JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is qualified as Doctoratus Medicinus (D.M.) from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for short 'BHU'). He is M.D. (General Medicines). He has done 2 years 3 months training in Nephrology after passing the M.D. at the Institute from 8.4.94 to 7.7.96 as per Annexure-2 issued by the Department of Nephrology, Institute of Medical Science BHU University Varanasi. He is also qualified in Diplomate of National Board (DNB) in Nephrology as per Annexure-4 which qualification is equal to D.M. He is registered with Rajasthan Medical Council as Annexure-5. 2. In response to the advertisement dated 26 October, 1996 (Annx. 10) as published in the newspaper vide Annexure-6, applications were invited for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). The qualifications mentioned in Annexure-6 were DM Nephrology/DM MD Medicine with two years training in Nephrology the qualifications were required to be recognised by the Medical Council of India (M.C.I.). 3. The petitioner is already working as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Nephrology on temporary basis, having been so recruited under the proviso of Rule 30(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short `the Rules') in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3000-100-5000 and stands posted in SMS Medical College, Jaipur. He was selected vide Annexure-7 on 5th April, 1997 though on temporary basis on the recommendations by the Central Selection Committee i.e. the petitioner's qualifications stand already recognised as he had been selected though temporarily vide Annexure-7, which selection was made in response to advertisement issued by the State Government vide Annexure-6 dated 1.11.96 for temporary appointment wherein identical and similar qualifications had been mentioned i.e. appointment letter Annexure-7 was issued in response to advertisement Annexure-6. 4. For the purpose of recognising the training and imparting training in Nephrology after MD for a period of two years, the Rajasthan University have already issued a communication copy which is Annexure-9 wherein as many as 9 Institutions have been mentioned which have been approved by the Syndicate of the Rajasthan University as Institutions for imparting training in Nephrology. The BHU University Varanasi is one of that approved institution for imparting training, its name figures at S.No. 9. The letter reads as under 5. "From to The Registrar the Dy. Secretary University of Rajasthan Medical & Health (Gr. I) Deptt., Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. F 1-63/Aca. The BHU University Varanasi is one of that approved institution for imparting training, its name figures at S.No. 9. The letter reads as under 5. "From to The Registrar the Dy. Secretary University of Rajasthan Medical & Health (Gr. I) Deptt., Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. F 1-63/Aca. 11/97 Dated, Jaipur Sub : Regarding institutions for imparting training in Nephrology for appointment of Assistant Pro. Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. F. 1(3) M.E./Gr. 1/86 dated 22.1.1997 on the above subject. I am directed to inform you that on the recommendations of the Faculty of Medician and Pharmaceuticals vide its Reso. No. 10 dated 27.3.1992 duly approved by the Academic Council vide its Reso. No. 6(ii) dated 20/25 August, 1992 and by the Syndicate vide its Reso. No. 3 dated 14.11.92 the following institutions have been approved for imparting. 1. PGI Chandigarh 2 to 4 ........5. BHU Varanasi, UP 6 to 8, 9. Sanjay Gandhi Institute Lucknow UP Yours faithfully, sd/Registrar" 6. The petitioner had also vide its request Annexure-8 on 26th January, 1997 requested the Rajasthan University to supply him the names of the Institutions where degrees in the MD and DM in Nephrology had been recognised. Of course it was never replied to him. Having received no reply, the petitioner reminded the RPSC of his application stating therein and also referring to a decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1619/94 wherein the High Court had held that DNB qualification itself is a sufficient qualification for appointment for the post of a Lecturer. It was further mentioned that on the basis of the DNB even the petitioner as also number of Lecturers have already been appointed in various faculties, his representation Annexure-1 1 is self contained speaking representation, no reply was received. 7. However, being dis-appointed the petitioner ultimately filed the present writ petition for the relief that after examining the record, the petitioner be allowed to be interviewed for the post of Assistant Professor in Nephrology in pursuance of the advertisement Annexure-10 dated 26th October, 1996 and if he found fit, be appointed. 8. Reply has been Had on behalf of the RPSC. It i,~ stated in the reply that the degree in DM as issued by the BHU Varanasi is not recognised. Even though the institute itself is recognised. 