Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–The controversy involved in this case falls within a very small compass whether petitioner Dr. Vinay Malhotra (herein `respondent) considering his educational qualifications was eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer (Nephrology). (2). Facts emerged and no longer in dispute are, the respondent is a holder of qualification M.D. (Medicine) from University of Rajasthan, Two Years special training in Nephrology from Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, D.M. (Doctoratus Medicinus) from Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Diplomat National Board (Nephrology) National Board of Examination, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, 1996. The respondent was registered with Rajasthan Medical Council. The candidature of the respondent was rejected vide letter dated 2.5.1997 on three grounds that he is not possessing the requisite training till last date of submission of application forms; that he was not having two years special training after D.N.B. (Nephrology); that his qualifications have not been recognised by the Medical Council of India. (3). The State Government vide its advertisement dated 1.11.1996 issued a short term advertisement inviting applications for urgent/temporary appointment on three posts of Assistant Professor (Nephrology). The respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) (Nephrology) vide order dated 5.4.1997 on urgent/temporary basis. The respondent joined the post on 5.4.1997 and since then he is working as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Nephrology (4). The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (herein `appellant) issued an advertisement No. 6 dated 26.10.1996 inviting applications for appointment on three posts of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) alongwith other posts in various disciplines. The requisite educational qualifications prescribed for appointment on the said posts are D.M. (Nephrology), M.D. (Medicines) with two years special training in Nephrology. The respondent applied for the post, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the appellant on the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) alongwith four other candidates. As the respondent did not receive letter of interview nor any rejection letter from the appellant and the appellant published the date of interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) 23.4.1997 at 10.00 A.M. The respondent after service of notice on the appellant, approached this court by filing a writ petition seeking directions to the appellant that the respondent be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.10.1996 and if he is found suitable he may be appointed with all consequential benefits. Later on the respondent received a letter dated 21.4.1997 that he is not eligible for appointment on the said post and his application is rejected. In the meantime when the respondents application was pending consideration, the Deputy Secretary Medical & Health (Gr. 1) Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur, was informed by the Registrar University of Rajasthan that on recommendation of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceuticals, the Academic Council vide its Resolution No. 6(ii) dated 20/25.08.1992 and by Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 3 dated 14.11.1992 have approved Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for imparting training. (5). The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 10.07.1998 allowed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has held that the respondent was wrongly non-suited on the ground that the training from Banaras Hindu University is not recognised which goes contrary to the letter Annexure-9 which recognises the Banaras Hindu University for imparting training in Nephrology by the University. That the service condition, the recruitment and the appointments are governed by the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rule, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1962). The service has been defined as Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) and State Medical College has been defined as established by the State Government. The method of recruitment has been prescribed in Part 11 and Part IV which prescribes for inviting applications for recruitment. The academic qualifications have been prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1962 i.e. the qualification of the candidates shall be provided in Schedule 1 or Schedule 11 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 has approved imparting of training in Banaras Hindu University and thus the respondents application could not have been rejected, he having fulfilled all the requisite qualifications. The learned Single Judge further held that there is no Rule or law prescribed that the training should be other D.N.B. rather it has been held by the court that the qualification for D.N.D. is sufficient to the recruitment for the post of Lecturer. The appellant. The learned Single Judge further held that there is no Rule or law prescribed that the training should be other D.N.B. rather it has been held by the court that the qualification for D.N.D. is sufficient to the recruitment for the post of Lecturer. The appellant. (respondents in writ petition) have not been able to satisfy that the training was taken after D.N.B. In fact the training was taken after M.D. The court has directed the appellant to issue the letter of interview of the respondent forthwith and to consider his candidature in accordance with law. The exercise has to be completed within two months after the receipt of the order. It is this order which is under challenge before us by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (6). It is submitted by the counsel for appellant R.P.S.C., Mr. S.N. Kumawat that same qualifications held by the respondent at the relevant time were not recognized qualifications for giving appointment to the respondent on the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology). (7). It is clear from the advertisement that the requisite qualifications were D.M. (Nephrology), M.D. (Medicines) with two years special training in Nephrology. The respondent is M.D. in Medicines but D.M. (Nephrology) from the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. He also did his two years