JUDGMENT : A.N. Varma, J. By an order dated 16th July 1982 this petition has been dismissed on merits. On the date on which this petition was listed for hearing neither of the two counsel, for the petitioner appeared. However, we examined the petition on merits and by the aforesaid order dismissed the same. Subsequently, upon an application moved by Sri H.S. Joshi, on behalf of the petitioner we reheard the petition on merits. Having heard Sri Joshi in support of this petition, we find no merits in it. 2. This petition is directed against a notice issued by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad to the various Heads of the Departments of the said College stating that the petitioner along with various candidates mentioned in that notice were not eligible to appear at the Post Graduate Examination for the degree of M.D. in Radiology. The notice states that the petitioner was ineligible for the aforesaid examination on three grounds, namely, (i) that his attendance was short of the prescribed minimum ; (ii) that the petitioner had not filed the required bond ; (iii) that no permission was obtained from the employers, namely, the department in which the petitioner was serving after his admission to the M.D. course in Radiology. 3. In the petition, the aforesaid notice is assailed on a number of grounds all of which were considered at some length by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta and others v. The Principal Moti Lal Nehru Medical College Allahabad and others 1981 E.C. 35. The Division Bench held that the notice did not suffer from any illegality nor did it violate any principle of natural justice or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though a number of grounds have been taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed only one point for our consideration namely that the petitioner has wrongly been declared ineligible on the ground of alleged shortage of attendance. It was urged that the fact that during the relevant period the petitioner was employed in the Provincial Medical Service and posted at the Primary Health Centre, Jasra, District Allahabad could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he was absent from the Medical College. 4. It was urged that the fact that during the relevant period the petitioner was employed in the Provincial Medical Service and posted at the Primary Health Centre, Jasra, District Allahabad could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he was absent from the Medical College. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given the matter a careful consideration, we find no merit in the above submission. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (supra) this Court had occasion to consider at great length the nature of training which a student of M.D. course is required to undergo and upon an examination of the applicable Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India as well as the provisions contained in the prospectus of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Allahabad, the Division Bench held that from nature of training prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations it is apparent that the student has to be a full time resident in the Medical College and that the training excludes the possibility of a student serving simultaneously elsewhere. The Division Bench referred to various Regulations of the Medical Council and observed as follows : "These two regulations, therefore, clearly contemplate that the training of Post Graduates for Degree Courses is to be on the Residency pattern and the candidates are required to work in the concerned department of the Institution for the full period. In other words, these provisions totally exclude the possibility of a candidate joining a private or Government service during the course of his training for Post Graduate degree Courses. The petitioners in the first petition admittedly joined Government service during the course of their training for Post Graduate degree course and certainly rendered themselves ineligible for appearing in the final examination." 5. Again after referring to Regulation 8, the Division Bench said "this regulation therefore, further emphasises the nature of the training and the fact that a student of a Post Graduate course has to be a full time resident. It cannot be contemplated that at any stage during the course of this training the student can take a job outside the institution" (Emphasis added). 6. The Division Bench then proceeded to examine the method of training prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations and quoted an extract therefrom which runs as follows : "The emphasis should be on in-service training and not in a didactic lectures. 6. The Division Bench then proceeded to examine the method of training prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations and quoted an extract therefrom which runs as follows : "The emphasis should be on in-service training and not in a didactic lectures. The Candidate should take part in Seminars, Group Discussions clinical meetings etc. The candidate should be required to write a thesis or dissertation with detailed commentary which should provide the candidate with necessary background of training in research methods and techniques along with the art of writing in research papers and learning the use of library. The in service training requires a candidate to be a resident in the campus and he should be given graded responsibility in the management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. Adequate number of posts of clinical residents or tutors should be created for this purpose. After quoting the above, Division Bench observed thus : "Again, there is emphasis on in-service training and further that the candidate has to remain in the institution for the entire period of the course of training." 7. The Division Bench drew the same conclusion from an examination of the provisions contained in the prospectus of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Allahabad. 8. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid conclusions reached by this Court in the case of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (supra). We are clearly of the view that the training contemplated for the Post Graduate course and degree makes it obligatory for the student to be a full time resident in the College throughout the course and it does not countenance that the student may simultaneously be serving outside the Medical College. The applicable Regulations as well as the Ordinances clearly point to the conclusion that for the Post Graduate courses the training is of a residency pattern requiring the student to remain in the campus for the full term of the training. 9. Now it is not disputed, indeed it is admitted to the petitioner that he was during the relevant period employed in the U.P. Medical service, having been posted at Jasara in the district of Allahabad. That being so, on the dictum of this Court laid down in the case of Dr. 9. Now it is not disputed, indeed it is admitted to the petitioner that he was during the relevant period employed in the U.P. Medical service, having been posted at Jasara in the district of Allahabad. That being so, on the dictum of this Court laid down in the case of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (supra) the petitioner was clearly ineligible to appear at the Post Graduate examination for the degree of M.D. and was hence rightly declared to be so by the Principal of the respondent Medical College. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, laid considerable stress on the assertions made in the supplementary affidavit to the effect that village Jasara was barely 12 miles from the Medical College Allahabad and hence the petitioner was in a position to attend the lectures, seminars etc. regularly. That being so, it was urged, the Medical College wrongly excluded the petitioner from the examination. We are unable to accept the above contention. We have already observed that the kind of training which is prescribed for the M.D. course does not countenance that the student should during the period of training be serving outside the Medical College. Further, from the mere physical proximity of the Medical College from the Primary Health Centre, Jasara, the place where the petitioner was admittedly working, it cannot be inferred that the finding of the respondents that the attendance of the petitioner was short of the prescribed minimum becomes vitiated and open to review in these proceedings. The impugned notice must be based on the records including the attendance register maintained by the department concerned and we have no reason to think that the respondent No. 1 wrongly held that the attendance of the petitioner was short. Moreover, the petitioner has not disclosed either in the writ petition or even in the supplementary affidavit any details regarding attendance to enable this Court to come to a different conclusion from that upon which the impugned notice is founded. In any case, we are clearly of the opinion that as the petitioner was during the relevant period engaged in active service elsewhere being posted at the Primary Health Centre, Jasara, he was rightly declared ineligible by the respondents. 11. It may also be noted that the petitioner was declared ineligible on three grounds mentioned above. Learned counsel, however, confined his arguments only to the first of those grounds. 11. It may also be noted that the petitioner was declared ineligible on three grounds mentioned above. Learned counsel, however, confined his arguments only to the first of those grounds. He did not assail the other two grounds upon which the petitioner was declared ineligible. 12. In conclusion the petition fails and is dismissed, but we make no orders as to costs.