JUDGMENT Jyoti Singh, J. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks inter alia quashing of letter dated 22.05.2021, whereby Respondent No. 1/Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the `Institute') has rejected Petitioner's application for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) on the ground that he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria of publications as prescribed under the Institute's Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as the `RRs'). Writ of mandamus is sought directing the Institute to re-initiate the process of screening/selection in terms of order passed by this Court on 01.02.2021, in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner being W.P.(C) 1129/2021. 2. Factual score, as per the narrative in the writ petition and necessary for adjudicating the issues emanating therefrom is that the Petitioner completed his MBBS and M.S. in General Surgery from Kanpur University and thereafter pursued his Ph.D. in Gastro-intestinal (GI) Surgery from Delhi University. He joined the Department of GI Surgery at G.B. Pant Hospital in 1986 as a Resident, where he dedicatedly offered his services in teaching, research and clinical activities till 1998. Petitioner not only taught but was also an examiner for students in M.Ch. (specialisation in GI surgery) degree course as an ad-hoc Associate Professor. In 1998, Petitioner cleared the UPSC examination and was posted at G.B. Pant Hospital as regular Associate Professor, GI Surgery. Between 2005-2019, Petitioner worked as Senior GI Surgeon/CEO/Head/Chairman /Director of GI Surgery Department in various reputed Hospitals like Batra, Fortis, Kailash, Agrasen, to name a few. By a letter dated 07.02.2019, Secretary General of Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the `MCI') confirmed Petitioner's eligibility for post of Professor in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology in medical colleges in India, based on his academic qualifications, teaching experience and research publications. 3. On 18.12.2016 and 19.10.2017, advertisements were issued by the Institute inviting applications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) as per which the criteria of eligibility was M.Ch. in Surgical Gastroenterology (2/3/5/6 years recognized course) or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto with 11 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology etc. Petitioner applied for the post and was hopeful of a positive outcome being eligible, experienced and meritorious. in Surgical Gastroenterology (2/3/5/6 years recognized course) or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto with 11 years teaching and/or research experience in a recognized Institution in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology etc. Petitioner applied for the post and was hopeful of a positive outcome being eligible, experienced and meritorious. Between 2017-2020, Petitioner visited the Institute several times to enquire about the status of his application, but no information was shared with him and on 15.10.2020 he filed an RTI application to ascertain the status. Replying to the RTI application on 13.11.2020 and 15.12.2020, Institute informed the Petitioner that his application had been rejected as he did not possess M.Ch. degree in Gastroenterological Surgery. This decision of the Screening Committee as per the Petitioner was illegal and contrary to the conditions advertised in the advertisements. According to the Petitioner, the Screening Committee did not consider his equivalence which was clearly demonstrated by his qualifications as per the criteria laid down by MCI under the `Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998' (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulations, 1998') and his selection as Associate Professor by UPSC. Finding no other option, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 1129/2021, challenging the rejection of his application by the Institute. 4. In the meantime, on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, Institute published a fresh advertisement for filling up the post and thus the Court disposed of the writ petition on 01.02.2021 on a statement made on behalf of the Institute that if the Petitioner applies, his application shall be considered by the Screening Committee and only after all the applications were screened, the Selection Committee would consider the names of the screened candidates. It was also assured to the Court that the Screening Committee shall take into consideration the communication of the MCI dated 07.02.2021, certifying his eligibility and on which the Petitioner had placed reliance. Petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to legal remedies, if aggrieved by the decision of the Institute, pursuant to the deliberations of the Screening Committee. 5. Petitioner applied for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) against the advertisement dated 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, however, Petitioner received no information about the Committee's decision. Apprehending bias on behalf of the Director/Respondent No. 2, which the Petitioner had alleged even in the first round of litigation, he sent an e-mail on 19.03.2021, requesting the Institute to communicate the result of the Screening Committee. Apprehending bias on behalf of the Director/Respondent No. 2, which the Petitioner had alleged even in the first round of litigation, he sent an e-mail on 19.03.2021, requesting the Institute to communicate the result of the Screening Committee. In response, the Institute by a letter dated 13.04.2021 asked the Petitioner to submit copies of his 06 articles. On account of Pandemic COVID-19 and lockdown imposed by the Government, Petitioner did not have access to any library at that stage, yet he somehow managed and submitted details of 35 articles published by him, including citations of two articles, vide e-mail dated 18.04.2021. Again there was no communication from the Institute for some time and finally vide impugned letter dated 22.05.2021, Institute rejected Petitioner's application on the ground that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of publications. Petitioner attributes this to the personal vendetta and bias of Respondent No. 2, who was interested in promoting someone closely known to him and nurtured a bias towards the Petitioner. 6. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner : (A). The impugned order rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner is illegal and actuated by mala fides as Respondent No. 2. When the Petitioner had applied for the first time, he was declared ineligible on the ground that he did not possess M.Ch. degree. However, Respondent No.2 did not succeed in his ill motives as MCI clarified that the degree possessed by the Petitioner was equivalent to M.Ch. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 found another novel method to oust the Petitioner from consideration, by creating a frivolous and misconceived ground that he lacks the eligibility criteria of research publications required under the RRs of the Institute. (B). Petitioner has submitted as many as 35 publications as against the requirement of only 03 under the `Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulations, 2019') and only 04 under the earlier Regulations, 1998, which have a binding force. Institute has no power to prescribe an eligibility criteria contrary to those prescribed by National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as `NMC') under Regulations, 2019, since erstwhile MCI and now NMC are statutory bodies created for regulating medical education and medical institutes and the standards or qualifications set by them bind medical institutions, including those which are autonomous, such as the Institute herein. NMC was impleaded by the Court as a party in the writ petition and was directed to file an affidavit clarifying whether the Institute could prescribe the requirement of 06 publications i.e. higher than those provided by NMC as minimum qualifications and also if the publications submitted by the Petitioner make him eligible for the post in question. NMC in its reply has categorically stated that Circular dated 03.09.2015 regarding indexing of the Research Publications, being prospective would not apply to the publications of the Petitioner which are prior thereto and that 09 research publications of the Petitioner at serial Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 17, 18, 26, 28 and 29, meet the required criteria provided under Regulations, 2019. It is trite that Regulations of MCI/NMC will have an overriding effect on the RRs of the Institute to the extent the qualifications or eligibility criteria prescribed in the RRs, are contrary or in derogation thereof. Therefore, in view of the stand of NMC on an affidavit before this Court, Petitioner is eligible and his case should be considered by the Selection Committee. (C). The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others v. Union of India and Others , (2021) 6 SCC 568 , has held that by virtue of Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution of India, the minimum qualifications for teachers in medical institutions laid down by MCI will have an overriding effect over any other Rules framed by States or colleges, to the extent they are at variance with the Regulations of MCI. In a recent judgement delivered on 24.01.2023 in the case of Baharul Islam and Others v. Indian Medical Association and Others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 79, the Supreme Court has reiterated that Rules and Regulations framed by MCI, laying down standards for medical education will hold the field and even the States have no legislative competence to enact any Rule or Regulation, contrary thereto. (D). Admittedly, in the present case the advertisement in question was issued in the year 2021 and thus Regulations, 2019 will govern the screening and selection process, wherein the prescribed eligibility criteria mandates only 03 research publications, with at least 02 as Associate Professor and further provides that the Author must be amongst first three or should be the corresponding author. Admittedly, in the present case the advertisement in question was issued in the year 2021 and thus Regulations, 2019 will govern the screening and selection process, wherein the prescribed eligibility criteria mandates only 03 research publications, with at least 02 as Associate Professor and further provides that the Author must be amongst first three or should be the corresponding author. Under Regulations, 2019, original papers, meta-analysis and even `case series' published in Journals included in Medline, Citation Index, etc. can be considered to determine the eligibility. Institute is clearly bound to follow the mandate and cannot declare the Petitioner ineligible on the basis of conflicting criteria in its RRs, which are even otherwise non-statutory. 7. Contentions on behalf of the Institute : (A). Institute is a Super-Speciality autonomous Institute and also Deemed to be University set up by the Government of Delhi. Institute aims to provide high standards of medical education and requires highly trained and skilled faculty of medical and surgical super speciality. It has a unique structure and the Bye-Laws of the Institute have been duly approved by the Council of Ministers, GNCTD vide Cabinet Decision No. 749 dated 07.10.2002. The Bye-Laws empower the Governing Council to create and abolish posts and appoint faculty and other staffs as well as lay down the terms and conditions of their appointment. (B). RRs of the Institute stipulate higher eligibility criteria on recommendations of the Academic Council and have been approved by the Governing Council. Unlike CGHS, the Institute provides higher recruitment and eligibility criteria, considering it is a Super-Speciality autonomous body and is required to maintain high standards in field of medical education. Institute has the power and prerogative to prescribe qualifications and eligibility conditions for the various posts in the Institute so long as these are not lower than or contrary to the Regulations of MCI/NMC. The Institute is a torch bearer model of excellence in patient care, teaching and training in the field of Liver and Biliary Diseases and prescribing higher standards of qualifications for appointment of Professors is with the aim of furthering the objective of having the best faculty for imparting better education. (C). Institute advertised various posts of faculty on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021 in leading National newspapers and received three applications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) including that of the Petitioner. (C). Institute advertised various posts of faculty on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021 in leading National newspapers and received three applications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) including that of the Petitioner. A duly constituted Screening Committee of Experts screened the applications in the meeting held on 13.04.2021 in accordance with the RRs. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 01.02.2021, MCI letter dated 07.12.2019 in respect of the Petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee. After scrutinizing the documents, the Screening Committee observed that photocopies of all the published articles had not been properly submitted by the applicants and along with the others, Petitioner was also given an opportunity to submit the same within 17 days. In response to the letter, Petitioner submitted copies of all his published articles, which were reviewed by the Committee on 17.05.2021 and after careful scrutiny, Committee was of the view that the publications were not as per the eligibility criteria in the RRs, which prescribed six publications during the tenure as Additional Professor (original articles published/accepted: excluding case reports, letters to Editors and review articles) as first/second/corresponding author. Moreover, publications submitted by the Petitioner did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Circular dated 03.09.2015 issued by MCI, giving `Clarifications on Research Publications' for teaching faculty in Medical Colleges/Institutions. For all these reasons, the Screening Committee came to a conclusion that none of the applicants, including the Petitioner were eligible for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) and the applications were rejected. (D). The allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 are baseless and misconceived. Being the Director of the Institute, he has no role to play in the screening process of the applications, which were screened by the Screening Committee, comprising of independent experts in the field, purely on the basis of advertised criteria provided in the RRs. (E). NMC was impleaded by the Court and directed to verify whether the publications of the Petitioner met the essential qualifications of the post in question. No doubt, NMC has mentioned in the reply that 09 publications of the Petitioner confirm to Regulations, 2019, however, details as to which are those 09 publications are conspicuously missing in the reply. During the course of hearing, counsel for NMC pointed to 09 publications, which according to NMC make the Petitioner eligible and as detailed in the written submissions in a tabular representation are as follows: SL.NO. During the course of hearing, counsel for NMC pointed to 09 publications, which according to NMC make the Petitioner eligible and as detailed in the written submissions in a tabular representation are as follows: SL.NO. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS YEAR OF PUBLICATION 1. How do bile duct injuries sustained during laparoscopic cholecystectomy differ from those during open cholecystectomy-PubMed 2001 3. Suri VS Benign Signet Ring Cell_2001 2001 5. Gastric Outlet obstruction in Carcinoma of the Gallbladder-PubMed 1999 6. Paraganglionoma of extrahepatic biliary tract causing 2000 17. Benign signet ring cell change with multilayering in the gallbladder mucosa-a case report 2001 19. Paraganglionoma of extrahepatic biliary tract causing obstructive jaundice- PubMed 2000 26. Leiomyo Sarcoma 1998 27. 40244 stones in GB 1998 29. Pancreatic Hydatid 1999 As per the RRs, only first/second/corresponding author is eligible for consideration, which is also the pre-requisite under Regulations, 2019 stipulating that the author must be amongst first three or a corresponding author. `Corresponding Author' is an individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review and publication process. Having carefully analysed the 09 publications, the Institute is still of the considered opinion that these are not in consonance with the RRs of the Institute, for the post in question. (F). It is a settled law that having participated in a selection process, it is not open to a candidate to question the advertisement and/or the eligibility criteria laid therein. Petitioner has applied against the advertisement fully aware of the eligibility criteria and cannot at this stage challenge the advertisement or the RRs criteria therein only because the ultimate result is not palatable to him. In any case, Petitioner has not even assailed the RRs in the present writ petition and on this ground itself the petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Others , (2009) 5 SCC 515 . 8. Submissions on behalf of NMC : (A). NMC was impleaded as a party to the petition vide order dated 01.04.2022 and was directed to file an affidavit on whether the publications of the Petitioner make him eligible for the post of Professor as well as on the legal issue whether the Institute can prescribe qualifications/eligibility criteria higher than those prescribed by MCI/NMC. NMC was impleaded as a party to the petition vide order dated 01.04.2022 and was directed to file an affidavit on whether the publications of the Petitioner make him eligible for the post of Professor as well as on the legal issue whether the Institute can prescribe qualifications/eligibility criteria higher than those prescribed by MCI/NMC. NMC is a statutory authority created and constituted under an Act of the Parliament, namely, The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the `NMC Act, 2019'). NMC was constituted for development/regulation of all aspects relating to medical education/profession/institutions in the country as well as for constituting a Medical Advisory Council to advise and make recommendations to the Commission. Prime objective of NMC is to promote qualitative improvement of medical education in the country at under-graduate and post-graduate levels. By virtue of Section 61 of NMC Act, 2019, NMC is the successor-in-interest of MCI and Section 61(2) provides