Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to admit the petitioner herein in D.C.H. Two years, course (Diploma in Child Health) for the academic year 1991 in any one of the Medicial Colleges with residenship and stipend where D.C.H. Course is recognised by the Medical Council of India, as the petitioner having been selected for the D.C.H. Course by the first respondent onn merit basis as per order No. U. 12020/1/91, M.E.C., dated 5. 1991." ”The petitioner after passing the M.B.B.S. Degree applied for the selection of Post Graduate Course before the second respondent herein and wrote an entrance examination in the month of January 1991. The petitioner applied for (1) M.D.Paediatrics, (2) Diploma in Child Health and (3) M.D.(Anaesthesia) according to order of preference and opted for the courses which are as follows: 1. N.H.L. Medical College Ahmedabad B-28 2. G.S. Medical College Bombay B-25 3. B.J. Medical College Pune B-23 4. S.M.S Medical College Jaipur B-15 5. B.J. Medical College Ahmedabad B-10 6. M.P.Shah Medical College Jamnagar B-12 7. Dr.V.M. Medical College Sholapur B-34 8. M.L.B. Medical College Jhansi B-43 The petitioner was successful in the entrance examination with merit number 811 in the All India basis as per the communication communicated by the second respondent. By an order dated 5. 1991, the first respondent communicated to the petitioner that he has been selected for admission to Diploma in Child Health (hereinafter referred to as the D.C.H.) at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur directing the petitioner to report before the Principal of the concerned Institution within 3 weeks. The petitioner joined the said course but however, finding that D.C.H. Course in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur is not recognised by the All India Medical Council on 25. 1991 submitted a representation to the first respondent herein requesting him to admit the petitioner in a recognised Medical College. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Principal of the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur have given a certificate stating that, D.C.H. Course of his college has not yet been recognised by the Medical Council of India. It is to be stated here that this fact has not been given in the “Bulletin of Information” given to the candidates. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Principal of the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur have given a certificate stating that, D.C.H. Course of his college has not yet been recognised by the Medical Council of India. It is to be stated here that this fact has not been given in the “Bulletin of Information” given to the candidates. So by communication dated 29. 1991, a seat was allocated to the petitioner to N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad for D.C.H. Course cancelling the allotment made in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. However, the petitioner found that what is available in the said college is Diploma in paediatrics and not D.C.H. Course, according to the re-allotment order. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that having obtained Merit No.811, in the All India Selection, he is entitled to get admission in any of the recognised Colleges of his choice and originally he was admitted in unrecognised D.C.H. Course and now the petitioner is being admitted to a different course which is now allotted to him by order dated 29. 1991. The petitioner also alleged in the affidavit that a similar issue has been issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Sadayappan v. The Director General of Health Services, Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 Writ L.R. 16, wherein it has been stated that admission to students in unrecognised Institutions cannot be given. In the above-mentioned case, the Division Bench of this court has also directed the respondents therein to allot a seat to the petitioner therein in any of the colleges in which he has given option. Now the petitioner before me praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to admit him in D.C.H. Course for the academic year 1991 in any of the Medical Colleges with residenship and stipend where D.C.H. Course is recognised by the Medical Council of India as the petitioner having been selected for D.C.H. Course on merit basis. The petitioner also alleges that in Bangalore Medical College there is a vacancy in D.C.H. Course and that even assuming that there is no vacancy, respondents 1 to 3 are duty bound to allot a seat in D.C.H. as per the rank obtained by the petitioner. With these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the prayer as stated supra. 2. With these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the prayer as stated supra. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent claiming that as per the directions of the apex Court of the land, the respondent Directorate is to allocate the candidates to the respective Medical Colleges/Institutions on the merit-cum-preference-cum eligibility. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that every candidate was allowed to fill up a maximum choice of six subjects and eight colleges, that the petitioner has qualified in the All India P.G.Entrance Examination 1991 and secured 811 rank. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner exercised ‘the choices of Subjects and colleges in his application which run as follows: Subject College 1. M.D. (Paediatrics) 1. N.H.L.M.C, Ahmedabad 2. D.C.H. (2 Years) 2. G.S.M.C. Bombay 3. M.D. (Anaesthesia) 3. J.B. M.C. Pune 4. D/Anaesthesic (2 years) 4. S.M.S. M.C. Jaipur 5. B.J.M.C. Ahmedabad 6. H.P.Shah M.C.Jamnagar 7. Dr.V.M.M.C. Sholapur 8. M.L.B. M.C. Jhansi It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in the first list that the petitioner was allotted D.C.H. at S.M.S., M.C. Jaipur on 5. 1991, and that at the request of the petitioner by communication dated 29. 1991, he was allotted admission to N.H.L., M.C. Ahmedabad of his first choice. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been reallocated as per the request of the petitioner, that the change in choice of subject and college exercised by the petitioner cannot be allowed in view of the directions of the Supreme Court that a candidate can give only upto six subjects and eight colleges choice. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner has been allotted any subject in colleges opted by the petitioner overlooking the claim of the petitioner. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for allotment at Bangalore Medical College or in any other college for D.C.H. or M.D. (Paediatrics) for which the petitioner has not given his option in his original application form. It is also pointed out that if there is any consideration of the petitioner’s request it will be in contravention of the directions of the apex Court in the matter of the All India P.G.Scheme 1991. It is also pointed out that if there is any consideration of the petitioner’s request it will be in contravention of the directions of the apex Court in the matter of the All India P.G.Scheme 1991. It is also pointed out that the petitioner’s case has already been reallotted to D.C.H. Course at N.H.L., M.C. Ahmedabad as per his choice. 3. Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that petitioner was originally allocated to an unrecognised Institution which has been held as not correct by a Division Bench of this Court in Sadayappan v. The Director General of Health Services, Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 Writ L.R. 16. The learned Senior Counsel points out this pointing out this defect a representation was made to the respondents, that he has been allotted in an unrecognised course. The learned Senior Counsel points out that the D.C.H. Course to which the petitioner was allocated originally in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur is not a recognised course and as such the petitioner has been given an allotment again by order dated 29. 1991 which reads as follows: “Dr.Shivram Raghuram Singh bearing Roll No.A130620 Merit No.0811 is hereby reallocated D.C.H. of duration 2 years at N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. His/her earlier allotment to D.C.M. at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur stands cancelled in view of the reallocation made as per his/her own request and the candidate shall have no claim over earlier allotment......” According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no D.C.H. Course factually in that college and what is available in that college is Diploma in Paediatrics for which the petitioner has not applied at all. He also contends that the petitioner’s choice is not for Diploma in Paediatrics, but M.D. in Paediatrics. The learned Senior Counsel further states that this order has been passed without application of mind and that when the course is not available in the college, the petitioner has been allotted as if the Diploma in Child Health course is available in N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. He further contends that the academic year has come to an end and that atleast in the coming academic year the petitioner should be allotted a seat in D.C.H. Course in any one of the colleges or for in any one of the courses asked for by the petitioner. 4. He further contends that the academic year has come to an end and that atleast in the coming academic year the petitioner should be allotted a seat in D.C.H. Course in any one of the colleges or for in any one of the courses asked for by the petitioner. 4. Mrs.Nurjehan Razack, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel tries to defend that what has been allocated to the petitioner is Diploma in Paediatrics, that it is equivalent to Diploma in Child Health i.e., D.C.H. and as such there is nothing wrong in the allotment to the college concerned. According to the learned Senior Counsel the petitioner has been given in a recognised institution, the petitioner has asked for D.C.H. and an equivalent to that course has been given to the petitioner and as such this Court should not interfere with the order passed in this case. 5. I have considered the arguments of Mr.R.Gandhi the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and of M/s.Nurjehan Razack, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has been originally allotted to an unrecognised Institution and reallocation has been made in the month of September, 1991, at N.H.R. Medical College, Ahmedabad. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no D.C.H. Course in that College. May be Diploma in Paediatrics is equivalent to that course. But it is not found in the guidelines issued to the candidates like the petitioners. So, even the order of allotment is made, in my mind, in total disregard to the conditions of the guidelines to the candidates when there is no D.C.H. Course in Ahmedabad. I do not see how an order can be passed re-allotting the petitioner to D.C.H. Course. A clarification by Medical Council of India to the first respondent showing that D.C.H. and the Diploma in Paediatrics can be treated as one and the same at par, it cannot be said that what has been allotted to the petitioner is D.C.H. Course. In this case surely, a course has been allotted to the petitioner which he has not asked for. In this case surely, a course has been allotted to the petitioner which he has not asked for. When the directions of the apex Court of land are with regard to courses and subjects I do not see how the respondents could have allotted a different subject to the petitioner and try to defend that the Diploma in Paediatrics is one and the same as D.C.H. on the basis of instructions by Medical Council of India. The said allotment has been made in the month of September 1991. Even in the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that the Directorate has reallotted D.C.H. Course as per the request of the petitioner. The said statement made in the counter affidavit is clearly wrong. The petitioner has not been allotted to D.C.H. Course and what has been given to the petitioner is Diploma in Paediatrics. That order passed in the month of September 1991 says that it has been reallotted to the petitioner. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order of the first respondent dated 29. 1991 shows the total non-application of mind of the first respondent to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner having obtained Merit No.811 and been successful in the All India basis has to wait for another order, in view of the inconsistent orders passed by the first respondent. It is settled law, though the prayer asked for by the petitioner cannot be given straightaway, to suit the occasion this Court can mould the prayer. As such, I am of the view the reallocation order of the first respondeat dated 29. 1991 is set aside and the petitioner has to be re-allocated to any one of the colleges for which he has opted in his application and in any one of the courses to which he has opted for at least for (he academic year 1992. I do hope that the first respondent will bear in mind that the petitioner has lost one precious year. In view of that a writ of mandamus is to issue to the fiat respondent to allot the petitioner a seat in D.C.H. Course in any one of the colleges given by him in his reference. I do hope that the first respondent will bear in mind that the petitioner has lost one precious year. In view of that a writ of mandamus is to issue to the fiat respondent to allot the petitioner a seat in D.C.H. Course in any one of the colleges given by him in his reference. The first respondent has to take the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the subjects and the colleges the petitioner applied for and he has obtained 811 rank in All India and he has been originally allotted to an unrecognised Institution, which fact is not mentioned in the “Bulletin of Information” and later he has been reallocated to a college where no course asked for by him is offered to him in passing an order. As such, a direction is issued to the first respondent to pass an order in the above terms within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that the petitioner can prepare himself to joining the course in a recognised Institute in the subjects he opted for. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.