22.02.2018, which were Annexure-A and Annexure-M respectively. The second writ petition was also filed to quash the final combined seniority list dated 22.02.2018. 2. We have heard Shri. Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Poonam Patil, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.4, - 10 Shri. M.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri. C.H. Devaraj, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. Though notice was duly served on respondent No.5, he has chosen not to appear. 3. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.8306/2020, had contended that he was selected as a Lecturer pursuant to the recruitment process conducted by the Karnataka Public Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'KPSC' for short) in 1998-99 and was placed at Sl.No.2 in the Department of Orthopedics, vide order dated 29.05.2000. He joined the State Government services on 31.05.2000 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 15.05.2007, Associate Professor on 25.11.2009 and Professor on 02.04.2016. Following the conversion of the Bangalore Medical College into an autonomous institution vide Government Order dated 26.08.2008, petitioner's services was absorbed with continuity of past service. Asserting his eligibility for consideration in the selection process for the post of Dean-cum-Director, the - 11 petitioner emphasized that seniority must be determined in accordance with Clause 21(2) of the Rules and Regulations of the Institution and that inter-se seniority among Professors should not be decided through a common seniority list. The date of initial appointment ought to be the determining criterion for computing merit and eligibility. 4. The appellant herein, impleaded as third respondent in W.P.No.8306/2020 had contended that he had reported for duty as a Lecturer on 29.05.2000 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 16.08.2004, followed by a promotion to the post of Professor on 20.08.2007. He further submitted that he had been serving as the Head of the Department of Biochemistry since 01.02.2008 based on his seniority. The appellant disputed the validity of the combined merit list relied upon by the petitioner, asserting that the alleged list at Annexure-B, was non-existent, invalid and appeared to be manipulated. It was further contended that no official gazette or certified copy of the said list existed, as confirmed by the RTI response dated 08.04.2021. The appellant herein - 12 maintained that petitioner’s tenure and contributions to the Institution could not serve as criteria for determining eligibility for an administrative post, which must be governed strictly by applying National Medical Council Regulations ('the NMC Regulations' for short), the Cadre & Recruitment Rules ('the C & R Rules' for short) of the first respondent and the Institutional Bye-laws. 5. The writ petitioner/respondent No.4 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. N.Ramachandra Rao, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 590, contending that initial entry into service and merit at the time of such entry should determine seniority. It was asserted that individuals promoted earlier in their respective specialities should not be accorded preference over those who were senior based on the merit list prepared at the time of selection. The petitioner, however, contended that Clause 21 governs inter-se seniority within a cadre and does not permit the grant of seniority from a date prior to entry into the cadre. It was further argued that academic - 13 qualifications and requisite experience should be reckoned only from the date of obtaining the Post-Graduate degree. 6. The learned Single Judge, after referring to Clause 21 of the Bye-laws of the Institute which provides for determination of seniority as well as the NMC Teachers Eligibility and Minimum Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022 and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandra Rao's case (supra), held that a combined seniority list for deciding the five senior most professors in the Institution is not provided for and that five senior most professors in each category are required to be considered for appointment. On a finding that the writ petitioners and the contesting respondents including the appellant herein were appointed as lecturers by an order dated 29.05.2000 and the writ petitioners were placed higher in the merit list when compared to the contesting respondents, the writ petitions were allowed in part declaring that the final combined seniority list dated 22.02.2018 and 28.08.2019 shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment to the - 14 administrative posts in the first respondent- Institution. Further, the Institute was directed to consider the five senior most professors in various specialities on the basis of the merit list furnished by the KPSC through the Government and on the basis of which, appointment orders were issued to the petitioners and the respondents. 7. Aggrieved by the common order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P. No.8306/2020 and W.P. No. 14144/2018, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. The appellant contends that Clause 21 of the Institutional Rules pertains only to the preparation of the seniority list for promotion within a cadre and does not override the specific eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable C & R Rules for the post of Dean-cum-Director. The selection, being governed by the principle of “seniority- cum-merit,” requires consideration of five senior-most willing Professors, ensuring compliance with prescribed qualifications and requisite experience. - 15 8. It is also contended that the reliance of the learned Single Judge on Bye-law 21(2) is misplaced, as the rule applies solely to determine inter-se merit among the candidates appointed simultaneously to a cadre. It does not govern situations where appointments occurred at different times or where Post-Graduate qualifications were acquired subsequent to initial appointments. The NMC Regulations, as contained in Annexure-R3I, clearly states that teaching experience is to be reckoned only after obtaining a Post- Graduate degree and after becoming an Assistant Professor. The direction of the learned Single Judge fails to acknowledge that initial appointments to the post of Lecturer were made from among individuals holding only MBBS/M.Sc., degrees and those who subsequently acquired the requisite qualifications and were promoted to the post of Assistant Professor cannot claim retrospective teaching experience for the purpose of seniority. Moreover, as the governing rules remain unchallenged, the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge militates against Annexure-R3II and is unsustainable. - 16 9. It is contended that the primary issue for consideration is whether the rules and regulations governing appointments at BMCRI contain any ambiguity warranting judicial intervention through a writ of mandamus when these rules remain unchallenged. The C & R Rules for the Teaching Cadre, particularly, for the post of Dean-cum-Director, explicitly outline the eligibility criteria. The academic qualifications mandate possession of a Post-Graduate medical degree from a recognized institution, along with a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience as a Professor/Associate Professor with at least five years as a Professor in a department. The rules further stipulate that selection is based on "seniority-cum-merit" among Professors within the same autonomous institution with only the five senior-most willing Professors being considered by the Governing Council. Accordingly, seniority must be reckoned within the cadre of Professors and candidates must meet the stipulated experience requirements, post- acquisition of their Post-Graduate qualification and subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. - 17 10. It is further contended that despite these explicit provisions, the learned Single Judge appears to have misapplied the principles established in Ramachandra Rao's case (supra), which dealt with promotions under the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services Rules. In that case, the Apex Court held that junior-most individuals securing accelerated promotions in specific specialties could not be considered senior for administrative posts. However, this principle was applied in a distinct statutory framework where recruitment occurred through promotion. In the instant case, however, selection is made from a panel of five senior-most Professors, rendering any alternative interpretation impermissible. The Apex Court has consistently maintained that rule-making authorities possess the requisite expertise to prescribe eligibility criteria and Courts cannot issue orders contrary to such statutory provisions. Therefore, the order under challenge directly contravenes the existing rules and Bye-laws. - 18 11. It is contended that additionally, the binding nature of the NMC Regulations, C & R Rules, and Bye-laws on BMCRI in making administrative appointments is well established. Moreover, the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramachandra Rao's case (supra), interpreting Rule 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 2 of the Special Rules for A.P. Medical and Health Services, 1982, cannot be imported into the present case, as appointments at BMCRI are governed strictly by its C & R Rules, Bye-laws, and the NMC Regulations. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on Ajit Singh and Others (II) v. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 that it is clear from Clause 21(2) of the Bye-laws which provides for seniority of the employees in each category shall be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the cadre in question. With the conversion of Bangalore Medical College - 19 into an autonomous institute, the teaching faculty was given an option to either be absorbed into the autonomous institute or continue in the Department of Medical Education. The Government of Karnataka, through its order dated 26.08.2008, sanctioned the absorption of teaching staff from the Medical Education Department into the autonomous institute with retrospective effect from the date of conversion. 14. It is also contended that the combined seniority list of Professors is created by treating all Lecturers/Assistant Professors as a common cadre. Notional promotion dates of Associate Professor and Professor are determined based on service length, regardless of subject- wise vacancies. Promotions are subject to the absence of disciplinary issues, criminal cases, or adverse performance reports. The original merit order from KPSC or the selecting authority is maintained as "mother seniority." This approach corrects imbalances caused by subject-wise variations in promotion timelines. It ensures fairness by neutralizing disparities due to vacancy timing differences. - 20 15. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co- operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and Others, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 50; • Dr. Basawaraj Revanasiddappa Guragol v. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary and Others, reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4555; • Aadamali Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9565; • Dr. Sunilkumar Biradar v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5209; and • Jagadish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine HP 4518; 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Institute contends that the selection for the post of Dean-cum-Director is to be made on the basis of the C & R Rules which are admittedly in existence. It is submitted that the NMC Regulations have absolutely no application in the instant case, since the vacancies had arisen in 2018, which - 21 are to be filled up in accordance with the Rules in force as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. It is further contended that in the absence of any challenge to the C & R Rules and the Bye-laws, the selection to the post of Dean-cum-Director is to be made on the basis of a combined seniority list of all professors in the Institute and by considering the inter-se seniority as among the five of the senior-most of such professors. 