JUDGMENT 1. - All these four writ petitions raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 2. In the State of Rajasthan there are five medical colleges at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur and Ajmer. They are all run by the State. All these medical colleges have courses of study for the M. B. B. S. degree as well as the post-graduate degrees in M. S and M. D. They are affiliated to the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter -referred to as the University'). Admission to the M. D. and M. S. degrees is governed by Ordinance 278-E framed by the University. The said Ordinance directs that the candidates seeking admission in M D. and M. S. courses should have obtained registration, i. e., they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after pawing the Final M. 13. B. S. examination and must have registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council. Selection for post-graduate courses for M. D. and M. S. is done by a selection committee on the basis of merit Judged on the basis of the academic record in the Under-Graduate courses. The period of training prescribed for M. D. and M. S. courses is three years. In order that the students who have been selected for post graduate courses for M. S. and M J. degrees may complete their study without facing pecuniary problems, the State Government has adopted a scheme known as the Three Years Residency Programme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Residency Scheme'). Under the said Residency Scheme the persons selected for admission to M. S. and M. D. degree courses are appointed as Residents on a fixed stipend. The term of appointment of residents is of three years duration but the appointments are made for the first year in the first instance and they are renewable for the further period of second year and third year provided the work in the post-graduate studies undertaken by the student are found satisfactory at the end of the first year and second year as the case may be. 3. Dr. Miss. Madhu Sharma, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1984, passed her M. B. B. S. (Final) examination from Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'JLN Medical College') in November, 1981. 3. Dr. Miss. Madhu Sharma, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1984, passed her M. B. B. S. (Final) examination from Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'JLN Medical College') in November, 1981. She completed her one year's rotating internship on 8th February, 1983 and thereafter she joined the M. D. course in the speciality of general medicine at JLN Medical College, on 10th February, 1983 under the Residency Scheme. After completing one year's House job she resigned on 21st March, 1984. The said resignation was accepted with effect from 4th April, 1984. On 12th April, 1984, the Principal JLN Medical College issued a notice inviting applications from medical graduates for the post of Residents under the Residency Scheme. In the said notice the number of posts for various specialities were mentioned and the candidates were required to mention their preference for the speciality. The last date for submission of the applications was 24th April, 1984. In response to the said notice the said petitioner submitted her application on 19th April, 1984. In the application she gave her first preference for the speciality in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. By order dated 8th May, 1984 a number of candidates were selected for appointment as First Year Resident (Resident House Officer) under the Residency Scheme in the various specialities. Six candidates were selected for appointment as Residents in the speciality of Obstertrics and Gynaecology. The name of the petitioner was not included amongst the said six candidates. The case of the petitioner is that except Dr. (Miss) Meena Karnani, at S. No. 1 all the candidates who have been selected for appointment as Residents in the speciality of Gynaecology & Obstertrics in the order dated 8th May, 1984 had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the M. B. B. S. examination and that if the petitioner had been considered she would have been selected on the basis of merit. The case of the petitioner is that she has been arbitrarily denied consideration for appointment as Resident in the speciality of Gynaecology & Obstetrics under the Residency Scheme. 4. Dr. The case of the petitioner is that she has been arbitrarily denied consideration for appointment as Resident in the speciality of Gynaecology & Obstetrics under the Residency Scheme. 4. Dr. Ashok Sharma, the petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647 of 1984, also passed the M. B. B. S. (Final) examination from JLN Medical College in November, 1981 and after completing one year rotating internship on 8th February, 1983, he joined the M.D. course in Micro-biology in JLN Medical College in February, 1981 On 25th March, 1983 the speciality of the said petitioner was allowed to be changed from Micro-biology to Anaesthesiology and he completed one year's house job on 9th February, 1984. The said petitioner also submitted his application in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 and the speciality of Psychiatry was the fourth preference indicated by the said petitioner in his application. The case of the petitioner it that by order dated 8th May, 1984 two candidates have been selected for M.D. course in Psychiatry and that one of them is Dr. Harish Khemchandani. The case of the petitioner is that the marks secured by him in the M. B. B. S. examination are higher than those secured by Dr. Harish Khemchandani and that if the petitioner had been considered on the basis of merit he would have been selected for the post of Resident in the-speciality of Psychiatry. The said petitioner has also stated that subsequently one more candidate, Dr. (Miss) Jyotane Garg, has been selected for the speciality in Psychiatry and that the marks secured by her in the M. B. B. S. examination are also less than those secured by the petitioner. 5. Dr. Ashok Sajnani, the petitioner in S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 721 of 1984, had passed the M. B.B.S. (Final) examination from JLN Medical College in November, 1981 and after completing one year's rotating internship, he joined the post-graduate course in the speciality of Anatomy on 10th February, 1983. On 27th March, 1983 he was allowed a change of speciality and was shifted to the speciality of Aneasthesia. He completed one years residency on 9th February, 1984. He also submitted an application in response to notice dated 12th April 1984 and in the said application he indicated his preference for the speciality of Orthopaedics. On 27th March, 1983 he was allowed a change of speciality and was shifted to the speciality of Aneasthesia. He completed one years residency on 9th February, 1984. He also submitted an application in response to notice dated 12th April 1984 and in the said application he indicated his preference for the speciality of Orthopaedics. The case of the said petitioner is chat by order dated 8th May, 1984, candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. examinations have been selected for appointment Residents in the speciality of Orthopaedics and' the petitioner has been left out. 6. Dr Mahendra Lakhiwal, the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 828 of 1984. had passed the M.B.B.S. (Final) examination from JLN Medical College in November, 1981 and after completing his one year's rotating internship, he joined the post-graduate course in the speciality of Orthopaedics on 9th February, 1983. He completed one year's residency in Orthopaedics in February, 1984. In response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984, he submitted his application and in the said application he indicated his first preference for the speciality of Paediatrics. The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 8th May, 1984. the candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the M.B.B S. examination were selected and the petitioner has been left out. 7. The grievance of all the petitioners in these writ petitions is that after completing their one year's residency, they had again applied for appointment under the Residency Scheme in different specialities, but they were not selected and persons who had secured lesser marks than the petitioners, were selected in the specialities for which the petitioners had indicated their preference. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid action of the principal, JLN Medical College is violative of the right to equality guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued directing the Sate as well as the Principal, JLN Medical College to appoint the petitioners as First Year Residents (Resident House Officers) under the Residency Scheme With effect from 8th May, 1981 in the specialities for which they had indicated their preference. 8. The writ petitions have been contested by the respondents, namely, the State of Rajasthan, the Principal, JLN Medical College and the University. 9. 8. The writ petitions have been contested by the respondents, namely, the State of Rajasthan, the Principal, JLN Medical College and the University. 9. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the State and the Principal, JLN Medical College, it has been asserted that the petitioner had been selected for the Residency Scheme in the year 1983 and have completed one year's residentship under the said Scheme in the speciality for which they were selected and that they could not be permitted to give up the said speciality and again apply afresh in 1984 in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 in a different speciality. In this connection it has been stated that the petitioners had already been registered in the speciality in which they were selected in 1983 and being registered in the said speciality, they could not be registered again in a different speciality in the year 1984 and, therefore, they were ineligible for consideration for appointment in a different speciality on the basis of the notice dated 12th April, 1984 and the comparative merit of the petitioners and other candidates selected under order dated 8th May, 1984 was of no consequence. In the said reply it has also been stated that that College Council of JLN Medical College had taken a decision that the candidates who had already been offered a chance for three years Residency Programme in the subject of their choice stated in their applications and who have joined such programme, will not be given fresh appointments in three years Residency Scheme for the year 1984 and that in view of the said decision of the College Council, the applications of the petitioners submitted in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 were not considered because the petitioners had already been offered a chance for three year Residency Scheme in the subject of their choice stated in their applications and they had joined such programme. In the said reply it has also been stated that the Residency Scheme in pest graduate courses for medical students was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1983 in order to ensure that the selectees may not face pecuniary problems in their educational career due to finance and that with that end in view, they were provided employment for the fixed term of three years in which they were required to complete their post-graduate course and if a candidate who has completed one year's residency is permitted to change the speciality and apply again after one year in a different speciality, the administration would be paralysed and regular batch of freshers would face hardship and the Government would also lose financially and thereby the tenure of residentship would be increased from three years to a longer period. 10. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of the University it has been pleaded that the petitioners were not entitled to registration because having been registered in the speciality in which they were appointed for the year, 1983 they could not seek registration in a different speciality by submitting fresh applications in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 and, therefore, they were not entitled to compete with the regular batch of 1984. 11. Rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481 of 1984 and 647 of 1984. In the said rejoinders it has been pointed out that in other medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan persons who had completed one year's residency in a particular speciality have been appointed under the Residency Scheme in the year 1984 in a different speciality and that in JLN Medical College also in the year 1983 this practice was followed. 12. In view of the pleadings referred to above, the main question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners who had been selected in the year 1983 for post-graduate course in the specialities of their choice and having completed one year's residency in that speciality, were eligible applying again under the Residency Scheme in a different speciality in pursuance of the notice dated 12th April, 1984. In this connection it may be mentioned that Ordinance 278-E framed by the University which prescribes the conditions of eligibility for admission to the M. D. and M. S. courses to the University, there is no such limitation which bars a candidate who was registered in a particular speciality from applying for registration in a different speciality. The only condition of eligibility laid down in Ordinance 278-E is that the candidate should have obtained registration i.e. he must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the final M B B. S. examination and must have registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council. The State Government has also in its letter dated 26th November, 1981 framed guidelines for selection and appointment of the Residents under the Residency Scheme In the said guidelines also, it has been laid down that the following categories of Indian National Doctors will be eligible for selection and appointment as residents; (a) those who have passed M. B B. S. degree examination from the Rajasthan University; (b) those who have been nominated by the State Government to the M. B. B. S. course as State Nominees in the Medical College outside the State and (c) those who are the bonafide residents of the State of Rajasthan and who have passed their M. B. B. S degree examination from the Medical College where they have secured admission on All India basis. There is no express provision in these guidelines prohibiting a person who has been appointed as Resident in a particular speciality in a previous year to apply afresh in a different speciality in the next year. 13. The learned Government Advocate and Shri N. K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the University have, however, placed reliance on the Rules regarding registration as a post-graduate student in the M. D /M. S. examinations of the University, as set out on the back of the Form of application for registration as a post-graduate student in the faculty of Medicine, prescribed by the University. Reliance is placed specially on Rule 2 which reads as under : "2. No student can register himself simultaneously for more than one post-graduate examination. The period of registration for a post-graduate degree ends with his completion of the required terms." 14. Reliance is placed specially on Rule 2 which reads as under : "2. No student can register himself simultaneously for more than one post-graduate examination. The period of registration for a post-graduate degree ends with his completion of the required terms." 14. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the said rule has no application in the case of the petitioners because none of them had registered in the post-graduate course for the speciality in which he/she was selected in the year 1983 till they had submitted their applications in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 and there was no question of the registering themselves simultaneously for more than one post graduate examination. In reply to the aforesaid submission it was urged by the learned Government Advocate and Shri Joshi that once a candidate is selected for the post-graduate course and is appointed as a Resident, there is automatic registration for the post-graduate course with the University and absence of forms registration with the University is of no consequence. In this connection reliance has been placed on para A-5 of the guidelines which were annexed to the notice (Ex 2) dated 12th April, 1984 as well as the decision of this court in Dr. Chandra Kanta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230 of 1984 decided at Jodhpur on March 6, 1984 , wherein it has been held that the registration in the speciality after original selection and appointment is automatic in view of para A-5 of the guidelines. 15. In view of para A-5 of the guidelines referred to above and the decision of this court in Dr. Chandra Kanta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and other (supra) it must be held that the registration with the University for the post-graduate course is automatic after the original selection and appointments have been made and, therefore, the petitioners should be deemed to have been registered with the University in the speciality in which they were selected and appointed in the year 1983. There is however, nothing in the Rules regarding registration made by the University which may preclude a candidate from cancelling his registration in a particular speciality and applying afresh for registration in a different speciality. There is however, nothing in the Rules regarding registration made by the University which may preclude a candidate from cancelling his registration in a particular speciality and applying afresh for registration in a different speciality. All that is precluded under Rule 2 is that the candidate cannot simultaneously register himself for mare than one speciality for the purpose of post-graduation. On the other hand in Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules regarding registration made by the University it has been expressly laid down as under:- "5. Any person intending to a post-graduate examination in a subject different from the one for which he is registered must register himself afresh by paying the prescribed registration fee and duly selected by the Selection Committee." The aforesaid rule postulates that it is permissible for a person who is registered as a postgraduate student in a particular speciality with the University to change the speciality and for that purpose he must register himself afresh by paying the prescribed registration fee and should be duly selected by the Selection Committee. In the circumstances even if it is held that the petitioners should be deemed to have been registered with the University for post-graduation in the specialities for which they were selected and were appointed in the year 1983, it was permissible for therm to have their registration cancelled and to get themselves registered afresh in a different speciality by paying the prescribed registration fee after their being selected for that speciality by the Selection Committee. The petitioners would have done so if they had been selected in the specialities of their choice on the basis of their applications submitted in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984. In that event it could no, be said that the petitioners were trying to get themselves registered simultaneously for more than one post-graduate examination. The petitioners, therefore, could not be denied consideration for post-graduation in a different speciality only on the ground that they had been 'registered for post-graduation in another speciality. 16. In that event it could no, be said that the petitioners were trying to get themselves registered simultaneously for more than one post-graduate examination. The petitioners, therefore, could not be denied consideration for post-graduation in a different speciality only on the ground that they had been 'registered for post-graduation in another speciality. 16. It was next contended by the learned Government Advocate and Shri Joshi and that Ordinance 278-E framed by the University as well as the guidelines framed by the State Government do not postulate that candidates who had passed in the M B. B. S. (Final) examination in earlier years should be considered for selection for post-graduation, under the Residency Schemes and that appointment as Resident under the Residency Scheme can be given only to candidates who had pried the M B. B. S. (Final) examination in the current year. In support of this submission stress has been laid by the learned counsel on the blowing provision relating to selection of candidates contained in Ordinance 278-E : "Selections of Post-Graduate students shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year's compulsory rotating internship." In this connection it has also been submitted that the standard of marking may not be the same in each year and it would not be possible to asses the comparative merit on the basis of the marks secured in the M B. B S examination of candidates who have passed the said examination in different years. It is true that standard of marking may not be unit arm and marks obtained, at the M. B. B. S. (Final) examination may not afford the best criterion for judging the comparative merit of the candidates and the better course for adjudging the comparative merit would have been to have a competitive examination. But there is no such provision in Ordinance 278-E and the basis for adjudging the merit that is prescribed in the said Ordinance is tare performance at the First, Second and Final M.B.B.S. examinations taken together. There is no restriction in Ordinance 278-E that candidates who had passed at an earlier M. B. B. S. examinations are ineligible for applying in subsequent years. In the absence of any such restriction, it is not possible to read such a limitation therein. There is no restriction in Ordinance 278-E that candidates who had passed at an earlier M. B. B. S. examinations are ineligible for applying in subsequent years. In the absence of any such restriction, it is not possible to read such a limitation therein. Nor is it possible to read such a limitation from the requirement laid down in Ordinance 278E that the selection of post-graduate students shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year with the compulsory rotating internship. The aforesaid requirement only prescribes the time for holding the selection and it cannot be construed to mean that the students who had passed the M. B. B. S. examination and had completed their compulsory rotating internship in earlier batches are ineligible for selection. 17. It may also be mentioned that in the reply to the writ petitions, it is not the case of the respondents that candidates who had passed the M.B.B.S. (Final) examination earlier and had completed the compulsory rotating internship earlier, were ineligible for selection for post-graduation course in M. S. and M. D. in subsequent years. The only case that has been set up by the respondents is that candidates who had earlier been selected for post-graduation in a particular speciality and had joined as Residents in that speciality and have completed one year's residency. are not eligible for applying afresh in a different speciality. In the circumstances it is not possible to accept the contention that candidates who hid passed the M. B. B S (Final) examination in years previous to 1984 were not eligible for appointment as residents under the Residency Scheme. 18. The learned Government advocate has next submitted that it was competent for the College Council of JLN Medical College to lay down the condition that candidates who had earlier been offered a chance for three year residency programme in the subject of their choice stated in their applications and who have joined such programme, cannot be given fresh appointments in three years Residency Scheme for the year 1984 and that in view of the aforesaid decision of the College Council, the petitioners were ineligible for appointment as residents in pursuance of the notice dated 12th April 1984. In support of his aforesaid submission. In support of his aforesaid submission. the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow ( AIR 1984 SC 186 ) , I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention. The conditions of eligibility for admission to the post-graduate courses of M. S. and M. D. of the University arc laid down in Ordinance 273-E framed by the University and it was not permissible for the College Council to impose further conditions with regard to eligibility so as to debar candidates who were other- wife eligible under Ordinance 278-E. The Residency Scheme has been adopted by the State Government with a view to enable students who are selected for admission to the post-graduate courses of M. S. & M.D. to complete their studies without facing pecuniary problems. The conditions of eligibility for appointment as Residents under the Residency Scheme cannot be different from those laid down by the University under Ordinance 278-E. Moreover, the notice dated April 12, 1984 also prescribes the same conditions of eligibility as those, laid down in Ordinance 278-E. The guidelines prescribed by the State Government for selection and appointment of Residents under the Residency Scheme, which were appended to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 do not also impose any additional condition of eligibility for appointment of residents under the Residency Scheme except those laid down in Ordinance 278-E. As regards the rule of the College Council in the matter of selection, it may be observed that in second paragraph of the notice dated 12th April, 1984 it is stated that in the absence of clear-cut preference his/her allotment shall be decided by the College Council whose decision shall be final. In indicates that the College Council was given the final say in the matter of allotment of the speciality in cases where the candidate his failed to indicate a clear-cut preference. In note 6 appended to the said notice, it is mentioned that the decision of the College Council shall be final in the matter of the selection of candidate and no appeal shall be entertained on the subject which shows that the College Council was the final authority in the matter of selection of the candidates. In note 6 appended to the said notice, it is mentioned that the decision of the College Council shall be final in the matter of the selection of candidate and no appeal shall be entertained on the subject which shows that the College Council was the final authority in the matter of selection of the candidates. The only other provision appertaining to the College Council is that contained in note 7 to the aforesaid notice which prescribed that any attempt on the part of the candidate to influence, directly or indirectly, will be treated as disqualification and in such matter the decision of the College Council shall be final. There is, however, nothing in the said notice dated 12th April, 1984 or in the guidelines appended thereto whereby the College Council was empowered to impose additional conditions for eligibility of candidates. In these circumstances, it was not open to the College Council of JLN Medical College to lay down the condition adopted by it at its meeting held on 4th May, 1984 whereby it decided that the candidates who had already been offered a chance for three years residency programme in the subject of their choice stated in their applications and who have joined such programme will not be given fresh appointment in three year Residency Scheme for the year 1981. In this context it may also be mentioned that the three year residency programme is applicable to all the five medical colleges run by the State Government. As a result of the above mentioned decision of the College Council of JLN Medical College different standards for appointment as Residents under the three years residentship programme would be applied by the State, one for the JLN Medical College in accordance with the decision of the College Council dated 4th May, 1984 and the other for the rest of the four medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan where no such restriction was applicable. The fact that in other medical colleges in Rajasthan candidates who had earlier been appointed under the three year residency programme in a particular speciality of their choice, were permitted to apply again for the post of resident under the three year residency programme in a different speciality and were also selected, is borne out from the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner to the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 481 of 1984. In the said rejoinder it has been stated that at S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur, Dr. Meera Gupta who was doing post-graduate course in Anaesthesia in the year 1983, had been selected afresh for post-graduate course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the year 1981 and Dr. Mahendra Lakhiwal who had done the first year residentship for one year in Orthopaedics in 1983, has been selected for post-graduation in the speciality of Chest and Tuberculosis for the year 1984 and that similarly at S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Dr. Neeria Surolia who had completed one year's residentship in the speciality of E. N. T. has been selected for post-graduate course in Pathology and as a result of reshuffling, she has been selected for general Surgery in 1984 and Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta who was selected for post-graduation in the speciality of Radiology in the year 1983 has been selected afresh in the speciality of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the year 1984. Even with regard to JLN Medical College, it has been stated that Dr Devendra Kampani who had earlier joined as Resident House Officer in Psychiatry and had completed one year residentship in that speciality,was selected afresh in post-graduation in General Medicine in the year 1983 showing that in JLN Medical College also in the earlier years students who had completed one year's residentship in a particular speciality were permitted to apply again under three years residentship programme in post-graduation in a different speciality and were selected. The aforesaid averments contained in the rejoinder tiled on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition have not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. The aforesaid averments contained in the rejoinder tiled on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition have not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. This would show that the policy that has been adopted in the JLN Medical College in making selections for appointment as residents under the Residency Scheme in the year 1984 in pursuance of the notice dated 12th April, 1984 marks a departure from the practice that is followed in other Medical Colleges run by the State Government in the state of Rajasthan. Since all the Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan are run by the State Government, it is expected that the State Government would follow a uniform policy in the matter of selection for appoint merit as residents under the Residency Scheme for post-graduate medical student and it is not permissible for the State Government to apply different standards in different Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. The action of the College Council of JLN Medical College in prescribing different standards of eligibility for candidates for selection for appointment as residents under the Residency Scheme in JLN Medical College must, therefore, be held to be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. The decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned Government Advocate has no application to the present case. In K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the rules made by the Admission Committee on the view that the said rules were not inconsistent with the University Ordinance. In the present case the decision of the College Council has been found to be inconsistent with Ordinance 278-E framed by the University. 20. In K. P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the rules made by the Admission Committee on the view that the said rules were not inconsistent with the University Ordinance. In the present case the decision of the College Council has been found to be inconsistent with Ordinance 278-E framed by the University. 20. During the course of his argument, the learned Government Advocate emphasised that under the Residency Scheme, the State Government undertakes the financial obligation to pay the stipend to the candidates who are selected for post-graduate medical studies and if a candidate who has been selected in one speciality, is permitted to change his speciality and to apply afresh for a different speciality after completing one year or two years study in the speciality for which he was selected, the three years Residency programme would be extended and would become a four years or five years residentship programme and the State Government would be saddled with additional financial responsibility and further more it will also disturb the planning of the State Government in the matter of availability of specialities in different specialities. On the other hand it has been submitted by Shri Calla that although the State Government pays a stipend to the Residents who are selected under the three years residentship programme, the amount of stipend that is paid is only half of the emoluments which are paid to C. A. S. doctors and that Residents are required to serve round the clock and that they render far more and better service in comparison to the other C. A. S. doctors and, therefore, there is no merit in the argument that the State Government would be put to additional financial burden if a candidate who has completed one year residentship in a particular speciality is allowed to apply afresh under three years residentship programme in a different speciality. There does appear to be considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate that if a candidate who has completed one year residentship in a particular speciality is permitted to apply afresh in a different speciality under the three years residentship programme, it would disturb the planning with regard to the availability of the specialists in different specialities. There does appear to be considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate that if a candidate who has completed one year residentship in a particular speciality is permitted to apply afresh in a different speciality under the three years residentship programme, it would disturb the planning with regard to the availability of the specialists in different specialities. But such an eventuality can be avoided only be suitably modifying the guidelines laid down by the State Government for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment o residents under the Residency Scheme and by applying the said guidelines uni formally to all the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan. As noticed above this has not been done and such a limitation is sought to be applied only to JLN Medical college while the other medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan are not imposing any such restriction. This, in may view, is impermissible. 21. The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the College Council of JLN Medical College was not competent to lay down the condition that candidates who had already been offered a chance in three year residentship programme in the subject of their choice stated in their applications and who had joined the said programme, will not be given fresh appointments in three year residentship Scheme for the year 1984. Since the aforesaid condition laid down by the College Council of JLN Medical College, was illegal and the applications of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Resident under the Residency Scheme submitted in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 were rejected only on the basis of the said decision of the College Council, the rejection of the applications of the petitioners cannot be upheld and must be set aside and it must be held that the applications of the petitioners must be considered by the College Council of JLN Medical College, and if, on the the basis of merit, the petitioners are found entitled to be selected for appointment as residents under the Residency Scheme in the speciality for which they have indicated their preference, they may be appointed as Residents under the Residency Scheme in that speciality along with the candidates who were appointed vide order dated 8th May, 1984. 22. In the result the writ petitions are allowed. 22. In the result the writ petitions are allowed. The Principal, JLN Medical College is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Residents under the Residency Scheme submitted in response to the notice dated 12th April, 1984 and if, on the basis of merit, the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed in the speciality for which they have indicated their preference in their applications in preference to those who have been appointed in that speciality under order dated May 8, 1984, the petitioners will be appointed as Residents in the said speciality with effect from the date of the issuance of the order dated May 8, 1984. In pursuance of the interim orders passed by this court, the petitioner have been given provisional admission in the postgraduate course in the various specialities for which they have given their preference. They may be allowed to continue the said course till the decision is taken on their applications in pursuance of this order. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs in the writ petitions.Petition allowed. *******