N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) ). In this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is wholesale non-admission of students to Post-Graduate Course for the First Academic Term commencing from January 1995 to 30th June 1995. ( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate the controversy raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to take stock of Medical Course in brief, particularly with reference to duaration. ( 3 ) ). Duration of the course of MBBS is of four and half years. The student joining First Year MBBS course in June will be eligible for admission after five and half years in January. A student who is not able to clear his/her final year MBBS examination is given an opportunity to appear at the examination to be held 6 months thereafter, and he/she will be eligible for admission to Post Graduate Medical Course (for short, P. G. course) in the academic term commencing from July. The University has framed the rules governing the admission P. G Degree and Diploma course at the affiliated colleges effective from 1-7-1993. ( 4 ) ). The relevant rules read as under : 1. ELIGIBILITY : only those candidates who fulfil the following conditions shall be eligible for admission to P. G. Medical Course. However, 1. 1 below will not be applicable to candidates admitted under Rule 2: 1. 1 (a) For candidates belonging to reserved category under Rule 5: Those who have passed First MBBS Examination at 1st, 2nd or 3rd trial, Second MBBS Examination at 1st, 2nd or 3rd trial and Third MBBS Examination at 1st, 2nd and 3rd or 4th trial. (b) For rest of the candidate : Those who have passed 1st MBBS Examination at 1st or 2nd trial, Second MBBS at 1st or 2nd trial and 3rd MBBS examination at 1st, 2nd or 3rd trial. NOTE: First trial is deemed to take place when he is due to appear for the examination, irrespective of his actual appearance, provided that non-appearance is not a result of reasons beyond his control. Similarly 2nd, 3rd, etc. trials relating to subsequent examinations. 2. 1. In case the seats reserved in Rule 2. 0 remain vacant because of non-availability of candidates, the same will be treated as open seats. 3. 1. For this purpose selection will be done once in each Academic Term. Similarly 2nd, 3rd, etc. trials relating to subsequent examinations. 2. 1. In case the seats reserved in Rule 2. 0 remain vacant because of non-availability of candidates, the same will be treated as open seats. 3. 1. For this purpose selection will be done once in each Academic Term. First Academic Term : 1st January to 30th June second Academic Term : 1st July to 31st December. 3. 2. Seats allotted under Rule 3. 0 will be distributed in the ratio of 3: 1 for First and Second Academic Term respectively. 3. 3. The Vice Chancellor can make adjustment of seats referred to in Rule 3. 2 as also adjustment of dates of admission, if the circumstances so demand. 4. 8. Seats can only be utilised in the same academic term and vacancy in one academic term cannot be utilised any time in subsequent term. Vacancy of earlier term also cannot be filled up. The say of the petitioner is that they were admitted to First MBBS course in August 1988 and they have passed final MBBS course in December 1993 and they have completed their internship in November 1994. Thus, they have become eligible for Post-Graduate Course for the Academic Term January June 1995. The petitioners say they have been orally informed by the University that this year there will be no admission for the P. G. for the first academic term and there interviews will be held in June 1995 for the second academic term, i. e. for July December 1995. The contention of the petitioners is that though they have become eligible for P. G. Course, they are forced to wait upto second term, whereby they would be losing valuable six months. It is further contended that this year only those students are from the repeaters batch will be eligible for the P. G. Course from the first term. ( 5 ) ). They say of the respondent University is that as per the rules of framed by the University to meet the requirements of the students passing one year before, i. e. in June, and for medical students these admissions are known to be admissions for freshers. ( 5 ) ). They say of the respondent University is that as per the rules of framed by the University to meet the requirements of the students passing one year before, i. e. in June, and for medical students these admissions are known to be admissions for freshers. The students who have not been able to clear final year MBBS examination and who pass this examination held six months thereafter and who are thus eligible for admission to P. G. Medical Course in July are known as repeaters batch. It is in this context, that distribution of seats is made. The January batch admission is related to 75% of the total seats while for July batch it is 25%. Under the Rules, the Vice Chancellor is the Competent Authority to make the adjustment of seats. It is further stated that the student who joined First Year MBBS Course in June 1989 was due to appear at the First MBBS examination in November 1990, after one and half year of the study. However, because of the mandal" agitation, no examination were held in November 1990 and the examinations were conducted in March 1991. The results were declared in May 1991. There was thus a loss of six months for these students. These students joined 2nd MBBS course in June 1991 and were due to appear at the second year MBBS examination in November 1992. They joined 3rd year MBBS examination in January 1993 passed the final year MBBS examination in June 1994. These students will complete their internship in June 1995 and would be eligible for admission to P. G. Medical Course in July 1995. These students, in fact, would have had become eligible for admission in January 1995, had the schedule of the examination were permitted to run in the normal course. Thus there are no Freshers Batch available for admission in January 1995. It is further stated that the students who could not pass their MBBS examination in May 1991 had an opportunity to appear in November 1991, known as "repeaters batch. These students, with due regard to their duration of the course, would be eligible for admission to P. G. Course in January 1996. It is further stated that the students who could not pass their MBBS examination in May 1991 had an opportunity to appear in November 1991, known as "repeaters batch. These students, with due regard to their duration of the course, would be eligible for admission to P. G. Course in January 1996. Accordingly to the University, the present petitioners are neither from the freshers batch nor from the repeaters batch but are students who have not been able to regularly pass their examinations or who have made more than one attempt, or are students of other Universities. ( 6 ) ). Since there was no regular batch available for admission for January 1995 term, a meeting of the Faculty of Medicine was called on 10th November 1994. The Faculty consist of Teachers and Principal of the Medical College. The said faculty, considering the fact that no regular batch was available for admission in January 1995, which will deprive admission to the best available talent, adopted a Resolution that as no batch is available in January 1995 for P. G course admission, admission to all the seats will be made in July 1995. ( 7 ) ). By way of an additional affidavit, it is further submitted that the said recommendation of the Faculty was accepted by the Vice Chancellor, i. e. not to open admission commencing from January 1995. It is also stated that there is a practice to make adjustment of seats in vogue since the University has taken over the admission of post-graduate students. It is also submitted that Rule 3. 