B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. This is a special appeal by she State of Rajasthan against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 29, 1974 partly allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Dr. B.L. Asawa.
2. Dr. B.L. Asawa, the respondent before us, passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1954 and was substantively appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Rajasthan Medical Service with effect from May 26, 1956. He secured the degree of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the University of Bihar, Muzzaffarpur in the year 1970 Thereafter he was appointed as an officiating Lecturer in Forensic Medicine at the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on purely ad-hoc and temporary basis with effect from January 4, 1971 by the order of the State Government dated December 31, 1970 as modified on February 14, 1972.
XX XX XX XX XX
3. The Rajasthan Publics Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') advertised two posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine for Medical Colleges in Rajasthan on March 3, 1972 in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The respondent, Dr. Asawa was one of the applicants for the aforesaid posts, but the Commission by its letter dated July 21, 1972 informed him that his application was rejected as he hid not possess the necessary academic qualifications for the said post. Dr. Asawa thereupon filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court and contended that he fulfilled the requisite academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, as prescribed under the Rules and prayed that the order of the Commission dated July 21, 1972 be quashed and the Commission be restrained from holding interview for selection to the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine for the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan, without considering his case simultaneously along with other candidates and the State Government be restrained from making appointments on the aforesaid posts. As in the meanwhile, two persons namely, Dr. Bnanu Prakash Gupta & Dr. P. Dayal were selected by the Commission for the two posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine, Dr. Asawa amended his writ petition with the permission of the Court, and made the aforesaid two persons parties to the writ petition and further prayed that the interview and selection of the candidates by the Commission for the posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine and the recommendations made by the Commission to the State Government be set aside and cancelled and also the order of the State Government making appointments of the aforesaid two persons as Lecturers in Forensic Medicine on the basis of such recommendation be set aside.
4. It may be mentioned here that Dr. Bhanu Prakash Gupta obtained the degree of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) from the University of Lucknow and Dr. P. Dayal obtained the same degree from the Patna University.
5. The Commission and the other respondents contended in answer to the writ petition that Dr. Asawa was not qualified according to the Rules as he did not possess the requisite academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine However, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that Dr. Asawa was duly qualified for the post of Lecturer & there was no sound legal basis for the Commission to reject his candidature and that there was no reason for denial of equal opportunity to him to seek employment under the State Government on the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine. He, therefore, by his order dated March 29, 1974 allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the order of the Commission dated July 21, 1972 & directed it to re-scrutinise all the applications that were received in pursuance of its advertisement and dispose them of suitably. He also directed that the respondents No. 3 and 4 may be continued on ad-hoc basis in the meantime, subject to the final recommendations of the Commission and the orders of the State Government.
6. The State Government has now come up in appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The short question which arises in the present appeal is as to whether the respondent Dr. Asawa possessed the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine. It is agreed by all parties that the appointments to the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan are governed by the Rules. Rule 12 prescribes the academic and technical qualifications for the posts included in the Service and the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine is one of them, being included in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Rule 12 reads as under:
Rule 12. Academic and Technical qualification to The candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in part A, B & C of the Schedule shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as is laid down, from time to time, by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in Medical College.
Thus the qualifications, academic and technical, prescribed by the Rajasthan University, at the relevant time, have been adopted by the Rules for appointment of persons by direct recruitment to the posts included in the Service. The requisite qualifications are laid down by the University of Rajasthan by means of Ordinance No. 65 occurring in Chapter XX of the Handbook of University of Rajasthan, Part II, Volume I. The special academic qualifications and teaching experience in respect of teachers in Medical Colleges have been prefaced by the following general conditions:
1. All teachers must possess a basic University or equivalent qualifications entered in Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1966....
2. Medical men must be registered under the State/Central Medical Registration Act and all-medical persons must be recognised as. teachers with the University before appointments are made permanent.
3. All the teachers in Medical Colleges except Registrars & Demons stators must possess the requisite post-graduate qualifications in their respective subjects.
4. 50% of the time spent in recognised research under the Indian Council of Medical Research or a University or a Medical College, after obtaining the requisite Post-graduate qualification be counted towards teaching experience for the post of Lecturer in the same or in allied subject provided that 50% of the teaching experience shall be the regular teaching experience.
5. Equivalent qualification referred to above and in the recommendations below shall be determined by the University of Rajasthan.
6. In case of specialities under Medicine and Surgery the qualifications and experience should also be as scheduled below but in case the post has been advertised and suitable candidates are not available the qualifications can be relaxed.
The special academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine as laid down by the University of Rajasthan in Ordinance No. 65 are:
M.D. (Path.), M.D. (Forensic Medicine), Speciality Board of Pathology (U.S.A.), M.D/M.R.C.P./F.R.C.P. (with Diploma D.F.M.), M.R.C.P (with Forensic Medicine as special subject) or Equivalent qualification or post-graduate degree or equivalent qualification in Medicine or Surgery.
