JUDGMENT : R.R.K. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The controversy in the aforesaid two writ petitions is identical as to whether a candidate who has already joined the Post Graduate diploma or degree course after being successful in Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination of a particular year is not eligible to appear in subsequent entrance examination held for admission in such course. Dr. Sanjay Sharma and Dr. Piyush Anand in the first writ petition appeared in the U.P. Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.P.G.M.E.E.). On the basis of merit secured in the said Examination and the option exercised, Dr. Sanjay Sharma was admitted in M.D. Pharmacology and Dr. Piyush Anand was admitted in M.D. Physiology in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, in March, 1994. Both are pursuing their respective courses. They did not apply for appearing in Entrance Examination of U.P.P.G.M.E.E. of 1994 and 1995. However, they decided to appear in the Entrance Examination of U.P.P.G.M. E.E. of 1996. But, in view of clause (iii) in Item C which contains a prohibition, they felt aggrieved and filed Writ Petition No. 31578 of 1995 challenging the condition contained in clause (iii) of the Information Brochure supplied along with application Form for U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 and also for quashing clause 8 (h) of the Government Order dated 9.10.1990. They have also prayed for a direction against the Respondents to permit them to appear in the U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 and if selected in accordance with the merit, allow them to have admission against the Examination of 1996 in Post Graduate Degree or Diploma Course. This petition was filed on 8.11.1995. This Court by an interim order dated 9.11.1995 allowed Petitioners to submit their application form but with the condition that they will not be entitled to take admission unless directed by this Court in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order Petitioners have appeared in the Examination. 2. Shyam Babu Sharma and Ravindra Kumar Katiyar appeared in the Entrance Examination of U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1995 in which they were selected and they have been admitted in M.D. Anesthesia and Diploma Anesthesia respectively on the basis of the merit secured by them. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, they joined the course in March, 1996. 2. Shyam Babu Sharma and Ravindra Kumar Katiyar appeared in the Entrance Examination of U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1995 in which they were selected and they have been admitted in M.D. Anesthesia and Diploma Anesthesia respectively on the basis of the merit secured by them. On the basis of the aforesaid admission, they joined the course in March, 1996. The contention of Petitioners is that as the result of the Entrance Examination of 1995 was declared late, they could not wait for the same and again submitted applications for the U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 and actually appeared in the Entrance Examination held on 14.1.1996. However, their result has not been declared on the ground that they have already been admitted to one speciality and were ineligible for appearing in the subsequent Entrance Examination for admission to a different speciality until the Course in which they have been admitted was completed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, these Petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 16281 of 1996 for a direction to the Respondents to declare the result of Petitioners of U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 and allow them to appear for counselling on the basis of merit secured by them. 3. Shri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in the first petition, has submitted that the prohibition or disqualification created by clause (iii) of Instruction "C" containing eligibility criteria is illegal and arbitrary. The impugned clause (iii) is being reproduced below: (iii) A candidate who is already admitted to any post graduate degree and diploma course will not be eligible to appear in the U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 examination till he/she completed the course. 4. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the aforesaid prohibition has no connection with the object sought to be achieved by such Examinations. It has also been submitted that the prohibition contained in the Brochure was not in consonance with the Government Notification issued u/s 28(5) of U.P. Universities Act, 1973. It is submitted that under the Government Order, as amended from time to time, the bar is against a different speciality. However, the Brochure contains the absolute bar. It has also been submitted that the prohibition contained in the Brochure was not in consonance with the Government Notification issued u/s 28(5) of U.P. Universities Act, 1973. It is submitted that under the Government Order, as amended from time to time, the bar is against a different speciality. However, the Brochure contains the absolute bar. At this place, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Sub-clause (h) of Clause 8 of the Notification dated October 9, 1990, as amended by the Notification dated 30.3.1994: 8 (h) A candidate who is admitted to any speciality in a post-graduate diploma or degree course shall be ineligible for appearing at the subsequent entrance examination for admission to a different speciality until the course in which he has been admitted is completed. Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a candidate who does not join the course to which he is admitted. 