S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a matter where considering the circumstances and the reasons, as noted in my order, dated 9th of March, 1990, I issued an order for provisional admission of the writ petitioner in the M. D. Course in Radiotherapy. Immediately after the said order was passed, Mr. Samaresh Banerjee appeared and mentioned the matter upon notice to Mr. Chatterjee informing the court about the circumstances under which he could not represent the University at the one the aforesaid order was passed and prayed for rehearing of the matter. The matter has thus been reheard. For appreciating the impact of an order for provisional ad-mission fully, the sensitive nature of the situation under which such an order is asked for has to be borne in mind. From the standpoint of a student-petitioner, a provisional admission is a boon as it helps him to reduce the chances of loss of benefit due to delayed solution of the dispute raised by him, Grant of such an order by a Court of law, however, is not a simple process, as, a Court cannot afford to overlook the injustice that would be caused to. those of the students who, prima facie, have better merits but are not before the Court. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that such orders are intended to provide interim relief in aid of the final relief and as such have to pass through well-known tests, such as, prima facie case and balance of convenience as in the case of other types of interim orders. ( 2 ) MR. Chatterjee's submissions, in justification of his prayer for provisional admission, can be broadly classified as those, which are technical in nature, and others which are on merit in the facts of the present case. The following contentions fall in the first class: (a) Fixation of minimum qualifying mark of 30 through general information is ultra vires the Regulations of the University. Through such General Reformation the Faculty Council cannot supersede the Regulations framed by the Syndicate which provide for different bases for selection of candidates for admission into M. D. Course as the seats are limited. (b) The second point is an off-shoot of the first as Mr. Through such General Reformation the Faculty Council cannot supersede the Regulations framed by the Syndicate which provide for different bases for selection of candidates for admission into M. D. Course as the seats are limited. (b) The second point is an off-shoot of the first as Mr. Chatterjee has contended that even if no candidate, who has obtained qualifying mark, is available, the seats meant for West Bengal Health Service cannot be surrendered for the benefit of students in the General Discipline, which has been done in the instant case. The two seats should have been filled up in order of merit from the. W. B. H. S. Candidates irrespective of absence of qualifying marks. ( 3 ) AS far as submissions on merits is concerned, Mr. Chatterjee's contention has been that the questions set for being answered are demonstratively incorrect, inappropriate and/or ambiguous and as such the examination held on the basis of such questions is no examination. In this connection, Mr. Chatterjee has also argued that questions with regard to which "the most appropriate" answer has been asked for, upon consideration of he authoritative Text Books, have more than one appropriate answer and there has been no moderation of the questions-a situation which has been exceptional and has occurred only in the case of Radiotherapy. Mr. Chatterjee has endeavored to substantiate his submissions by elaborate references to the averments in the writ application and has emphasized the existence of a strong prima facie case in view of absence of any affidavit-in-opposition from the side of the University-respondents. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the balance of convenience also is in favour of maintenance of the order dated 9th of March, 1990 as, if ultimately, his client fails in the writ proceeding, there is no chance of any prejudice being caused to any one including the University-authorities due to his client's provisional admission into the concerned course. ( 4 ) MR. Samaresh Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the University-respondents, has argued that the writ application is not maintainable due to absence of a formal Demand for Justice and non-impleadment of Medical Council as a party-respondent. According to Mr. ( 4 ) MR. Samaresh Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the University-respondents, has argued that the writ application is not maintainable due to absence of a formal Demand for Justice and non-impleadment of Medical Council as a party-respondent. According to Mr. Banerjee, at the present stage, the point about the invalidity of the Regulations or the General Instructions is not relevant because even on behalf of the petitioner the position remains admitted that due to limited number of seats all candidates of the West Bengal Health Service for Radiotherapy cannot be accommodated, screening is indispensable and the procedure which has been followed also cannot be said to be grossly arbitrary or unreasonable; the question about the validity of the Rules and/or General Information should be left for determination at the stage of fina1 hearing. Upon production of records, Mr. Banerjee has contended that the mere fact that the petitioner has moved this Court cannot entitle him to the order for provisional admission as there are about 7/8 candidates, who have secured higher marks than the petitioner, and the order for provisional admission, if at all granted, should ensure to the benefit of two of the candidates in order of merit. The Equity Jurisdiction of the Court should be exercised in a manner, which does not result in inequity, by overlooking the existence of candidates of better merit simply because they have failed to move this Court. ( 5 ) DECISIONS of the Supreme Court and of other Courts reported in AIR 1982 SC 917 , AIR 1983 SC 580 and 1230, AIR 1984 SC 186 , AIR 1986 Calcutta 153, AIR 1989: SC 1563, AIR 1989 Punjab 107 and AIR 1990 SC 434 have been cited at the bar. ( 6 ) I have given the matter my anxious consideration. I have already indicated that the relief by way of provisional admission is by nature an interim relief. I should not, therefore embark upon a detailed investigation into the merits of the respective contentions but must reach my conclusions on consideration of well-known factors, such as, existence of a prima facie case, in other words, of arguable issues and balance of convenience and inconvenience. The questions raised by Mr. I should not, therefore embark upon a detailed investigation into the merits of the respective contentions but must reach my conclusions on consideration of well-known factors, such as, existence of a prima facie case, in other words, of arguable issues and balance of convenience and inconvenience. The questions raised by Mr. Chatterjee, which I have already noted hereinabove, the such that even if, following the aforesaid well-known tests, all of them are answered in the affirmative the benefits would be of general nature and would ensure to all the candidates of the West Bengal Health Service intending to prosecute the M. D. Course in Radiotherapy. In view of the above position, the petitioner, prima facie, becomes entitled to addition of certain marks but such additions must also be made to the marks. of other candidates for the same course this year. The balance of convenience, therefore, has to be judged on the basis of the petitioners position vis-a-vis the other candidate on merit and it is well-settled by the Supreme Court decision in Punjab Engineering College's case reported in AIR 1983 SC 580 and the case of Krishnapriya Ganguly (A 1984 SC 186) that the Court in passing an order for admission into an educational course must take into consideration the cases of all the candidates respective whether they have moved the Court for any relief or not. Since, there are 7/8 other candidates, who have secured better marks than the petitioner, and who are not parties to the present proceeding, nor is there any material before me to indicate that they are not interested in the admission in the Radiotherapy course. l am not included to grant any order for the petitioner's provisional admission in such Course depriving the 6ther candidates of such benefit. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, I recall my order dated 9th of March, 1990. The University respondents are discharged from their undertaking as given on 12th of March, 1990. Order recalled.