8. Reply has been Had on behalf of the RPSC. It i,~ stated in the reply that the degree in DM as issued by the BHU Varanasi is not recognised. Even though the institute itself is recognised. However, it is stated that because of the reason that the petitioner had undergone the training from the BHU University Varanasi and also for the reason that the DM in Nephrology is not a recognised degree obtained from BHU University as it does not find mentioned in the list of the recognised degrees even though the other degrees of the BHU Varanasi are recognised. Therefore, the training period in Nephrology in BHU University institution cannot be taken to be as recognised. On this very ground his candidature has been rejected. It is admitted that the petitioner was earlier selected with the same qualification and is working in SMS Medical College, Jaipur. It is also not disputed that the DNB qualifications of the petitioner (just in addition to the qualification of DM) is equivalent to DM and the DNB is recognised by the respondent. 9. From the pleading of the parties, the following facts are clear : (i) Banaras Hindu University Varanasi and the Medical College attached to it is recognised institution, (ii) Vide Annexure-9 contents of which have been reproduced above, imparting of training in Nephrology after the Post Graduation in the BHU is approved institution, (iii) Petitioner is admittedly Post Graduate, (iv) Petitioner has taken training for more than two years as per Annexure-2. 10. During the time of arguments a photostat copy of the order mentioning the reasons for rejection of his candidature was produced i.e. letter dated 21st April, 1997 shown as Annexure-12 wherein the reasons for rejection has been mentioned to be that the petitioner does not possess two years training after DNB in Nephrology. 11. The question which arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner possesses the training of two years in Nephrology and whether the training is to be considered when the candidate takes such training after DNB Nephrology or after MD. 12. Record has been produced by the counsel for the RPSC. 11. The question which arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner possesses the training of two years in Nephrology and whether the training is to be considered when the candidate takes such training after DNB Nephrology or after MD. 12. Record has been produced by the counsel for the RPSC. In regard to the petitioner, matter has been dealt with and it had been found by the authorities that the petitioner was DNE Nephrology and this qualification is duly recognised by the MCI as equivalent to DM Nephrology and therefore, he is entitled to be considered as duly eligible. His case has been dealt with as under : jksy ua0 5 MkW0 fou; eYgks=k " vkosnd us ,e0Mh0 ( esfMflu ) jktLFkku ls o"kZ 1993 esa fo'ofo|ky; ls mRrh.kZ dh gS lkFk gh mlus Mh0,e0 ( usQzksyksth ) cukjl fgUnw fo'ofo|ky; ls mRrh.kZ dh gS ( tks fd ,e0lh0vkbZ0 ls ekU;rk izkIr ugha gS ) vkosnd us Mh0,u0ch ijh{kk o"kZ 1996 esa mRrh.kZ dh gSA Mh0,u0ch0 ( usQzksyksth ) dks ,e0lh0vkbZ0 }kjk muds i= fnukad 12-1-89 ( >aMh d i=koyh la0 ,Q0 7 ( 23 ) HkrhZ@88&89 ) }kjk Mh0,e0 ( usQzksyksth ) ds le{kd ekU;rk iznku dh gSA vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ esa foKkiu la[;k 9@95&96 fnukad 22-2-96 ds rgr Hkh vH;FkhZ us viuk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k ftlesa vkosnd us vius dks Mh0,u0ch0 dk jftLVMZ Nk= gksuk n'kkZ;k o mDr ijh{kk vkosnu i= dh vfUre fnukad 20-4-96 rd mRrh.kZ ugha dh o jsftMsUV fQthf'k;u ds crksj dh xbZ V~sfux dks vk;ksx }kjk fo'ks"k V~sfux ugha ekus tkus ds dkj.k vik= dj fn;k x;k FkkA pawfd vkosnd us vc Mh0,u0ch0 ( usQzksyksth ) ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj yh gS ,oa ,u0lh0vkbZ0 }kjk Mh0,u0ch0 ( usQzksyksth ) dks Mh0,e0 ( usQzksykth ) ds le{kd ekuk tk pqdk gS ,oa vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ ds o"kksZa esa ,sls vH;FkhZ ftUgksusa Mh0,u0ch0 ijh{kk vkosnu i= dh vfUre fnukad rd mRrh.kZ dj yh gks mUgsa ik= ekuk x;k gS blh vk/kkj ij vH;FkhZ vc ik= curk gSA " 13. It was noted in para 31 that the petitioner is clearly eligible, which note was sent to the higher authorities. 14. It was noted in para 31 that the petitioner is clearly eligible, which note was sent to the higher authorities. 14. The case of the petitioner was again dealt with in para No. wherein it was mentioned that only one candidate i.e. the petitioner had been found to be eligible in response to the advertisement Annexure-10 and he should be called for interview which was sent to the Deputy Secretary and 'n para 68 the candidature of the petitioner for calling the interview vide has order dated 22nd March, 1997 had been approved. 15. The matter seems to have been again examined while examining the cases of other candidates, who were found ineligible and the case of title petitioner was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the training after passing the DNB or DM as is clear from para 89 of ICU noting of the record. 16. Copy of the letter Annexure-9 dated 19th March, 1997 is also on the record at page 56 wherein it is clearly mentioned by the University of Rajasthan that the BHU Varanasi is a recognised and approved institution for imparting training in Nephrology. The matter has not been dealt with :r: keeping view of the letter Annex. 9 nor any reference has been made of the letter Annexure-9 even though it is on the file at page 56 of the record produced before me. 17. Interestingly enough, some of the other candidates such as Dr. Rajiv Juneja's, candidature has been rejected on the ground that the said training is not after M.D. degree. There is no dispute that the training Annexure-2 was taken after the MD degree. It is no where mentioned that the training is to he taken after the DNB degree. 