5. Learned Counsel for Petitioners has further submitted that in the Entrance Examination held in the year 1993, the Brochure did not contain any such prohibition and the Petitioners under a bona fide belief joined the Course that they will get opportunity to improve their merit by appearing in subsequent Examinations and by Joining some better speciality. Learned Counsel has submitted that the prohibition is in clear contravention of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that Petitioners have been put to worst position even than those who failed to qualify in the Entrance Examination as they will get opportunity to appear in subsequent Examination whereas the Petitioners who performed better cannot appear in subsequent Examination to improve their position. Learned Counsel has also submitted that clause (iii) does not contain any provision in respect of those who get themselves admitted and subsequently resign and do not complete the Course or for some other intervening reason are not able to complete the Course. The impugned clause (iii) is thus violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for Petitioners has submitted Petitioners should be given full opportunity to develop their qualification and personality. 6. The impugned clause (iii) is thus violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for Petitioners has submitted Petitioners should be given full opportunity to develop their qualification and personality. 6. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in cases of The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 832 , Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Weston Electronics Ltd. and Another vs. State of Punjab and Another, (1990) 3 SCC 87 , Dr. Vinay Ram Pal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 1984 UPLBEC 137 (SC), Dr. Vijai Tyagi vs. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and Another, 1986 UPLBEC 255, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others vs. Thukral Anjali Deokumar and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 249 , Miss. Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 666 , State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Ganesh Wood Products and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 363 and The Principal, Cambridge School and Another vs. Ms. Payal Gupta and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 512 . 7. Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in the second writ petition, however, submitted that Petitioners appeared in the Entrance Examination of 1996 in January, 1996 and as per the Brochure and the Advertisement, they were found eligible to appear in the Examination as by that time they had not been admitted for any speciality on the basis of the Entrance Examination held in the year 1995 and clause (iii) of the Brochure could not be legally invoked against the Petitioners. The Respondents have illegally refused to declare the result on the basis of Petitioner's subsequent joining the Course in March, 1996. Petitioners are entitled for a direction against the Respondents. Learned Counsel has relied on the case of Anand S. Biji vs. State of Kerala and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 80 . 8. Learned standing counsel, appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that Petitioners in the first writ petition, appeared in the Entrance Examination in the year 1993 and on the basis of merit secured and option exercised, they joined the Course with open eyes. The prohibition was already provided in the Notification dated October 9, 1990, filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The prohibition was already provided in the Notification dated October 9, 1990, filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. This notification was issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Regulations of the Medical Council of India and the recommendations of the committee constituted to suggest the requisite improvements in the Post Graduate Education and Training. Subsequent amendment has been brought on the basis of the experience gained. The prohibition has been created to curb an unfair practice of leaving a course of one speciality midway and joining another speciality on the basis of the subsequent Entrance Examination. It has been submitted that this practice resulted in serious financial loss to the Government and also resulted in unfairness and disadvantage to those who could not join the Course as the candidate who secured better merit opted to join. Such practice has not been found in public interest and only to curb this practice, this prohibition has been provided in the Brochure on the basis of the Government Notification mentioned above. It has also been submitted by learned Standing counsel that the bar is not absolute. It only regulates and compels the candidate to complete the course which he joined on the basis of the option exercised by him. Such terms and conditions which are regulatory in nature cannot be termed to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If Petitioners want to improve their merit for purpose of joining another speciality, the opportunity may be availed after completing the Course. 9. In reply to the submission made by learned Counsel for Petitioners in the second petition, learned standing counsel submitted that the intention behind clause (iii) of the Brochure is to compel the candidate to complete the course which he has joined on the basis of his option and the merit secured. As the Petitioners of the second petition have joined the course on the basis of the Entrance Examination of the year 1995, the bar shall apply to them also and they cannot be allowed to leave the course midway. A harmonious interpretation should be given to the clause so as to cover even such situations so that the object behind the bar may be achieved which is in larger public interest. 