Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) WE propose to dispose of these three writ petitionsby a common order since the questions arising therein are almost same and similar. ( 2 ) DR. Sanjay Dikshit preferred Civil Writ No. 2578/94 praying for appropriate directions that the option of the courses given by respondents 2 to 7 for variouspost-graduate degree/diploma courses in various institutions be declared asillegal and to further declare that the courses which have fallen vacant thecandidates in the waiting list according to merit may be considered. Respondentno. 1 is the Delhi University and respondents 2 to 7 are the candidates who hadtaken the screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universityof Delhi for admission to post-graduate degree/diploma courses 1994-95 for whichscreening test was held on 26/ 27/02/1994. ( 3 ) DR. Rajesh Kumar Bawari mentioned as A. Bawari, shown as respondentno. 3 and Dr. Anil Kr. Aggarwal shown as respondent No. 7 in CW 2578/94, havealso preferred two separate writ petitions, namely, CWs. 2707/94 and 2708/94. ( 4 ) BOTH these petitioners have prayed, for the quashing of the decision takenby the Board of Research Studies of Medical Sciences of the University taken in itsmeeting held on 6/06/1994 by which petitioner in CW 2707/94, Dr. Rajeshbawari was declined extension to join the post-graduate course and Dr. Anilkumar Aggarwal (petitioner in CW 2708/94) was sought to be excluded fromcounselling which was scheduled to be held on 30/06/1994. The backgroundin which the writ petitions came to be filed may be noticed. ( 5 ) DR. Bawari after completion of MBBS degree course and compulsoryinternship from Delhi University in the year 1991 got himself registered as amedical practitioner with Medical Council of India on 14. 1. 1991. He took the Delhipost Graduate Entrance Examination in March, 1992 and was declared successful. He was allotted a two-years diploma course in Anesthesia at Lady Hardingmedical College, New Delhi which he joined on 1. 7. 1992. In normal course this 2-years diploma course inclusive of examination was expected to be over by June,1994 but as per the examination programme dated 25. 1. 1994, University postponedthe examinations and the same are now scheduled to be held from 18/07/1994to 2/08/1994. Dr. Bawari felt desirous of pursuing higher medical studiesand decided to take screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences,university of Delhi for admission to various post-graduate degree course in 1994-95 session. 1. 1994, University postponedthe examinations and the same are now scheduled to be held from 18/07/1994to 2/08/1994. Dr. Bawari felt desirous of pursuing higher medical studiesand decided to take screening test conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences,university of Delhi for admission to various post-graduate degree course in 1994-95 session. In January, 1994 he submitted an application in which it was also statedby him that he was already pursuing the diploma course in Anesthesia which wasto come to an end in the month of June, 1994 namely before commencement of thepost-graduate degree course in 1994-95. Screening test was held on 27. 2. 1994. Hewas declared successful and was placed on merit at S. No. 50. In the firstcounselling on 10. 4. 1994 Dr. Bawari was allocated a seat in M. S. Orthopaedics atuniversity College of Medical Sciences and was advised to join the course by2. 5. 1994. Since his diploma course examination was not yet over, therefore, heexpressed difficulty to join the course by 2. 5. 1994 and informed the Counsellingboard accordingly whereupon counselling board advised him to seek extension oftime from the University for joining the course which according to him, as per pastpractice followed by University would have been granted to him. On 21. 4. 1994 arepresentation was submitted by him to the University seeking permission to joinm. S. Orthopaedics course after his diploma examinations were over and similarrepresentation was given to the Principal, University College of Medical Sciences,university of Delhi. He has now learnt that the Board of Research Studies formedical Sciences in its meeting held on 6. 6. 1994 had declined to grant extension tojoin the course. He has questioned this decision. ( 6 ) THE facts in CW 2708/94 are somewhat similar. After completion of hism. B. B. S. Degree course and compulsory intemship Dr. Anil Kr. Aggarwal joined2-years diploma course in tuberculosis and chest diseases at V. P. Chest Institute,delhi on 2. 7. 