U.L. Bhat, CJ-The petitioner was one of the applicants for seat in Post Graduate Course in Orthopaedics in 1990-91 session it appears by that time the Rules framed for admission in 1987 had been replaced by a new set of Rules (1990) providing, inter alia, for selection by written test as directed by the Supreme Court in the Post Graduate Admission Case. Some of the candidates filed writ petition as Civil Rule No. 2418 of 1990 before this Court. This Court on 11.1.91 passed an interim order staying the implementation of the 1990 Rules and directing selection of candidates for admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses in three Medical Colleges in Assam for the year 1990-91 in accordance with the earlier Rules. In substance the direction was that the selection should be made without the benefit of entrance test Therefore, selection was conducted in accordance with 1987 Rules. The Orthopaedics subject in Post Graduate has only four seats. A select list of four persons was published. The said list did not include either the petitioner or the 4th respondent though it is pointed out the 4th respondent was included in the waiting list. One of the four selected candi­dates did not turn up for admission and the vacancy was allotted to the 4th respondent. The select list bad been published on 15.5.91 and the 4th respondent was admitted on 17.5.91. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 24.9.91 challenging the admission granted to the 4th respondent on the ground of ineligibility and putting forward a claim for the vacant seat. The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit and on behalf of the other respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed. When the petition came up for orders today with the consent of the learned counsel of the parties we have heard arguments in the writ petition and we propose to dispose of the same. There are certain undisputed facts in the case. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are holders of MBBS degree The petitioner has secured more than 58% marks in General Surgery in MBBS, the `4th respondent has not secured 58% marks in General Surgery. There is also no dispute that adopting the selection method contemplated under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules, 4th respondent has a preferential claim over that of the petitioner for the seat, in case he has eligibility. There is also no dispute that adopting the selection method contemplated under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules, 4th respondent has a preferential claim over that of the petitioner for the seat, in case he has eligibility. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that assuming that the 4th respondent is found to be ineligible, the petitioner would not be entitled to the seat since there are four other qualified and selected persons above the petitioner. However, the short; question before us is whether the 4th respondent is or is not eligible. If he is eligible, admittedly the selection cannot be challenged. Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules lays down eligibility criteria. We are concerned in this case only with sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (iv) of Rule 5, which are quoted hereunder: "5.(iv) He must have secured the following minimum marks in the final MBBS examination in the subject, in which he seeks admission to the Post-Graduate Course. (a) 58% marks in the subject concerned for degree/diploma courses in clinical subjects. (b) 55% marks in the subject if admission is, sought to para-clinical degree courses and preferably 55% marks in the subject if admission in sought in pre-clinical degree, .course (i.e. Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry). (c) 50% marks in aggregate in the final MBBS examination if admission is sought to a Post-Graduate Degree of Diploma Course in Anaesth-esiology or Radiology." It may also be relevant to notice Rule 7 which deals with the procedure for selection, the procedure for criteria of selection among eligible candidates. It may be worthwhile to notice Note (b) appended to Rule 7 which reads thus : 5'Note :--(a) ... ... (b) If no separate marks are awarded by the University in the subject concerned, the aggregate marks in the Final MBBS Examination should be considered in relation to the percentage of marks for the subject indicated above. What is in dispute in this case is the selection to the seat in the Orthopaedics-subject in the Post Graduate Degree Coursed Admittedly, there is no subject designated as Orthopaedics in the MBBS Degree course, though Generel Surgery is one of the subjects to be studied in the MBBS course. What is in dispute in this case is the selection to the seat in the Orthopaedics-subject in the Post Graduate Degree Coursed Admittedly, there is no subject designated as Orthopaedics in the MBBS Degree course, though Generel Surgery is one of the subjects to be studied in the MBBS course. The argument of the petitioner is that the clinical subject dealt with in Rule 5 (iv) (a) is Orthopaedics and the subject concerned referred to therein in which a candidate should have secured 58% marks to be eligible for admi­ssion is General Surgery since Orthopaedics is not a specific subject in MBBS course. Our attention has been invited in this connection by the learned counsel for the respondents to the recommendations of the Medical Council of India on Post Graduate Medical Education. We notice according to the Medical Council recommendation Post Graduate Courses may be conducted in specialities divided into four groups-(A) General Medicine and General Surgery, (B) Specialities in which a straight MD/MS can be taken, (C) Specialities in which a candidate shall have MD/MS in any of the subjects noted against each and (D) Basic Sciences. We do not think the recommendation is helpful to us. There is no dispute that Orthopaedics and General Surgery are clinical subjects. The contention of the petitioner is that the words `subject concerned' in Rule 5(iv)(a) must be referred to General Surgery is resisted by the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Reading Rule 5(iv) (a) as a whole there can be no doubt that the words Subject concerned' have direct relation to the succeeding - words "degree/diploma courses in clinical subjects". The Rule making authority wanted a direct nexus between the clinical subjects of the Post Graduate Degree course in which a candidate is interested and the marks in the particular subject. The clause does not suggest that for Post Graduate Degree course in a particular subject marts of a related subject or larger subject, less comprehensive subject or more comprehensive subject can be considered. Marks can be considered of the subject, that is, the `subject' concerned'. The subject concerned in the Post Graduate Degree course being Orthopaedics, marks can be considered of the `concerned subject' i.e. Orthopaedics which is not the subject in MBBS Degree course. Marks can be considered of the subject, that is, the `subject' concerned'. The subject concerned in the Post Graduate Degree course being Orthopaedics, marks can be considered of the `concerned subject' i.e. Orthopaedics which is not the subject in MBBS Degree course. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the contention of the petitioner that since 4th respondent secured -less than 56% marks in General Surgery he must be held to have obtained less than 38% marks in Orthopaedics. There is no serious argument before us that sub-clauses (b) or (c) of clause (iv) of Rule 5 applies in this case. It is suggested that unless the words `subject concerned' are interpreted in a broader manner so as to relate General Surgery in the case of Orthopaedics sub-rule (iv) would not cover Post Graduate Degree courses in Orthopaedics and that would leave a lacuna in the Rule. Though at first blush the argument appears attractive, on consideration of Rule 5(iv) with Note (b) of Rule 7 we have to reject the contention. Note (b) of Rule 7 states-"If no separate marks are awarded by the University in the subject concerned, the aggregate marks in the final MBBS Examination should of considered in relation to the percentage of marks for the subject indicated above. The Rule making authority would have done well to place Note (b) of Rule 7 under Rule 5(iv) rather as a Note (b) of Rule 7 has a direct nexus with the eligibility criteria suggested in Rule 5(iv). Note (b) clearly takes into account the possibility of `subject concerned' not being prescribed or awarded any marks in the MBBS examination and suggests the method to be followed for selection. There is no dispute before us if Note (b) of Rule 7 is invoked in this case, 4th respondent would be found to be eligible and also entitled to preferential right over the petitioner. We hold Note (b) applies and hence 4th respondent is eligible. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned admission of 4th respondent and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.