Judgment S.B.Sinha and G.C.Bharuka JJ. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing an order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 2-2-1993 whereby the petitioner was disallowed to appear at clinical and viva voce examination of D. Ortho course. 2. The facts of the matter lines in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner after passing his MBBS examination appeared in Post Graduate Medical Admission Test in the year 1991. He was selected for admission in Diploma in Anaethesiology. The petitioner, however was selected in Diploma in Anaethesiology. The petitioner was a regular student of Diploma in Anaesthesiology course for about six months. According to the petitioner he completed the course in Diploma in Orthopaedic in October, 1991 and thereafter he was sent up for examination held in the month of January 1992. He was also issued an admit card and thereafter appeared in three theoritical examination. According to the petitioner, however, he was entitled to be admitted in D. Ortho course, in which discipline he was admitted in Darbhanga Medical College. However, by reason of the impugned order dated 2-2-1993 the petitioner was informed that he cannot now be allowed to appear in Clinical and viva wee examination as he stand transferred from Diploma in Orthopaedic course. According to the petitioner in similar circumstances/several other students have been allowed to appear in two examinations simultaneously, but no details thereof have been furnished by him. 4. The petitioner has, in this case, not produced the order of his transfer which was material for the purpose of disposal of this application. However, from a perusal of the order dated 2-2-1993, as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application that his transfer certificate contains a condition that he would not take up the D Ortho examination because of his transfer from this course. The aforementioned order reads thus: ORDER Dr. S. Ali Imam, Roll No. -Dar, 476, P. G. M. A.T. 1991, who was admitted in Diploma Orthopaedics (D. Ortho, course had taken transfer to M. D. (Anaesthesiology) course from the same P. G. MAT Session i. e. 1991-93. As per the T. C. issued vide this office letter No. 6637 dated 10-11-92, it was made clear that he will not take up the D. Ortho examination because of transfer from this course to subject of higher choice. As per the T. C. issued vide this office letter No. 6637 dated 10-11-92, it was made clear that he will not take up the D. Ortho examination because of transfer from this course to subject of higher choice. As he has left the D Ortho course, he is not eligible to appear at the D. Ortho examination. He himself had opted for transfer of this condition alone in accordance with the notice of Controller of examination (Government of Bihar) His appearance in the theory examination is due to clerical error and oversight id thus not valid. As he stands transferred from D. Ortho course, he will not be allowed to appear in the clinical and Viva-examination. It was also the responsibility of the candidate to abide by the conditions mentioned in the transfer certificate which was issued to him at the time of transfer from Diploma to Degree course. 5. The petitioner has also not produced before us the prospectus for appearing in the P. G. M. A. T. Examination. However, it is stated at the Bar that in the examination rules, a person when selected must take admission one of the courses of studies. He cannot pursue his studies simultaneously in two different courses. It is accepted that diploma course is of one years duration whereas the duration of the degree course is of two years. The petitioner >vas transferred m November, 1992. The petitioner himself has stated that he has completed six months in Diploma in Anaesthesiology. 6. Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned Counsel has submitted that there is a policy decision of the State of Bihar that a person can take admission only in one course and when he has again been offered for taking admission in a particular course, he cannot refuse the same and only in that situation, the petitioner has to take admission in the diploma course of Aneasthesiology. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has allegedly completed his course of studies and has been issued an admit card, he should be permitted to complete his examination. It was further submitted that by reason of an interim order passed on 5-2-1993, the petitioner was permitted to appear at the viva examination and this Court should now direct the publication of his results. It was further submitted that by reason of an interim order passed on 5-2-1993, the petitioner was permitted to appear at the viva examination and this Court should now direct the publication of his results. Learned Counsel in support of this contention has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court reported in -- -Krishan V/s. The Kurukeshetra University and Sanatan Gauda V/s. Berhampur University -- . 7. In Kurukshetra University case (supra) the judgment was rendered in a different situation. In that case, the candidate was not otherwise disqualified to appear at the examination. In this case, however, the petitioner himself has opted to take admission in another course by giving up his right to appear in the diploma in Anaesthesiology course. He thus has waived his right, if any. He now is estopped and precluded from contending that he was also entitled to appear in Diploma in Anaesthesiology examination to appear in Anaesthesiology examination. 8. Evidently, the order of transfer in relation to the petitioner was subject to a condition mentioned therein and the petitioner had accepted that condition. Having accepted the aforementioned condition, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to turn round and claim his right to appear at the examination in question. While, he applied for transfer which was granted, he, evidently was aware of his right if any, which he waived. For the same reason, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda Case (supra) has no application. In that case also like that of Kurukshetra University case, principles of estoppel was applied against the University. The Supreme Court held as follows: Even though, therefore, for admission to the Law Course there is no requirement of any particular marks for post-graduate students like the appellant and the appellant is entitled to be admitted under Regulations quoted earlier, the appellant satisfies the other qualification as well, viz. he has passed the M. A. examination with 36 per cent in the aggregate deducting 13 marks in one of the papers and is, therefore, duly qualified to be admitted to the law course. L.M. Sharma, J. (as his Lordship then was) in his separate opinion also observed as follows: The Principal wrongly assured the University authorities that he had verified the position and that all the candidates were eligible. L.M. Sharma, J. (as his Lordship then was) in his separate opinion also observed as follows: The Principal wrongly assured the University authorities that he had verified the position and that all the candidates were eligible. In these circumstances, the argument is that the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that the University allowed him to appear at the examination. I am afraid, the stand of the respondent cannot be accepted as correct. From the letters of the University it is clear that it was not depending upon the opinion of the principal and had decided to verify the situation for itself. In that situation it cannot punish the student for the negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused or making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his marks sheet before the College authority with his application for admission and cannot be accused of any fraud or misrepresentation. (Emphasis supplied) In that case, thus, with regard to the interpretation of rule there existed a controversy. 9 This aspect of the matter has been considered by us in Mridula Prasad V/s. V. C.L.N. Mithila University CWJC No. 8292 of 1992 disposed of on 30-9-1992. 10. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this application. It it accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.