JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:---Writ Petition No. 2091 of 1988 is heard and disposed of along with Writ Petition No. 1216 of 1988. However, reference in this judgment to the parties and facts is as in Writ Petition No. 1216 of 1988. This is a writ petition in which the petitioner's main challenge is to the availability of the total number of seats in the subject of Orthopaedics which should have been notified under the advertisement issued on 21-4-1988. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner passed his M.B.B.S. Examination on 4-1-1988 and thereafter was registered as a Medical Practitioner under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act after having completed his internship. It appears that at the time an advertisement was issued in January 1988 for admission to the Post-graduate Courses as per the old Ordinance i.e. on the basis of the persons who have completed their one year's house job, the petitioner had not completed his house job and was not, therefore, eligible for admission under the said Ordinance. However, as per the new Ordinance No. 3 of the University when a three-year Post-graduate Degree Course was introduced, as per the decision of the Supreme Court an advertisement was issued on 21-4-1988 and as per the said advertisement two seats were advertised in the subject of Orthopaedics one open and one reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed the advertisement issued in August 1988 which shows that one seat was given in the subject of Orthopaedics for Post-graduate Degree Course and the said seat was offered to the open category candidate. Thus there were three seats made available in the subject of Orthopaedics for the year 1988 in the new three year course. 3. At this stage it may be stated that under the old course six seats were given in the subject of Orthopaedics during the year 1988, out of which four were advertised in February term and two were advertised in August term. 3. At this stage it may be stated that under the old course six seats were given in the subject of Orthopaedics during the year 1988, out of which four were advertised in February term and two were advertised in August term. Since the petitioner who is an open category candidate could not get the open seat advertised on 21-4-1988 for Three-year Degree Course, he has preferred the instant writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 2 erroneously determined the number of seats available in the subject of Orthopaedics in the year 1988 because, according to the petitioner, four seats should have been made available if not six in this new course of three years out of which 70% should have been advertised under the advertisement dated 21-4-1988 and 30% in the August 1988 term. 4. In appreciating the submission made on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to see that the determination of the total number of seats for Post-graduate Degree Courses is made by the college as per the recommendations of the Medical Council of India which have become statutory Regulations after they were approved by the Central Government under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is not, therefore, necessary in the instant case to see the provision in the Rules for admission in this regard because admittedly the availability of the seats is determined according to the aforesaid recommendations of the Medical Council of India. 4-A. A perusal of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, annexed as Annexure 'E' to the petition, would show that they envisage a ceiling in admission of Post-graduate students per year on the basis of the student-teacher ratio of 1:1 which is explained in the said recommendations as follows : "General (1) ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... ... ... ... (4) The student-teacher rations should be such that the number of Post-graduate teachers to the number of Post-graduate students admitted per year be maintained at 1:1. For the proper training of the Post-graduate students, there should be a limit to the number of students admitted per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of at least 3 full time Post-graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post-graduate training per year. For the proper training of the Post-graduate students, there should be a limit to the number of students admitted per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of at least 3 full time Post-graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post-graduate training per year. If the number of Post-graduate teachers in the unit is more than three then the number of students can be increased proportionately. For this purpose one student should associate with one post-graduate teacher. Where the number of post-graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit then the number of students should be reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student per teacher per year. In exceptional cases, in an unit with 1 post-graduate teacher and another teacher with post-graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year. ... ... ... ... ..." 5. It is clear from the above recommendations that if there are three full time post-graduate teachers in a unit, the college can admit not more than three students in the unit for post-graduate degree course per year. An exception is, however, carved out that if in an unit there is one post-graduate teacher and another teacher with post-graduate qualification, maximum of two students can be admitted per year. It is this exception which is strenuously pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition, because, according to him, there were two full time teachers and two teachers with post-graduate qualification available in the two units in the respondent No. 2 college for which reason the submission is that there should have been four seats allotted in the subject of Orthopaedics. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the four teachers who were available in the respondent No. 2 college were:- (1) Dr. S.S. Babhulkar, Full-time Post-Graduate Honorary Teacher (2) Dr. W.B. Tayade, Full-time Post-Graduate Teacher (3) Dr. A.K. Lawange, Qualified teacher, and (4) Dr. K.R. Paton, Qualified teacher, who was available at the commencement of the year till February 28, 1988. 6. The submission, however, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 college is that there was only one unit and not two units in the college because the prescribed requirement for constituting two units was not fulfilled by the college. K.R. Paton, Qualified teacher, who was available at the commencement of the year till February 28, 1988. 6. The submission, however, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 college is that there was only one unit and not two units in the college because the prescribed requirement for constituting two units was not fulfilled by the college. However, according to it, for the purpose of convenience two service units were created in the college headed by two full time post-graduate teachers. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that Dr. K.R. Paton, qualified teacher had resigned in March 1988 and was not available when the availability of post-graduate seats for the post-graduate degree course in Orthopaedics was determined on 29-3-1988 for the new three year course for which the advertisement for February 1988 term was issued on 21-4-1988. Since there were only three teachers available at that time the submission is that three seats were created for the post-graduate degree course out of which two were advertised in the advertisement for the first term on 21-4-1988 and the other remaining seat was reserved for being advertised for August 1988 term. 7. We may first dispose of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that for the old course six seats were created and, therefore, the same number of seats should have been created for the new course for which the advertisement was issued on 21-4-1988. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules for Admission to Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses introduced under the Government Resolution dated 20-8-1983 the availability of post-graduate seats in each subject for the whole year has to be worked out in the beginning of the academic year. It is thus his case that the total number of seats for the new course which commenced on 21-4-1988 has also to be worked out at the beginning of the year which means January 1988 on which basis, according to him, six seats were worked out for the old course in the subject of Orthopaedics. 8. It is thus his case that the total number of seats for the new course which commenced on 21-4-1988 has also to be worked out at the beginning of the year which means January 1988 on which basis, according to him, six seats were worked out for the old course in the subject of Orthopaedics. 8. It is true that as per Rule 5(c) of the aforesaid Rules or admission the availability of the post-graduate seats has to be worked out in the beginning of each academic year and that the seats for the old course were worked out on the basis of the availability of the recognised and qualified teachers at that time. However, so far as the new course of three years which is introduced for the first time in 1988 as per the decision of the Supreme Court for which the University issued Ordinance No. 3 in supersession of its earlier Ordinance No. 57 is concerned the beginning of the academic year cannot mean January 1988 because the said new course for 1988 was to commence long thereafter pursuant to the advertisement dated 21-4-1988 issued for the first time for this new course. As rightly stated before us, the decision for such a new course in regard to creation of seats for the post-graduate courses was taken on 29-3-1988 on the basis of the availability of the recognised teachers and the qualified teachers at that time. We do not think that the above course adopted by the respondent No. 2 in determining the seats for the new post-graduate course as on 29-3-1988 is in any way violative of Rule 5(c) of the Rules for admission. For the same reason also the submission on behalf of the petitioner that six seats should have been created for the new course also deserves to be rejected because the decision to create six seats for the old course which commenced in January/February 1988 is taken on the basis of the availability of the recognised teachers and qualified teachers in January 1988, whereas the decision to create seats for the new course had to be taken on the basis of the availability of the recognised teachers on 29-3-1988 when it was decided to issue the advertisement for the new course. 9. 9. The next question which needs consideration is the availability of the recognised teachers and the qualified teachers for the purpose of determination of total seats in the post-graduate course in the subject of Orthopaedics. If the position as on 29-3-1988 is examined it may be seen that on that date in fact there were only two teachers available-one recognised teacher i.e. Dr. S.S. Babhulkar and another qualified teacher i.e. Shri A.K. Lawange. As already pointed out, Shri K.R. Paton has resigned by that time. It, however, appears that the respondent No. 2 had requested the University to allow one post-graduate seat by relaxing the experience of Dr. K.R. Paton or instead allow one seat for Dr. Tayade who had gone on leave keeping his lien on his post of a lecturer in the respondent No. 2 college. By the letter dated 21-1-1987 the University allowed the college to create one more seat as a special case under Dr. Tayade, who was holding the lien although actually he was not available for acting as a guide in the college. It is really preposterous how the University could grant such a permission to the college when Dr. Tayade was not actually available for acting as a guide of the post-graduate students under him. It may be seen that under the norms laid down by the Medical Council of India a recognised teacher can have only one Post-Graduate student under him although if there is a qualified teacher he can at the most have two students under him. The net result of allowing additional seat for Dr. Tayade would mean that contrary to the above norms of the Medical Council there would be three students under Dr. Babhulkar who is the only recognised teacher in the college. 10. Be that as it may, even if a seat could be created under Dr. Tayade there would be still only three seats in the subject of Orthopaedics as determined by the respondent No. 2 Dean, two of which were advertised on 21-4-1988 and the remaining one kept for the August 1988 term. The submission on behalf of the petitioner, however, is that Dr. Sohoni was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No. 2 college on 3-8-1988 and, therefore, by creating an additional seat now because Dr. Sohoni was a qualified teacher the petitioner should be accommodated in that seat. The submission on behalf of the petitioner, however, is that Dr. Sohoni was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No. 2 college on 3-8-1988 and, therefore, by creating an additional seat now because Dr. Sohoni was a qualified teacher the petitioner should be accommodated in that seat. In our view, if there is mid-term appointment of a Lecturer no additional seat can be created because as per Rule 5(c), the seats have to be determined at the beginning of the academic year which in the present case would mean before the advertisement was issued on 21-4-1988. At any rate, no additional seat can be created when the session and the courses therein have commenced long back. The submission on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, can be treated only as a mercy appeal. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered on compassionate grounds also because as we have already pointed out the seat is created in absentia in the name of Dr. Tayade and the only recognised teacher in the college Dr. Babhulkar is already overburdened with three post-graduate students at present under him. In the interest of proper education and guidance of post-graduate students it would not be proper to create additional seat in the name of the qualified teacher Dr. Sohoni with the result that there would be four post-graduate students under the recognised teacher Dr. Babhulkar. We, therefore, cannot accede to the request of the petitioner that one additional seat should be created under Dr. Sohoni. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, the instant writ petitions fail and are dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. -----