10. I have seriously considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for parties. A harmonious interpretation should be given to the clause so as to cover even such situations so that the object behind the bar may be achieved which is in larger public interest. 10. I have seriously considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for parties. The Government Notification dated 9.10.1990 was issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Regulations of the Medical Council of India and the recommendations given by the Committee constituted to bring improvements in the Post Graduate Education and Training in all the Government Allopathic Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges for doing Post Graduate Diploma and Degree Courses. Initially, the bar contained in clause (e) of Para 8 was as under: (e) A Candidate if admitted to any speciality in post-graduate diploma or degree course, he shall not be eligible for admission to any other speciality in post-graduate diploma or degree course. For removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that if any candidate has been admitted to any speciality in post-graduate diploma course, he may be allowed to be admitted in the same speciality in the post-graduate degree course. 11. From a perusal of the aforesaid clause (e), it is clear that the prohibition was against admission in any other speciality. The fact that this bar was not advertised or was not mentioned in the advertisements or Brochure of U.P.P.G.M.E.E. of 1993 does not make any difference as the admissions to the Post Graduate Diploma and Degree Course are governed by the aforesaid Government Order. The Entrance Examination is conducted for admission to Post Graduate Diploma or Degree course. This prohibition has been amended and modified by the Government Orders dated 30.6.1993 and 30.3.1994. Clause (h) as it now stands, has already been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment in my opinion, the prohibition is not complete and it is only regulatory. A candidate on the basis of the merit secured in the Entrance Examination exercises his option to join a particular speciality and once it has been done, he should stick to that. It cannot be denied that a lot of money is spent in maintaining these courses and the candidates who Join such courses are paid handsome salary in counter-affidavit, it has been stated that such candidates are paid Rs. 6,000 per month as salary besides other expenses. It cannot be denied that a lot of money is spent in maintaining these courses and the candidates who Join such courses are paid handsome salary in counter-affidavit, it has been stated that such candidates are paid Rs. 6,000 per month as salary besides other expenses. They are provided facility of residence and studies etc. If the candidate is allowed to leave the course midway, certainly it shall be against the public interest. Further, speciality in medical science, whether it is clinical or non-clinical, plays an important role in maintaining the health and preserving the life of human being. So far as society is concerned, every speciality has the same value. The candidates may have likings or dislikings for different specialities but their importance cannot be minimised on the basis of their likings which are mainly based on the prospects for future life. The medical colleges are run and maintained at the public expense. The prime object is the public service. If this kind of jumping from any one course to another course is allowed to be resorted to by appearing in further examination, it shall be highly prejudicial to the medical education. The: disadvantage may be considered from another angle also. If a candidate is allowed to leave the course midway, the seat on which he was allowed admission on the basis of the earlier Entrance Examination shall remain vacant for remaining period of the course as no admission can be granted at that advanced stage of the course. Such a practice, if allowed to be pursued, will not be of any advantage to any body in my opinion, the prohibition contained is regulatory and does not in any way violate the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned Counsel for Petitioners further submitted that the prohibition contained in clause (iii) of the Brochure is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the Petitioners are put to worst position even than those who did not qualify the Entrance Examination. It is submitted that those who have not qualified have option of appearing in subsequent Examination and may improve their position. However, the Petitioners who actually qualified and performed better are not being allowed to appear in subsequent Examination. in my opinion, the contention is misconceived and deserves outright rejection. It is submitted that those who have not qualified have option of appearing in subsequent Examination and may improve their position. However, the Petitioners who actually qualified and performed better are not being allowed to appear in subsequent Examination. in my opinion, the contention is misconceived and deserves outright rejection. The candidates who failed to secure sufficient merit to get admission in the Entrance Examination formed altogether a different class and Petitioners cannot equate themselves with them. Petitioners performed better and on the basis of the same, they were allowed to exercise option and were admitted to a particular speciality and thus became entitled for various advantages. They formed different class. Terms and Conditions may be imposed against them so that they may not leave the course midway. The principal object behind the prohibition is that candidate who joins a particular speciality must complete that course. There is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The case of the Petitioners in the second petition though appears