JUDGMENT 1. - This bunch of seven writ petitions relates to admissions to Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, at Post-Graduation level. 2. It is well-settled that effort must always be to select the best and the most meritorious students for admissions to technical institutions and-to Medical Col- leges, by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the country. Obviously, the object of any valid scheme of admissions must be to select the best candidates for being admitted to Medical Colleges; and if any departure is to be made from the principle of selection on the basis of merit, it must be justified on the touch- stone of Article-14 of the Constitution. What are the limited circumstances in which departure can justifiably be made from the principle of selection, based on merit, should be considered. Departure can be justified only on equality-oriented grounds; and it must satisfy the test of equality, enshrined in the Constitution. The concept of equality is a dynamic concept. It takes within its sweep every process of equalisation and protective discrimination. Poet William Blake said, "One law for the Lion and the Ox, is oppression". Although, in the case of D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334 , the Supreme Court was dealing with a different matter, but, it was observed as under: "The object of framing the impugned rule seems to be to attempt to impart medical education to the best talent available out of the class of persons who are likely, so far as it can reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doctors, the inhabitants of the State of Mysore." 3. In the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of India and others etc., AIR 1984 SC 1420 , which has become a leading case, it was laid down at page-1441, in para-22: "...different considerations must prevail when we come to consider the question of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for admission to the post-graduate courses, such as, MD, MS, and the like. There, we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other considerations, because that would be detrimental to the interest of the nation. There, we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other considerations, because that would be detrimental to the interest of the nation. It was rightly pointed out by Krishna lyer, J. in Jagdish Saran's case ( AIR 1980 SC 820 ).....The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequences, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devaluate merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. In science and technology and other specialised fields of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave national risk because in advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people of India should not be denied the best of the nation's talent...... We would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university, but, such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council, in the same manner, as directed by us in the case of admissions to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-graduate courses, we would direct that so far as super-specialities, such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions should be granted purely on merit, on all-India basis." 4. As a back-drop of the development of law regarding admissions to medical courses, a brief review may be made. In Dr. As a back-drop of the development of law regarding admissions to medical courses, a brief review may be made. In Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), decided on 22nd June, 84, the Supreme Court had directed that the directions made by it in that case with regard to MBBS-Course, should be considered by the Indian Medical Council, within a period of nine months, whether the outer-limit of 70 per cent fixed by the Court, for MBBS-Course, needs to be reduced. Some of the students seeking admission to MBBS-Course in the academic-session 1984-85, made an application to the Supreme Court that the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), might be given effect to only from the next academic-session, because, admissions had already been made to the Medical Colleges in the country prior to delivery of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra). Consequently, in the case of Reita Nirankari v. University of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 1569 , it was directed that the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) would be implemented with effect from the academic-year 1985-86. However, the judgment was not made applicable to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, because, there were special constitutional provisions in regard to them. 5. Then, came another important case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, AIR 1985 SC 1059 . This case was an off-shoot of the decision rendered in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra). It appeared that nothing was done either by the Government of India, or by the Indian Medical Council to hold an All-India Competitive Entrance Examination to MBBS-Course, so far as 30 per cent non-reserved seats were concerned, and some of the State Governments were proposing to fill up the minimum 30 per cent non-reserved seats for the MBBS- Course, on the basis of the marks obtained by the students at the qualifying examinations held by different States or Universities, totally ignoring the fact that the standard of judging at these different qualifying examinations, cannot, by its very nature, be uniform. There would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative merits of the students can be judged. The Supreme Court directed that the admissions must be based on evaluation of relative merits through an entrance examination which would be open to all candidates throughout the country, in relation to non-reserved seats. There would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative merits of the students can be judged. The Supreme Court directed that the admissions must be based on evaluation of relative merits through an entrance examination which would be open to all candidates throughout the country, in relation to non-reserved seats. Some misunderstanding with regard to the interpretation regarding the percentage of non-reserved seats, was also made clear by the Supreme Court, in this case. There was some difficulty in implementation of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case, in relation to State of Uttar Pradesh; and one or two other States, as the students there had to do house-job for one year, and then, they could seek admission to one or other of the PG-Courses, which were of two years' duration. Admission to PG- Courses in such cases took place after the completion of the house-job. In relation to them, it was directed that the old rules which prevailed prior to the delivery of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), would apply, subject, however, that if the house-job was commenced subsequent to that judgment, the admissions to the two-year PG-Courses would be governed by the new principle laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra). It was also held that the Principal, MLN Medical- College, Allahabad, (for short, "the Allahabad Medical College") could not grant admissions to 50 per cent non-reserved seats in PG-Courses, on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinations, held by the different universities, as admissions to them could be made only through a common Entrance Examination, where the merits of the candidates could be tested and a comparative valuation could be made on the basis of a common standard; and that such admissions were not valid. However, the admissions were not struck down as they had already been made, and the students who had already been admitted, were not party to the writ petition, and they had by that time, already prosecuted their studies for about three months. Some direction with regard to admission of the petitioner was given. However, the admissions were not struck down as they had already been made, and the students who had already been admitted, were not party to the writ petition, and they had by that time, already prosecuted their studies for about three months. Some direction with regard to admission of the petitioner was given. The writ petition was, however, not finally disposed of; and it was ordered that it might be disposed of after considering the scheme put forward by the Indian Medical Council on the issuing of necessary directions to the Government of India; and State Governments and universities, for holding the necessary entrance examinations. The writ petition of Dr. Dinesh Kumar (supra), again came up for further consideration before the Supreme Court, in the case of Dinesh Kr. v. MLN Medical College, Allahabad AIR 1986 SC 1877 . It appears that in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court, a scheme was prepared by the Medical Council of India and was circulated amongst the various State Governments and Deans of Medical Faculties. After considering the matter, a modified scheme was prepared. In relation to the modified scheme, various submissions were made before the Supreme Court. It was directed that not less than 15 per cent of the total number of seats in each Medical College or institution, without taking into account any reservations validly made, shall be filled in on the basis of All-India Entrance Examination in relation to MBBS/BDS Course; and that in relation to PG-Courses, not less than 25 per cent of the total number of seats, without taking into account any reservations, shall be made available for being filled in on the basis of All-India Entrance Examination. It was further ordered that tentative programme for All-India Entrance Examination for admissions to PG-Courses should be that a general announcement should be made in the last week of November. The last date for request for application-form by post should be 10th January; from cash-counter - 20th January; and the last date for receiving application-forms should be 31st January. It was further ordered that tentative programme for All-India Entrance Examination for admissions to PG-Courses should be that a general announcement should be made in the last week of November. The last date for request for application-form by post should be 10th January; from cash-counter - 20th January; and the last date for receiving application-forms should be 31st January. It was ordered that the competitive tests must be held in the middle of March; and result should be declared in the first week of May; and that, if any difficulty was found in following the above programme, it was open to the Government of India, to alter it in such a manner, as it thought fit, after consultation with the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Medical Council of India. The writ petitions were ordered to be taken up for hearing on 4th Aug., 86, for confirmation of the revised schemes prepared by the Government of India, in accordance with the directions given in the judgment. 