Holding

A postgraduate medical degree listed in the schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act is ipso facto a valid qualification throughout India and need not be specifically recognised or declared equivalent by the state university.

Summary

The appellant, a medical graduate with an MBBS from Rajasthan University and an MD in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, applied for a lecturer position in Forensic Medicine under the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission rejected his application, stating that his postgraduate degree was not awarded by the University of Rajasthan and had not been recognised as equivalent. The High Court single judge held the rejection illegal, but a Division Bench reversed that decision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a postgraduate medical degree included in the schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act is automatically valid throughout India and does not require specific recognition or equivalence declaration by the state university. The Court also found that the appellant satisfied the two‑year medico‑legal experience requirement, and therefore the Commission acted unlawfully in excluding him.

Issues considered

Whether a postgraduate medical degree awarded by a university other than the state university, but recognised by the Indian Medical Council Act, satisfies the qualification requirement under Rajasthan University Ordinance for a lecturer post.
Whether the requirement of 'equivalence' under the Rajasthan University Act applies to such degrees.
Whether the appellant fulfilled the two‑year medico‑legal experience condition.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. Schedule
Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962s. Rule 12
Rajasthan University Acts. 23A
State Central Medical Registration Act

Subjects

post‑graduate medical qualificationIndian Medical Council Actequivalence of degreepublic service commissionlecturer recruitmentforensic medicinerecognition of degreeRajasthan University Ordinance

Judgment

A 444 .
DR B.L. ASA WA
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
B
March 5, 1982

[A.O. KOSHAL, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND
R.B. MISRA, JJ.]

c Educational · qualificationS-Post·graduate qualification in medicine
granted by a University established under a statutt-Qua/ification recognised by the
Medical Council-Recognition or declaration of equivalence by every University in
the country-Whether necessary. ·

The qualificationS prescribed for the post of lecturer in Forensic Medicine •
under the Rajas than Medical Service were (i) ,a basic university degree. or
equivalent qualification entered in the schedules to the Ir.dian Medical Council
D. Act 1956; (ii) Registration under tbe State Central Medical Registration Act;
(iii) Post-Graduate qualification in the concerned subject" and '(iv) two years
experience of medico.legal work.

The appellant was the bolder of a !M.B.B.S. degree from the Rajastban
University which was a _qualification ._entered the first schedule to the Indian
Medical Council Act. He was regist'ered under the Medical Registration Act.
E He possessed a post·graciuate degree in Forensic Medicine from .the UniversitY
of Bibar.

-
The respondent's application for thC post of lecturer in Forensic Medicine
was rejected by the State Public Service Commission on the ground that the post..
graduate degree in Forensic Medicine possessed by him was not one awarded by
'
the University of Rajasthan and that the degree which he possessed had also nOt
F been recognised by the University of Rajasthan.

A single Judge of the High Court allowed the· appeUant's writ petition
impugning the order of the State Public ServiCe Commission.j

On appeal by the State a Division Bench of the High Court held 0.tbat the
post-graduate degree in Forensic Medicine which !.the appellant possessed could
G not be treated as a valid qualification for recruitment to the post of lecturer
because, firstly, it was not a degree .from the university of Rajasthan and
secondly, neither had the Uoiveristy of Rajastban recognised it nor bad the
University declared it as a qualification equivalent to the post-Sraduate degree in
Forensic Medicine.
H •
Allowing the appeal,
ii.L. ASAWA v. RAiA5rl!AN (81/akrishna Eradi, J.) 445
HELD : I. A posi-graouate medical degree granted by a university duly A
established by statute in this country and which bad been recognised by tho
Indian Medical Council by inclusion in the schedule of the . Medical Council Act
bas ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout the
country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary, sJJch a degree
does not require to be specifically recognised by other universities in India before
it can be accepted as a valid qualification (or appointment in a-ny post in a
State. [450 F-G I

In the instant case the University of Bihar was duly established by statute.
It is fully competent to lconduct examination and award degrees_ the degree of
DoctOr of Medicine (Forensic Medicine) of the University of Bihar is included in
'°' the schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as a degree recognised by
the Medical Indian Council, the 1
peramount professional body set up by statute
with authority to recognise medical qualifications granted by any university or
medical institution in India. [450 D-E]
c
2. There can be declaration of equivalence only as between a degree etc.
awarded by the concerned university and a qualification obtained from a body
different from the concerned university. When tlie University of Rajasthan does
not conduct any examination for the award of the degree of Doctor of Medicine
(Forensic Medicine) there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence•
in respect of such a degree awarded by any university. [451 B-C] D
3. In the case of a post·graduate degree in the concerned subject awarded
by a statutory Indian University no recognition or declaration of equiValence by
any other university is called for. This is all the more so in the case of a medica1
degree awarded bf a statutory Indian University and which has been speciically
recognised by the Indian Medical Council. [451 D-E)
E
·~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICfION: Civil Appeal No. 303 of
1976.

Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated
th• 30th October, 1974 of the Rajasthan High Court in Q.B. Civil
Special Appeal No. 247 of 1974.

Y.S. Chi/ale, Mrs. Sadha11a Ramachandran & Parveen Kumar for
the Appellant. ·

Badri Das Sharma for the Respondents Nos. I & 2.

. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G

BALA.KRISHNA BRAD!, J. This appeal by special leave afises
out of a writ petition filed by the appellant herein in the High Court
ofRajasthan, challenging the legality of the action of the.Rajasthan
Public Service Commission in issuing of the appellant the Com-
H
munication_._Annexure IV-:dat~ July 21, 1973, statin& that the
446 SUPREME coulit REPORTS [!981j 3 s.C.I<

A appellant was not eligible for being considered for recruitment to
the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in the Government
Medical Colleges· in the state since he lacked the necessary academic
qualifications specified in the advertisement and that consequently,
the application of the appellant stood rejected. There were also .
other incidental prayers in the writ petition for the issuance of an
B appropriate writ or direction to the Public Service Commission to
refrain from finalising the selection without considering the case of ,_.
the appellant, and for a direction being issued to the State Govern-
ment of Raja~than not to accept the recommendations of the Public
Service Commission in making appointments to the post of Lecturer ,,,. ,.,--A..._
in Forensic Medicine to Medical Colleges in Rajasthan in case the
c appellant was not called for interview along with the other
candidates.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ
petition ·holding that the Public Service Commission had acted
illegally in treating the appellant as not possessing the requisite
D academic qualifications and in rejecting his candidature for the post
of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine on the said ground. The State of
Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission carried
the matter in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
That appeal was allowed by a Division Bench by its judgment dated
October 30, 1974, whereby the order passed by the learned Single
E Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has pre-
. ferred this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.

The appellant secured the M.B.B.S. Degree from the Univer-
F sity of Rajasthan in the year 1954 and after undergoing houseman-
ship for one year, he was substantively appointed as Civil Assistant
Surgeon in the Rajasthan State Medical Service with effect from
May 26, 1956. In 1962, the Rajasthan Medical Service was bifur-
cated into two branches, namely, (I) The Rajasthan Medical Service
and (2) The Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch). Sepa-
G rate service rules known as the· Rajasthan Medical Service (Colle-
giate Branch) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules) were framed
for the Collegiate branch and all appointments of teaching staff in
the Government Medical Calleges in Rajas(han were thereafter
governed by the said Rules. Under the provisions of the Rules,
-H the post of Lecturer is to be filled up only by direct recruitment.
It is laid down in Chapter IV of the Rules which prescribes the
procedure ~or direct recruitment that the. appointments are to be
• B.L. ASAWA v. RAJASTHAN (Balakrishna Eradi, J.) 447

made on the basis of selection by the State Public Service Com- A
mission. Rule 12 lays down that "the candidate for direct recruit-
ment to the post specified in Parts A, B and C of the Schedule
shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and expe-
rience as is laid down, from time to time, by the Rajasthan Univer-
sity for the teaching staff in Medical Colleges". The post of
Lecturers is included in Part C of the schedule to the Rules. Hence, B
for ascertaining the qualifications required for the post of Lecturer
under the Rules one has to refer to the Rules relating to technical
qualifications and experience laid down by the Rajasthan University
for the teaching staff in Medical Colleges. ·

Clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 occurring in Chapter XX of
c
the Handbook of the University of Rajasthan, Part II, Vol. I, is the
relevant provision wherein the University of Rajasthan has pres-
cribed the academic and technical qualifications and experience
required for r.ligibility for appointment as teachers in Medical
Colleges. That clause is in the following terms :
D
"!. All teachers must possess a basic University or
equivalent qualification entered in Schedules to the Indian
Medical Council Act 1956, except in the non-clinical
departments of Antomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharma-
cology, Microbiology where non-medical teachers, to the
extent of 30% of the total posts of the department may be E
appointed to posts other than that of the Director or Head
of the Department, who must necessarily hold a recognised

-
medical qualification.

