P. Geetha v. State of T. N. and Others — 1997 DIGILAW 807 (MAD)

Judgment :- In this writ petition, petitioner has sought a relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction calling for the proceedings, of the respondents, contained in the prospectus issued for admission to Post-Graduate degree courses in the Government Medical Colleges for the year 1997-98 and quash Para 1.7 of the said Prospectus and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for admission to the Post-graduate degree course in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the year 1997-98 on the basis of the Application filed by her already which has been assigned Registration No. 12070 by the fourth respondent. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that she completed her M.B.B.S. Course including the Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship in the year 1985 and got the M.B.B.S. Degree in the said year from Madurai Kamaraj University. After having obtained the M.B.B.S. Degree, petitioner got herself registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and has been doing private practice since then. 3. Whileso, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 25-9-89 after having been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was posted at a Primary Health Centre, Kadamalaikundu. While she was in service at the place she applied for admission to the Post-Graduate Degree Course, viz., M.D. Community Medicines, during the Academic year 1993-94, as a service candidate, and she was also selected for admission to that Course which is a non-clinical subject. On such selection, petitioner was allotted to the Madras Medical College to undergo the Post Graduate Course commencing during the year 1993-94. The petitioner joined as a Post Graduate Student in M.D. Community Medicine on 28-3-1994. She was pregnant at that time. She continued her studies from 28-3-1994 to 12-5-1994. During that period, petitioner developed certain medical problems which disabled her from pursuing the course and compelled her to go on medical leave. On 13-5-1994, hardly within one and a half months of her joining the course, she was compelled to continue to be on medical leave. Ultimately, in November 1994, petitioner delivered a child, and she continued to be on maternity leave from November, 1994 to February, 1995. The petitioner rejoined the course only on 6-2-1995. On 13-5-1994, hardly within one and a half months of her joining the course, she was compelled to continue to be on medical leave. Ultimately, in November 1994, petitioner delivered a child, and she continued to be on maternity leave from November, 1994 to February, 1995. The petitioner rejoined the course only on 6-2-1995. But, due to various problems, she could not continue the Course, and she continued the course again on 21-2-1995. 4. The petitioner thereafter submitted a letter to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Service on 21-2-1995, informing the Authorities that she was again discontinuing the P.G. Course. She, requested that she may be given posting in Madurai District. The Authorities issued Orders granting permission and gave her postings in Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District. Petitioner resumed her duty as Assistant Surgeon and eversince she is working in a Primary Health Centre. Since the problems which the petitioner was facing had subsided, she desired to study further and acquire a post graduate degree in Medicine. Respondents had issued a Notification inviting applications for admission to various P.G. degree and Diploma Courses in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges in the year 1997-98. Petitioner was eligible to apply as service candidate and, therefore, she applied for an application form from the respondents for admission to the P.G. Course for the year 1997-98. She sent the application through proper channel. Fourth respondent acknowledged receipt of the application made through an acknowledgment card, assigning Registration No. 12070 to the petitioner. The petitioner was in-formed that her application was under scrutiny and that she would receive the hall ticket if she was found eligible to appear for the Entrance Examination to be held on 23-3-1997. Petitioner further alleges that candidates who had applied for P.G. 1 Course in medicine along with her had received hall tickets for the Entrance Examination, but the petitioner had not received the same. She, therefore, approached respondents 3 and 4 and enquired about her application. She was informed that she was not eligible to apply for P.G. Degree Course, since she had already undergone that Course for more than six months during the past and, therefore, she was ineligible in terms of para 1.7 of the prospectus issued by the respondents. It is alleged by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in construing the petitioner as being ineligibile to apply during 1997-98 is wholly illegal. It is alleged by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in construing the petitioner as being ineligibile to apply during 1997-98 is wholly illegal. In the grounds, it is alleged that the petitioner has undergone the Post-Graduate Degree Course, viz., M.D. Community Medicine only for a period of 49 days and, therefore, respondents cannot disqualify her for admission on the ground that she has undergone the said Course for more than 6 months. She is entitled to apply when she has shown her earnestness in pursuing the course, and she had to discontinue the course due to personal reasons. Respondents cannot disentitled her, and any such interpretation given by them is arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is further averred that the M.D. Community Medicine for which she was admitted in 1993 was a non-clinical subject, whereas the course for which the petitioner has now applied is a clinical subject, which is distinct and separate in all respects. When she had discontinued the course due to reasons beyond control and that too on medical grounds, she cannot be declared disentitled to apply. It is said that the interpretation given by the respondents is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 as well as Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It is on the above grounds, petitioner has filed the writ petition for the reliefs stated above. 5. Third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated therein that the matter relates to the policy decision of the Government regarding admission to Post Graduate Course, and in such cases, normally, Court will not interfere. It is dismissed that the petitioner that the petitioner was originally admitted to M.D. Course in Community Medicine during the Academic Year 1993-94. She joined the Course on 28-3-1994. But she went on medical leave from 13-5-1994 to 10-11-1994. From 11-11-1994 to 5-2-1995, she was on maternity leave. On expiry of the maternity leave, she rejoined the course on 14-4-1995. The period of study from the date of joining the Course till she was relieved from the Course i.e., from 28-3-1994 to 19-4-1995 is 1 year and 21 days. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the contention in the prospectus, especially clause 1.7 is perfectly valid. The reason for incorporating such a clause is also given in para 4 of the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the contention in the prospectus, especially clause 1.7 is perfectly valid. The reason for incorporating such a clause is also given in para 4 of the counter-affidavit. It is said that nearly a lakh of rupees is spent for the creation of a seat in a Medical College, and that the Government is spending nearly Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) on every candidate in the course of his studies. There are only few seats in each discipline in the post graduate courses. In these limited seats, only the best candidates have to be admitted within the time-schedule to maintain excellence in the standard of education. If a candidate who is undergoing any course discontinues or deserts the course within short time, i.e. 6 months, the Selection Committee would normally allot any other meritorious and deserving candidate from the merit list. In this case, since the petitioner has abandoned the Course after one year, the seat becomes a permanent waste and another candidate could not be substituted in her place. It becomes a waste of public money caused by the individual. It is not only a waste of the public exchequer, but also a great injustice done to another candidate who as deprive of admission to the Course. It is further said that the selection of best candidates for admission to available seats in different categories in the professional course colleges with an eye to restrict the number on some reasonable basis since the Colleges cannot hold beyond a particular number of students, is a power given to the Authorities after evolving certain policies for the selection. One such policy is clause 7.1 in the prospectus, namely, denial of admission to those students who have already got into the professional colleges and had undergone six months course (First Semister). When the Government have to distribute a few seats, and when the applicants are large in number, certain restrictions have to be imposed, while evolving the policy. It is also contended that even if a seat becomes vacant after First Semister, i.e., after six months, the Government cannot fill up that seat. While considering eligibility, the Government has evolved such a policy in the interested of general public, especially when spending of public money is involved. It is also contended that even if a seat becomes vacant after First Semister, i.e., after six months, the Government cannot fill up that seat. While considering eligibility, the Government has evolved such a policy in the interested of general public, especially when spending of public money is involved. It is further contended that the petitioner has also acquiesced the clauses in the prospectus since she has applied for admission on the basis of the very same prospectus. It is said that there are no justifiable grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Since notice was taken by Government and counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of the third respondent, even at the admission stage itself, the writ petition itself was heard, for final disposal. 7. Clause 1.7 of the prospectus reads thus :- "Candidate who has undergoing post graduate degree in any one discipline either clinical or non-clinical and discontinued the course on his/her own or any other grounds after 6 months is ineligible to apply for any post graduate diploma/degree during 1997-98" * . 