6. Upon an interlocutory application on behalf of the MLN Medical College, Allahabad, the matter relating to Dr. Dinesh Kumar 's case (supra), again came up before the Supreme Court, as would appear from the decision in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, and others, 1990(4) SCC 627 . In the interlocutory application, the respondents asked for grant of time to the State of UP, for implementing the judgment and order dated 25th Sept. 87 and to commence the session for post-graduation education from 2nd May, 90 in all the seven Medical Colleges; and further to permit the State of UP to hold a competitive examination for admitting the post-graduate students for the year 1990, through the University of Lucknow. In this case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: It was the obligation of the State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the two orders referred to above to initiate action for admission in appropriate time so as to allow the commencement of the course for the year 1990, with effect from May 2, 1990. It is the respondents' stand that for the year 1990, the entrance examination for the remaining seats (besides 25 per cent controlled by the ALLMS) was to be conducted by the University of Lucknow on May 27, 1990. It is the respondents' stand that for the year 1990, the entrance examination for the remaining seats (besides 25 per cent controlled by the ALLMS) was to be conducted by the University of Lucknow on May 27, 1990. This itself was contrary, to the scheme and exhibited the same pattern of conduct as appeared in the Bihar case..... At one stage, we were thinking of initiating contempt action against the State and the Principals of the seven medical colleges. Such steps for disciplining the State and the public authorities concerned would result in multiplicity of proceedings; therefore, instead of undertaking such an exercise, we have thought it appropriate to impose exemplary costs against the State of Uttar Pradesh as also the Principal of each of the seven medical colleges. We direct that the State of UP shall pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) while each of the Principals shall pay Rs. 500/- (five hundred) by way of costs ................ Before we part with the case, we would like to again administer a warning to everyone associate with the scheme for implementing the directions contained in the main judgment and the subsequent orders that a future default by anyone in any part of the country shall indeed be seriously viewed and drastically dealt with......Meticulous compliance is the only way to respond to directions of this Court." Similar admonition was given to the State of Bihar in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha and others, (1990)4 SCC 27 . 7. To continue the narration, reference may be made particularly to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Jeevak Al-mast v. Union of India and others, (1988) 4 SCC 27 . The petitioner in that case, was an unsuccessful candidate for admission to PG Medical Course, in the All-India Entrance Examination, held by the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences. He filed a writ petition to quash the list of the successful candidates for admission to the Post- Medical Colleges within the 25 per cent reserved quota, and for a writ of man-damus to the respondents to admit him and similarly placed other candidates against the 1500 and odd seats left out due to the arbitrary decision/action of the respondents. He filed a writ petition to quash the list of the successful candidates for admission to the Post- Medical Colleges within the 25 per cent reserved quota, and for a writ of man-damus to the respondents to admit him and similarly placed other candidates against the 1500 and odd seats left out due to the arbitrary decision/action of the respondents. Since the bulletin prepared by the respondents in that case was on the basis of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court, from the academic year 1988-89, the Court rejected the claim of the petitioner, challenging the examination. It was brought to the notice of the Court that reservation of 25 per cent for the All- India Entrance Test, meant about 2050 to 2100 seats to be filled in by the selection-test. About 30,000 candidates had appeared at the selection-test, but, respondent No.2 (AIIMS) found only 500 students fit, strictly in terms of the scheme, for being admitted against 25 percent reservation in the PG-Course. As a result of this, about 1600 seats could not be filled in in terms of the scheme. One of the questions for consideration was as to whether those unfilled seats should revert back to the respective States or institutions, or what other method should be adopted to fill up the vacancies. There was a total unanimity amongst all the parties that no scat should go unfilled. After obtaining information, it was found that the total number of such reserved seats might not exceed 300. In the interest of all, it was directed to AIIMS, to supply to each State or Union Territory from where candidates had appeared at the Entrance test, candidates-wise particulars confined to such State within 10 days. Once those particulars were available, the Selection Committee operating in the State or in the Union Territory, or in the respective colleges, as the case might be, should draw up a list of the remaining candidates, seeking admission as against 75 per cent of the seats, and of the candidates who had taken the All-India Entrance Examination, but, had not been found fit on the basis of the marks secured in their respective selection tests and in the event of there being no selection test. Once a common list was drawn up on the basis of performance, admissions to the remaining seats in the post-graduation courses could be taken up. Once a common list was drawn up on the basis of performance, admissions to the remaining seats in the post-graduation courses could be taken up. The Court did not propose to vacate the admissions already effected till the date of the delivery of the judgment on 12th Aug., 88 inclusive in respect of the seats in the reserved quota. It was directed that once the common list was drawn up on the basis of performance, admissions to the remaining seats in PG-Courses could be taken up. 8. The decision in Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 44 , related to admissions to PG Medical Courses in Andhra Pradesh, which were governed by Article 371-D(2) (b) (iii) and (c) (ii) of the Constitution; and the Presidential Order, cited as AP Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974. It was observed in that case that the scheme in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), was in national interest, as also in the interest of the States. Competition at the national level is bound to add to and improve quality. 9. In Fazal Chafoor v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 48 , it was observed that so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh was concerned, the position was as envisaged in the Presidential Order. Reference was made to Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), where the Court had observed that in super-specialities, there should really be no reservation. It was hoped and trusted that the Government of India and the State Governments would seriously consider the aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines would be evolved by the Indian Medical Council, so as to keep the super-specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free. 10. In Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal and others v. State of UP and others, AIR 1991 SC 498 , the State of UP had fixed up a cut-off date for completion of internship, as 31st Dec., 90, though it had notified the examination for 27th May, 90. It had been directed by the Supreme Court in its earlier decision that it was not open to the UP Government to hold the examination on 27th May,90, when the session for the year was to start on 22nd May, 90. It had been directed by the Supreme Court in its earlier decision that it was not open to the UP Government to hold the examination on 27th May,90, when the session for the year was to start on 22nd May, 90. In that order of the Supreme Court, no reference was made to fixation of 31st Dec., 90 as the cut-off date for completion of house man ship, because, that matter had already been dealt with in the Bihar- Case. In holding the examination after the Supreme Court's direction, the State of UP lost sight of the fact that in the Bihar-Case, it had been indicated that the cut- off date beyond the commencement of the session would not be tenable, and thus, admitted candidates who had not completed their house man ship to the selection examination, and many of them had been found to have qualified for examination. In such circumstances, there were, before the Supreme Court, a set of candidates who had satisfied the requisite conditions and had qualified for selection; and one another set of candidates who had taken the selection-examination; had qualified; but, had not finished their internship by then. There was a challenge to the validity of 50 per cent qualifying-base in the selection-test. It was observed by the Supreme Court that it was a specialised study and being Post-Graduate Course in the Medical Faculty, the most eligible and qualified students should have access to the courses for the ultimate special good. The Court observed : "We cannot lose sight of the fact that on account of the irregular steps taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh, a group of candidates have been invited to sit at a selection examination before they have acquired the requisite qualification and have been selected for admission. These candidates who are before us have been anxiously waiting for their admission. Similarly, there is a group of students who have had the full qualification and have been selected. Specialisation is the main basis of Post-Graduate Study. Every candidate has indicated his or her preference in regard to specialisation. These candidates who are before us have been anxiously waiting for their admission. Similarly, there is a group of students who have had the full qualification and have been selected. Specialisation is the main basis of Post-Graduate Study. Every candidate has indicated his or her preference in regard to specialisation. We are of the view that the admissions in respect of about 549 seats said to represent 75% of the State Quota in the seven Medical Colleges for the session 1990-91, should, therefore, be completed on the basis as indicated below: (1) Those candidates who have had the requisite qualification, i.e., had become full-fledged degree-holders on or before 2-5-1990 and have been selected for admission should be put into Category-A. Admission to them shall be given first with their preferred speciality; and (2) Those candidates who had not completed their internship by 2-5-1990 and have, in the meantime, completed or are going to complete the same by 31-12-1990 and have been found qualified for admission in the (sic) thereafter be admitted." It may be stated that keeping their respective merit in view, the Supreme Court waived the requirement of completion of internship as a condition precedent to (11) AIR 1991 SC 498 . admission to PG-Course. However, it was made clear that thereafter, no one would be admitted without complying with the requirements of the Act; the rules; and the regulations. A warning was given to the Government of UP and the Principals of the Medical Colleges located therein that any further infraction would be severely dealt with. 11. Reference may next be made to the decision in the Principal, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others v. Dr. Vandana Singh and others, AIR 1991 SC 792 . This case related to admission of external candidates, for the session 1989-90, to II-Year of PG-Course, in the Medical Faculty, in the colleges in Uttar Pradesh, for 25 per cent seats reserved for them. The admissions were considered under the Residency Scheme dated 22nd Aug., 89, where under, seats were to be filled in on the basis of examination conducted by the AIIMS. There was, how- ever, no possibility of such examination being held for admissions to course for the session 1989-90. The admissions were considered under the Residency Scheme dated 22nd Aug., 89, where under, seats were to be filled in on the basis of examination conducted by the AIIMS. There was, how- ever, no possibility of such examination being held for admissions to course for the session 1989-90. It was observed : In this state of affairs, one possible view which the High Court has taken is that these seats must be kept reserved for external candidates and the college must now take steps to invite external candidates - in accordance with the terms contained in the notification dated 26-4-86, if that notification were applicable - and select them in the order of merit. The college, however, took the view that since no all India candidates were available on the basis postulated in the scheme, it would be appropriate to throw open the entire 100% to institutional candidates. It is not suggested that this proposal was actuated by any mala fides. Their Lordships stated that it may be that this was not the only view possible and that it was also possible to take the view that the college should have advertised those posts and filled them up by external candidates on the basis of merit. If that was so, such advertisement could not be applied to persons who were residents of UP, as was envisaged by the notification dated 26th Apr., 86. That notification had been issued at a time when the concept of all-India reservation for 25% of the seats had not been adumbrated by Supreme Court. Even if it was assumed that the High Court was right that eligibility could not be restricted only to those who had already applied, but, had to be thrown open to all external candidates fulfilling the qualifications. That process could not be completed within two weeks, as directed by the High Court. To call for applications from all external candidates and select them, either on the basis of an examination or otherwise, was thought to be a very lengthy and time-consuming process. It was held that the State Government and the college could not be faulted for having decided to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to institutional candidates. To call for applications from all external candidates and select them, either on the basis of an examination or otherwise, was thought to be a very lengthy and time-consuming process. It was held that the State Government and the college could not be faulted for having decided to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to institutional candidates. This was a decision taken only for a transitional period, because, from 1990 onwards admissions would be regulated on the basis of an All-India Examination, to be con- ducted by the AIIMS every year for all Medical Colleges in India. The decision of the State Government and of the colleges was, therefore, a practical one to tide over a transitional difficulty, and there was no justification to upset the same on the basis of a solitary application from an external candidate. 12. In Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of Up and others, Air 1991 SC 1131 , the main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that till as late as on 4th Jan., 91, some admissions had been given. The Supreme Court observed that the Court had already indicated in its previous orders that the course throughout India was intended to commence on a particular date, and therefore, admissions must be over prior to the date of such commencement. The intention of the Court had been to appropriately regulate the teaching in Medical Colleges both at the under-Graduate as also at the Post-Graduate levels. However, it was observed that the intention of the Court was not being kept in view by the authorities charged with the implementation, and therefore, the scheme was not getting enforced in the proper way. In that case, it was held that the course had started in September, for the session. It was a technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct. The application of the petitioner was rejected. 13. The review of the decisions Would not be complete without referring to the decision in UP Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others (1990)4 SCC 633 . It was a technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct. The application of the petitioner was rejected. 13. The review of the decisions Would not be complete without referring to the decision in UP Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others (1990)4 SCC 633 . The facts of this case go to show that on 25th May, 1990, a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court pissed an order stating that it had been brought to the notice of the Court that the opposite parties had violated the time-schedule framed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case (supra), in organising the competition to be held on 27th May, 90 by the Lucknow University, for admissions to PG Medical Courses in the State Medical Colleges. Keeping in view, the opposite parties were directed not to hold the competitive examination scheduled for 27th May, 90 and admit the petitioners to PG Medical Courses in that session on the basis of marks obtained in the MBBS- Course. On the basis of the above order of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, a learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench made an order on 24th June, 90, directing that steps be taken on the basis of the direction made on 25th May, 90 by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, for giving admissions to candidates to PG Course. The net result of these two orders was that the selection-examination for filling up of the seats in the PC Medical Courses of the seven Medical Colleges in UP, had been canceled; and a direction had been issued to the State Government to grant admissions on the basis of the MBBS result. The Supreme Court, by order dated 21st Aug., 90 directed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court to transmit the record, wherein, the order dated 25th May, 90 was stated to have been made by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Registrar, Allahabad High Court, intimated the Supreme Court that there was no such case, and that no judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anshuman Singh on 25th May, 90, in the said case. The Registrar, Allahabad High Court, intimated the Supreme Court that there was no such case, and that no judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anshuman Singh on 25th May, 90, in the said case. It was further mentioned that a fake judgment was said to have been produced before different Medical Colleges, purporting to have been delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anshuman Singh on 25th May, 90. The Supreme Court observed that it was manifest that a fake order in a non-existent writ petition was produced before the Lucknow Bench. On the basis of that fake order, some admissions had been secured to some of the Medical Colleges. It was stated that those students could not be allowed to continue in PG-Courses. There was a deep-seated conspiracy which brought about the fake order from Allahabad. A criminal investigation appeared to have been ordered in the matter, by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 14. To continue with the chain of decisions, I may also refer to some of the decisions, relied upon in the present case, by Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, appearing for the petitioners. The first of these cases is the case of Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra and another v. GVSM Medical College, Kanpur and others (1989)1 SCC 559 . The two appellants and respondent No. 9 had been admitted to GVSM Medical College in DM (Cardiology) Course, in the session 1987- 89. Their admissions were set aside by the High Court, at the instance of respondent No. 6. The High Court had directed the admissions of respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to the said course. It was observed that the Government of UP had framed certain rules for admissions to super speciality courses. According to the said rules, candidates were to be admitted on the basis of their merit in MBBS Examination. In the rules, 75 per cent of the seats were reserved for the institutional candidates. The appellants and respondent No. 9 were admitted on the basis of institutional preference. It was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the counsel for the UP Government that there was a likelihood of two seats falling vacant at Kanpur and Lucknow. It was also brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that four seats were lying vacant and had not been filled up. It was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the counsel for the UP Government that there was a likelihood of two seats falling vacant at Kanpur and Lucknow. It was also brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that four seats were lying vacant and had not been filled up. It may be mentioned here that the appellants and respondent No. 9 had originally been admitted for the session 1987-89. Four seats were stated to be lying vacant for the session 1988-90. The session 1988-90 was the current session, and no steps had been taken for filling up those vacancies. It was also told that advertisement would soon be published for admissions for 1989-91 session. In the light of these facts, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants and respondent No. 9 could be admitted for the current session 1988- 90. It was further observed that if any seat against 1987-89 session fell vacant at Kanpur or at Lucknow, it would be open to the authorities concerned to admit the two appellants against those seats. The High Court, in that case, had held that in view of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), admissions to super speciality courses should be made strictly on the basis of merit; and as no examination was held by the college to assess the merits of the candidates, the High Court had set aside the admissions of the appellants and respondent No. 9. 15. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari also relied upon the decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. Asim Kumar Mohanty, (1989)3 SCC 549 . The facts of that case were that the High Court of Orissa had directed the two respondents and one another to be admitted to Two-Year In-service Medical Post-Graduate Course for the session 1988-90. In para 5.3 of the Prospectus, there had been various classifications, and it was stated therein that the number of general seats to be filled up by in-service doc- tors of the Government of Orissa, was 69. Para 5.5 laid down that in case of non-availability of candidates for any of the reserved seats, the same would be filled up by general candidates. As against 23 seats reserved for SC/ST candidates, 10 were available, and therefore, 13 seats were to revert to the general category. Para 5.5 laid down that in case of non-availability of candidates for any of the reserved seats, the same would be filled up by general candidates. As against 23 seats reserved for SC/ST candidates, 10 were available, and therefore, 13 seats were to revert to the general category. When these 13 seats became available, the State Government allotted 8 out of them, to in-service doctors under the Government of India and their Public Sector Undertakings. Three of the candidates who were in-service doctors of the Government of Orissa, challenged the diversion of 8 out of 13 reserved seats to Government of India and their Public Sector Undertakings. The High Court held that 8 reserved seats which had been reverted to the general category, could have (15) (1989) 1 SCC 559 (16) (1989) 3 SCC 549 been filled up by the in-service doctors under the Government of India or their Public Sector Undertakings. The Supreme Court held that the conclusion of the High Court was unassailable; and that the State Government was bound by its Prospectus, to revert the 8 seats to the general category. It was contended on behalf of the State of Orissa that 8 candidates who were admitted, had secured more marks than the respondents. This contention was rejected on the ground that none of the doctors who had secured admission on the basis of the impugned Government order was qualified to apply for a seat in the general category. It was also submitted before the Supreme Court that the High Court had not disturbed the admissions of 8 doctors, as they had not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Of the three candidates who had gone before the High Court, one had already been given admission by the Government. According to the contention of the counsel for the State of Orissa, a waiting-list had been drawn up in various specialities and the candidates included in such list had secured higher marks than the two candidates before the Supreme Court; and therefore, they could not be preferred to the candidates of the waiting-list. This contention did not appear to have been raised before the High Court and was raised for the first time during the course of arguments before the Supreme Court. The time for admission into the particular academic-session was long over. This contention did not appear to have been raised before the High Court and was raised for the first time during the course of arguments before the Supreme Court. The time for admission into the particular academic-session was long over. None of the candidates of the waiting-list had come forward to press his/her claim. In these circumstances, Hon'ble Ranganath Mishra, J. (as he then was), observed : "Though, ordinarily the more meritorious candidates, if there were any, would have been entitled to preference over the respondents, in the circumstances stated, we are not of the view that the objection raised by the State has any force." The appeal was dismissed; and the decision of the Orissa High Court was upheld. 16. A review of the decisions of the Supreme Court would go to show that it is well-settled that admissions to PG-Courses like MD, MS and the like, have to be made on merit. As observed by his Lordship VR Krishna lyer, J. in Jagdish Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 820 , observed : "To devalue merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. In science and technology and other specialised fields of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave national risk, because, in advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people of India should not be denied the best the nation's talenting latent can produce. If the best potential in these fields is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as reservations, the victims, in the long run, may be the people themselves." 17. Lot us now lay the factual foundation in these seven writ petitions, to which, the law so clearly laid down by the Supreme Court has to be applied. 18. Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Patni, petitioner in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3383/91, passed her MBBS Examination from the SMS Medical College, Jaipur, in the year 1988, and she completed her internship on 25th Oct., 89. In pursuance of an advertisement, issued for Pre-PG Entrance Test, 90, for admission to (17) AIR 1980 SC 820 MD/MS/Diploma Course in the State of Rajasthan, she appeared at the test. In pursuance of an advertisement, issued for Pre-PG Entrance Test, 90, for admission to (17) AIR 1980 SC 820 MD/MS/Diploma Course in the State of Rajasthan, she appeared at the test. She was declared successful in the Entrance Test, and in the merit-list, she was placed at S.No. 240-I. By notification dated 19th May, 90, issued by the Conveyor of the Central PG Admission Board, the dates for interviews of the candidates in the general category, upto the candidates who had ranked upto S. No. 200 in the merit - list, were called for interview, to be held on 13th and 14th June, 90. They were also required to submit their choices of subjects and places. Every candidate who was in the merit-list, submitted choice of his/her subject and place for the study. As already stated, the candidate upto 200th position in the merit-list, were called for interview. As the petitioner was not within 2(X) candidates, in the order of merit, her choice was not entertained. It is stated that in the month of June, 90, admissions were given to the candidates who had been interviewed. There were 195 seats in the general category, and only 184 candidates had joined. Some seats remained unfilled on account of non-joining of sonic of the selected candidates. The first re- shuffling took place in January, 1991. Thereafter, a notice dated 1st June, 91 was issued by the Convener, wherein, it was mentioned that the vacant seats, mentioned in the notice, would be filled up by the candidates in the waiting-list, who were not able to get subject of their choice and who could not get admission due to non-availability of seats. That notice is Annexure-2. The petitioner has stated that it would appear that the seats and subjects which did not find place in the first notification dated 19th May, 90, found place in the notice dated 1st June, 91. The details of these subjects in the new notice were : Subject Place 1 Skin and VD - Jodhpur 2 Radio-therapy - Jaipur 3 ENT - Jodhpur 4 Microbiology - Udaipur 5 PSM - Bikaner 6 Anatomy - Jaipur 7 DA - Jaipur, Udaipur Bikaner. The details of these subjects in the new notice were : Subject Place 1 Skin and VD - Jodhpur 2 Radio-therapy - Jaipur 3 ENT - Jodhpur 4 Microbiology - Udaipur 5 PSM - Bikaner 6 Anatomy - Jaipur 7 DA - Jaipur, Udaipur Bikaner. 8 DPH - Jaipur 9 DIBT - Jaipur The petitioner stated that these new seats were made available, for which, no choice was called for; and it was arbitrarily mentioned that the choice as given earlier, would be considered. On 10th June, 91, an Officer-Order came to be issued, wherein, certain seats in various specialities were declared vacant from the dates mentioned. On that date itself, without any advertisement, selections were made on these seats without calling for applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner challenges the selection of seats specified in the notice dated 1st June, 91, and the selections made in pursuance thereof on 2nd June, 91, as arbitrary. She states that she has come to know that the candidates who were more meritorious, have not been selected for the specialities which they wanted, on flimsy grounds that they had not mentioned their choices. According to the petitioner, she had been selected for Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, when, according to merit, she should have been selected for MD in Microbiology at Jaipur and also for Medical Radio Diagnosis and Diploma in Anaesthesia at Jaipur. She has also come to know that the candidate whose name appeared in the merit-list at S. No. 240-11 had also been selected for MD Microbiology, while the petitioner whose name appeared at S. No. 240-1, had been selected for Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Even for Diploma in Anaesthesia and for Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis, the persons who were less-meritorious, had been selected. Even persons who were not in the waiting-list, had also been considered for selection. The petitioner had appeared at the interview on 10th June, 91, and she had represented before the Admission Board that she wanted admission to MD in Microbiology. 19. The petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Patni has, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to admit the petitioner to MD-Course in Microbiology, at Jaipur, or to Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis, at Jaipur; and that the selections made in pursuance of the interview held on 10th June, 91. by respondent No. 2, be quashed. 20. 19. The petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Patni has, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to admit the petitioner to MD-Course in Microbiology, at Jaipur, or to Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis, at Jaipur; and that the selections made in pursuance of the interview held on 10th June, 91. by respondent No. 2, be quashed. 