The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the M.S. (Surgery) degree conferred by the Punjab University under Section 11(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This writ petition was admitted on 27.5.2003. The petitioner had made an application seeking permission to amend the writ petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. When the matter came up for hearing it was prayed that the application for amendment be dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner will confine his claim in this writ petition to his eligibility only for the post under contention. The request of the counsel for the petitioner was not opposed. Application for amendment was dismissed as withdrawn. The writ petition was admitted. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner moved C.M. No.3687 of 2004 for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.7.2002 in L.P.A. No.2854 of 2001 (Medical Council of India v. Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Gill and another). This application came up for hearing on 19.3.2004 and the following order was passed:-

"Present:-

Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Mr. Namit Kumar and Mr. M.S. Guglani, Learned counsel for the respondent states that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is pending final adjudication in the Honble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Division Bench which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was rendered on 24.7.2002. The present petition was not admitted till 27.5.2003. Mr. Namit Kumar appearing for respondent No.1, has submitted that this judgment was very much cited before the admission Bench. This fact is controverted by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate. I am of the considered opinion that it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to enter into such controversy. To be put up for hearing after the decision of SLP No.21106 of 2002.

2 The petitioner has filed the present CM. No. 6727 of 2004 seeking an order restraining respondents No. 1 and 2 from raising any objection regarding the validity of the Post Graduate qualification of the applicant-petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. When this application came up for hearing on 14.5.2004, it was argued by the counsel for the Medical Council of India that the application is not maintainable as no such direction could be issued during the pendency of the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, this would amount to allowing the writ petition. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to file a better affidavit setting out the irreparable loss which would be caused to the petitioner, if the order dated 19.3.2004 is not suitably modified. The petitioner has filed the affidavit on 17.5.2004. When the matter came up for hearing, relying on the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 19.3.2004, Mr. Guglani has vehemently argued that the aforesaid order does not require any modification. In the affidavit which has been Filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the applicant-petitioner has been working as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh respondent No.3 since September 20, 200l till date. A list of 12 doctors is given in paragraph 6 who are similarly situated as the petitioner having under gone the three years course of studies at the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana who have been admitted to the further speciality course in Surgery known as MCH at various Hospitals and Institutions. It is further stated that the decision of the SLP may take a number of years by which time the applicant-petitioner would become over age for any government job. The dream of the applicant-petitioner of becoming a successful Surgeon, after obtaining the degree of Master of Surgery by further advancing his career by higher qualification and serving the public in the prestigious Government institutions would be shattered permanently. In 1998, the applicant-petitioner had not imagined that the degree for which he had successfully studied wo