JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed on 16.3.89, the petitioner has prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) the impugned revised Ordinance 278-E as passed by the Academic Counsel in its meeting held on 20.3.89 i.e. Appendix-I with the minutes of the Academic Council and as accepted by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.3.89 be declared illegal and void and be struck down and it may be declared that so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned the holding of Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Test for selection to M. S. and M. D. Courses is itself unreasonable and unwarranted. (ii) the respondents be directed to deal with the case of the petitioner for selection to M. S. and M. D. Courses in accordance with the recommendations made by the faculty of Medicine on 20.6.88 and accepted by the Academic Council in its meeting on 20.3.89 and further accepted by the Syndicate on 25.3.89. (iii) the respondents be directed to finalise the selection for M.S. and M.D. Courses-1989 on the basis of the notices Ex. I and Ex. I /A issued in accordance with the Ordinance 278-E as it existed on 1.1.89 or on 4.2.89/ 8.2.89 or on 21.2.89/24.2.89. 2. The petitioner's case is that he is a Medical Graduate having passed M.B.B.S. Examination in December, 1987 and completed one year's compulsory rotating internship on 31.12.88. He is registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council and as such he is eligible for admission to Post-graduate Course in the faculty of Medicine of the University of Rajasthan. He averred that in the Final M.B.B.S. he secured the highest marks in whole of Rajasthan and in over-all marks. He is at No. 1 in the Medical College, Jodhpur and at No. 3 in Rajasthan. It may be stated that the selection for admission to the Post-graduate Courses in the Medical Faculty of University of Rajasthan, are made in accordance with O-278-E of the University of Rajasthan. It may be stated here that after the decision by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (1) Dr. Dinesh Kumar & others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, decided on 20.7 86 and reported in (1986) 3 SCC page 727 , an exercise was on to amend O. 278-E and against the steps taken to amend the Ordinance, some writ petitions came to be filed and disposed of. Dinesh Kumar & others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, decided on 20.7 86 and reported in (1986) 3 SCC page 727 , an exercise was on to amend O. 278-E and against the steps taken to amend the Ordinance, some writ petitions came to be filed and disposed of. First in the series was D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2564/88-Bharat Sapra v. State of Rajasthan, ( 1989(1) RLR 88 ), filed on 8.3.88 and decided on 8.12.88 by the Jaipur Bench. In that writ petition, the validity of O. 278-E as made on the basis of the Vice- chancellor's approval under Section 13(4) and also the notification issued in the Rajasthan Patrika was challenged. That Ordinance was struck down on the ground of ultra vires of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor and was declared void. The decision of the Jaipur Bench dated 8.12.88 was challenged before the Supreme Court by Dr. Lakhansingh & another, through (3) Special Leave Petition No. 7/89 under Article 136 of the Constitution. But the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 9 1.89 at the admission stage. Thus. the original Ordinance 278-E remained in force. Further efforts were made for amending the Ordinance 278-E and a Committee was appointed by the Academic Council vide its Resolution No. 3 dated 27.12.88, which met on 6.1.89 and again on 14.1.89 to amend the Ordinance 278 E, so as to hold the Pre-Post Graduate Entrance Test for the remaining 75% seats on 26.3.89. A meeting of the Academic Council was held on 23.1.89 to reconsider the matter and at this juncture, one Dr. Deen Bandhu Mundra filed a writ petition at Jaipur Bench on 21.1.89. That writ petition was dismissed on the same date at the admission stage without notice to the respondents. However, certain observations were made regarding the procedure for making the Ordinance and it was observed that the Vice-Chancellor should consider the provision of Section 23A(2) of the Act, which on prima facie reading shows that the consideration of the reports of the faculty- concerned is necessary. However, certain observations were made regarding the procedure for making the Ordinance and it was observed that the Vice-Chancellor should consider the provision of Section 23A(2) of the Act, which on prima facie reading shows that the consideration of the reports of the faculty- concerned is necessary. When the Academic Council met on 23.1.89, it resolved that in view of the observations of the Rajasthan High Court in the order dated 21.1.89 and in view of the legal advise, the advise of the faculty of Medicine be obtained on the recommendation of the Committee dated 6.1.89 regarding the revision of O. 278-E in accordance with the provision of Section 23A(2)(ii) of the University Act and it was also resolved that the admission to M. D. and M. S. Courses be made as per existing O. 278-E. Thereafter the Principals of the Medical Colleges issued notices inviting applications for making selection to M.S. and M.D. Courses in accordance with O. 278 E, which was in force. The petitioner has produced notices Ex. 1 issued by the Principal, S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur on 4.2.89 and Ex. 1/A issued by the Principal, Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur on 8.2.89. In Ex. I the applications were required to be submitted on or before 21.2.89 and in Ex. I/A the applications were to be submitted on or before 24.2.89. One Dr. Vijendrasingh filed a review petition to re-call the order dated 21.1.89 but the same was dismissed on 8.2.89. Thereafter he filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 21.1.89. That (4) Special Leave Petition No. 2765-66 of 1989 was dismissed on 1.3.89 and it was observed that the petitioner was not a party to the decision of the High Court and if and when, an Ordinance is made on the subject in issue, it is open to any person who is aggrieved by to question of its constitutional validity before the High Court and when such a petition is filed, the High Court may decide independently of the observations made in the impugned order. The words "impugned order" were substituted for the words "this petition" occurring in the order dated 1.3.89 by order dated 8.3.89. 3. It may also be stated here that one Dr. The words "impugned order" were substituted for the words "this petition" occurring in the order dated 1.3.89 by order dated 8.3.89. 3. It may also be stated here that one Dr. Sudhir Saxena also filed a writ petition being (5) D.B. Civil Writ retition No. 350/89 seeking direction for making selection for admission in accordance with O. 278-E on 16.1.89. But the same was withdrawn on 6.2.89 after issuance of notice Ex. I dated 4.2.89 by the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner further averred that on 15.3.89 a Press-note was issued by the Directorate of Public Relations. in which, it was stated that some students are on strike from 7.3.89 against the old procedure for making selections to M.S. anti M D. Courses and it was held out that the Government had taken a decision to make admissions in the Post-graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges on the basis of Pre-P.G. Test from this year. On the following date i.e. 16.3.89 there was a meeting of the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Medicine made its recommendations which were accepted by the Academic Council on 20.3.89 and they were approved by the Syndicate in its meeting on 25.3.89, and thus, a new O. 278 E came into existence, which made a provision for conducting the Pre P. G. Entrance Test. 5. We need not state the grounds of challenge here as the same will be dealt with while dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. But the petitioner's case is that the new O. 278-E is illegal and void and is liable to be struck down and the selection be made in accordance with the O. 278-E as it stood on the various dates or as it came into existence in pursuance of the acceptance of recommendations of the Faculty of Medicine dated 20-6-88 by the Academic Council on 20.3.89 and by the Syndicate on 25.3.89. It may be stated here that the petitioner amended his writ petition after making of the new or revised O. 278-E on 25.3.89. 