R. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner, a post-graduate Student of M. G. M. Medical College, Indore, has sought an appropriate writ, direction, order, directing the respondents to allow her to appear in M. S. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) Examination commencing on 3rd October, 1985. ( 2 ) THIS petition was filed on 2-9-1985. By order dt. 1-10-1985 passed by this Court on an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, the respondents were directed to provisionally permit the petitioner to appear in the M. S. Examination aforesaid and were further directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared till the decision of this petition, making it clear that this provisional order was passed without affecting the merits of the case in any way at that stage. ( 3 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are as follows :-THE petitioner has been prosecuting her studies in the post-graduate degree course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in M. G. M. Medical College, Indore. She passed her M. B. B. S. Examination in the year 1981 and was awarded gold medal in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. After completing her internship in the year 1982 and her house job in 1983, she was selected for admission to the postgraduate degree course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and since then she has been prosecuting her studies in the said postgraduate degree course, while working as a Demonstrator. In the last week of July, 1985, the petitioner came to know that she was not being allowed to take the M. S. Examination commencing from 3rd October, 1985 because of shortage of attendance. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, therefore, made a representation dt. 5-8-1985 (Annex.-C) addressed to the Dean, M. G. M. Medical College, Indore respondent 1 through the Professor and Head of Department of, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, respondent 2. In this representation, the petitioner mentioned that due to her illness she was absent from duty from 25-10-1984 to 24-1-1985 and that she had compensated for this absence by not taking casual leave or week off and that she has not availed any gazetted holiday, nor the vacation of one month during which she worked and that she also worked during the junior doctors' strike of 15 days and did extra night-duty during the strike. ( 5 ) THE Professor-respondent 2 forwarded the aforesaid application to the Dean with the endorsement that the petitioner had worked and made up her shortage earlier. However, there was no response from the Dean. The petitioner once again made a similar representation dt. 25-8-1985 (Annex. D), addressed to the Dean, M. G. M. Medical College, Indore respondent 1, submitting copies of the same to the Health Minister and to the Director Medical Education, Bhopal, respondent 3. The Director Medical Education Bhopal, received the copy of this representation (Annex.-E) which he forwarded to the Dean with an endorsement that the petitioner seemed to have a plausible cause as she had spent at least as many days in the department as others. ( 6 ) ON 30-8-1985, the petitioner in her letter (Annex. F) addressed to the Professor respondent 2 gave a detailed account of her attendance to demonstrate how she had made up her absence by working on holidays, Sundays, vacation and during other contingencies when her colleagues were not at work. This letter states that the petitioner had worked for 504 days during the two years' period of 730 days, like other demonstrators working in Clinical/paraclinical and non-clinical side, who were held eligible for appearing in the post-graduate examination. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted position that there are no rules prescribing any minimum attendance for the post-graduate course. The only recommendation by the Medical Council of India in respect of period of training is as follows :-"period of Training -the period of training for M. D. , M. S. shall be 3 years after full registration including one year of house-job or equivalent thereof and for Diploma courses, 2 years after full registration including one year of house-job. The Council encourages universities or medical institutions to have a longer period of training as the Council recommendations are for minimum requirement. The Council however, emphasises that thorough and intensive training on a planned programme should be given to the students during all stages of the courses and such programme should be available for the inspection and scrutiny of the Council during its visitation. The Council however, emphasises that thorough and intensive training on a planned programme should be given to the students during all stages of the courses and such programme should be available for the inspection and scrutiny of the Council during its visitation. " ( 8 ) THE University-respondent 4 in its return has stated that while it is true that it is not possible for any candidate for M. S. to remain present every day for reasons beyond the control of the candidate, the respondents customarily allow total absence of 60 days. It is also stated in the return that Ordinance No. 6 framed under S. 37 of the M. P. Vishva Vidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which prescribe minimum attendance for eligibility and the condonable limits of deficiency in attendance, allowable at the discretion of the Head of the Department and the Kulpati, does not apply to a candidate for the examination of Master of Surgery. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the College and Hospital Advisory Council, a body which does not appear to be constituted under any statutory rules, considered the case of the petitioner's attendance and her eligibility to appear in the M. S. Examination in its meeting held on 28-9-1985 and decided by reference to Ordinance No. 6 aforesaid that she was short of attendance and her case was not recommended for condonation to the Kulpati. The minutes of the meeting are contained in Annex. R-4/2 filed by the University respondent 4. ( 10 ) THE respondent 4 although admitting that Ordinance No. 6 is inapplicable for the post-graduate course in the Medical College, has not taken a stand different from the College and Hospital Advisory Council, on the question of petitioner's eligibility to appear in the M. S. Examination. It is stated in the return of the respondent 4 that the Dean did not make any recommendation for the condonation of shortage and consequently the Vice-Chancellor has not considered the shortage of attendance. ( 11 ) IT is thus, clear that the decision not to permit the petitioner to take the M. S. Examination has been taken by the College and Hospital Advisory Council, a non-statutory body, by advertence to Ordinance No. 6 which is admittedly inapplicable for determining the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the M. S. Examination. ( 11 ) IT is thus, clear that the decision not to permit the petitioner to take the M. S. Examination has been taken by the College and Hospital Advisory Council, a non-statutory body, by advertence to Ordinance No. 6 which is admittedly inapplicable for determining the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the M. S. Examination. Consequently, the decision of the College and Hospital Advisory Council and on that basis the refusal of respondent 4 to admit the petitioner in the M. S. Examination cannot be sustained and must be quashed. ( 12 ) SHRI Chitale, learned counsel for the University-respondent 4 has argued that it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of acadamic bodies and has urged that the present case deserves no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on a decision in Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 . ( 13 ) BUT in a case concerning academic matter where there has been unequal treatment between the equals it will not be fair to refuse interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution and as we would presently show this is one such case. ( 14 ) IT is not disputed that there is no statutory rule providing for any specific number of days of work required to be put in by a post-graduate student during the period of training of two years in order to be eligible to appear in the M. S. Examination. It is also not a case where the University could be shown to have adopted any invariable uniform standard in matter of minimum requirement of number of days of work during the period of training for eligibility, which could be applied year to year without discrimination. In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that her case was not worse than the case of the post-graduate students who are being allowed to take the M. S. Examination. The petitioner demonstrated statistically that during the period of two years of training she had put in 504 working days and the other students have also put in about the same number of working days. The petitioner demonstrated statistically that during the period of two years of training she had put in 504 working days and the other students have also put in about the same number of working days. The respondents were given time to satisfy us from the records how the number of working days put in by other candidates appearing in the M. S. Examination compared with the total working days put in by the petitioner. But we were informed subsequently that the respondents had maintained no record of attendance in respect of other candidates. In the circumstances, we see no reason for not accepting the comparative analysis of the petitioner in Annex.-F to the petition and the contention of the petitioner that detaining, her from appearing in the M. S. Examination in such circumstances, will be unreasonable and clearly discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents' decision not to allow the petitioner to appear in the M. S. Examination commencing from 3rd October, 1985, is quashed and the petitioner shall be deemed to have validly appeared in the M. S. Examination which she was enabled to take by interlocutory order dt. 1-10-1985, which also directed her result to be withheld pending decision of this petition on merits. In view of the success of this petition, the respondents are now directed to declare the result of the M. S. Examination in respect of the petitioner also, forthwith. There shall be no order as to the costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition allowed. .