distinguishable on the basis of the dates on which the 1996 Entrance Examination was held. It is true that on the date the candidates appeared in the Examination, they had not been admitted to any post graduate diploma or degree course. They have been granted admission subsequent to the Examination on the basis of the Entrance Examination held in the year 1995. This situation has arisen on account of the delay in declaration of the result of 1995 Examination. If the prohibition contained in clause (h) of the Government Order and clause (iii) of the Brochure is given literal interpretation, it may be said that the contention of the Petitioners is correct. However, the facts and circumstances of the case require that literal interpretation should not be given, otherwise the prohibition clause contained in the Government Order which has already been found to be in public interest shall be rendered redundant in such circumstances, the intention behind the prohibition should be given effect to. It has already been discussed above that the object behind creating the prohibition is that once a candidate is admitted to a particular speciality, he must complete that course and should not be allowed to leave the course midway. If the problem is considered with that angle, there is no difficulty in answering the question passed by the learned Counsel for Petitioners. If the problem is considered with that angle, there is no difficulty in answering the question passed by the learned Counsel for Petitioners. The present Petitioners Joined the course on the basis of the merit secured in 1995 in U.P.P.G.M.E.E. and exercised their option with open eyes. As they had already appeared in U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996, it was open for them not to exercise option on the basis of the merit secured in 1995 Entrance Examination. At this Juncture, Petitioners opted to rely on the merit secured by them in U.P.P.G. M.E.E. 1995 and they got admission. They have already pursued the Course for about two months. in such circumstances, they cannot be allowed to leave the course midway on the basis of a mere technicality which has arisen on account of delay in declaring the result, otherwise the prohibition would have been equally applicable to the Petitioners also. Thus, in my opinion, Petitioners of the second writ petition should also be deemed to be ineligible to appear in U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 as provided in clause (h) of the Government Order. 14. The cases relied on by learned Counsel for Petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and they are clearly distinguishable. 15. The third and last submission is that the prohibition contained in the Brochure is not in consonance with the Government Order dated 9.10.1990 as amended in 1993 and 1994. There appears substance in his submission of the learned Counsel for Petitioners. Clause (h), as it stands after 1994, provides that a candidate who is admitted to any speciality in a Post Graduate Diploma or Degree Course shall be Ineligible for appearing at the subsequent Entrance Examination for admission to a different speciality until the course in which he has been admitted is completed. Thus the bar is against appearing at the subsequent Entrance Examination for admission to a different speciality. Clause (e) of the Government Order of October 9, 1990 contained a clarification. It provided that if any candidate has been admitted to any speciality in Post Graduate Diploma Course, he may be allowed to be admitted in the same speciality in the Post Graduate Degree Course. This clarification has been subsequently omitted and in my opinion for the reason that it was not necessary. It provided that if any candidate has been admitted to any speciality in Post Graduate Diploma Course, he may be allowed to be admitted in the same speciality in the Post Graduate Degree Course. This clarification has been subsequently omitted and in my opinion for the reason that it was not necessary. The clause (h) as it stands was sufficient to depict the correct position that a candidate pursuing a diploma course in a particular speciality could appear in subsequent Entrance Examination for admission to the same speciality for doing degree course. The information Brochure and application form published for U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 contains an absolute bar that a candidate who is already admitted to the Post-Graduate Degree or Diploma Course will not be eligible to appear in subsequent Entrance Examination till he has completed the course. Clause (iii) of the Eligibility Criteria is not in consonance with clause (h) of the Government Order. A candidate who is already admitted to a diploma course in a particular speciality is entitled to appear and improve his merit so as to get admission in post-graduate degree course. The Government Order dated 19.10.1990 and subsequent orders are statutory in nature. They have been issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 1973. Thus, clause (h) will prevail and clause (iii) of Information C of the Brochure should be read along with clause (h). Petitioners are thus entitled for a limited relief to the aforesaid extent. 16. Both the petitions are thus partly allowed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to declare the result of the Petitioners of the U.P.P.G.M.E.E. 1996 and also provide them opportunity of counselling on the basis of the merit secured by them for purpose of making improvement, if possible, in the same speciality in which they have already been admitted and are pursuing their studies. The Respondents are further directed to recast clause (iii) of Information C of the Brochure and bring it in consonance with clause (h) of the Government Order to avoid confusion in future. There will be no order as to costs.