that even after repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the IMC Act, 1956) educational standards, requirements and provisions of IMC Act, 1956 shall continue to be in force until new standards are specified. (B). Section 33 of IMC Act, 1956, empowered MCI to frame Regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching etc. for conduct of medicine courses including admissions to MBBS and PG courses in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the country, with the approval of the Central Government. In this context, the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Others , (1998) 6 SCC 131 , while holding that MCI Regulations are binding and mandatory further held that all State enactments, Rules and Regulations framed by Universities etc. in relation to conduct of medicine courses, to the extent they are inconsistent with the IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations made thereunder, would be repugnant by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India since the IMC Act, 1956 was relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution. This was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and Others , (1999) 7 SCC 120 . (C). This was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and Others , (1999) 7 SCC 120 . (C). By virtue of Notification dated 24.09.2020 published in the Gazette of India, IMC Act, 1956 stood repealed w.e.f. 25.09.2020 and the Board of Governors stood dissolved. Vide another Notification of the same date i.e. 24.09.2020, Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 1(3) of Act, 2019 notified the said Act to come into force w.e.f. 25.09.2020. Erstwhile MCI under Section 33 of Act had framed Regulations, 1998 prescribing minimum qualification and teaching or research experience for teaching appointments in medical institutions. Under Regulations, 1998, the academic qualification required for the post of Professor, Surgical Gastroenterology is M.Ch. (Surgical Gastroenterology)/M.S. (Surgery) degree with 2 years special training in Surgical Gastroenterology and minimum 04 research publications in indexed/National Journals. Subsequently, vide Circular dated 03.09.2015, clarification was issued by MCI, wherein a List of Indexing Agencies, types of articles to be considered and criteria for National/International Journal/authorship/E-journal were provided. By a subsequent Notification dated 12.02.2020, published in the Official Gazette on 17.02.2020, Regulations, 2019 were notified amending Regulations, 1998 as follows: Posts Academic Qualification Teaching & Research Experience Professor/Addl. Professor (5 years of Post Super Speciality experience) A super speciality post graduate qualification in DM/M.Ch./DNB in the concerned subject and as per these Regulations. (i) Associate Professor in the subject for 3 years in a permitted/approved/ recognized medical college/ institution with three Research publications (atleast two as Associate Professor) (only original papers, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and case series that are published in journals included in Pubmed Central, Citation Sciences, index, Embase, Medline, index, Citation Expanded Scopus, Directory of Open access journals (DoAJ) will be considered). The author must be amongst first three or should be the Corresponding author . (ii)............. (iii)............ (D). The author must be amongst first three or should be the Corresponding author . (ii)............. (iii)............ (D). NMC has deliberated on the research publications submitted by the Petitioner and is of the opinion that: (a) requirement of indexing was introduced only on 03.09.2015 and would apply prospectively and not to the research publications of the Petitioner, which are prior thereto; (b) amended Regulations, 2019 published on 17.02.2020 shall govern the present selection, initiated pursuant to the advertisement notified on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021; (c) under Regulation, 2019 only 03 research publications are required and `case series' published in the journals mentioned therein, can be considered as part of research publications; and (d) 09 research publications of the Petitioner including case reports make him eligible for consideration for the post of Professor. (E). RRs framed by the Institute are non-statutory and cannot override Statutory Regulations tracing their source to MCI Act, 1956/NMC Act, 2019 as even State Legislatures do not have the legislative competence to pass laws which contradict or are in conflict with these Acts or Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, qualifications prescribed under the RRs will have to give way to those prescribed under Regulations, 2019, whereunder Petitioner is eligible. Analysis and Findings: 9. Challenge in the present petition is to the decision of the Institute communicated by the impugned letter dated 22.05.2021, whereby Petitioner was informed that he was ineligible for appointment to the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) as he was not fulfilling the criteria of research publications, laid down in the RRs of the Institute. While the contention of the Petitioner is that the Research Publications submitted by the Petitioner are in consonance with the requirements prescribed under the Regulations, 2019, which override the RRs of the Institute, the latter being in conflict, the contention of the Institute is that it is always open to the Institute to frame RRs and lay down eligibility conditions higher than those prescribed by MCI/NMC, as minimum criteria. NMC supports the stand of the Petitioner in the detailed affidavit filed by it. 10. The first question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Institute is empowered to prescribe an eligibility criteria pertaining to research publications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology), which is at variance or in conflict with the minimum criteria laid down by the MCI/NMC. 10. The first question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Institute is empowered to prescribe an eligibility criteria pertaining to research publications for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology), which is at variance or in conflict with the minimum criteria laid down by the MCI/NMC. The second question and which is inextricably linked is whether the Institute is empowered to prescribe qualifications `higher' than those prescribed by MCI/NMC and if the answer is `yes', whether the eligibility criteria of 06 publications, excluding case studies etc. is `higher' or in `conflict' with the criteria under Regulations, 2019. 