MOHAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal arises out of writ petition No. 6034 of 1991. We will refer to the parties as described in the writ appeal because W. P. No. 6034 of 1991 came to be dealt with along with W. P. No. 6928 of 1991 by our learned brother Justice shivaraj patil on 19th july, 1991. ( 2 ) THE appellant passed his m. b. b. s. degree from gulbarga university in the year 1984. Thereafter he joined as resident of jayadeva institute of cardiology, respondent No. 1. Then he appeared for the examination of the certificate of diplomate of national board in general surgery (discipline) in the year 1990. Having passed the above examination, the appellant applied for admission for m. ch. In cardio thoracic surgery for the year 1991-92 under the first respondent. On 23-1-1991, he was selected. Consequent to that selection, he was admitted to the said course by remitting necessary fees. Thereafter, he started attending classes. ( 3 ) ON 9th january, 1991, the first respondent wrote to the Bangalore university seeking clarification whether the application of the appellant was in order. In other words, the clarification was on the point whether certificate of diplomate of national board in general surgery (discipline) could be regarded as equivalent to m. s. in general surgery. ( 4 ) THE second respondent by his letter dated 7-2-1991 wrote to the first respondent stating that the appellant was not eligible for the year 1990-91 for m. ch. Course. This was because he had taken m. s. general surgery examination in february, 1991. On the strength of this letter, the first respondent cancelled the admission of the appellant for the course of m. ch. In cardio thoracic surgery postgraduate course for the year 1991-92. This cancellation led the appellant to file W. P. No. 6034 of 1991. On the writ petition being admitted, an interim order was granted enabling the appellant to continue the course pending disposal of the writ petition. That was on 12th march, 1991. . at this stage, the 4th respondent herein preferred W. P. No. 6928 of 1991 in which the prayer was for a direction to consider his application immediately pertaining to the selection in m. ch. Course in cardio thoracic surgery for the year 1991-92. That was on 12th march, 1991. . at this stage, the 4th respondent herein preferred W. P. No. 6928 of 1991 in which the prayer was for a direction to consider his application immediately pertaining to the selection in m. ch. Course in cardio thoracic surgery for the year 1991-92. This was on the footing that consequent to the cancellation of admission of the appellant, the seat being available, the fourth respondent possessing necessary qualification ought to be considered for selection. At this stage, the 4th respondent came to know of the pendency of the writ petition No. 6034 of 1991 and got himself impleaded as 4th respondent in the said writ petition itself ( 5 ) AS a sequel to impleading, the 4th respondent filed an application for vacating the stay. This court on 11-4-1991 modified the interim order to enable the first respondent-institute, to continue the process of selection of the 4th respondent. However, in the event of he being selected, appropriate order will have to be obtained. Thereupon, the first respondent-institute selected the 4th respondent on 25-4-1991 and directed him to obtain further orders from the court and then alone the institute will be in a position to take further steps in the matter of admission to post graduate course, it was at this stage the writ petitions themselves were taken for final disposal. ( 6 ) THE only contention urged on behalf of the appellant was that inasmuch as the certificate of diplomate of national board in general surgery was equivalent to m. s. in general surgery as per the Indian medical council regulations, the university was not right in declaring that as not equivalent. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. L Asawa v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 933 . The learned judge came to the conclusion "as to whether a particular course is equivalent or not to the recognised course of the university is a matter entirely falling in the domain of the university authorities. " In the result, the learned judge upheld the cancellation and dismissed W. P. No. 6034 of 1991. As regards W. P. No. 6928 of 1991, the learned judge partly allowed directing the first respondent to permit the 4th respondent to join and continue m. ch. " In the result, the learned judge upheld the cancellation and dismissed W. P. No. 6034 of 1991. As regards W. P. No. 6928 of 1991, the learned judge partly allowed directing the first respondent to permit the 4th respondent to join and continue m. ch. Course subject to his satisfying the conditions laid down in Rule 9 of the Karnataka medical colleges and dental college (selection of candidates for admission to the post graduate courses) rules, 1987. In so far as W. P. No. 6034 of 1991 has been dismissed, the petitioner therein, viz. , The appellant herein, has preferred the present writ appeal. However, no appeal has been preferred against partly allowing of W. P. No. 6928 of 1991. ( 7 ) BEFORE us, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G. Gangi Reddy, would submit that the certificate of diplomate having been issued by the national board of examinations has been recognised as equivalent to m. s. by the Indian medical council. Where, therefore, such recognition as equivalent to m. s. is by the Indian medical council which is the authority prescribed to issue certificate as far as medical courses are concerned, the university cannot and should not have decided otherwise. Not only this. Earlier one Dr. R. C. Srivyas was admitted based on the same qualification in february, 1986. He had obtained qualification of nnams (general surgery) granted by the national board of examination, New Delhi. That being the position, the university cannot take a different stand now. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision in B. L. Asawa v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 933 . ( 8 ) SRI P. L. Kumara Swamy, learned counsel for Bangalore university submits that under Regulation 2 of the Bangalore university regulations, it has been categorically prescribed that candidates who seek admission to m. ch. In cardio thoracic surgery, must be a master of surgery of Bangalore university or any other statutory universities in India and declared as equivalent of Bangalore university and recognised by Indian medical council. Unless these requisities are satisfied, it cannot be contended on behalf of the appellant that he possesses degree in master of surgery. Further, the national board of examinations is not an university established under any statute. Therefore, the certificate of diplomate given by it does not satisfy the requirement of Regulation 2. Unless these requisities are satisfied, it cannot be contended on behalf of the appellant that he possesses degree in master of surgery. Further, the national board of examinations is not an university established under any statute. Therefore, the certificate of diplomate given by it does not satisfy the requirement of Regulation 2. It was only on this, it was regarded as not equivalent to M. S. (general surgery) of the Bangalore university. ( 9 ) EQUIVALENCE prescribed by the Indian medical council is for the purpose of the Indian medical council act. That cannot enable prescription of equivalence which is the sole function of the university. ( 10 ) SRI M. R. Achar, learned counsel for Respondent-1-Jayadeva institute of cardiology and Smt. Usha A. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have supported the arguments of the learned counsel for Bangalore university. ( 11 ) THE short question for our consideration is, whether certificate of diplomate of national board in general surgery (discipline) could be regarded as equivalent to m. s. general surgery. ( 12 ) CERTIFICATE of diplomate of national board, which is marked as Annexure-E is extracted below:"national board of examinations p. b. 4931, ring road, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi. Ref: surg. /ii/88/feb. /90/2170, dt. 8/6. Certificate diplomate of national board certified that Sr. Chinnaswamy Reddy, H. M. s/o Sri Muniyappa Reddy passed the final examinations conducted by this board held on 25-5-1990 with regn. No. 10253 in general surgery (discipline ). 2. Dr. Chinnaswamy Reddy H. M. is qualified for the award of certificate of diplomate of national board in general surgery (discipline ). Sd/- registrar (admn.) For executive director"the concerned regulation of the university, viz. , Regulation 2 for m. ch. In cardio thoracic and vascular surgery reads as under:"the candidate should be a holder of master of surgery (general surgery) of Bangalore university or any other statutory university of India or abroad and declared as equivalent of Bangalore university and recognised by Indian medical council. "admittedly, the appellant is not 'holder of master of surgery (general surgery) of Bangalore university'. Then the question is, whether he holds master degree in general surgery of any other statutory university of India. In this case, what he possesses is only the certificate issued by the national board of examination. As already urged by Sri Kumara Swamy, learned counsel for Bangalore university, this board is not a statutory board. Then the question is, whether he holds master degree in general surgery of any other statutory university of India. In this case, what he possesses is only the certificate issued by the national board of examination. As already urged by Sri Kumara Swamy, learned counsel for Bangalore university, this board is not a statutory board. Therefore, it does not satisfy regulation 2. By no stretch of imagination it could be held that the certificate of diplomate would be equivalent to degree in m. s. (general surgery) of Bangalore university. However, it is seen from the notification published in the gazette dated 19th september, 1983, issued by the government of India, ministry of health and family welfare, department of health, that the diplomate n. B. Qualifications in various disciplines granted by the national board of educations, New Delhi shall be recognised as medical qualifications when granted on or after 30th august, 1982. Item 3 of the schedule reads as follows:"diplomate national diplomate n. B. Board (general surgery) (gen. Surg.)"it should be remembered that this notification by government of India has come to be issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian medical council act. With this, we will straight away go to Indian medical council act. Section 11 speaks of recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India. Sub-section (1) reads as under:" (1) 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 purpose of this act. "under sub-section (2), in the first schedule to the said Act, recognition is made by the central government by notification. One such notification is as we have stated above, notification dated 10th september, 1983. It is