2. Medical men must be registered under the State
Central Medical Registration Act and non-medical persons
must be recognised as teachers with the University before
appointments are made permanent.

3. All the teachers in Medical Colleges except Regis-
trars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite post- G
graduate qualification in tl\eir respective subjects.

4. 50% of the time spent in recognised research under
the Indian Council of Medical Research or a University or
a Medical College, after obtaining the requisite Po~t-gradu ff.
ate qualification be counted towards teaching experience
for the post of Lecturer in the s11me or in !llli~d subject
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [I 9821 3 s.c.tt.

A provided that 50% of the. teaching experience fhall be the
regular teaching experience.

· 5. Equivalent qualification referred to above and in
the recommendations below shall be determined by the
University of Rajasthan.
B
6. In case of specialities under Medicine and Surgery
the qualifications and experience s~ ould also be as sche-
duled below but in case the post has been advertised and

c
. suitable candidates are not available the qualifications can
be reladed."
This is followed by a tabular statement headed 'Require-
ments of Special Academic Qualifications and Teaching
'-·"-
-
•

Experience'. Column 1 of this table deals with the posts,
Column 2 lays down the academic qualifications and •
Column 3 is about Teaching Experience. The table has a
D number of sub-headings according to the various speciali-
ties. The speciality of Forensic Medicine is given at page
168 of the Handbook (1971 Edition). The relevant pro-
vision regarding "Lecturer in Forensic Medicine" is as
follows:
"(d) Assistant M.D. (Path.), Two years
E Professor/ M.D. (Forensic of Medico-
Lecturer Medicine), Legal work,
Speciality Board of
Pathology (USA),
M.D./M.R.C.P./
F.R.C.P. (with
F. Diploma D.F.M.),
. M.R.C.P. (with
Forensic Medicine as
Special Subject) '
or equivalent
G qualification or
Post-graduate
degree or equivalent
qualification in.
Medicine or Surgery.''
H
On March 3, 1972, the Rajastban Public Service Commission
(for short, the commission) issued a1lvertisements invitins appli-

•
•

11.t. ASAWA v. RAJASTHAN (Ba/akrishna Eradi, J.) 44~

cations for the recruitment of two Lecturers in :Forensic Medicine A
_, for Medical Colleges, Medical & Public Health Department in
accordance with the Rules.

The appellant had, by then, obtained the M.D. Degree in
Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur in
1970 and had been functioning as Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in
one of the Government Medical Colleges in Rajasthan on a tem- B
porary and ad hoc basis fro(n December 31, 1970 on wards. "

In response to the aforesaid advertisement published by the
Commission, the appellant applied for appointment to one of the
two posts. However, by the impugned letter (Annexure IV) dated
July 21, 1973, issued by the Secretary of the Commission, the appel- c
lant was informed that his application for the post of Lecturer in
Forensic Medicine was rejected since he did not possess the necess-
ary academic qualification. A representation made by the appellant
to tbe Public Service Commission for reconsideration of the matter
did not meet with any favourable response and hence the appellant
approached the High Court by filing the writ petition under Article D
226 of the Constitution out of which this appeal has arisen. During
the pendency of the writ petition, the Commission conducted the
interview of the remaining candidates and selected respondents Nos.
3 and 4 for appointment to the two posts and on the basis of the
said selection the State Government appointed respondents 3 and 4
as lecturers. The appellant thereupon amended the writ petition by E
incorporating a further prayer that the High Court should issue an
appropriate writ or direction cancelling the interview and selection
conducted by the Commission as well as the consequential appoint-
ments given by the State Government to respondents 3 and 4 as
Lecturers in Forensic Medicine.
F
The short point to be considered is whether the Commission
was right in law in excluding the appellant from consideration on
') the ground that he did not possess the academic qualification pres-
cribed by clause (vii) of Ordinance No. 65 of the Rajasthan
University Ordinances for the post of Lecturer in Forensic
Medicine. G
The qualifications prescribed for the said post by clause (vii)
of Ordinance No. 65 are :

(!) A basic University (Degree?) or equivalent qualifica-
tion entered in Sc!i~dµles to the Indian Medical Council
Act, !95().
450 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS I1982] 2 8.C.R.
A (2) Registration under the State/Central Medical Regis-
tration Act.

(3) Post-graduate qualification in the concerned subject.

