JUDGMENT : S. K. Dhaon, J. 1. The controversy in these five petition is common. It pertains to the admission to some of the Post Graduate Courses in the second year in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College) under the Residency Scheme. The dispute centres round the interpretation to be given to particular clause contained in the Government Order/Notification dated 22nd August, 1989. therefore, these petitions were heared together and are being disposed of by a common judgment with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. By the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1989, a new scheme for the purpose of admission to Post Graduate specialties both Degree and Diploma was introduced. For the sake of brevity this scheme would be hereinafter called as the Residency Scheme. Under the Residency Scheme the duration of the degree course has been fixed as three years; whereas the duration of the Diploma course has been fixed as two years. The scheme provides that the minimum requirement to be eligible for admission to a Post Graduate specialty, either Degree or Diploma, is that a candidate should pass the M.B.B.S. examination and should have one year's internship to his or her credit. Before the enforcement of the Residency Scheme the duration of the Degree course was two years and that of the Diploma course one year. Admission to the Post Graduate courses Degree or Diploma in the State Medical Colleges, including the K. G. Medical College, Lucknow, were made in accordance with the common set of Rules. Certain norms were also laid down by the Medical Council of India for the purpose of admission to the Post Graduate specialties. One of the conditions enumerated was that if any candidate had been admitted in Post Graduate Diploma or Degree course in one speciality, he was not eligible for admission in Post Graduate Diploma or Degree course in any other speciality. However, if a candidate had been admitted in a Post Graduate Diploma course in one speciality it would be permissible to admit him or her in the Post Graduate Degree course in that very speciality. However, if a candidate had been admitted in a Post Graduate Diploma course in one speciality it would be permissible to admit him or her in the Post Graduate Degree course in that very speciality. The minimum requirement for admission to a Post Graduate speciality either Degree or Diploma was that the candidate should have passed the M.B.B.S. examination, he or she should have one year's internship to his or her credit and he or she should have done House-job for one year. It is thus evident that the redeeming feature of the . Residency Scheme is that the requirement of doing House-job for one year has been done away with thereby clearing the deck for admission to a post Graduate speciality either Degree or Diploma after the completion of one year's internship. However, the duration of the course, as stated above, has been increased. Apart from the increase in the duration of the courses and the changes effected with respect to the minimum qualifications, as indicated above, in brief, the salient feature of the Residency Scheme are these. Admission to the first year are to be made by open competition. First, an all India competitive examination for 25 per cent seats will be held and thereafter a competitive test for the remaining 75 per cent seats shall be held. Till the arrangements for holding a competitive test are made, admission to the 75 per cent seats to the various specialities Degree or Diploma in a particular Medical College shall be made on the basis of merit obtained in the M.B.B.S. examination conducted by that Medical College. 3. On 21st September, 1989, the Principal of the Medical College issued a notice inviting applications for selection to the various Post Graduate courses for the session 1989-90. The notice made it clear that service candidates from P.M.H.S., C.G.H.S., Railway Service, A.M.C. and Local bodies etc. will also submit their applications. It will be profitable to extract the opening paragraph of the notice :- " Applications are invited from Medical Graduates of M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad for selection to the following Post Graduate courses for the session 1989-90 on 75% seats of Institutional preference under 2 years Residency Scheme latest by 30th September, 1989. " 4. In writ petition no. 18036 o? 1989 the material averments made by Dr. Archana Gupta are these. " 4. In writ petition no. 18036 o? 1989 the material averments made by Dr. Archana Gupta are these. She was admitted to the M.B.B.S. course in the Medical College in the year 1981 on the basis of the C.P.M.T. examination and passed M.B.B.S. examination in 1986. She did one year's internship from the Medical College and got herself registered with the State Medical Council. Thereafter she did one year's House-job in Gynacoiogy and Obstetrics from the Medical College. She was admitted to the D.G.O. course in March, 1989 for the session commencing from April, 1989 and she is fully eligible for admission to Degree course under the two years Residency Scheme for the academic year 1*89-90 in the speciality of Gynecology and Obstetrics. She is prepared to give up the D.G.O. course in case she is admitted to the Degree course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. In writ petition no. 18102 of 1989 Dr. Atul Chandra Agarwal, petitioner no. 1 avers:-He has passed M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College and has done internship and house-job for one year each. He is a student of Post Graduate Diploma course in Orthopaedics and is, therefore, fully qualified to be admitted to the two year's Residency course (M, S. Course in Orthopaedics in General Surgery). Dr. Amar Kant Vijaywar, petitioner no. 2, avers that he has passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College and has done one year internship and one year House-job in Surgery (from 17-9-1987 to 16-3-1988) and House-job in Ophthalmology from 1-4-1988 to 30-9-1988. He is a student of the Post Graduate Diploma course in Child Health (D.C.H.) in the Medical College. He desires to be admitted to the M. S. Ophthalmology course (two years Residency Scheme). 5. In writ petition no. 22161 of 1989, Dr. Pushpa Singh petitioner no. 1, avers :-she passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College. She did one year compulsory intership and also the House-job for the requisite period. She did House-job in Gynaecology as well as in Medicine. It appears that she is a student of Post Graduate Diploma course in Gynaecology. She is, therefore, qualified to be admitted to the Post Graduate Degree course (two years) in Gynaecology. 6. Dr. Sangeeta Rani, petitioner no. 2, avers that she had passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College, done one year internship and also one year House-job. It appears that she is a student of Post Graduate Diploma course in Gynaecology. She is, therefore, qualified to be admitted to the Post Graduate Degree course (two years) in Gynaecology. 6. Dr. Sangeeta Rani, petitioner no. 2, avers that she had passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College, done one year internship and also one year House-job. She too is a student of Post Graduate Diploma course in Gynaecology and is, therefore, eligible for admission to the two years Degree course in Gynaecology. In writ petition no. 22836 of 1989, Dr. Rashmi Punj Sinha avers that he passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College. He did one year internship and also did House-job in Surgery from 15-9-1987 to 31-12- 1987 at Sufderjung Hospital, New Delhi, from 1-1-1988 to 30-6-1988 at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi and from 15-9-1988 to 14-3- 1989 at E.S.I. Hospital, Basi Darapur, New Delhi. He also did House-job in Orthopaedic Surgery from 15-3-1989 to 14-9-1989 at E. S. I. Hospital, Basi Darapur, New Delhi. As present he is neither doing any job nor persuing any academic course anywhere. He applied for admission to the two year post Graduate course under the Residency Scheme in General Surgery as well as Orthopaedic. However, the prayer is that he may be considered for admission to the 3rd year Residency course in M. S. Surgery as first choice or M. S. Orthopaedic as second choice. Having gone through the petition we feel that in the prayer 'third year' has been wrongly typed out which should have been 'second year'. 7. In writ petition no. 23877 of 1989, Dr. Manoj Govila avers that he passed the M.B.B.S. examination from the Medical College; did compulsory internship from the Civil Hospital, Lucknow and thereafter did House-job in Surgery from 23-9-1987 to 31-12-1988 and from 1st April, 1989 he is a student of Post Graduate Diploma course in Ophthalmology in the Medical College. Therefore, he is qualified to be considered for admission to the two years M. S. course in Ophthalmology. 8. The petitioners have been refused admission on an interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Residency Scheme. The Principal of the Medical College has put in appearance in all these petitions and has contested them. Therefore, he is qualified to be considered for admission to the two years M. S. course in Ophthalmology. 8. The petitioners have been refused admission on an interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Residency Scheme. The Principal of the Medical College has put in appearance in all these petitions and has contested them. In some petitions those students who have been admitted to any of the Post Graduate courses under the scheme, are arrayed as respondents and they have put in appearance and they too contested the petitions. In other petitions the students have got themselves impleaded. The Principal as well as the other contesting respondents have put all their eggs in one basket and their common argument is based upon an interpretation of a particular provision of Paragraph 5 of the Residency Scheme, which may, for the sake of brevity, be called as the offending provision. In substance, the contents of Paragraph 5, which are in Hindi, mean that upon the enforcement of the scheme all House Officers and Junior Residents-first year etc. working on 1st August, 1987, will be given the new designation as indicated therein. To be precise, the Hindi words are : Ukt regidency yojna Iagu hone par dinank 1, August 1987 se karyarat sabhi house officer.........prastabit naye padon par nimnanusar parivartit ho jayange." 