special training in Nephrology from the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Whether the qualification acquired by the respondent and the training undertaken from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi can be held to be a recognised medical qualification? Section 2(a) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) defines the ``approved institution means a hospital, health centre or other such institution recognised by a University as an institution in which a person may undergo the training, if any, required by his course of study before the award of any medical qualification to him. Section 2(h) of the Act defines ``recognised medical qualification means any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules. The Banaras Hindu University is approved institution but the qualification of D.M. in Nephrology is not approved qualification under the 1st Schedule to the Act. Under Section 11 of the Act the medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India which are included in the first Schedule shall be recognised medical qualification. The Banaras Hindu University is approved institution but the qualification of D.M. in Nephrology is not approved qualification under the 1st Schedule to the Act. Under Section 11 of the Act the medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India which are included in the first Schedule shall be recognised medical qualification. Section 10-B of the Act lays down that where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training including a post-graduate course of study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college, on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. To be an approved and recognised medical qualification, it is required to be mentioned in the first Schedule of the Act. That being the case, M.D. Degree in Nephrology obtained by the respondent from Banaras Hindu University having not been included in the first Schedule is not the recognised medical qualification. (8). Faced with the difficulty that D.M. from the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi is not recognised medical qualification, the Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is also a Diplomat National Board (Nephrology) which is recognised to be an equivalent qualification to requisite D.M. qualification. The respondent fulfills the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post and the interview, and thereafter the appointment or interview could not have been denied to him. (9). The D.N.B. qualification awarded by the National Board of Examination has been equated with the post-graduate degree and post-doctoratus level qualification of Universities by Government of India, Ministry of Health Family Welfare vide various notifications issued form time to time for the appointment of Teachers in teaching Institutions. By the notification dated 3.10.1994 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India equated qualifications granted by the University/Medical Institutions and recommended as under- ``It is recommended that for teaching appointments in broad specialities, the holder of Diplomat NBE should have atleast one year teaching experience as a Tutor/Registrar/Demonstrator or equivalent post in recognised Medical College imparting under-graduate teaching and training for appointment as Lecturer. Regarding the candidates holding Diplomat NBE in super speciality subjects the training shall be for 2 years in a recognised Medical College having recognised post graduate medical degree in the concerned speciality for appointment as a Lecturer. (10). Thus the Government of India, on recommendation of the Medical Council of India has equated the degree of Diplomat in NBE (Nephrology) which is super speciality subject to D.M. in Nephrology for appointment to the post of Lecturer, if a person has undergone a training for two years in recognized Medical College having recognised post-graduate medical degree in the concerned speciality. It is not sufficient that the training of two years is from the recognized medical college but the necessity is, two years training should be from the recognized medical college which has recognized post-graduate medical degree in Nephrology, for the purposes of equivalence. For appointment to the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Nephrology, the person must be Diplomat in NBE (Nephrology) with two years training in a Medical College which can confer post-graduate medical degree in Nephrology as recognized by Medical Council of India. Admittedly the respondent took training of two years in Nephrology from the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi which do not have authority to confer a recognised post-graduate medical degree in Nephrology. Thus the training taken by the respondent cannot be held to be a recognised medical training in Nephrology from Banaras Hindu University. Under sub-section (2) of Section 10-B of the Act the training can be given in a subject only with the previous permission of the Central Government and no medical qualification granted to any student of said Medical College on the basis of such study or training shall be recognised medical qualification. The Central Government has equated the Diplomat from the NBE in Nephrology with D.M. (Nephrology) only if there is two years training in an Institution having recognized post-graduate study in Nephrology. Equivalence by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare can only be to a training from an Institution which has recognised post-graduate medical degree. The Diplomat from the N-BE in Nephrology would be equated with D.M. if two years training is taken from the institution which has recognized medical degree training. Diplomat of NBE without there being any training of two years could not be equated with D.M. in Nephrology. The Diplomat from the N-BE in Nephrology would be equated with D.M. if two years training is taken from the institution which has recognized medical degree training. Diplomat of NBE without there being any training of two years could not be equated with D.M. in Nephrology. The respondent having training from the Institute of Medical Science Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi which does not hold authority to confer a recognized degree of D.M. (Nephrology) the training undergone by the respondent cannot be considered for the purpose of equivalence