JUDGMENT Mr. V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This petition has been filed under Sect ion 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying that the opposite party, who is the Principal of B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, be punished for committing contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 18.12.90 passed by Hon'ble M.L. Bhutt, J. in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22814 of 1990. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner, Dr. Mamta Vyas, filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in M.S. (Ophthalmology) degree course in it's second year residency or, in the alternative, admit the petitioner in Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology course for the session 1989-91 in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur and provide all the benefits attached to the aforesaid course to the petitioner. 3. On the prayer made by the petitioner interim mandamus was issued by Hon'ble M.L. Bhutt, J. on 18.12.1990 as follows: "It is directed that the petitioner shall be granted provisional admission in M.S. (Opthamology) degree course for the Session 1989-91 or in Diploma in Obstetrics in Gynaecology. If any candidate lower in merit than her have been admitted and if she has applied for admission in that course. In case she is found eligible for admission she may be provisionally admitted and she will be entitled to all the benefits which are attached to the admission." 4. The petitioner filed the present petition under the Contempt of Courts Act in this Court on 19.8.1991, asserting that the opposite party has flouted the above mentioned order of this Court and has not admitted the petitioner to either of these two courses. She has further asserted that she had applied for admission to these course and also that one Dr. Shakti Saxena, w ho had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, was admitted by the opposite party to the diploma course under the orders of this Court. It is asserted that both the conditions mentioned in the interim order dated 18.12.1990 of this Court had been fulfilled and the opposite party was bound to admit her in either of these courses, but he has deliberately refused to admit her and has thus committed contempt of this Court. The petitioner has filed her affidavit in support of her allegations. 5. The petitioner has filed her affidavit in support of her allegations. 5. The opposite party has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. He has asserted that none of the two conditions mentioned in the interim order of this Court has been fulfilled, hence the petitioner could not be admitted in any of these courses. He has specifically alleged that the last date for submission of the application on prescribed form for admission to P.G. Course was 1.8.89 in respect of 1989-91 Session. The cost for obtaining the application form was Rs. 5/- and it was to be submitted with a crossed bank draft of Rs. 12.50p. The petitioner did not file any application as was required instead she submitted the applications on blank papers on 10.8.90 and on 30.8.90 i.e. more than a year after the date fixed for submission of the form. The diploma course for 1989-90 had expired by that time. The photostat copies of the applications filed by the petitioner have been annexed as C.A.I and C.A.1I of the counter affidavit. It has also been mentioned that as the application for admission was made on a plain paper after one year, the Residency Scheme had also come into force and admission to that course had already been made by that time. The petitioner concealed these material facts from this Court. The petitioner in the meantime also appeared in P.G. Competitive Examination of 1990 on 27th May, 1990, as will appear from Annexure C.A. III. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a mandate that no admission should be made on the basis of the marks obtained in M.B.B.S. Examination but should be made on the basis on competitive examination as contemplated under the G.O. dated 22.8.1989. It has also been asserted that there were only three seats in M.S. (Ophthalmology) for Session 1989-91 and they were all filled up on the basis of merit in that very session and no seat is lying vacant in that college after the expiry of two sessions. It has also been asserted that there were only four seats in D.G.O. Course in 1989-90, out of which three were to be filled from amongst internal candidates, which was done on the basis of merit itself, and that course was over the petitioner applied for admission on a plain paper. It has also been asserted that there were only four seats in D.G.O. Course in 1989-90, out of which three were to be filled from amongst internal candidates, which was done on the basis of merit itself, and that course was over the petitioner applied for admission on a plain paper. In the circumstances she could not be admitted to either of these two courses. It has also been asserted that Dr. Shakti Saxena was an external student and the marks obtained by her were higher than the present petitioner and further that Dr. Shakti Saxena was admitted under the orders of the Director Medical Education, U.P. Lucknow, under the directions of this Court. It is, in these circumstances, asserted that the opposite party has not committed any Contempt of Court or has dis-obeyed the direction of this Court. 6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating her assertion. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. In the present case the interim mandamus issued by this Court on 18.12.90 was conditional on two facts. The first was that she had applied for admission to either of the two courses and the second was that second candidate lower in merit than her has been admitted. Thus the order will show that the petitioner in order to claim admission must have applied for admission, to these courses also and when this order was passed, second candidate lower in merit to her had been admitted. The assertion made by the opposite party will show that the petitioner did not apply for admission to these two courses within the time fixed for she had applied in proper form but moved applications on plain papers after one year of the last date for moving the applications. It also appears that by the time the petitioner applied for admission the term of diploma course for the year 1989-90 had expired and one year in respect of the other course had also expired. It can not in the circumstances be said that the petitioner has fulfilled the first condition laid 'down by this Court in its order dated 18.12.1990. 8. Now coming to,the second submission, the only assertion by the petitioner is that Dr. Shakti Saxena, who had obtained lower marks than her in the M.B.B.S. Examination has now been admitted by the opposite party. 8. Now coming to,the second submission, the only assertion by the petitioner is that Dr. Shakti Saxena, who had obtained lower marks than her in the M.B.B.S. Examination has now been admitted by the opposite party. It is not disputed that Dr.Shakti Saxena was admitted under the direction issued by this Court. The order for admission was passed by the Director Medical Education, U.P. Lucknow as disclosed by the opposite party. The opposite party has also denied that Dr. Shakti Saxena had obtained lower marks than the petitioner. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the opposite party had admitted any candidate with lower marks than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Further, the order dated 18.12.1990 also directed that the petitioner shall be admitted to either of the course "in case she is found eligible for admission". The opposite party has asserted that under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court no admission could be made to these Courses on the bases of the marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. Examination. The opposite party has filed the copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 31.8.1990, in Civil Appeal No. 4444 of 1990, U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee and Others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others. In this connection reference may also be made to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others and Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra and Others v. Dr. Abdul Latif and Another reported in 1992 (1) S.C. p. 571. The Supreme Court has directed that the admissions to these courses should be made not on the basis of the marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. Examination but on the basis of selection test. In view of these directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner was eligible for admission to these courses on the basis of the marks obtained by her in M.B.B.S. Examination. 9. Considering these facts, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the opposite party has wilfully dis-obeyed the order passed by this Court or has committed the Contempt of this Court. This application under the Contempt of Courts Act is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Contempt application dismissed.