D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner appeared in the Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination of the year 1993 and having been successful was offered M. D. T. B. and Chest Diseases specialty on the basis of his merit in the list of the successful candidate though his subject of choice was Medicines in the Post Graduate Medical Course. Subsequently, on the basis of the directions of the Honble Supreme Court the subjects were re allocated and the petitioner was offered the subject of his choice. The course consists of three years The petitioner claims that the period of one year, which he had spent pursuing the course in specialty of T. B. and Chest Diseases, should also be reckoned and he should be, allowed to undergo the course of second year specialty in Medicines. 2. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the M. D. /m. S. course really begin from the second year. The first year course is allied or equal in respect of the said two specialty. Therefore, he should be given benefit of being the student in T. B. and Chest Diseases discip line which is allied or equal to the first year course in Medicines as well. His representation was disallowed on the ground that such exemption should be against the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. Mr. Singhal assailing the said order contends that the admission is to be governed by the regulation framed under Section 28 (5) of the U. P. State Universities Act. The recommendations of Medical Council of India are not regulations and, therefore, the order of refusal cannot be sustained. He also draws my attention to the order dated 28th January, 1995 which he has produced in the Court. A translation at the Bar from Hindi, to English was done by him for my understanding. The same appears, as I understand, to be an order passed by the Principal of the College which prescribes that the period spent in studying allied subjects shall be adjusted or exempted in case candidates shifting from one subject to another allied subject. 3. Mr. Singhal further contends that the stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be utilized to improve upon the order refusal to allow exemption to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Singhal further contends that the stand taken in the counter affidavit cannot be utilized to improve upon the order refusal to allow exemption to the petitioner. According to him, the order cannot be sup plemented by any other ground attempted to be created by means of an affidavit or otherwise. The order is to be scrutinised on the basis of the original ground to which the respondents had applied their mind. 4. Mr. Singhal draws my attention to Annexure-5 of the writ peti tion which has been issued by U. P. Shasan Chikitsha Shiksha contained in a notification dated 9th October, 1990 under Section 28 (5) of the U. P. State Universities Act, and contends that the course have been regulated to 3 years instead of two years which prevailed earlier for the Post Graduate Degree (M. D. /m. S) and had enumerated the equivalent present posts with respect to the new course. The relevant portion of the said notification dated 9th October, 1990 is quoted below : "no. 8390-Sec-l4/v-250-82 October 9, 1990. The relevant portion of the said notification dated 9th October, 1990 is quoted below : "no. 8390-Sec-l4/v-250-82 October 9, 1990. " In exercise of the powers under sub-section (5) "of Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Presidents Act No. 10 of 1973) as amended and re-enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. 20 of 1974), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court, regulations of the Medical Council of India and the recom mendations of the Committee constituted to suggest requisite improvements in post graduate education and training in all the Government Alopathic Medical Colleges and Dental College, and with a view to regulating the admissions in all the Government alopathic Medical Colleges and Associated Hospitals and K. G. Medical College including Dental College and Hospitals associated therewith, is pleased to order the implementation of the Junior Residency, Senior Residency and Dental Residency Scheme and to implement the said Scheme, prescribed the following policy and procedure for converting the posts presently available in the posts equivalent thereto, specifying the number of seats to various degree and diploma course and selection thereon : Scheme of Junior Residency.- (1) This scheme shall be applicable tq post-graduate degree (M. D. /m. S.) and post graduate diploma course in all Government Medical Colleges and K. Gs Medical College, and its name and term shall be as under : Designation Term Equivalence of present post (a) Junior Resi dent One Year House Officer/demonstrator, First Year 1st year (b) Junior Resident One Year M. D. /m. S. First Year, P. G. Diplo ma One Year IInd Year student : Junior Resident, R. M. O. First Year/r. S. O. First Year/ Demonstrator Second Year. (c) Junior Resident One Year M. D. /m. S. Second Year/senior One Year IIIrd Year Resident/r. M. O. Second Year/ R. G. O. Second Year/demontrator Third Year/registrar. (2) This Scheme shall be deemed to have come into force on August 1, 1987. (c) Junior Resident One Year M. D. /m. S. Second Year/senior One Year IIIrd Year Resident/r. M. O. Second Year/ R. G. O. Second Year/demontrator Third Year/registrar. (2) This Scheme shall be deemed to have come into force on August 1, 1987. (3) The terms of every candidate to be selected for the post graduate degree courses (M. D. /m. S.) in this Scheme shall be three years which is also