8. Now we have to consider as to whether the respondent Dr. Asawa, fulfills the requisite academic qualifications laid down by Ordinance No 65 of the University of Rajasthan. There is no dispute that the respondent Dr. Asawa fulfills condition No. 1 mentioned above, namely, that he possesses they basic University qualification namely, M.B.B.S. degree from a recognised Medical College. Condition No. 3 mentioned under Ordinance No. 65 relating, to teachers in Medical Colleges expressly provides that Lecturers must possess requisite post graduate qualification in their respective subject. What is the requisite post graduate qualification in respect of the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine? The relevant entry in the Schedule mentions the requisite qualification as M.D. (Forensic Medicine) or qualification, leaving aside other qualifications, which are not relevant for our present purpose The provision implies that such degree should have been awarded or recognised by the University of Rajasthan or declared by it as equivalent thereto. Condition No. 5 lays down that equivalent qualification shall be determined by the University of Rajasthan.
9. In this connection it was pointed out that the Commission by its letter dated June 6, 1973 asked the Registrar of the University of Rajasthan, if the degree of M.D. of Bihar University has been recognised by the University of Rajasthan. The Registrar in his reply dated June 14, 1973 wrote to the Commission that the degree of M.D. awarded by the University of Bihar is not recognised by the University of Rajasthan. It appears that the petitioner thereafter wrote on September 25, 1973 to the Registrar of the Rajasthan University through the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur that he desired to know the position with regard to the recognition of degrees awarded by the University of Bihar and as to whether such recognition was only for the purpose of admission to higher studies or it will govern the appointment of teachers also. In reply, the Registrar of the University by his letter dated October 1, 1973 wrote to the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur that;
I would like to mention that the examinations, which are recognised by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee and the Academic Council and as are listed under Rule 44A to 44 I are recognised as equivalent to the corresponding examinations of the University for the purpose of higher studies/recognition of Ph. D. etc. and not for the purpose of appointments of teaching staff in the affiliated colleges as the appointments of teachers in the affiliated Medical Colleges are governed by Order 65 of the University Hard Bock Pt. II and the University accepts the degrees/Diploma of the Statutory Indian Universities unless otherwise mentioned in the said Ordinances As such for the purpose of appointment, University accepts, the M.D. degree of Bihar University by the virtue of suiting aw aided by a statutory University.
The Registrar also explained his previous letter by observing.-
The Secretary while enquiring about the recognisation of the said degree no where mentioned in the letter about the purpose for which, he needs such an information. Had the Secretary mentioned the fact that the said information is needed by him for the purpose of appointment as teacher? in Medical Colleges the anomalous situation would not have arisen.
The learned Single Judge found that the two letters written by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan-one to the Commission dated June 14, 1973 and the other to the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on the application of the respondent Asawa an October 1, 1973 cannot be reconciled. There is no doubt that the Registrar of the University has spoken with two different versions which are not only difficult to re-council but are clearly contradictory of one another As such it would be necessary to examine the matter in the light of the provisions of the University Act and Ordinances and Regulations made there under.
10. Section 22 of the University of Rajasthan Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' provides that subject to the provisions of the Act the Syndicate of the University shall exercise the function of maintaining proper consultation with the Academic Council.
11. Section 23 A of the Act provides that:
23A(1) The Academic Council shall have control and general regulation of, & be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of teaching and examination within the University.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision & subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the Academic Council shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely:
(iii) to make proposals regarding the maintenance of standards of teaching and examination;
(vii) to advise the Syndicate regarding equivalence of examinations and recognition of the examinations of otherbodies;
Thus the Academic Council is responsible for maintaining the standards of teaching and examination within the University and it is for that body to make proposals and thereafter for the Syndicate to decide the matter regarding the equivalence and recognition of examinations. The Academic Council with the approval of the Syndicate has made Regulations regarding equivalence and recognition of examinations conducted by other Universities and bodies as equivalence to the corresponding examinations of the University of Rajasthan. Regulation 44-F contains an exhaustive list of examinations of various Universities which have been recognised as equivalent, Item No. 12 in the list annexed to Regulation 44-F is Bihar University, Muzzaffarpur and the examinations of that University which have been recognised by the Rajasthan University have been enumerated thereunder. The aforesaid item 12 reads:
12. Bihar University, Muzzaffarpur.
1. Intermediate in Arts, 1. Intermediate in Arts,
Science and Commerce. Science snd Commerce
2. B.A., B Sc.(Ag) 2. B.A., B.Sc. (Agri.)
and B.Com. and B.Com.
3. M.A., MSc. 3. M.A., MSc.
4. M.B. B.S. 4. M.B. B.S.
5. B.Sc.(Engg.) 5. B.E.
6. Pre-University 6. Pre-University
7. B.A.(Hons.) 7. B.A.(Hons).
12. It would thus be clear that although the degree of M.B., B.S. has been recognised, but not the degree of M.D. The argument of the leraned Counsel for Dr. Asawa is that the equivalence referred to in Regulation 41-F is only for the purpose of admission of students to course of studies for an examination of the University of Rajasthan. We are unable to agree with this contention, because subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 22 entrusts the duty and function of maintaining the proper standards of (a) teaching and (b) examinations on the Syndicate which body shall discharge its duties in consultation with the Academic Council. Under Section 23A it is the Academic Council which has been entrusted with the general control and regulation and is made responsible for the maintenance of the standards of (a) teaching and (b) examinations within the University. For this purpose the Academic Council will advise the Syndicate regarding 'Equivalence of Examinations' and ' recognition of Examinations' of other bodies. The process of determining equivalence of examinations and recognition of examinations has been entrusted to a knowledgeable body, such as the Academic Council and the objects which such determination and recognition aims to serve are of maintaining standards of teaching & examination. Therefore, unless a person is possessed of an academic qualification which the Rajasthan Universityrecognises, hiss cannot be qualified to teach, because the maintenance of standards is dependent on it. What degrees the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University would and should recognise is not for the Courts to say. Maintenance of standards is the business of the University so also is its deleimication. It would be idle to suggest that a person holding a degree from some University which has not been recognised by the University of Rajasthan cannot be admitted to a course of higher studies in the University but such a person would be eligible for appointment as a teacher in the same University. In that event the standards of teaching in University are bound to be seriously affected, because equivalence of examinations and recognition thereof by the Academic bodies of the University have a direct co relation with the maintenance of standards both of teaching as well as of examinations. As the competent academic authorities of the University namely, theAcademic Council and the Syndicate have expressly decided the question of recognition of degrees of various Universities by framing Regulation 44F, we should refrain from interfering with the expression of opinion of those academic bodies, who are experts in the matter. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the University of Mysore v. G.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. : 4SCR575 observed as follows:
The High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University, which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a High Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No 2 fulfilled the first qualification If only the attention of the High court had been drawn to the equivalent furnished in the first qualification; we have no doubt that it would not have held that the Board had acted capriciously in expressing the opinion that appellant No. 2 satisfied all the qualifications, including the first qualification.
It would not, therefore, be proper for us to interfere with the decisions of academic bodies, in regard to matters relating to the recognition of degrees and equivalence thereof, as they are experts in such matters and are familiar with the problem.
13. The next argument advanced by leraned Counsel for the respondent Dr. Asawa was that is the University of Rajasthan did not award any M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine, there was no question of any recognition or equivalence of the M.D. degree in Forensic Medicine obtained by respondent Dr. Aswa, because there was no corresponding degree of the University of Rajasthan. However, we find from the list attached to Regulation 44-F that in case of several Universities including those of Lucknow and Patna, all postgraduate degrees have been recognised by the University of Rajasthan. Thus in the case of such Universities there is a general recognition of all the degrees awarded by those Universities, irrespective of the fact whether such degrees are awarded at present by the University of Rajasthan or not. Regulation 41-F enumerates the degrees of other Universities in India which have been recognised by the Rajasthan University, while Regulation 44-G mentions the equivalent qualifications of Foreign Universities or Institutions or bodies which have been so recognised;
14. Another argument advanced by leraned Counsel for respondent Dr. Asawa was that the recognition of degrees can only be made by the Indian Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which is the statutory body created for the purpose. There is no doubt that Sections 11 to 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 make provisions for recognition of Medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institute in India or abroad for the purpose of that Act, yet it is only the posssesion of the basic medical qualifications namely, the M.B., B.S. or equivalent qualifications recognised by the Indian Medical Council which enables a medical practitioner to get enrolment on State Medical Register and a person who does not possess such recognised qualifications is debarred for practicing in medicine in a State or holding any office in Government or other institutions. However, the recognition of post-graduate medical qualifications under Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act is only for the guidance of Universities so as to advise then in the matter of recognition of such degrees for the purpose of securing uniform standards of posts graduate medical education throughout India Thus it is ultimately the recognition of degrees of other University by the University of Rajasthan which has to be looked into for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any candidate, as in view of the provisions of Rule 12, the State Government has adopted the qualifications which have been prescribed by the University of Rajasthan for the purpose of employment of persons as teachers in Medical Colleges in Rajasthan.
15. ID view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that there is nO room to infer that a degree of a sister University established by a statute will not be having efficacy by its own vigour but it will Deed recognition for the purpose of Ordinance 65 to make the holder of a degree eligible for appointment as a teacher in Rajasthan ' We have no doubt that a degree of any University established by a statute does have 'efficacy by its own vigour' but for the purposes of appointment as a teacher in a Medical College in Rajasthan, which is governed by the Rules, it is obligatory, in our opinion, that the candidate should bold the requisite qualifications as prescribed by Rule 12 read with Ordinance 65 of the University of Rajasthan namely, that he must hold the prescribed degree of the Raj. University or a degree of another University recognised by the Rajasthan University or qualifications equivalent thereto.
16. As the degree of M.D. in Forensic Medicine obtained by respondent Dr. Asawa from the University of Bihar, Muzzaffarpur has not been recognised by the University of Rajasthan, we are unable to hold that he possessed the requisite academic qualifications prescribed for appointment as a teacher under the Rule 12 of the Rules read with Ordinance 65 of the University of Rajasthan In this view of the matter the Commission rightly rejected the candidature of respondent Dr. Asawa for the post of a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.
17. No other point was argued before us. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated March 29, 1974 and dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. B.L. Asawa. The parties are left to bear their own costs.