ORDER 1. The petitioner is a doctor having passed his M.B.B.S. Examination in the year 1985 from the Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial College, Meerut. He completed his one year internship and had himself registered with the State Medical Council, Lucknow. Thereafter he concluded a house job from June 1986 to June 1987 at the department of Paediatrics, St. Stephen Hospital. Delhi. In response to an advertisement from the aforesaid medical college the petitioner applied to the post graduate course. being M.D. (Paediatrics). 2. The petitioner has placed on record that corresponding to four teachers in the department of Paediatrics, there are four seats and only three admissions have been done in M.D. (Paediatrics) course and one seat remains idle. Reply to these averments is far from satisfactory in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal of the Medical College aforesaid and affirmed by a clerk, one Jayanti Prasad at the office of the Principal of the Medical College aforesaid. In the counter affidavit it is not denied that there are four teachers as the petitioner pleads in the writ petition. The reply to this statement of the petitioner has been evaded. In defence it is merely stated that there are only three seats. What is being contended in the counter affidavit is that notwithstanding that there are four teachers in the department of Paediatrics yet there are only three seats. This defence may not meet the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 . It is the same medical college which is respondent before this Court. 3. The petitioner contends that the Medical Council of India is an expert body which is in a position to and has recommended that the student teacher ratio should be such that the number of post graduate teachers to the number of post graduate students admitted per year be maintained as 1: 1. This recommendation of the Medical Council of India is a recommendation of Post Graduate Medical Education and approved as 'Regulation under Section 33 of the. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Government of India. In the counter affidavit the deponent affirming it, states that this recommendation is, in effect, not binding upon the State Government. This recommendation of the Medical Council of India is a recommendation of Post Graduate Medical Education and approved as 'Regulation under Section 33 of the. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Government of India. In the counter affidavit the deponent affirming it, states that this recommendation is, in effect, not binding upon the State Government. It is contended in the counter affidavit that "The recommendations of the Medical Council of India are only recommendatory and suggestive in case of P.G. admissions" (sic). The submission of the respondent No. 1, the Principal of the Medical College to the effect that while there are four teachers the seats have been reduced to only three under the instructions of the State Government, is not fortified by any document. A Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10410 of 1986: Dr. Kamla Manju v. State of U.P. also did not agree with a similar submission on behalf of the same medical college in reference to the same department of Paediatrics. The Bench in effect observed that the seats must correspond with the number of teachers in the department. In the matter of Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLR.M. Medical College ( AIR 1987 SC 400 at p. 406) (supra) the Supreme Court observed :- "................It is incumbent on the State Government to see that all these seats earmarked for each of these disciplines or courses are filled up. It appears from Annexure D. to the petition in C. A. No. 6119 of 1983 that quite a considerable number of seats in various disciplines were kept vacant as the applicants did not fulfil the eligibility qualification framed by the State Government by its aforesaid order and as a result several professors and Assistant Professors who are meant for imparting teaching in these disciplines were kept idle though a considerable fund had to be expended for meeting their emoluments. Is is for the State to consider and to see that the seats are filled up in all the disciplines and they are not left vacant in spite of a large number of applicants applying for admission in the various disciplines and the State Government has to evolve such criterion of eligibility that all the seats in-different M.D., M.S. degree and diploma courses are filled up.........." 4. If the contention of the Principal, Medical College, as given in the counter affidavit is accepted it would virtually amount to a circumstance that a teacher would remain idle as between four teachers there are only' three seats. Such a state of affairs in reference to the context is not envisaged either in the recommendations of the Medical Council of India or in the face of the observations of the Supreme Court. 5. Thus, in the face of an undisputed position that there are four teachers in the department of Paediatrics and only three seats, and in view of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, the observations of the Supreme Court and a Bench of this court in reference to the context which have already been referred to above, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the, M.D. Paediatrics course for the 1987-1989 session if he is otherwise eligible to be admitted. 6. The writ petition is allowed with costs.