1992, which according to him would have been over by June, 1994. Hewas also desirous of higher studies for which purpose he decided to take screeningtest conducted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the University for admissionto post-graduate degree course 1994-95. An application was submitted by him andagainst the relevant column he disclosed the factum of his pursuing the diplomacourse in Tuberculosis and chest diseases. He was declared successful and rankedin merit at S. No. 153. An application was submitted by him andagainst the relevant column he disclosed the factum of his pursuing the diplomacourse in Tuberculosis and chest diseases. He was declared successful and rankedin merit at S. No. 153. He was called for counselling on 11. 4. 1994 and was allocateda seat in M. D. Tuberculosis and chest diseases at V. P. Chest Institute, Delhi. He waslikewise advised to join the course by 2. 5. 1994. Counselling Board was informedby him that since his diploma course examinations were not over, it would not bepossible for him to join the course by 2. 5. 1994 whereupon the Board is stated tohave advised him to seek extension of time. Instead of seeking extension. Dr. Anilkr. Aggarwal on 28. 4. 1994 surrendered the seat and opted to have his name in thewaiting list to be considered at subsequent counselling which was due to be heldon 30. 6. 1994 but on 7. 6. 1994 when went to University he came to know that hewould not be called for second counselling due to the reason that he had notcompleted his diploma examination so far. This decision of the University is underchallenge by him. ( 7 ) IN CW 2578/94 it is the case of Dr. Dikshit that he passed MBBS in March,1992 and did house job in casualty and medicine from January, 199 2/12/1992 in Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi and also workedthereafter as Junior Resident in Rajan Babu T. B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Desirous of obtaining higher medical education he took the screening test for postgraduate degree and diploma courses conducted by the University on 27. 2. 94 andwas placed at Sr. No. 181 in order of merit. In the first counselling he opted fordiploma in Child Health in Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi but beforethe due date of joining, namely, 2. 5. 1994 he informed the University on 29. 4. 1994for being placed in waiting list to be considered for counselling due to be held on30. 6. 1994. The sole grievance of Dr. Dikshit is that respondents 2 to 7 who havebeen pursuing various post-graduate degree or diploma courses ought not to havebeen allowed to appear in the screening test conducted by the University on 26/27. 2. 1994 and that could not have been considered for counselling on 10 and 1 1/04/1994. 6. 1994. The sole grievance of Dr. Dikshit is that respondents 2 to 7 who havebeen pursuing various post-graduate degree or diploma courses ought not to havebeen allowed to appear in the screening test conducted by the University on 26/27. 2. 1994 and that could not have been considered for counselling on 10 and 1 1/04/1994. In the merit list prepared after screening test, respondents 2 to 7 wereplaced at Sr. Nos. 48, 50, 114, 119, 124 and 153. Since they have already beenpursuing post-graduate degree or diploma courses in various institutions in Delhi,allowing them to participate in screening test or to allow them to join 1994-95session is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench in Dr. Veena Gupta v. University of Delhi ( AIR 1994 Del. 108 ) ( 8 ) DR. Sanjeev Dikshit first approached this Court with writ petition in whichnotice was issued to the University of Delhi. It filed its counter on the affidavit ofprof. S. K. Vasan, presently functioning as Registrar of the Delhi University takingup thestand that a number of students who were in the final year of post-graduatedegree or diploma courses appeared in the entrance examination in order to seekadmission to fresh courses of study during academic year 1994-95. Such of thecandidates who appeared at the first counselling of 10/11. 4. 1994 and opted fordifferent subjects were required to join the courses by 2. 5. 1994. However, thecandidates who have not completed the. courses of study being undergone by themwere not allowed, to join and extension of time asked for by them to join the courseswas rejected by the Board of Research Studies. The University took up a stand thatfrom 1995-96 session it has proposed to take 10. 4. 1994 as the cut off date fordetermining the eligibility of candidates seeking admissions to post graduatedegree/diploma courses but for 1994-95 session it will abide by the Court sdirections as regards cut offdate since a peculiar situation has arisen during this year due to post-ponement of the dates of examinations of the on going postgraduate courses. ( 9 ) ON 27. 5. 1994 when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench of thiscourt, University was called upon to furnish particulars of those candidates whoseright to admission was likely to be adversely affected if 10. 4. ( 9 ) ON 27. 5. 1994 when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench of thiscourt, University was called upon to furnish particulars of those candidates whoseright to admission was likely to be adversely affected if 10. 