the term for the courses of M. D. /m. S. All such candidates during their term shall be called the Junior Resident First Year, Junior Resident Second Year, Junior Resident Third Year, respectively. The total term of every candidates to be selected for post graduate diploma courses shall be two years which shall also be the term for post graduate diploma courses, All such candidates during their term shall be called the Junior Resident First Year, and the Junior Resident Second Year respectively. " 5. It appears that the first years course of Junior resident is equi valent to house officer/demonstrator First Year. Mr. Singhal lays much stress of this enumeration of equivalent post. The second year is shown to be equivalent to M. D. /m. S, first year student Junior Resident R. M. O. First Year/demonstrator Second Year. It further appears that Illrd Year is to be shown to be equivalent to M. D. /m. S. Second Year/senior resident/ R. M. O. Second Year/r. G. O. Second Year/demonstrator Third Year/regis trar. Relying on this equivalent post Mr. Singhal contends with great emphasis that the M. D. /m. S. course really starts from second year and there was no difficulty with regard to any discipline as has been sought to be contended by the respondents on the basis of recommendations of the Medical Council of India. 6. Drawing my attention to Anuexure-6 to the writ petition, Mr. Singhal further contends that the said notification dated October, 9, 1990 was further amended by notification dated 30th June, 1993 issued under the same provision of the said Act. The necessary amendment is to be quoted which is as follows : "no. 4702 Sec. 14/five-750/82 Dated : Lucknow 30 June, 1993. Singhal further contends that the said notification dated October, 9, 1990 was further amended by notification dated 30th June, 1993 issued under the same provision of the said Act. The necessary amendment is to be quoted which is as follows : "no. 4702 Sec. 14/five-750/82 Dated : Lucknow 30 June, 1993. NOTIFICATIOn Miscellaneous In exercise of the powers under sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Presidents Act No. 10 of 1973) as amended and re-enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re- enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. 29 of 1974) lead with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the following amendments in Government notification No. 8390 Sec. 14/five-250/82 dated October 9, 1990 hereinafter referred to as the said notification, namely : AMENDMENTs Amendment of Scheme of. In the said notification for Junior Residency clauses (1), (4), (6), (7) and (8) of the Scheme of Junior Residency set out in column 1 below, the clauses as set out in column II shall be substituted namely : Column 1 Column Ii Existing Clause Clause as hereby substituted. Scheme of Junior Residency Scheme of Junior Residency (1) This (1) This scheme shall be scheme shall be applicable to post applicable to post graduate graduate degree (M. D. /m. S.) and degree (M. D/ M. S.) and post- post graduate diploma course in graduate dip loma course in all all Government Medical college, Government Medical College and K. G. Medical College, and its and pc. G. s Medical College, name and term shall be as under : and its name and term shall be as under : Designation Term Equivalance of Present post Designation Term (a) Junior Resi- One Year House Officer/ Junior Res- One dent 1st Yr. Demonstrator ident 1st Year First Year Year (b) Junior Resi- One Year M. D. /m. S. First Junior Res One dent 2nd Yr. Year : P. G. Dop- ident IInd Year loma student : Year Junior Resident R. M. O. First Year/r. S. O. First Year Demo- nstrator second year (c) Junior Resi- One Year M. D. /m. S. Second Junior Resi- One dent 3rd Yr. Year/senior Resi- dent IIIrd Year dent/r. M. O. Second Year Year/ Demonstrator/ Third Year/registrar. Year : P. G. Dop- ident IInd Year loma student : Year Junior Resident R. M. O. First Year/r. S. O. First Year Demo- nstrator second year (c) Junior Resi- One Year M. D. /m. S. Second Junior Resi- One dent 3rd Yr. Year/senior Resi- dent IIIrd Year dent/r. M. O. Second Year Year/ Demonstrator/ Third Year/registrar. It appears that the equivalency of the present post, which is existing in the earlier notification has altogether been deleted. Relying on this, he further contends that the speciality in Medicines and Speciality m T. B. and Chest Diseases are allied subjects and as such refusal is illegal void and invalid. 7. Mr N Huda learned standing counsel, on the other hand, con tends that the two discipline being different and the matter being one of speciality, the period spent in studying one subject cannot be counted for another subject. According to him, the exemption claimed by the peti tioner, cannot be granted as the same will create a difficult situation in academic atmosphere in which the Court should be slow to interfere. 