JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J. :---The petitioner claims in this writ petition that since he has done the house job of six months in General Surgery prior to seeking registration in the Post-Graduate degree course in Orthopaedics, his period of study should be reduced by six months according to the relevant Rules of the respondent University. 2. The petitioner was granted registration in M.S. Orthopaedics in July/August, 1992. The instant writ petition is preferred on 7-6-1994 after making representation to the University that the period of study of the petitioner should be reduced by six months, since he has done one house job in General Surgery. According to the petitioner, his application/representation to the respondent University is recommended by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur. 3. The question whether the period of study of the petitioner should be reduced by six months has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Ordinance No. 57 passed by the Nagpur University. The relevant clause is proviso (b) of sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the said Ordinance No. 57. For the sake of convenience sub-clause (i), (ii) and relevant portions of sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 and Clause 6 of the Printed Ordinance No. 57 are extracted below : Clause 4(i) : "A Candidate will be eligible for registration for Post Graduate Degree, if he has completed satisfactorily one year rotating internship after passing final M.B.B.S. Examination and has got himself registered with the State Medical Council." (ii) No person shall be registered for the Post Graduate Degree course unless such a person is in a position to work as a full time Resident student for the period applicable in his case. ....... ....... (vii) The period of regular course of study for the Post Graduate Degree shall be of three years after successful completion of one years rotational internship. Provided, that the period of study shall be less. (a) By one year, if the applicant has done two house job of 6 months duration each prior to seeking registration, with at least one house job in the subject of registration. (b) By 6 months, if the applicant has done only one house job of 6 months duration in the subject of prior to seeking registration. (a) By one year, if the applicant has done two house job of 6 months duration each prior to seeking registration, with at least one house job in the subject of registration. (b) By 6 months, if the applicant has done only one house job of 6 months duration in the subject of prior to seeking registration. Clause 6 : Subject to his compliance with the provision of this Ordinance and of other Ordinances in force from time to time, applicant for admission to a examination under this Ordinance shall be eligible therefor, if he --- (a) Has been duly registered ; and (b) Has prosecuted a regular courses of study and research for the requisite minimum period specified in this Ordinance. 4. It is clear from sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 that the period of regular course of study for the Post Graduate degree course is of three years after successful completion of one years rotational internship by the candidate. The proviso to the said sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 provides in which cases the period of study can be less than three years. Clause (a) of the said proviso provides that if a candidate has completed two house jobs each of six months duration prior to seeking registration at least one of which is in the subject of registration, his period of study will be less by one year. Clause (b) of the said proviso to sub-clause (vii), which is relevant for our purpose then provides that if a candidate has done only one house job of six months duration in the subject of (sic) prior to seeking registration his period of study will be less by six months. 5. As hereinbefore pointed out, according to the petitioner he has done only one house job of six months duration in General Surgery prior to his registration in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in July, 1992 i.e. from 22-2-1992 to 16-8-1992. The submission is that the subject of General Surgery is an allied subject to the subject of Orthopaedics and, therefore, in interpreting Clause (b) of the said proviso, the effect should be given also to the house job in the allied subject. 6. The submission is that the subject of General Surgery is an allied subject to the subject of Orthopaedics and, therefore, in interpreting Clause (b) of the said proviso, the effect should be given also to the house job in the allied subject. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the word "registration is not there in Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57, and therefore, when the word used is only "subject", it should include an "allied subject" also, The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent University has however, pointed out to us that in the original ordinance, the word "registration" is used after the word subject of and that there is an omission of the word "registration" after the words "subject of" in the printed Ordinance No. 57. 7. In appreciating the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, it has to be seen that a bare perusal of the printed Ordinance in question which is filed at Annexure-C to the petition by the petitioner would show that it contains material errors and omissions such as there is misprint in the number of the Ordinance itself because the number of Ordinance printed is 75, when in fact it should be "57". Further, it may be seen that in Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the said Ordinance as it is printed, the word is not merely "subject", but "subject of" which would clearly show that thereafter there is some word which is missing. We cannot, therefore, accept the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing missing in the said Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance 57 which is printed and a copy of which is filed by the petitioner. 8. Even otherwise, it may be seen that the scheme of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57 reveals that it is principally doing of house-job in the subject of registration which entitles a candidate a reduction in the period of study. 8. Even otherwise, it may be seen that the scheme of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57 reveals that it is principally doing of house-job in the subject of registration which entitles a candidate a reduction in the period of study. If doing of the house job for six months in the subject of registration is coupled with an house job in another subject for six months prior to seeking registration, the benefit of the duration of the said house job is also given as per the aforesaid Clause (a) in reduction of the period of study but what is material to be seen is that an house job in the subject of registration is a must. Otherwise, there was no need for any insistence upon the house job in the subject of Registration in Clauses (a) and (b) of the aforesaid proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57. In this view of the matter we accept the submission made on behalf of the University that according to the original Ordinance No. 57 or even according to the tenor of the printed Ordinance what is required in Clause (b) of the aforesaid proviso is the house job of six months duration in the subject of registration. 9. If the expression used is the "subject of registration" in Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause No. 4 of the Ordinance No. 57, there is hardly any scope for interpretation that it should include an house job in an allied subject also. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner has done one house job in the allied subject of General Surgery prior to registration the period of study should be reduced by six months on that ground is therefore devoid of any merit. It is also sought to be shown to us by referring to the papers in the subject of Orthopaedics that one of the subjects therein is Surgery and therefore, when there is house job in the subject of General Surgery, it should be taken into consideration in reducing the period of study by six months. It is also sought to be shown to us by referring to the papers in the subject of Orthopaedics that one of the subjects therein is Surgery and therefore, when there is house job in the subject of General Surgery, it should be taken into consideration in reducing the period of study by six months. This is an argument of despair because when admittedly Orthopaedics and "General Surgery" are treated as different subjects for Post Graduate Studies and when there are separate house-jobs in these subjects, merely because there is one paper in General Surgery in the course, prescribed for Orthopaedics it would not mean that the house-jobs in both the subjects are the same. In this regard, it is material to see that the subject of General Surgery does not show any paper in Orthopaedic as such. Therefore, mere knowledge of General Surgery cannot be of assistance even on the basis of the submission advanced before us to show that while doing the house job in General Surgery there is training and experience in the whole subject of Orthopaedics also. Moreover, these are matters in the realm of academic bodies. The above submission made on behalf of the petitioner thus deserves to be rejected. 10. We may at this stage point out that if we go by the strict interpretation of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57, what they contemplate is completion of house-jobs prior to seeking registration and not prior to registration which means that the house-job/s should be completed before the application is made for registration and it does not mean that the house job should be completed prior to registration. In the instant case according to the petitioner himself he had secured registration in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in July, 1992 whereas according to him, he has completed the house job in General Surgery on 8-8-1992 which shows that he has not completed the house job in General Surgery prior to seeking registration in M.S. (Orthopaedics) i.e. prior to the application made for registration in the said subject. In fact, the above fact shows that he has not completed the house job in General Surgery even prior to his registration in July, 1994. 11. In fact, the above fact shows that he has not completed the house job in General Surgery even prior to his registration in July, 1994. 11. In this regard, it is necessary to see sub-clause (ii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57 which provides that no person shall be registered for the Post Graduate Degree Course unless such person is in a position to work as a full time Resident student for the period applicable in his case. When the petitioner was doing his house job till 8th August, 1992 in General Surgery, it cannot be said that he was still then in a position to work as Full time Resident student. Further, it may be seen that Clause 6 of the Ordinance No. 57 emphasizes that a candidate should have prosecuted a regular course of study and research for the requisite minimum period specified in the said Ordinance No. 57 for being eligible to appear for his Post Graduate Degree Examination. We cannot therefore, accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the period of study should be reduced by six months as per Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57. 12. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioner before us is that the University has given registration previously to some of the students and had reduced their course of study by six months although they do not have house jobs in their subjects of registration prior to seeking registration. In reply, the University has filed an additional affidavit on 20-7-1994. It is pointed out in the said affidavit that Dr. Amit Kumar Behl and Dr. Parijat De had done their one house job in their subject of registration i.e. Medicine prior to their registration in December, 1992. As regards Dr. Jyoti Deshmukh, it is pointed out that she had done two house jobs in Medicine one from 22-2-1992 to 16-8-1992 and the second from 20-8-1992 to 8-2-1993 and she was registered in Medicine in January, 1993. Since there was a delay of one week in completion of the house job due to the administrative reasons on grounds of natural justice, the condonation was granted to her. As regards Dr. Dapke, it is stated in the affidavit that his record was burnt. Since there was a delay of one week in completion of the house job due to the administrative reasons on grounds of natural justice, the condonation was granted to her. As regards Dr. Dapke, it is stated in the affidavit that his record was burnt. However, it is further stated that even assuming that the facts stated in this regard by the petitioner were true, the mistake if at all committed in his case has to be corrected and cannot be allowed to be perpetrated to maintain compliance with the relevant rules in Ordinance No. 57 relating to studies in the Post Graduate Degree Examination. 13. As regards the comparison made by the petitioner of his case with the case of Dr. Jyoti Deshmukh that he has completed two house jobs like her, one in General Surgery from Feb, 1992 to August, 1992 and second in M.S. (Orthopaedics) from August, 1992 to January, 1993, it is rightly pointed out by the University in its written submissions that the alleged second house job is completed by the petitioner not prior to seeking registration for M.S. (Orthopaedics), but as a post graduate student and not as a house surgeon and the aforesaid Clause 4 of Ordinance No. 57 clearly requires completion of house job prior to seeking registration to get the exemption of six months in the course of study as also shown by us hereinabove. The above submission made on behalf of the University in regard to the cases of the above students is well founded and has to be accepted. The contention in this regard raised on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. 14. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 Dean has accepted his interpretation of Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance No. 57 and he has recommended to the University his case for reduction of the period of study by six months. It appears from the correspondence of the Dean with the University that the suggestion of the Dean is under consideration of the Academic Body of the University. However, till the rule is suitably amended, he has to go by the existing rules. It appears from the correspondence of the Dean with the University that the suggestion of the Dean is under consideration of the Academic Body of the University. However, till the rule is suitably amended, he has to go by the existing rules. The existing rule is clear and leaves no scope for reduction of course for study by a period of six months unless the candidate has completed his one house job in the subject of registration prior to seeking registration in the same. There is also no provision brought to our notice by which the University has powers to allow reduction of the period of study by relaxing the rule or by its waiver. We cannot, therefore, accept the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 15. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.