17. It is contended that the Rules provide for preparing a seniority list on the basis of the cadre-wise seniority and it is the five senior most professors on the basis of the cadre-wise seniority who have to be considered for selection to the post of Dean-cum-Director. It is submitted that it is only between the five senior most professors, reckoned on the basis of cadre-wise seniority that the question of vertical seniority needs to be considered. It is further contended that a reading of the Bye-laws would make it clear that only the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules 1977, Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1966, Karnataka Civil Services - 22 (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000 and the Karnataka Civil Service Rules are mutatis mutandis made applicable to the employees of the Institution. Bye-law 24(2) specifically provides that all other rules regulating the conditions of service of employees insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules shall mutatis mutandis apply. It is therefore contended that the Government Orders and the provisions of the Karnataka Medical Service (Teaching and Technical Personnel in Medical and Dental, Colleges) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2001, which are clearly in conflict with the Rules of Seniority as followed by the Institute are inapplicable. 18. It is further contended that even if all the arguments of the writ petitioners are accepted, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the five senior most Professors in various specialties on the basis of merit list furnished by the KPSC on the basis of which, appointment orders were issued by the KPSC to the post of Lecturers, was completely unwarranted and unsupported by any service rules or legal provisions. - 23 19. We have considered the contentions advanced and have given our anxious consideration to the C & R Rules, the Bye-laws, the NMC Regulations and the decisions relied on. We notice that the Bye-laws of the College as well as the C & R Rules which apply to the post in question were not under challenge in the writ petitions. Therefore, unless there is any repugnancy to the relevant NMC Regulations existing at the relevant time, the preparation of the seniority list as well as the selection to the administrative post in question have to be made in accordance with the Bye-laws and the Rules. Therefore, the only question which requires examination is, whether the seniority list prepared in accordance with the Bye-laws should have been interfered with. 20. The provision with regard to seniority under Clause 21(2) of the Bye-laws is as follows:- “21. Seniority.- The director cum Dean of the institute shall prepare and maintain a gradation list in respect of each of the categories of employees and publish the same on the 1st of January every year. - 24 2) The seniority of the employees in each category shall be determined by order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the cadre in question. It shall be subject wise in respect of teaching cadres In respect of non-teaching staff, cadre wise seniority list shall be prepared and published." 21. The method of appointment to the post of Dean- cum-Director is provided in the C & R Rules, which provides as under:- ೇರುವ ಾ ಒದಸಾದ ಾ Provide basis and guidelines/rules followed the in considering the date of becoming professor as criteria for preparing this vertical seniority list. There is no guidelines/ rules for preparing the vertical seniority list of professors cadre. For appointment of Director cum Dean and Medical Superitendents a minimum of 5 years service in the cadre of Professors is prescribed in the C&R rules. Hence the date of promotion as professor is considered for preparing the vertical seniority list 22. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the question was specifically whether the Rules provided for maintenance of separate speciality-wise seniority lists. The Rules which were - 25 extracted by the Apex Court specifically provided for appointment to the post of Additional Director and equivalent posts by promotion from among the holders of the post of professors with not less than three years of service, of which, at least two years shall be in one of the said Categories as on 1st January, or 1st July of the year in which panel is prepared. The Rules with regard to seniority provided that there shall be separate units and that Unit-II, Class-I, Category-II would include professors (clinical and non-clinical). Rule 33(a) of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules provided that seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service. 23. The Apex Court held that the post of Deputy Civil Surgeon is a part of the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons and not a cadre post. The posts were found to be distributed in all three branches i.e., Teaching cadre, Non- Teaching cadre and Laboratories. It was in those circumstances that the Apex Court held that since the Rules - 26 do not expressly exclude the service in Class-II cadre for preparing a panel for consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Director, it would be unreasonable and unjust to exclude the service and overlook the vertical seniority in the substantive cadre to which, the Doctors were selected by the Public Service Commission. The Apex Court further held that if promotions are allowed on the basis of the respective specialities and the availability of promotional vacancies in such specialties, a junior with relatively less important speciality may get a quick promotion and become senior in the next cadre. 