JUDGMENT : C.P.Sen, J. ( 1. ) By this order Misc. Petition No. 1730 of 1985 (Dr. S. K. Nema and others v. State of M. P. and another) is also disposed of, as in both these petitions common questions are involved, that is whether these petitioners could not have been refused admission for post-graduate course in Medical Colleges on the ground that they have not completed five years of regular service as Assistant Surgeons. It may be mentioned that these petitioners were given admission for the post-graduate course for the current session starting from 1-7-1985 by order dated 12-2-1985 but the same was cancelled by a subsequent order dated 15-5-1985. So these writ petitions have been filed. ( 2. ) The State Government framed rules for Post-Graduation (MD/MS Courses) in Clinical, Paraclinical and Non-clinical Courses in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1984. The selection and eligibility for admission to post-graduate course for Assistant Surgeons is governed by Rule 9.1. The basic requirement is given in Rule 9.3, which reads as under : "9.3 Applicants under Rule 9.1 shall be those who have been appointed as Asstt. Surgeons in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the M. P. Medical Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, and have alter such appointment, worked in the State Medical Services for a period of five years." Under Rule 9.3 the selection is to be done by a committee consisting of Director of Medical Education, Director of Medical Services, Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Deputy Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare and Joint Director (administration). Under Rule 9.11 any representation against the selections made by the selection committee can be made by the person concerned to the Director of Medical Education (Chairman) within 30 days of issuance of the selection list. Final decision will be taken by the selection committee and any one aggrieved by the said decision can prefer an appeal to the State Government within 15 days of the receipt of the decision. Under the Rules the State Government invited applications to be filed before 25-9-1984. It was mentioned that the applicant should have completed five years of regular service as Assistant Surgeon by 31-12-1984. These petitioners applied for admission in post-graduate courses and they were selected by the Director of Health Services by order dated 12-2-1985 in different subjects. Under the Rules the State Government invited applications to be filed before 25-9-1984. It was mentioned that the applicant should have completed five years of regular service as Assistant Surgeon by 31-12-1984. These petitioners applied for admission in post-graduate courses and they were selected by the Director of Health Services by order dated 12-2-1985 in different subjects. Accordingly, they were directed by the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges to join the course from 1-7-1985, but thereafter by order dated 15-5-1985 the Director of Health Services informed 51 Assistant Surgeons, including the petitioners, that in view of the representations received the order dated 12-2-1985 has been reviewed and the petitioners do not fulfil the requirement of five years of service after selection by the Public Service Commission as provided by R. 9.3 of the Post-Graduation Rules, 1984 and as such they are not eligible for selection, which means their admissions to post-graduation courses have been cancelled. It may be mentioned that all these petitioners initially joined service as Assistant Surgeons on ad hoc basis till the dates they were selected by the M. P. Public Service Commission in 1979, these petitioners were selected by the Public Service Commission as Assistant Surgeons on 22-12-1979 and their regular appointment orders were issued by the State Government between June to December 1980. So, if their starting point of setvice is taken from the date of their regular appointment under Rule 9.3, then none of these petitioners have completed five years of regular service by 31-12-1964 and as such will not be eligible fpr admission to the post-graduate courses as Assistant Surgeons In Misc. Petition No. 1670 of 1985, Petitioner No. 1, Dr. Akhtar Ahmad, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 17-11-1978; petitioner No. 2, Dr. Umesh Chandra was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 14-6-1978 and petitioner No. 3, Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 10-9-1979 and the intervener, Dr. P. K. Parashar, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 9-5-1979, all on ad hoc basis. All of them were selected by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment on 22-12-1979. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 thereafter got their regular appointment orders from the State Government as Assistant Surgeons on 5-6-1980, the intervener in September, 1980 and respondent No. 2 on 18-11-1980. In Misc. Petition No. 1730 of 1985, petitioner No. 1. Dr. All of them were selected by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment on 22-12-1979. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 thereafter got their regular appointment orders from the State Government as Assistant Surgeons on 5-6-1980, the intervener in September, 1980 and respondent No. 2 on 18-11-1980. In Misc. Petition No. 1730 of 1985, petitioner No. 1. Dr. S. K. Nema, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 15-9-1979, Petitioner No. 2, Dr. (Smt.) S. D. Menon was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 15-5-1975, petitioner No. 3 Dr. (Smt.) Sushma Chakraworty, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 29-3-1971 and petitioner No. 4, Dr. A. K. Sarona, was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 8-9-1979, all on ad hoc basis. All these petitioners were selected by the Public Service Commission for regular appointment as Assistant Surgeons on 22-12-1979. Petitioner No. 3 got the regular appointment order from the State Government on 5-6-1980 and the other petitioners on 18-11-1980. ( 3. ) The petitioners contentions are that (i) they having once been selected by the competent authority on 12-2-1985, their admission could not have been cancelled without affording them an opportunity to show cause; (ii) the selection committee has no power of review; (iii) all the petitioners have completed five years of service as Assistant Surgeons in State Medical Service and so their admission could not be said to be contrary to Rule 9.3 of the Post-graduation Rules, 1984; (iv) in any case some of the petitioners would be completing five years of regular service after selection by the Public Service Commission in June 1985 and so they could not have been refused admission; (v) the post-graduation Rules, 1984 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers and so these Rules have to be read in conformity with the regulations made under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which have statutory force; the Medical Council of India has made regulations for admission and selection of students for post-graduate training in Medical subjects and regulation No. xviii (c) (ii) is as under : - "Or worked in State Medical Services, Armed Forces Medical Services or other equivalent services of public undertakings, local bodies, etc. for a period of three years after full registration provided that one year of these three years is spent in a hospital which is approved for purposes of undertaking the compulsory rotating internship or in a command hospital failing which the aforesaid period of three years would be increased to five years." These regulations prescribed a total period of five years of service in State Medical Service and it does not refer to ad hoc appointment or regular appointment. ( 4. ) The respondents have filed return in Misc. Petition No. 1670 of 1985 and has adopted the same return for Misc. Petition No. 1730 of 1985. According to them the Government has framed Rule 9.3 prescribing five years of regular service as Assistant Surgeon for being eligible for admission for post-graduate courses because the Government pays salary to the candidates while they are undergoing post-graduation courses and expects that the candidates would, after getting post-graduation degree, would go back and serve the State; doctors who are appointed on ad hoc basis may resign and go back at any time and their services may not be available to the State; since none of the petitioners have put in five years of regular service by 31-12-1984, they were not eligible for admission to the post-graduation courses under Rule 9.3; however, by mistake, the selection committee taking their date of. selection to be 22-12-1979 by the Public Service Commission, selected them for admission to the post-graduation courses but subsequently a large number of representations were received objecting that those 51 candidates so selected, including the petitioners, were not eligible for selection and, therefore, the matter was reviewed under Rule 9.11 by the selection committee and these 51 Assistant Surgeons were informed that their selections have been cancelled; there is an appeal provided under the Rules but the petitioners have not preferred any appeal to the State Govt. and instead filed these petitions; the petitioners are not entitled to count their service on ad hoc basis as Asstt. and instead filed these petitions; the petitioners are not entitled to count their service on ad hoc basis as Asstt. Surgeon in view of the clear provision in Rule 9.3; the guide-lines of the Medical Council of India have been followed and they are directory in nature and regulation xviii (c) does not refer to ad hoc appointment and means regular appointment; the State Government has extended the facilities to the Assistant Surgeons for admission in the post- graduation courses in order to give them opportunity to improve their qual fications who are in its service; and though, the post graduation Rules, 1984 are by executive order, this has the force of a statute. ( 5. ) The Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045 , has observed that an analysis of the various sections of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 indicate that the main purpose of the Act is to establish Medical Council of India, to provide for its constitution, composition and its functions; and the main function of the Council is to maintain the medical register of India and to maintain a proper standard of medical education and medical ethics and professional conduct for medical practitioners. The eligibility of a candidate who may seek to get admitted into a medical college for obtaining recognised medical qualification may be prescribed by the Council. All the candidates who are eligible for admission into medical colleges or institutions for getting themselves qualified as medical practitioners are entitled to seek admission to medical colleges or institutions. As to how the selection has to be made out of the eligible candidates for admission into the medical college is a matter which has necessarily to depend on circumstances and conditions prevailing in particular States. Though the question of eligibility for admission into the medical curriculum may come within the power and jurisdiction of the Council, the question of selection of candidates out of the candidates eligible to undergo the medical course does not appear to come within the purview of the Council. So it is for the State Government to lay down Rules for selection out of the eligible candidates for admission into the post-graduate medical courses. The regulation framed by the Medical Council in this regard is merely directory, though the regulation regarding eligibility is mandatory in nature. So it is for the State Government to lay down Rules for selection out of the eligible candidates for admission into the post-graduate medical courses. The regulation framed by the Medical Council in this regard is merely directory, though the regulation regarding eligibility is mandatory in nature. The Supreme Court further observed that though the rules regarding admission to the medical colleges were made in exercise of the executive power of the State and they are not statutory as against the regulation made by the Medical Council of India, yet these rules have a statutory force by quoting the decision in State of M. P. v. Laxtni Narendranuth, AIR 1971 SC 2560 , that "the executive have a power to make any regulation which should have the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the held." Recently the Supreme Court in K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, AIR 1984 SC 186 , has held that the High Court could not devise its own criterion and had no jurisdiction to introduce its notions in such academic matter and direct admission to post-graduation courses in medical colleges. The Allahabad High Court in Arun Kumar v. Principal L.L.R.N. Medical College, Meerui, AIR 1985 All 188 . has held that Medical Council Act, S. 33-Recommendations of Medical Council on Post-graduate Medical Education-Meerut University-Admission to post-graduate medical course-Requirement of one years housemanship prior to admission-Directions issued by Principal of college have no binding force-Candidate having completed one year"s housemanship on date of admission is eligible, in view of the regulation of the Medical Council requiring one years housemansnip prior to admission. That case is clearly distinguishable. There the direction was issued by the Principal and not by the State Government and so it was held that the regulation of the Medical Council should prevail. Here