G. G. SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : (a) The State Government have framed rules known as Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post-graduate Courses (Clinical, Para clinical and Non-clinical Courses), hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", for admission to the post-graduation (M. D. /m. S. course) in Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The course is open to candiates, who are classified in four categories. Private medical practitioners practising and settled in Madhya Pradesh fall in one of these categories. A private madical practitioner is defined by Rule 2 (i) to mean a recognized medical degree holder as per schedules of Medical Council of India, who is registered with the State Branch of Medical Council and who has been practicising continuously in the State of M. P. for at least one year immediately prior to the date of the application. By virtue of Rule 5 (B) (i) of the Rules, six seats in all the Medical Colleges are reserved for private medical practitioners settled and practising in Madhya Pradesh. To be eligible for selection for the post-graduate course, a private medical practitioner must have five years' standing in the profession after completion of internship, as laid down by Rule 6 (2) (i ). Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 6 (2) further provides that a private medical practitioner must have practised for at least one year continuously in the State of M. P. immediately prior to applying for post-graduation course. Rule 9 (6) further provides that private medical practitioners, who have a diploma in any subject, would be eligible to obtain a post-graduate degree in the same subject after a period of at least three years from the date of the completion of the diploma course. (b) An advertisement by respondent No. 2 was published in the Free Press Journal dated 13-8-84 inviting applications for the post-graduate course in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for six seats for private medical prctitioners. It was stated in the advertisement that the candidates must have five years standing in the profession after completion of internship and that the candidates must have practised for at least one year continuously in Madhya Pradesh immediately prior to 3-9-1984, which was the last date of receipt of application. It was stated in the advertisement that the candidates must have five years standing in the profession after completion of internship and that the candidates must have practised for at least one year continuously in Madhya Pradesh immediately prior to 3-9-1984, which was the last date of receipt of application. In response to that advertisement, the petitioner along with respondent No. 3 and other private medical practitioners submitted applications for admission to the six seats in the postgraduate course reserved for private medical practitioners. The grievance of the petitioner is that although respondent No. 3 was not eligible for admission to the post-graduate course, yet she was selected by the respondents. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the selection of respondent No. 3 for the post-graduation course be quashed and that a seat be offered to the next eligible candidate. ( 3 ) IN the return submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is averred that in the merit list of candidates from the category of private medical practitioners, who were found eligible for admission to post-graduate course, respondent No. 3 had obtained the second place while the petitioner had obtained the 8th place and as the first six candidates were offered seats reserved for private medical practitioners, the petitioner could not be admitted to the post-graduate course. The allegation that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for selection for the post-graduate course, was denied. On behalf of respondent No. 3, it was denied that she was not eligible for admission to the post-graduate course. It was further stated that respondent No. 3 had not withheld any material information from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who with full knowledge of all the relevant facts, had selected respondent No. 3 for the postgraduate course and that under these circumstances, her admission to the postgraduate course be not cancelled. ( 4 ) THE main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether respondent No. 3 was not eligible for admission to the post-graduate course. Now the material facts, which are not disputed, are that respondent No. 3 completed her internship on 11-6-1979. She was studying for a full time two years' diploma course 'd. G. O. ' from 1979 to 1981. During that period, she was not allowed private practice or to take up any part-time or full time employment as a medical practitioner. Now the material facts, which are not disputed, are that respondent No. 3 completed her internship on 11-6-1979. She was studying for a full time two years' diploma course 'd. G. O. ' from 1979 to 1981. During that period, she was not allowed private practice or to take up any part-time or full time employment as a medical practitioner. Now the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that on 3-9-1984, which was the last date for receipt of applications, respondent No. 3 did not fulfil the requirement of five years' standing in the profession after completion of the internship, as laid down by Rule 6 (2) (i ). On behalf of respondent No. 3, it was contended that the only requirement necessary for a private medical practitioner to be eligible for being admitted to the postgraduate course was that the candidate should have practised and settled in Madhya Pradesh for at least one year prior to the last date for receipt of applications and as that requirement was fulfilled by respondent No. 3, she could not be held ineligible for admission to the post-graduation course. It was contended on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the fact that respondent No. 3 could not practise during the period she was studying for diploma course, would not affect the period of her standing in the profession. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules made in that behalf. These rules are as follows :"5. Reservation of seats will be done as per details below : a. . . . . . . . . . . . B. (i) Six seats in all the Medical Colleges taken together in both the clinical and para clinical subjects combined, will be reserved for Private Medical Practitioners settled and practising in Madhya Pradesh. (ii) Six seats in all the Medical Colleges taken together in both the clinical and para-clinical subjects combined, will be reserved for: (a) Medical Officers, who are employees of public sector undertakings located in Madhya Pradesh and working in their units in the State; (b) Medical officers from Para-Military Forces, such as Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force or any other para military force designated as such by the Govt. of India from time to time. "selection And Eligibility For Private Practitioners : 6. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 2 (i) Candidates under 5b (i) and (ii) must have 5 years standing in the profession after completion of internship. (ii) Candidates under 5b (i) must have practised for at least one year continuously in Madhya Pradesh immediately prior to applying for post-graduation under this category. " from a perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is clear that to be eligible for admission to the post-graduate course, private practitioners have to fulfil two requirements; one that they should have 5 years' standing in the profession after completion of internship and two, that they should have practised for at least one year continuously in Madhya Pradesh immediately prior to applying for post-graduation course. The two requirements are distinct and both must be fulfilled. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the only eligibility requirement for private practitioners was that they should have practised in Madhya Pradesh for at least one year immediately prior to the submission of application, cannot be upheld. ( 6 ) THE next question for consideration is what is meant by the expression 'standing in the profession' occurring in Rule 6. 2 (i) of the Rules. It is necessary to remember that this requirement is to be fulfilled by candidates falling under both the categories specified in Rule 5b (i) and (ii ). These categories consist of private medical practitioners, Medical Officers of Public Sector Undertakings located in Madhya Pradesh and Medical Officers from Para Military Forces. Therefore, "standing in the profession" cannot be construed to mean practising as a private practitioner for 5 years, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. What is required is that the occupation of these candidates for a total period of at least 5 years should be that of a medical practitioner. That period may consist of practice as a private medical practitioner or employment in a public sector undertaking or para military forces or elsewhere as a medical practitioner. If for a particular period, the occupation of a candidate is not that of a medical practitioner, either as a private practitioner or as a medical officer, then that period cannot be counted in computing the period of five years. If for a particular period, the occupation of a candidate is not that of a medical practitioner, either as a private practitioner or as a medical officer, then that period cannot be counted in computing the period of five years. ( 7 ) NOW, it is not disputed that from 1979 to 1981, respondent No. 3 was studying for the diploma course 'd. G. O. ', which is a full time course and no employment as a medical practitioner, part-time or full time or practice as a private practitioner is allowed to a student during that period. Therefore, for two years, respondent No. 3 could not be held to be practising the profession of a medical practitioner. Hence, while computing the period of her standing in the profession, the aforesaid period of two years has to be excluded. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 completed her internship in June, 1979 and the last date for application was 3-9-1984. If two years are excluded from the aforesaid period, respondent No. 3 cannot be held to have fulfilled the eligibility requirement stipulating 5 years' standing in the profession. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider as to whether respondent No. 3 was also required to fulfil the requirement stipulated by Rule 9. 6 of the Rules and whether that requirement was fulfilled. ( 8 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the admission of respondent No. 3 should be cancelled. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 has given up her private practice and has been studying for the post-graduation course for the last two years. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580 , the Supreme Court observed that if the candidates, who have already completed one or two semesters, were found to be erroneously admitted to educational institutions, it would normally be unjust to cancel their admissions at that stage. It is not the case of the petitioner nor is there any material on record to show that respondent No. 3 was admitted to the post graduation course on extraneous considerations. She was admitted because of wrong construction placed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the rules in that behalf. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the admission of respondent No. 3 should not be cancelled. She was admitted because of wrong construction placed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the rules in that behalf. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the admission of respondent No. 3 should not be cancelled. ( 9 ) THE question then that arises for consideration is what relief can be granted in this petition. It was admitted that one seat in the post-graduate department in ENT has been kept vacant in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 17-1-1985. If that seat is offered to the next eligible candidate in order of merit in the category of private practitioners selected for admission to the post-graduate course in the year 1984, then such a direction, it was admitted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, would not in the peculiar circumstances of this case, adversely affect the interest of any other candidate seeking admission to post-graduate course. ( 10 ) FOR all these reasons, this petition is partly allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to offer the vacant seat in post-graduate Department in E. N. T. to the next eligible candidate in accordance with merit in the category of private medical practitioners selected for admission to the post-graduate course in the year 1984. No order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case. The amount of security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition partly allowed. .