B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) QUESTIONING the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in giving admission to D. M. Cardiology to the 3rd respondent, who it is alleged has passed D. N. B. examinations conducted by National Board of Examinations, New Delhi, and which according to the petitioner is not an educational qualification prescribed for admission to D. M. Cardiology, this writ petition is filed. ( 2 ) THIS Court admitting the writ petition directed the respondents to make it clear to the admitted candidate that his admission will be subject to the result of the writ petition and he shall not claim any equities in WPMP No. 10515 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPNP No. 12022 of 2000 seeking permission of the Court to implead the Secretary, Medical Council of India and the Registrar, National Board of Exams, New Delhi as Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, to make their stand clear whether the DNB qualification possessed by the 3rd respondent can be equated to that of M. D. (General Medicine) or Paediatrics which has been prescribed as a prerequisite educational qualification for admission into D. M. Cardiology course. That WPMP was ordered on 25-07-2000. By an Order dated 9-8-2000 my brother Justice V. V. S. Rao, J. directed the writ petition to be posted for final hearing subject to part-heard while directing the learned counsel appearing for Medical Council of India to file his counter. Thereafter, the writ petition is posted before me for final hearing. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that under the statutory rules, framed by the State Government, the educational qualifications prescribed for admission to D. M. Cardiology Course is M. D. either in General Medicine or Paediatrics. The case of the University is that in the year 1994 the University having entertained a doubt whether DNB qualifications can be equated to that of M. D. Courses which has been prescribed as minimum educational qualifications for admission to D. M. Cardiology addressed a letter to the Medical Council of India, which in its turn in MC-22 (1)/94-Med. /25100, dated 28-11-1994 informed the University that the Postgraduate Committee decided to permit the Candidates possessing DNB Qualifications without M. D. / M. S. for admission to D. M. /m. Ch. Courses. /25100, dated 28-11-1994 informed the University that the Postgraduate Committee decided to permit the Candidates possessing DNB Qualifications without M. D. / M. S. for admission to D. M. /m. Ch. Courses. It is useful to extract the same:"the Post-graduate Committee decided to permit the candidates possessing D. N. B. qualifications without M. D. /m. S. for admission to D. M. /m. Ch. courses. However, the Postgraduate Committee further decided that for teaching appointments in concerned department, the holders of Diplomate National Board should have at least two years training in a recognized medical college having recognized postgraduate medical degree in the concerned speciality for appointment as a Lecturer. "from the above it is seen that the Postgraduate Committee constituted by the Medical Council of India seemed to have decided to permit DNB certificate holders also for admission to DM/mch. Courses. It is also seen from this letter that for teaching appointments one has to possess two years training in a recognized medical college having recognized postgraduate medical degree in the concerned speciality for appointment as a Lecturer. Having received the said clarification, the University seemed to have placed the matter before the Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 20-12-1994 and on the basis of the clarification, the Executive Council has resolved to permit the candidates having DNB qualifications for admission into D. M. /m. Ch. Courses through entrance test. Since then the University made it clear in the notification itself that apart from M. D. (General Medicine) Paediatrics DNB qualifications in the concerned specialities is also recognized as one of the educational qualification for admission to D. M. Courses. After the Medical Council was impleaded as a party respondent, counter-affidavit has been filed. It is useful to extract the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit. "3. That as per the regulations on Post-Graduate Medical Education framed by the Medical Council in the year 1988 u/s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act the stipulated eligibility qualification for admission to DM (Cardiology) is MD (Medicine) and MD (Paediatrics ). Even in the new regulations which are presently pending the approval of the Central Government the eligibility qualification prescribed for admission to DM (Cardiology) is the same i. e. MD (Medicine) and MD (Paediatrics ). Even in the new regulations which are presently pending the approval of the Central Government the eligibility qualification prescribed for admission to DM (Cardiology) is the same i. e. MD (Medicine) and MD (Paediatrics ). ( 4 ) HOWEVER as regards the Teachers eligibility qualifications the Council has prescribed that the DNB Qualification may be treated on par with MD/ms if the same is granted by the National Board of Examinations after passing the necessary examination and fulfilling one year research experience. The copy of the relevant portions of the statutory Regulations of Medical Council of India is enclosed herewith as Annexure "a". "from the above extract it is seen that the Medical Council framed regulations prescribing the eligibility qualification for admission to DM (Cardiology) and minimum qualifications for appointment as teachers separately and both the notifications were appended to the counter. Regulations relating to Postgraduate Medical Education made it very clear that only M. D. for Medicine or Paediatrics is prescribed as the educational qualification for admission into Cardiology, but not DNB qualification. On the other hand, for appointment of teachers, DNB qualification is recognized as an equivalent qualification to that of Postgraduate degree subject to the condition that one must have minimum one year research experience and these regulations are in force since 1988. It is not known how the Postgraduate Committee has taken a decision contrary to the regulations. It is further interesting to note that for appointment of teachers the regulation specified that one must put in one year research experience, while the Postgraduate Committee says that one must have two years training. From this it is evident that the clarification given by the Medical Council of India dated 28-11-1994 is the result of non-application of mind and without reference to the regulations that are in force. In fact, in the counter-affidavit, the Medical Council has categorically stated that now the regulations are being amended and draft proposals were already submitted to the Government and the Council is waiting for its approval. Even as per the new regulations DNB qualification is not recognized as an equivalent qualification to that of MD/ms for admission into super speciality courses. In fact, in the counter-affidavit, the Medical Council has categorically stated that now the regulations are being amended and draft proposals were already submitted to the Government and the Council is waiting for its approval. Even as per the new regulations DNB qualification is not recognized as an equivalent qualification to that of MD/ms for admission into super speciality courses. ( 4 ) NEXTLY, the regulations are having statutory force as they have been framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under S. 33 of the Act, and therefore, the Postgraduate Committee cannot ignore the statutory regulations and issue clarification contrary to the regulations that are in force. Any decision taken by the postgraduation Committee should be in consonance with the regulations. In this case, the so called clarification given by the Medical Council of India runs contrary to the regulations. ( 5 ) FOR all these reasons, I hold that the 3rd respondent is not having the required educational qualifications for admission into DM (Cardiology) course and the notification issued by the Health University showing DNB qualification as an equivalent qualification to MD is not in order. Hence I have no option except to set aside the admission given to the third respondent. In fact my brother Justice V. Eswaraiah, J made it very clear in his interim orders dated 2-5-2000 that the admitted candidate shall not claim any equities in the event the writ petition is allowed. The counsel for the 3rd respondent tries to bring to the notice of this court that he has taken admission as per the admission orders given by the University pursuant to the notification, but not as per the interim orders. But the fact remains that though the third respondent was selected for admission he joined the course only after the interim orders. Hence, no equities can be extended to him. The petitioner contends that he is the next man in order of merit as per the merit list prepared by the University and therefore, has to get admission. This fact is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the University. Hence, no equities can be extended to him. The petitioner contends that he is the next man in order of merit as per the merit list prepared by the University and therefore, has to get admission. This fact is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the University. If that is so, the respondent University shall consider the case of the petitioner for admission into DM Cardiology course for the academic year 2000-2001 and orders have to be passed forthwith, at any rate not exceeding two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly allowed without costs. That rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon ble Mr. M. S. Liberhan, Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hydrabad this Monday, the Sixth day of November, 2000. Petition allowed.