JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This bunch of petitions is being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy raised therein is identical. The various petitioners, five in number, have assailed the validity of a Government Order dated 14-1-1988 allocating 19 vacancies arising from the failure of the candidates selected for admission to the seven State Medical Colleges to join the course of. M.B.B.S. in pursuance of the combined Pre- Medical Test held in 1987 (C. P. M.T.1987 for short) to the candidates selected for admission at the C.P.1S4.T. 1986. These vacancies shall hereafter be referred to as 'drop-out vacancies'. 2. Briefly the petitioners' contention is that the drop out vacancies of the C.P.M.T. held in 1987 could be filled only by the candidates of that batch from amongst those in the waiting list in order of merit and not from amongst the 1986 batch of the C.P.M.T. The justification offered by the Government, on the other hand, in support of its order dated 14-1-1988 for allocating the drop-out vacancies of 1987 to the students of the 1986 batch of C.P.M.T. is that the same was necessitated by a direction issued by this Court upon a group of petitions filed by candidates of the C.P.M.T. 1986 batch on 11-12-1987 that those petitioners be admitted to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course of 1987"as the 1986 course had run out in the meantime. 3. Before we elaborate and deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we will have a look at the rules of admission to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) (courses) imparted in the seven State Medical Colleges prescribed under Section 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act. Each year the State of U.P. conducts a combined Pre-Medical Test (C. P.M.T.) for the courses mentioned above for selecting candidates for admission to the -State Medical Colleges. The task of conducting these tests is assigned to one or the other of the State Universities. For the year 1986 the tests were conducted by the Kanpur University while for the year 1987, the Ruhilkhand University, Bareilly. The available seats in the Medical Colleges are filled from amongst the C.P.M.T. candidates in order of merit keeping in view their preferences about the courses and the colleges. The Directorate of the Medical Education allots the seats on the basis of the results of these tests. The available seats in the Medical Colleges are filled from amongst the C.P.M.T. candidates in order of merit keeping in view their preferences about the courses and the colleges. The Directorate of the Medical Education allots the seats on the basis of the results of these tests. It was not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the drop- out vacancies are filled by the candidates next in order of merit. It was also not disputed that the M.B.B.S. course is the more favoured of the two courses. Consequently, the drop- out vacancies arising in the M.B.B.S. course are usually filled by the candidates selected for admission in the B.D.S. course. While those further below in order of merit are absorbed against the vacancies arising by the students of B.D.S. course joining the drop- out vacancies of the M.B.B.S. course. 4. That, in short, is the picture which emerges. immediately following the allotment of seats as a result of C.P.M.T. test each year and the vacancies arising from the students selected for M.B.B.S. course not turning up to take their admissions. 5. Each of the petitioners before us has asserted that he or she had given her first preference for the M.B.B.S. course and second for the B.D.S. course. They could not, however, get a seat in the M. B.B.S. course because of their position in the merit list and were consequently allotted B.D.S. course. They further assert that if the 19 drop-out vacancies arising in respect of the C.P.M.T. 1987 batch had not been made available to the 1986 batch of C.P.M.T. under the impugned Government order dated 14-1-1988, they would have been entitled to admission to the M.B.B.S. course of the 1987 on the basis of their merit in accordance with the usual practice that has been consistently followed by the State Government in the case of drop-out vacancies as well as the statutory rules laid down under S. 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act for admission. Though these factual assertions were not seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel, we consider it unnecessary to give a final verdict on the same in view of the order that we propose to pass. 6. Though these factual assertions were not seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel, we consider it unnecessary to give a final verdict on the same in view of the order that we propose to pass. 6. The first and the main contention urged by the learned counsel in support of the petition was that the impugned action of the Government in allotting the drop-out vacancies to the 1986 batch is directly in breach of the rules statutorily prescribed for admission to medical colleges under Section 28(5) of the State Universities Act. Referring to the rules of admission laid down in the notification dated 19-3-87 issued by the State Government under that provision for the C.P.M.T. 1987, learned counsel contended that the impugned Government order dated 14-1-1988 has the effect of reducing the number of seats announced for the C.P.M.T. 1987 after declaration of the results which was legally impermissible. Learned counsel submitted that according to the scheme of these tests as reflected by the rules of admission as well as by the practice consistently followed by the State Government in the matter of allocation of drop-out vacancies, the petitioners had acquired an undoubted right to be considered for filling up the 19 drop-out vacancies arising in respect of the C.P.M.T. 1987 batch. 7. We will first have a look at the-relevant statutory provisions. Section 28(5) of the aforesaid Act provides : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedik and Unani systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted) shall be regulated by such orders (which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf,...." 