JUDGMENT S.K. Aggrawal and N.N. Sharma, JJ. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Mr. Shri Kant in September, 1981, for Mandamus directing the Principal, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (briefly stated as the Medical College), to accept the thesis of the petitioner and to allow him to appear in the examination which was then scheduled to be held in the month of November 1981. 2. The brief facts arc these. Dr. Shri Kant did his M.B.B.S. from K.G. Medical College, Lucknow, and thereafter applied for admission in M S. Course in Optbalmology in the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad. There were, at the time when he applied, four seats in that subject. On December 14. 1979, the State Government had issued a notification reserving 75% seats for post graduate students in various specialities of Medical Colleges in the State for students who had done M B. B. S. Course from the same Medical College, and for the remaining 25% applications of outsiders had to be considered on merits along with those who had done M.B.B.S. from the same Medical College. The Medical College picked up those students of its College and give them the appointment out of the 75% reserved quota for the students of the said College. Each of these persons had obtained less marks than the petitioner. The petitioner's case of admission was, however, compared with Dr. Neera Banerji, who was a student of the same Medical College and was the best out of those who had applied for admission in M.S. Course. Having compared the merits of the petitioner with Dr. Neera Banerji, the Medical College found the petitioner to be less meritorious and rejected his application. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition in this Court alleging, inter alia,.that the refusal to admit the petitioner was against the Government Order inasmuch as while picking out or selecting students for the reserved quota of the students of the Medical College itself, the course adopted was unfair. The Medical College should have made the selection on the basis of marks secured in that quota as well and thereafter considered the case of the petitioner on merits and compared him with the student who could not be absorbed in the reserved quota of 75% In this petition, the petitioner also filed a stay application. The Medical College should have made the selection on the basis of marks secured in that quota as well and thereafter considered the case of the petitioner on merits and compared him with the student who could not be absorbed in the reserved quota of 75% In this petition, the petitioner also filed a stay application. The petitioner was given a stay order on 20th May, 1980, and the Medical College was directed to admit the petitioner. The writ petition was, ultimately, allowed and the following direction was given : "In the result we allow this petition with costs. Without quashing the selection of any other respondents for admission to M. S. Course, we direct respondent No. 1 to admit the petitioner to the M.S Course in Opthalmology, commenced on 1st January, 1980. We may at this stage point out that there already is an. interim order passed by this Court on 29th June, 1980 directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to give provisional admission to the petitioner in M.S. (Opthalmology) Course in Allahabad Medical College. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 namely, principal, Medical College and Head of the Department of Opthalmology, shall now do the needful in this regard. It is clarified that if in order to give effect to the writ issued by t is Court, it becomes necessary for respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate orders with regard to respondent no. 4 Dr. Kamlesh, be would be free to pass that order in accordance with law. 3. The aforesaid direction had been given on the finding that there was absolutely no reason for the Medical College not to have selected students of the Medical College for the reserved quota on merits and thereafter compared the petitioner's candidature with that who had been left behind. The method, in the opinion of the High Court invented by the Medical College was not fair. 4. After the petitioner had obtained the stay order in the aforesaid writ petition, he was given registration by the Medical College in M. S. Course in Opthalmology. The petitioner prepared his thesis and tried to submit the same to the Principal in the month of July 198l. Then the thesis was not accepted, the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition in this Court. The petitioner prepared his thesis and tried to submit the same to the Principal in the month of July 198l. Then the thesis was not accepted, the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition in this Court. By a stay order granted by this Court, the Respondent No. 1, was directed to accept the thesis of the petitioner, which was subsequently done. Further, as the petitioner was net being permitted to appear in the examination, he again moved an application for stay in the present writ, on which Respondent 1 was directed to permit the petitioner to appear at the examination. Respondent 1 was, however, authorised to withhold the result of the petitioner. Now the writ petition has come up for hearing before us. 5. Sri. S.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that as the petitioner had submitted his thesis in August 1981 and had further been permitted to appear at the examination in the month of November 1981, Respondent 1 be directed to declare his result. In justification of his claim that the thesis had been illegally not taken by Respondent 1 for examination, and further that the petitioner was being unjustifiably not permitted to appear at the examination, counsel submitted that by the direction given by this Court, which has been quoted above, the principal of the Medical College was directed to admit the petitioner to the M. S. Course, which had commenced on January 1, 1980. As a result of this direction, the petitioner was entitled to submit his thesis for examination by the examiners appointed by the Medical College in the months of August 1981 and further to appear in the written examination held in 1981. 6. Sri P.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 countered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was neither entitled to submit his thesis nor could he be permitted to appear at the examination. Hence, the action of respondent 1 was fully justified. In support of his submission, respondent's learned counsel referred to Clauses 4 to 11 of the prospectus of M.D. and M.S. Examinations, and urged that the petitioner could not be permitted to submit his thesis unless he had worked at least twelve months at the Medical College and as the petitioner had not worked for twelve months, he could not submit the same. Counsel also urged that the thesis was required to be submitted under Clause 9 of the aforesaid prospectus by 15th day of December preceding the November examination at which the applicant intends to appear. According to Respondent 1, the thesis since had not been submitted before the 15th of December, the petitioner could not appear in the examination held in November 1981. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the rules relied upon by the Standing Counsel apply to a normal case where admission of a student is made in the month of January or February as the case may be. Here, however, an extraordinary situation has arisen for which the petitioner could not be planned. The petitioner had applied for admission well within time. He was refused admission on a ground which was wholly irrelevant and extraneous. This led to the filing of a writ petition by him which ultimately, was allowed In the writ petition, a stay order had been passed directing Respondent 1 to admit the petitioner in the month of June 1980. He was tentatively Registered in June and was, subsequently, finally registered in September 1980, when the writ petition was allowed. To us, it appears that while considering the question as to whether the petitioner had been duly registered in the month of January 1980, we must not overlook the direction of the High Court given in the aforesaid writ petition asking Respondent 1 to admit the petitioner in M S. Course which commenced on 1st January, 198 J. As a result of this direction, the registration of the petitioner would be deemed to have been made in January 1-80 itself. If that is so, the argument of the respondent's learned counsel about the requirement of two years teaching in M S Course should be deemed to have been satisfied before the date of appealing in the examination in November 1981, This fact has to be assumed in favour of the petitioner. It may be an imaginary state of affair treating the same to be real, but there is no alternative to the same. Respondent 1 wants the rules to be applied strictly by giving it a literal interpretation to the case of the petitioner which is an abnormal case. To a normal case, the interpretation made on behalf of Respondent 1 could or could not be applied. Respondent 1 wants the rules to be applied strictly by giving it a literal interpretation to the case of the petitioner which is an abnormal case. To a normal case, the interpretation made on behalf of Respondent 1 could or could not be applied. We are not called upon to decide. But, assuming that such an interpretation as was placed before us on behalf of Respondent 1 is correct, we are of definite opinion that permitting the Respondent 1 to raise the same and throw away the petitioner's candidature on that ground would be unjust and illegal. Respondent 1 cannot be permitted to take advantage of the own wrong. 8. The requirement of Clause 6, as we find, is that one must have worked in connection with the thesis at least twelve months at the Medical College. Since we have held above that the petitioner should be deemed to have been admitted in M. S. Course in Opthalmology in January 1980, he had worked in connection with the thesis for twelve months and, as such, the requirement of Clause 6 should be deemed to have been satisfied by the petitioner. The submission made by the respondent's learned counsel was that since the thesis had not been submitted in November 1980, the petitioner could not be permitted to appear in the year 1981. He could, according to respondent 1 appear in 1982. Clauses 6 and 9 had been relied upon by respondent 1 in support of this submission. To us, it appears that those conditions must not be viewed in isolation. So viewed, the answer is obvious. So viewed the completion on or before November 15, 1980 of there was the essential requirement and failure to do so a breach. So construed one finds himself to the position which does injustice to the petitioner. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission made by Respondent. 1. 9. At this place, it is worthwhile mentioning that Dr. Heera Benerji, Dr. A.S. Das, Dr. R.P. Chaturvedi and Dr. Kamlesh who were admitted in M. S. Course along with the petitioner, submitted the thesis after December 15,1980 but still they were forwarded for examination. This shows that Respondent 1 had been accepting the thesis even after 15th December. 1. 9. At this place, it is worthwhile mentioning that Dr. Heera Benerji, Dr. A.S. Das, Dr. R.P. Chaturvedi and Dr. Kamlesh who were admitted in M. S. Course along with the petitioner, submitted the thesis after December 15,1980 but still they were forwarded for examination. This shows that Respondent 1 had been accepting the thesis even after 15th December. As no exception could be taken to the submission of the thesis by the-petitioner in August 1981 on the queer facts of the present case, he was entitled to appear at the examination held in November 1981. As he was entitled to appear, he is entitled to know his result also. 10. The Standing Counsel relied upon a decision in Writ Petition No. 10415 of 1980, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and others v. The Principal Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, decided on 13th October, 1981, now reported in 1982 UPLBEC 68 (DB) in support of his argument relating to the interpretation of the various clauses, referred to above. The controversy involved in the said case was altogether different. Since the facts of the present case are altogether different from these which came to be considered in the above case, the ratio laid down in the same would not apply. It is on account of the changed facts of this case that the were led to held that Respondent 1 was wrong in not accepting the thesis of the petitioner and in not permitting him to appear at the examination held in November 1981. This case is being decided on its own facts and is not thus intended to lay down any law for guidance of future cases. 11. For the reasons given above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondent 1 is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of M. S. in Opthalmology held in November 1980 forthwith. No order as to costs.