20. It may be mentioned that under an interim order dated 12th June, 91, it was ordered that in the meanwhile, the allotment of specialities, in pursuance of the notice dated 1st June, 91, even if made, shall not be effected to without considering the petitioner's candidature in the speciality of MD in Microbiology, in accordance with her merit and no candidate having merit lesser than the petitioner be allowed to avail the speciality of MD in Microbiology. 21. The Writ Petition No. 3397/91 of Dr. (Miss) Ranu Bhandari is on the same lines as of Writ Petition No. 3383/91, filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Patni. Dr. (Miss) Ranu Bhandari has prayed that the respondents be directed to admit her to Diploma in Anaesthesia, at Jaipur, or at Udaipur as second preference, or to Diploma in Public Health, at Jaipur, as her third preference. She states that she has come to know that she has not been selected for Diploma Course in Anaesthesia, at Jaipur or at Udaipur as her second preference, or to Diploma in Public Health, at Jaipur. 22. The third Writ Petition No. 3407/91, is by Dr. (Mrs.) Rajni Sharma. She had also appeared at the Pre-PG Entrance Test of 1990, and she was placed at S. No. 95, in the merit-list. She also appeared before the Interview-Board in June, 90, but, no choice of her speciality and place of her choice was allotted to her, as there was no vacancy in the speciality of Microbiology. The petitioner states that she had already given her preference in her earlier application form, but, due to non-availability of seats in Microbiology, at Jaipur, the petitioner was not given admission to the speciality of her choice. She has said that when the interviews were held initially in pursuance of the notification dated 19th May, 90, published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika', on 24th May, 90 (Annex. 1), she was also interviewed. She has said that when the interviews were held initially in pursuance of the notification dated 19th May, 90, published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika', on 24th May, 90 (Annex. 1), she was also interviewed. But, speciality was not assigned to her of her choice, and also the place of her choice was not allotted to her, as there were no seats available in the speciality of Microbiology. Even after the first re-shuffling in August, 90, and the second, in January, 91, she was not allotted the speciality of her choice. She complains that the candidate who stood in the order of merit at Item No. 240 (5) in the merit-list, was given the speciality of Microbiology in MD, at Jaipur. She has prayed for a direction to the respondents that she be admitted to the speciality of microbiology in MD according to her merit and preference. 23. The fourth Writ Petition No. 3423/91 has been filed by Dr. Manohar Agnani. This petitioner states that he had appeared at the interview on 10th June, 91, and he had submitted before the Interview-Board that he wanted to take admission to Diploma in Medical Radiology - Diagnosis. However, he was told that as he had given higher preference for MD in Anaesthesia, therefore, he would be allotted the speciality of Anaesthesia only and would not be allotted Diploma in Medical Radiology - Diagnosis. He was further told that if he forewent the chance of admission to MD in Anaesthesia, he would not be granted any other course. The petitioner insisted that he should be given admission to Diploma in Medical Radiology and Diagnosis, but, no heed was paid to his re- quest. He was forced to agree to admission to MD in Anaesthesia, and it was got written from him that he was agreeable to his admission to MD-Course in Anaesthesia. It has been stated by him that respondents Nos. 3 and 4, in the merit- list, were at S. Nos. 265-I and 265-II, while the position of the petitioner in the said list was at S. No. 219-IV. As would appear from Annexure-4, the speciality of Diploma in Medical Radiology-Diagnosis had been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, though, they were less meritorious than the petitioner. He has, therefore, claimed that a direction be issued to the respondents, to quash the admissions of respondents Nos. As would appear from Annexure-4, the speciality of Diploma in Medical Radiology-Diagnosis had been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, though, they were less meritorious than the petitioner. He has, therefore, claimed that a direction be issued to the respondents, to quash the admissions of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to DMRD-Course, and he be allotted the speciality of DM RD, at Jaipur. 24. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3445/91 has been filed by Dr. Aruna Agrawal. In the merit-list, she stood at S. No. 106-I. In her application-form, submitted for appearing at the PG Entrance Examination, she had given the following preferences : S.No. Subject, Place of Choice 1 Obstertrics and Gynaecology Udaipur 2 Paediatrics Jaipur 3 Skin and VD Jodhpur 4 Radiodiagnosis Ajmer/Bikaner In pursuance of the notification dated 19th may, 90, she appeared before the Interview Board. The petitioner was allotted the speciality of MD in Radio-diag- nosis, at Bikaner. She was to join in the course of MD in Radiodiagnosis in the Medical College-Bikaner by 10th July 90. However, she did not join, because, she was interested only in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, as it was her first preference, and that too, as per her choice of preferences, at Udaipur, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Ajmer and lastly, at Bikaner. The petitioner sent a representation in this regard; and she mentioned therein that she had specifically given out before the Interview-Board, to allow her to withdraw the place, Bikaner, for Radiodiagnosis Speciality, and to keep her name in the waiting-list, if posts were available for Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first and the second re-shuffling took place in August, 90 and in January, 91, respectively. But, since the merit was very high and the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration, she did not apply in the re-shuf- fling. When the notice dated 1st June, 91, was published, the petitioner had applied for has admission to MS in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. She was inter- viewed on 10th June, 91; and she was asked to take admission to MS in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at Udaipur, as per the merit-cum-preference chart, and thus, she was given admission at Udaipur. She was to proceed to Udaipur, to join the course there, but, to her surprise, when the order dated 12th June, 91 was issued by the Selection-Board, her name did not find place. She was to proceed to Udaipur, to join the course there, but, to her surprise, when the order dated 12th June, 91 was issued by the Selection-Board, her name did not find place. She has prayed for a direction to the respondents to admit her to MS-Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at Udaipur, or in the alternative, at Jaipur. 25. The next writ petition No. 3598/91 has been filed by Dr. Siddharth Bhati. His position in the merit-list was at S. No. 229-I. He was not selected during the selection made in pursuance of notification dated 19th May, 90. He states that he was not given admission during the first re-shuffling made on 4th Aug., 90. When the second re-shuffling took place, the petitioner did not apply for consideration, as he was busy in getting prepared for pre-PG Entrance Examination, conducted by the Centre, for 25 per cent seats. When respondent No. 2 published the notification dated 1st June, 91, the petitioner submitted an application for his consideration. He was intimated by respondent No. 2 that his application was accepted in the re-shuffling/re-allotment, and he was found eligible to be given admission to Diploma in Anaesthesia Course, as he was supposed to join the said course on or before 21st Jan., 91. As the petitioner did not join, his admission was cancelled, and as such, his name could not be considered for the third re-shuffling/re-allotment, in pursuance of the notice issued on 1st June, 91. The petitioner complains that although he stood higher in merit than Dr. RD Carg and Dr. RA Yadav, who had been admitted to MD in Anaesthesia, despite the fact that their position in the merit-list was at S. Nos. 232 and 233 respectively, but, the petitioner was not admitted to the course in the third re-shuffling, which took place in June, 91. The petitioner claims that the respondents be directed to admit him to Post-Graduation MD/MS Course, in the speciality of Anaesthesia, or to MD-Course in Psychiatry against the vacant post at SMS Medical College, Jaipur, or against any PC Degree Course or higher merit and choice. 26. The last of the seven writ petitions is that of Dr. (Miss) Anu Bhandari (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3712/1991). Her position in the merit-list was at S. No. 176-I. The petitioner had given her preference of specialities as specified in para-3 of her writ petition. 26. The last of the seven writ petitions is that of Dr. (Miss) Anu Bhandari (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3712/1991). Her position in the merit-list was at S. No. 176-I. The petitioner had given her preference of specialities as specified in para-3 of her writ petition. She states that in the interview, hold in June, 90, 200 candidates in order of merit were called. So far as PG-Course in the speciality of Radio diagnosis was concerned, it was allotted to the candidates having higher merit. By the time the case of the petitioner was taken up, all the specialities for which the petitioner had given her preference, were already allotted, and consequently, no speciality was allotted to the petitioner; and the petitioner's name remained in the waiting-list. In that selection, Dr. Shanker Pradhan, Dr. Ranu Patni and Dr. Aruna Agrawal were allotted the speciality of Radiodiagnosis. Their names in the merit-list were at S. Nos. 57-11; 84-Ill and 100-I. Dr. Aruna Agrawal did not join the speciality of Radio diagnosis at Bikaner, and her admission was, therefore, cancelled on 14th July, 90. The first re-shuffling took place; and in that also, the petitioner was not considered. During the second re-shuffling, Dr. Ranu Patni was selected for Diploma in Child-Health. The petitioner was not present before the Interview-Board, during the second re-shuffling; and she was surprised to know later on that she had been selected for PG- Course in Pathology; and in her absence, on provisional basis. According to her, she had given her first choice for PG-Course in Skin or Radio diagnosis, and she had no taste for Pathology, assigned to her. Thereafter, certain PG seats were surrendered by the Director General of the Directorate of Health Services, Government of India. A notice dated 29th May, 91 was issued by the Conveyor of the Central Board. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted an application that her case might be considered. It is stated that according to the notice dated 29th May, 91, there were two seats in PG-Course of Radio diagnosis available at Jodhpur and Udaipur. The petitioner was called for interview on 10th June, 91. The petitioner was informed at the time of interview that her case would not be considered as she had not the PG-Course in Pathology, which had earlier been allotted to her. Dr. DC Sharma and Dr. The petitioner was called for interview on 10th June, 91. The petitioner was informed at the time of interview that her case would not be considered as she had not the PG-Course in Pathology, which had earlier been allotted to her. Dr. DC Sharma and Dr. Rajesh Kachhwaha, who were also in the merit list, were allotted the speciality of Radio diagnosis, ignoring the petitioner's claim, who stood higher in the merit-list. The petitioner has, therefore; prayed that the order dated 12th June, 91 in relation to Dr. Rajesh Kachhwaha, Dr. Mukesh Gupta and Dr. Sunita Chaudhary, may be quashed, and the respondents be directed to allot the petitioner, the PG- Course in the speciality of Radio diagnosis, at Jaipur or at any other place in Rajasthan. 27. This is the factual foundation of all these seven writ petitions. 28. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of Ordinance 278-E of the University of Rajasthan, in connection with admissions to MD and MS Courses. This Ordinance inter alia provides that total number of seats, subject-wise for various PG-Course for MD and MS would be as notified by the Principal/Head of the respective institution. 25 per cent of the total seats (irrespective of other reservations made) would be filled in as as per allocations, made by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, on the basis of the result of All-India Competitive Entrance Examination for admissions to PG- Course (MD/MS) on open merit. 8 per cent of the seats, after excluding the seats to be filled in as per allocations made by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, as mentioned above, from the total seats, shall be reserved natural born scheduled caste candidates, and 6 per cent seats for natural horn scheduled tribe candidates. Selection for these vacancies shall be made as per roster-system to be notified by the State Government. 25 per cent of the seats, after the above exclusion of the seats reserved on the basis of All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, shall be reserved for in-service candidates of the Rajasthan State Medical Service. Selection for these vacancies shall be made as per roster-system to be notified by the State Government. 25 per cent of the seats, after the above exclusion of the seats reserved on the basis of All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, shall be reserved for in-service candidates of the Rajasthan State Medical Service. The remaining seats which hereafter would be called as "general seats" and the unfilled seats from seats reserved for admission through All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, from seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 'Tribes and in-service candidates, shall be filled in by the candidates of general category. For seats to be filled in as per the allocations made by the Director General of the Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, the criterion is result of All- India Competitive Entrance Examination, on open merit. The selection for the remaining seats of PG-Courses in MD and MS, is to be done on merit adjudged on the basis of Pre-PG Entrance Test. A separate merit-list is to be prepared for the seats reserved for the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and in-service candidates and for the seats of the general category. Selection is to be done by a Central PG Admission Board constituted of all the Principals of the State Medical Colleges, with the Principal, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, as its Convenor. The Central PG Admission Board shall interview the candidates and allocate them college and subject on the basis of merit-cum-preference list. Initially, the Ordinance provided that the vacancies due to non- joining within the stipulated time, shall be filled in by re- shuffling, on the basis of merit-cum-preference list, within three weeks. The vacancies, after re-shuffling, or at a later date, not exceeding 6 months from the date of initial appointment, shall be filled in from amongst candidates in the waiting-list. This part of the ordinance was later on amended to provide that the vacancies due to non-joining within the stipulated time, shall be filled in by re-shuffling on the basis of merit-cum-preference list, and the resultant vacancies or such vacancies which cannot be filled in by re-shuffling, shall be filled in by taking candidates from the waiting-list on merit-cum-preference basis, at the earliest, but, not later than 6 months from the date of initial appointment. No admission shall be made after 6 months from the date of initial appointment, even if any vacancy is left unfilled or if any vacancy occurs subsequently. 29. The Convenor, Central PC Admission Board, issued a notification dated 19th May, 90 (Annex. R/2), notifying the Medical Graduates/CAS (in-service), who had passed Pre-PG Entrance Examination for admission to MD/MS and to Diploma Courses for the academic year 1990, and required them to furnish choice of subject (PG Degree and Diploma Courses) and place (College) in order of preference, in the specified proforma, by 30th May, 90. In the specified proforma was to give subject choice (Degree/Diploma), place (College) choice, roll number and merit number. It was mentioned that the application for choice of subject or college shall only be considered if the same were received on or before 30th May, 90, failing which, choice of subject and of college shall be considered which the candidate had already furnished to the University at the time of his submitting application-form for Pre-PG Entrance Examination. By this notification, the dates for the interview were fixed for the candidates having merit number from I to 200 in the general category. The notification also specified the various specialities in which PG Degree/Diploma seats were available in various Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, for the academic year 1990, with break-up of seats in the various Medical Colleges, like, Jaipur, Ajmer, Bikaner, Jodhpur and Udaipur. Similarly, the seats available in various Diploma Courses, with break-ups in relation to Medical Colleges at Jaipur, Bikaner and Udaipur, were specified. It was made clear that allotment would be made strictly in order of preference submitted by the candidates, and in no case, subject of lower choice would be considered. Subject choice would be given preference over the place of study. 30. On the recommendation of the Central PG Admission Board, after the interview, 143 doctors were selected for the First Year Residency Course, on provisional basis in order of merit-cum-preference, in the general category. 13 candidates from Scheduled Castes and 10 candidates from Scheduled Tribes, were further selected, apart from the 143 candidates. Thus, a total number of 166 candidates were selected, and different specialities were assigned to them, and they were admitted to different Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. This selection was declared by Office-Order dated 16th June, 90 (Annex. R/4). 13 candidates from Scheduled Castes and 10 candidates from Scheduled Tribes, were further selected, apart from the 143 candidates. Thus, a total number of 166 candidates were selected, and different specialities were assigned to them, and they were admitted to different Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. This selection was declared by Office-Order dated 16th June, 90 (Annex. R/4). A separate list was issued regarding the selection of the doctors for PG- Diploma Courses. That list is (Annexure R/5). 23 candidates from the general category, 2 candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and 1 candidate from Scheduled Tribes, were selected for Diploma-Courses. The selected candidates were required to submit their joining reports to the Principal and Controller of the respective colleges, latest by 10th July, 90. On 14th July, 90, the Convenor, Central Post-Graduation Admission Board, issued an Office-Order stating that 8 doctors in the PG-Degree Course in the general category had failed to join their courses at their respective colleges upto 10th July, 90, and two doctors who had been admitted to PC-Diploma Course, had failed to join; and consequently, their selections were cancelled. It was by notice dated 13th/ 14th July, 90 that in accordance with the provisions of clause (I11) of Ordinance 278-E of the University of Rajasthan 208 seats in the PC-Degree Course and 2 seats in the PC-Diploma Course were to be filled in by re-shuffling amongst the selected candidates of PG-De- gree/Diploma Courses, subject to this that all those candidates who had actually joined the subject and place of their choice, and also to those who stood in merit, but, could not be admitted due to non-availability of subject and place. Keeping in view the original merit-cum-preference choice already submitted, re-shuffling was to be held on 4th Aug., 90. The candidates who were desirous for re-shuffling, were required to submit their willingness in writing latest by 28th July, 90, to the Principal of the respective colleges, and the Principal had to forward the same to the Board, latest by 30th July, 90. As a result of the re-shuffling made on 4th Aug., 90, the Convenor of the Board issued an Office-Order (Annex.R/6), stating that as a result of re-shuffling of desirous candidates, the postings of the I-year Residents were changed as per their merit-cum- preference choice under Three Years' Residency Scheme. As a result of the re-shuffling made on 4th Aug., 90, the Convenor of the Board issued an Office-Order (Annex.R/6), stating that as a result of re-shuffling of desirous candidates, the postings of the I-year Residents were changed as per their merit-cum- preference choice under Three Years' Residency Scheme. The change was made in respect of 21 candidates in PG-Degree Courses and 3 candidates in Diploma-Courses. 