8. In the exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government under this provision it issued a notification dated 19-3-87 for the C.P.M.T. 1987. Clause 4 of this notification lays down inter alia that the admission to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses in various medical colleges shall be made on the basis of merit of the candidates appearing at the C.P.M.T. 1987, subject to the reservations carved out in favour of various categories set out in clause 7. Clause 4 of this notification lays down inter alia that the admission to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses in various medical colleges shall be made on the basis of merit of the candidates appearing at the C.P.M.T. 1987, subject to the reservations carved out in favour of various categories set out in clause 7. We then have clause 8(Ka) on which learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance, the same reads as follows : "8-Ka. Parikshafal Prakashit Karane Se Poorva Rajya Sarkar, Yadi Avashyak Huaa To Seeto Me (Jiname Rakshit Shreni Kee Seete Sammilit Hai Kami/Barhottari Athawa Unake Sambandha Me Anya Koyee Bhi Parivartan Kar Sakati Hai." 9. It means that before the declaration of the result, it will be open to the State Government, if found necessary to decrease/increase or make any other change in the number of seats, including the reserved seats. Such a provision, to our mind, clearly implies that whatever changes with regard to the number of seats earmarked for a particular batch, have to be made if found necessary, the same must be made prior to the declaration of the results. Implicit in such a provision, as a necessary corollary, is a representation that the number of seats declared for a particular batch before the commencement of the test shall not be reduced or altered after the announcement of the results. Somewhat same conclusion flows from a perusal of clause 8(Gha) which provides that the seats reserved for nomination by the Government of India shall have no concern with the seats to be filled through C.M.P.T. The two clauses read together clearly imply that the C. P.M.T. seats of a particular year form a distinct block which cannot be allocated to any outside candidate or the batch other than that for which the seats are earmarked. 10. That this is the true reading of the statutory scheme of the examination is further fortified by the fact that the drop-out vacancies have in the past always been filled by the candidates next in order of merit of the same C.P.M.T. batch. This assertion of the petitioners has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. 10. That this is the true reading of the statutory scheme of the examination is further fortified by the fact that the drop-out vacancies have in the past always been filled by the candidates next in order of merit of the same C.P.M.T. batch. This assertion of the petitioners has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. Indeed to a question pointedly put to the learned Standing Counsel by us whether if the 19 drop-out vacancies of 1987 batch had not been allotted to the 1986 C.P.M.T. batch the same would not have been filled by the candidates next in order of merit belonging to the C.P.M.T. 1987 batch, the learned Standing Counsel very categorically stated that those vacancies would have gone to the 1987 batch in normal circumstances. 11. That being the legal position as we understand, we revert to the facts of the present case. By the impugned order the State Government has allocated the 19 dropout vacancies to the 1986 batch. The action directly impinges on the statutory rule and the scheme of these tests, in that it has the direct effect of reducing the number of seats earmarked for the 1987 batch by 1 ). 12. The question which, therefore, immediately arises is whether the fact that the impugned action was taken by the Government in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 11-12-87 would detract from the above legal position. Challenging the validity of the tests conducted by the Kanpur University for the C.P.M.T. of the 1986, a number of petitions were filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The Bench came to the conclusion that the answers of those petition at the C.P.M.T. 1986 were not properly assessed. A flaw in the process of assessment necessitating a review and re- calculation of the marks allotted to those petitioners was detected by the Court through the assistance by a body of experts. Consequently, a direction was issued on 11- 12-87, the relevant portion of which reads : "We direct that those of the petitioners who on the basis of the revised marking as above, will be given admission in the session which has begun in 1987 as it is formed with new session of 1987 has been commenced recently." 13. There was clearly no direction that the petitioners found entitled to admission should be absorbed against the vacancies earmarked for the 1987 batch. There was clearly no direction that the petitioners found entitled to admission should be absorbed against the vacancies earmarked for the 1987 batch. As a result of these directions 23 petitioners became entitled to the admission in the session commenced in 1987. The proper course for the State Government in the very special circumstances of the case arising from the direction of this Court dated 11-12-87 would have been to do what it had done in the past also in the case of Sameer Airan who was directed to be admitted under the order of the Supreme Court to the M.B.B.S. course of 1983-84. The State Government created an additional vacancy for him to meet the exigency of the situation. 14. In the present case, however, the State: Government chose the easier course by appropriating the drop-out vacancies of the 1987 batch towards compliance of this Court's order dated 11-12-87. We are clearly of the view that the action was unjust and unfair to the petitioners belonging to the 1987 batch of C.P.M.T. Those next in order of merit of that batch had a just and legitimate claim and expectation based both on the rules of admission noticed above as well as the past practise for being considered against the drop- out vacancies of the 1987 batch, particularly when those vacancies were already in existence even prior to the issue of this Court's direction dated 11-12-87 and at any rate before the making of the Government order on 14-1-1988. The academic session had just started. For the sins committed against the C.P.M.T. 1986 batch the 1987 batch could not be penalised. The seats earmarked for the 1987 batch could not in view of the rule mentioned above be cut down after the declaration of the results by making them over to the 1986 batch. If the State Government was faced with any problem arising from this Court's direction dated 11-12-87, the appropriate course would have been to apprise the' Medical Council of India of the situation and ask for necessary permission for the increase in the number of seats. Indeed, the State Government had partially done that by creating 4 additional seats for M.B.B.S. course vide the same order dated 14-1-1988. The, impugned action was hence clearly unjust' and unreasonable quite apart form', contravening the rules notified under Section. 