9. At serial no, 1 are mentioned House Officer/Demonstrator, first year. they have been nomenclatured as Junior Residents first year. AT serial no. 2, Junior Resident/R.M.O. first year/R.S.O. first year/R.G.O. first year/Demonstrator scoond year/P.G. Degree student first year/P.G. Diploma student first year are mentioned. They are nomenclatured as Junior Resident second year. AT serial no. 3, mention is made of Senior Resident/R.M.O. second year/R.S.O. second year/R.G.O. second year/Demonstrator third year/Registrar/Post Graduate (P.G.) Degree student second year. They are nomenclatured as Junior Resident third year. A combined reading of serial nos.1, 2 and 3 will indicate that after Demonstrator in serial no. 1 there should have been no comma. In our opinion, at serial no. 1 the post of Demonstrator first year has been made equivalent to the Junior Resident first year. We have already indicated that a House-job was formerly only for a duration of the one year and, therefore, 'first year' as mentioned in serial no. 1 does not relate to a House Officer. 10. In our opinion, at serial no. 1 the post of Demonstrator first year has been made equivalent to the Junior Resident first year. We have already indicated that a House-job was formerly only for a duration of the one year and, therefore, 'first year' as mentioned in serial no. 1 does not relate to a House Officer. 10. Now we come to the offending provision which, in Hindi, reads : "Eske sath hi sath yus samay me karyarat house officer ka karyakal pura hone ke paschat snatkotar pathayakarmo (Degree/Diploma pathyakarm) me pravesh tatha panjikaran M.B.B.S. merit tatha House job ke aadhar par kiya jayega." The English rendering of aforesaid Hindi version in like this. In, addition to this, on the completion of the term of a House Officer working at that time, his or her admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma courses and registration shall be on the basis of merit in the M.B.B.S. examination and performance as a House Officer. We may reiterate that the controversy in these petitions centers round the admission to the second year Residency Course or to second year Post Graduate Degree course alone. This situation has arisen as a result of the enforcement of the Residency Scheme by which, inter alia, one year House-job has been done away with. This situation has also arisen only during the transitory period. In "short, the controversy to be resolved is whether only those candidates, who were undergoing one year House-job on the date of the enforcement of the scheme, viz., 22nd August, 198', and who were to complete their House-job thereafter would be eligible for admission to the second year Residency Course ? To put it differently, whether other candidates, who had passed the M.B B.S. examination, done one year Internship and also had done one year House Job prior to the date of the enforcement of the Scheme were debarred from being considered for admission to the second year Residency course ? To put it differently, whether other candidates, who had passed the M.B B.S. examination, done one year Internship and also had done one year House Job prior to the date of the enforcement of the Scheme were debarred from being considered for admission to the second year Residency course ? At this stage we may indicate that prior to the enforcement of the Residency Scheme all candidates, who had passed the M.B.B.S. examination and had to their credit one year internship and one year House-job, were eligible for being considered for admission to a Post Graduate speciality either Degree or Diploma A particular candidate could make repeated attempts for being considered for admission to a particular Post Graduate speciality irrespective of the batch to which he belonged or the particular year in which he was admitted to the M.BB.S. course and the particular year in which he passed the M B.B.S. final examination. 11. Having considered the offending provision carefully, we are of the opinion that the obvious object of the offending provision was to be just and fair to those candidates who were doing one year House-job and had not completed the same on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme. They were not to be deprived of the benefit of having done one year House- job. One year of their precious life and career was not allowed to be wasted. They were to be kept at par with those who had done one year House-job and had been considered for admission to two year Post Graduate Degree Course and were entitled to become Post Graduates within a period of two years of their completing one year House-job. But for the offending provision, candidates who were undergoing House-job and who had yet to complete the same would not have been entitled to be considered for admission to the second year Residency course. They would have been entitled to be considered for admission to the first year Residency course along with the other candidates on the basis of their performance in the M.B.B.S. examination and one year internship. Such a situation would have certainly caused not only serious inconvenience but grave injustice to those candidates who were doing House- job and were going to complete the same on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme. 12. Such a situation would have certainly caused not only serious inconvenience but grave injustice to those candidates who were doing House- job and were going to complete the same on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme. 12. The farmers of the scheme did not either expressly or by implication intend to confine the selection to the second year of the Residency course to only those candidates who were undergoing House-job on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme. There was no intention at all to create a monopoly in favour of such candidates. It follows that the framers of the scheme had no intention whatsoever to exclude a candidate, not undergoing one year House-job on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme, howsoever meritorious he or she may be, from being considered for admission to the second year Residency course. The submission is that the offending provision should be given a strict interpretation and this can be done only in one manner, that is by confining its operation to only those candidates who were doing House-job on the date of enforcement of the Scheme and bad completed that job thereafter. It is emphasised that in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Scheme provisions are made for admission to the first year Residency course by the process of selection during the inter regnum. Nothing is said about the admission to the second year Residency course. It is submitted that the words "yous samay" in the offending provision mean the date on which the Government Order was issued, namely, 22nd August, 1989. The argument, therefore, is that for the aforesaid words 22nd August, 1981, may be substituted We are not impressed with this submission. We have already quoted the opening words of paragraph 5 wherein the words used are ukt regidency yojna lagu hone par dinank 1 August 1987 se karayrat sabhi house officer...... We have already indicated that the Residency Scherae was introduced with effect from 22nd August, 1989. Therefore, two different words have been used. There are in existence two crucial dates. We have already quoted the opening words of paragraph 5 wherein the words used are ukt regidency yojna lagu hone par dinank 1 August 1987 se karayrat sabhi house officer...... We have already indicated that the Residency Scherae was introduced with effect from 22nd August, 1989. Therefore, two different words have been used. There are in existence two crucial dates. The first is 1st August, 1987 and the second is 22nd August, 1989 In our opinion in the context and setting of paragraph 5 and keeping in view the purpose for which the offending provision has been introduced the words "yus samay" referred to the definite date referred to in paragraph 5, namely, 1st August, 1987. We have already emphasised that the offending provisions has been incorporated for a limited purpose. To repeat ourselves the purpose is to compensate all those candidates who had completed one year internship and were doing House-job when the Scheme was introduced. The anxiety of the Mate Government was not to deprive them of the benefit of one year House-job. 13. Our reading of paragraph 5 is that all those persons who were performing the job of the House Officer or Demonstrator first year after 1st August, 1987 have been equated as Junior Resident first year. In other words, all those who had after 1st August, 1987, completed their term as House Officer or Demonstraror first year would be eligible for being considered for admission to a Post Graduate speciality, either degree or diploma, in the 2nd year residency course. Such an interpretation will not cause any hardship to those who were still doing their house job and had not completed their term on 22nd August, 1989. Did the farmer of the scheme intend to create a monopoly for the purpose of being considered for admission to the 2nd year residency course during the period of inter regnum, in favour of those falling within the purview of the offending provision ? If yes, whether such an action will be rational and justifiable under Article 14 of the Constitution ? It is well known now that a classification should not only be reasonable and intelligible but it should have a nexus or rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. If yes, whether such an action will be rational and justifiable under Article 14 of the Constitution ? It is well known now that a classification should not only be reasonable and intelligible but it should have a nexus or rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. We have already pointed out that the scheme is only to preserve the right and the safeguard the interest of those who had not completed their house job and were still doing the same when the Government Order was enforced. There will be no nexus or rational relationship with the object if the reservation is made exclusively in their favour under the offending provision, as contended on their behalf. 14. In matters of admission to Medical Colleges much less to a Post Graduate speciality, the primary consideration is and should be merit. The object of any rule which may be made for regulating the admission must be to admit the best and most meritorious student the selection of the cream should be the prime factor. As emphasised by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Saran v. Union of india, 1981 SCC Vol. II 768 at page 778-779 Para 57, in matters of admission to the M. D. and M. S. Courses Court should not allow excellence to be compromised by any other consideration and if that is allowed to be done, it would be detrimental to the interest of the nation. The scheme itself has discarded selection and has substituted it by competition. Therefore, even in the transitory period, merit alone should be the guiding factor unless grave injustice is caused to any particular section of students. We have already emphasised that no injustice would be caused to the contesting respondents if others too are allowed to compete with them even in the process of selection. We have indicated that the petitioners had completed one year in the house-job after 1st August, 1987. That apart, except Dr. Rashmi Punj Sinha, the petitioner in writ petition no. 22836 of 1989, all the other petitioners are admittedly whole-time students of diploma courses in one Post Graduate facility or the other. Under the scheme as contained in the Government Order they are to be deemed to be the students of the 2nd year residency course. That apart, except Dr. Rashmi Punj Sinha, the petitioner in writ petition no. 22836 of 1989, all the other petitioners are admittedly whole-time students of diploma courses in one Post Graduate facility or the other. Under the scheme as contained in the Government Order they are to be deemed to be the students of the 2nd year residency course. All of them are prepared to give up their diploma course if they are admitted to the Degree Course (2nd year). They are, therefore, entitled to be considered for admission to the 2nd year residency course.- We are not expressing any opinion as to whether under the relevant rules they are really eligible to be admitted by any Particular Post Graduate speciality. We are also not expressing any opinion as to whether under the relevant rules they can be permitted to leave their study of the diploma course in the mid-stream. These matters will be dealt with and decided by the Principal of the Medical College after he has entertained their applications and proceeds to consider them for admission, in a particular speciality to which they are seeking admission. 15. IN these petitions, initially interim orders have been passed restraining the Principal of the Medical College and others from finalizing the lists of admission to the various Post Graduate specialities. Upon applications made by some of the candidates and upon their giving express undertaking that if they are admitted provisionally they will not claim any right on the basis of their provisional admissions in the event of the success of these petitions, we relaxed the interim orders and permitted them to be admitted provisionally. We, however, made it clear that they would be seeking admission ' at their own risk and peril land they will not be entitled to press their rights on the basis of those admissions in the event of the success of these petitions. Therefore, we make it clear that if some- admissions have been made under our -orders during the pendency of these petitions, they shall automatically come to an end. 16. Therefore, we make it clear that if some- admissions have been made under our -orders during the pendency of these petitions, they shall automatically come to an end. 16. WE also make it clear that we did not intend to pass any interim order or issue any interim direction either directing or permitting the Principal of the Medical College to admit any student even provisionally, in seats other than those were subject .matters of the notice dated 21st September, 1989 issued by the Principal of the Medical College. In other words, our directions were confined to 75 per cent seats of Institutional preference under the two years Residency Scheme. We emphasise that we had not passed any order whatsoever with respect to open 25 per cent seats. These petitions succeed and are allowed. The admissions made, if any, to the 2nd year residency course in the Post Graduate specialities which are subject-matters of these petitions are quashed. The Principal of the Medical College shall now proceed to consider and dispose of applications of the petitioners on merit and in accordance with law along with the applications of others who are eligible and the contesting respondents in particular. He shall give a decision upon all the applications within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him by any of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.