31. It appears that some more vacancies arose including those vacancies which had arisen on account of the newly created seats by the Government, by its order dated 22nd Dec., 90, by Annexure-R/7 that these vacant seats, along with the newly created seats and also consequentially vacant seats were notified to be filled in by the candidates of the waiting-list on merit- cum-preference basis amongst the selected candidates of PG- Degree/Diploma Courses in the general category only who had actually joined the subject and place, and who stood in the merit but could not be admitted due to non-availability of subject and place. This re-shuffling was to take place on 9th Jan., 91. The result of this second re-shuffling was issued by Office-Order dated 9th Jan., 91, and the vacancies were filled up by the candidates from the waiting-list, on merit-cum-preference; and the postings of the First Year Residents were changed. This list goes to show that 33 changes made, of the candidates selected, in various specialities, and they were admitted to various Medical- Colleges. There were 5 changes in the PG- Diploma Courses. The candidates were required to submit their joining report latest by 21st Jan. 91. 32. It appears that a number of seats came to be filled in by the candidates out of the 25 per cent reserved quota, which had to be filled in on the basis of the result of All-India Competitive Entrance Examination. The Convenor of the Central PG Admission Board, therefore, issued a notification dated 29th May, 91, notifying the number of the vacant seats in various specialities in various Medical-Colleges in Rajasthan, along with specialities in consequentially vacant seats, for being filled by the candidates from the waiting-list of 1990, on merit-cum- preference. The Convenor of the Central PG Admission Board, therefore, issued a notification dated 29th May, 91, notifying the number of the vacant seats in various specialities in various Medical-Colleges in Rajasthan, along with specialities in consequentially vacant seats, for being filled by the candidates from the waiting-list of 1990, on merit-cum- preference. amongst the selected candidates of the PG Degree/Diploma Courses in the General Category, and including all those candidates who had actually joined the subject and place and those who stood in merit but could not be admitted due to non-availability of subject and place. The selection was to be held on 10th June, 91. After making the selections, the Convenor of the Board released the list on 12th June, 91, (Annex. R/10), stating that on the recommendation of the Central PG Admission Board on 10th June, 91, the vacancies had been filled up by taking the candidates from the waiting-list on merit-cum-preference, and that accordingly the postings of the First Year Residents (General Category) were changed as per their merit-cum-preference choice under Three Years, Residency Scheme "strictly on provisional basis". This list goes to show that the changes and selections to the said vacancies were made amongst candidates of Degree and Diploma Courses who had secured merit upto S. No. 269. 33. In continuation of Annexure-R/10, a further Office-Order was issued for filling up the vacancies by taking candidates from the waiting-list, on merit-cum- preference basis. This second list (Annexure-R/11) goes to show that specialities of 3 candidates in Diploma Course, were changed; and 46 candidates were selected /admitted in the first instance to PG-Diploma Courses in various specialities; and this list (Annex. R/11) reveals that candidates who were upto Item No. 3 in the merit-list, were admitted to PG-Diploma Courses in different specialities and were allotted different Medical Colleges. 34. This is the background of the admissions/selections made by the Central Admission Board to MD/MS and PG-Diploma Courses, for the Academic Year 1990, at various stages and on various occasions. 35. R/11) reveals that candidates who were upto Item No. 3 in the merit-list, were admitted to PG-Diploma Courses in different specialities and were allotted different Medical Colleges. 34. This is the background of the admissions/selections made by the Central Admission Board to MD/MS and PG-Diploma Courses, for the Academic Year 1990, at various stages and on various occasions. 35. In the instant case, although the Academic Session of the year 1990 was to commence from 10th July, 90, as appears from Annexure-R/4, it seems that the All-India Entrance Examination was not held within the time scheduled; and as no candidate through All-India Entrance Test joined the PG-Courses in Rajasthan, the seats were surrendered to the State, and to these seats admissions/selections were made as late as on 10th June, 91, i.e., after a lapse of 11 months after the commencement of the Academic Session. This scheme goes very much against the directives of the Supreme Court; and it is for the Medical council of India; the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi; and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to take note of. 36. It may next be observed that Ordinance 278-E clearly provides that admissions to various specialities in PG-Courses would be made on the basis of merit-cum-preference basis, and preferences have also been afforded for places where five Medical Colleges are located in the State of Rajasthan. Vacancies arising due to non-joining within the stipulated time are specified in the Ordinance to be filled in by re-shuffling on the basis of merit- cum-preference list, within three weeks. The vacancies remaining after the re-shuffling or at a later date, not exceeding 6 months from the date of initial appointment, are to be filled in from amongst the candidates of the waiting-list. As has already been extracted, seats left after excluding 25 per cent reservation for Selection on All-India basis, 8 per cent reservation for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, and 25 per cent reservation for in-service candidates, are known as general seats. The seats which remain unfilled through All-India Competitive Entrance Examination from the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates and from 25 per cent seats for in-service candidates after exhausting the waiting-list are required to be filled in by the candidates of the general category. The seats which remain unfilled through All-India Competitive Entrance Examination from the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates and from 25 per cent seats for in-service candidates after exhausting the waiting-list are required to be filled in by the candidates of the general category. Consequently, therefore, to the general seats are added, the unfilled seats from those reserved under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Part-1 of Ordinance 278-E, after exhausting the waiting-list. Apart from the seats reserved for All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, selection to the remaining seats for PG-Courses of MD and MS, is to be done on merit adjudged on the basis of Pre-PG Entrance Examination. Three lists have to be prepared after conducting the Pre-PG Entrance Test. The first merit-list is that of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes; the second merit- list is that of in- service candidates; and the third list is that of candidates of the general category. The Admission Board is to interview and allocate them colleges and subjects on the basis of merit-cum- preference list. That selection in the instant case, has been made on 16th June, 90, and the list of selection together with specialities and colleges assigned to the selected candidates, was issued vide Annexure R/4 and Annexure-R/5. The notification dated 19th May, 90 (Annex.R/2) would go to show that the interview dates for MD/MS and Diploma Courses for the candidates belonging to the general category, and who had obtained position in the merit-list from 1st to 200th, were 13th and 14th June, 90. For the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes who had secured position in merit from 1st to 25th; and in relation to Scheduled Tribe candidates who had secured position 1st to 14th; and for in-service candidates who had secured position from 1st to 100th, were called for interview. Thus, in all, 339 candidates appear to have been called for interview. Annexure-R/2 also goes to show that in MD/MS Courses a total number of 216 seats were specified; and in Diploma Course, 55 seats were specified. Thus, it had been declared that there were 226 seats in the various Medical- Colleges in the State of Rajasthan in MD and MS Courses, and 55 seats in Diploma Courses. Annexure-R/2 also goes to show that in MD/MS Courses a total number of 216 seats were specified; and in Diploma Course, 55 seats were specified. Thus, it had been declared that there were 226 seats in the various Medical- Colleges in the State of Rajasthan in MD and MS Courses, and 55 seats in Diploma Courses. A total number of 143 candidates in the general category, 23 candidates from SC/ST Categories and 3 more candidates, subject to their refunding of stipend-amount, i.e., in all 169 candidates were selected. It has not been clarified by the respondents, when there were in all 281 seats in MD and MS and in Diploma Courses, why only 195 candidates were selected, and why all the seats were not filled up. The last of those candidates selected was-that candidate who held the position at No. 173-11 in the merit-list. Even the interview was held of a total number of 339 candidates, in order of merit.. It may be that this difference remained either on account of any lacking preferences in specialties or places, shown by the candidates. The first re-shuffling took place on 4th Aug., 90, and, as a result thereof, the postings of First Year Residents were changed as per their merit-cum-preference choice. A meeting was held of the Principals of the Medical Colleges on 13th July, 90, and the Admission Board resolved that the candidates could be re-shuffled as under : (a) Those candidates who stood in merit, but could not be given subject or place of their choice at the time of their original selection; and (b) those who were offered specialty/ place of choice and had actually joined: On the basis of this resolution, the notice of re-shuffling was issued on 13th/14th July, 90 in relation to vacant seats in the specialties including the consequentially vacant seats; and this re-shuffling was made of those candidates who had actually joined the subject and place of their choice, and also of those candidates who had stood in merit, but, could not be admitted due to non-availability of subject/place, keeping in view the original merit-cum-preference choice already submitted. This goes to show that the benefit of re-shuffling was not allowed to those candidates who were offered subjects/ places of their choice according to their preferences given by them when they were required to do so by notification dated 19th May, 90, but, who did not join on account of their getting lower or the last preference, subject or place of choice. The benefit was given firstly to those who were offered subject and places of their choice in order of their preferences and who had actually joined on their admission. Secondly, re-shuffling was allowed to those who, although, had stood in merit, but, could not be given subject or places of their preferences, although they had mentioned the subjects and preferences of their choice and seats had fallen vacant in those subjects or at those places. In the second re-shuffling also, the same criterion was followed, as would appear from the notification dated 26th Dec., 90. So far as admission to PG Degree/Diploma Courses which had conic to the category of general seats as a result of non-filling up of the reserved seats by All-India Entrance Examination also the same criterion was adopted, namely, admissions were given to those candidates in the general category who had actually joined the subject and places which they were allocated and those who although had stood in merit but could not be admitted due to non-availability of seats in the subjects or at places. 