ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. - l, A show cause notice on admission was issued in me case and with the consent of the parties, the case was finally heard and is being decided by this order. 2. The petitioner is Assistant Surgeon in the service of the State of M.P. He complains that admission has been wrongly denied to him to the Post Graduate Diploma Course in subject Child Health in medical college due to mis-interpretation of rule 9.6 of the Rules for Post-Graduation (M.D./M.S. Course) in Clinical, Para Clinical and Non-Clinical Disciplines in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh of the year 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rule,'). The alternative submission of the petitioner is that if rule 9.6 of the above admission rules is construed against the petitioner, holding him disentitled to admission, the rule will suffer from the vice of being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The contents of rule 9.6 of the Rules which is under consideration before us, for interpretation and for judging its validity, may be reproduced :- 9.6 Assistant Surgeons and Private Practitioners who have obtained a post-graduate decree in any subject shall not be allowed to take up degree or diploma in another subject. Assistant Surgeons and Private Practitioners who have a diploma in any subject, would, however, be allowed to obtain a post-graduate degree in the same subject after a period of at lest three years from the date of completion of the diploma course." 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner before being appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeon had obtained a post-graduate degree as Assistant Surgeon i.e. after his entry to the service of the state. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on a reasonable interpretation on the Rule 9.6, there is no prohibition for admission to a candidate who obtained a post-graduate degree before being appointed as Assistant Surgeon. The learned counsel submits that qua-Assistant Surgeon petitioner did not possess any post-graduate degree and, therefore he could not be denied admission on the basis of Rule 9.6 of the Rules quoted above. 5. The learned counsel submits that qua-Assistant Surgeon petitioner did not possess any post-graduate degree and, therefore he could not be denied admission on the basis of Rule 9.6 of the Rules quoted above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities in medical education of the State, submitted in reply that keeping in view the aim and object of the rule to restrict admission to such Assistant Surgeons who do not already possess a post graduate degree, the rule should to construed to prohibit admission being granted even to such Assistant Surgeons who already held a post-graduate degree, before being appointed as Assistant Surgeons in the State service. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that in case Rule 9.6 is interpreted to mean that it prohibits admission even to candidates who had already obtained a degree as institutional candidates before their appointment as Assistant Surgeons, the rule would suffer from the vice of discrimination between such candidate, vis-a-vis the institutional candidates, military personnel and other categories of eligible candidates mentioned in Rule 3-A to D of the Rules. 7. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties on the question of construction of Rule 9.6 and its validity, we could not persuade ourselves to agree to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In construing the rule like the present one, the rule had to be read as a whole and in the light of other provisions regarding admission contained in the entire body of 1984 Rules. It is a settled Gannon of interpretation that such meaning should be given to the rule which would best fulfil the apparent or declared aim and object of the rule making authority. Rule 9.6 if read as a whole is apparently intended to provide facility of undertaking higher medical education to the in-service candidates who do not already possess it and at the same time to limit the scope of competition for limited number of seats in the quota fixed for Assistant Surgeons. The Rules read as a whole show that Assistant Surgeons with five years service constitute a separate class for admission to post-graduate courses and against the limited number of seats reserved for them. Competition for such reserved seats is, therefore, restricted to Assistant Surgeons with five years experience which also is a very large group in State service. The Rules read as a whole show that Assistant Surgeons with five years service constitute a separate class for admission to post-graduate courses and against the limited number of seats reserved for them. Competition for such reserved seats is, therefore, restricted to Assistant Surgeons with five years experience which also is a very large group in State service. Rule 9.6, therefore, is introduced to limit the number of competing candidates and to keep out of consideration such candidates who are already holders of post-graduate degree. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts, while construing the rule 9.6 to show that the expression "Assistant Surgeons who have obtained a post-graduate degree", used in rule 9.6 keeps out only those. Assistant Surgeons who had acquired degree during the service and does not exclude those who during their student career had acquired a degree before being recruited or appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeons in the State Service. In short, the submission of the counsel is that such candidates who acquired post-graduate degree qua-Assistant Surgeons are alone deprived of availing of the second opportunity of doing post-graduation in any other subject. The rule 9.6 according to the petitioner, imposes no restriction on Assistant Surgeons who had that degree before their entry into service. 10. A closer scrutiny of rule 9.6 would reveal that the interpretation placed by the petitioner on the rule is neither sound nor does it fulfill the apparent object of the rule. Rule 9.6 is in two parts. In the first part there is absolute prohibition to Assistant Surgeons holding any post-graduate degree in "any subject" to even take up degree or diploma in "any other subject." 11. In the second part of the said rule, only facility made available to Assistant Surgeons is that those who possess a diploma in 'any subject' would be allowed to obtain degree in the 'same subject', but that too after a period of three years. 