to be carefully seen sub-section (1) talks about the recognition for the purpose of the Act, namely, Indianmedi-cal council act. "under sub-section (2), in the first schedule to the said Act, recognition is made by the central government by notification. One such notification is as we have stated above, notification dated 10th september, 1983. It is to be carefully seen sub-section (1) talks about the recognition for the purpose of the Act, namely, Indianmedi-cal council act. The objects of the act are as follows: " (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 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 cases 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 universities 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". therefore, this is entirely different from declaring a particular degree as equivalent to a degree of Bangalore university. In our considered opinion, it is the university of Bangalore alone that can prescribe such equivalence. We have already seen as to what regulation 2 prescribes. In other words, the object of the act is not to prescribe essential qualifications required for admission to a particular course. The necessary qualifications for admission will have to be prescribed under the concerned University Act or statutes or ordinances made thereunder. ( 13 ) AIR 1982 SC 933 , B. L. Asawa v State of Rajasthan deals with different situation altogether, that is evident from the following extract. "11. The university of Bihar at muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. ( 13 ) AIR 1982 SC 933 , B. L. Asawa v State of Rajasthan deals with different situation altogether, that is evident from the following extract. "11. The university of Bihar at muzaffarpur is one duly established by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and award degrees. The degree of doctor of medicine (forensic medicine), m. d. (forensic medicine) of the university of Bihar is included in the schedule to the Indian medical council Act, 1956 as a degree fully recognised by the Indian medical council which is the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any university of medical institution in India. A post-graduate medical degree granted by a university duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian medical council by inclusion to the schedule of the medical council act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other universities in any state in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a state. The division bench of the high court was, in our opinion manifestly in error in thinking that since the post-graduate degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the university of rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of any specific order by the university of Rajasthan recognising the said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification. It is common ground before us that the university of Rajasthan does not conduct post-graduate examinations in the subject of forensic medicine and does not award the degree of m. d. (forensic medicine ). In order that there should be scope for declaration of. 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another body, there can be declaration obtained from a body different from the one awarded by the concerned university. When the university of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award of the degree of m. d. (forensic medicine), there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by any university. When the university of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the award of the degree of m. d. (forensic medicine), there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by any university. Unfortunately, the state public service commission as well as the division bench of the high court failed to notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out that the declaration of 'equivalence' referred to in Section 23-a of the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan university ordinances can only be in respect of qualifications other than basic or po,st-graduate degrees awarded by other statutory Indian universities in the concerned subjects. In the case of a. Post-graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded by a statutory Indian university, no recognition or declaration of equivalence by any other university is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree basic as well as post-graduate that is awarded by a statutory Indian university and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian medical council". ( 14 ) FROM the above, it is clear where the Bihar university which was statutory Indian university had recognised the degree which was already accepted by the Indian medical council, it was held that no further recognition is necessary. As pointed out earlier, diplomate was not conferred by statutory body since the national board of examination has not been established by any statute. ( 15 ) IN the result, we hold that the cancellation of the admission of the appellantis perfectly valid. ( 16 ) MAY be, earlier the first respondent might have made a mistake in admitting another candidate in 1986 who had obtained only diplomate qualification. But that does not mean the mistake should be repeated. We are also not informed the circumstances under which that candidate, viz. , Dr. Srivyas came to be admitted. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a correct precedent. ( 17 ) N> writ appeal fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .