JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petition is directed against an order dated August 13, 1985 passed by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, cancelling the admission of the Petitioner to the Diploma Course in Orthopaedics. 2. These are the relevant facts. The Petitioner did his MBBS Course from the Allahabad Medical College in 1982. After doing internship he joined House Job in Orthopaedics in July 1983. He was an aspirant for admission to the M. S. Course in the specialty of Orthopaedics against 75% seats which were under the then prevalent rule to be filled up on the basis of institutional preference. However, in the case of Dr. Pradip Jain and Ors. reported in 19S4 Ed. Cases 237, their Lordships ruled that institutional preference in Post Graduate Courses of study should not exceed 50%. This decision effected the chances of admission of the Petitioner and four others who approached the Supreme Court by way of a petition which was fiscally disposed of by a judgment and order dated May, 1, 1985 whereby the State Government was directed to admit the Petitioner and the four others in the M.S. Course in their respective specialties in the Respondent college for the academic session 1985.86 failing which in any of the five other medical colleges. Pursuant to this the Director, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow passed an order admitting the. Petitioner to the M.S. Course in Orthopaedics in the B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. In compliance with this order a letter of appointment was issued by the Principal of the B.R.D. Medical college, Gorakhpur, on July 22, 1985. However, when the Petitioner went to the Department of Orthopaedics with the letter of appointment, a group ol hostile students led by the President of the Junior Doctors Association of B.R.D. Medical College forcibly took him to the officers' hostel and allegedly manhandled him and threw away his belongings from the room where he was staying with a warning that he should leave the Gorakhpur Medical College at the earliest and should give up the idea of pursuing studies there The Petitioner took refuge that night in a hotel in the Gorakhpur city. On July 23, 1985 again when the Petitioner went to deposit the fees and join the department a similar treatment was meted out to him. On July 23, 1985 again when the Petitioner went to deposit the fees and join the department a similar treatment was meted out to him. He was again dragged to the officers' hostel and was manhandled by the leaders of the students' union of the said medical college. He was forcibly boarded in a bus bound for Allahabad and thus the Petitioner returned to Allahabad. Hoping that tempers must have cooled down during a week or so since the night marish episodes faced by the Petitioner he returned to Gorakhpur again on August 2, 1985 and managed to deposit his fees on that date. On August 3, 1985 when he went to the Orthopaedics Department he was again taken to the officers' hostel by force and was severely abused and beaten and was confined in the hostel up to 6 P. M. without any food or water. Thereafter he was brought to the Gorakhpur Railway Station and was forcibly boarded in a train bound for Allahabad. By means of a letter dated August 5, 1985 the Petitioner brought these facts to the notice of the Head of the Department of Orthopedics, the Director of Medical Education and the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate of Gorakhpur but to no avail. The letters went unheeded and no protection was offered to him nor was any assurance given that the Petitioner would be permitted to pursue his studies at Gorakhpur. 3. In view of the facts mentioned above, the Petitioner states, he wrote two letters on August 6, 1985 one to the Principal Motilal Nehru Medical College and the other to the Principal B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur saymg that in continuation of his letter dated August 6, 1985 he wished to inform that he had no option because of the peril and danger to his life at Gorakhpur but to discontinue his studies in the M.S. Orthopedics course at Gorakhpur. He said in this letter "I, therefore, give up my studies in M.S. Orthopedics in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur ". He also said in this letter that he had requested the Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad not to send his records to the B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. He said in this letter "I, therefore, give up my studies in M.S. Orthopedics in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur ". He also said in this letter that he had requested the Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad not to send his records to the B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. To the same effect another letter was written to the Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad on August 14, 1985 in response to which the Principal of the M.L.N. Medical College passed the impugned order, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder: As regards your continuing as Diploma student at M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, you cannot simultaneously be a student of two different Universities situate at the distance of 200 miles, whereas once you have joined your course at the Medical College, Gorakbpur, you have ceased to be a Diploma student of this medical College. " . 4. In the counter affidavit the stand taken by the Respondent-medical college is that there is a convention prevalent regarding admission to the various State Medical Colleges according to which a student cannot simultaneously pursue studies at two places and when a student leaves one University and joins another he automatically ceases to be student of the former. As regards the difficulties confronting the Petitioner at Gorakhpur Medical College all that has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Medical College is that the Respondent is not really concerned with that and that the Petitioner should approach the State Government and the district officials of Gorakhpur for necessary relief. There, is however, no denial of the facts and incidents stated by the Petitioner which compelled him to give up his studentship at the Gorakhpur Medical College. 5. In the rejoinder-affidavit apart from reiterating the averments and contentions raised in the original petition, the Petitioner also states that he had not unequivocally given up his studentship at the Allahabad Medical College before he went to join the M.S. Course at Gorakhpur. He had some doubt whether he would be able to pursue his studies at Gorakhpur and consequently he had taken leave from the Orthopedics Department Allahabad and was factually on casual leave during the said period i. e., till he returned from Gorakhpur and resumed his studies at Allahabad before the impugned order was passed. He had some doubt whether he would be able to pursue his studies at Gorakhpur and consequently he had taken leave from the Orthopedics Department Allahabad and was factually on casual leave during the said period i. e., till he returned from Gorakhpur and resumed his studies at Allahabad before the impugned order was passed. In support the Petitioner has filed extracts of the attendance register which prima facie seem to support this contention. 6. For the Petitioner the first contention raised was that undeniably the impugned order visits the Petitioner with civil consequences. It deprives him of a very valuable right of prosecuting his studies to the Diploma Course to which he had been validly admitted without affording him any opportunity to show cause why such an order be not passed against him. Having been passed in gross violence of principles of natural justice the impugned order is liable to be quashed quite apart from the fact that it is not sustainable even on merits. The second submission was that there is no rule, statutory or otherwise, which provides for an automatic cessation of studentship by the mere joining of a course of study by a student in another Medical College. It was vehemently contended that the convention which has been talked of in the counter affidavit is non-existent and no material whatever has been furnished by the Respondents in support of such as alleged convention. Alternatively it was urged that the convention cannot affect the statutory rights vested in the Petitioner arising from his admission to the Diploma Course at the Allahabad Medical College. The third contention raised in support of the petition was that the studentship of the Petitioner could come to an end only under and in accordance with Section 45(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that the training of Post-Graduate courses has to be on residency pattern, it completely excludes the possibility of a candidate joining a course of studies elsewhere. It must follow as a necessary corollary, therefore, that as soon as the Petitioner obtained his admission in the Medical College he ceased to be a student of the Diploma Course at Allahabad Medical College. It must follow as a necessary corollary, therefore, that as soon as the Petitioner obtained his admission in the Medical College he ceased to be a student of the Diploma Course at Allahabad Medical College. The learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly conceded that there is no specific rule or order of the Government providing for an automatic cessation of studentship of a candidate joining another Medical College. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and given the matter a careful consideration, we are clearly of the opinion that the cancellation of the Petitioner's admission is wholly unsustainable in law. Apart from the fact that the impugned order visited the Petitioner with serious civil consequences and could not hence be passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is clearly established that both legally and factually the studentship of the Petitioner at Allahabad Medical College in the Diploma Course did not cease. 9. It is not disputed that there is no express rule or order providing for any automatic cessation of studentship by the mere factum of a student joining another Medical College. Learned Standing Counsel very fairly conceded that there is no such rule or order. His submission was, however, based entirely on the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India in regard to the Post-Graduate Courses of Studies in Medical Colleges including Post-Graduate Diploma Course. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the relevant regulations concerning the nature of training prescribed for Post Graduate Diploma Courses. These regulations provide that the candidates pursuing Post Graduate Degree or Diploma Courses should work in the concerned department of the institution for the full period and that the students shall be full-time residents. Learned Counsel - referred us to the two decisions of this Court reported in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. The Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad 1981 Ed. Cases 351 and Sri Divyamber Dvvivedi v. The Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad 1983 Edu. Learned Counsel - referred us to the two decisions of this Court reported in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. The Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad 1981 Ed. Cases 351 and Sri Divyamber Dvvivedi v. The Principal M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad 1983 Edu. Cas 67 in both of which the nature of training and studies in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in medical education was examined in depth and it was ruled that the training contemplated for the Post Graduate Courses makes it obligatory for the student to be a full time resident in the college throughout the courses and it does not countenance that the student may be simultaneously serving outside the Medical College. The residency pattern of these courses was stressed in both these decisions. 