Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of writ of declaration declaring that the Board of Examiners constituted by the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University for the Session 1990 for M.D.Course in Community Medicine is illegal, inoperative and void, because of the inclusion of the second respondent as an Examiner, who is ineligible to be appointed as Examiner and for appropriate consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner is a Major in the Indian Army Medical Corps and appointed as Officer-Commanding (T.N.) Medical Unit. National Cadre Corps, with effect from 12. 1988. He is a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.,). After obtaining permission from his superior authorities to undergo the Doctor of Medicine Course in Community Medicine, the petitioner got admitted to the Course. He joined the course on 30.6.1988. The first Part of the Course was completed by him and cleared in the Examinations held in March, 1989. The examinations for the Second Part were written by him in March, 1990, followed by practical examination on 5th and 6th April, 1990. According to the petitioner, the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Sec.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, prescribe a Doctor’s Degree of a recognised University or equivalent examination in the particular subject as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, with at least five years postgraduate teaching experience in the subject concerned or in allied subjects in a college affiliated to a University or a recognised post-graduate institution for the purpose of appointment as examiner in any subject. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is not a holder of Doctor’s Degree but holding only. M.B.B.S., and B.S.Sc, of the Madras University. According to him, the Indian Medical Council has not recognised the B.S.Sc, as a medical qualification and on its recommendation the University of Madras abolished the course from the Academic year 1977-78 and introduced D.P.H. (Diploma in Public Health). It is also alleged by the petitioner that the second, respondent does not have five years post-graduate teaching experience in Community Medicine after acquiring M.D. Qualification. Thus, the petitioner contends that the constitution of the Board of Examiners is illegal because of the inclusion of the second respondent as a member thereof, because it contravenes the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. 3. Thus, the petitioner contends that the constitution of the Board of Examiners is illegal because of the inclusion of the second respondent as a member thereof, because it contravenes the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. 3. The first respondent viz., Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, has stated in its counter affidavit that the Medical Council of India has made certain recommendations regarding appointment of Examiners for post-graduate examinations by means of Regulations and they are only directory and not mandatory. Even the Regulation refers to a qualification equivalent to Doctor’s Degree in the particular subject and, therefore, a Doctor’s Degree is not a sine qua non for appointment as examiner. According to the first respondent the second respondent had obtained B.S.Sc, which was a post-graduate degree and was holding the post of Post graduate Examiner for the M.D. (Community Medicine) Examination, even under the Madras University, i.e., even prior to the birth of Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. She was all along recognised by the Medical Council of India as a competent and qualified examiner. She had more than five years postgraduate teaching experience. She being the Head of the Department of Com-munity Medicine in the Madras Medical College, is entitled under Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India to be an examiner. She being the Professor and above the rank of a Reader with the requisite teaching experience, is certainly qualified to be an examiner. She was also appointed as an External Examiner for the Degree of M.D. (Community Medicine) by the Osmania University, Kerala University and the National Board of Examination, New Delhi. Even at the time of granting permission to start M.D. Course in Social and Preventive Medicine at. Madras Medical College, the Secretary, Medical Council of India found that the College had the necessary facilities for conducting the course, after considering the qualifications of the members Of the teaching staff. The permission was granted in 1974. At that time, there was one Professor by name Dr.P.Manickam, whose qualifications were M.B.B.S., B.S.Sc, M.P.H., and Associate Professor by name Dr.H.Ghosal whose qualifications were M.B.B.S., B.S.Sc.,and two Assistant Professors, one of them being the second respondent having the qualification M.B.B.S., B.S.Sc, with ten years teaching experience. The other Assistant Professor had only M.B.B.S., Degree, to his credit with one year teaching experience. The other Assistant Professor had only M.B.B.S., Degree, to his credit with one year teaching experience. No objection, was taken by the Secretary to the Medical Council of India that the Degree of B.S.Sc, was not a medical qualification for the purpose of teaching the students of M.D. Course in Social and Preventive Medicine. None of the successive Heads of Department from 1975 till date was holding the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Community Medicine or General Medicine or D.P.H. All of them had served as Examiners in M.D. Social and Preventive Medicine Examination conducted by the University of Madras from the year 1976 to 1989 during which period 14 candidates had successfully completed their course under the said professors and passed the M.D. Examination. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council had taken cognizance of their Degrees. In fact, the petitioner also appeared for the Part-I Examination in MD. Course in March 1989 before Dr.B.Padmanabhan, who had only M.B.B.S., and B.S.Sc, Degrees and who was the Chairman and Member of the Board of Examiners. The Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, has included the M.D. Degree in Social and Preventive Medicine awarded by the Madras University, when persons holding M.B.B.S., B.S.Sc, only were appointed as Examiners to evaluate the candidates appearing for M.D. Examination. The Degree of B.S.Sc, was in existence in this State since 1914 on the pattern which prevailed in U.K. It can in no way be considered as a lesser qualification than M.D. Social and Preventive Medicine, though it has been abolished by the University in 1978, in order to have a uniform pattern of Post-graduate Education in Public Health. The second respondent has more than 20 years teaching experience and she has been the Head of the Department of the Institution of Community Medicine since March, 1989. Her competency cannot be questioned by the petitioner, who has passed Part I in M.D. course after being examined by a Board of Examiners comprising of person with similar qualifications only. In any event, the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India being recommendatory in nature, cannot vitiate the appointment of the second respondent as a member of the Board of Examiners. . 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, the contents of which are almost, the same as that of the first respondent. In any event, the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India being recommendatory in nature, cannot vitiate the appointment of the second respondent as a member of the Board of Examiners. . 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, the contents of which are almost, the same as that of the first respondent. She has stated that according to a ruling of the Supreme Court; the Regulations framed by the Medical Council are only recommendatory and not mandatory. She has also referred to the judgment of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2 of 1988 and Review Application No.1 of 1989 holding that for the post of Associate Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, the prescription of M.D. qualification by the Council is only recommendatory and not mandatory. She has also adopted the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. 5. It is seen from the papers included in the typed set filed by the petitioner that the nomenclature of B.S.Sc, was changed to D.P.H., as per recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Postgraduate Medical Education from 1977-78. The Academic Council of the University of Madras in its meeting held on 13th October, 1976, approved the recommendations of the Board of Studies in Medicine (Postgraduate) suggesting the introduction of “Diploma in Public Health” and the recommendations of the syllabus therefore. The Council accepted the recommendation of the Board to abolish the B.S.Sc., Degree Course from the academic year 1977-78. The duration of the D.P.H. Course was fixed as one year with the prerequisite of one year Senior House-Sergeancy/ Resident Internee/House-manship, out of which six months should be in Medicine and six months should be in Social and Preventive Medicine Department or allied Medicine Department. The records produced by the petitioner show that B.S.Sc., i.e., Bachelor in Sanitary Science was considered as a Degree course by the Madras University and till its abolition in 1977-78, such Degrees were being conferred. The petitioner’s contention that B.S.Sc, Degree cannot be treated as a medical qualification, as it was not recognised by the medical Council of India, is not well-founded. The documents of which reliance is placed by the petitioner’s counsel do not support such a case. The petitioner’s contention that B.S.Sc, Degree cannot be treated as a medical qualification, as it was not recognised by the medical Council of India, is not well-founded. The documents of which reliance is placed by the petitioner’s counsel do not support such a case. No doubt, the University accepted the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India that candidates for Post-graduate Degree/Diploma Courses should have completed one year’s House-manship or equivalent training and abolished the B.S.Sc, Course and introduced Diploma in Public Health in order to bring about uniformity in the pattern of education. That would not mean that the Degree of B.S.Sc, which was being conferred by the University of Madras ceased retrospectively to be a Medical Qualification. 6. It is necessary at this stage to refer to the objects. and scope of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act was intended to amend the. Indian Medical Council Act, 1933-- .(a) To give representation to licentiate members of the medical profession, a large number of whom are still practising in the country; .(b) To provide for the registration of the names of citizens of India who have obtained foreign medical qualifications which are not at present recognised under the existing Act; .