JUDGMENT 1. Issues relating to admission to the 25 per cent seats to the postgraduate Medical courses, known as "All India Quota", arise for consideration in these Original Petitions. These petitions have been referred to us by a learned Single Judge. Since common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions, we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. In Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India 1934 (3) SCC 654 the Supreme Court took the view that so far as admission to postgraduate courses, such as M. S., M. D. and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to the broader considerations of equality of opportunity, the Court directed a certain percentage of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed M.B.B.S. course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to postgraduate course in the same medical college or university. It was provided that such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should in no case exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to postgraduate course. The rest of the seats were required to be filled by an all India competitive examination, to be held by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. By a subsequent order, reservation of 50 p per cent for local students was changed to 75 per cent. Consequently, 25 per cent of the postgraduate seats in all the institutions were required to be filled by common examination held on all India basis. 3. So far as All India Entrance Examination for postgraduate courses in Medicine is concerned, Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College 1986 (3) SCC 727 directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences to hold one examination in an year. The scheme of the examination for admission was also fixed therein, as follows: General announcement Last date for request for application form : Last week of November (i) By  post January 10 (ii) From cash counter January 20 Last date for receiving application forms January 31 Competitive test Middle of  March Result to be declared First week of May This scheme was modified in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College 1987 (4) SCC 459 as: "The announcement for holding of the selection examination shall be made on October 1 of every year and a full four weeks' time would be made available to candidates for making their applications. After the applications; are received not later than six weeks from October 1, the same would be scrutinised and duly processed and admit ' cards would be issued. Examination shall be held on the second Sunday of January. The results of examination shall be announced within four weeks from holding of the examination. Admission shall commence two weeks after the declaration of results. The last date for taking admission shall be six weeks from the date of the announcement of results but the Head of every institution shall be entitled to condone delay upto seven days for reasons shown and grounds recorded in special cases. The courses of study shall commence in every institution providing such study throughout the country from May 2". The Court also stated that no application for any modification of the matters already covered by the orders passed till that date shall ordinarily be entertained. The importance of the above mentioned time schedule has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mridula Avanthi v. University of Delhi 1988 (2) SCC 572 observing: ".....................under the scheme intended to apply to the whole country the course has to, begin on May 2, 1988". In Jeevak Almast v. Union of India 1988 (4) SCC 27 , the Court was concerned with admission to postgraduate Medical Courses pursuant to All India Entrance Examination, which was held in the academic year 1988-89. In that case, Their Lordships observed: "We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tight frame of time has been fixed by the previous order of this Court in regard to admission as also commencement of studies. We have not the least intention to disturb that schedule." In Para.9 of that judgment, it was again reiterated that Their Lordships have no intention to interfere with the scheme, which has been approved earlier. In State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha 1990 (4) SCC 624 the Court found fault with the Government of Bihar for fixing the cut off date of eligibility as May 31, 1989 for the courses of study which are to commence from May 2. In State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha 1990 (4) SCC 624 the Court found fault with the Government of Bihar for fixing the cut off date of eligibility as May 31, 1989 for the courses of study which are to commence from May 2. Since the mistake committed by the State has misled a group of candidates, with reluctance, the mistake was condoned in the interest of the students. Their Lordships observed: "Obviously the relevant directions given in Dinesh Kumar's case [ 1987 (4) SCC 459 ] have not been followed by the examining body for the current year. Similarly the State of Bihar did not follow the directions of this Court while drawing up its prospectus. If the course of study are to commence from May 2, the last qualifying date could not have been fixed as May 31, 1989. It has been reiterated before us that several States have not been following the directions. Instead of issuing notice to the States and Union Territories for