JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - In these two petitions the question which falls for consideration is whether a teacher of the Department of Cardiology in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, is entitled to register post-graduate students for the M.D. course in General Medicine. 2. The petitioners were both applicants for admission to the M.D. course in General Medicine commencing from 1982, but they have been refused admission by the Principal of the said Medical College on the ground that there is no seat available for them. The contention of the petitioners is that Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena though teachers of the Department of Cardiology. are legally entitled to register students for the above course. It is not disputed that if this contention of the petitioners is accepted and it is held that these doctors are entitled to register students for M.D. course in Medicine the petitioners would. having regard to their position in order of merit, be entitled to be admitted to the above course. 3. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, is maintained by the State Government and is a constituent college of the Allahabad University. Admission to the M.D. course in General Medicine is governed by the Ordinances made by the Allahabad University under the U.P. State Universities Act as well as statutes framed thereunder. The recommendations of the Medical Council of India are also relevant in determining the controversy, For admission to the degree of M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) in General Medicine the requirement is that the candidate has obtained full registration of the M.B.B.S. Degree awarded by the Allahabad University or any other university whose M.B.B.S. Degree is recognised by the Allahabad University and who has satisfactorily worked as a houseman for one year in General Medicine. It is not disputed that the petitioners fulfil these requirements. According to the Ordinances made in regard to. the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in General Medicine (vide prospectus of the Allahabad University. Faculty of Medicine, page 47) for purposes of M.D. the Head of the Department concerned or a post -graduate teacher of the Department shall be the supervisor. The relevant Ordinance may be reproduced here : "5. For the purposes of M.D. & M.S. thesis, the Head of Department concerned or a post-graduate teacher of the Department shall be the supervisor. Faculty of Medicine, page 47) for purposes of M.D. the Head of the Department concerned or a post -graduate teacher of the Department shall be the supervisor. The relevant Ordinance may be reproduced here : "5. For the purposes of M.D. & M.S. thesis, the Head of Department concerned or a post-graduate teacher of the Department shall be the supervisor. In addition supervisor belonging to any department of the University in the Faculties of Medicine or Science, or belonging to any other University, or a National Laboratory or the Armed Forces Medical College, Poona. or a large military hospital recognised by the University for the purpose whose help is required for investigation of the subject of the thesis, may be associated co-supervisor with the approval of the Research Degree Committee." 4. This Ordinance has been framed in conformity with the recommendations of the Medical Council of India according to which the student-teacher ratio should be such that the number of post-graduate teachers to the number of post-graduate students admitted per year be maintained as 1 : 1. The recommendations state that for proper training of the post-graduate students there should be a limit to the number of students admitted per year and consequently one student should associate with one post-graduate teacher. It is in pursuance of this recommendation that the aforesaid Ordinance has been framed. Cardiology is one of the broad specialities which have been prescribed for the M.D. course in General Medicine. Until 1978 in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. there was no separate Department of Cardiology. It was part and parcel of the Department of Medicine. However, by a Government order issued on January 16. 1978. the Government approved the establishment of Cardiology as an independent department separate from the Department of Medicine. According to the, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Medical College. the process of separation was completed by 1981 since when there has been a total separation between the Departments of Medicine and Cardiology. 5. It appears that Dr. R.K. Agarwal who was appointed as the Head of the Department of Cardiology was registering students for the M. D. Course right up to 1981. presumably as till then he was a teacher of the Department of Medicine in terms of the Ordinance quoted above. After 1981, the Principal of the Medical College took the stand that Dr. R.K. Agarwal who was appointed as the Head of the Department of Cardiology was registering students for the M. D. Course right up to 1981. presumably as till then he was a teacher of the Department of Medicine in terms of the Ordinance quoted above. After 1981, the Principal of the Medical College took the stand that Dr. R.K. Agarwal not being a teacher of the Department of Medicine was not entitled to register students for the M.D. course in General Medicine. Some correspondence ensued between the Principal and the Medical Council of India on this subject. On November 17, 1981 the Principal of the Medical College wrote to the Secretary. Medical Council of India (vide annexure CA-6 to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 1214 of 1983) seeking clarification from the Medical Council whether Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena, respectively, the then Reader-Head and Lecturer in the Department of Cardiology were eligible to be post-graduate teachers for the M.D. course in Medicine. In reply to this letter the Secretary, Medical Council wrote that Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena could not be recognised as post-graduate teachers in Internal Medicine (which is the same thing as General Medicine) and that no post-graduate candidate should be registered under them for M. D. course in Medicine. The petitioners have been refused admission to the M.D. course exactly on this ground, namely, that Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena not, being post-graduate teachers of the Department of Medicine were not entitled to register students for the M.D. course. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Medical Council of India also in which the same stand has been taken, namely, that these two doctors were not eligible to be post-graduate teachers for registering students for the M.D. course in General Medicine not being teachers of the Department concerned. 7. The sole contention of the petitioner's counsel was that Cardiology was a subject which is being taught in the M.D. (General Medicine) classes and is a speciality which is part and parcel of the subject of General Medicine and inasmuch as, Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena are taking M.D. classes in General Medicine, they are clearly entitled to register students for M.D. Course. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. M.C. Gupta v. Dr. R.K. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Saxena are taking M.D. classes in General Medicine, they are clearly entitled to register students for M.D. Course. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. M.C. Gupta v. Dr. A.K. Gupta, 1979 All LJ 251. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and given the matter a careful consideration, we are unable to agree. The matter is governed by statutory provisions, namely, the Ordinances referred to hereinabove. Ordinance 5 which has been quoted above is very clear and unambiguous on the point. It provides that for purposes of M.D. thesis the Head of the Department concerned or a post-graduate teacher of the Department shall be the supervisor. It further provides that an additional supervisor belonging to any other department of the University in the faculties of Medicine or Science whose help is required for investigation of the subject of the thesis, may be associated but only as co-supervisor with the approval of the Research Degree Committee. 9. According to this it is apparent that it is only the post-graduate teachers of the Department concerned who are eligible to act as the supervisor for purposes of M.D. thesis. With the separation of the Department of Cardiology as a separate and independent department it cannot be argued with any validity that post-graduate teachers of the Department of Cardiology can be regarded as post-graduate teachers of the Department of General Medicine simply-because the teachers of the Department of Cardiology are giving lectures in M.D. classes in General Medicine. While Cardiology, like many other subjects which are being taught in M.D. classes in General Medicine as specialities may be a subject of study for the M.D. course, post-graduate teachers in that subject cannot, ipso facto, be treated as post-graduate teachers of the Department of Medicine. In the supplementary counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Medical College it has been clarified that Cardiology is only an aspect of the broad speciality of Medicine. It is further stated that Dr. R.K. Agarwal teaches only Cardiology and no other aspect or branch of the subject of Medicine. In the supplementary counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Medical College it has been clarified that Cardiology is only an aspect of the broad speciality of Medicine. It is further stated that Dr. R.K. Agarwal teaches only Cardiology and no other aspect or branch of the subject of Medicine. Besides Cardiology many other broad specialities have been i prescribed for the M.D. course in General Medicine and the teachers of the department of those specialities are required to give lectures to the students of M.D. course of General Medicine, but thereby the teachers of those Departments do not become the teachers of the Department of General Medicine within the meaning of the Ordinance prescribing the teacher-taught ratio. 10. The view which has found favour with us gets considerable support from the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Harish Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 All 63 . There the question was whether the requirement of one year's housemanship in the subject of Medicine was fulfilled in the case of a student who had done housemanship for one year in Cardiology. Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that one year's housemanship in Cardiology was equivalent to one year's housemanship in General Medicine itself, the two being allied subjects, the Division Bench held that while Cardiology may be recognised as an allied subject it cannot be treated as the same subject as General Medicine for purposes of the relevant Ordinances. The Bench observed that there are nine other subjects in which admission to M.D. course was available in the Kanpur University. General Medicine was only one of the subjects. Consequently. candidates who apply for registration and admission to the M.D. course must have done housemanship in each subject or in each department separately. They are not interchangeable.' 