JUDGMENT - MANOHAR SUJATA (Mrs.), J.: - The petitioner passed her M.B.B.S. degree examination from the grant medical college in October 1985. The petitioner completed her internship in J.J. Group of Hospitals on 7th January, 1987. 2. In December 1986 she applied for registration for a post-graduate degree with the respondent. In her application for registration she gave the following order of preference for specialities: (i) Ophthalmology, (ii) E.N.T. and (iii) Skin. It seems that under Rules 5 of Government Resolution dated 20th August, 1983, a copy of which is annexed as Exh. A to the petition, it is, inter alia, provided in Clause (6) that 15% of the total seats in post graduate degree available in a year will be reserved for in service personnel such as MM HS and teaching staff in Medical Colleges. Sub-clause (c) of Rule (5) is as follows: "(c) The availability of post graduate seats will be worked out every year in the beginning of the academic year. After deducting seats for categories mentioned in (b), the remaining seats will be available to the institutional candidates of open and backward class categories. 70% of these remaining seats will be released for the registration for the January term and 30% seats will be released for July terms." The Rule thus clearly provides that out of total number of seats which available in a year, 15% will be reserved for in-service personnel. The remaining seats will be available for institutional candidates. Of these remaining seats 70% will be released for registration for January term and 30% will be released for registration for July term. If this Rule is to be correctly applied, then, in the present case, there were a total number of 5 seats available in the speciality in Ophthalmology for the academic year 1986-87. Out of these one seat would have to be given to in-service candidate. Of the balance 4 seats available, one seat would be available to an institutional candidate for the July term and 3 seats would be available to an institutional candidate for the January terms. 3. In the present case, it seems that for the year 1986-87 apart from 5 seats what in were initially available, one additional seat also became available in August. 3. In the present case, it seems that for the year 1986-87 apart from 5 seats what in were initially available, one additional seat also became available in August. Therefore, assuming that 6 seats were available or the year 1986-87 one seat would have to be allotted to in-service candidate and 5 seats would be available for institutional candidates. Of these 5 seats 2 seats would be available for July term (approximately 30%) while 3 seats would be available for January term. Instead of dividing seats in this manner, the respondents has first divided all available seats including seats for in-service personnel into two groups of 30% and 70% for July and January terms respectively. Out of the quota of 70% one seat has been given to an in-service candidate. As a result 3 seats have gone to institutional candidates in July term and only 2 seats have come to institutional candidates in January term. This is clearly contrary to the provisions of Rule 5. 4. The petitioner was initially as Sr. No. 4 in the merit list for candidates in Opthamology. On 2nd February, 1987, however, the candidate at Sr. No. 3 gave up her claim to a seat for Opthalmology and opted for general medicine (see Ex. B-1). The petitioner therefore is at Sr. No. 3 in the merit list. She would have been entitled to a seat in Ophthalmology, had 3 seats been made available for candidates in Ophthalmology in January term as per Rule 5. The petitioner has been deprived of her seat entirely because of a wrong interpretation of Rule 5. 5. The respondent contends that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in coming to this Court and the seats have already been filled in. The petitioner was initially at Sr. No. 4 in the merit list. She became eligible only when the candidate at Sr. No. 3 withdrew her candidature on 2-2-1987. The petitioner came to know about this around 4-2-1987 and thereupon she immediately made a representation to the Dean of Grant Medical College as also to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra. Thereafter she has filed the present petition on 17-3-1987. This delay is not such as would disentitle the petitioner to any relief. The petitioner came to know about this around 4-2-1987 and thereupon she immediately made a representation to the Dean of Grant Medical College as also to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra. Thereafter she has filed the present petition on 17-3-1987. This delay is not such as would disentitle the petitioner to any relief. It is also contended by there respondent that the petitioner has already got a seat in the subject which was her second preference. This however, cannot affect the petitioner's entitlement to a subject which is her first preference. 6. The petitioner has stated in her affidavit dated 31st March, 1987 that under the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India for registration of post-graduate students it is laid down, inter alia, that the ratio of one students per teacher may be increased to two students per teacher in exceptional cases. She has also ascertained that Dr. R.C. Patel has agreed to take her as an additional student if so required by the Dean. A similar assurance is given to the petitioner by the Head of Ophthalmology Department of Grant Medical College. These statements are not controverted by the respondent. 7. In these circumstances, this is a fit case where the petition should be allowed. 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The respondent is directed to create an additional seat for the petitioner in the special circumstances of the present case and in view of the statements made in the affidavit of the petitioner dated 31-3-1987. Respondent to take all steps necessary to make this direction effective. Petition allowed. -----