JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Dr. Pradeep Kumar Saraf, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of madomu9 directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to M.S. Course of toe Gorakhpur University in Ophthalmology. The petitioner has asserted that although he secured more marks than respondent no. 4, Dr. Mool Narain Verma but instead of appointing the petitioner the said respondent no. 4 was given the said course. 2. Admittedly, the admission of petitioner is governed by the Ordinances framed by the Gorakhpur University. The relevant Ordinance is as under : "He has subsequently done one years housemanship prior to admission to the post graduate degree or diploma course. Housemanship should preferably be for one year in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department, provided that in departments like Radiology/Anaesthesiology where generally very few house jobs are provided, the housemanship may be in general medicine or/and in General Surgery and/or allied specialities." The petitioner's case was that be had the requisite qualification for being appointed or admitted to M.S. (Ophthalmology), as he had done one year's housemanship in the General Medicine and further done eight months in Ophthalmology. According to the interpretation placed by the petitioners learned counsel if he had remained for six months an allied department he was qualified. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he had also done Home Job in Ophthalmology from 10th July, 1981 to 2lst March, 1982 in Medical College, Calcutta and he was qualified. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent the plea taken is that as the petitioner did not possess the requisite training of one year's house job in Ophthalmology, he was not considered to be eligible for being selected for admission to M.S. (Ophthalmology). In the counter-affidavit the further allegation is that since the petitioner had done only eight months in Opthalmology he was not qualified to be admitted. A plea was further taken by the respondent that general medicine is not allied to Ophthalmology. 4. In the counter-affidavit the further allegation is that since the petitioner had done only eight months in Opthalmology he was not qualified to be admitted. A plea was further taken by the respondent that general medicine is not allied to Ophthalmology. 4. Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to us the literature of various other Universities pertaining to admission in M. S. (Ophthalmology) course and urged that as general medicine in some Medical Colleges has been treated as an allied subject, the respondent was wrong in treating the same as such and finding the petitioner to be unqualified. 5. From the above averments it may be true that in certain other medical colleges general medicine may have been treated as an allied subject in Ophthalmology for appointing the cand dates in M.S. Course, but it is not our jurisdiction to lay down as a matter of law that general medicine should be treated as an allied subject This was for the Gorakhpur University. Gorakhpur University has power to frame its Ordinance. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit the respondent stated that the General Medicine had not been treated as such for being appointed in M.S. (Ophthalmology) course. Accordingly the refusal to admit the petitioner in M.S. (Ophthalmology) Course is perfectly correct and cannot be interfered with. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.