JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The Petitioners are continuing as Post-Graduate students in different faculties having taken admission to the two-year Post Graduate Course on different dates between 11-31987 and 22-4-1987 excepting, Petitioner No 6 who took admission in the faculty of Pathology on 5-5-1987. The Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, by his letter dated 28th of April, 1988, addressed to the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, annexed as Annexure-1, submitted a synopsis of the post graduate students due to appear in the M.D/M.S Examinations of the Utkal University scheduled to commence in January, 1989. The Deputy Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, by his letter dated 5-9-1988 intimated the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College that as per the provisions of the Statutes, the post graduate examination would be hold on the second Monday of January 1989, i.e. on 9-1-1989 and, therefore, the examinees for the said examination were required to submit their theses before three months of the date of commencement of the examination so as to reach the University by 8th of October, 1988. The said letter of the Deputy Controller of Examinations has been annexed as Annexure-2 Thereafter the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University Vani Vihar, issued letter dated 1-10-1988 with reference to the Principal's letter under Annexure-1 stating therein that the Post-Graduate Examination will commence on 9th of January, 1989 and eligible candidates therefore, should fill up their forms by 1-12-1988. With out fine and by 7-12-1988 with fine and the form should reach the University by 1-2-12-1988. It was further stated in the said letter that only those candidates who had joined the post-graduate course by 11-3-1987, i.e. within ten weeks from 1st of January 1987, were eligible for the January, 1989 examination This letter of the Controller has been annexed as Annexure-3 The principal, S.C.B. Medical College forwarded a copy of the said letter to all Post-Graduate Departments for information and necessary action by Memo No. 8637 dated 7-10-1988, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 The Petitioners having taken admission to the post-graduate course after 11-3-1987 and thus being debarred from filling up the form have approached this Court for quashing of Annexure-1 and 4 and for a direction to the University to permit them to till up the forms and to appear at the examination scheduled to commence from 9th of January, 1989. 2. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 being sworn to be the Administrative Officer of the Utkal University. The stand of the University is that the Medical Council of India has made same recommendations on post-graduate medical education in the country and as per the said recommendation, the period of training for M.D. and M.S. Course shall be three years after full registration including one year of house job or equivalent thereof and the period so prescribed is the minimum requirement though the Council encourages Universities and Medical institutions to have a longer period of training. Chapter--XVI of the Utkal University Regulations deals with the Post-Graduate Degree of Medicine, Surgery etc. Under to said Regulations a candidate for the Degree of M.D. or M.S. must have prior to his admission to the Course worked as a house officer in a hospital attached to a college admitted to the privileges of the University for a period of twelve months in the same subject in which the candidate wishes to qualify and thereafter must subsequently prosecute his studies and do research for a period of not less than two academic years under a guide approved by the syndicate in this behalf, The said Regulations further provide that a candidate shall be admitted into a medical college affiliated to the University in two terms of the academic year, once in July and the not in January and in each term admission shall continue for six weeks from the first day of July and January, but in exceptional circumstances, the syndicate may permit a candidate four weeks more for admission/Academic year has also been defined in the Utkal University Statutes, in Statute 222, to the effect that the first term is from June to December and the second term is from January to May. The contention of the opposite parties, therefore, is that in view of the specific provision made in the Regulations referred to earlier dealing with examination for the Degree of Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery a person who has taken admission after ten weeks of the 1st of January cannot be permitted to take up the examination commencing from 9th of January, 1989, as he cannot be deemed to have prosecuted studies for two academic years and, therefore, admission beyond ten weeks cannot be taken to be an admission for that term. It is on this account the University has fixed that those of the students who have taken admission after 11-3-1987 cannot be permitted to appear at the examination commencing from 9th of January, 1989. In other words, the University has merely enforced the Statutes literally and has done nothing further. 3. In the premises, as aforesaid, we are called upon to decide whether the students having been admitted in the same academic year but on different dates can be treated differently for the purpose of appearing at the examination. It has to be borne in mind in this connection that the selection for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses in three different medical colleges of the State is made through a competitive examination conducted by the Selection Committee formed by the State Government. While holding such examination and selecting candidates and directing them to take admission, the Committee or the Government does not bother to take into account the University statutes or the Regulations. There has been no co-ordination between the selecting agency namely the Government and the examining agency namely the University. If the selecting agency bears in mind the provisions of the Statutes and the Regulations and makes its selection in such manner and directs that admission for the academic year commencing from January of the year must be over within ten weeks from 1st of January, then such a contingency that is faced in the present case would not have arisen at all, As it appears, the selecting agency after making selection notified that the students could take admission on or before 22nd of April, 1986, in relation to the admission during the academic year commencing from January, 1986. 4. 4. While doing so, the relevant regulation prohibiting admission after ten weeks from the 1st day of January has not been borne in mind and it is for this unfortunate action, the students though having been admitted during the academic year and having prosecuted their studies under the guide satisfactorily are being prevented from taking up the examination to be held in the month of January, 1989 The fault lies squarely with the authorities and not with the students in any manner as the authorities permitted the students to take admission even after expiry of ten weeks from the 1st day of January, contrary to the provisions of the University regulations. Ordinarily, students taking admission on different dates during a particular academic year must be permitted to take up the examination when held for the batch of students taking admission during the same academic year In other words, the students those who have taken admission in the academic year commencing from January, 1986, should be permitted to take up the examination held in January. 