8. Section 28 (5) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 runs as below ; "28 (5 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, admission to medical and engineering colleges and to course of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted), shall be regulated by such orders (which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf : Provided that no order regulating admission under this sub-section shall be inconsistent with the rights of minorities in the matter of establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice. " 9. The admissions are governed under the said section. Section 28 (5) of the Act has empowered the State Government to make regulation Therefore, such notifications have been issued from time to time as has been pointed out by Mr. Singhal, which are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition respectively. The authority could not have refused to exemption on the ground that the exemption is against the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. Singhal, which are Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition respectively. The authority could not have refused to exemption on the ground that the exemption is against the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. I agree with the contention made by Mr Singhal that the recommendations of the Medical Council of India are not regulations and cannot be termed to be governing conditions as contemolated under Section 28 (5) of the said Act. The admissions are to be governed by notification issued under Section 28 (5) of the said Act. 10. Then again, the order dated 28th January, 1995 produced by Mr. Singhal contemplates that the period spent in pursuing studies of the allied subjects can be counted in the case shifting of studies to another allied subject. However, how for the said order would be applied matter to be seen. The said order could not said to be an order the meaning of Section 28 (5) of the said Act. Further if the said on is not inconsistent with the regulation framed by the notification in that even cannot be said to be invalid. 11. The reading of the terms of junior resident as enacted notification dated October 9, 1990 supports the contention of Mr. Singhal to the extent that first year of junior resident does not contain the M. D. /m. S. course which is equivalent to House Officer/demonstrator first year and that the M. D. /m. S. course first year really begin with the second year junior resident. Therefore there cannot be any distinction with respect to the specialty of the discipline of the subject so far the first year is concerned between the present two cases. 12. The amendment made on 30th June, 1993, however, deals with the equivalence criteria. Therefore, after the Amendment came into force whether the equivalent criteria can still be enforced is a question to be answered Such questions can only be answered if there are sufficient material to show that there has not been any change in the subject-matter of instruction, which is imparted to the student of junior resident first year. 13. Therefore, after the Amendment came into force whether the equivalent criteria can still be enforced is a question to be answered Such questions can only be answered if there are sufficient material to show that there has not been any change in the subject-matter of instruction, which is imparted to the student of junior resident first year. 13. What necessitated the amendment is not clear in the absence of any material before the court though it might be said on behalf of the respondents that such amendment was necessitated because the changes in the method of instruction of the course of study Such a contention is to be supported by sufficient material which are altogether absent in the present case The counter affidavit has not dealt with any such aspect and has not spelt out the situation so as to enable this Court to arrive at a clear conclusion. 14. In such a situation it become very difficult for the court to accept the contention of Mr. Singhal that the case of first year is of allied for each and every course whatever might be the specialty. In case there has been no change in the allocation of instruction in the subject, in that event there might be substance in the submission of Mr. Singhal but that is a matter to be decided on the basis of material which are available to the respondents themselves. Moreover, even though the coarse are laid upon before this Court, it would not be desirable to deal with the same in order to decipher alliedness or equivalence between the respective courses in different disciplines of first year unless it is apparent on the face of it or in case it does not require any expertise on the subject, in view of the absence of expertise of this Court in respect of the subject in hand. 15. In that view of the matter, it is desirable that the respondents should re-consider the question afresh in the light of the notification dated October, 9, 1990 as amended by the notification dated 0 June, 1993 and the observation made hereinbefore within the shortest possible time. 15. In that view of the matter, it is desirable that the respondents should re-consider the question afresh in the light of the notification dated October, 9, 1990 as amended by the notification dated 0 June, 1993 and the observation made hereinbefore within the shortest possible time. In case it is found that the subject-matter of shifting in the first year of both the courses in the relevant year were allied or equivalent in that event the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefit of his shifting in the first year course of another discipline. 16. Mr. Singhal submitted that the examination is due at the end of February/march, 1996. The petitioner has completed three years course but he has not been allowed to appear in the examination on the ground stated above. The situation, therefore, demand that the writ peti tion should be disposed of immediately. Any further delay would render the writ petition infructuous. Therefore, after having heard learned counsel for the parties extensively this writ petition is disposed of the directing the respondents to re-consider the matter so far the petitioner is concerned afresh in the light of the observations made above within a period of one week from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 1. Petition disposed of. .