examining the .correctness of the allegations of delay and non-compliance of the directions, we have thought it appropriate to indicate that everyone including the States, the Union Territories and other authorities running Medical Colleges with postgraduate courses are bound by our order and must strictly follow the time schedule indicated in Para.6 of the order. We have not proceeded against the defaulting authorities for violation of this Court's order, hoping that there would be no recurrence of it but we would like to administer a warning to every one that if it is brought to our notice at any time in future that there has been violation a serious view of such default shall be taken. We hope and, trust that everyone concerned shall comply with the time I frame strictly and there would be no lapse in this regard in future." 4. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar v, Motilal Nehru Medical College 1990 (4) SCC 627 the Court took the view that the State of Uttar Pradesh was obliged to have initiated 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 held that the failure to do so by the State and the seven medical colleges of the State amounted to clear act of wilful default of the binding orders of the Supreme Court. It held that the failure to do so by the State and the seven medical colleges of the State amounted to clear act of wilful default of the binding orders of the Supreme Court. While no action in contempt was initiated, costs amounting to Rs. 20,000 was awarded against the State, while each of the erring Principals were ordered to pay Rs. 500 as costs. Principals were directed to pay the costs personally from their salary and ordered that they would not be, entitled to reimbursement of the same from the State exchequer. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc., 1987 (4) SCC 459 , the necessity for adherence to the time schedule was again reiterated. Their Lordships .observed: ''.........................to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study lull course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in 'the midstream would disturb the courses and also works an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained". From the above decisions, we are clear in our mind that the courses of study for postgraduate degree in Medicine should start by the beginning of May of each year and that Supreme Court has not so far departed from the scheme fixed in that regard in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case JT 1992 (4) SC 422 . 5. However, on 10th July, 1991, in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College WP No. 348-52/85, Supreme Court observed: "We make it clear that the outer limit for both allotment and transfer shall be 7th February of the year following the commencement of the session". On the basis of this direction, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged before us that first respondent is to keep the merit list alive till 7th February, 1993, for allotment/ reallocation of candidates to the various courses depending on the order of preference given by the candidates. On the basis of this direction, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged before us that first respondent is to keep the merit list alive till 7th February, 1993, for allotment/ reallocation of candidates to the various courses depending on the order of preference given by the candidates. From the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier, it is abundantly clear that the time schedule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case 1987 (4) SCC 459 was being insisted on by Court, No reported decision of the Supreme Court so far, has given any general or specific direction allowing admission to the various postgraduate courses to be made upto 7th February of the year succeeding the academic year. So, the above quoted order, according to us, cannot be interpreted to mean that it has superseded or in any way altered or departed from the time schedule which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case 1987 (4) SCC 459 . 6. In the Bulletin issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the programme for admission to the 1992 course is as follows: Last date for request by post of Application Form 7th November,1991 Last date for receiving of Application Form 14th November,1991 Admit cards issued 15th December,1991 Competitive test 19th January ,1992 Result to be declared 10th March,1992 Allotment of seats 15th April,1992 Last date for admission from first merit list 10th May,1992 Last date for admission from the waiting list 29th May,1992 This programme was known to all the candidates. It means that they were aware of the fact that the last date for admission from the waiting list was 29th May, 1992. 