2$(5). 15. Indeed, the State Government had partially done that by creating 4 additional seats for M.B.B.S. course vide the same order dated 14-1-1988. The, impugned action was hence clearly unjust' and unreasonable quite apart form', contravening the rules notified under Section. 2$(5). 15. The learned Standing Counsel, however, sought to justify the impugned action by submitting that the Government was left with no options. On the one hand, it had to comply with this Court's order dated 11-12- 87, while on the other, it had to take care of the objections raised by the Medical Council of India earlier against the State Government's action in creating 125 additional seats in 1986-25 for girls in the Medical Collage at Jhansi 5o for girl in the Medical College at Jhansi 50 for boys and girl in that at Meerut. Indeed, it was urged, the Medical Council had even derecognised the M.B.B.S. degrees of these three Colleges on that ground. 16. The submission lacks conviction. This Court had not by its order. dated 11-12-87 directed the State Government to admit the candidates of 1986 batch against the seats earmarked for the 1987 batch. The drop-out vacancies of 1987 hence could not be appropriated in the purported compliance of the order dated 11-12-87. As regards the possibility of such objections being raised by the Medical Council as it had done in regard to the increase of 125 seats in 1986, the answer to such problems would not be to draw on the drop-out vacancies of the subsequent batch but to increase temporarily the number of seats consistently with the norms and guide- lines laid down by the Medical Council of India in that behalf. That would be fair to all and in conformity with the rules and, established practise. 17. In conclusion we hold that the State Government's action in appropriating the drop-out vacancies of 1987 in the manner it was done was manifestly illegal and unfair. We would, however, not like to disturb the admissions granted to the 1986 batch in compliance with this Court's order dated 11- 12-87 as like the petitioners, those candidates too are blameless. They must already be prosecuting their studies pursuant to the admission granted to them. We, therefore, refrain from quashing the offending part of the Order. 18. We would, however, not like to disturb the admissions granted to the 1986 batch in compliance with this Court's order dated 11- 12-87 as like the petitioners, those candidates too are blameless. They must already be prosecuting their studies pursuant to the admission granted to them. We, therefore, refrain from quashing the offending part of the Order. 18. At the same time, we cannot deny the petitioners the relief they have justly become entitled to, namely the consideration of their cases for admission to the M.B.B.S. course should it is found that they were entitled to admission to the M.B.B.S. course had drop- -out vacancies of the 1987 been utilised for the batch of that year and not of 1986. 19. The question is in what terms to would the relief (sic) so that while handing out justice to the petitioners there is no serious erosion of the quality of medical education. There are only five petitioners and consequently if we direct their admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, there will be an increase of the maximum of five seats which, when distributed among several medical colleges, shall result only in marginal, if not insignificant, increase in the strength of seats sanctioned by the Medical Council. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we think the ends of justice shall be effectively met if the direction to the State Government for admission of the petitioners is accompanied .by a further direction to the State Government asking it to apprise the Medical Council of India of the admission of the petitioners under the orders of this Court and seeking- its approval for the consequent increase in the number of seats in the concerned medical colleges on a purely ad hoc and temporary basis (not to last beyond the current academic session) with the assurance to be backed by strict compliance within a specified time that the State Government shall ensure that the necessary additional arrangements conformably with the norms and guidelines laid down by the Medical Council of India to meet this special exigency, are made. We trust the Medical Council of India shall view this temporary and marginal increase in the strength with sympathy and understanding in the background of the peculiar facts of this case on account of which this Court is constrained to issue the direction for admission of the petitioners. 20. We trust the Medical Council of India shall view this temporary and marginal increase in the strength with sympathy and understanding in the background of the peculiar facts of this case on account of which this Court is constrained to issue the direction for admission of the petitioners. 20. We are, however, confining the relief only to the petitioners who have been prompt and vigilant and not to those who did not approach us within a reasonable time as by the time these other candidates are brought on the scene nearly or more than half of the session in question shall already have run out. That, however, does not bar the Government from granting admission on its own to all those who are found entitled to the same relief as the petitioners. 21. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Director of Medical Education, U.P. is directed to review the cases of the petitioners and determine whether they would have been entitled to admission in the M.B.B.S. Course against one or the other of the 19 drop-out vacancies of 1987 on the basis of their merit and if he comes to the conclusion that they are so entitled he will issue orders for their admission in that course and allot the Medical College in which they are to take their admission. This exercise shall be completed within two weeks of the date on which a certified copy of this order is filed before him. The Director of Medical Education shall, in addition, immediately apprise the Medical Council of India of these admissions and seek its approval and directions for meeting the exigency arising from the admission of these petitioners and the consequent ad hoc and temporary increase in the number of seats for the M.B. B.S. Course on the lines elaborated above and report compliance to the Medical Council of India within 6 weeks of receipt of the instructions from the Medical Council of India. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within three days.