24. However, the Rules in question in the instant case are noticeably different. The Rules provide for the preparation of seniority list in each category by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the cadre in question. "The cadre in question" in the instant case is admittedly the cadre of professors. The qualification and method of appointment to the post of Dean-cum- Director specifically provides as follows:- - 27 Sl. No. Post Scale of Pay Academic Qualification Experience 1 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2 Subsequent Dean cum Director Rs.37400- 67000 with AGP of Rs.10000 Should possess the recognized Post Graduate medical qualification and other academic qualification from a recognized medical institution with a minimum of 10 years teaching experience as Professor/ Associate Professor / Reader in a Medical College / Institution, out of which at least 05 years should be as Professor in a Department. 1. Candidates for the said post shall be selected based on seniority cum merit from amongst the teachers in the same autonomous institution. 2. 5 senior most willing Professors as per the cadre wise seniority list of professors shall be considered by the Governing Council for the said appointment. 3. Candidates shall have administrative experience either as Medical Superintendent or as Head of the Department or as Professor at least for 05 years. 4. Candidates shall satisfy Medical Council of India norms for appointment to the said post. 5. Maximum upper age limit for the said post shall be 02 year earlier to superannuation. 6. Candidate's probationary period must have been declared. - 28 25. Therefore, it is clear that the Rules provide for the preparation of seniority list on the basis of the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the "cadre in question". The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 is that there is no selection to the cadre in question and therefore, the seniority must be determined in the order of merit by which the selection had been conducted, that is, to the post of lecturer which is the entry post. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no rule which provides for such a far-fetched interpretation as is sought to be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no common selection to the post of lecturer as well and that there can be no seniority list drawn up as contended by the writ petitioners. It is further pointed out that the NMC Regulations, which are relied on were not in force when the seniority list was prepared or when the question of selection was taken up for consideration and that they would have no application whatsoever to the seniority or the selection in question. - 29 26. It is further contended that even if the National Medical Council Guidelines are taken note of, Clause 3.10, which is sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners only provide that appointment to administrative posts among eligible candidates (emphasis supplied) shall be based on inter-se vertical seniority based on date of entry into the Institution/Service. It is submitted that since the C & R Rules only provided that the candidates for the post of Dean-cum-Director shall satisfy Medical Council of India norms for appointment to the post, which could only include the norms that were in force at the relevant time. Even if the regulations are to be held applicable, the norms for appointment would be those provided at Regulation 3.6 of the NMC Regulations dated 14.08.2021. There is no contention that the appellant is not qualified in accordance with the said norms. 27. It is the common case of the parties that the first respondent - Institution is an autonomous institution being regulated by its own Bye-laws and the C & R Rules. The provisions of the C & R Rules are that the post of Dean-cum- - 30 Director shall be filled up from among the five senior-most professors in the Institution. The seniority of professors is specifically to be reckoned on the basis of the order of merit by which they were appointed to the cadre in question. The cadre in question can only be a cadre of professor. It is on the basis of these rules which remain unchallenged that the question of eligibility for appointment to the post of Dean- cum-Director has to be considered. In case, there is no selection conducted to the cadre of professor and it is by promotion that persons are appointed as professors, then, the length of service in the cadre is a safe indicator for fixing seniority among persons in the cadre. The Rules also provide that in case of members appointed by promotion, seniority shall be determined according to the seniority of such members in the cadres from which they were promoted. Further, the qualifications for appointment to the post of professors being different and higher than those prescribed for appointment as lecturers, the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the inter-se merit in the list prepared for appointment of lectures is to be the - 31 criteria for determining the five senior-most professors in the Institution can only said to be a fallacious argument. 28. In the instant case, the Rules being clear are not under challenge. The principles enunciated in a completely different factual situation could not have been made applicable in the instant case. 29. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. The appeal therefore succeeds. 30. In the result:- (i) The Writ Appeal is allowed; (ii) The common Order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.8306/2020 c/w. 14144/2018, is set aside. (iii) The Writ Petitions cannot succeed in view of the prayers raised. They are dismissed. (iv) The first respondent shall immediately make selection to the post of Dean-cum- Director, strictly in accordance with the - 32 Rules in force and on the basis of the seniority as provided in the Rules. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*/PN