11. Coming to the case of M.C. Gupta, 1979 All LJ 251 (SC) (supra) cited by the learned counsel, we find that the same is clearly distinguishable. In that decision, the question was whether teaching/research experience in Cardiology amounted to such experience in Medicine while considering the question of eligibility for the post of a Professor in Medicine. Coming to the case of M.C. Gupta, 1979 All LJ 251 (SC) (supra) cited by the learned counsel, we find that the same is clearly distinguishable. In that decision, the question was whether teaching/research experience in Cardiology amounted to such experience in Medicine while considering the question of eligibility for the post of a Professor in Medicine. Construing the various regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council, their Lordships answered the question in the affirmative holding that Cardiology being a speciality of the general branch or subject of Medicine, teaching, research experience in the context amounted to such experience in General Medicine itself. The Supreme Court observed that where the genial subject such as Medicine or Surgery is being dealt with in a regulation the specialised branch under it would be covered, though not vice versa. 12. The question which we have been called upon to consider is, however, different. Here the question is whether in order to maintain the post-graduate teacher taught ratio for the M.D. course the post -graduate teachers of the specialised Department. who may be giving lectures in their respective Specialities forming part of the curriculum of General Medicine, be treated as teachers of the department concerned within the meaning of Ordinance 5. The language used in the statute is not post-graduate teachers in the subject of General Medicine which includes Cardiology, but it speaks of post-graduate teachers of the Department concerned. In our humble view, therefore, from the mere fact that Cardiology is a speciality prescribed for the M. D. course in General Medicine, it does not follow, ipso facto, that the teachers of other specialised Departments may also be regarded for the purpose of determining teachers-taught ratio as teachers of the Department of.General Medicine. 13. The interpretation which has appealed to us is in consonance with the Medical Council recommendations as disclosed by its regulations according to which for the proper training for the post. graduate students there should be a limit to the number of students admitted per year and that for this purpose one student should associate with one post-graduate teacher only. This is necessary to ensure high academic level of education for post. graduate degree. This is likely to be defeated if the task of supervision of research work is assigned to one who does not belong to the Department concerned. This is necessary to ensure high academic level of education for post. graduate degree. This is likely to be defeated if the task of supervision of research work is assigned to one who does not belong to the Department concerned. It is for this reason that the Ordinance has stressed that the registration should be with the Head of the Department concerned or one of the post-graduate teachers of that Department. 14. For the petitioners considerable stress was laid upon the academic qualifications of Dr. R, K. Agarwal which counsel submitted, made him eligible, for appointment to the highest Chair in the, Department of Medicine and consequently he was fully qualified to act as a supervisor for thesis in M.D. The ineligibility flows not from the lack of academic qualifications in Dr. R.K. Agarwal, but from the simple fact that he is not a teacher of the Department concerned. Even the Medical Council has conceded that while Dr. Agarwal is fully qualified to be appointed as a teacher in General Medicine, he is not eligible to train post-graduate students in that discipline because he is at present not holding. any teaching appointment in the Department of General Medicine. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on an inspection report submitted by Dr. S.N. Prasad, M.D., F.R.C.P., to the Medical Council of India as regards the standard of examination and the facilities for teaching then existing at the.. Motilal Nehru Medical College for the post-graduate medical qualification of M.D. (General Medicine) granted by the Allahabad University. In this report amongst the teachers of the Department of Medicine the name of Dr. R. K. Agarwal has also been mentioned. It was argued that according to this report Dr. R.K. Agarwal was also found eligible for registering students for post-graduate studies in General Medicine. We are unable to accept this contention. This report was submitted in Dec., 1978 and it is not until 1981 that the Department of Cardiology was completely separated from the Department of Medicine. Consequently, Dr. R.K. Agarwal was also shown amongst the post-graduate teachers of the Department of General Medicine. We are unable to accept this contention. This report was submitted in Dec., 1978 and it is not until 1981 that the Department of Cardiology was completely separated from the Department of Medicine. Consequently, Dr. R.K. Agarwal was also shown amongst the post-graduate teachers of the Department of General Medicine. Further this is only an inspection report while the latest stand of the Medical Council itself as disclosed by its counter-affidavit and the reply of the Secretary referred to above is that the post-graduate teachers of the Department of Cardiology are not entitled to register students for the M.D. course in General Medicine. 16. Our conclusion. therefore, is that the post-graduate teachers of the Department of Cardiology are not eligible to be the supervisors for the purpose of M.D. thesis in General Medicine. 17. The question, however, is what is to be done with these petitioners who have under the interim orders granted by this Court completed their course and even appeared as stated by petitioner's counsel, at the examination. More than two years have elapsed in case of one petitioner and one year in the case of the other petitioner since the petitions were admitted. Owing to the legal position spelled out by us hereinabove we cannot compel the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners. The respondents may, however, on their own, consider the feasibility, on compassionate grounds of declaring the results of the petitioners on the clear understanding that this will not be any precedent for future admissions. 18. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed but we make no order as to cots.