Judgment:
B.R. Arora, J.
1. The petitioner, after passing the M.B.B.S. Examination in the year 1986 from Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, completed his internship and got himself registered with the Medical Council of Rajasthan in the year 1988. He did his Housemanship from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi in Surgery and Casuality [Orthopaedics). He did his Housemanship in Surgery for a period of five months Since August 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 and for 7 months (1 month in Surgery & 6 months in Orthopaedics) in the Department of Casualty since January 1, 1989 to July 31, 1989. After completing his Housemanship in Surgery and Orthopaedics in response to the notice dated April 2,1990, he applied for admission to II-year Residency Course in Pathology under the Three Years Resinency Programme, 1988. This application of the petitioner, alongwith other candidates, viz., Dr. N.K. Vaidhya and Dr. S.P. Vyas was considered and as the petitioner had not completed one year Housemanship in the subject of Pathology or six months Housemanship in the same Department and the remaining period in an allied department, he was, therefore, not found eligible for admission in the II-Year of Post Graduate Course of Pathology and, therefore, he was declined admission. Dr. N.K. Vaidhya and Dr. S.P. Vyas, who are in the merit list above the petitioner, were, also, declined admission as they were, also, not found eligible by the Board. Dissatisfied with the rejection of the application and not admitting the petitioner in the Course of II-Year Residency of Pathology under the Three Years Residency Programme, 1988, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
2. The short question, which requires consideration in the present case is : whether the petitioner was eligible for admission in the II-Year Post Graduate Course of Residency of Pathology under the Three Years Residency Programme, 1988.
3. Ordinance 278-E of the University of Rajasthan deals with the admission to the II-year of the Residency under the Three Years Residency Programme. According to Ordinance 278-E [1](b), those who have done one year's Housemanship in the subject or atleast six months Housemanship in the same Department and remaining period in an allied Department, are eligible to be admitted in the II-year Residency Course in Pathology. Housemanship in any subject/department other than the subject of the registration will be considered as the Housemanship in an allied department. The petitioner did Housemanship at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, for six months in Surgery and Six months in Casuality (Orthopaedics). He, therefore, completed one year's Housemanship. He applied for the admission in the II-year Course of 3 Years Residency in the speciality of Pathology and not in Surgery. As per the Ordinance 278-E, a person-is required to have done one year's Housemanship in the subject or atleast six months Housemanship in the same Department and the remaining period in the allied department. As the petitioner had not done the Housemanship in Pathology and, therefore, as per Ordinance 278-E, he is not entitled to be admitted in the Pathology Department and his application was rightly rejected by the respondents and he was rightly refused admission in II-year Residency Course of Pathology.
4. The petitioner has, also, placed reliance over the recommendation of the Medical Council of India on Post Graduate Medical Education. The case of the petitioner is that as per the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India for the selection of the candidates of the Post-Graduate studies, a candidate is required to have done one year's Housemanship prior to the admission in the Post Graduation Course/Diploma Course and the Housemanship should be for one year in the same subject or atleast six months in the same Department and the remaining six months in an allied department, provided that in the Departments like Radiology/Anaesthesiology/Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation where suitable candidates, who have done Housemanship in the respective subject for the respective speciality are not available then the Housemanship in Medicine and/or in Surgery may be considered as sufficient. The case of the petitioner is that as the suitable candidates, who have done Housemanship in the subject of Pathology were not available and as the petitioner has done one year's Housemanship in Surgery and Casuality (Orthopaedics), therefore, he was eligible for his admission in the II-year of 3 years Post Graduate Residency Course in Pathology as the Department of Pathology is akin was like the Departments of Radiology, Anaesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabiliatation. The main stress of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Department of Pathology is, also, like the Departments of Radiology, physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
I have considered this aspect of the case, also.
5. So far as the criteria for selection of the candidates laid down by the Medical Council of Inida and its recommendation on Post-Graduate Medical Education are concerned, they are merely the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and cannot take the place of any rule or law. The admissions in the Three Years Residency Course are governed by the ordinance 278-E(1) and according to which a person, seeking admission, is required to have done one year's Housemanship in the subject concerned or atleast six months in the subject concerned and six months Housemanship in the allied subject. Even otherwise, if we consider this criteria (c) on which reliance has been placed, in the proviso, while mentioning the department, the word 'like' has been used before Radiology, Anaesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabiliatation, where the suitable candidates are not available. In the main provision, the stress has been laid that the Housemanship for one year should be done in the same subject or atleast six months in the same department and the remaining six months in the allied department. But by the proviso, a relaxation has been given in the Departments of Radiology, anaesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabiliatation. The dictionary meaning of the word 'like' is : similar, analoguous of comparable, akin, parallel, unique and identical. But the expression 'like' employed in the proviso before the Departments of Radiology, Anaesthesiology, Physical Medince and Rehabiliatation has not been used as similar or comparable, or akin, but has been used to indicate the speciality and the object of using this word obviously seems to make it clear that it is only in these three departments that if the candidates, who have done Housemanship in the respective subjects for the respective speciality are not available then the Housemanship in the Medicine and/or in Surgery may be considered as sufficient. The word 'like' used before these departments, if read with the context that has been used, is not used as an illustrative instance but has been employed to carve-put and limit the proviso only to these three specialities. The expression ' like Radiology etc.' is not an illustrative one, but is exhaustive and these are the only three subjects in which the proviso will be applicable and it will not apply so far as the other departments and subjects are concerned. A normal and natural interpretation, which flows from the language used in proviso (c) to the criteria for the selection of the candidates is that in the departments, namely Radiology, Anaesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabiliatation, will be applicable while in other subjects, the candidate has to do the Housemanship for one year in the same subject or atleast six months in the same subject and for six months in the allied subject. If the object was to give this relaxation by the proviso to all the specialities then only these three departments would not have been mentioned and the proviso would have been made applicable for all the departments. As the petitioner has not done the Housemanship for one year in the subject of Pathology and, therefore, he is not entitled for admission in the Course of II- year Residency of Pathology. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over some cases in which the admissions have been given to the various candidates on the basis of their Housemanship in Surgery. The cases, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, are the cases which are covered by the proviso and not with respect to other subjects, including Pathology, and, therefore, those cases are, also, of no help to the petitioner.
6. Lastly it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got the admission in the 11-year Residency of Pathology on April 25, 1990, as per the directions of this Court and continued his study till April 4, 1991 - the date on which the stay was vacated by this Court , but again the. stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on April 8, 1991, and the petitioner was allowed to continue the study. He has completed 16 years in his study and has almost completed the course and, therefore, though he may not have legal right to continue the study, but as he has almost completed the course and, therefore, he may be allowed to complete the course. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner was not entitled for admission in the ll-year Residency Course of Pathology as he was not eligible for the same, but since he was allowed to continue his study and was admitted in the II-year Residency Course and has almost completed the course and studied for 1.6 years and as such taking a sympathetical view in the case. I think it proper to allow the petitioner to complete his Course.
7. With these observations, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of.