JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioner has been denied admission to the second year Residence Course in M.D. (Obstetrics and Gyanecology) in the Mod Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as the College). Hence this petition. 2. The petitioner passed the M.B.B.S. examination from a Medical College in the State of Bihar and secured an aggregate of 68 per cent. She worked as a House Surgeon in Obstetrics and Gynecology during the period 15th December, 1987, to 31st December, 1988 in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, a teaching unit of the Medical College for obstetrics and Gynecology. Out of 8 seats in M.D. Obstetrics and Gynecology in the Medical College were reserved for internal candidates and two are reserved for external candidates. The Principal of the Medical College has filled up all the 8 seats by admitting internal candidates and without considering the cases of any external candidate. All the candidates who have been admitted in the said course, secured an aggregate ranging from 63.15 per cent 60.33 per cent in the M.B.B.S examination. The last two candidates, who have been admitted the Dr. Juhi Jain, who secured an aggregate of 60.67 per cent and Dr. Padma Panjwani, who secured an aggregate of 60.33 per cent. Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani are arrayed as respondents No. 4 and 5 to this petition. 3. This petition has not been formally admitted as yet. However, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for parties, we heard this petition with a view to dispose it of finally. Accordingly, we arc doing so. 4. By the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1989, a new scheme for the purpose of admission to Post Graduate specialities, 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 Degrees course has been fixed as three year, whereas the duration of the Diploma course had been fixed as two years. The scheme provides that the minimum requirement to be eligible for admission to a Post Graduate speciality, either Degree or Diploma, is that a candidate should pass the M.B.B.S. examination and should have one year's in internship to his or her a credit. The scheme provides that the minimum requirement to be eligible for admission to a Post Graduate speciality, either Degree or Diploma, is that a candidate should pass the M.B.B.S. examination and should have one year's in internship to his or her a 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 Slate medical Colleges, including the K.G. Medical College, Lucknow were made in accordance with the common state of Rules Certain norms were also laid down by the medical Counsel of India for the purpose of admission to the post Graduate speciality. One of the conditions enumerated was that if any candidate had been admitted in Post Graduate diploma or degree, come 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 n 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 of 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 in 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 check 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. 5. Apart from the increase in the duration of the course and the changes effected with respect to the minimum qualifications, as indicated above, in brief, the salient feature of the Residency arc these. Admissions to the first year are to be made 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. Admissions to the first year are to be made 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, admissions to the 75 per cent seats to the various specialities Degree or Diploma courses 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. 6. The Suite Government has been issuing statutory Notifications in the purported exercise of powers under sub-section (5) of section 28 of the U.P. State universities Act, 1973 (thereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of regulating admission to Medical Colleges in this Stale, one such Notification was issued on 26th April, 1986. By this notification the Slate Government inter alia, purported to amend paragraph 4 of the statutory notification notified in the Gazette on 15 in December. 1982, It will be profitable to extract the amended paragraph 4 in its entirety :- "(a) In every speciality seventy five percent seats in a particular Medical College shall be reserved for the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from that college and against the remaining twenty-five percent seats, candidates who have passed M.B.B.S. examination from other Medical Colleges and are bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh, shall be eligible for admission on the basis of merit along with the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from that very Colleges. (b) The open twenty five percent seats shall be considered first and the reserved seventy five percent shall be taken up after that." In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a direction that the open 25 per cent seats should be filled up on the basis of an All India Examination. 7. It is to be remembered that statutory notifications issued prior to the enforcement of the Residency Scheme were confined lo regulating admission to the first year of a Post Graduate speciality either Degree of Diploma. Likewise, the thrust of the Residency Scheme is lo regulate the admissions to the first year of the Post Graduate speciality cither Degree or Diploma. It is to be remembered that statutory notifications issued prior to the enforcement of the Residency Scheme were confined lo regulating admission to the first year of a Post Graduate speciality either Degree of Diploma. Likewise, the thrust of the Residency Scheme is lo regulate the admissions to the first year of the Post Graduate speciality cither Degree or Diploma. In fact, but for a rider to Paragraph 5 of the Residency Scheme, which is hereafter called the "offending provision", the scheme would be silent shout the admission to the second year Residency course. We may resisted at this stage that the scheme provides for admission to the 25 per cent open (seats reserved for external candidates) by means of all. All India competitive examination. This however, is confined to the admission in the first year of the three year Residency Course. 8. The counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Principal of the Medical College as well as on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 emphasis that since no all India competition has take place for filling up the two sears all the eight seats are to be filled up by considering the cases of the internal candidates. In our opinion the stand taken by the Principal as well as the contesting respondent is fallacious. Admission to the second year Residency course had take place during the period of interregnum when the system of one year House Job is being abolished and admissions have to be made in the normal course either by means of all India examination or an internal competitive examination and these examination are to be held for admitting students to the first year of the three year course. There can B.A. no stage a question of holding an all India examination for admission to the second year Residency course Admission to the second year Residency Course has been introduced in order to compensate those candidates who have completed one hear house job after passing M.B.B.S. examination and after completing one year internship. 9. It is not in dispute that on 21st September, 1989 the Principal of the Medical College issued a notice inviting applications or 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 Legal bodies etc. will also submit their applications. The opening paragraph of the notice may be extracted. will also submit their applications. The opening paragraph of the notice may be extracted. "Applications are invited from Medical Graduates of M.L.N. Medical College Allahabad, for selection to the following Post graduate Course for the Session 1989-90 on 76% seats of Institutional preference under 2 years Residency Scheme latest by 30th Sept. 1989." It is not in dispute that all the 8 candidates, who have been admitted in the M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynecology) course, inducing the respondents no. 4 and 5, made applications in pursuance of the said notice. It is also not in dispute that instead of filling up the 75 per cent seats of institutional preference, the Principal filled up all the seats, that is, all the 8 seats. 10. The Government order dated 22nd August, 1989 was not notified in the U.P. Gazette at all when the same was initially issued. However, it was published in the U.P. Gazette on 25th November, 1989. It a delectable as to whether the Government Order, even though published in the official Gazette on 25th November, 1989, should be treated as a statutory order as contemplated by the provisions of subsection (5) of section 28 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to decide this controversy in this case because a decision on this aspect of the matter would be purely an academic one. We are proceeding on the assumption that the said Order Notification has been issued in the purported exercise of power under sub-section (5) of the Section 28 of the Act. 11. Heaving read and re-read the Notification dated 25th November, 1989, by which the Government order dated 22nd August, 1989 was published and the previous notifications issued under sub-section (5) of section 28, particularly the one issued on 26th April, 1986, we are of the opinion that there is no conflict of what soever between the terms of the last Notification and the Notification dated 26lh April, 1986, we have already emphasised that amended paragraph 4 as inserted by the Notification dated 20th April, 1986, dealt with a situation when an all India competitive examination for admission to the open 25 per cent seats had not been envisaged. We have already indicated that an all India examination for admission to the open 25 per dent seats in the second year Residency course was not and could not be envisaged. We have already indicated that an all India examination for admission to the open 25 per dent seats in the second year Residency course was not and could not be envisaged. The Supreme Court gave a direction only with regard to the admission to the first year of the post Graduate/speciality courses for filling up the open 25 per cent seats. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in taking the view that the 8 seats in the M.D. (Obstetric and Gynecology) course should have been filled up in accordance with the policy as laid down in Paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) aforeuoated and as inserted by the Notification dated 26th April, 1986. It follows that the petitioner and the other external candidates were wrongly excluded from being considered for admission to the second year Residency course in M.D.Obstetric and Gynecology. It also follows that the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been illegally admitted in die second year course and their admissions are liable to be set aside. 12. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 upon two unreported judgments of this Court. The first is in writ petition No. 1739 of 88 (Dr. A. Lal v. Principal GS.VM. Medical College and others) decided on 12th May, 1988. It will be seen at once that this decision was given prior to the enforcement of the Residency Scheme. It relates to admission in the M. S. course in Surgery, which was then a three years course. This Court emphasised that if no candidate had been admitted in the open 25 per cent seats on the basis of an all India examination and the seats were lying vacant, the same should be filled up by admitting the internal candidates. This Court have effect to the series of decisions of the Supreme Court that seats in Medical Colleges should not be allowed to remain vacant that was not a case where an external candidate had not been considered at all for admission to the open 25 per cent seats. This case, therefore, is not opposite. 13. The second decision was given by a bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 8181 of 1989 (Dr. N.P. Pandey and others v. Post Graduate admission, Committee State Medical Colleges of U.P. through the Director of Medial Education, U.P. Lucknow & others) decided on 5th October, 1989. This case, therefore, is not opposite. 13. The second decision was given by a bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 8181 of 1989 (Dr. N.P. Pandey and others v. Post Graduate admission, Committee State Medical Colleges of U.P. through the Director of Medial Education, U.P. Lucknow & others) decided on 5th October, 1989. This was a decision given by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon'ble S.K. Dhaon, J.) was a member. Before commending on this judgment, we may indicate that the statutory Notifications dated 15th December, 1982 and 26th April, 1986 provided that admission to the Post Graduate specialities in all the Medical Colleges of the State were to be made by a High Power Admission Committee to whom a list of all eligible candidates were to be submitted by the Principal of the Medical Colleges concerned. As already indicated, under the Residency Scheme admission by a High Power Committee has been given a go by a and it is now contemplated that a combined competitive examination will be held even for the admission of the internal candidates. We have already indicated that during the period of interregnum when arrangements for holding a competitive examination had not been completed admissions have to be made on the basis of the merit in the M.B.B.S. examination and the performance of the particular candidate in the House-job. It is to be noted that in the writ petition under reference the post Graduate Admission Committee was implead as one of the respondents. This court's attention was not drawn to the fact that admissions were being made under the Residency Scheme. It was also not brought to the notice of this Court that the controversy related to the admission in the second year Residency course. A clear impression was given to this Court that admissions were being made on the basis of the statutory orders issued under subsection (5) of section 28 and there were vacancies even in regard to open 25 percent seats as no candidate had been recommended for admission on the basis of an all India competitive examination. In this back-drop we are extracting the relevant passage from the said judgment on which reliance has been placed by Sri Markandy Katju, counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5. 14. In this back-drop we are extracting the relevant passage from the said judgment on which reliance has been placed by Sri Markandy Katju, counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5. 14. Under the relevant regulations, 75% of the scats in a particular speciality are reserved for internal candidates and in the remaining 25% of the seats candidates who compete on All India basis and whose admissions are recorded by the All India Institute of Medical-Sciences, arc admitted. In the aforesaid specialities, wherein the petitioners desire admission, so far no external candidate has been admitted and there is no possibility in the near future of any of the seats meant to be given to the external candidates being filled up. It is, therefore, urged that this court should direct the respondents to fill up the remaining 25% seats by admitting internal candidates. The argument appears to be plausible. If all India Institute of Medical Sciences has not recommended any candidate for admission in the remaining 25% seals in the specialities in which the petitioners desire admission, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law along with the cases of other internal candidates for admission in the concerned specialities. We have already emphasised that the question of holding open 25 percent seats in the second year Residency course could and did not arise. It is thus evidence that this Court was given an impression and it proceeded on the assumption that the controversy was with regard to the admission to the first year of the three year M.S. Surgery course. This case, therefore, has no application at all to the facts of the present case. 15. An additional argument advanced on behalf of-the contesting respondents is that on a reading of the offending provision as contained in paragraph 5 of the Residency Scheme, in any view of the matter, only that candidate who was during house job on 22nd August, 1989, and who completed that job thereafter is eligible for being considered for admission in the open 25 percent scats in the second year Residency course. In substance, the contents of paragraph 5, which arc 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. In substance, the contents of paragraph 5, which arc 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 : mDr jsthMsUlh ykxw gksus ij fnukad 1 vxLr] 1987 ls dk;Zjr lHkh gkml vkQhlj --------------- izLrkfor u;s inksa ij fuEukuqlkj ifjofrZr gks tk;sxsaA 16. At serial no. 1 are mentioned House Officer/Demonstrator, first year. They have/been nomenclature 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 second year/P.G. Degree student first year/P.G. Diploma student first year are mentioned. They are nomenclature 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/postgraduate (P.G.) Degree student second year. They are nomenclature as Junior Resident third year. A combined reading of serial nos. 1, 2 and 3 will indicate that after December in serial no. 1 there should have 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 House-job was, formerly, only of a duration of one year and, therefore, first year as mentioned in serial no. 1 does not relate to a House Officer. 17. Now we come to the offending provision which, in Hindi, reads : " blds lkFk gks lkFk ml l;e esa dk;Zjr gkml vkQhlj dk dk;kZdky iwjk gksus ds i'pkr~ LukrdksRrj ikB~;dzeksa ( fMxzh@fMIyksek ikB~;dze ) esa izos'k rFkk iathdj.k ,e0ch0ch0,l0 esfjV rFkk gkml tkWc ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA " The English rendering of the aforesaid Hindi version is 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. 18. We may reiterate that the controversy in this petition centres round the admission to the second year Residency course or to second year post Graduate Degree course alone. This situation has arisen is a result of the enforcement of the Residency Scheme by which inter alia, one year House-job has been done away with. 18. We may reiterate that the controversy in this petition centres round the admission to the second year Residency course or to second year post Graduate Degree course alone. This situation has arisen is 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, 1989, and who were to complete their House-job thereafter would be eligible for admission to the second year Residency Course ? To pul it differently whither 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 cither 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.B.B.S. course and the particular year in which he passed the M.B.B.S. Final examination. 19. 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 per 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 Graduate within a period of two years of their completing one year House job. They were to be kept at per 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 Graduate 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 die first year. Residency Course along with the either candidates on the basis of their performance in the M.B.B.S. examination and one year internship. Such a situations 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. 20. The framers of the Scheme did not either expressly or by implication intend to confine the selection to the second year 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 what so ever to exclude a candidate, not undergoing one year House-job on the date of enforcement of the Residency Scheme, however meritorious he or she may be, from being considered for admission to the second year Residency Course. 21. 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 had 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 tire process of selection during the interregnum, Nothing is said about the admission to the second year Residency Course. It is emphasised that in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the scheme provisions are made for admission to the first year Residency course by tire process of selection during the interregnum, Nothing is said about the admission to the second year Residency Course. It is submitted that the words, ml le; 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, 1989, 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 : mDr jsthMsUlh ;kstuk ykxw gksus ij fnukad 1 vxLr 1987 ls dk;Zjr lHkh gkml vkQhljA We have already indicated that the Residence Scheme 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" ml le; refers to the definite date referred to in paragraph 6, namely, 1st August, 1987. We have already emphasised that the offending provision 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 State Government is not to deprive them of the benefit of one year House-job. 22. 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 an Junior Resident first year, in other words, all those who had after 1st August, 1987, completed their term as House Officer or Demonstrator first year would be eligible for being considered for admission to a post Graduate speciality, either Degree or Diploma in the second 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. 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, framer of the scheme intended to create a monopoly, for die purpose of being considered for admission to the second year Residency courses during the period of interregnum, in favour of those falling within the purview of the offending provisions. 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 to 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. 23. 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 87, 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. 24. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The admission of the respondents no. 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. 24. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The admission of the respondents no. 4 and 5 to the second year Residency Course in M.D. Obstetrics and Gynecology is quashed. The Principal on the Medial College is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and the other external candidates, who arc eligible for admission to the open 25 percent seats, on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. The Principal shall make the necessary admissions in respect of open 25 percent seats in M.D. obstetrics and Gynecology within a period of two weeks from the dale of presentation of certified copy of this order by the petitioner before him. 25. There shall be no order as to coats.