DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition against the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. The petitioner is a sponsored candidate of the government of West Bengal and is desirous of persuing MD course in medicine or Obstretics and Gynaecology. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been grossly discriminated in the admission to the MD course in the foreign cum sponsored quota for the academic Session of January, 1996 by the respondents. ( 2 ) A detailed procedure for admission for sponsored candidates has been mentioned in the prospectus of post graduate courses session - January, 1996 of the All India Medical Institute of Medical Sciences. The procedure is set out s under: "procedure FOR ADMISSION FOR sponsored CANDIDATES (a) Candidates who are permanent employees of any Central, State Government or the Armed Forces can be sponsored by the respective Govemment or the Defence Authorities. (b) All such sponsored candidates will be invited by the AIIMS for a written test. (c) Extra seats s shown at page 3 are available for such sponsored candidates but such number will not be more than 3 sponsored/foreign candidates per department and in any case total number of postgraduate students in each department shall not exceed the total number of 2 postgraduales per faculty member. Such sponsored candidates will be designated as trainees . (d) No sponsored candidate will be paid any emoluments by the institute during such a training period. Such payments will be the responsibility of the Sponsoring authority. Note 1: While Sponsoring the candidates the State Govemment or the defence Authorities" should certify that: (i) The candidate is a permanent employee of the Sponsoring authority. (ii) The candidate after getting the training at the AIIMS will be suitably employed by the Sponsoring authority to work in the speciality in which training is provided at the AIIMS. (iii) The candidate will not be paid any emoluments by the Institute during the entire training period. Such payments will be the responsibility of the Sponsoring authority. Note 2: The candidates who have served in the Armed Forces shall be given 5% additional marks for determining their digibility for being invited for a written test for selection to the postgraduale courses. The candidates with more than two failures shall not be considered. Such payments will be the responsibility of the Sponsoring authority. Note 2: The candidates who have served in the Armed Forces shall be given 5% additional marks for determining their digibility for being invited for a written test for selection to the postgraduale courses. The candidates with more than two failures shall not be considered. Note 3: The candidates who are in the service of the Central/state Government for 3 years shall be given additional marks upto 3% for determining their eligibility for being invited for written test for selection provided their applications are recommended by the respective Central/state Government. The sponsorship certificate should be completed in the application form s appended. Note 4: For calculating the percentage of marks for eligibility for being called for test/ assessment, a deduction of one percent shall be made for having failed once in any of the University examinations, the deduction shall be three percent for two failures. Candidates with more than two failures shall not be called for test/assessment. This will apply to all categories of the candidates, including state sponsored candidates. PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION FOR FOREIGN CANDIDATES Foreign nationals who wish to apply are required to fill in application form indicating a maximum of two choices for admission to post graduate courses leading to MD/ms degree. The foreign nationals are required to send their applications routed through Diplomatic Channel. They are also required to appear in the Competitive Entrance Examination along with other regul r candidates. Separate merit list of the foreign nationals and state sponsored candidate will be made within their own group. The seats will be allotted purely on merit on the basis of their performance in the theory paper consisting of multiple choice questions. " ( 3 ) AS per the scheme of entrance examination and the admission pursuant thereto s declared by the respondent No. 1 in the prospectus issued to all candidates, merit is the sole criterion for preparation of the list of selected candidates. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the other grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3,4 and 5 are also in service candidates and they had obtained less marks in written theory test conducted by the AIIMS for January Session 1996 than the petitioner yet they have been selected and the petitioner has not been selected. ( 4 ) IN the instant case the other grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3,4 and 5 are also in service candidates and they had obtained less marks in written theory test conducted by the AIIMS for January Session 1996 than the petitioner yet they have been selected and the petitioner has not been selected. ( 5 ) THE other grievance ofthe petitioner is that the petitioner is number 1 in the category of SC and ST candidates under the sponsored/foreign category and his claim to allotment of seat on that count has also been ignored. ( 6 ) IN order to examine this grievance of the petitioner, relevant procedure of reservation s incorporated in the prospectus is reproduced hereinunder: "reservation OF SEATS (i) 33% of the total of postgraduate seats are reserved for Institute graduates. (ii) 22. 