4. 1994 was to be takenas the cut off date for the purpose of determining eligibility also for 1994-95 session. As a consequence of this order a list of 60 candidates was submitted who hadappeared in the entrance test and were in the merit list and would be affected if. 10. 4. 1994 is fixed as the cut off date. On 29. 6. 1994 while rule was issued by way ofinterim order, the counselling for the last stage of admission which was due to beheld on 30. 6. 1994 was directed to be postponed till the decision of the writ petition. ( 10 ) ON 4. 7. 1994, Shri Swatanter Kumar appearing for the two petitioners whoare respondents 3 and 7 in CW 2578/94, stated that no separate counter affidavit needbe filed and averments made by these two petitioners in these writ petitions be readas counter to CW 2578/94. University filed its separate elaborate counter affidavitin CW 2707/94 which was stated to be taken as counter in both the petitions. ( 11 ) THE University has tried to justify its action in opposition to the writpetition filed by Dr. Bawari and Dr. Aggarwal by contending that it is not open toa student to simultaneously pursue two different courses at the same time in theuniyersity. Unless the candidate concerned has completed the course he isundergoing he cannot seek admission to and cannot be permitted to join anothercourse. Since both these petitioners were undergoing courses in the Faculty ofmedical Sciences at the relevant time, namely 10. 4. 1994 the date fixed for the firstcounselling or in any case on 2. 5. 1994, the date fixed for joining the post-graduatedegree/diploma courses and had not completed their diploma courses yet and hadalso not taken examination therein, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. Thecourse of study being undertaken by them would be complete only with theholding of examinations. It has been stated in counter affidavit by the Universitythat it proposes to fix 10th of April as the cut off date for determining eligibility ofcandidates for seeking admission from the next academic year 1995-96. Thecourse of study being undertaken by them would be complete only with theholding of examinations. It has been stated in counter affidavit by the Universitythat it proposes to fix 10th of April as the cut off date for determining eligibility ofcandidates for seeking admission from the next academic year 1995-96. Fixing thecut off date with reference to the date fixed for commencement of the counsellingwould facilitate the smooth functioning of the scheme and enable the students tojoin the course within the stipulated period and would limit the number ofvacancies that may arise after the date fixed for commencement of the course. Inso far as the current year is concerned. University would abide by the directions ofthis Court in determining a cut off date. It is also suggested in the affidavit that theeligibility be determined with reference to the first date of counselling, namely, 10. 4. 1994 thereby enabling the University to exclude from the waiting list and meritposition candidates such of the candidates who are not eligible to seek admissionto any course during the current academic year. In the alternative, it has also beensuggested that the eligibility can also be determined with reference to 30/06/1994 the last date fixed for counselling being the last date before the closing of theadmission, namely, 1. 7. 1994. ( 12 ) IN the light of the aforementioned pleadings we have heard Mr. J. L. Kalra,appearing for the petitioner in CW 2578/94, Mr. Swatanter Kumar for the petitioners in CWs. 2707 and 2708 of 1994 and Mr. A. Mariaputtam for the respondentuniversity. ( 13 ) IT is contended by Mr. Kalra that there has to be a cut off date fordetermining the eligibility for admission - whether it is 10. 4. 1994 the first date ofcounselling or 30-6-94 the last date of counselling. In addition to the cut off dateuniversity is bound to disallow such of the candidates for being considered foradmission, who on the cut off date were pursuing a different course in the sameuniversity and, thus, contended that respondents 2 to 7 can not be considered foradmission to the course in question. ( 14 ) MR. In addition to the cut off dateuniversity is bound to disallow such of the candidates for being considered foradmission, who on the cut off date were pursuing a different course in the sameuniversity and, thus, contended that respondents 2 to 7 can not be considered foradmission to the course in question. ( 14 ) MR. Swatanter Kumar, on the other hand, has vehemently contended thatwhen there has been a practice followed by the University for quite sometime inthe past in extending the period for joining the course, the same cannot be stoppedabruptly by it especially when due to no fault of the candidates. University has notbeen in a position to conduct the examinations in time. Petitioners who had joinedthe diploma course in 1992 in normal course would have completed the same byjune 1994 well before the commencement of the course in question namely 2. 7. 1994and as per past practice petitioners legitimately expected that extension of time forjoining the course would be granted to them since it is for no fault of theirs that tilljune 1994 University was not in a position to complete the examinations. Moreoversuch of the candidates who joined the diploma course in 1992 are being clearlydiscriminated against vis-a-vis the post-graduate candidates who had joineddegree course in 1991. In the case of post-graduate degree students. Universityconducted the examinations in June and declared the results on 27. 6. 1994 butinsofar as the diploma students are concerned, the examination is scheduled to beheld from 18th July to 2/08/1994. Thus, it is due to the University s own actthat examinations would not be over by 2. 7. 1994 when the course would commence. In such circumstances in the past the University had been allowingextension. ( 15 ) MR. A. Mariaputtam frankly conceded that after directions were issued bythe Apex Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others (1987 - 4 SCC 459) dealing with the post-graduatedegree/diploma courses and in the two decisions of this Court in Dr. Sandhyakabra and Others v. University of Delhi ( AIR 1993 Del. 40 ) and Dr. Veena Gupta s (supra ). The University has strictly been adhering to the time schedule. Sandhyakabra and Others v. University of Delhi ( AIR 1993 Del. 40 ) and Dr. Veena Gupta s (supra ). The University has strictly been adhering to the time schedule. In orderto facilitate the candidates it has been the practice in the University to allowextension of time in joining the course in case a candidate is not in a position to jointhe same on the scheduled date. It is also contended that a peculiar situation hasarisen during this year when University has not been in a position to complete theexaminations for the post-graduate degree and the diploma candidates who hadbeen pursuing such courses before the commencement of the counselling and in thecase ofdiploma candidates prior to the commencement of the course for 1994-95. But that alone will not give a right to the petitioners in the two petitions, namely,2707 and 2708 of 1994 to claim as of right extension of time or claiming to beconsidered for admission. On both the relevant dates namely 10. 4. 1994 or 30. 6. 1994they had been undergoing course of study in post-graduate diploma and theirexamination would not be over before 2/07/1994. ( 16 ) A few facts brought to our notice during hearing also deserve to benoticed. There were 173 seats notified for post-graduate degree course and 74 seatsfor the post-graduate diploma course. In the first counselling candidates from Sr. No. 1 to 500 in accordance with merit were called. The present position as regardsvacancies is 48 and 29 seats respectively for post-graduate degree and diplomacourses. There are as many as 217 candidates in the waiting list in the secondcounselling and in addition candidates from 501 to 600 will also be called. ( 17 ) HAVING considered the submissions made at the Bar and the problemarising we would not like to make any observation as to what should be the cut offdate for determining eligibility of candidates for the post-graduate degree anddiploma courses in future. It is a matter which deserves to be dealt with by theuniversity and it may adopt a reasonable date which may be deemed fit andproper, keeping in view the directions issued in the aforementioned decisions andthe time schedule for courses. However, we find that the petitions can be disposedof without entering into discussion on various aspects addressed at the Bar. It is a matter which deserves to be dealt with by theuniversity and it may adopt a reasonable date which may be deemed fit andproper, keeping in view the directions issued in the aforementioned decisions andthe time schedule for courses. However, we find that the petitions can be disposedof without entering into discussion on various aspects addressed at the Bar. It is notin dispute that the University had not notified for the current year as to what wouldbe the date which would be taken as the cut off date for determining eligibility ofcandidates. It is also not in dispute that the two petitioners, viz. , Dr. Bawari anddr. Aggarwal along with other similarly situate candidates while submitting theirapplications for being allowed to participate in the screening test conducted for thepost-graduate degree or diploma courses for academic year 1994-95, against therelevant column had duly disclosed the factum of their pursuing post-graduatedegree/diploma courses. Thus, the University had notice of this fact that thepetitioners were undergoing diploma course when they submitted their applications. It is also not in dispute that even at the time of screening test the petitionershad apprised the authorities concerned that they were undergoing diplomacourses which they had joined in the year 1992. They were allowed to appear in thetest and were declared successful and were placed in the merit list and it is also notin dispute that they were also called for counselling and were allowed seats. Dr. Bawari sought extension for joining whereas Dr. Aggarwal before 2. 