7. First respondent published the merit list of successful candidates in early April, 1992. It contained 1958 candidates. From out of the candidates ranked in that list, 1205 were allotted to various institutes/colleges on the basis of merit cum preference cum eligibility. All the candidates allotted did not join the courses to which admission was offered. To the resultant vacancies, a second allotment was made as per list dated 6th July 1992. That list was in respect of 160 candidates. Even thereafter there remained further vacancies. In an attempt to fill up those vacancies, a third list of 77 candidates was issued on - 28th August 1992. To the resultant vacancies, a second allotment was made as per list dated 6th July 1992. That list was in respect of 160 candidates. Even thereafter there remained further vacancies. In an attempt to fill up those vacancies, a third list of 77 candidates was issued on - 28th August 1992. The candidates allotted as per the third list were directed to join the courses by 15th September, 1992. Even by issuing the third list on 28th August 1992, all the seats; were not filled up. Was the first respondent justified in keeping seats vacant even after September, 1992? The answer can only be in the negative because of the programme for admission to the postgraduate courses fixed by the Supreme Court. 8. A Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petitions 1657/92, 1672/92 and 1925/92 took the view that all vacancies in the All India Quota after 15th September, 1992 should revert to ,the Delhi University for the Delhi University to fill up the same in accordance with their regulations. As per the scheme prescribed by the Supreme Court, the course 1992 must be deemed to have commenced on 2nd May, 1992, If the vacancies in the All India Quota are to revert to the respective States by 15th of September, that reversion became effective after a lapse of more than 4 1/2 months. This delay will affect the course of study. Therefore, according to us, vacancies in the All India Quota should have reverted to the respective States earlier. The direction given by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has been taken as one having general applicability and the first respondent surrendered all the vacancies that existed as on 15th September to the respective States. If we suggest a different date for surrender of vacant seats to the State, it will only go to add further confusion. So, we are not changing the date for the sake of maintaining uniformity. 9. Since the Director General of Health Services surrendered all the vacancies in the All India Quota to the respective States, the list prepared by him for admission in the All India Quota cannot be operated for filling up those vacancies. Vacancies are to be filled up in accordance with the rules governing the admission in the State Quota. 9. Since the Director General of Health Services surrendered all the vacancies in the All India Quota to the respective States, the list prepared by him for admission in the All India Quota cannot be operated for filling up those vacancies. Vacancies are to be filled up in accordance with the rules governing the admission in the State Quota. Therefore, the petitioners cannot advance any claim for admission to any of the seats surrendered by the Director General of Health Services on the basis of their rank in the all India merit list. 10. Medical Council of India as per its recommendations made in February, 1971 prescribed standards for postgraduate medical education throughout India. Government of India have approved the same. It has the status of regulations under S.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. According to this regulations, the student teacher ratio for postgraduate courses in MD/MS is to be maintained at 1:1. This is done to maintain the 'minimum standards of postgraduate education in Medicine. Therefore, the number of seats available for postgraduate courses is limited. There cannot be any increase in the number of seats without the sanction of the Medical Council of India and without corresponding increase in the strength of the teaching staff. This necessarily involves financial liabilities. As a corollary, to this, it can safely be stated that no seat in any of the disciplines for the postgraduate medical course can be wasted. It cannot be allowed to lie vacant. 11. A postgraduate student has to write a dissertation or thesis under the guidance of his Professor or Assistant Professor. He has to take part in seminars, group discussions and clinical meetings besides attending classes. There is also emphasis on in-service training. Once a student is admitted to the course, he is simultaneously required to work as a regular doctor in the institution/college to which he is attached. This is more so in clinical subjects. He should attend to patients in the department pertaining to his course of speciality and discharge the duties of a doctor. Recommendations of the Medical Council stipulate that the students in postgraduate courses should be resident in the hospital campus with responsibility of management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. A student so working in the hospital is paid monthly stipend. Recommendations of the Medical Council stipulate that the students in postgraduate courses should be resident in the hospital campus with responsibility of management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. A student so working in the hospital is paid monthly stipend. A student who joined an institution/ college and has been there for a sufficiently long period cannot be allowed to change the institution/college. 