11. Before proceeding to examine these questions, it would be relevant to note at the cost of repetition that this is the second round of litigation between the parties. Petitioner had earlier applied for appointment to the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) in response to an advertisement issued in 2017. His application was rejected on the ground that Petitioner did not have the requisite qualification i.e. M.Ch. in Surgical Gastroenterology or an equivalent qualification. Case of the Petitioner was that he had qualified M.S. (General Surgery) and had two years' experience in a recognized hospital and since he possessed an equivalent qualification, his rejection was illegal. When the writ petition being W.P.(C) 1129/2021 was listed before the Court on 01.02.2021, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Institute had, on instructions, submitted that the Petitioner was at liberty to apply against the fresh advertisement issued in the meantime on 01.02.2021. Petitioner applied against the fresh advertisement but his candidature was again rejected on the ground that he was ineligible. 12. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Institute shows that two-fold grounds have been taken to support its case that the Petitioner is ineligible: (a) Petitioner does not meet the criteria of publications; and (b) he does not possess the M.Ch. degree. However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the Institute did not press the objection with regard to M.Ch. degree, perhaps on a realisation and rightly so that Petitioner possesses an equivalent degree, which stood fortified by MCI. Even in the advertisement dated 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, the requirement of M.Ch. (GI Surgery) degree is alternative to degree in M.S. (Surgery). Relevant part of the advertisement is extracted hereunder for ready reference: Name of the Post Essential Qualification & Experience Upper Age Limit Pay Scale Professor (Surgical Hepatology) 1. Even in the advertisement dated 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, the requirement of M.Ch. (GI Surgery) degree is alternative to degree in M.S. (Surgery). Relevant part of the advertisement is extracted hereunder for ready reference: Name of the Post Essential Qualification & Experience Upper Age Limit Pay Scale Professor (Surgical Hepatology) 1. M. Ch. (HPB Surgery)/M. Ch. (GI Surgery) OR MS (Surgery) or equivalent with 3 years Senior Residency in the field of HPB Surgery/ Surgical Gastroenterology or equivalent foreign training. 2. 04 years of Additional Professor HPB Surgery OR 08 years of Associate professorship in HPB Surgery OR 11 years of teaching experience in HPB Surgery 3.First author/second author/corresponding author in 06 publications during the tenure as Additional Professor (original articles published/accepted: excluding case reports, letter to Editors and review articles) 66 years PB-IV, GP-12000 13. The essential qualifications required under the RRs of the Institute for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) are as under: "(i) M.Ch. (HPB Surgery)/M.Ch (GI Surgery) OR MS (Surgery) or equivalent with 3 years Senior Residency in the field of HPB Surgery/Surgical Gastroenterology or equivalent foreign training. (ii) 04 years of Additional Professor HPB Surgery OR 08 years of Associate professorship in HPB Surgery OR 11 years of teaching experience in HPB Surgery. (iii) First author/second author/corresponding author in 06 publications during the tenure as Additional Professor (original articles published/accepted: excluding case reports, letter to Editors and review articles) ................." 14. Insofar as publications are concerned, from a reading of the RRs, it is evident that a candidate is required to have 06 publications during the tenure as Additional Professor and case reports are excluded. The 06 publications have to be as first/second/corresponding author. On the other hand, under Regulations, 2019, three Research publications (at least two as Associate Professor) [only original papers, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and case series that are published in journals included in Medline, Pubmed Central, Citation index, Sciences Citation index, Expanded Embase, Scopus, Directory of Open access journals (DoAJ)], will be considered. It is further provided that the author must be amongst first three or should be the Corresponding author. 15. At this stage, a little background to MCI/NMC will require a mention. MCI was a statutory authority constituted under the IMC Act, 1956. It had the onerous responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of highest standards in medical education. It is further provided that the author must be amongst first three or should be the Corresponding author. 15. At this stage, a little background to MCI/NMC will require a mention. MCI was a statutory authority constituted under the IMC Act, 1956. It had the onerous responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of highest standards in medical education. In this context, I may refer to a passage from the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Another , (1979) 1 SCC 572 , hereunder: "16. The Indian Medical Council Act; 1956 has constituted the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. Thus, there is an overall invigilation by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses." 16. This position was re-affirmed and re-emphasized by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in para 57 of the judgment in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) and I quote: "57. In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka a Bench of three Judges of this Court has distinguished the observations made in Nivedita Jain. It has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council regulations have a statutory' force and are mandatory. The Court "was concerned with admissions to the MBBS course and the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council relating to admission to the MBBS course. The Court took note of the observations in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana (SCC at p.580) to the effect that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. There is, under the Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses. These observations would apply equally to postgraduate medical courses. We are in respectful agreement with this reasoning." 17. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. There is, under the Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses. These observations would apply equally to postgraduate medical courses. We are in respectful agreement with this reasoning." 17. By virtue of Section 33 of the MCI Act, erstwhile MCI was empowered, with the prior approval of the Central Government, to frame Regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching, etc. for conduct of medicine courses including admissions to the MBBS and PG courses. In Medical Council of India (supra), the Supreme Court held that Regulations of the MCI are binding and mandatory and it was also held that all State enactments, Rules and Regulations framed by Universities, etc. in relation to conduct of medicine courses, to the extent they are inconsistent with the MCI Act,1956 and Regulations made thereunder, are repugnant by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the MCI Act,1956 is relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution of India. 18. NMC is also a statutory authority created under the Act of Parliament, namely, the NMC Act, 2019 and has been constituted for development/regulation of all aspects relating to medical education, profession and institutions in the country. Section 61 of the Act provides that the Commission shall be the successor-in-interest to MCI and Section 61(2) provides that even after repeal of the MCI Act, 1956 the educational standards and other provisions of the said Act shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards are specified under NMC Act, 2019. It is pertinent to reiterate here that Regulations, 1998 stand amended by Regulations, 2019 and it is on the latter that the Petitioner relies to establish his eligibility and his stand is duly supported by NMC. 19. Reverting back, the first question, in my considered view, poses no challenge and the answer can only be that it is not open to the Institute to prescribe qualifications/eligibility criteria in variance or conflict with or in derogation of the qualifications etc. prescribed by MCI/NMC in their Regulations, 1998 and 2019, respectively. 19. Reverting back, the first question, in my considered view, poses no challenge and the answer can only be that it is not open to the Institute to prescribe qualifications/eligibility criteria in variance or conflict with or in derogation of the qualifications etc. prescribed by MCI/NMC in their Regulations, 1998 and 2019, respectively. As held by the Supreme Court even the States do not have the Legislative competence to legislate contrary and pass any law which would be in contradiction to or in direct conflict with MCI Act, 1956 and Regulations made thereunder, deriving strength from Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution of India and the same analogy would apply to Regulations made under the NMC Act, 2019. 20. In this context, several judgments have been cited by counsel for NMC which have been referred and alluded to in the earlier part of the judgment, including a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baharul Islam (supra) and which, in my view, squarely cover the issues arising in the present petition. In Baharul Islam (supra), Assam Legislature enacted the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 on 18.09.2004 to provide for establishment of a regulatory authority in the State of Assam for registering Diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care to regulate their practice in medicine in rural areas as also to regulate the opening of medical Institutions. An advertisement was published on 23.06.2005, inviting applications from eligible candidates seeking admissions in the three-year course of Diploma in Medicine and Rural Health Care in the Institute at Jorhat. The Indian Medical Association, Assam State Branch, filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court assailing the validity of the Assam Act and the advertisement. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding the Assam Act to be unconstitutional and striking the same down. The controversy before the Supreme Court was with regard to the legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature to enact the Assam Act in light of Article 246 read with relevant entries in List I and III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The controversy before the Supreme Court was with regard to the legislative competence of the Assam State Legislature to enact the Assam Act in light of Article 246 read with relevant entries in List I and III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. After referring to a plethora of judgments on the interplay between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III, the Supreme Court held that no State Legislature has the legislative competence to pass a law in conflict with the IMC Act, 1956 setting the standards of medical education. Relevant paras are as follows: "66. It is to be noted that insofar as Entry 25 of List III is concerned, there are dual restrictions which would operate on the legislative competence of a State Legislature to enact any law under the said Entry: first is, if such a law is to be made by the State Legislature, it is always subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I or the Union List, in respect of which only the Parliament has the power to enact a law. The second restriction is with regard to the subject of the Entry as a whole. If the Parliament has made any law which is outside the scope of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I but within the scope of Entry 25 of List III, in such a case Article 254 and the principles of repugnancy would apply if a State Law is in conflict with such Parliamentary Law. 67. In the instant case the law made by the State Legislature, namely, the Assam Act is hit by the first of the aforesaid two restrictions; hence, it is null and void as the Assam Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact such a Law. 68. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that Rural Health Practitioners enlisted under the Assam Act, are underqualified to perform functions similar to those performed by medical practitioners registered in accordance with the Central Act. In order to be recognised as a practitioner in any branch of modern scientific medicine, including allopathic medicine, the qualifications that must mandatorily be obtained are those listed in the Schedules to the Central Act. xxx xxx xxx Conclusion : 85. In order to be recognised as a practitioner in any branch of modern scientific medicine, including allopathic medicine, the qualifications that must mandatorily be obtained are those listed in the Schedules to the Central Act. xxx xxx xxx Conclusion : 85. In the result, we arrive at the following conclusions: (i) Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India deals with the subject education which is in the Concurrent List under which both the Parliament or the Union Legislature as well as the State Legislatures have legislative competence to legislate. However, Entry 25 of List III is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I which is the Union List. Entry 66 of List I deals with coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. Thus, when any law is made under Entry 25 of List III by a State Legislature, the same is always subject to Entry 66 of List I. In other words, if any law made by the Parliament comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, then the State Legislation would have to yield to the Parliamentary law. Thus, where one Entry is made "subject to" another Entry, it would imply that, out of the scope of the former Entry, a field of legislation covered by the latter Entry has been reserved to be specifically dealt with by the appropriate legislature. (ii) In the instant case, it is held that the IMC Act, 1956 is a legislation made by the Parliament for the purpose of coordination and determination of standards in medical education throughout the Country. The said law, along with the Rules and Regulations made thereunder are for the purpose of determination of standards of medical education throughout India. Thus, determination of standards in medical education in India is as per the IMC Act, 1956 which is a Central Law. This is in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and not under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Therefore, a State Legislature which passes a law in respect of allopathic medicine or modern medicine would be subject to the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. Therefore, a State Legislature which passes a law in respect of allopathic medicine or modern medicine would be subject to the provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. This would imply that no State Legislature has the legislative competence to pass any law which would be contradictory to or would be in direct conflict with the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. In other words, the standard in medical education insofar as modern medicine or allopathy is concerned, having been set by the IMC Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder or by any subsequent Act in that regard, such as the Medical Council of India Act, 2019, the State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law which is in conflict with the law setting the standards of medical education in the context of modern medicine or allopathic medicine, which has been determined by Parliamentary Legislation as well as the Rules. In other words, a State Legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine contrary to the said standards that have been determined by the Central Law. In view of the above conclusion, we hold that decision of the Gauhati High Court holding that the Assam Act to be null and void, is just and proper. However, the Gauhati High Court has held that the State had no legislative competence to enact the Assam Act in view of Article 254 of the Constitution on the premise that the IMC Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder were holding the field and hence, on the basis of the doctrine of occupied field, the Assam Act was struck down as being repugnant to the Central Law. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, we are of the view that the said reasoning is incorrect. It is reiterated that the IMC Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, which are all Central legislations, have been enacted having regard to Entry 66 of List I and would prevail over any State Law made by virtue of Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution. It is reiterated that the IMC Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, which are all Central legislations, have been enacted having regard to Entry 66 of List I and would prevail over any State Law made by virtue of Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution. (iii) Hence, in view of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the Assam Act, namely, the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, is declared to be null and void, in view of the Assam Legislature not having the legislative competence to enact the said Law. (iv) Consequently, the subsequent legislation, namely, the Assam Act of 2015 i.e., the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, is a valid piece of Legislation as it has removed the basis of the impugned judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court. The 2015 Act is also not in conflict with the IMC, Act, 1956. This is because the Central Act namely, IMC, Act, 1956 does not deal with Community Health Professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Act, in rural areas of the State of Assam. Hence, by a separate legislation the Community Health Professionals have been permitted to practise as such professionals. The said legislation of 2015 is not in conflict with IMC, Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution." 21. From a reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is luminously clear that even a State Legislation will be invalid if it is in conflict with or in derogation of a Central Legislation i.e. the MCI Act,1956/ NMC Act, 2019 and the Rules/Regulations framed thereunder. 