B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE petitioners who have got admission into the 3 years medical Post Graduate Degree Course in the Delhi University are wanting exemption of one year which they have spent as a houseman. ( 2 ) IN order to understand it is necessary to give a bit of historical background. Prior to 1988 in the Delhi University in order to get the M. B. ,b. S. degree one had to complete one year s internship. Thereafter a person did housemanship of one year and was eligible for admission to a 2 years Post Graduate Degree Course or a I year Post Graduate Diploma Course. The question of admission to post graduate medical courses came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v Motilal Nehru Medical College ( AIR 1985 SC 1059 ). The Supreme Court noticed that there was a disparity amongst the different universities who are following different criteria in the field of post graduate studies. The Supreme Court recommended that a uniform system should be adopted all over India and the uniform system recommended was a 3 years Post Graduate Degree Course with house job in the first years. The aforesaid decision was followed in another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College ( 1987 (4) SCC) 459 . The earlier proposition was reiterated. ( 3 ) THE Delhi University with effect from 1988 introduced 3 years Post Graduate Degree Course and 2 years Post Graduate Diploma Course. The candidates were not required to have done housemanship of one year. Simultaneously, the Delhi University conducted a 2 years Post Graduate Degree Course and a I year Post Graduate Diploma Course which did not require the candidates to have done one year houseman job. In this way whether a person joined the 2 years degree course or the one year diploma course after housemanship or a person joined the three years degree course or the two years diploma course after the internship, the total number of years spent after getting the M. B. ,b. S. degree was supposed to be only three years or two years respectively. ( 4 ) THE petitioners had all done housejobs prior to 1988. ( 4 ) THE petitioners had all done housejobs prior to 1988. The system which was followed in Delhi was that the students could do houseman job either in one discipline for full year or in two disciplines for six months each. The University with effect from the academic year 1989 discontinued the two years degree course and one year diploma course. Thereafter it has continued with three years degree course and two years diploma course which did not require the candidates to have done one year houseman job. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the Medical Council of India has recommended under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act that the University can give exemption of one year to those candidates who have done housemanship. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Delhi University has not accepted this recommendation and the petitioners are not getting one year exemption. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent-university it is submitted that the recommendations of the Medical Council are not binding on the respondents. It is further submitted that having discontinued the two years degree course and the one year dipioina course, tile petitioners cannot, in effect, ask the respondent-university to continue with the same system by granting to the candidates one year exemption on account of their having done housejob. The representative of the Medical Council of India, who is present, states that by virtue of Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act the recommendations of the Medical Council are binding on the University. ( 7 ) WE will first consider the binding nature of the recommendations of the Medical Colincii. Tile two provisions which arc relevant in this connection are Section 19a and Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act. They read as follow :- "19a. Mini mum standards uf medical education.- (1) The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post-graduate medical qualifications) by Universities or medical institutions in India. (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of a!l subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the Council shall, before submitting the regulations or amenment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of copies aforesaid. (3) The Committee shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy or the regulations and may recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. " "20. Post-graduate Medical Education Committee for assisting Council in matters relating to post-graduate medical education. (1) The Council may prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education for the guidance of Universities, and may advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for post-graduate medical education throughout India, and for this purpose the Central Government may constitute from among the members of the Council a Post-graduate Medical Education Committee (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Post-graduate Committee ). (2) The Post-graduate Committee shall consist of nine members all of whom shall be persons possessing post-graduate medical qualifications and experience of teaching or examining post-graduate students of medicine. (3) Six of the members of the Post-graduate Committee shall be nominated by the Central Government and remaining three members shall be elected by the Council from amongst its members. (4) For the purpose of considering Post-graduate studies in a subject, the Post-graduate Committee may co-opt, as and when necessary, one or more members qualified to assist it in that subject. (5) The views and recommendations of the Post-graduate Committee on all matters shall be placed before the Council; and if the Council does not agree with the views expressed or the recommendations made by the Post-graduate Committee on any matter, the Council shall forward them together with its observations to the Central Government for decision. "as is evident from Section 19a, the minimum standards which arc prescribed by the Medical Council in respect of under-graduate courses would be regarded as binding on the Universities. Sub-section (1) expressly excludes from this operation the post-graduate medical qualifications. Section 20 males it very clear that in respect of post-graduate medical education the standards which are prescribed by the Council are only for the guidance of the University. The Universities may also receive advice from the Medical Council in the matter of securing uniform standards for the post-graduate medical education. Section 20 does not make the recommendations of the Medical Council, even if approved by the Central Government, binding on the University The autonomy of the University with regard to post-graduate studies is not disturbed. The Universities may also receive advice from the Medical Council in the matter of securing uniform standards for the post-graduate medical education. Section 20 does not make the recommendations of the Medical Council, even if approved by the Central Government, binding on the University The autonomy of the University with regard to post-graduate studies is not disturbed. Of coure, the recommendations and advice of the Medical Council pertaining even to the post-graduate studies in medicine, would and should receive careful attention of the University and the University ordinarily should be slow in departing from the advice and guidance so received. Nevertheless the University may have good and sufficient reasons to not to follow the advice of the Medical Council especially when the University wants to maintain or prescribe higher standards of medical education than what is advised to it by the Medical Council. In the present case. for instance, the Medical Council has advised that exemption of one year may be granted. Nevertheless, the University has thought it proper not to grant exemption of one year in the three year integrated course. The reason for this departure from the advice of the Medical Council is not far to seek and will be evident shortly. ( 8 ) AS we see in the facts of this case, the candidates who had done houseman jobs have mostly done it in two subjects. Ultimately, the postgraduate course for which they have qualified has been either one of the two subjects or in a completely different subject. For instance, petitioner No. 1 has got admission to the post-graduate course in Paediatrics, but he has done house job for six months each in Neurosurgery and Paediatrics. Similarly Mukesh Kumar and Sandeep Kapoor have also got admission to the post-graduate courses in those subjects where they have done housejobs only for six months In the case of other candidates like Shashank Kale, Rohit Jaswal and Mohanjil Singh they have done housejobs in subjects which are different from the one to which they have got admission into the post-graduate courses. Kale has got admission into M. S. (General Surgery), though he did housejobs in Neurosurgery and Paediatrics; Rohit Jaswal has got admission into M. D. (Anaesthesia), though he has done housejobs in Opthalmology and Neurology, and Mohanjit Singh has got admission into M. D. (Anaesthesia), though he has done housejobs in Gastro-medicine and Paediatrics. Kale has got admission into M. S. (General Surgery), though he did housejobs in Neurosurgery and Paediatrics; Rohit Jaswal has got admission into M. D. (Anaesthesia), though he has done housejobs in Opthalmology and Neurology, and Mohanjit Singh has got admission into M. D. (Anaesthesia), though he has done housejobs in Gastro-medicine and Paediatrics. It is evident from the aforesaid that when the respondent-university has started three years post-graduate courses, the candidates are meant to do housejobs for one year in the subject in which they have got admission in the postgraduate courses. By allowing a blanket admisson of one year, as had been suggested by the Medical Council, to those candidates who had done housejobs would not have served the purpose. Like in the case of Kale, Jaswal and Singh they would, in effect, have put in only two years in the subject for which they have got admission at the M. D, level. In case of Narula, Kapoor and Kumar they would have put 2 years. There is, therefore, rationale behind the decision of the University in insisting on the candidates doing full three years integrated degree course without any benefit being given to the candidates for the housejobs which they may have done either in that subject or in other subjects. ( 9 ) IT was contended by Shri Rohatgi that the recommendation is that the exemption should be for a maximum of one year. It is submitted that for those candidates like Narula, Kapoor and Kumar, who had done housejobs at least for six months in the discipline in which they have got admission, they should be granted six months exemption. They is not practicable. The scheme is that for the first two years the students undertake research, attend lectures and do clinical work in the hospitals and submit their thesis at the end of the second year. At the end of the third year an examination is held. If the contention of the petitioners was to be accepted and six months exemption has to be given, the effect of this would be that they would undertake research, attend lectures and do clinical work only for 1 years and would then expect an examination to be held for them at the end of 2 years. If the contention of the petitioners was to be accepted and six months exemption has to be given, the effect of this would be that they would undertake research, attend lectures and do clinical work only for 1 years and would then expect an examination to be held for them at the end of 2 years. Put inconcrete terms if admission was granted to them in July, 1989 and if six months exemption is to be granted, then they would be required to submit a thesis by December 1990 and they would complete their course and would expect to be examined in December, 1991. It is an admitted case that the annual examination for M. D. are held only once a year, possibly, in May or June every year and no annual examinations are held in December. If that be so it would not be proper to expect the University to conduct a special M D examination for the petitioners in December, 1991. The next examination on the completion of their so called 2 years, would be in 1992 and when they take their examination they would have, in effect, completed three years course. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, the stand of the University is unassailable, though it may amount to a bit of hardship to the candidates who may have to repeat a part of their course when they take up the three years course. The candidates were aware when they took the entrance examination that they would have to undergo a three years integrated course and we dare say that they must have been prepared for that. In laying down academic courses, qualifications and standards, we believe that the Courts should not easily interfere in the decision of the University unless and until it can be demonstrated that the said decision s are arbitrary, unfair or without any basis. Where the University applies its mind and takes a conscious decision specially with regard to the duration of the course, its eligibility conditions and the standards to be attained, we feel that the Courts should be hesitant in interfering in such matters. ( 11 ) WE, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition. Petition dismissed.