12. Now the question that is to be considered is as to whether a candidate, who got admission at the time of the first allotment is entitled to re-allotment. Entrance Examination is conducted on All India basis for filling up the seats in forty specialities in seventy medical colleges/institutions. Each candidate is allowed to make a choice of six subjects in eight colleges/institutions. The allocation is to be made in accordance with the principles of merit cum preference cum eligibility. It is the first respondent's case that the choice of subjects and colleges of all the successful candidates are fed into a computer and allotment is made with its help in accordance with the preference of subject and college given by candidate. If the seat chosen as first preference is not available in any of the eight colleges chosen, then the claim "for the subject second chosen in any of the colleges of choice is considered. This method is repeated with reference to the subjects chosen lower in preference. Accordingly seats are allotted at the first instance. This allotment seems to be unexceptional. But in case any of the candidate chosen "while making the first allotment fails to join the course and the resultant vacancy is sought to be allotted, should not the claims of those whose earlier option was to that course or institution which became vacant', be considered? In many cases in this group of petitions, petitioners were admitted to subject chosen by them as sixth in the order of preference in institution preferred as eighth. When they came to know of vacancy in the course of their earlier choice or institution of earlier preference they rep-resented to the first respondent to reallocate them to such course/institution. In many a number of cases first respondent replied that such claims will be considered in the subsequent list or when the question of reallocation is taken up. When they came to know of vacancy in the course of their earlier choice or institution of earlier preference they rep-resented to the first respondent to reallocate them to such course/institution. In many a number of cases first respondent replied that such claims will be considered in the subsequent list or when the question of reallocation is taken up. Without any regard to this reply, the vacancies are allotted to candidates ranked lower down in the list, while publishing the 2nd list and 3rd list on 6th July 1992 and 28th August 1992 respectively. By so doing, persons ranked below got admission to courses/institutions chosen as first preference by those who secured higher ranks. The meritorious candidate has to be satisfied with admission to the course/institution chosen as the last while the subject/institution of his first preference will be taken by one ranked far below him. This is against the scheme contemplated by the Supreme Court in which the thrust is to merit. Present practice adopted by the first respondent in allotting the seats, which fell vacant on account of those included in the first list refusing to join, to persons other than those included in the first list is unjust, irrational and one which defeats the claims of meritorious candidates. 13. One of us (Sreedharan, J.) in Saidalavi v. Union of India 1991 (1) KLT 64 took the view: "The present practice is that if a candidate is given admission to one of the courses in one of the institutions preferred by him, he will have to be satisfied with the same. Even if vacancies in the course of his earlier preference arise in the institution preferred by him, he will not be selected to that course. A person who secured a lower rank will be admitted to that course. So also a person who gets. admission to one of the eight institutions of his choice will not be preferred for the same course if a vacancy arise in the institution of . his earlier choice. This approach of AIIMS is not reasonable. If a vacancy in one of the courses of earlier priority given by a selected candidate arises, he must be preferred to that course to a candidate who secured lower rank. The same principle must apply to institutions as well". 14. his earlier choice. This approach of AIIMS is not reasonable. If a vacancy in one of the courses of earlier priority given by a selected candidate arises, he must be preferred to that course to a candidate who secured lower rank. The same principle must apply to institutions as well". 14. First respondent who was a party to Saidalavi's case 1991 (1) KLT 64 is bound by that decision. That decision was not challenged in appeal. So, first respondent cannot go against that direction. In many a number of cases he had undertaken to consider the claims of candidates for reallocation as well. But, he failed in carrying out those undertakings even. This, according to the petitioners, was for extraneous reasons. Since there are no materials to support this allegation made by them we leave it at that. 15. We are told that admission to the various courses in various I.I.Ts. is done on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. Admission to I.I.Ts. do not give rise to criticisms of persons ranked lower in the merit list getting admission to the earlier preference of subjects/institutions given by those ranked higher up. This establishes beyond any doubt that admissions to various courses in the different institutions based on All India Entrance Examinations can be effected without giving room to any criticism or heart burn to candidates who secure higher rank based on merit. We fail to understand, the reason for not adopting such a course by the first respondent. If such a method was adopted, it would have alleviated the sufferings' of those who secured higher ranks in the Entrance Examination. 