Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.@mdashPetitioners Gulshan Kumar and Rakesh Seth passed their M.B.B.S. examination from Medical College, Rohtak in
the years 1983 and 1985, respectively. Petitioner No. 1 obtained diploma course in Orthopaedics in November 1985 and thereafter he joined
M.D. degree course in Department of Pharmacology the duration of which was to expire on May 3, 1989. Petitioner No. 2 joined diploma in
Child Health in the month of May, 1987, but failed to clear the same. He took admission in Radiology in July, 1988 and meanwhile he appeared
for supplementary examination in diploma in Child Health under the orders of the Civil Courts for which the Respondent-University had declined
permission on the plea that he had subsequently taken admission in Diploma in Radiology. The duration of Radiology course was to expire in June,
1989. Petitioner No. 1 applied for admission to M. S. Orthopaedics and M. D. Radiology. Similarly Petitioner No. 2 also applied for admission to
M.D. Paediatrics, a degree course and to M.D. Radiology. According to the Petitioners, they applied for respective disciplines being fully eligible
but have been denied admission on the plea that as per conditions laid down in the Prospectus and Bulletin of Information issued by the
Government Medical College, Rohtak -- Respondent No. 2 they were not eligible to apply.
2. The Petitioners, therefore, by means of this writ petition prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing condition Nos. 4(ii), (iii) and (iv)
of the Prospectus aforementioned which according to them stood in their way in getting admission applied for.
3. In the return the Respondent-University while controverting the allegations made in the petition, pleaded that the Petitioners were not at all
eligible to apply for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses for the session 1989-90. for Petitioner No. 1 was already pursuing one degree i.e.
M.D. Pharmacology whereas Petitioner No. 2 though was eligible to apply for admission to degree course in Radiology as he was pursuing
Diploma Course in the same subject, but he was not eligible to apply for admission to M.D. Paediatrics.
4. Challenge in this petition is to the provisions of condition Nos. 4(ii) to (iv) of the Prospectus on the ground that these conditions have been
inserted in the Prospectus against the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India. Had the Petitioners known that they would be ineligible for
future admission they would not have sought admission earlier. The Respondent-University was under an obligation to have informed them about
the conditions of admission at the time when they took admission.
5. The relevant conditions of the Prospectus sought to be quashed are as under:
4(ii) A student who is admitted to a diploma course shall be eligible to apply for admission to the degree course in another subject, provided he/she
should have passed the previous diploma examination. Such candidate shall not be paid stipend.
(iii) A student who is admitted to a diploma course shall not be eligible to apply for admission to another diploma course.
(iv) A student who is admitted to a degree course in a subject will not be eligible to apply for either a diploma or degree course in another subject
or diploma course in the same subject.
6. Admittedly, Petitioner No. 1 had not yet completed his previous course i.e. M.D. Pharmacology when he applied for M.S. Orthopaedics
whereas Petitioner No. 2 was still pursuing diploma in Radiology when he sought admission to M.D. Paediatrics and M;D. Radiology. So
obviously as per the provisions contained in the conditions aforequoted, they were not at all eligible to seek admissions to the courses applied for
by them. But the laments of the Petitioners that engage our attention is that the provisions of the aforesaid conditions of the Prospectus are ultra
vires of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, inasmuch by imposing these conditions the Respondents have taken away their
right to freedom to have academic excellence. But the Petitioners have not been able to specify how the Rules framed by the University are against
any provisions of the Medical Council of India. Moreover, the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India are not mandatory. Even the
Respondent-University can frame its own Rules and Regulations. The Petitioners whose ardent desire is to have admissions in various degree
courses cannot be permitted to bypass the reasonably framed Rules and Regulations which in our considered opinion have been introduced
keeping in view all vital aspects of the matter. Medical education in our country is very expensive. Whether it is a Post-Graduate Course or a
Diploma Course, the State has to incur huge amount on teaching faculty, equipments and on other accounts like awarding stipend and fellowship
etc. For such highly-demanded and expensive Courses, the seats are very limited. The public interest calls for that those who are admitted in such
Courses should complete it and not abondon midway. Such conditions are made keeping in view the public interest at large, and if they are not in
consonance with the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution of India, they can be suitably directed to be amended or omitted. But in the
conditions of the Prospectus of the Respondent-University impugned by the Petitioners, we do not see any screw loose that calls for fixing the
judicial lens and removing any anomaly, for an aspirant after having been selected for a specified course, not less than a Post-Graduate degree
course, having regard to limited seats, strictly on merit and performance cannot be allowed to abandon the said Course mid-session and to seek
admission to other discipline in total disregard to money and precious time spent on him as the seat, if allowed to be vacated in the mid-session
cannot be made available to another student howsoever deserving.
7. The Petitioners in support of their contentions, relied upon decisions of this Court in Parveen Kumar v. The State of Punjab and othersCWP
2335 of 1988 and The State of Punjab v. Dr. Harnek Singh LPA 185 of 1989. We are afraid, these authorities are not applicable to the facts of
the present case. In Parveen Kumar''s case (supra) the Petitioner after passing M.B.B.S. examination and successfully completing house job firstly
in the speciality of medicine and thereafter in the speciality of Paediatrics joined Diploma Course in Cild Health which course was one of the
requirements to seek admission in the Post-Graduate Course, had in fact, completed his diploma course in ChiH Health, but in the instant case the
Petitioners had not completed their respective courses when they sought admissions to other disciplines. Similarly, Dr. Harnek Singh''s case (supra)
is also distinguishable, for that was not a case of admission to any speciality or degree course. In that case the Petitioner after obtaining diploma in
Anaesthesia had applied for the post of Registrar/Demonstrator in the State Medical Colleges at Amritsar and Patiala. There the selection of the
Petitioner was also to be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. But the case in hand is on the different lines. Thus, conditions 4(ii) to (iv)
of the Prospectus of the Respondent-University are quite in order, perfectly valid and in the public interest. There is no violation of rules of natural
justice as well.
8. In result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.