22. In order to resolve the conundrum whether the Institute can prescribe higher qualifications in the RRs and whether the publications submitted by the Petitioner make him eligible, Court had impleaded NMC as a party and directed that an affidavit be filed on both the aspects. 22. In order to resolve the conundrum whether the Institute can prescribe higher qualifications in the RRs and whether the publications submitted by the Petitioner make him eligible, Court had impleaded NMC as a party and directed that an affidavit be filed on both the aspects. Pursuant to the said order, a detailed affidavit has been filed by NMC in which it is categorically stated that the RRs of the Institute have not been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and do not have a statutory force and that the Regulations framed by MCI/NMC shall override the said RRs, in view of the settled law that even State Legislations cannot override the MCI/NMC Acts and Regulations framed thereunder. In so far as the publications are concerned, it is stated that since the advertisement was issued on 31.01.2021-01.02.2021, the process of selection initiated by the Institute pursuant thereto shall be governed by Regulations, 2019 and tested on that anvil, publications submitted by the Petitioner i.e. his 09 publications/case reports make him eligible for consideration for appointment as Professor (Surgical Hepatology). In view of this stand of NMC, which is in consonance with the Regulations, as brought out above, this Court accepts the stand of the Petitioner that he is eligible for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) applying the criteria laid down in Regulations, 2019, which beyond a scintilla of doubt shall govern the present selection. 23. There is no doubt on the statement of the Institute that it is a premier educational institute and has the power to lay down eligibility criteria for appointment to the posts in the Institute including laying higher conditions for setting a higher standard. However, the Institute cannot make Rules which are in conflict with or in derogation of the qualifications prescribed and recognized by NMC. Clearly, the conditions prescribed in the RRs are in conflict with the conditions laid down under Regulations, 2019, both on the number of publications as also on the inclusion of case studies, as stated by NMC and thus cannot be an impediment in the way of the Petitioner for consideration to the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology), as long as his publications are in consonance with Regulations, 2019. Eligibility conditions in the RRs of the Institute cannot be termed as `higher' as sought to be alleged on behalf of the Institute. Eligibility conditions in the RRs of the Institute cannot be termed as `higher' as sought to be alleged on behalf of the Institute. The stipulation that case series/reports will not be treated as research publications has resulted in disqualifying and excluding the Petitioner from the zone of consideration thereby nullifying the criteria laid down by NMC under which the Petitioner is admittedly eligible and amounts to laying down criteria which is in derogation of Regulations, 2019. In view of this, the argument of the Institute that there is no challenge to the RRs, is irrelevant and inconsequential. It would be pertinent to mention here that by a letter dated 07.02.2019 Petitioner was informed by MCI that as per his academic qualification, teaching experience and research publications, he was eligible for the post of Professor in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology in a medical college in India and as the letter reflects the same was issued with the approval of Chairman, Board of Governors, MCI. Relevant part of the letter is extracted hereunder: [IMG] 24. Relevant would it be to mention that a similar controversy arose before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chithra N & Others v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2076, where the in-service nursing officers of AIIMS were aggrieved by the admission notice which had rendered them ineligible from seeking admission in M.Sc. (Nursing) course for August, 2022 session. The impugned condition precluded the Petitioners from pursuing Masters Degree solely on the ground that their qualifying degree B.Sc. (Post Basic) was acquired through distant learning mode as opposed to regular mode. The question that arose before the Court was whether AIIMS was empowered to prescribe its own eligibility criteria which had the effect of nullifying/curtailing recognition granted to the said degree by Indian Nursing Council (INC) which was established under a Central Act called Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. The Court, after due deliberation on the controversy, came to a conclusion that AIIMS cannot prescribe conditions which would override or disregard the qualifications recognized by INC. 25. The Court, after due deliberation on the controversy, came to a conclusion that AIIMS cannot prescribe conditions which would override or disregard the qualifications recognized by INC. 25. Therefore, this Court finds merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the Research Publications submitted by the Petitioner are in consonance with the requirements under Regulations, 2019, which stand is fortified by NMC and thus the impugned decision of the Institute, premised solely on its RRs prescribing a criteria contrary thereto, is illegal. In light of the judgements of the Supreme Court, as alluded to above and the stand of NMC, this Court holds that Petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor (Surgical Hepatology) and is entitled to be considered by the Selection Committee. 26. It is, accordingly, directed that the Institute shall constitute a Selection Committee and consider the case of the Petitioner on merits within five weeks from today. Needless to state that if the Petitioner is recommended for selection, he shall be offered appointment forthwith, with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 27. Writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 28. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.