16. In O.P. 6371/1989 a learned Single Judge ,of this Court directed the authorities to admit the writ petitioned in one of the two seats lying vacant in M.D. (General Medicine) in Medical College, Bangalore for the year 1989-90 or in the alternative in one seat in the 1990-91 quota. When the matter came up before a Division Bench in Writ Appeal 261/1990 at the instance of the writ petitioner, he pressed for a direction to admit him in one seat in M.D. (General Medicine) in the 1990-91 quota in any of the Medical Colleges in this State. Central Government Standing Counsel submitted to court that no seat is available in the Medical College, Bangalore for M.D. (General Medicine) for 1989-90. Central Government Standing Counsel submitted to court that no seat is available in the Medical College, Bangalore for M.D. (General Medicine) for 1989-90. By judgment "dated 18th May 1990, Division Bench directed the authorities to admit the petitioner in M.D. (General Medicine) for the 1990-91, quota in any of the Medical Colleges in Kerala. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal petition 10095 of 1990. Supreme Court did not approve the order passed by this Court stating that this Court should not have taken upon itself to formulate guidelines and issued directions which would run counter to the scheme formulated by Their Lordships. It was observed in its order: "Any guideline or direction contained in the impugned judgment which runs counter to the formulation of this court shall be deemed to be not operative". Since the first session of the course was almost coming to an end when the matter reached the Supreme Court, the admission given was not interfered with. From this it is clear that this Court is not to interfere with the admission granted to the candidates by the 1st respondent; which is based on merit list. It is also clear that even if a student got admission to a course wrongly and he continued for about a session of the course his admission is not to be interfered with. This Court is not to direct any candidate to be admitted to any seat lying vacant in the All India Quota either [vide JT 1992 (4) SC 422]. 17. Petitioners in these writ, petitions relied on the decision in Writ Appeal 937, of 1992 (dated 22nd October 1992) in support of their argument that this Court can direct the authorities to admit candidates to existing vacancies. Writ petitioner who got higher rank in the entrance examination was admitted to M.S. (E.N.T.) in Medical College, Kottayam (his third choice, first choice being Medical College, Trivandrum). Sixth respondent who got a lower rank was admitted to M.S. (E.N.T.) in Medical College, Trivandrum. Writ petitioner contended that he is having a , preferential right to be .admitted in Medical College, Trivandrum depending on the higher rank. Division Bench granted the prayer of the writ petitioner and directed the authorities to admit the petitioner in Medical College, Trivandrum and 6th respondent in Medical College, Kottayam. Writ petitioner contended that he is having a , preferential right to be .admitted in Medical College, Trivandrum depending on the higher rank. Division Bench granted the prayer of the writ petitioner and directed the authorities to admit the petitioner in Medical College, Trivandrum and 6th respondent in Medical College, Kottayam. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, we are of the view that the decision in WA 937/1992 must be confined to the peculiar facts of that case. 18. In the petitions before us, it is admitted, the course of study in various postgraduate disciplines of 1992 started in early September, 1992. More than four months of study is over. As per the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council, those who started the course are working in their respective institutions as regular doctors and are attending on patients in the department pertaining to the respective specialities. They are not to be transplanted in the middle, of the course. Nor can a candidate who has not secured admission to any course be admitted in the middle of the course. If any direction to the contra is issued by this Court regarding admission to the All India Quota, it will certainly mar the excellence of the course and will go against the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court. 19. It is conceded before us on all sides that the vacant seats in All India Quota 1992 have been surrendered to the respective States for admitting, students in conformity with the rules framed by them. This surrender is questioned by counsel representing the petitioner. We do not find any merit in this contention. To the course which must be deemed to have been started on 2nd May, 1992, admission cannot be made even after September, 1992 as pointed out by the Supreme 'Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc. JT 1992 (4) SC 422. So, the surrender of the vacant seats to the respective States is unassailable. In such a situation, for filling up those vacancies, the merit list prepared for filling up the 2.5 per cent All India Quota cannot be of any avail. Those vacancies have to be filled up in accordance with the rules framed by the State. * * * Para 20 to 43 omitted * * * 44. In such a situation, for filling up those vacancies, the merit list prepared for filling up the 2.5 per cent All India Quota cannot be of any avail. Those vacancies have to be filled up in accordance with the rules framed by the State. * * * Para 20 to 43 omitted * * * 44. In all the above mentioned cases, it is admitted before us that courses began in early September, 1992. Thus it is seen that the