5% of the total of postgraduate seats are reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/tribe communities. (iii) 5% of the total of the postgraduate seats are reserved for (a) those who have served in thc rural areas for more than 2 years. (b) doing practice in rural areas having less than 5 thousand population for more than 2 years. (c) Medical graduates of backward areas and (d) those who are working under the Family Welfare Programme subject to Submission of a certificate from the District Magistrate for (a) (b) and (c) and Director of State Health Services for (d) Procedure for selection to the categories (ii) and (iii) above is: (1) All the candidates who apply for admission to various postgraduate courses under these categories should have obtained not Icss than 50% marks in aggregate after deduction of failures in all the MBBS examinations. A deduction of one percent shall be made for having failed once in any of the niversity examinations, and three percent for two failures. Candidatcs with more than two failures shall not be called for test. (2) The suitability of these candidates will be judged on the basis of their performance in the theory test. Their suitability will not be judged in comparison with thc other candidatcs and due consideration will be shown for thc fact that candidatcs who have held rural posting and those coming from the backward areas may have been out of touch with current trends in medical sciences and practice because of their isolation. Their suitability will not be judged in comparison with thc other candidatcs and due consideration will be shown for thc fact that candidatcs who have held rural posting and those coming from the backward areas may have been out of touch with current trends in medical sciences and practice because of their isolation. (3) A final list of the selected candidates in order of merit will be prepared, separately for each category. and the seats will be filled accordingly. " ( 7 ) MR. Manoj Chatterjee, learned counsel for petitioner f rther submitted that the petitioner was intimated through the telegram dated 21. 4. 1996 sent by the respondent at Calcutta that the respondents would be holding a personal appearance/interview for the purpose of allocation of seats. The respondents had also sent a letter dated 21. 4. 1996 in this regard which was received at the residence of the petitioner on 5. 2. 1996. Neither the petitioner was aware of this procedure nor this procedure was printed or published in the prospectus of January, 1996. ( 8 ) IT was also argued that in thc prospectus it is mentioned that the selection shall be made entirely on the basis of the performance ofthe candidate in theory test, however to thc surprise ofthe petitioner, when he arrived here in Delhi, he learnt that he has to appear in viva a voce test on 5. 2. 1996 itself instead of a personal appearance/interview counselling. According to thc petitioncr the requirement of appearing in viva voce test is clearly contrary to rules and rcgulations s laid down in the prospectus of January, 1996 session. ( 9 ) IT is also submitted that respondents l and 2 have also erred in not applying the constitutional reservation in admission to MS/md courses for sponsored candidatcs. Respondents l and 2 are bound to adhere to the constitutional reservation policy in respect of this category also and thc respondents cannot be permitted to act according to their whims and fancics and deviate from the policy of reservation. ( 10 ) MR. Respondents l and 2 are bound to adhere to the constitutional reservation policy in respect of this category also and thc respondents cannot be permitted to act according to their whims and fancics and deviate from the policy of reservation. ( 10 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the All India Examination for MD/ms courses is also conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and there is no requirement of viva voce according to the prospectus of January, 1996, therefore, to introduce 50% marks in viva voce all of a sudden without even indicating or mentioning in the prospectus, unilaterally is totally illegal and arbitrary. It was further submitted that such arbitrary powers are likely to be misused and consequently and the image of the institute would suffer a serious set back. ( 11 ) MR. Chatterjee placed reliance on judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ms Prabha Kalyandeo Verma Vs The Nagpur University and others AIR 1993 BOMBAY 147 (Nagpur Bench) in which the Division Bench of the Bombay High court has held that authorities cannot unilaterally change and apply rules not made known to candidates. The court has observed as under: THIS aspect of the matter is of crucial importance because the competition at higher levels being extremely acute, even a difference of 0. 1 % in the aggregate would make a difference between admission or rejection. In this view of the matter there can be no two opinions about the fact that the authorities of an Institution or University would be bound and totally circumscribed by what is indicated in the rules/prospectus and that it would be impermissible for them to apply any rule or formula other than what has been made known to the applicant. In this view of the matter there can be no two opinions about the fact that the authorities of an Institution or University would be bound and totally circumscribed by what is indicated in the rules/prospectus and that it would be impermissible for them to apply any rule or formula other than what has been made known to the applicant. The reason for this is self evident in so far as it is not the question of whether the modes adopted pass the test of scrutiny or justification but more importantly of the fact that it would be conferring an arbitrary power on the authority or the institution to bend the rules or for that matter to ignore or alter some part of them through a clever process and if w hat is done can be justified, it would run the full circle and came back to a position, whereby unbridled powers are vested in the concerned authorities of which the applicants have no notice. This would immediately open the action to a challenge on the ground of mala