6. Reply to the amended writ petition has been filed by the University (respondent No.3) and also by the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1). It may be stated here that the petitioner amended his writ petition after making of the new or revised O. 278-E on 25.3.89. 6. Reply to the amended writ petition has been filed by the University (respondent No.3) and also by the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1). It is pleaded that there is no right of the petitioner for securing admission to the Post-graduate course in the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Rajasthan. Assumption of such a right is seriously contested and it was submitted that after the judgment of the Jaipur Bench dated 8-2-88 in Bharat Sapra's case (supra). it was decided to amend the O. 278-E in accordance with the procedure laid down in the provisions of the University of Rajasthan Act 1946. With respect to the resolution of the Academic Council dated 23-1-89 as reproduced by the petitioner, it was stated that the same has been superseded and revoked by its resolution No. 2 dated 20-3-89. The Academic Council had resolved on 20-3-89 that the existing O. 278-E of the University Hand-book, Part-II, Vol. lI be substituted by the revised Ordinance given in Appendix-I and it was further resolved that in supersession of the decision taken in the last meeting of the Council held on 23-1-89, admission to the M. S. and M. D. Courses be made on the basis of Pre- P. G. Entrance Test from this very year and arrangements to hold the test at the earliest. The grounds of challenge to the revised Ordinance were refuted and denied and it is further denied that the petitioner has any right to be considered his eligibility as on 1-1-89 or 4-2-89/8-2-89 or 21-2-89/24-2-89 according to the old Ordinance. The old Ordinance stood repealed by the New Ordinance and admission for the year 1989 to the Post-graduate Courses in the Faculty of Medicine would be governed by the New Ordinance, and no right has accused to the petitioner for consideration of his application in accordance with the Old Ordinance. It was also alleged that after the New Ordinance having been made, it was duly published and notification dated 28-3-89 (Ex. 12 Annx. R. 3/4) was issued by the University inviting applications on or before 15-4-89 and notifications were also published in Rashtradoot daily and Rajasthan Patrika both dated 5-4-89 (Ex. 9 and Ex. 10). Now, for Pre-P.G. Entrance Test 25-6-89 has been notified. 7. 12 Annx. R. 3/4) was issued by the University inviting applications on or before 15-4-89 and notifications were also published in Rashtradoot daily and Rajasthan Patrika both dated 5-4-89 (Ex. 9 and Ex. 10). Now, for Pre-P.G. Entrance Test 25-6-89 has been notified. 7. Shri Vijendrasingh also filed an application for impleading him as a party or to allow him to intervene in the writ petition as he has passed MBBS examination on 31-12-88 and is eligible for admission to the Post-graduate Courses in accordance with the revised Ordinance. He had filed a Review Petition before the Jaipur Bench against the order dated 21-1-89, whereby, the writ petition filed by Dr. Deen Bandhu Mundra was dismissed in limine but certain observations were made and he also filed a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 21-1-89. The Review Petition was dismissed on 8-2-89. Having regard to his interest Shri Vijendrasingh was allowed to intervene in the writ petition. 8. We have heard Mr. M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. K. Vyas, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Dilipsingh, learned counsel for the University and Mr. D. K. Parihar, for the applicant Shri Vijendrasingh. 9. The principal controversy in the present writ petition relates to the validity of the New Ordinance 278-E. If it is held that the New Ordinance is invalid then the selection for admission to the Post graduate Courses would be governed by the Old Ordinance 278-E and in case, it is found that the New Ordinance 278-E is valid and is not liable to be struck down then the question that has been agitated before us is as to whether the petitioner and all other candidates like him, would be governed for selection for admission to the Post-graduate Course in accordance with the Old Ordinance or the New Ordinance would apply to the petitioner. 10. For facility of reference, the relevant parts of Old Ordinance 278-E and of the New Ordinance 278-E are reproduced below:- Old : "O. 278-E. 1. Eligibility for Admission. Candidates seeking admission to M. D. and M. S. Courses should have obtained registration, i. e. they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the Final M. B. B. S. Examination and must have registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council. II. Selection of candidates. Eligibility for Admission. Candidates seeking admission to M. D. and M. S. Courses should have obtained registration, i. e. they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the Final M. B. B. S. Examination and must have registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council. II. Selection of candidates. Selection for Post-Graduate Courses for M. D. and M. S. shall be done on merit, judged on the basis of the academic record in the under-graduate courses, out of those applicants who fulfil the above mentioned pre-requisites. The selections would be done by a Selection Committee consisting of the Head of the Institution and the various guides in the subject/speciality concerned. Selections of Post-graduate students shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year's compulsory rotating internship. Vacancies if any, may be filled up after six months of the regular selection (i. e. if the selection of the regular batch of students was from 1st May to a particular year the selection for vacancies will be done from 1st November of that year). III. Period of Training. The period of training for M. D./M. S. shall be three years after registration of the candidate with the University as a Post-graduate student at an institution affiliated to the University for training in that particular subject/speciality. New: O. 278-E I. Total Number of Seats. ... ... ... ... ... II. Reservations. ... ... ... ... ... III. Selection of Candidates. For seats mentioned at sub-clause (a) of Clause II. the Selection shall be made as per allocations made by the Director General of Health Services, Govt. of India, New Delhi on the basis of the result of All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to the Post-graduate Courses of M. D. & M. S. on open merit. The Selection for the remaining seats for Post-graduate Courses of M. D. and M. S. shall be done on merit judged on the basis of Pre P. G. Entrance Test. Separate Merit List shall be prepared for II (b) and II (c) and the seats of G.neral category. The Merit List of the above categories shall be sent to the Convenor of the Post-graduate Admission Board (i. e. the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur). Separate Merit List shall be prepared for II (b) and II (c) and the seats of G.neral category. The Merit List of the above categories shall be sent to the Convenor of the Post-graduate Admission Board (i. e. the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur). The selection will be done by a central P. G. admission Board constituted of all the Principals of the State Medical Colleges with the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College. Jaipur as its Convenor. The Central P. G. Admission Board shall interview the candidates and allocate them college and subject on the basis of merit-cum-preference list. The vacancies due to not joining within the stipulated time shall be filled by reshuffling on the basis of merit-cum-preference list within three weeks. The vacancies after re-shuffling or at a later date not exceeding 6 months from the date of initial appointment shall be filled in from amongst the candidates in the waiting list. IV. Eligibility for Admission. ... ... ... ... ... V. Period of Training. The period of training for M.D., M.S. shall be three years after registration of the candidate with the University as a Post-Graduate student at an institution affiliated to the University for training in that particular subject/ speciality. VI. Methods of Training for M.D. & M.S. ... ... ... ... ... VII. Examination & Assessment. ... ... ... ... ... 