1989, meant for that batch of students. We are quite conscious of the stand of the University that the Regulations prohibit admission beyond ten weeks of the commencement of the academic year namely January, 1986. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case when there is no cohesion between the selecting agency and the examining agency and the students have been permitted to take admission on different dates even after expiry of ten weeks of the 1st of January, 1986, all the students of the said batch must be permitted to appear at the examination meant for that batch of students scheduled to commence on 9th of January, 1989, provided of course, they have prosecuted their studies under their guides satisfactorily and the respective guides recommend to that effect, as otherwise permitting some of those students of the same batch, those of whom coincidently have taken admission prior to 11th of March, 1986, to appear at the examination commencing from 9th of January, 1989 and those others who have taken admission subsequent to 11th of March, 1989, to debar them from appearing at the said examination would cause undue hardship, not for any laches or fault on the part of the examinees, but on account of the selecting agency making selection late and permitting them to take admission late. If the University would have enforced the Regulation strictly right when the admission was made, then this eventuality would not have occurred at all. In our considered opinion, all the students who have taken admission into the Post-Graduate Course during the academic year commencing from January 1986, must be permitted to take the examination scheduled to commence from 9th of January, 1989, provided they have otherwise done research work under the guides approved by the Syndicate upto their satisfaction and have also worked as a resident doctor during that period and are otherwise eligible under the rules and regulations in force. It is to be noted that direct candidates after being selected through the competitive examination take admission to R.H.S. Course for one year and thereafter they are admitted to the Two-year Post-Graduate Course. 4. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we also bear in mind the relevant regulations of the University as well as the recommendations of the Indian Medical Council and by no means our directions in this case may be construed that the Court is aiding in decreasing the standard of medical education, more so when we are dealing with a decree associated with human life. We would like to emphasize the fact that the recommendations of the Medical Council that a post-graduate student must undergo the necessary training under a guide for two academic years upto the satisfaction of the said guide must be enforced and may not be relaxed, as otherwise, there would be a danger of de-recognition of the degree from the institution in question Further, the University Regulations prohibiting admission after ten weeks from the commencement of the academic year must be strictly enforced. In other words, the selecting agency must see that admission to the post-graduate courses must be over within ten weeks from 1st of January in case of those candidates who are selected for the academic year commencing from January and within ten weeks from 1st of July in respect of those candidates who would be selected for the academic year commencing from July of the year, If for any reason hereafter there would be delay in making selection and if candidates would take admission after expiry of ten weeks in question, then those candidates would be deemed to have taken admission in the next academic year and therefore should be entitled to appear at the examination scheduled for the next academic year. We hope and believe that if there would be cohesion between the selecting agency and the examining agency, then the students will not suffer. But so far as the present batch of students are concerned, since they have been permitted to rake admission even after expiry of ten weeks of the commencement of the academic year namely 1st of January, 1986, and as the University had not enforced the regulation earlier strictly, we think it appropriate to permit them to appear at the examination commencing from 9th of January. 1989 meant for the batch of students who have taken admission during the academic year January to June 1986 subject of course to their eligibility otherwise as required under law. 5. It is relevant at this stage to deal with the submission made by Mr. Mohanty for the University relying upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, and the other in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another. In both these aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Statutes and Regulations must be enforce and if some students have taken admission notwithstanding the prior warning and caution of the University, then they do so at their peril and must suffer. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another. In both these aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Statutes and Regulations must be enforce and if some students have taken admission notwithstanding the prior warning and caution of the University, then they do so at their peril and must suffer. In our opinion, the aforesaid two decisions have no application to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where the Petitioners were permitted by the agency selecting them for admission to take admission even after expiry of ten weeks from the commencement at the academic year and they have satisfactorily studied for the requisite period but are being prevented from taking up the examination on account of strict enforcement of the Statutes by the examining agency. Thus the submission of Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the University, that the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief cannot be accepted. 6. In the net result, therefore, the order of the Controller as per Annexure-3 an order of the Principal communicated to the different Post-Graduate students as per Annexure-4 are hereby quashed and the appropriate authorities, namely the Principal of the medical college and the Controller of examinations should take prompt steps in permitting the Petitioners and all others similarly situated to take up the examination commencing from 9th of January, 1989. We are fully conscious of the observations of the Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society's case (supra) and by no means our direction may be construed to be a direction to the University to disobey the Statutes to which it owes its existence, but we are forced to issue the direction in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where the Government has permitted the students to take admission even after expiry of ten weeks from the commencement of the academic year, namely 1st of January 1986, and the University also had not been enforcing the regulations strictly earlier, so that the students who have studied satisfactorily for two academic years may not get frustrated. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed