JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioners are said to have applied for post graduate courses in the respondents' College in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 21-10-1987, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners were not admitted in any of the courses of their choice which was M. S. Gynaecology and second choice was Diploma in Gynaecology and third choice was for Diploms in Pathhlogy. The admissions in Post Graduate courses for the session 1987-88 (Diploma course) and 1987-89 (Degree course) was to commence in December, 1987. Domicile candidates of Uttar Pradesh were asked to apply for the admission in various courses given in the said notice. The petitioners claim that there were vacancies and seats were available in the courses in which they had applied, A competative examination was to be held for the session 1988-89 for diploma course and 1988-90 for degree course. For diploma course for 1987-88 session and degree course for 1987-89 session, no competative examination was to be held. The petitioners were amongst the external candidates and no external candidate was admitted in the speciality for which the petitioners are said to have given option. The petitioners claim that they were entitled to the admission but they have been refused their admission. On the basis of these pleadings the petitioners have prayed for grant of writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Principal to admit the petitioners in M. S. Gynaecology course and in the alternative in diploma course in Gynaecology. 2. On 26-5-1988 this. Court directed that the petitioners may be permitted to attend the classes of M. S. Gynaecology in the respondent-college. The said order was continued from time to time and on 28-9-1988 it was directed that the order dated 26-5-1988 shall continue. The Division Bench of this Court on 17-3-1989 seems to have asked the Principal of respondent No. 1's College to file personal affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the interim order dated 26-5-1988, extended on 28-9-1988 has not been obeyed. The Principal has filed a personal affidavit in the Court on 27-4-1989 in response, to the order of the Court dated 17-3-1989. The Principal has stated that the order dated 26-5-1988 whereby the petitioners were allowed to attend the classes for the M. S. Gynaecology was duly complied with. The Principal has filed a personal affidavit in the Court on 27-4-1989 in response, to the order of the Court dated 17-3-1989. The Principal has stated that the order dated 26-5-1988 whereby the petitioners were allowed to attend the classes for the M. S. Gynaecology was duly complied with. However, it was stated that there was no seat vacant, therefore, the petitioners could not be admitted on the basis of the merits. As the petitioners were external candidates, they were not entitled for, admission. It was stated that the petitioners were only permitted to attend the classes there was no specific order for giving admission to them. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26-5-1988 the, petitioners joined the classes on 6-6-1988. They subsequently absented themselves and did apt attend the classes. In the department of Gynaecology there were only nine teachers and ten students have already been admitted on the basis of recommendations of Medical Council of India. One candidate is in excess because students-teachers ratio has to be maintained which must be 1 : 1. Reference is made to the writ petition filed in Lucknow Bench, which has been dismissed. 3. In the main counter-affidavit which is filed to the writ petition on behalf of respondent No. 1 it is stated that the Government notification dated 15-12-1982 was modified by Government telex dated 28-1-1988. Copy of the telex is placed on record as Annexure-C. A.-1. It is stated that there were only 9 seats in M. S. Gynaecology and Obstetrics course and 12 seats in diploma in the said course. Out of which 75% seats have been filled up by internal candidates and remaining 25% seats are left to be filled up by the candidates to be selected through an All India Competition held by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and names of the candidates have not yet been received for the above vacant seats. It is stated that the petitioners could seek admission through All India Competitive examination and not directly, because they are external candidates. It is further stated by respondent No. 1 that the admissions have been done for the academic session 1988-90 and not for 1987-89 as alleged by the petitioners, hence they are not entitled for admission without qualifying in the All India Competitive examination held by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 4. It is further stated by respondent No. 1 that the admissions have been done for the academic session 1988-90 and not for 1987-89 as alleged by the petitioners, hence they are not entitled for admission without qualifying in the All India Competitive examination held by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 4. In their rejoinder-affidavit the petitioners state that the Government telex on which the respondents rely would apply to session 1988-90 and onwards. It has no relevance for the session in question. The interim orders of some writ petitions as also final order is one writ petition are appended to the rejoinder affidavit. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and also the documents and judgment placed on the record. The respondents' contention is that the petitioners could not be admitted as external candidates unless they would be selected in a competitive examination held by All India Institute of Medical Sciences as directed by the Supreme Court. The respondents' contention is that no session commenced for 1987-89. The academic session stated in 1988-90. The respondents relied on a judgment dated 30-8-1988 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. It appears that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2509 of 1988 decided on 30-8-1988 by Lucknow Bench had prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the other side to grant him admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses, in accordance with his merit, to the academic session beginning in 1987. The petitioners case in that writ petition was that he had applied in November, 1987 for admission, but he was not granted admission to diploma/degree course. In February, 1988 an advertisement was issued inviting application for admission to the course to be started in the year 1988. The petitioner were apprehensive that he may not get admission in the year 1988 because the selection process had been altered. He filed the writ petition alleging that no session could be started in 1987, therefore, he be admitted in 1988 sessions. The writ petition was dismissed. It was held that there was no 1987 session, therefore, the petitioner could not be directed to be admitted in the session which did not exist. 