11. It would also be essential to know as to what transpired in the meetings of the Faculty of Medicine on 20.6.88 and 16.3.89 and also in the special meeting of the Academic Council on 20.3.89 and of the Syndicate on 25.3.89. 12. The Agenda of the meeting in the Faculty of Medicine held on 20.6.88 (Ex. 4) was as under: "10. To report the orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.3.88 in accepting proposed revised Ordinance 278-E in view of directions of Supreme Court and in view of the urgency to make admissions to the Post-graduate Courses latest by 31st March, 1988 (Copy of the Rules is sent herewith)." 13. The Faculty (after deliberation) on Item No. 10 of the Agenda recorded its minutes as under: "10. The Faculty (after deliberation) on Item No. 10 of the Agenda recorded its minutes as under: "10. The faculty confirmed the orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.3.88 in accepting proposed revised Ordinance 278-E in view of the directions of the Supreme Court and also in view of the urgency to make the admissions to the post-graduate courses under the faculty of Medicine latest by 31st March, 1988." 14. The Agenda has reference to the Ordinance in which selection of the candidate was to be made on merit judged on the basis of the academic record of the under-Graduate Courses. 15. On 16.3.89, the Faculty of Medicine recorded its minutes as under:- "With reference to the Academic Council, Res. No. I dated 23rd Jan., 1989 the Faculty considered the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Academic Council vide its Res. No. 3 dated 27th December, 1988 to examine the proposed O. 278-E regarding M.D. and M.S. Courses held on 6th January 1989 (Appendix-I). The Faculty resolved to recommend that the recommendations made by the Committee be accepted with the modification that provision be made to the effect that a candidate obtaining 55% marks at the First, Second and Final MBBS Examination taken together shall be eligible to appear at the Pre-P.G. Examination. Alternatively the weightage to the academic record in under-graduate examinations be raised from 10% to 50%." 16. The Academic Council considered the recommendations of the Faculty of Medicine in para 2 of its minutes as under:- The Council considered the recommendations of the Faculty of Medicine & Pharmaceutics made (i) at its meeting held on 20th June, 1988 and (ii) at its special meeting held on 16.3.89." Resolved to recommend that- (1) The recommendations of the Faculty made at its meeting held on 20th June 1988 be accepted. (2) As regards the recommendations of the faculty made at its special meeting held on 16th March, 1988 the Council unanimously decided that- (A) The proposed modification that a provision be made to the effect that a candidate obtaining 55% marks at the first, second and final MBBS Examinations taken together shall be eligible to appear at the Pre-P.G. Examination of the University or alternatively Post-graduate examination be raised from 10% to 50% be not accepted. (B) To fall in line with the Rules for All India Competitive Entrance Examination for Admission to Post-graduate Courses (MD/MS) which have the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to weightage be given to the Academic record in under-graduate examinations for determining merit for admission to MD and M.S. Courses against 75% seats left after excluding 75% of the total seats to be filled as per allocations made by the Director General of Health Services Government of India New Delhi. (C) In the light of the above, the existing Ordinance 278-E of the University Hand-book Pt. 11 be substituted by the revised O. 278E given in Annx. 1. (D) In supersession of the decision taken at the last special meeting of the Council held on 23rd Jan., 1989 admissions to MD and MS Courses be made on the basis of Pre P.G E. Test from this very year." 17. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 25.3.89 with respect to the recommendations of the Academic Council resolved as under: Recommendations of the Academic Council : 49. The Syndicate considered the recommendations of the Academic Council made at its special meeting held on 20th March, 1989 Resolved that the aforesaid recommendations be accepted." "(ACADEMIC-I SECTION) SECTION 'A'18. Mr. M.R. Calla learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the new Ordinance 278E is bad as it was made under the influence of the State Government in violation of the Academic Autonomy of the University. Mr. M.R. Calla learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the new Ordinance 278E is bad as it was made under the influence of the State Government in violation of the Academic Autonomy of the University. The Academic Council in its Resolution on 23.1.89 had taken a decision to go-ahead with the admissions in accordance with the Old Ordinance 278E and in pursuance thereto notices were issued by the Principals of the Jaipur and Jodhpur Medical Colleges on 4.2.89 and 8.2.89 but as there was a demand raised by handful of students and resorting to strike by them the Health Minister on the floor of the Assembly, made a statement on 15.3.83 that the Government had taken the decision to make selection for Post-graduate Courses in the Faculty of Medicine through Pre-P.G.E. Test and the Government addressed the letter Ex.8 dated 16.3.89 to the Principal, Medical College Jaipur that the Government had taken a decision to hold the Pre-P.G. Entrance Test for that Post-graduate Courses and requested to him that the admission be not made in accordance with the old procedure and admission shall be made only after holding the Pre-P. G. Entrance Test. It is in this back-ground, the Faculty of Medicine called its meeting on 16.3.89 and made the recommendations as extracted above. The decisions of the Academic bodies viz. Faculty of Medicine, Academic Council and Syndicate were pre-empted by the Government and there was a breach of Academic Autonomy of the University and so, the new Ordinance as passed on 25.3.89. deserves to be struck down being violative of the basic principle that such decisions must not be influenced by any extraneous consideration or agency i. e. the agencies beyond the academic agencies mentioned in Section 30 of the University Act, which provides the procedure by which the Ordinance is to be made.19. We do not find much force in the above contention of Mr. Calla. It cannot be said that the new Ordinance was made by the University under any out- side influence. It is significant to note that an exercise was already on by the University to introduce the new Ordinance, so that, admission to the Post-graduate Courses may be made after holding the Pre P.G.E. Test after decision of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra). It is significant to note that an exercise was already on by the University to introduce the new Ordinance, so that, admission to the Post-graduate Courses may be made after holding the Pre P.G.E. Test after decision of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra). The earlier Ordinance to that effect was struck down by this Court but this Court however, observed that the University shall be within its right to amend the Ordinance 278-E strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Act of 1946 and it was also observed that the court does not find anything arbitrary or unreasonable if it decides to hold the Pre P.G. Test for admission to the post-graduate courses. Even the Academic Council in its resolution on 23.1.89 had resolved that the advice of the Faculty of Medicine he obtained on the recommendations of the committee dated 6.1.89 regarding the revision of Ordinance 278-E in accordance with the provision of Section 23A (2)(ii) of the University Act. It appears that such a resolution came to be made by Academic Council in view of the order of this Court in Deen Bandhu's writ petition. Besides that, a responsible democratic Government can always take into consideration as to what should be the basis for admission to the post-graduate courses. It was for the University to agree or not to agree with the Government decision and it vas for the University bodies, to take decisions. The Faculty of Medicine in its meeting on 16.3.89 appears to have acted in an independent manner as. would he evident from the recommendations made by it to the Academic Council. It is true that Dr. S. R. Mehta, Principal, Medical College, Jaipur and Dr. S N. Mishra, Principal, Medical College, Bikaner were there in the Academic bodies but on that basis, it cannot be said that the decision of the Academic Bodies were in any way influenced in disregard of the Academic Autonomy. Thus there is no force in the first contention advanced by Shri Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner against the new Ordinance 278-E.20. Thus there is no force in the first contention advanced by Shri Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner against the new Ordinance 278-E.20. The second contention of Shri Calla is that the new Ordinance is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the merit of the M. B. B. S. Examination, which is a qualifying examination held by the very same University among the same candidates, should not hake been totally ignored. Besides that the Post graduate Courses in the Faculty of Medicine is a training to the doctors in the specialities and Pre P.G.E. Test, does not take into account the practical skill and knowledge of the candidates and it proceeds to make answers in the theory papers to be the sole basis and as such, the new Ordinance is opposed to the public policy. Thus, relevant factors are ignored and irrelevant factors made the basis. There will be no incentive for obtaining high percentage of marks in M.B.B.S. Examination.21. So far as the second contention is concerned, firstly, it may be stated that such a contention was advanced in Bharat Sapra's case (supra) and it was negatived. It was urged in that case that holding of Pre P. G. Test is arbitrary and unreasonable because the petitioner and the various other students have already cleared three examinations and have also had one and half years' practical clinical experience under the same University. No further competitive examination for admission to P. G. Courses can be termed to be reasonable and such decision can only be said to be arbitrary. The Division Bench considered the said contention and found no force in the same and it was observed that the best way to judge the merit of any candidate is through a competitive test and the Medical Council of India has adopted it in its guide-lines as it has also recommended that the authorities concerned may conduct competitive entrance examination to determine the merit of the candidates for admission to Post-graduate Medical Courses. It was held in that case that -keeping the facts and circumstances in view, we do not find that there is anything unreasonable or arbitrary in holding the entrance examination for admission to the Post-graduate Courses. It was held in that case that -keeping the facts and circumstances in view, we do not find that there is anything unreasonable or arbitrary in holding the entrance examination for admission to the Post-graduate Courses. Even though, the students have passed their M.B.B.S. Examination from the same University, it cannot be said that on this account, holding any Pre-P. G. Examination is unreasonable or arbitrary."22. That apart, it is a decision of the Academic bodies consisting of experts. This Court should not enter into the question as to how the merit has to be judged for giving admission to the Post-graduate Medical Courses and this Court should not enter into the question in what manner, the Pre-P. G. Entrance Test should be held; in what subject; only in theory or both in theory and practicals. It is for the expert bodies to take such decisions and the court should be slow to interfere in such Academic decision of the Academic bodies. This is a matter pertaining to the educational policy regarding the Post-graduation Medical Courses and this Court should not in any way disturb or interfere with such a decision.23. Mr. Dilipsingh, learned counsel for the University referred to the decision in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Rhupesh Kurmarsheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 : A.I.R. 1984 SC 1543 . it was held that- "As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the department; controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Courts to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences, which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also as far as possible avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law, which would bring about the result of rendering the system un-workable in practice." In para 16, it was observed as under:- "The court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may he lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs' in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulations will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act." 24. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, A.I.R. 1986 SC 1448 , cited by Shri Dilip Singh, learned counsel for the University the question was with regard to the equivalence of the examinations. It was observed that it would not be right for the Supreme Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the court possesses any expertise. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.25. Reference has been made to one more decision of the Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union v. Jawaharlal Nehru University and another, AIR 1985 SC 567 . The students Union had filed an application for the issue of a writ to consider the claims of graduates, who have undergone the (100+2*2) course of study for admission to the written entrance examination to acquire eligibility to be admitted into the Post-graduate course of study in the University. Their Lordships found it impossible to intrude into academic arena and accept responsibility for any amateur tinkering with matters of educational policy. It was observed that it is, therefore, clear that the Admission Policy of the Jawaharlal Nehru University is in no manner arbitrary but has a perfectly rational basis. There is good reason and sufficient justification for the policy. Their Lordships found it impossible to intrude into academic arena and accept responsibility for any amateur tinkering with matters of educational policy. It was observed that it is, therefore, clear that the Admission Policy of the Jawaharlal Nehru University is in no manner arbitrary but has a perfectly rational basis. There is good reason and sufficient justification for the policy. As indicated by us earlier in several cases, it is not for this court to venture to pronounce upon question so purely academic in nature."26. This contention is, therefore, without any substance.27. Thus, we do not find force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.28. It is next urged that the Academic Council in its meeting held on 20.3.89 had accepted the recommendations of Faculty of Medicine dated 20.6.88 and in the recommendations of Faculty of Medicine dated 20.6.88, the order of Vice-Chancellor regarding the Ordinance 278-E has been confirmed which recognises the principle of merit judged on the basis of the academic record of under- graduate courses and when this recommendation of Faculty of Medicine dated 20.6.88 has been accepted by the Academic Council and the same has been accepted by the Syndicate, then it should be taken that the basis for admission is the merit judged on the basis of the academic; record of the under-graduate Medical Courses. It is urged that the Resolutions of the Academic Council and Syndicate are inconsistent. On the one hand, the recommendations of the merit to be judged on the basis of the academic record has been accepted. On the other hand, the merit is to be judged on the basis of the result of Pre-P. G. Entrance Test. In such a situation, the resolution of the Academic Council and of the Syndicate should be harmoniously construed, so that, both may be given effect to and the candidates, who have completed their one year rotating internship on 31.12.88 may be selected on the basis of their merit judged with reference to their academic record in the under-graduate medical courses and for future batch of students, the new Ordinance may be given effect to.29. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the above submission is absolutely unfounded and appears to be misconceived. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the above submission is absolutely unfounded and appears to be misconceived. There was no recommendation of the Faculty of Medicine made in its meeting on 20.6.88 that for admission to the Post-graduate Courses, merit should be judged on the basis of the academic record in the under-graduate courses. The minutes simply record the confirmation of the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.8.88. The minutes nowhere record any such recommendations in Item No. 10. Looking to the nature of the Resolution on Item No. 10 of the Faculty of Medicine, it cannot be said that this resolution has been accepted by the Academic Council. When it was not a recommendation, the question of its acceptance does not arise. It may be stated that there were other items in the Agenda, in which, the recommendations have been made, which are Items No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. A perusal of the Resolution of these Items would show that in the consideration of these items, the Faculty has used the expression "resolved to recommed" and it appears that these recommendations have been accepted by the Academic Council in Resolution No. 2 (1). The Resolution No. 2 (1) of the Academic Council in our opinion, therefore, does not include item No. 10 of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Medicine dated 20.6.88. It is inconceivable that the Academic Council would have accepted inconsistent recommendations simultaneously in the same meeting at the same time when a detailed decision was taken by the Academic Council for adoption of the New Ordinance alongwith rejection of the recommendation of the Faculty of Medicine made in the meeting dated 16.3.89. There can be no question of accepting such an inconsistent recommendation of the Faculty of Medicine dated 20.6.88 by it. More-over the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.3 88 has not rein produced. which has been confirmed by the Faculty of Medicine. Only copy of the Ordinance 278-E has been produced with an endorsement (Ref. Item No. 10 of the Agenda) over it. So far as the Faculty's recommendation dated 16.3.89 is concerned, the same has not been accepted. The Faculty again made a recommendation on 16.3.89 in the very form by using expression 'Resolved to recommend'. Only copy of the Ordinance 278-E has been produced with an endorsement (Ref. Item No. 10 of the Agenda) over it. So far as the Faculty's recommendation dated 16.3.89 is concerned, the same has not been accepted. The Faculty again made a recommendation on 16.3.89 in the very form by using expression 'Resolved to recommend'. The Academic Council in sub-clause (A) of Clause 2 of the Resolution No. 2 has not accepted the recommendation of the Faculty. Viewed in the above light, there does not appear to be any inconsistency and, there is no question for taking any harmonious construction as urged by Mr. M.R, Calla.30. Prior to the amendment of the writ petition, the petition was solely based on the alleged accrual of right of consideration under the Old Ordinance 278-E. It may be stated that soon after filing of the writ petition on 16.3.89. the new Ordinance was made on 25.3.89. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the promulgation of the New Ordinance is of no consequence as the petitioner's selection alongwith other eligible candidates has to be made in accordance with the Old Ordinance. He emphasised the word "when" occurring in Ordinance 278-E. Clause (ii)-Selection of Candidates. According to him, selection to the post-graduate courses shall be done when the regular batch of students completes one year's compulsory rotating internship. Admittedly, the petitioner and the regular batch of students completed one year's rotating internship on 31.12.88. so, the selection has to be done on completion of one year's compulsory rotating internship i.e. 1.1.89 after completion of one year on 31.12.88. A right has agreed to the petitioner and to the regular batch of student for such a selection on 1.1.89. The new Ordinance dated 25.3.89 cannot be given retrospective operation for the batch of students who had completed one year's rotating internship before 25.3.89. He referred to some case law, in support of his contention which we shall presently refer.31. Mr. Dilipsingh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that there is no vested right of the petitioner to seek admission on the basis of the old Ordinance, when before giving admission, the new Ordinance, has come into existence and has become law. All admissions to the Post-graduate Courses would be governed by new Ordinance. Mr. Dilipsingh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that there is no vested right of the petitioner to seek admission on the basis of the old Ordinance, when before giving admission, the new Ordinance, has come into existence and has become law. All admissions to the Post-graduate Courses would be governed by new Ordinance. The period of training for M. D. and M. S. Courses is of three years after registration of the candidate with the University as a Post-graduate student at an institution affiliated to the University. Before commencement of the Academic Session, the requirement of new Ordinance has to be fulfilled and the University within its competence and power has made the new Ordinance making it applicable from this very year as would be evident from the Resolution of the Academic Council dated 20.3.89. In Bharat Sapra's case (supra), this Court has taken a view that the petitioner has no vested right for admission to the Post-graduate courses end this contention was negatived that he has vested right under the existing Ordinance on completing one year's internship on 31.12.88.32. We have considered the rival submissions. The whole argument of Mr. Calla is based on the word "when" occurring in Part-II of the old Ordinance- 278-E. In our opinion, the word 'when' only denotes the condition and not the point of time. When one year's compulsory rotating internship is completed, the selection have to be made. It can be made at any time thereafter. Mr. Calla, in Schedule 'A' annexed with the writ petition has given a Chart regarding the date of completion of internship, the date of notification and date of selection. It is only in two years i. e. in 1983 and 1984 that the date of completion of internship and date of selection coincide but it is not so, in all the subsequent years. The selections have been made much after the completion of internship. This does not appear to be the intention behind the provision that the selections shall be done at that point of time when the students complete one year's rotating internship. The selections have been made much after the completion of internship. This does not appear to be the intention behind the provision that the selections shall be done at that point of time when the students complete one year's rotating internship. It may be stated that the various Medical Colleges in Rajasthan are affiliated to the University of the Rajasthan and for the Post-graduate Courses for M. D. and M. S. the affiliated colleges are required to act in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, which is in force. Notices may be issued by them under the existing Ordinance but that does not mean that after issuance of the notice by the affiliated colleges, the University ceases to have any right to promulgate the new Ordinance for the coming Academic Session. Viewed in this light, in our opinion, the University proceeded to make new Ordinance to be effective from this very year and all affiliated colleges are required to act in accordance with the new Ordinance made by the University. Even if there had been any consistent practice of making selections on the very date of completion of the internship, that would not in any way detract from the power of the University to make new Ordinance to be effective from that very year. There is no question of any retrospective operation of the new Ordinance. The new Ordinance is a prospective one from the date of commencement of the Academic Session as would be evident from the resolution of the Academic Council dated 20.3 .89 and all admissions are required to be made in accordance with the provision contained in the New Ordinance-278-E. There is, therefore, no question of perusal of any right much less a vested right, which is affected by the new Ordinance.33. Mr. M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in A. A. Calton v. Director of Education & another, (1983) 3 SCC 33 . In that case, the power of the Director to make an appointment under Section 16-F (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in case of minority institutions, was taken away by U. P. Act of 1975, which came into force w. e. f. 18.8.75. In that case, the power of the Director to make an appointment under Section 16-F (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in case of minority institutions, was taken away by U. P. Act of 1975, which came into force w. e. f. 18.8.75. The amending Act did not however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16 