fides for the lurking suspicion w ould always arise that the deviation was made in order to favour a particular candidate. Not only is this improper but it w ould be highly unreasonable for it is well settled law that all public authorities are expected and required to act reasonably and fairly. Any such course of action would pass neither of the two tests. It is on this ground that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in so far as she had no knowledge of the fact that such weightage was being accorded by the authorities and had no notice of the same. " ( 12 ) THE Petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by respondents 1 and 2 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the principles of law and provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The sole criterion for allotting of seats according to the prospectus had to be on the performance of the candidates in the entrance examination conducted by the respondents no other criterion could have been taken into consideration for admission. ( 13 ) THIS Court on the petition of the petitioner had issued show cause notice to the respondents on 7th March, 1996. In pursuance of the notice Dr. ( 13 ) THIS Court on the petition of the petitioner had issued show cause notice to the respondents on 7th March, 1996. In pursuance of the notice Dr. L. M. Nath, who is presently looking after the functions of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, Dr. Nath explained that the basic purpose of the sponsored quota seats is to provide facilities to students, residing, belonging or working in a place, meant and available to different states/nations wherein corresponding facilities for MD/ms is not available and the entire expenditure in relation to the sponsored candidate is borne by the sponsoring authority/nation. Mere sponsoring a candidate in itself does not give any right to the person sponsored, much less any enforceable right. ( 14 ) IT is also incorporated in the affidavit that the sponsorship is made by the respective sponsoring State inter alia to those candidates who have put in few years of service in the State Govt. Hospitals and Dispensaries and had been far away from the academics and present day trend and even though they may be v en competent in their own way but normally they are unable to perform well in the written test examination because of the multiple choice questions and the concept of negative marking and therefore, they may not be able to get benefit of this facility of sponsorship quota, whereby frustrating the very purpose of the sponsorship by the states. ( 15 ) IT is also mentioned in the said affidavit that after the judgment in the case of Dr. Sandeep Tak Vs AIIMS, delivered on 11. 9. 1995 the administration of the AIIMS w as review ing the procedure for allocation of seats. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the sponsored candidates are not able to generally achieve high marks in the written examination because of the aforesaid reasons and therefore, it was decided to adopt a uniform policy and to adjudge the talent in respect of sponsored candidates and foreign nationals. The system of personal interview, viva voce be adhered to, which is to be done in the presence of Director, Dean, Head of the Department and Sub-Dean etc. who are all experts on the subject. ( 16 ) DR. Nath in his affidavit has given the background in which this viva voce examination had been introduced. The system of personal interview, viva voce be adhered to, which is to be done in the presence of Director, Dean, Head of the Department and Sub-Dean etc. who are all experts on the subject. ( 16 ) DR. Nath in his affidavit has given the background in which this viva voce examination had been introduced. The instructions and guidelines submitted by the Director were approved by the President of the AIIMS. Accordingly the procedure for selection to MD/ms postgraduate seats at the Institute has been decided after discussions in the Dean s Committee, Staff Council and the Academic Committee and approved by the Governing Body. ( 17 ) IT is incorporated in the affidavit that from this year onwards a more transparent and fair system of selection based on merit-cum-counselling keeping in mind the Institutional 33% reservation and the Constitutional reservation for the SC/st candidates w ill be carried out. ( 18 ) IT is mentioned in the said affidavit that originally, some sponsored candidates had been admitted without having appeared in the competitive w ritten examination, while in some cases, some sponsored candidates were admitted after having appeared at the competitive written examination. Also, upto last year, despite a foot-note in the prospectus, that the sponsored candidates would be admitted on merit, certain foreign sponsored candidates have been admitted with the orders of the then Director regardless of merit and without taking into account their performance in the Entrance Examination ( 19 ) IT is also mentioned that while going through the results of this year and looking at the marks obtained, it is mentioned that in the previous years, the sponsored candidates are not able to generally achieve high scores in the examinations. This is not unexpected because the sponsored candidates generally have been in service for some time far away from the academics and, hence, though they may be very competent in their own way. they are unable to perform well in the written examinations. It is also true that the sponsored candidates are generally from areas outside the centres of medical education and are often older than the other graduates and, therefore, have not been exposed to multiple choice questions and the concept of negative marking. they are unable to perform well in the written examinations. It is also true that the sponsored candidates are generally from areas outside the centres of medical education and are often older than the