there is a direction issued by the State Government which has a binding force and would prevail over the regulation of the Medical Council in view of the Supreme Court decision in State of M. P. v. Nivedira Jain (supra). The Allahabad High Court has not considered this decision of the Supreme Court and the latter decision in K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow (supra). ( 6. The Allahabad High Court has not considered this decision of the Supreme Court and the latter decision in K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow (supra). ( 6. ) In view of these decisions the procedure for selection has to be one that has been laid down by the State Government and any regulation in this regard by the Medical Council of India would be merely directory. So in order to be eligible for admission to post-graduation courses, the Medical Council of India framed Regulation xviii(cXii) laying down that the person must have put in at least three years of service if he had done internship for one year in any command hospital or five years of service as Assistant Surgeon. So for admission the minimum qualification has to be fulfilled but it is upon the State Government to prescribe rules for admission and decide how selection has to be made. The State Government has laid down in Rule 9.3 that the Assistant Surgeons must have put in at least five years of regular service in order to become eligible for admission to the post-graduate courses. So this Rule must be fulfilled by the petitioners before they seek admission to post-graduate courses. ( 7. ) Rule 9.3 prescribes that the applicants for the post-graduation course should be those who have been appointed as assistant surgeons in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the M. P. Medical Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules and have after such appointment worked in the State Medical Services for a period of five years. It is not disputed that there are new M. P. Medical Services(Gazetted) Recruitment Rules and in Rule 9.3 reference is to the M. P. Health Seivices (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Under Rule 6 recruitment to the service should be by the Government after consultation with the Public Service Commission and thereafter the appointment has to be made under Rule 7. Therefore, the appointment mentioued in Rule 9 3 of the post-graduation Rules means the appointment under Rule 7 of the 1967 Rules, i. e. an appointment made by the Government after consulting the Public Service Commission. All these petitioners got regular appointments after consultation with the Public Service Commission between the period June to December 1980 and as such they did not complete five years of qualifying service on 31-12-1984 after their regular appointments as required by Rule 9.3. All these petitioners got regular appointments after consultation with the Public Service Commission between the period June to December 1980 and as such they did not complete five years of qualifying service on 31-12-1984 after their regular appointments as required by Rule 9.3. It is true that most of them had to their credit service as Assistant Surgeons on ad hoc basis prior to their appointment and if that period is added then they would be having five years of qualifying service. But the Rule requires five years of qualifying service after appointment under the 1967 Rules. Moreover, the petitioners get no right to the post so Jong as they remained on ad hoc basis. The Supreme Court in N. K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 S C 251. has held that the appointments on ad hoc basis never clothe with any rights and have to quit when the time arrives. A Division Bench of this Court in B. K. Shrivastava v. State of M. P., Misc Petition No. 670 of 1979, decided on 24-11-1980. has held that it is true that ordinarily seniority has to be counted according to the date of continuous officiation (see S.K. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 S C 2051. and Rajendra Narain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1246 ) but this rule has no application to the service rendered in a stopgap arrangement or in an emergency in pursuance of an appointment which is not in the normal way. Therefore, the petitioners did not get any advantage of their service on ad hoc basis for the purpose of eligibility for admission to the post-graduate course under Rule 9.3. It is true that the petitioners have contended that under the graduation list dated 7-6-1985 by the Public Health Department of the State Government, none of the petitioners has been shown to be in regular appointment from the date they were given ad hoc appointments. The petitioners want to contend that since their appointments were regularised by the Public Service Commission and then regularised by the State Government, their seniority should be counted from the date of their continuous officiation. This contention is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court mentioned earlier. The respondents have explained that this graduation list is provisional, which appears to be so from the covering letter inviting objections to the list. This contention is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and this Court mentioned earlier. The respondents have explained that this graduation list is provisional, which appears to be so from the covering letter inviting objections to the list. It has also been pointed out that showing the appointments of these petitioners as regular from the date of their ad hoc appointments is a mistake which is to be corrected and this appears to be true because these petitioners cannot get the advantage of their service as ad hoc appointees for the purpose of their seniority. It is also true that the petitioners were initially given admission in the post-graduation course on 12-2-1985 but the same was cancelled by the subsequent order dated 15-5-1985 without giving them any hearing, but in view of a decision and the legal provisions explained above, we do not think that any purpose would be served by referring the matter to the State Government for reconsideration particularly when the petitioners have not availed of their right of appeal under Rule 9.11 of the Post-graduation Rules, 1984. Besides, the persons on whose representations the petitioners admissions were cancelled and instead were given admissions were not not joined as parties in this petition and, therefore, no order can be passed to their prejudice. Further, we do not find that any prejudice is caused to the petitioners by not giving them hearing before cancellation of their admissions for post-graduate courses, as they failed to avail of their right of appeal. ( 8. ) With the result the petitions fail and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions dismissed.