F of the Act and by necessary intendment also it was so found. It was observed that the procedure of selection under Section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage of calling applications for a post upto the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F (4) (as it stood then) is an integrated one. At every stage in that process certain rights are created in favour of one or the other of the candidates and it was observed that Section 16 F of the Act cannot, there fore be construed as merely a procedural provision. It was held that it cannot be said that the selection made by the Director before amending Act came into force, was illegal since he amending law had no retrospective effect. It was observed that there is no effect on the proceedings which had commenced prior to August 18, 1975. It may be stated that it is not a case of admission in a particular course in a particular year. It is a case regarding the selection to be made for appointment from amongst the qualified candidates at the time of selection, the Director had an authority although the power was exercised by the Director in that case subsequently in August 1975. It was observed that the amending Act would not govern the matter. This case, in our opinion, therefore, has no application to the present case. The other cases as well, which have been cited by Mr. M. R. Calla do not relate to admission to the educational courses.34. Mr M. R. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Y. V. Rangaiah and others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, ( AIR 1983 SC 852 ) and P. Ganeshwar Rao and others v. State of A. P. and others, ( AIR 1988 SC 2068 ) . Both these decisions deal with the question of appointment to the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules. Both these decisions deal with the question of appointment to the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules. In Y.V. Rangaiah's case the amendment of Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules was made in 1977. It was held that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules, would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules. In that case, a panel was prepared in May 1977 before the amendment of Rule 5. It was held that : "Under the old rules a penal had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event, the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their right of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the State-wide basis and, therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules." 35. Similar was the position in P. Ganeshwar Rao's case (supra) and Y.V. Rangaiah's case (supra) was relied in P. Ganeshwar Rao's case. It was held in the second case that the introduction of the word "arising" in the amendment makes the Explanation (c) of Rule 2 prospective. The amendment was made on 28.4.80 permitting 371/2% only of the substantive vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers. It was held that the amendment does not apply to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment and as such direct recruitment can be made both on substantive and temporary vacancies. It was held that the amendment does not apply to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment and as such direct recruitment can be made both on substantive and temporary vacancies. Both these cases related to the appointment or promotion in the services and it his been held that the amended Rules are not having retrospective operation and the vacancies are to be filled up in accordance with the Rules prevailing before the amendment. Both the cases relating to the filling up the vacancies on the posts, have no application to the case of admission for a particular Session.36. Mr. M.R. Calla, further referred to Full Bench decision of this Court in Virendra Kapoor v. University of Jodhpur & others, ( AIR 1964 Raj. 161 ) . In that case, the petitioner was admitted in the First Year of B.E. in 1961 and was promoted to the Second Year B.E. Class in 1962. Thereafter the University of Jodhpur was established under the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 to which the College was affiliated. In 1963. the petitioner appeared at the Second B.E Examination and secured over 55% marks in the aggregate but failed in one of the papers being Mathematics-II. Regulation 38 provided that if a candidate secures an aggregate of 55% marks but failed in one written paper only at an examination except the First Year B E. Examination, he shall be permitted to keep terms to the next higher Class and to appear and pass in the paper in which he has failed along with the next higher examination and he would be given a pass class after he has passed the examination. in which, he had failed. The petitioner was directed to keep terms in the 3rd year Engineering Class in 1963. At the Supplementary Examination held in August, 1963 he happened to fail again in Mathematics-II paper. Then, he was asked to revert to the Second Year B. E. Class and join as a regular student in pursuance to the New Regulation as enacted by the Vice-Chancellor on 12.6.63. The New Regulation was issued as a result of the directive of the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, New Delhi on account of the national emergency and Chinese attack on the Indian Border. The New Regulation was issued as a result of the directive of the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, New Delhi on account of the national emergency and Chinese attack on the Indian Border. After analysing the two Regulations, it was observed that it seems rather difficult to hold that two of them can satisfactorily operate on an identical field simultaneously without producing almost irreconcilable conflict. In the New Regulation the candidates who failed in the Supplementary Examination or did not appear at it must join as repeater in the class in which he failed. It was observed that the New Regulation expressly or by necessary intendment has no retrospective operation in the sense that it deprives a candidate of the benefit of the Old Regulation 38, which he had doubtless acquired. It was a case of an accrual of right under the Old Regulation to keep terms and it has been held that, that right has not been taken away by New Regulation.37. Reference has also been made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ugamraj Bhandari v. The State of Rajasthan & another. ( 1979 WLN 737 ) . This case too has no relevance. This case is related to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the Judicial Officer. In that case, inter alias it was held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Chief Justice were illegal and the Chief Justice was not competent to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Administrative Judge and the Court considered the effect of the 1967 & 1971 Resolutions of the Full Court.38. Reference has also been made by Mr. M. R. Calla to the Single Bench decision of this Court in (14) Shalindra Kumar & another v. University of Jodhpur, (1982 WLN (UC) 7) . That case is also distinguishable. In that case, there was a provision of re-evaluation within 21 days of the declaration of the result. The result of reevaluation was required to be declared within reasonable time. As there was delay on the part of the University to declare the result of re-evaluation, it was observed that the University cannot be given a licence to perpetuate its wrong of neglect in discharging its duty to perform the re-evaluation. It was held that Condition No. 7 cannot be pressed into service by the University in refusing admission. As there was delay on the part of the University to declare the result of re-evaluation, it was observed that the University cannot be given a licence to perpetuate its wrong of neglect in discharging its duty to perform the re-evaluation. It was held that Condition No. 7 cannot be pressed into service by the University in refusing admission. It was held that there has been delay on the part of the University, so, no premium can be put on a dilatory conduct of the University. Suffice it to say that there has been continuous efforts on the part of the University to make the new Ordinance but the efforts of the University went under challenge before this Court. In the circumstances, of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the basis that the new Ordinance came into being only on 25.3.89 and not earlier.39. Reference was also made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Om Prakash & others v. State of Rajasthan & another, (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No 2323/88) . That case has no application. The petitioners had failed in the Supplementary Examination but they were not allowed to appear in the subjects as ex-student next year as is provided in the scheme for the employed in Annx 1. Cl 7. That Regulation was amended. This Court took the view that the amended Regulation is prospective and not retrospective and accrued right under Annx. 1, to the failed candidates in Supplementary Examination, cannot be taken away. This is the case similar to the case of Virendra Kapoor's case (supra).40. In Suresh Pal & others v. State of Haryana & others, ( AIR 1987 SC 2027 ) students had joined the courses on the basis of recognition by the Haryana Government but the courses were de-recognized and certificates obtained by the student became futile and the Court held that the de-recognition would be unjust and a direction was given to recognise the certificate:. This authority too, cannot be pressed into service as the candidates have stood to take admission.41. Mr. Dilip Singh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Subhash Chandra & another. ( AIR 1984 SC 1415 ) . In that case the candidate joined M. B. B. S. Course in 1965 However. Mr. Dilip Singh, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Subhash Chandra & another. ( AIR 1984 SC 1415 ) . In that case the candidate joined M. B. B. S. Course in 1965 However. he appeared at the Final M B.B.S. Examination in 1974 when he joined the M.B B.S. Course in 1965 he would be eligible for grace marks at 1 % of the aggregate marks of 1600 for all the four subjects and total marks would be 16 but he was given 1% of total marks of 400 for Mid-wifery as per the amended Regulation He was declared to have failed in the Mid-wifery. It was held that the Regulation cannot be said to be retrospective in operation merely because though introduced in 1973, it was applied to the candidate, who appeared for the final examination in 1974 after he had joined the course earlier in 1965. No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1955 that there will be no alteration of the Rule or Regulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing any examination or award of grace marks and that the Rules relating thereto which were in force at the time of his admission, would continue to be applied to him until he finished his whole course. It would appear from this case that the amended Regulation was introduced in 1970 and was applied to the candidate, who appeared at the Final Examination in 1974. It was found that the University could introduce such a regulation by way of amendment.42. Mr. Dilip Singh also cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in Akhil Bhartiya Parishad v. State of Rajasthan & others, decided by the Jaipur Bench on 29.7.88 and reported in 1988(1) RLR 819 . In that case, the new system of education (10+2+3) pattern was introduced with effect from 1988-89 Session and challenge was that it shall not be applied to the students who appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination (XI Class) in the Academic Session 1987-88 and a direction was sought that after appearing the Higher Secondary Class (XI Class) such students may be given admission to the First Year T.D.C. in the University. This Court took the view that the decision to introduce the New System of Education cannot be held to be bad on the ground that it prejudicially affects the students, who joined the Higher Secondary Course prior to the introduction of the said Scheme. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Devjani Chakrabarti. ( AIR 1984 SC 1444 ) in the aforesaid Punjab University's case 10+2+3 Scheme was introduced. The University had earlier decided on 10.12.77 that the 12th Standard Examination conducted by the Board/University under the New 10+2+3 Education System would be treated as equivalent to Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering B. A. Part-I/B. Sc. Part-1/B. Corn. Part-I Examinations and the University further decided to treat the XI Standard of New 10+2+3 System as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the University. However, on the recommendation of the Committee of the experts, the Syndicate on 18.4.80 decided not to consider XI Standard of new 10+2+3 system as equivalent to Pre-University Examination as per the decision of the University on 7.5.80. The XII Standard Examination under the New System was treated as a equivalent to Pre-University Examination. It was held that the impugned decision of the Punjab University, the Syndicate were prima facie prospective in operation and valid and that did not become retrospective merely because they applied to the students who had already started their educational careers. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as well, it cannot be said that the new Ordinance 278-E has been given any retrospective operation. In our opinion. it has been given prospective operation for giving admission to M.D. and M.S. Courses after coming into force of the New Ordinance.43. Mr. Dilipsingh also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Muneeb UI Rehman Haroon & others v. Government of Jammu & Kashmir State and others, ( AIR 1964 SC 1585 ) . In that case, the petitioners had applied for admission to the Medical College. Srinagar for the post-graduate Course of the Kashmir University for the semester beginning in July 1980. They appeared for an entrance test but the result of that test was not declared officially. Un-official information of having passed the test has been alleged in the petition. No admissions were made either to the July 1980 semester or to the two following semesters beginning in November 1980 and July 1981. They appeared for an entrance test but the result of that test was not declared officially. Un-official information of having passed the test has been alleged in the petition. No admissions were made either to the July 1980 semester or to the two following semesters beginning in November 1980 and July 1981. An entrance test was held for admission to the semester beginning in November 1981 and the result of that test has been announced and 16 petitioners appeared for that test. It was held that the petition challenging the admission, is not maintainable. The challenge was on the ground that the wholesale non-admission of students to the post-graduate Course for the three semesters, which commenced in July 1980, November 1980 and July 1981 is an arbitrary act, which offends against the guarantee of fairness implicit in Article 14. The reply of the State Government was that the Rules, which were in operation in 1980 governing admission to the post-graduate Medical Course were prejudicial to the interests of the students of the Jammu Medical College and were to an extent, discriminatory, so, no admission could be made to the July 1980 semester, and it took about 18 months in amending the Rules of Admission. The petitions were dismissed as there was no violation of any fundamental rights nor any action of the State authorities was found to be arbitrary and malafide. It may be stated that such a question was not raised in the petition that the petitioners were entitled to the admission as per the Regulations and Rules, which were in force in July 1980.44. Reference was also made by Mr. Dilipsingh to Dr. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal LLRM Medical College, ( AIR 1987 SC 400 ) . In that case, the State Government issued an order laying down eligibility qualification i.e. 55 marks or 52% marks for being eligible for consideration for admission to the Post-graduate Degree in M.D., M.S. and Diploma Course in M.D., M.S. etc. respectively on the basis of merit in accordance with Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act. In that case, the State Government issued an order laying down eligibility qualification i.e. 55 marks or 52% marks for being eligible for consideration for admission to the Post-graduate Degree in M.D., M.S. and Diploma Course in M.D., M.S. etc. respectively on the basis of merit in accordance with Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act. According to the State Government order, the unsuccessful candidates, who were not eligible for consideration, had questioned the power of the State Government in making the aforesaid order on the ground that the Medical Council by its Regulations has already laid down the requisite criteria or standards for admission to the Post-graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges in accordance with the merits of the candidates concerned and as such, the State Government is not competent to lay down further eligibility qualification for the candidates for being considered for admission in the Post-graduate Course-both in the degree and diploma courses. It was held that the State Government is competent to lay down additional eligibility qualification. It was further observed that "since the number of seats for admission to various Post-graduate Courses both degree and diploma in Medical Colleges is limited and a large number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admission to these courses of study, the impugned order laying down the qualification for a candidate to be eligible for being considered for selection for admission to the said course. on the basis of the merit as specified by Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act cannot be said to be in conflict with the said Regulations or in any way repugnant to the said Regulations. It does not in any way encroach upon the standards prescribed by the said Regulations. On the other hand, by laying down a further qualification of eligibility, it promotes and further the standard in an institution." It may be stated that this authority does not deal with the question in issue in the present writ petition which has been raised by Mr. Calla. The question of retrospectivity has not arisen for consideration.45. Mr. D.K. Parihar, supported the submissions made on behalf of the University. However, he referred to a decision in I.J. Divakar and others v. Government of A.P. and another, ( AIR 1982 SC 1555 ) . That was the case where the post was advertised by the Public Service Commission but the Government subsequently withdrew. Mr. D.K. Parihar, supported the submissions made on behalf of the University. However, he referred to a decision in I.J. Divakar and others v. Government of A.P. and another, ( AIR 1982 SC 1555 ) . That was the case where the post was advertised by the Public Service Commission but the Government subsequently withdrew. The post, which was challenged by a candidate, who had applied for the post. It was held that a candidate gets no right to post applied for and the Government order could not be challenged by him. This case relates to the employment. is not a case of admission to a particular course of study. The principle as such propounded in this case has no application to the percent case.46. As already considered above. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the New Ordnance 278-E will apply to all admissions, which are to be made after 25-3-89 and the petitioner has no right of consideration of his application as contended by him in accordance with Old Ordinance and for that, Part-II of the Ordinance 278 E (old) cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner. Thus, the argument advanced by Shri Calla. as considered above, is without substance.47. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that on 31-3-89. the Principal of the S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur has issued an office order in pursuance of Ordinance 278E for filling mid-term vacancies, thereby two appointments of Dr. Prabhu Prakash and Dr. Rakesh Taneja on the posts of one year Resident were made in the Speciality of Micro-Biology and Physiology. They were required to report on duty not later than 16-4-89 and the office order dated 30-4-88 (sic) per month and usual D. A. as per Rules. It may be stated that the appointment has been made on the post of one year's Resident by the Principal. The University as such is not bound by this order and it cannot be said that the University has given admission to the two candidates in the two specialities. That apart, on the basis of this office order issued by the Principal, it cannot be found that the new Ordinance 278-E would not apply. The University as such is not bound by this order and it cannot be said that the University has given admission to the two candidates in the two specialities. That apart, on the basis of this office order issued by the Principal, it cannot be found that the new Ordinance 278-E would not apply. It is for the University to consider the matter as and when it comes for consideration but at this stage, on the basis of this order, it cannot be found that the new ordinance has no application to the regular batch of students, who have completed one year's rotating internship on 31-12-1988.48. Mr. Dilipsingh, learned counsel for the University contended that the present writ petition is barred by res judicata as the earlier writ petition was filed by Bharat Sapra, in a representative capacity and the contentions, which were canvassed in that writ petition have been heard & decided against the petitioner and this prayer ( ................. illegible............... ) according to the performance of the candidates at the three M. B. B. S. Examinations with reference to the Ordinance 278-E before amendment but such direction was not given in favour of the petitioner and similar other candidates in that writ petition, so now it is not open to the petitioner to seek such a direction by way of this second writ petition.49. Mr. Dilipsingh, in support of his contention, placed reliance on Forward Construction Company & others V. Prabhat Mandal, Andheri and others, ( AIR 1986 SC 391 ) . In that case. a plot of land was reserved under the Development Plan for Bombay and the verified Andheri Town Planning Scheme for a bus depot of the Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST). BEST proposed to build two buildings which would include the bus depot. The carpet area spared after meeting the needs of the depot was to be given on rent. A writ petition challenging the user of the plot for commercial purposes came to be filed and was dismissed by the High Court. The validity of permission granted under rule 4 (a) (i) of Development Control Rules for change of user of the plot to commercial purpose was not in issue in the writ petition. A writ petition challenging the user of the plot for commercial purposes came to be filed and was dismissed by the High Court. The validity of permission granted under rule 4 (a) (i) of Development Control Rules for change of user of the plot to commercial purpose was not in issue in the writ petition. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed for the same purpose but therein the validity of permission granted under R. 4 (a) (i) of the Development Control Rules was specifically challenged. It was held that - "In view of S. II, Expln. IV, it could not be said that the earlier judgment would not operate as res judicata as one of the grounds taken in the subsequent petition was conspicuous by its absence in the earlier petition. An adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject matter of litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim or defence." 50. It is true that the direction as sought, was not given in Bharat Sapra's writ petition. But the (sic) observed that Original Ordinance framed by the Vice-chancellor was struck down. This petition came to be filed on 16-3-89 when the old Ordinance was in force. Till the new Ordinance came into being, it was legitimate for the petitioner to have sought such a direction for consideration of his application for admission to the Post-graduate Courses in accordance with the old Ordinance. In such a situation, in our opinion, the bar of res judicata would not be attracted. It appears that a direction was not given in the earlier writ petition perhaps on the basis that when the old Ordinance shall continue to have operation, then the applications would be processed under the old Ordinance and in case, the new Ordinance is framed or made, then the matter would ,be governed by the new Ordinance. Now, when the new Ordinance has already been promulgated, such a direction, as has been prayed for, in this writ petition, cannot be given. Had there been no new Ordinance, the petitioner would be within his legitimate right to seek such a direction.51. Now, when the new Ordinance has already been promulgated, such a direction, as has been prayed for, in this writ petition, cannot be given. Had there been no new Ordinance, the petitioner would be within his legitimate right to seek such a direction.51. No other point has been pressed before us.52. In the result, the writ petition fails, so, it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******