6. That judgment of Lucknow Bench is distinguishable because in that case advertisement notice was issued in February, 1988 and the .session also had to commence somewhere in 1988. The writ petition was dismissed. It was held that there was no 1987 session, therefore, the petitioner could not be directed to be admitted in the session which did not exist. 6. That judgment of Lucknow Bench is distinguishable because in that case advertisement notice was issued in February, 1988 and the .session also had to commence somewhere in 1988. Therefore, that advertisement could not be related to the session 1987. Moreover 1987 session had not at all been commenced due to strike. Therefore, the petitioner in that case was not granted relief in respect of the session which had not existed. 7. In the present case advertisement notice was issued in October, 1987 for the session which was to commence theoretically from December, 1987. For admission to the courses mentioned in the advertisement notice, the candidates should have completed one year compulsory relating internship and thereafter one year Housemanship or equivalent after full registration with State Medical Council completed upto 31st January, 1988. So the session 1987 was actually to begin after 31-1-1988 because the Housemanship was permitted to be completed upto 31-1-1988 which was a condition for the on to the post-graduate/diploma course. 8. 1987 session, therefore, was started in 1988. It is incorrect to suggest that there was no 1987 session as asserted by the respondents. They are probably trying to plead that the year of admission and the session are to synchronise. The advertisement notice does not appear to say so. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has produced a certified copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 16509 of 1988 decided on 27-1-1989 by the Division Bench of this Court. In that case the petitioner was an external candidate. He was refused the admission for 1987-89 session on the ground that from 1988 the admission procedure had changed. It was held that the procedure of selection through entrance test would apply to courses which commenced in 1988 and not to courses for session 1987-89. The petitioners have produced some interim orders of this Court in various writ petitions which show that in 1988 this Court had granted admission for the session 1987-89. The Writ Petition No. 7155 of 1988 decided on 19-5-1988 also had directed admission to post-graduate course for 1987-88 session to the petitioners in that case. 9. The petitioners have produced some interim orders of this Court in various writ petitions which show that in 1988 this Court had granted admission for the session 1987-89. The Writ Petition No. 7155 of 1988 decided on 19-5-1988 also had directed admission to post-graduate course for 1987-88 session to the petitioners in that case. 9. From what has been said above, it is clear that for the session 1987-88 degree and for the Session 1987-88 diploma, the admission was granted in 1988. Therefore, 1987-89 session which was definitely to commence practically after 31-1-1988 cannot be said to be session pertaining to year 1988-89. The commencement of session and year of admission are two distinct events which are not to be confused with each other. 10. 1982 criteria based on the Government order is sought to be changed through the telex message. A copy of the telex is appended to the counter-affidavit. The Government order cannot be amended by the telex message. For amending the Government order there has to be an expression in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the telex message cannot be treated to have changed the Government order which can be changed in a particular manner. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on the telex message to exclude the Government order of 1982 from considerations. 11. The petitioners were permitted to attend the classes which would mean that they were provisionally allowed to attend the classes of their choice, that is M. S. Gynaecology in the respondent No. 1's College. Therefore, they will be deemed to have completed the course if they have requisite percentage of attendance. They were also provisionally admitted for the Session 1987-89 and for that session it was not necessary for the petitioners to appear in the competitive examination conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences. That necessity arose from session 1988-90 and onwards. On the basis of merit in M.B.B.S. the petitioners could be admitted to the post-graduate course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics in respondent No. 1's College again 25% quota as external candidates for 1987-89 session. They were domicile of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the advertisement notice of October, 1987 applied to them and in pursuance to that notice they had applied for admission for M. S. Gynaecology for the session 1987-59 or in alternative to the diploma course 1987-88. They were domicile of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the advertisement notice of October, 1987 applied to them and in pursuance to that notice they had applied for admission for M. S. Gynaecology for the session 1987-59 or in alternative to the diploma course 1987-88. For the said session there was no competitive examination or entrance test provided. Telex message would not effect their right. They could be admitted in terms of 1982's Government order on the basis of their merit. Therefore, their exclusion from the selection to the said course by the respondents was invalid and based on consideration which are extraneous to the facts of the case. 12. The respondents are, therefore, directed to admit the petitioners to M. S. Gynaecology course for the session 1987-89 and treat them as a regular students with effect from the date they were permitted to sit in the classes in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 26-5-1988. The respondents are also directed to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination of M.S. Gynaecology and allow them to complete all the formalities which arc required to be completed for the said course. 13. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.