other graduates and, therefore, have not been exposed to multiple choice questions and the concept of negative marking. In practical terms, usually essay type medical questions are set all over the country, which are very different to deal with than multiple choice questions and no matter how good a student is his first encounter with such a question paper can be disconcerting. It is mentioned that for these reasons it is not correct or fair to use the same yardsticks to judge the merit of the sponsored candidates and the general category candidates. ( 20 ) IT is further mentioned in the affidavit that If the 65 percentile cut off point is applied to all students achieved by the entire group and to the sponsored candidates either foreign or Indian, it was found that four in the national sponsored candidates and one foreign sponsored candidates would be eligible for the postgraduate seats at the AIIMS in spite of the fact that 53 national and 16 international candidates appeared in the examination and there are currently 19 seats available. Therefore, it is suggested the AIIMS does not stick to the 65 per centile cut-off point for the foreign and Indian sponsored candidates. Dr. Nath also mentioned in the affidavit that it would be useful if the AIIMS introduces an interview to the selection procedure exactly as is done for the DM and MCH entrance examinations at the AIIMS. In other words 50% of the total marks will be taken from their performance in the written examination and 50% would be based on an interview by a committee consisting of the Dean, Head of the Department concerned, the Officer-in-Charge (Examinations), the Sub-Dean (Examinations) and the Sub-Dean (General) and chaired by the Director. This policy decision has received the approval of the President of the AIIMS. This decision was taken after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and considerations. ( 21 ) MS Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 at the outset admitted that the requirement of viva voce could not be incorporated in the prospectus of post graduate courses of January Session of 1996 because of paucity of time however. This decision was taken after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and considerations. ( 21 ) MS Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 at the outset admitted that the requirement of viva voce could not be incorporated in the prospectus of post graduate courses of January Session of 1996 because of paucity of time however. the candidates were informed by telegrams and they were also told w hen they came to Delhi to appear for the written examination that they had to undergo a viva voce consisting of equal number of marks. She further submitted that this has been done primarily for the benefit of the entire category of the foreign and sponsored candidates. ( 22 ) MRS. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the category of sponsored candidates, there is no reservation of SC and ST candidates. Sponsored candidates are from different countries and from different Indian States. Usually the State Government send doctors who have put in two years in the government hospitals or dispensaries to acquire further education and they sponsor the candidates looking to the needs and requirements of those areas because after obtaining post graduate degree in those disciplines and subjects these candidates go back to the states and fill the void in those hospitals and disciplines. In this category large number of foreign candidates are also attracted and there cannot be any classification of SC or ST among the foreign nationals, therefore, from the very inception in the category of sponsored candidates no reservation was found feasible. ( 23 ) MRS. Gupta, learned counsel for the AIIMS submitted that in the category of foreign/ sponsored candidates, the AIIMS being the premier institution of India has to carry out the commitments entered into by Government of India with other countries. In some areas where there are no medical colleges or there are no specialized subjects or disciplines then in order to meet the requirement of that particular area. the students from those areas arc given admission in the post graduate programme. In the present case respondent No. 4 is from Andaman and Nicobar, respondent No. 3 is from Manipur where no post graduate courses are available. ( 24 ) MRS. Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Dr. (Ms) Suraina Subhash Rune Vs University of Bombay and others AIR 1991 Bombay 240. In the present case respondent No. 4 is from Andaman and Nicobar, respondent No. 3 is from Manipur where no post graduate courses are available. ( 24 ) MRS. Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Dr. (Ms) Suraina Subhash Rune Vs University of Bombay and others AIR 1991 Bombay 240. This case has been cited for the purpose that it is for the University or the institution to decide what marks to be awarded to each head or sub-head and it is not really for the Court to decide this issue. The Court has held asunder: "inclusion or exclusion of a particular head or sub-head in an examination is an aspect of academic appraisal What marks to award to each head or sub-head is again a question which the University authorities are best qualified to decide. The courts do not have the qualifications to rule upon the advisability or otherwise of these features. But and this is of equal importance, the subjects chosen and the marks awardable should have a nexus to the assessment of the professed proficiency. The choice should not be such as to conceal an instrument for perpetration of favouritism or arbitrariness, many a time the selection of a subject or manner of testing may not have these objectives. Even so, if it is likely to give subjective considerations a dominant role, the choice will have to be struck down as encouraging arbitrariness. " ( 25 ) THIS judgment has also been cited for