Madhava Reddy, A.C.J.
1. This writ appeal is by the unsuccessful writ petitioner whose claim for admission to M. S. (General Surgery) Course in the Osmania Medical College was rejected.
2. The writ Petition came to be filed in the following circumstances. The appellant passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the Osmania Medical College in 1979. He completed the Rotating Internship in May 1980 in the Osmania Medical College. Being eligible for admission into the Post-graduate courses in medicine of the universities in the State, he appeared for the entrance test held for admissions to the Post-graduate courses in medicine in 1981. He qualified to be admitted to the two years' course of D. C. H. (Diploma in Child Health). He joined that course. He applied for admission to the Post-graduate courses during 1981-82 also The entrance test for admission to this course was held in Dec. 1981 at which his roll number was 8655. The results published on 6-1-1982 showed that he secured 138 out of 200 marks. He opted for degree course in M. D. (General Medicine), M. D. (Paediatrics) but not in M. D. (General Surgery). The respondents seek to justify the denial of admission to him in M.S. (General Surgery) course under R. 5 (d) to the Rules governing the selection of candidates for admission to Post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges of Andhra Pradesh State, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 624 M&H;, Medical and Health, dated 26th Sept., 1979, The result of this writ appeal therefore depends upon the interpretation we place upon R. 5 of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follows:
(a) Candidates who have passed M.B.B.S. examination of one of the Universities of the State of any other University recognised as equivalent thereto and who would be completing their compulsory rotating Internship by the date to be notified by the Chairman of the Selection Committee every year before the Entrance Test, are eligible to apply subject to the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in Rule 3.
(b) Applicants who are already Post-graduate degree holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a post-graduate degree in a subject shall not be considered for selection for Post-graduate degree in another subject.
(c) Applicants who are already Post-graduate Diploma holders in a subject shall not be considered for another Post-graduate diploma or degree in the subjects available in another group.
(d) Applicants who are already Post-graduate diploma holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a Post-graduate diploma course in a subject may be considered for admission to the Post-graduate degree course in the subjects available in the same group.'
Our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. has dismissed the writ petition holding that what R. 5 (b) says is that a person, who has studied for some time in a diploma course in a subject, can seek admission in the Post graduation course only in a cognate subject I. e., in a subject in the same group which would be totally different in character. We are unable to agree with the interpretation placed upon R. 5 in general and upon R. 5 (d) in particular.
3. Rule 5 declares eligibility of candidates for admission to particular course of study. R. 5 (a) makes all such candidates who have passed M.B.B.S. examination of one of the University of the State or any other University recognised as equivalent thereto and have completed or would be completing the rotating internship by the notified date eligible to apply for admission to the course. There is no dispute that the appellant fulfils these requirements and is eligible for admission to the course under R. 5 (a). if R. 5 (a) were to stand alone, he cannot be denied admission in view of the high rank he has secured and since option given by him is Surgery, he is entitled to be admitted to M. S. (General Surgery) Course of study. But at the same time sub-rules (b) and (c) of R. 5 prohibit the Selection Committee from considering such of the applicants who fall within the category of applicants mentioned therein. Sub-rule (b) of R. 5 refers to applicants who are already Post-Graduate Degree holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a Post-graduate degree. The appellant is not one such candidate. Sub-rule (c) of R. 5 prohibits applicants who are already Post-Graduate diploma holders in a subject from being considered for admission to another Post-Graduate Diploma or Degree Admittedly the appellant is not a Post-Graduate Diploma holder either on the date of the application or notification. There remains only sub-rule (d) of R. 5 to be considered. Sub-rule (d) does not prohibit any applicant from being considered for admission to the Post-Graduates Degree Course. It is merely an enabling provision. It permits applicants who are already Post-Graduate Diploma holders in a subject or those admitted and registered for a Post-Graduate Diploma course, such as the appellant, to be considered for admission to the Post-Graduate Degree Course in the subjects available in the same group.