(c) To provide for the temporary recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries outside India with which no scheme of reciprocity exists in case where the medical practitioners concerned are attached for the time being to any medical institution in India for the purpose of teaching or research or for any charitable object; (d) To provide for the formation of a Committee of Post-graduate Medical Education for the purpose of assisting the Medical Council of India to prescribe standards of post graduate medical education for the guidance of Univer- sities and to advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for post-graduate medical education throughout India; .(e) To provide for the maintenance of an all India register by the Medical Council of India which will contain the names of all the medical practitioners possessing recognised medical qualifications. 7. As per the preamble to the Act, it is one to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and the maintenance of a Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith. Sec.2(i) defines ‘regulation’, as a regulation made under Sec.33. 7. As per the preamble to the Act, it is one to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and the maintenance of a Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith. Sec.2(i) defines ‘regulation’, as a regulation made under Sec.33. Secs.11 and 14 deal with the question of recognition of medical qualifications by the Council. Under Sub-sec(1) of Sec.11 the medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule, shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Thus, the recognition by the Council is only for the purposes of the Act. If the medical qualification granted by any University is not included in the first Schedule, it does not cease to be a medical qualification. It will continue to be as such for other purposes. Sec.15 of the Act provides for enrolment on any State Medical Register and the requisite qualifications therefor. While that section provides for qualifications of a Medical Practitioner and prohibits persons who are not enrolled on a State Medical Register from practising medicine or holding office as physician or surgeon or issuing medical or fitness certificate or giving evidence in Court of Law under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act, there is nothing in the Section which relates to a teacher or examiner. Sec.16 empowers the Medical Council of India to call for information from every University or Medical Institution as to courses of study and examinations. Sec.17 confers a right of inspection of medical institution, college etc. Sec.18 confers a right of appointment of visitors to inspect any medical institution, college etc Secl9 empowers the Council to make a representation to the Central Government for withdrawal of recognition, on the ground that the course of study and examination to be undergone in, on the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council or that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University or medical institution or in any College or other institution affiliated to that University do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council. The section provides for the pWplure to be followed thereafter by the CapBOo^efame«tSecvl9-Aenables the Council krtowcribe minimum standards of medical etfoeti|oa required lot granting recognised medir calquaUftcations by Universities or medical institutions to India. Sec.20 deals with post-graduate medical studies and Sec.20-A with professional conduct. Secs.21 to 28 make provision for the maintenance of the Indian Medical Register, supply of copies, registration in the Indian Medical Register, removal of any name from the Register, provisional registration etc. Sec.29 relates to furnishing of reports, copies of minutes etc., to the Central Government. Sec.30 empowers the Central Government to institute a Commission of Inquiry, whenever it appears to the Government that the Council is not complying with any of the provisions of the Act. Sec.31 affords protection in respect of acts done in good faith under the Act. Sec.32 deals with the power of the Central Government to make rules. Sec.33 enables the Council to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act, with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Clause (k) of Sec.33 relates to the standards of staff, equipment, Accommodation, training and other facilities for medical education. Clause (1) relates to the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. By Sec34, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933 is repealed. 8. An analysis of the various sections of the Act indicates that the main purpose of the Act is to establish Medical Council of India, to provide for its constitution, composition and its functions. 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 Act envisages the prescription of standards of postgraduate medical education and recommendation by the Medical Council of India to the Central Government for taking action against any University or medical institution in the event of failure on the part of such University or institution to conform to the standard prescribed by the Council. .9. In State of M.P. v. Kumar Nivedita Jain, ALR. 1981 S.C. 2045: (1981)4 S.CC. .9. In State of M.P. v. Kumar Nivedita Jain, ALR. 1981 S.C. 2045: (1981)4 S.CC. 296 , The Supreme Court held that the authority of the Medical Council extends to the sphere of maintaining proper medical standard in medical colleges or institutions and it pay be open to the Council to lay down as reqoired Of a student who may seek admission into a medical college, the SupremoCourt took the view that the matter of selection for admission into medical college from out of the eligible candidates did not fall within