JUDGMENT This petition relates to admission to Post-Graduate Court degree to M.S.(Or-thopaedics), for which the petitioner who is presently doing P.G. Diploma Course, was recommended by the Dean. Admission is being denied to the petitioner on the ground that it would offend the rule relating to teacher-taught ratio at the P .G. level. Shri S.S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rules governing admission to P.G. Course as framed by the Medical Council of Indi1 do not come in the way of petitioner's admission: Shri T.N. Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand referring to Rule 1.1 of the Rules filed as Anx.R/3, submitted that the teacher-taught ratio as provided there in has got to· be maintained. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to note the Rules called as such are not 'Rules' in the strict legal sense of the term; they are recommendations of the Council on post-graduate medical education. Since there is no controversy about these recommendations governing admission to post-graduate course we are considering the same as they are, without going into the question whether they are 'Rules' in the legal sense of the terms. The Rules provide that in exceptional cases: "General (4) The student -teacher ratio should be such that the number of post graduate teacher to the number of post graduate students admitted per year be mantained at 1:1. For the proper training of the post graduate students, there should be a limit to the number of student admitted per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of at least 3 full time post graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post graduate training per year. If the number of post graduate teachers in the unit is more than three then the number of students can be increased proportionately. For this purpose one student should associate with one post graduate teacher. Whether the number of post graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit then the number of students should be reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student per teacher per year. In exceptional cases, in a unit with 1 post- graduate teacher and another teacher with post graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year." Shri T.N. Singh questioned what is the exceptional case? In exceptional cases, in a unit with 1 post- graduate teacher and another teacher with post graduate qualification a maximum of 2 students can be admitted per year." Shri T.N. Singh questioned what is the exceptional case? Even if this element of exceptionality is ignored for a while the teacher-taught ratio remains the same, on admitting the petitioner, argued Shri Samvatsar. It is an undisputed position that the number of posts of teachers, the concerned unit or thopaedics is five. The Rule- Anx.R/2 provides that one post graduate tcacher another teacher with post graduate qualification can be appointed and a student can be admitted and in such a case it is not necessary that the newly appointed teacher must have post graduate teaching experience, the requirement being possessing post graduate qualification. Indisputably such a teacher has been appointed. The respondent State had earlier in another petition MP 579/89, had taken the stand that additional seat could be provided only on appointment of a teacher who has been appointed vide order dtd.1.11. 90 -- Anx.6 & 7, and this appointment as is evident from the order, is to the post of a Rader who is a qualified P.G teacher. Apart from the appointment of Reader, a lecturer has also been appointed and posted, in Oct. 1992 as admitted by the respondent in their return in Para 2; but the contention advanced is that this lecturer is not a recognised post graduate teacher. The petitioner is admittedly at No.1 is the waiting list of merit candidates, who had applied for admission on creation of an additional seat and all-oting the same to him the Dean also strongly recommended his case on 1.11.91 (see Anx A). In face of the strength of teachers now available in the unit, and the requirement of rule as per Anx.R.2 being one possessing post- graduate qualification and not minimum experience of post-graduate teaching the appointment of lecturer as admittedly made, fulfills this requirement. Here it can not also be overlooked that this appointment is preceded by an appointment of a Reader a recognised P.G. teacher. In these circumstances there appears to be no justification, for denying admission to the petitioner to P .G. Course, M.S. (Ortho-paedics); more so in face of the recommendation made by the dean as per Anx. PA. Here it can not also be overlooked that this appointment is preceded by an appointment of a Reader a recognised P.G. teacher. In these circumstances there appears to be no justification, for denying admission to the petitioner to P .G. Course, M.S. (Ortho-paedics); more so in face of the recommendation made by the dean as per Anx. PA. The contention that it is not a consonance with the Rules, in view of the foregoing discussion cannot be accepted. One more point, about financial constraints has also been raised in the return. The petitioner is already undergoing Diploma Course, the teacher-taught ratio is not offended, the petitioner is admittedly at No.1 in the waiting list, the requirement of qualifications is also fulfilled, then there seems to be no justification at all in denying admission to the petitioner. The respondents have also raised a plea of National Waste; in face of the above noted facts wastage, if any, lies in denying admission. For the foregoing reasons this petition deserves to be allowed; it is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs.1,000/- (One thousand). The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner to M.S. Ortho-paedics, by creating and providing seat to him. Security be refunded. Petition allowed.