4. A plain reading of this rule would show that no disqualification is implied against applicants who have registered themselves for Post-Graduate Diploma Course in a subject. Rule (d) does not prohibit the candidates eligible under R. 5 (a) from being considered for admission to M. S. or M. D. on the strength of the qualification prescribed therein, on the other hand, if an applicant is registered in a particular Post-Graduate Diploma Courses, it enables the Selection Committee to consider him for admission to the Post-Graduate Degree Course in the subject available in the same group. May be by such admission, he would be entitled to certain concessions in pursuing the course of study or is given credit for the period already spent by him in the matter of registration for the particular Post-Graduate Diploma Course in the particular subject. The fact that he will get some benefit on account of his being considered under R. 5 (d) for admission to a particular course of study cannot be interpreted to mean that on account of the eligibility, which he has acquired under R. 5 (a) for being considered by the Selection Committee for admission to M. S. (General Surgery) in view of his performance in the entrance test, he should be denied admission. Such a reading or R. 5 (d) would nullify the effect of R. 5 (a). In our view, there is no warrant for reading this rule in such a manner as to nullify the effect of R. 5 (b) and (c) is clear by the wording of the said sub-rule. The very fact that the said prohibition is not incorporated in sub-rule (d) of R. 5 would emphasise that the same prohibition cannot be implied in respect of those candidates who fall within the ambit of R. 5 (d). when the rule-making authority has used different language in sub-rule (d) than the one used by it in sub_rules (b) and (c) of R. 5, it would be straining the language and defeating the purpose of the rule to imply the same prohibition or same disqualification as envisaged by sub-rules (b) and (c) in respect of candidates who are admittedly. Eligible under R. 5 (a). Any grounds or policy or notions of waste of public money cannot alter the interpretation of the rule. When the meaning of the words is quite plain, it is not open to us to strain the language and draw a conclusion exactly opposite to what follows from the plain wording of that rule. In our view, it will be preposterous to deny admission to a candidate, who by virtue of his merit, is entitled to admission to M. S. (General Surgery) on the mere ground that he had earlier. qualified for admission to the. Post-Graduate Diploma in Child Health, to which he was admitted and registered only because he could not earlier qualify for M. s. (General Surgery)> The rule-making authority did not intend the applicants, who had not already secured the Post-Graduate diploma or degree, to be denied admission in a particular subject himself in a particular subject for the Post-Graduate Diploma Course. Any training he may have undergone would not, in our opinion, go waste if he is admitted to M. S. (General Surgery).
5. Mr. M. R. K. Chowdary, learned Government Pleader contended that sub-rules (b), (c0 and (d0 should be read as provisos to R. 5 (a). This contention does not merit acceptance. Firstly, proviso to rule or Section has a definite connotation and when R. 5 has four sub-rules, there is no warrant for reading any of the sub-rules as provisos to the first sub-rule. That apart, from the wording of sub-rule (d), it can never be read as a proviso. If at all only sub-rules (b) and (c) could be read as provisos, for some of the candidates eligible under R. 5 (a) are made ineligible, it they possess the qualifications mentioned in sub-rules (b) and (c). As already discussed above, sub-rule (d) of R. 5 does not disqualify or make any applicant ineligible. It only makes certain applicants eligible for being considered for a particular group if that applicant possesses the qualifications mentioned therein.
6. In view of the above discussion we hold that the authorities were in error in refusing admissin to the appellant in the Post-Graduate (General Surgery) Course of study. We, therefore, declare that he is entitled to be considered for admission to M. S. (General Surgery) course of study in the Osmania Medical College and to be given admission to that course according to the marks secured by him. If any other candidate, who has secured less than 138 out of 200 marks, has been granted admission to that course for the year 1981-82, the admission shall be given to the appellant if necessary by creating a supernumerary seat.
7. The order under appeal is set aside, the Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed and a direction as stated above shall issue to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/-
8. Learned counsel for the respondents makes an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are unable to certify that this case involves such substantial questions of law of general importance as require consideration of the Supreme Court or that this is otherwise a fit case for grant of leave. Leave refused.
9. Appeal allowed.