37. Merit-criterion should apply to all those equally whose names were there in the merit-list, which had been prepared after the declaration of Pre-PG Entrance Test in relation to seats of the general category, SC/ST seats and in-service candidates seats. The merit criterion cannot be confined only to those candidates who remained in the waiting-list. Thus, two questions mainly crop up for consideration : the first being as to whether the candidates who have not been selected or admitted upto the second re-shuffling made in January, 91, should be allowed to give fresh preferences of specialty/places; or, the preferences/ places which they had initially given when the applications were invited in pursuance of the notification dated 19th May, 90 (Annex. R/2) would only hold good; and the second question is whether those candidates who were allowed admissions in any specialty or diploma course and at any place according to their preferences, but, who did not join on account of not getting a higher preference or speciality, or a place of higher preference, should also be considered in relation to those reverted seats on the basis of their merit-cum-preference. 38. It is quite clear that the unfilled seats remaining from the 25 per cent reserved quota which were meant to be filled up through the media of the result of the All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, are to be filled by the candidates of the general category. Thus, these unfilled seats are addition to the general seats. These unfilled seats were, at no time, advertised or notified to be filled up, before 29th May, 91. What was originally notified by the notification dated 19th May, 90 were 226 seats in PG-Degree Courses and 55 seats in PG- Diploma Courses. The candidates who had passed the Pre-PG Entrance Test held in the State, obviously, had given their preferences of subjects and of places, keeping in view the number of seats notified vide notification dated 19th May, 90. Upto the first and second re-shuffling, there was no addition to the general seats by reversion of additional seats reserved to be filled up through be media of All-India Competitive Entrance Test, and they, for the first time, became avail- able in May, 91, and were notified to be filled up on 29th May, 91. Had the candidates been aware that there were additional unfilled seats, and had it been notified on 19th May, 90, it can be said that they would have had before them the complete picture of the available seats, subject-wise and place-wise; and, they could have then given in their preferences keeping in view those seats as well. Preferences of subjects and of places are affected by the number of seats available and the place held by a candidate in the merit-list. To illustrate my point of view, let us suppose in the year 1990, there were 40 seats in General Surgery. It was not possible for a candidate holding position at S. No. 50 to expect that if he gives his preference in surgery, as his first or even as the last preference, he would certainly get that speciality. To illustrate my point of view, let us suppose in the year 1990, there were 40 seats in General Surgery. It was not possible for a candidate holding position at S. No. 50 to expect that if he gives his preference in surgery, as his first or even as the last preference, he would certainly get that speciality. But, if the number of seats in surgery notified initially is 50, such a candidate can even by giving his preference for surgery as the last preference, can be sure that he would get seat in surgery at any place. That makes the difference arising out of the increase in the number of seats. Annexure R/2 and R/9 would go to show that in May, 90, there were 39 seats in General Surgery. In May, 91, 8 more seats were available. In Gynecology and Obstetrics, there were 38 seats in the month of May, 90, but, in May, 91, 8 more seats became available. Similarly, in Diploma- Courses of DA, there were only 14 seats which were available in the year 1990, but, in 1991, 12 more seats became available. It may be mentioned that as a result of the surrender of seats after the All-India Competitive Entrance Test, 36 more seats in PC- Degree Course Liu 27 more seats in Diploma-Course became available. There were addition of a total number of 63 seats. In the first and second re-shuffling which had to be completed within 6 months, the seats remained the same, and therefore, the preferences of subjects and of places given prior to filling up of those seats remained unaltered and operated without causing any inequality or injustice to the candidates. But, if a large number of new seats subsequently become available which were not avail- able before, fresh equity arises, and they have to be adjusted, so that, the criterion of merit-cum-preference can apply with equality and not in a discriminatory fashion. But, if a large number of new seats subsequently become available which were not avail- able before, fresh equity arises, and they have to be adjusted, so that, the criterion of merit-cum-preference can apply with equality and not in a discriminatory fashion. In such cases, therefore, where unfilled reserved seats which were meant to be filled in on the basis of All-India Competitive Examination, revert to the State and in consequence thereof the number of seats in the General category are increased, and if these increased seats were not originally notified, fresh options for subjects and place-preferences shall have to be given to all those candidates who were admitted and allocated subjects and places and who now want to give fresh preferences consequent upon the addition of seats to get admissions on the basis of their respective merits; also to those candidates who, at the time of their initial admission, were allocated lower specialty or Diploma Courses which were their lesser or the last preference and who did not join, to give fresh preferences on the basis of their merit; and further, also to those who were in the waiting- list. Therefore, the respondents are bound to give opportunity to all these three categories of candidates, of giving their fresh preferences of subjects and of places of their choice to.compete amongst themselves in relation to these additional seats. Only this procedure, in my considered opinion, can be equitable, just and fair, and this alone can work-out the directions for admissions to PC-Courses, on the basis of merit. The notification (Annex. R/9) did not give the candidates any opportunity to give fresh choice of subjects and of colleges in relation to the additional number of unfilled seats becoming available. It proposes to act upon the preferences of subjects and of places as had initially been given in the month of May, 90. It denies the candidates, equality and violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, all the candidates who had already been admitted and allocated subjects or specialties by Annexure-R/4 and by the Office Orders (Annexs. It denies the candidates, equality and violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, all the candidates who had already been admitted and allocated subjects or specialties by Annexure-R/4 and by the Office Orders (Annexs. R/6 and R/8) after the two re-shuffling; all those candidates who were granted admissions and allocated specialties/diploma courses but did not join; and also those who still were waiting in the queue, have to be granted fresh opportunity for giving choices of subject- preferences and choice of colleges for the 36 additional seats in PG Degree Courses and 27 additional seats in PG Diploma Courses; and after giving them opportunity to give fresh choices of subjects and of colleges, the respondents have to grant admissions to various subjects and to various diploma courses, to those additional seats, and in doing so, a reshuffling may also take place, if the already admitted candidates on the basis of their merit give fresh choices. Selections and admissions made by Office Order dated 12th July, 1991 (Annex. R/10) and by another office-order of the same date (Annex.R/11), without giving any such fresh option to the candidates, cannot be allowed to stand. 39. In this view of the matter, it is not at all necessary to deal with otherwise the merits of each individual writ petition. Before parting with this order, it may be observed that if the authorities, required to hold the All-India Competitive Entrance Examination, would have adhered to the time-bound programme, laid down by the Supreme Court, to declare the result in the month of May and to make admissions, then such a contingency would not have arisen, because, the surrendered seats would have become available at the time of initial admissions; but, as the seats of All-India Competitive Entrance Examination were surrendered after about one year, the blame lies on those who hold and conduct the All-India Entrance Examination and surrender the unfilled seats after about a year. Students cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of theirs. It is expected that in future, the unfilled seats of All-India Entrance Examination, would be surrendered according to the time-schedule, and the criterion laid in this order, would be followed in making admissions to such seats, so that, the candidates may not have to approach this Court time and again unnecessarily. 40. It is expected that in future, the unfilled seats of All-India Entrance Examination, would be surrendered according to the time-schedule, and the criterion laid in this order, would be followed in making admissions to such seats, so that, the candidates may not have to approach this Court time and again unnecessarily. 40. I allow all the seven writ petitions, which are being decided by this order; quash the notification dated 29th May, 91, in relation to the above additional seats and the two Office-Orders dated 12th June, 91, issued by the office of the Convener, Central Post-Graduation Admission Board; and direct the respondents to make fresh selection of candidates, to the additional seats, in the light of this order, within a period of fifteen days from today. 41. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******