the reason that the Court has upheld the criterion of equal number of marks in the written as well as in the viva voce examination. The Court observed as under "the examination here is the M. D. Pathology examination conducted by the Bombay University. In the petition it is contended that Pathology is a non-clinical speciality and a Specialist in this field is not brought into contact with patients. The entire field is concerned with research work carried out in laboratories. This being the position the testing at orals has no bearing in the field of operation in which the candidate seeks to specialise. In other words, orals should not be given undue prominence in M. D. Pathology for the candidate who aspires for such a degree is not to be tested for mental alertness and agility. This being the position the testing at orals has no bearing in the field of operation in which the candidate seeks to specialise. In other words, orals should not be given undue prominence in M. D. Pathology for the candidate who aspires for such a degree is not to be tested for mental alertness and agility. In fact, a Specialist in the field of pathology has to be careful and cautious. The experts have decided otherwise viz. that a testing by orals is as important as testing in theory and practicals. A Specialist in Pathology may require to devote more time to laboratory and research work. That however, does not mean that his mental alertness and agility do not require to be tested. Pathology and the pathologists are an important feature of modem medicine. Pre-surgical tests require the expertise of the pathologist. Even when a surgery is in progress problems may come up where the Surgeon and the Anesthesist require a snap decision by an expert in the field of pathology. The Pathologist in attendance has thus to be mentally alert. Viva voce test is useful tool for measuring such personnel characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation. When properly employed, the oral test today deserves a place in the batten used by the technical examiner (these observations are made by Glenn Steh in his book on Public personal Administration quoted with approval in Ashok Kumar Yadav s case ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ) (supra ). What marks should be awarded to a head and whether a particular feature of the examination should constitute an independent head or sub-head is a subject better left to the academic experts, it is argued that the orals which have met with the approval of the Courts have to be fool proof such as those in Kaushal Kumar Gupta ( AIR 1984 SC 1056 ) (supra) and not like the one figuring in this case. Now it is true that no record of questions and answers asked and given at the M. D. examination is maintained. ( 26 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents and other relevant material placed on record. I have also carefully considered the cases cited at the bar. Now it is true that no record of questions and answers asked and given at the M. D. examination is maintained. ( 26 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents and other relevant material placed on record. I have also carefully considered the cases cited at the bar. The following issues arise for determination in this petition: (I) Whether the constitutional reservation must be made applicable in the category of foreign/ sponsored candidates? (II) Whether any candidate who secured less marks than the petitioner was allotted a seat in MS/ MD course in Medicine or Gynaecology and Obstretics in January, 1996 even according to the old criterion of evaluating performance on the basis of theory test alone? (III) Whether the AIIMS is justified in changing the procedure for admission to MS/md courses in foreign/sponsored category unilaterally without making the criterion of admission known to candidates well in advance? ( 27 ) ISSUE NO. 1 : The constitutional reservation has not been made applicable in the category of foreign/sponsored candidates. The justification submitted by the AIIMS is that in this category, a large number of foreign candidates are allotted seats. Since there is no distinction between general category and scheduled castes and schedules tribes candidates in foreign countries, therefore, this criterion cannot be made applicable to those candidates. Similarly, other sponsored candidates are sent from various States primarily to fill the void or requirement in the hospitals, dispensaries and colleges. Therefore, imposing constitutional reservation in this small category would create serious practical problem in functioning. Therefore, the Institute has taken the conscious decision after a long deliberations that in this category, the policy of reservation should not be made applicable. I have considered rival contentions of the parties. I find considerable force in the submission of the respondents in not making policy of reservation applicable in this category and consequently, I find no merit in the submission of the petitioner as far as issue No. 1 is concerned. There is indeed full justification in not applying the policy of reservation in this category. ( 28 ) ISSUE NO. 2 : In order to examine this grievance of the petitioner it became imperative to direct the respondents to produce results of January, 1996 session. There is indeed full justification in not applying the policy of reservation in this category. ( 28 ) ISSUE NO. 2 : In order to examine this grievance of the petitioner it became imperative to direct the respondents to produce results of January, 1996 session. On the directions of the court, the learned counsel has produced the results of the entrance examination conducted in January, 1996 discipline/subject wise only on the basis of theory marks (the written entrance examination meaning thereby that marks given in viva voce examination are excluded ). The results in the discipline of Medicine and Obstretics and Gynaecology are reproduced as under: (only relevant details are reproduced) Posi- Over Roll Name Categ. Theory tion All No. % Marks (100) MEDICINE (Code-3) 5. 