JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Dr. Smt. Sandeepa Shrivastava has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to admit Dr. Surabhi Rai respondent No. 3 in the First Year Residency Course in M.D. Gynaecology and further to admit the petitioner in the aforesaid course. 2. The petitioner was selected in the Pre-Medical Test in the year 1983 and has completed the M.B.B.S. course in 1988. She has also completed one year course of internship in June, 1989. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College) invited applications for House Job and in pursuance thereof the petitioner applied for the same. However, before the admission in the course of House Job could be completed, Government of U.P. issued a Notification dated 22-8-1989 introducing thereby three years course of post graduation. The earlier period of one year house job was abolished and Junior Residency Course as well as Senior Residency Course were introduced. First year of the Junior Residency Course was made equivalent to first year of House Officer. 3. Dr. Surabhi Rai, the respondent No. 3 has passed M.B.B.S. Course in 1987 and has also completed the one year internship. She has joined one year House Job and has completed about seven months course of House Job has been abolished by virtue of the Government Order dated 22-8-1989, a new course of Junior Residency and Senior Residency have been introduced, with the result that Dr. Surabhi Rai can no more persue the course of house job. As the course of house job has been abolished, the Principal of the Medical College summoned all the applications of the house job and treated them as the applications for First Year Residency Course. These applications included that of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, Dr. Surabhi Rai. 4. The selection for the First year Residency Curse was to be made on merit in accordance with clause 2 of the Government Order dated 15-12-1982, issued under Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. By this order the Government has laid down principles for determining the merit fort he purpose of admission. Surabhi Rai. 4. The selection for the First year Residency Curse was to be made on merit in accordance with clause 2 of the Government Order dated 15-12-1982, issued under Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. By this order the Government has laid down principles for determining the merit fort he purpose of admission. Clause 2 of this Order is quoted below : "(2) The basis of determining the merit shall be percentage of marks worked out after deducting one percent marks for each failure in every subject from the total percentage of marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. Examination. In case a candidate who dails in a subject and is declared successful in second or subsequent attempt in that subject the marks obtained by him or day to day performance in the first examination in that subject shall be added to his total marks while preparing the said index." The college authorities prepared the merit index in which Dr. Surabhi Rai was placed at serial No. 14 with 61.33% marks and the petitioner Dr. Smt. Sandeepa Shrivastava has been placed at serial No. 15 with 61.25% marks. With the above merit index neither Dr. Surabhi Rai nor the petitioner Dr. Smt. Sandeepa Shrivastava was admitted. Dr. Surabhi Rai, as such filed Writ Petition No. 17028 of 1989, Dr. Surabhi Rai v. State of U.P. and others for writ of mandamus for her admission in the First Year Junior Residency Course in the subject Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Dr. Smt. Sandeepa Shrivastava has filed this writ petition with a prayer that Dr. Surabhhi Rai be not admitted in the Junior Residency course and instead the petitioner be admitted. We have heard both the writ petitions together and the writ petition of Dr. Surabhi rai has been decided by a separate judgment today. 5. In support of her writ petition, the following points have been argued before us : (i) Candidates of 1983 batch, who have passed M.B.B.S. Course in 1988 are entitled to be admitted in the First Year of Junior residency course and Dr. Surabhi rai has been decided by a separate judgment today. 5. In support of her writ petition, the following points have been argued before us : (i) Candidates of 1983 batch, who have passed M.B.B.S. Course in 1988 are entitled to be admitted in the First Year of Junior residency course and Dr. Surabhi Rai, respondent No. 3 being a candidate of 1981-82 batch and having passed the M.B.B.S. course in 1987 is not eligible for being admitted in the said course and (ii) Those candidates, who are under going training of one year house job cannot join the First Year of Junior residency course and they will be entitled to join the Second Year of the Residency course after completing the one year house job. 6. We have perused the Government Order dated 22-8-1989, which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition and we do not did any such condition in this Order so as to confine the admission in the First Year Junior Residency course to the candidate of 1983 batch. From the perusal of this order, it is clear that any one, who satisfied the requirements is entitled to be admitted in this Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in this connection invited our attention to clause 4 of the resolution dated 16-9-1989 of the Principals of all the Medical Colleges of U.P. and the Director of Medical Education and Training. BY this clause of the resolution, it has been mentioned that doctors of 1983 M.B.B. S. batch are undergoing one year internship and it the selection for admission in the First ear of Junior Residency Course is held now, this will disturb the students of this batch and as such, in view of that difficulty it was decided that admission in the First Year of Junior Residency Course be made only after the completion of one year internship of 1983 batch of M.B.B.S. By this clause, it was nowhere laid down that admission to First Year Junior Residency course is to be confined to 1983 M.B.B.S. batch only. The first contention of the petitioner lacks merit and cannot be accepted. 7. The second contention of the petitioner has also no force. For this proposition the petitioner has relied on the last part of para 5 of the Government Order has laid down that house officers and junior doctors 1991 All. The first contention of the petitioner lacks merit and cannot be accepted. 7. The second contention of the petitioner has also no force. For this proposition the petitioner has relied on the last part of para 5 of the Government Order has laid down that house officers and junior doctors 1991 All. LJ/45 VIII (2) working since August 1, 1987 will be converted into Junior Residents of First Year, Second year etc., in accordance with the chart given in this para. Last part of this para lays down about these house officers, who were working since 1-8-1987. This para does not provide for the criteria or deal with the admission of those candidates, who have joined the first year house job and have not yet completed even first year. The cases of those, who have joined the course of house job but could not complete till the introduction of the new scheme of the residency has been considred in the meeting of the Principals of all the Medical colleges of U.P. and Director of Medical Education and Training on 16-9-1989. Para 6 of this resolution laid down that as the course of house job has been abolished after the enforcement of the residency scheme and the candidates, who are undergoing training of house job cannot persue their studies and training any more and as such, all those candidates, who are undergoing training of house job should be admitted in the first year course of Junior Residency on the basis of merit . THis resolution of the Principals of all the Medical Colleges appears to be fair and most reasonable. As the course of house job has been abolished and the candidates undergoing this course cannot possibly persue their studies and it they are not admitted in the first year of the Junior Residency they will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss, because they have been deprived of their right to persue their course of house job in the middle of the session. 8. When the course of house job has been abolished, it is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of house job to persue their studies any more. 8. When the course of house job has been abolished, it is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of house job to persue their studies any more. In fact respondent No. 3 would have been happy, f she was permitted to continue ad conclude the one year course of house job, because in that case after few months she should have got admission in the second year of Junior Residency and would have become senior to the petitioner and all others, who will be joining the first year of Junior Residency course now; but on account of the abolition of the system of house of it became impossible for the respondent No. 3 to continue with the course and as such, she had to be contended with the admission in the first year of Junior Residency course. 9. For the reasons given above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.