10. We have no difficulty in agreeing that having regard to the nature of training and education involved in the pursuit of Post Graduate Medical Education a student cannot simultaneously pursue studies in two medical colleges. If, therefore, the Petitioner had continued his studies at Gorakhpur he would have had no right to continue his studentship in the Diploma Course at the Allahabad Medical College and the Principal would have been within his rights in taking appropriate action for determining his studentship at Allahabad. However, in the facts of the present case it is apparent that the admission of the Petitioner in the Gorakhpur Medical College never became effectual and was not translated into reality. It remained a dead-letter and a mere paper transaction. The Petitioner was physically prevented from pursuing his studies at Gorakhpur. He was bodily removed from the Department of Orthopedist of Gorakhpur Medical College by the union leaders of that Medical College ganging up against him and making it impossible for him to remain within the precincts of the Gorakhpur Medical College, to say nothing about the Petitioner's being able to pursue his studies at Gorakhpur. This was so right from the inception of the Petitioner's admission. The Petitioner complained both to the Head of the Department as well as to the district officials of Gorakhpur and sought their help and intervention but in vain. There was hence little wonder that the Petitioner by means of his letters addressed both to the Principal Allahabad Medical College as well as the Gorakhpur Medical College gave up his studentship at Gorakhpur Medical College in no uncertain terms. There was hence little wonder that the Petitioner by means of his letters addressed both to the Principal Allahabad Medical College as well as the Gorakhpur Medical College gave up his studentship at Gorakhpur Medical College in no uncertain terms. Faced with the problem which confronted the Petitioner no one could have thought of prosecuting his studies at Gorakhpur without the risk and peril to his life. Where, as here, a student though admitted on paper is prevented from prosecuting studies in another medical college whether by authorities themselves or by external force and, as a consequence thereto, he gives up his studentship in the other Medical College unequivocally, it will be wrong to apply the rule prohibiting a student from prosecuting simultaneously two courses of studies in different medical colleges. The Principal of the Allahabad Medical College was hence clearly unjustified in cancelling the admission of the Petitioner despite the facts and circumstances mentioned above having been brought to his notice. 11. We, however, do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Section 45(4) is the only provision or contingency in which the studentship of a student determines. Sub-section (4) of Section 45 which provides that a student may be removed for unsatisfactory work or conduct in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances is not exhaustive of the circumstances and contingencies in which the studentship of a student terminates. In our opinion, the studentship of a student can also come to an end by abandonment which implies that a student may expressly or by some overt act manifest an intention that he does not desire to prusue his studies. There is no express bar in the U.P. State Universities Act or elsewhere to a student voluntarily giving up his studentship. A student may by his conduct indicate that he does not desire to pursue his studies in any University or an institution or college governed by the U.P. State Universities Act by joining another University or college or taking up an assignment which may exclude the possibility of his prosecuting the studies. The intention of abandonment of studentship may be culled out from various facts and circumstances. 12. The intention of abandonment of studentship may be culled out from various facts and circumstances. 12. In the present case, however, we find that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was prevented from prosecuting his studies at the Gorakhpur Medical College rendering his admission there ineffectual and inoperative, he had also not completely and irrevocably given up his studentship at the Allahabad Medical College in view of the fact that he had gone on, casual leave from the Orthopedics Department, Allahabad Medical College as evidenced by the extracts of the attendance register annexed to the rejoinder affidavit before proceeding to Gorakhpur. He had also requested the Principal of the Allahabad Medical College not to forward his papers to the Gorakhpur Medical College. All these facts point to the conclusion that the Petitioner had not intended to give up his studentship at Allahabad and that before his admission to the Gorakhpur Medical College could be translated into reality he came back and resumed his studies at Allahabad. Luckily for him the vacancy caused by the temporary absence of the Petitioner from Allahabad had not been filled up so as to make the position irreversible for the Petitioner. 13. To sum up, our conclusion is that in the facts of the present case, the studentship of the Petitioner had not ceased and the Principal of the Gorakhpur (Allahabad?) Medical College was not justified in cancelling the Petitioner's admission to the Diploma Course in Orthopedics. 14. In the premise, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated August 13, 1985 (Annexure IX to the petition) passed by the Principal of the Respondent Medical College, is quashed. As a consequence, the Petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing as a student of the Diploma Course in Orthopedics of the M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad. There will be no order as to costs. 15. While the judgment was being delivered the learned Counsel for the Respondents made an oral prayer requesting for a certificate Under Article 133 of the Constitution to the effect that the case involves substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the case we are not satisfied that the case involves any such question. The prayer for certificate is accordingly rejected.