12. If the interpretation placed by the petitioner's counsel is accepted the Assistant Surgeons having degree or diploma prior to their entry into service would have the facility to undertake the degree or diploma in any other subject but Assistant Surgeons possessing such degree during service will have no such facility. This would result into constituting two distinct classes within the class of Assistant Surgeons. This would result into constituting two distinct classes within the class of Assistant Surgeons. To us, it would be unreasonable and discriminatory in its application to Assistant Surgeons as a class and would be highly prejudicial to one of the classes of the Assistant Surgeons who acquired degree during service. The Assistant Surgeons in State service constitute one class deserving uniform and equal treatment. To classify them into two classes, in the manner above, would be per Se unreasonable and discriminatory. Either both the classes of Assistant Surgeons should get equal opportunity of higher education or none of them. The classification said to be made by the petitioner will have no nexus with the object of reserving a specified number of seats for admission to Postgraduate medical courses for Assistant Surgeons, desirous of acquiring higher educational qualifications, while in service. 13. The interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would also result in glaring discriminatory treatment to Assistant Surgeons who obtained degree in one subject during service vis-a-vis those who had already obtained it before service. Preferring for admission the latter group to the former has no reasonable justification. We have, therefore, to reject such interpretation which would render the rule violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, rule 9.6 applies equally and prohibits admission to all Assistant Surgeons whether possessing a post-graduate degree before entry into service or who obtained it while in service. 14. The attack on rule 9.6 based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India has, according to us no force at all. It has been urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the rule is discriminatory vis-a-vis candidates belonging to other classes or categories such as institutional merit candidates, military personnel and private practitioners. To us, the other categories of candidates constitute distinct classes deserving differential treatment to achieve the object of providing opportunity of higher medical education in reasonable proportions, to candidates opportunity various medical fields. In the above respect it may be noted that under rule 8.1 only such merit candidates who complete their house jobs within the relevant calendar year are within the Zone of consideration. All other institutional candidates of the previous batch are totally out of consideration. In the above respect it may be noted that under rule 8.1 only such merit candidates who complete their house jobs within the relevant calendar year are within the Zone of consideration. All other institutional candidates of the previous batch are totally out of consideration. Military personnel constitute another distinct class and within them are included only such candidates who are recommended or nominated by concerned military Authorities for admission to Medical Colleges in accordance with rule 5-A of the Rules. The requirement with regard to the Military Personnel for higher education is a matter to be necessarily left to the choice of the concerned Military Authorities who alone understand their needs and demands. Private practitioners, as a separate class have. only six reserved seats in a year as provided in rule 5-B (i) and to them facility and restrictions for taking up higher medical education are the same as to the Assistant Surgeons in accordance with rule 9.6 Private practitioners have been defined in R. 2 (i) of the Rules to cover only registered medical practitioners. Similar to the case of Assistant Surgeons, Private practitioners possessing a post graduate degree before their registration or subsequent to it, are to be given same and similar treatment as to the Assistant Surgeons The challenge to rule. therefore, based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also without substance. 15. Mention has to be made of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 220 of 1989 decided on 14-8-1989, on which the earned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, being according to him a case similar in facts to the present case. In the aforesaid case the candidate had already been admitted to the post-graduate degree course in subject Medicine in the year 1988 although he fell in the category of Assistant Surgeons and had already passed his diploma in subject Child Health in the year 1982. It appears that in the aforesaid decision. the Division Bench failed to notice that under rule 9.6 (construed by us in this case), and according to its first part, an Assistant Surgeon holding a post-graduate degree in one subject is totally prohibited from taking up any degree or diploma in another subject even after a period of throe years. It appears that in the aforesaid decision. the Division Bench failed to notice that under rule 9.6 (construed by us in this case), and according to its first part, an Assistant Surgeon holding a post-graduate degree in one subject is totally prohibited from taking up any degree or diploma in another subject even after a period of throe years. The limitation of three years prescribed in latter part of rule 9.6 is applicable only when an Assistant Surgeon already holding a postgraduate diploma desires to obtain a post-graduate degree in the same subject. It appears that in the aforesaid decision the Division Bench was not alive to the situation that three years limit prescribed in latter part of R. 9.6 cannot be applied to candidates falling in the former part of the said rule. In any case that was an individual case where an Assistant Surgeon, although wrongly admitted to the post-graduate course was refused admission at a subsequent stage on the basis of non-disclosure of some information in the application form which was said to be a misconduct under rule 11 of the Admission Rules. It also appears that in the Division Bench case, rule 9.6 was not considered for its proper construction and meaning. The decision, therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 16. Consequently, the petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.