5. 1994 expressed his desire for being placed in the waiting list so as to entitle him to be calledfor the second counselling. It is also not in dispute that as per the programme thedate of close of admission is 1. 7. 1994. It is also not in dispute that in the normalcourse the petitioners would have completed the diploma course in June, 1994including the taking of the examination and declaring of the results but for thepostponement of examination by the University which are now fixed from 1 8/07/1994 to 2/08/1994. It is also admitted that in so far as post-graduatedegree students are concerned, who were undergoing their course of study,examinations were held in June, 1994 and result was also declared on 27. 6. 1994. ( 18 ) CHAPTER III of the University Ordinance deals with the University examinations and conditions for admission to examinations. Ordinance 7. 1. It is also admitted that in so far as post-graduatedegree students are concerned, who were undergoing their course of study,examinations were held in June, 1994 and result was also declared on 27. 6. 1994. ( 18 ) CHAPTER III of the University Ordinance deals with the University examinations and conditions for admission to examinations. Ordinance 7. 1. (3) refers tothe period of regular course of study which a candidate is required to pursue beforebeing allowed to appear in examination. In the case of post-graduate degree, theduration of regular course of study is 3 calendar years whereas in the case ofdiploma the period of regular course of study is 2 calendar years. There is adistinction between the duration of course of study to be pursued and completionof course. Immediately on completion of the courses of study of degree or diploma,a candidate may or may not appear in the examination. University permits acandidate to take examination subsequently also and in the case of degree students5 years time limit from the date of completion of course of study is allowed. In thesecond Appendix in Vol. II of University Calendar under the head Post-graduatedegree Courses, Clause 18 states that students admitted to any post-graduatedegree course shall have to pass the examination within 5 years after submission ofthesis, for the course and the thesis as per Clause 10 is to be submitted afterpursuing 2 years study in post-graduation. ( 19 ) THE stand of the University is that since the petitioners had not completedthe courses which they had been undergoing they could not seek admission to andcould not be admitted to other course. Duration of the course of study of postgraduate degree students, as noticed above, is 3 calendar years and for diploma 2calendar years. A post-graduate degree student before being permitted to take thefinal examination at the end of a third year, is required to submit a thesis in aspecified area at the end of the second year. During the first two years, a postgraduate student receives training for selecting a subject and for preparing a thesisunder the guidance of a supervisor concerned. In Dr. Sandhya Kabra s case (supra)the Full Bench noticed the peculiar nature of the post-graduate course as follows: "the post-graduate courses in medicine do not contemplate of mere attendance of lectures. During the first two years, a postgraduate student receives training for selecting a subject and for preparing a thesisunder the guidance of a supervisor concerned. In Dr. Sandhya Kabra s case (supra)the Full Bench noticed the peculiar nature of the post-graduate course as follows: "the post-graduate courses in medicine do not contemplate of mere attendance of lectures. For the purpose of imparting post-graduate teaching andtraining to the student, the University has recognised different hospitals andinstitutions based on the facilities and expertise available in the said institutions and hospitals. Once a student is selected to undergo post graduatestudy in a particular speciality in a particular institution, that student is thenassigned to the said institution. The said student, apart from being a postgraduate student of the University, is simultaneously required to work as aregular Doctor in the institution/hospital concerned, especially if the postgraduate course of the student is clinical in nature. The post-graduate studentwould be required to attend to patients in the particular department pertaining to his course of speciality and also discharge the duties of a Doctor in thesaid department. The recommendations of the Medical Council of India alsostipulate that in service training should be given