3 itself enables the Vice Chancellor to make total adjustment of seats. It is stressed that if the request of the petitioners are acceded to, the criteria of merit would be lost since all the freshers batch and repeaters batch are not available to compete for January admissions. ( 8 ) ). Mr. G. M. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are eligible to get admission on the interpretation of Rule 1. 1 and therefore, their case must be considered in accordance with the Rules. He further contends that the Rules do not give any power to any authority to utilise the admission capacity of any term to any subsequent term. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Rule 3. 2 and 3. 3. rule 3. 1 and therefore, their case must be considered in accordance with the Rules. He further contends that the Rules do not give any power to any authority to utilise the admission capacity of any term to any subsequent term. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Rule 3. 2 and 3. 3. rule 3. 2 states that the seats allotted under Rule 3. 0 will be distributed in the ratio of 3:1 for first and second Academic Term respectively. Rule 3. 3 provides that the Vice Chancellor can make adjustment of seats referred to in rule 3. 2 as also adjustment of dates of admission, if the circumstances so demand. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule 3. 3, the Vice Chancellor has power to make adjustment of the seats and dates of admission, if the circumstances so demand only with respect to the vacancy of the said academic term. He strongly placed reliance on Rule 4. 8 which provides that the seats can only be utilised in the same academic term and vacancy of one academic year cannot be utilised any time in subsequent term and vacancy of the earlier term also cannot be filled up. His contention is that Rule 3. 2 cannot be read as conferred power conferred to shift all the seats from one term to subsequent terms. Advancing the argument, the learned Counsel further contents that the word used in the Rules must be given full meaning in spite of whatever inconvenience. The learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of Ajay Prathan v. State of M. P. , reported in AIR 1988 SC 1875 . In the said decision, Rule 10 of the M. P. Selection for Post-Graduation Course (Clinical, Para-Clinical and Non-clinical Courses) in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules (1984) came up for interpretation of Statutes. Rule 10 of the said Rules reads as follows: "the seats available in any particular year will be filled up in that year. No candidates will be admitted against the seats remaining vacant from previous year. Rule 10 of the said Rules reads as follows: "the seats available in any particular year will be filled up in that year. No candidates will be admitted against the seats remaining vacant from previous year. " their Lordships, considering the controversy on the purport and effect of Rule 10 of the Rules, held that if the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, the Court must construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect and the argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction. The Apex Court, interpreting Rule 10, held that Rule 10 is a specific provision made for the benefit of the merit candidates who are placed in the waiting list and when a seat falls vacant in any academic year there is corresponding duty case on the authorities to take immediate steps to full up the same. It was further observed that there is no question of a right of admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of, or towards the end of, the academic year. ( 9 ) ). It is true that the language of Rule 10 of the M. P. Selection for P. G. Course is almost identical to Rule 4. 8 of the Gujarat Rules. However, it may be noticed that in the case of Ajay Prathan (supra), Rule 10 of the M. P. Rules were interpreted in the context of problems as stated in para 1 of the judgment, i. e. the right of admission to P. G. Course in MD/ms falling vacant "in the midst of, or towards the end of, an academic year. But in the present case, before the academic session could proceed, the problem faced was the availability of the best talent by a fair competition for the P. G. Course. Therefore, the real question involved in the present petition is not filling up of vacancies in the midst of the term, bu the question is whether in the larger interest of the medical professional, the University on the advice of the experts in the field, could postpone the admission to P. G. Course to the next academic term. The identical question came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Muneer-ul-Rehman Haroon v. Govt. The identical question came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Muneer-ul-Rehman Haroon v. Govt. of J and K State, reported in 1984 0 SCC 24. In that case, the petitioner had applied for admission to the Medical College, Srinagar for P. G. Course of the Kashmir University for theemester beginning in July 1980. They appeared for an entrance test but the result of the test was not declared officially. Unofficial information of having passed the test was alleged in the petition. No admissions were made either to the July 1980 semester or in the two following semesters beginning in November 1980 and July 1981. An entrance test was held for admission to the semester beginning in November 1981 and the result of the test has been announced and the 16 petitioners appeared for the test. It was held that the petition was not maintainable. The challenge of that petition was on the ground that wholesale non-admission of students to the P. G. Course for the three semesters which commenced in July 1980, November 1980 and July 1981 is an arbitrary act which offends against the guarantee of fairness implicit in Article 14. The reply of the State Government was that the rules which were in operation in 1980, governing admission to the P. G. Medical Course, were prejudicials to the interests of the students of the Jammu Medical College and therefore, it was necessary to amend the rules. The Apex Court found that neither there was violation of fundamental rights nor indeed the action of the State authority was arbitrary and mala fide and the petitions were dismissed. In the instant case, the Faculty which consist of experts in the field of medicine, considering the fact of non-availability of candidates from the fresher batch, on account of which there will be no competition to induct best talent for January admission, the impugned Resolution was adopted in the larger interest of the medical profession and also the student community. Such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide. ( 10 ) ). I am satisfied that the impugned Resolution has been adopted for admission to P. G. Course to be second term with a view to maintain standard in the medical profession in the larger public interest. Such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide. ( 10 ) ). I am satisfied that the impugned Resolution has been adopted for admission to P. G. Course to be second term with a view to maintain standard in the medical profession in the larger public interest. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 11 ) ). In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. .