for D.M. (Nephrology). (11). It is then submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the University having recognized Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for imparting training, two years special training undergone by the respondent from the Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi should be considered to have been taken from a Medical College having recognised post graduate medical degree in Nephrology (12). In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Others (1), the Supreme Court has considered the question whether after coming into force the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 the State Government has a power to grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution as defined in the Central Act. The Apex Court has considered the powers exercised by the Union and the State Legislature in legislating under Entry 66 of List 1 i.e. Union List of Schedule VII to the Constitution and Entry 25 of List III i.e. Concurrent List and held that - ``(i) The expression `Coordination used in Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule VII to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make `coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make `coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. (ii) To the extent that the State Legislation is in conflict with the Central Legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon Legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. (iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State Legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State Legislation being repugnant to the Central Legislation, the same would be inoperative. (iv) Whether the State Law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the Law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two Laws and will depend upon the facts of each case. (13). From the Apex Courts decision it is abundantly clear that the State Legislation in conflict with the Central Legislation, although on the same subject referable to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the Legislation made by the Union under Entry 66 List 1 or even under Entry 25 List III to the Constitution of India shall prevail and law contrary to it shall be void and inoperative. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is a Central Act and the powers exercised by the Union in making this law are referable to Entry 66 of the Union List and/or Entry 25 of Concurrent List. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is a Central Act and the powers exercised by the Union in making this law are referable to Entry 66 of the Union List and/or Entry 25 of Concurrent List. Section 10-A (b) of the Act lays down that `Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1956 or any other law for the time being force no Medical College shall open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act. (14). Section 10-B (2) of the Act provides ``Where any Medical College opens a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 10-A, no medical qualification granted to any student of such Medical College on the basis of such study or training shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act. Thus it is apparent that no Medical College is permitted to open a course of study or training which will enable a student to have a recognized medical qualification except with the previous permission of the Central Government and such qualification shall be recognized medical qualification only if such course of study or training is started with the previous permission of the Central Government. The Training in Nephrology in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi has not been started with the previous permission of the Central Government, therefore the Training from Banaras Hindu University in Nephrology cannot be held to be a recognized medical qualification. (15). The University of Rajasthan has approved the training imparted from the Banaras Hindu University as an adequate training for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) and on that basis it is contended by Mr. (15). The University of Rajasthan has approved the training imparted from the Banaras Hindu University as an adequate training for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology) and on that basis it is contended by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, counsel for the respondent, that approval having been given to the training in Banaras Hindu University by the Academic Council of the Rajasthan University and is approved by the Syndicate it become ordinance in terms of Section 30 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1946 and therefore has become a recognized qualification. The submission of the counsel is that the powers exercised by the University of making an ordinance are referable to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and the University having approved the training in Banaras Hindu University it shall prevail. We are afraid that we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. There is a specific restriction on recognition of any qualification unless training is recognized by the Central Government under the Act of 1956 which is a Central Act. The approval granted by the University for a training in Banaras Hindu University without the approval of the Central Government for such training is in direct conflict with the Central Act of 1956 particularly with Sections 10-A (b) and 10-B (2) of the Act. Approval of training in Banaras Hindu University by the University is in conflict with the Central Act and is void and inoperative. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has erred in holding that respondents training in Nephrology from Banaras Hindu University having recognized by the University, the respondent has fulfilled all educational qualifications for his appointment on the post. (16). The learned Single Judge has also missed the fact that rejection of the application of the respondent was not only on the ground that he undertook the training after his DNB (Nephrology) Degree but was also on the ground that he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Nephrology). The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The appeal is allowed.Government is free to recommence the selection process. However, under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.