18. A similar question had arisen in the case of Dr. Shashi Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995(3) WLC (Raj.) 420 and it has been observed as under : "7. Ordinance 65(VI)(A) of the University Hand book reads as under: 1. Teachers of Dentistry and various specialities thereof must possess a basic University or an equivalent qualification included in the schedule attached with the Indian Dental Council Act. All other medical teachers must possess basic University or equivalent qualification included in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Act, 1956. Ordinance 65(VI)(A) of the University Hand book reads as under: 1. Teachers of Dentistry and various specialities thereof must possess a basic University or an equivalent qualification included in the schedule attached with the Indian Dental Council Act. All other medical teachers must possess basic University or equivalent qualification included in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Act, 1956. They should also be registered under the State/Central Medical Registration Act." "It is not in dispute that the Qualification of D.N.B. Cardiology, has been recognised by the Medical Council of India. equivalent to D.M. Degree. If the Medical Council of India has subsequently, in the year 1993, passed any resolution and made certain conditions, in any opinion on the basis of these conditions, the petitioner's right for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Cardiology cannot be rejected. The reason being thp resolution of the Medical Council of India was never published in the official gazette and as such cannot be a part of Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The advertisement issued by the RPSC also does not attach any condition that the applicant must have had training of two years in a recognished medical college having recognised post-medical degree in Cardiology. It is further to be noted that if a Post Graduate candidate from Rajasthan University is eligible, why a Diplomate from National Board cannot be eligible. Furthermore, the petitioner had already undergone training of two years in G.S. Pant Hospital attached to Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. There is nothing in the guidelines that the training should be after passing of Diplomate National Board in Cardiology. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the application of the petitioner was rejected in arbitrary way." 19. Apart from above, the University of Rajasthan has prescribed the qualifications as DM/MD in Medicine with two years special training in Nephrology for the post of Lecturer which has been prescribed with the consultation of the MCI. It is so provided in the statute of the University under Chapter 10 wherein qualification for the post of Lecturer have been provided in the faculty of medicine for the teachers in Medical Colleges for M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post Graduate Courses, Clause 1, 3 and 5 are reproduced as under: "1. It is so provided in the statute of the University under Chapter 10 wherein qualification for the post of Lecturer have been provided in the faculty of medicine for the teachers in Medical Colleges for M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post Graduate Courses, Clause 1, 3 and 5 are reproduced as under: "1. Teachers of Dentistry and various specialities thereof must possess a basic University or an equivalent qualification included in the schedule attached with the Indian Dental Council Act. All other medical teachers must possess basic University or equivalent qualification included in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. They should also be registered under the State/Central Medical Registration Act. 3. Medical teachers in medical colleges except the Demonstrator must possess the requisite recognised post-graduate qualification or a post graduate qualification awarded by the University of Rajasthan in their respective subject. 5. `Equivalent qualification' referred to above shall be determined by the Medical Council of India alone." 20. Counsel for the respondent-RPSC wants to rely on the schedule to the Indian Medical Council 1996 wherein certain recognised degrees of the BHU University have been mentioned. It goes without saying that the schedule is no assistance to the respondent for the reason that the petitioner having done the DNB degree is considered to be equivalent to DM which is an admitted fact even by the respondent and had been so dealt with as equivalent to DM. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on altogether on different reasons. 21. The respondent also relies on 1996(VII) SCC 741 wherein a question arose whether the training undergone at Cambridge University in UK after the year 1978 as degrees of that University are not recognised in India after 1978 to be equivalent to the DM. In that case the petitioner Nikhil Tondon was Ph. D. He never possesses the degree of DM and the question arose whether the training taken in Cambridge University, UK can be considered as equivalent to the DM and it was held that any training by giving the Ph.D. course cannot be considered to be equivalent to DM. In that case the petitioner Nikhil Tondon was Ph. D. He never possesses the degree of DM and the question arose whether the training taken in Cambridge University, UK can be considered as equivalent to the DM and it was held that any training by giving the Ph.D. course cannot be considered to be equivalent to DM. This authority is not helpful to the counsel for the respondent nor any such question arises in the present case, as the only point to be determined is whether there is any requirement under the law or the rules that the training should have been after passing the DNB on which ground the candidature has been rejected and the required training after MD is sufficient. 