the purview of the Council, as it depended upon the circumstances andnhe. conditions prevailing in particular States and any regulation pertaining thereto could only be recommendatory and not mandatory. .10. In Lalit K.Sharma v. Principal and Controller, S.M.S. Medical College Attached Hospitals, Jaipur and others, A.I.R. 1976 Raj. 54, it was held that regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for post-graduate medical education were advisory and not mandatory. Interpreting the provisions of Secs.l9-A and 20 of the Act, the Court observed as follows: ."If we look into Sec. 19-A it will appear that the Medical Council has been empowered to prescribe the minimum standard of medical education required for granting recognised medical qualification other than post-graduate medical qualification by Universities or medical institutions in India. The expression ‘minimum standard of medical education’ occurring in Sec. 19-A is of great significance as it positively indicates the mandatory character of this section and the educational institutions are bound to observe the minimum standards as required by Sec. 19-A Whereas if we look to Sec.20 then it will at once appear that the Medical Council is authorised to prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education for the guidance of University and for their advice, in the matter of securing uniform standards. To my mind the regulations framed by the Medical Council for the post-graduation medical education are of advisory nature and appear to be for the guidance of the educational institution. There is no mandate in Sec.20 given to the educational institutions to observe the minimum standards as has been given in Sec.19-A. On the contrary in Sec.19-A the post-graduate studies have been excluded from the criteria of minimum standards to be observed by the institutions conducting postgraduate training. There is no mandate in Sec.20 given to the educational institutions to observe the minimum standards as has been given in Sec.19-A. On the contrary in Sec.19-A the post-graduate studies have been excluded from the criteria of minimum standards to be observed by the institutions conducting postgraduate training. On a combined reading of Sec.19-Aand Sec.20 of the Act, to my mind, the regulation regarding selection to post-graduate training is therefore not of a mandatory character." 11. The relevant regulations in the present case are Regulations 1 and 9, under the heading "Postgraduate examinations - Recommendations on appointment of Postgraduate Examiners". Even as the heading shows, they are only recommendations. But, they have been approved by the Government of India as Regulations under Sec.33 of the Act. Regulation 1 reads as follows: "No person shall be appointed as an examiner in any subject unless he has taken at least five years previously a Doctor’s degree of a recognised University or an equivalent qualification in that particular subject as prescribed by the Medical Council of India and thereafter has had at least five years post-graduate teaching experience in the subject concerned or in an allied subject in affiliated college of a University or a recognised post-graduate institution." Regulation 9 is in the following terms: "All the post-graduate teachers with the rank of Readers and above and with five years post-graduate teaching experience are eligible to be appointed as internal examiner in their subject. The Head of department shall ordinarily be one of the examiners. The second internal examiner shall rotate after every two years." Both the regulations must be read together and a harmonious construction should be adopted. While under Regulation 1, a Doctor’s Degree of a recognised University or an equivalent qualification in that particular subject as prescribed by the Medical Council of India is essential, Regulation 9 speaks of Post-graduate teachers with the rank of Readers and above with five years post-graduate teaching experience and Heads of Department With regard to qualification of a post-graduate teacher, the Council has made separate recommendations which are also approved as Regulations by the Government of India. Only one such regulation has been made available to me in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner and it is regulation 6, which reads thus: "Teachers in a Medical College/Medical Institution having at least 7 years undergraduate and/or post-graduate teaching experience of which not less than 4 years should be after obtaining the requisite recognised post-graduates qualification shall be recognised as postgraduate teacher." This regulation does not insist upon a Doctor’s Degree as a requisite for appointment as a postgraduate teacher, Reading Regulation 9 referred to above pertaining to appointment of post-graduate examiners along with Regulation 6 pertaining to appointment of Post-graduate teachers, it is evident that for the purpose of Regulation 9 referred to above, a Doctor’s Degree is not necessary at all. As a general rule, Regulation 1 relating to appointment of post-graduate examiners provides that a person who does not have a Doctor’s Degree or an equivalent qualification in the concerned subject, shall not be appointed as an examiner. A special rule finds a place in Regulation 9 and it relates to all post-graduate teachers with the rank of Readers and above. In the case of latter who, according to Regulation 6 of the Regulations relating to appointment of post-graduate teachers need not possess a Doctor’s Degree, are eligible to be appointed as examiners in case they fulfil the requirements of Regulation 9, i.e., if they have five years post-graduate teaching experience, or if they happen to be the Heads of the Departments. Thus, even according to the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, a Head of the Department who does not have a Doctor’s degree and a post-graduate teacher with the rank of Reader and above with five years post-graduate teaching experience, are eligible to be appointed as examiners. 12. The second respondent is admittedly the Head of the Department of Community Medicine. She is also a Professor holding a rank above that of a Reader. She has more than five years post-graduate teaching experience. As seen from the counter-affidavits of both the respondents, she was the Assistant Professor taking classes for B.S.Sc., Course at Madras Medical College from 7. 1971 to 30.6.1972. She was Assistant Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, Madras Medical College from 10. 1972 to 110. 1974. She was Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, at Thanjavur Medical College from 210. 1974 to 24. 1971 to 30.6.1972. She was Assistant Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, Madras Medical College from 10. 1972 to 110. 1974. She was Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, at Thanjavur Medical College from 210. 1974 to 24. 1977 and at Stanley Medical College, Madras from 24. 1977 to 112. 1983. She became the Director of Institute of Community Medicine on 13. 1989. Thus, the second respondent fulfils the requisite qualifications prescribed under Regulation 9 pf the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for appointment as post-graduate examiner. 13. I agree, with the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in Lalit K.Sharma v. Principal and Custodian, Medical College Attached Hospitals, Jaipur and others, A.I.R. 1976 Raj. 54, that the regulations are only advisory and not mandatory. Even if they are considered to be mandatory, on the facts of the case, the requirements prescribed by the Regulations are satisfied by the second respondent. The petitioner’s contention based on Regulation 1 completely ignoring the provisions of Regulation 9 cannot be accepted. 14. The facts set out in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent prove beyond doubt that ever since the course of M.D. in Community Medicine was commenced, the candidates have been examined by persons who had not acquired a Doctor’s Degree. All along, the Madras University and the first respondent University have been interpreting the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India in a particular manner to which no objection was raised at any time by the Medical Council. On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu’ Medical Council had recognised the Degrees obtained by such candidates. It is also seen that the Secretary to the Medical Council of India at the time of granting permission to Madras Medical College to start M.D. Course in Social and Preventive Medicine, was convinced that the requirements of the Regulations were satisfied even though no member of the teaching staff had a Doctor’s Degree. 15. In cases like this, the salient principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Principal, Patna College v. K.S.Raman,A.I.R. 1966S.C. 707, is attracted and the High Court should be slow to interfere in such matters, when the construction placed on a rule or regulation by the educational authorities in educational matters is a plausible construction. 15. In cases like this, the salient principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Principal, Patna College v. K.S.Raman,A.I.R. 1966S.C. 707, is attracted and the High Court should be slow to interfere in such matters, when the construction placed on a rule or regulation by the educational authorities in educational matters is a plausible construction. In paragraph 20, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “...Even on the merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision pf the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. The limits of the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognised and it is, on the whole desirable that the requirements prescribed by judicial decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such matters should be carefully borne in mind.” So long as the construction placed by the University on the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India is not ex facie unreasonable, it would not be proper for this court to reject the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 16. There is yet another reason why the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. Admittedly the petitioner has passed Part I of M.D. Examination after appearing before Dr.B.Padma-nabhan who also possessed only M.B.B.S., and B.S.Sc, Degrees. He was the Chairman and Member of the Board of Examiners. The petitioner has undergone the course for the second year under the second respondent, who has been the Director of Community Medicine from March, 1989. In such circumstances, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. There is much force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is motivated and the petitioner’s action is not bona fide. 17. In such circumstances, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. There is much force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is motivated and the petitioner’s action is not bona fide. 17. In the result, the writ petition has to suffer a dismissal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs.2,000 to be shared equally by counsel for the first respondent and counsel for the second respondent.