B SRINIVAS Vs. P KRISHNA MALAKONDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 6-11-2000 of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P. No.8046 qf 2000.

(2.) Respondent No.3 in the said Writ Petition is the appellant herein, whose admission to super-specialty course in Cardiology (Doctor of Medicine) for the year 2000-2001 was annulled by the impugned judgment. The question for consideration before the learned Single Judge was regarding the qualification for admission into the above course and as to whether the Diploma of National Board of Examinations (DNB) conducted by the National Board of Examinations, New Delhi is equivalent to MD/MS. Treating DNB as equivalent, admission into DM course for 2000-2001 was granted by N.T.R. University of Health Sciences-2nd respondent in this Appeal. The same was questioned by the writ petitioner (1st respondent before us) on the ground that for the purpose of admission into the said course and according to the rules framed governing the admission, DNB is not an equivalent qualification to MD/MS entitling the appellant for seeking admission and the said contention having been upheld by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner was granted admission pursuant to the direction in the writ petition, and had been attending the classes in DM Course displacing the appellant. When the writ petition was originally filed, the NTR University of Health Sciences, the Principal, Osmania Medical College and the writ appellant were the parties. But, the Medical Council of India, as also the National Board of Examinations were impleaded by order of the learned Single Judge dated 25-7-2000 passed in W.P.M.P. No.12022 of 2000. While the NTR University had supported the plea taken by the Writ Appellant that DNB is an equivalent qualification to MD/MS, the Medical Council had supported the plea of the writ petitioner that it is not so and made a distinction that DNB is only recognised as a qualification for teaching purposes and not for admission to DM course and the said plea made by the writ petitioner and supported by the Medical Council was upheld by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Nooty Ram Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in harping upon the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Admission to Super Specialities in the Medical Colleges) Rules, 1983, which have been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 and stressing on the letter dated 28-11-1994 addressed by the Medical Council to the Registrar of the University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, submits that the DNB qualification is equivalent qualification to that of MD/MS qualification and as such, the appellant was rightly admitted to the Course of Doctorate of Medicine and that the statute of Andhra Pradesh or the Rules made thereunder mentioned supra, cannot operate in view of the above clarification issued by the Medical Council. He also submits that Section 20 of the said Act is a special provision and deals with Post-Graduate Medical Education, while Section 33 of the said Act is only a rule making power and in between a special provision contained under Section 20 and a general provision under Section 33, basing on the maxim generalis specialia derogant, the above letter dated 28-11-1994 of the Medical Council prevails and that the University had rightly approved the same and the State Government has no say in the matter. It is submitted that after the enactment of 1986 Act, 1983 Act has lost its significance, that the University was entitled to adopt its own procedure and as the DNB was held to be equivalent to MD/MS, the admission of the appellant was quite in order and that it was not liable to be interfered with. Stress is laid on sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act seeking to interpret that any opinion of the Post-Graudate Committee is final and binding without necessity of undergoing the regulation making process under Section 33 of the Act. This argument is supported by Mr. K.G.K. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-University of Health Sciences.