ORDER 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent Medical College to admit him to the Diploma Course in Paediatrics. His grievance is that in accordance with the rules prescribed for admission to these courses the petitioner was entitled to admission against one of the eight seats which were available for students of diploma course in that subject in view of the fact that admittedly he had secured 56.14% at the M.B.B.S. Examination of 1985. 2. The undisputed facts are that in the department of paediatrics there are forest- graduate teachers, namely, Dr. B.K. Garg, Dr. D.K. Sharma, Dr. V.K. Upadhya and Dr. Mrs. S.P. Goyal. Consequently in accordance with the regulations framed by the Medical Council for admission to the diploma courses as many as eight students could be admitted to that course provided that these eight seats had to be allocated between the internal and external candidates in the ratio of 75% and 25%. The petitioner is an internal candidate. It is not disputed that the respondent Medical College has admitted one Dr. Kamaljit Singh, who had secured 54.6% at the M.B.B.S. Examination. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the fact that admissions to these courses have to be regulated strictly in order of merit, the petitioner had a preferential claim over at least that of Dr. Kamaljit Singh. 4. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed the reason stated for admission of Dr. Kamaljit Singh in preference to the petitioner is that the former has done one year's house job in the subject of Paediatrics itself whereas the petitioner had done six months house job in Paediatrics and another six months house job in the subject of Medicine. For granting this preference the respondents have placed reliance on a letter issued by the Secretary to the Government dated 25-8-1987, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit. The letter states that in view of the ,recommendations of the Medical Council of India on the Post-Graduate Medical Education as approved by the Central Government, the candidates should preferably have done one year housemanship in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department. 5. The letter states that in view of the ,recommendations of the Medical Council of India on the Post-Graduate Medical Education as approved by the Central Government, the candidates should preferably have done one year housemanship in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department. 5. The letter merely repeats the conditions of eligibility which have been laid down in the Medical Council Regulations for admission to the post-graduate degrees. Be that as it may, the letter in our opinion merely purports to explain the Medical Council Regulations on the subject. It does not and indeed cannot travel beyond the regulations framed by the Medical Council in that behalf. Further, the question whether a candidate who has done one years housemanship in the 1same subject has some kind of preferential claim over a candidate seeking admission to a diploma course who has done only six months housemanship in the same subject and remaining six months housemanship in an allied subject has been the subject of consideration in a series of Division Bench decisions of this Court. The decisions are unanimous as to the true interpretation to be placed on the term "preferably in the same subject". The Division Benches have categorically held that the words "preferably in the same subject" do not imply that there is some kind of preference as between the two candidates i.e. one who has done his housemanship for one year in the same subject as against the candidate who has done his housemanship for six months in the same department and another six months housemanship in another allied Department. (See Dr. P.M. Yadav v. The Principal, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, Writ Petn. No. 5873 of 1972, decided on 28.5.1982). 6. It appears that after this Bench decision some doubt was raised as to the effect of a similar letter of the Secretary, the substance of which has been quoted. Relying on the letter it was urged that students who have done one year's housemanship in the same subject were entitled to a preferential claim. The argument was considered in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. The Principal, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad (Writ Petn. No. Nil of 1986, decided on 29.4.1986) and rejected. Relying on the letter it was urged that students who have done one year's housemanship in the same subject were entitled to a preferential claim. The argument was considered in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. The Principal, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad (Writ Petn. No. Nil of 1986, decided on 29.4.1986) and rejected. The Division Bench ruled : "We do not think that the clarification sent by the Secretary can override the interpretation put by this Court on the rules as they exist. So long the rules are not amended we are afraid that the letter dated 1-4-1986 sent 12Y the Secretary cannot be taken into account". The letter dated 1-4-1986 is in substance identical with the letter dated 25-8-1987 referred to hereinabove. 7. We are in respectful agreement with the decisions of the two Division Benches cited above. We think that on a true and proper interpretation of the Regulations touching on the subject for admission to the Diploma Course, students who have done one year's housemanship in the same subject have no preferential right over the others who have done only six months' housemanship in that department and the remaining six months in the allied. These conditions, in our view, are merely conditions of eligibility entitling the candidates however, to be regulated only on the basis of merit. 8. In view of what has been stated above the petitioner was clearly entitled to admission to the Diploma Course in Child Health (D.C.H.) on the basis of facts which are not disputed. We would, however, not like to disturb the admission of Dr. Kamaljit Singh as in our opinion at least one seat can be made available to the petitioner out of the remaining two seats. 9. There was some controversy between the parties as regards the total number of seats available in the department for admission of students to the Diploma Course in Child Health. In our opinion on the admitted fact that there are 4 Post-Graduate teachers in the department, there cannot possibly be any doubt whatever that admissions can be made to as many as 8 seats. The relevant Medical Council's Regulations touching on the subject may be extracted below : "In addition to students admitted to M.D./M.S. courses, a maximum of 6 students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in such department where diploma courses are conducted. The relevant Medical Council's Regulations touching on the subject may be extracted below : "In addition to students admitted to M.D./M.S. courses, a maximum of 6 students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in such department where diploma courses are conducted. If the number of recognised post graduate teachers in any department of a medical college/institution is more than three, the number of students for admission to the diploma course may be increased at a ratio of two students per additional recognised post- graduate teacher per year subject to a maximum of 12 students admitted in the department per year for the diploma courses." 10. In view of the fact that there are first-graduate teachers in the department, two additional seats in addition to the maximum of six can be said to have been available for admission to the diploma courses concerned. Out of these 8 seats two are called open seats and the remaining six seats have been reserved for internal candidates. It is not disputed that only one external candidate has so far been admitted. Consequently the petitioner can be accommodated on his merit. 11. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner to the 1987-88 Diploma Course in Child Health (D.C.H.) within two weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this order before the Principal of the Medical College. 12. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within a week.