22. Even though from the record it reveals that the petitioner has been non-suited on the ground that because of the DM degree is not included is the list of the recognised degrees of the BHU University and therefore, an r practical training after passing M.D. taken from such institution should also not be recognised. However, vide Annexure-12 the rejection letter as communicated is on totally different ground i.e. "the training should have been after DNB." It has not been pointed out or brought on record as to from where and how the respondent had come to the conclusion that the training should have been after DNB specially when the cases of all other candidates were considered and rejected on the ground that the training was not after the MD. The petitioner had definately taken the training after qualifying the M.D. Examination. 23. Even though the case as dealt with in the record was on different footing but the rejection is totally on different ground which is not borne out of the record, but if the record is looked into the petitioner had been nor suited on the ground that the training from BHU University institution is no recognised which goes contrary to the letter Annexure-9 and surprisingly none of the officers had tried to deal with Annexure-9 even though the letter is on record. I am very sure if any attention would have been paid to Annexure-9 by the authorities, the result would have been quite different. Annexure-9 clearly states that the imparting of training by the BHU University is approved. The authorities some how have missed to note the existence of the factum of Annex. 9. I am very sure if any attention would have been paid to Annexure-9 by the authorities, the result would have been quite different. Annexure-9 clearly states that the imparting of training by the BHU University is approved. The authorities some how have missed to note the existence of the factum of Annex. 9. 24. Apart from above, the service conditions, the recruitment and the appointments are governed by the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. The service has been defined as the Rajasthan Medical College Service and the State Medical College has been defined as established in state by the State Government. The method of the recruitment has been prescribed in Part- II and Part-IV which prescribes for inviting applications for recruitment. The academic qualification has been prescribed under Rule 12 i.e. the qualification of the candidate shall be as provided in the Schedule I or II as laid down from time to time by the Rajasthan University for teaching staff for Medical Colleges i.e. it is the Rajasthan University which is supposed to prescribe the qualifications and as per Annexure-9 the Rajasthan University which has approved the imparting of training in the BHU University and thus, the respondent could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner. In nut-shell the admitted facts are as under : (i) the petitioner is DNB Nephrology which is equivalent to DM Nephrology, (ii) the petitioner is MD with two years training after MD, (iii) there is no rule or law prescribing that the training should be after DNB, rather it has been held by this Court that the qualification of DNB is sufficient to the recruitment for the post of Lecture. 25. For the above said reasons there is no escape but to hold that the petitioner was possessing the training of two years after M.D. All other o qualifications are admitted as having been possessed by the petitioner and there is no provision that the training in Nephrology should have been undergone after DNB. 26. Counsel for the respondent was not able to satisfy the Court as to how the candidature has been rejected on the ground that he had taken the training after the DNB, whereas he had taken the training after MD. In the case of Mr. Rajiv Juneja it is on record as produced, the Department throughout had been considering that the training should be after the MD. In the case of Mr. Rajiv Juneja it is on record as produced, the Department throughout had been considering that the training should be after the MD. Even the counsel for the respondent was of the opinion that the letter Annexure-12 giving such reason, photostat copy of which has been produced in the Court, is not part and parcel of the original record. However, without going into any other aspect for the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is to be allowed. 27. The counsel for RPSC had stated that as no candidate has been eligible therefore, the interviews were not held and there is likelihood of a fresh advertisement. May it be so, but the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was totally illegal and was not based on any relevant facts and was based on erroneous considerations and were not based on any rule or law and was even against the order issued by the University, copy of which has been produced as Annexure-9, as such the respondent RPSC is duty bound to issue the letter of interview to the petitioner forthwith and to consider his candidature in accordance with law. The exercise would be completed within two months after the receipt of this order. 28. The writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be paid by the RPSC.Writ Petition Allowed With Costs Rs. 2000/. *******