JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, A.C.J. 1. The Petitioner Dr. Vijay Tyagi has been perusing a diploma course in Pathology in L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut. She made an application for admission to the diploma course in Gynecology and Obstetrics for the year 1985.86. She was not selected for the said course. Aggrieved, she has approached this Court for relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that admissions to the diploma course in the Medical College have to be made on the basis of marks obtained in M.B.B.S. examination. Whereas according to her she had secured 54.84 percent marks in her M.B.B.S. examination (54.83 percent according to the Respondents), one Dr. Praveen Malik who had only secured 54 22% in the M B.B.S. examination was given admission in the said diploma course and she has been denied of her right to be admitted to that course. 3. The Principal of the Medical College has put in appearance and has contested the prayer made in the writ petition. According to him the Petitioner was denied admission to the diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the year .985N6 for the reason that she had already been persuing a diploma course in Pathology for the year 1 84.85. His case is that a student cannot be permitted to jiersue two courses simultaneously, and as such no question arose for considering the Petitioner's case for admission to the diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynaeology till she give up the persuit of diploma course which she was already persuing. 4. It is true that a student cannot be allowed to persue two diploma courses simultaneously but then there is no bar to a student already persuing a diploma Course, applying for another diploma course. Such a person, if he qualifies for admission to the diploma course is to be allowed to join the said course, if he gives up the earlier diploma course. In the instant case it appears from the rejoinder affidavit that candidates similarly situated to the Petitioners have been accommodated with the condition that they give up the earlier course which they had been persuing. There is no reason why the Petitioner should also not have been afforded the same opportunity. 5. In the instant case it is suggested by the Petitioner that there is still one seat vacant in the diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynecology. There is no reason why the Petitioner should also not have been afforded the same opportunity. 5. In the instant case it is suggested by the Petitioner that there is still one seat vacant in the diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynecology. The case of the Respondent on the other hand is that there were only 8 seats for the said course and there is no vacant seat. The Petitioner has, in her rejoinder affidavit, asserted that one Dr. Poonam Dua, who had been admitted to the diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynecology, has given up the pursuit of this course for the reason that she has ionized the Medical College at Kanpur, if that be so, the seat of Dr. Poonam Dua becomes vacant and becomes available for accommodating the Petitioner. 6. In the result we allow this petition and direct the Respondents to admit the Petitioner in Gynecology and Obstetrics diploma course for the year 1985.86 provided (i) she resigns from the diploma course in Pathology which she is already perusing and gives up all the benefits accruing to her as a result of that course as also claim to the diploma in that course (this will, however, not mean that she will be liable to refund the stipend which she may have already received), and (ii) the seat of Dr. Poonam Dua is still vacant. In the circumstances we direct the parties to bear their own cost. 7. A copy of this judgment may be given to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on payment of usual charges by day after tomorrow.