direction of the Supreme Court to start the postgraduate course of study on the 2nd of May of each year is not complied with in 1992 as well. In all the decisions, Their Lordships emphasised the requirement to commence the course throughout India on 2nd May. Students who got admission to various courses nearly four months behind schedule have been continuing their studies for more than four months, thereafter. If they are uprooted from the institutions and admitted to new courses, it will not only harm their studies, but also leave those studies, in many cases vacant. If seats are allowed to lie vacant, it will amount to national waste. Further if this Court now directs reallocation of seats, large number of students who secured admission as per the orders of allotment will be adversely affected. They are not parties in these proceedings. As held by us earlier in this judgment, the vacant seats to the various courses beginning in 1992 have been surrendered by first respondent to the States in September, 1992. To avoid confusion, we agree with the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court that the seats under the Central Quota which are unfilled dan be surrendered to the State Quota after 15th September of the year. Even to those vacancies in the All India Quota, no direction can be issued by this Court to admit candidates from the merit list prepared by first respondent. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc. JT 1992 (4) SC 422 Their Lordships stated: "Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work's an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc. JT 1992 (4) SC 422 Their Lordships stated: "Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work's an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view, we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained." From the date of that surrender, which we have held to be valid, no seat is available to be allotted to candidates who secured ranks in the All India Entrance Examination. On this ground also, petitioners in the earlier mentioned Original Petitions are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. 45. Dr. Sreekumar, who secured rank No. 281. in the All India Entrance Examination, 1992 is the 2nd petitioner in O.P. 9158 of 1992. The subjects opted by him were M.D. (Paediatrics), M.D. (Radio Diagnosis), M.D. (General Medicine), M.S. (Orthopaedics), M.S. (Ophthalmology) and M.D. (Anaesthesia), in the above order of preference. The colleges chosen in the order of preference were Medical College, Trivandrum, G.S.M.C., Bombay, B.J.M.C., Ahemdabad, B.H U., Varanasi, K.G.M.C., Lucknow, G.M:C., Rohtak, G.M.C., Baroda and M.P. Shah M.C., Jamnagar. 2nd petitioner was allotted to M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) 3 year course in Government Medical College, Rohtak. Pursuant to the communication received from first respondent, he joined that institution, . Subsequently ' he received Exhibit P-3 communication dated 6th July 1992 selecting for admission to M.D. (General Medicine) in Medical College, Trivandrum. This re-allotment is questioned in this Original Petition. Since M.D. (General Medicine) was his third choice and he was at first allotted to the subject of his second choice, he does not want to leave the Medical College, Rohtak. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Principal and Director of Medical College, Rohtak informed first respondent that against one seat in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis), two candidates ranked 134 and 281 have been allotted and so requested to adjust the second candidate to some other college. Accordingly, Dr. Sreekumar was allotted to M.D. (General Medicine) in Trivandrum Medical College on 6th July 1992. Due to the order of stay passed by this Court, the re-allotment has been implemented. 46. Accordingly, Dr. Sreekumar was allotted to M.D. (General Medicine) in Trivandrum Medical College on 6th July 1992. Due to the order of stay passed by this Court, the re-allotment has been implemented. 46. At the time of hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the first respondent. In the Bulletin issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Government Medical College, Rohtak is seen to have two seats for M.D. (Radio Diagnosis). M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) is -categorised as B-16 in the chart attached to the brochure showing the colleges and number of seats available. Government Medical College, Rohtak has two seats for B-16. In view of this announcement, We find it difficult to accept the present contention raised by the respondent that the Medical College, Rohtak has only one seat for M.D. (Radio Diagnosis). Therefore, we direct respondents to allow Dr. Sreekumar to continue his studies in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) in the Medical College, Rohtak. Original Petition is allowed in this respect. 47. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that petitioners in these Original Petitions except in O.P. 9158 of 1992 are not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. Consequently, those Original Petitions are dismissed. O.P. 9158 of 1992 is allowed and respondents are directed to permit petitioner therein, namely Dr. Sreekumar, to continue his studies in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) in the Medical College, Rohtak. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.