782 932181 Mahendran C 8 48. 000 6. 1059 932851 Tapan Majumdar 7 44. 833 9. 1192 930566 Leishangthem Arke 7 43. 500 11. 1296 932055 Akoijam Brogen Singh 7 42. 333 12. 1337 932098 parimal Kumar Roy 7 41. 833 4. OBSTERTICS and gynaecology (CODE - 4) 2. 485 932061 shibsankar Ray chaudhary 7 52. 167 3. 674 932650 tapash Ghosh 7 49. 833 7. 1084 930066 chandhal Kumar Saha 8 44. 667 12. 1337 932098 parimal Kumar Roy 7 41. 833 ( 29 ) THE result in the discipline of Medicine indicates that the petitioner obtained 5th position, in merit. In Obstretics and Gynaecology the petitioner got 4th position in merit. Even if we take only the marks obtained in written theory test alone even then the petitioner is at position No. 4 in Obstretics and Gynaecology and, he is at the 5th position in Medicine whereas admittedly both in the disciplines of Medicine and Obstretics and Gynaecology only one seat each was available. Therefore, even if the criterion of theory test is accepted, then also the petitioner could not be allotted any seat either in Medicine or in Obstretics and Gynaecology. Therefore, even if the criterion of theory test is accepted, then also the petitioner could not be allotted any seat either in Medicine or in Obstretics and Gynaecology. ( 30 ) ON the basis of result made available to the court by the respondent AIIMS it can safely be concluded that there was only one seat available both in Medicine and Obstretics and Gynaecology for the category of sponsored candidates and both the seats have been allocated to the candidates who had admittedly higher percentage of marks than the petitioner, therefore, even if the old criteria of evaluating the performance on the basis of theory test alone is taken into consideration then also, the petitioner could not have got admission either in Medicine or in Obstretics and Gynaecology. Therefore, this issue has to be decided against the petitioner and consequently no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 31 ) ISSUE N0. 3 : The grievance of the petitioner is totally justified that the criterion of admission as laid down in the prospectus of January Sessions of 1996 cannot be changed unilaterally without giving adequate advance notice to the candidates. The issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. ( 32 ) THE respondents were under an obligation to make the procedure and criterion for admission to MS/md courses known to the students well in advance. When criterion or procedure for admission to the graduate programme has been changed without advance intimation to the students. It is rightly mentioned in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nagpur University case (supra) that not only it is improper but it would be highly unreasonable and against all norms and canons of the principle of natural justice to change the procedure without notice to the students. ( 33 ) ALL public authorities are expected to act reasonably and fairly and any such course of action would pass neither of the two tests. Now the question arises that because of unilateral change in the procedure for admission whether the petitioner in fact was put to any disadvantage? ( 34 ) THOUGH in principle the submission of the petitioner is upheld that the procedure and criterion of admission cannot be changed without making it known to the candidates well in advance. Now the question arises that because of unilateral change in the procedure for admission whether the petitioner in fact was put to any disadvantage? ( 34 ) THOUGH in principle the submission of the petitioner is upheld that the procedure and criterion of admission cannot be changed without making it known to the candidates well in advance. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner cannot be granted effective relief of allotment of a seat in MS/md course because of the aforesaid reasons. ( 35 ) ON consideration of totality of facts and circumstances this court would like to make it clear to the respondents that they must immediately print and publish amended prospectus which must mention new procedure and criterion of admission in MS/md programmes, all the conditions the entire procedure and criterion for admission must be clearly spelt out in the prospectus. ( 36 ) THERE has to be absolute transparency in the deeds and actions of the public authorities. In a democratic society which is based on rule of law and principles of equality, the conduct of all public authorities must be transparent and their conduct should not leave any room or scope of any suspicion in the eyes of all concerns. Last minute deviation in the procedure for allotment of seats in this manner can never be approved. ( 37 ) IN this view of the matter, I direct respondent No. 2 to publish the prospectus as early as possible and in any event on or before 30th April, 1996 clearly mentioning the entire procedure and criterion of admission to MS/md courses so that similar complaints and grievances can be eliminated in future. ( 38 ) CONSIDERABLE litigation has come to the notice of this Court against the AIIMS, in the last few months. It would be appropriate that the recent judgments pronounced by this court in the C. W. 2347/95 Sharad Tak (supra) and in the Civil Writ No. 274/96 Dr. Sundaram and other Vs AIIMS and Others and orders and directions given by this Court in those judgments must be fully complied with and serious endeavour must be made by the respondents to lay down procedure for admission which is transparent, just, reasonable and fair to all concerns. There must be total transparency in the deeds, conduct and actions of the respondent No. 2. There must be total transparency in the deeds, conduct and actions of the respondent No. 2. ( 39 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to the costs.