to the candidates and thesame requires a candidate to be a resident in the hospital campus withresponsibility of management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. A student so working in the hospital is paid monthly stipend for the work hedoes in the hospital. " ( 20 ) THE Bench also noticed that under the recommendations of the Medicalcouncil of India it is mandatory that the student-teacher ratio in all post-graduatedegree courses be maintained at 1:1 and it is in accordance with these recommendations that as soon as a post-graduate student joins the course in a particularspeciality, he is put under the supervision or guidance of a teacher in that speciality. ( 21 ) IN case the course of study has been completed by the petitioners, whichfact is not disputed and only examinations are to be taken by them which they cantake within a period of 5 years, it cannot be said that they are still undergoing thecourse of study either as a post-graduate degree or diploma student. ( 21 ) IN case the course of study has been completed by the petitioners, whichfact is not disputed and only examinations are to be taken by them which they cantake within a period of 5 years, it cannot be said that they are still undergoing thecourse of study either as a post-graduate degree or diploma student. Course ofstudy in normal circumstances will come to an end on completion of 3 calendaryears in the case of a degree and on completion of 2 calendar years in the case of adiploma candidate from the date of joining of the course. In so far as the postgraduate degree students are concerned, there is no dispute that in their cases theuniversity declared their results on 27. 6. 1994 and they are being considered forbeing admitted for fresh courses in 1994-95. On the first date of counselling neithertheir examination was over nor had the result been declared. It is stated that theirresults have been declared prior to the date of closure of admissions. In the case ofthe candidates who were undergoing diploma courses who had also soughtadmission in the course in question the examination has not been conducted. Thusa very peculiar situation has arisen. For resolving this it can safely be said that theyas per practice adopted by the University had a legitimate expectation thatexaminations in their case would also have been over and results declared muchbefore the closure of the admission for the course in question on 1. 7. 1994 or in anycase they also legitimately expected that they would be permitted by the Universityextension of time in joining the course. It is more so when even till 16. 6. 1994 theuniversity did not notify them that their candidature cannot be accepted or thatthey were ineligible. In case university wanted to take either 10. 4. 1994 or 30. 6. 1994as the cut off date for determining the eligibility, it ought to have given a due noticeprior to inviting application for the screening test which was not done. At this stagethe University cannot be allowed to take up the stand that they were not eligiblecandidates. There is also no reason as to why the University during this year shouldhave deviated from the past practice in the matter of grant of extension of time. Thus, by applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, both Dr. Bawari and Dr. At this stagethe University cannot be allowed to take up the stand that they were not eligiblecandidates. There is also no reason as to why the University during this year shouldhave deviated from the past practice in the matter of grant of extension of time. Thus, by applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, both Dr. Bawari and Dr. Anil Aggarwal and other similarly situate candidates who have being doingdiploma courses will be entitled to the extension and will also be entitled for beingconsidered for admission, as the case may be irrespective of the fact that they have not yet appeared in the examinations and their results having not been dedaredsince the period of 2 calendar years for which they were expected to undergo courseof study has admittedly came to an end till 30. 6. 1994. ( 22 ) IN these circumstances, we allow CWs 2707 and 2708 of 1994 and dismisscw 2578/94. The impugned decision of the Board of Research Studies of Medicalsciences, incorporated in Annexure X in CW 2707/94 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner Dr. Bawari will be granted extension for joining the course till 20. 8. 1994since as per the Programme the P. G. Medical Diploma Annual and Supplementary, the examinations will be over by 2. 8. 1994, we direct that the result of the examinations be announced on or before 17. 8. 1994 and the petitioner Dr. Bawari bepermitted to join the course by 20. 8. 1994. A suitable date will now be fixed-and dulynotified by the University for the second counselling for all the eligible candidatesincluding Dr. Anil Aggarwal and other similarly situate persons.