(4) Two Years' experience of Medico-legal work.
B
The appellant is admittedly the holder of the basic Degree of
M.B.B.S.Jrom the N.ajasthan University, which is a qualification
entered in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act. It
is also not in dispute that he is duly registered under the Medical
Registration Act. The sole ground on which the aapellant was
c treated by the Commission as ineligible for consideration was that
the Post-graduate' degree in Forensic· Medicine possessed by the
appellant is not one awarded by the University of Rajasthan and
the.said Degree has also not been recognised by the University of
•
Rajasthan as an equivalent qualification.
D
The University of Bihar at Muzaffarpur is one duly establish-
ed by statute and it is fully competent to conduct examinations and
award degrees. The Degree of Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medi-
.
cine)-M.D. (Forensic Medicine)-of the University of Bihar is
included in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
E as a degree fully recognised by the Indian Medical Council which is
the paramount professional body set up by statute with authority
to recognise the medical qualifications granted by any University or
Medical Institution in India. A Post-graduate Medical Degree
granted by a University duly established by statute in this country
and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council
F by inclusion to the Schedule of the Medical Council Act has ipso
facto to be regarded, ac~epted and treated as valid throughout our
country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary,
such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other '
Universities in any State in India before it can be accepted as a {
valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in
G such a State. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in our
opinion, manifestly in error in thinking that since the Post-graduate
degree possessed by the appellant was not one obtained from the
University of Rajasthan, it could not be treated as a valid quali-
cation for the purpose of recruitment in question in the absence of
H any specific order by the University of Rajasthan recognising the
said degree or declaring it as an equivalent qualification. It is
~ommon ground before us that the University of Rajasthan d9es not
il.i.. ASAWA v. ilAJASTHAN (Baiakrishna Eradi, J.) ·451

conduct Post-graduate examinations in the subject of Forensic A
Medicine and it does not award the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medi-
cine). In order that there should be scope for declaration o.f 'equi-
valence' of a qualification obtained from another body, there should
be a corresponding qualification that can be earned by viriue of
passing an examination or test conducted by the concerned,"Univer-
sity. There can be declaration of equivalence only as between a
degree etc. awarded by the concerned University and one obtained
from a body different from the concerned Universily. When the
_..., - - ., University of Rajasthan does not conduct any examination for the
award of the degree of M.L. (Forensic Medicine), there cannot be
any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of s.ucb a
degree awarded by any University. Unfortunately, the ~tate Public c
Service Commission as well as the Division Bench of the .High
Court failed lo notice this crucial aspect. We may also point out
that the declaration of 'equivalence' referred to· in Section 23A of
the Rajasthan University Act as well as in clause (vii) of Ordinance
No. 65 of the Rajasthan University Ordinances can only be in
respect of qualifications other than basic or Post-graduate degrees D
awarded by other statutory Indian Universities in the concerned
subjects. In the case of a Post-graduate degree in the concerned
subject awarded by a statutory Indian University, no recognition or
declaration of equivalence by any other University is called for.
This is all the more so in the case of a medical degree-basic as well
as Post-graduate-that is awarded by a statutory Indian University E
and which has been specifically recognised by the Indian Medical
Council.

Though a contention was taken ·by the respondents in the
High Court as well as before us that the appellant did not also
satisfy the requirement regarding "two years of Medico-legal work",
F
we do not find any force in the said plea. The certificates from the
,-'- Principal and Heaas of Departmenfs of Forensic Medicine in the
concerned Medical Colleges produced by the appellant in the High
Court as annexures in his affidavit dated July 27, 1973 which are
at pages 31 and 33 of the printed Paper Book, establish beyond
doubt that the appellant had put in more than two years of Medico-
G
legal work in Dr. S. N. Medical College and in the Dharbhanga
Medical College, prior to the last date fixed by the Commission for
receipt of the applications.
H
The conclusion that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
that the appellant was fully qualified for being considered for
SUPltBME robitr it~Poi\TS (!982] 3 s.c.k..

appointment to the two posts of Lecturer.s in Forensic Medi-
cine advertised by the Commission on November 16, 1972, ·and
that the Commission acted illegally in treating the appellant as not
being possessed of the requisite academic qualification and excluding
him from consideration on the said ground.

Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of
B the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of
the learned Single Judge, subject to the moditlcaiion that in carrying
out the directions contaiued in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the Commission should treat the appellant as a fully
qualified candidate in the light of the finding recorded by us that at
the relevant time the appellant possessed not merely the prescribed
c academic qualification but also the requisite experience of two years'
Medico-legal work. The appellant will get his costs throughout
from respondents I and 2 in equal shares.

D P.B.R. Appeal allowed.