8. In this case, the petitioner admittedly joined the post graduate degree course on 28-3-1994. She want on Medical Leave from 13-5-1994 to 10-11-1994. Again from 11-11-1994, she was on a maternity leave. She rejoined the course on 6-2-1995, and finally discontinued the same on 19-4-1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to disqualify a person under clause 1.7 of the prospectus, the candidate must have undergone the course and discontinued the same after six months. The argument is that she must continue the displine at least for six months and if she is on leave or was not studying, or was not undergoing the course for a period of six months, the disqualification prescribed in the prospectus will not apply. The argument is that the period of leave will have to be excluded while computing the period of six months. If so, the petitioner has undergone the studies only for 49 days and, therefore, she is eligible to apply. 9. The said arguments is met by the learned Government Pleader by stating that 'discontinuing a Course' has not a specific meaning in legal parlance, i.e. to put an end to it. In this case, the petitioner has not put an end to the Course. She was on leave. 9. The said arguments is met by the learned Government Pleader by stating that 'discontinuing a Course' has not a specific meaning in legal parlance, i.e. to put an end to it. In this case, the petitioner has not put an end to the Course. She was on leave. That means, she wanted to continue the studies after the leave was over. In this case, petitioner has admittedly rejoined the Course after the expiry of the maternity leave on 5-2-1995. To rejoin means, she has not discontinued the Course, but she has only absented hereself from attending the Class. According to me, the argument of the learned Government Pleader has to be accepted. 10. In 'P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon 1997 Edition, the meaning for the word 'Discontinue' is given as 'to cause to cease; to put a stop to'. In 'The Oxford Study Dictionary' 1991 edition, the meaning for the word 'Discontinue' is given as 'to put an end to, to come to an end.' 11. If this is the meaning that is given to that word, it cannot be said that the petitioner had discontinued the studies. During the Course of her studies, she could not actually attend the class. Here intention was not to discontinue, but to attend the class after the expiry of the leave period. She did not put a stopt to the studies. Apart from the same, paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the petitioner itself is an answer to the argument of learned counsel for petitioner. The relevant portion of that para reads thus :- ". . . . The petitioner accordingly went on medical leave from 13-5-94 hardly within one and a half months of joining the course and was constrained to continue, to be on medical leave. Ultimately, the petitioner delivered a child in November, 1994 and continued to be on Maternity leave from November, 1994 to February, 1995. The petitioner rejoined the course only on 6-2-95. However, the petitioner could not continue the said course due to various problems and accordingly discontinued the course again on 21-2-95." * (Emphasis)* * [Not found in certified copy . . . .Ed.] If she has put an end to the course, there is no scope for rejoining it. Merely before the petitioner had absented herself from the Course, it cannot be said that she has discontinued the Course. . . .Ed.] If she has put an end to the course, there is no scope for rejoining it. Merely before the petitioner had absented herself from the Course, it cannot be said that she has discontinued the Course. If that argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is not accepted, it has to be held that she has discontinued the Course only after a lapse of one year. 12. The alternate argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that clause 1.7 of the prospectus is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, she wrote the Entrance Examination. On valuation of her paper, it has been declared that she was obtained better marks than various other students. She is earnest in her studies and she wants to continue and complete the Course. Merely because once she was prevented by reasons beyond her control from completing the course, that cannot be a permaent bar for taking up the Post-Graduate Degree. The contention is that imposing such a permanent bar is an arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel relied on the decision reported in 1983 AIR(SC) 1235, 1983 (2) Scale 305 , 1983 (4) SCC 339 , 1983 (3) SCR 985 , 1983 UJ 897 (Suman Gupta v. State of J. and K.) in this connection. In that decision, it was held that the Government has no unlimited discretion in choosing the candidate. The argument is that if an unlimited discretion and uncontrolled choice is left with the State Government, the same will result in arbitrariness. In the judgment of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 6, their Lordships have said thus :- "We confess, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the selection of candidates for that purpose must remain in the unlimited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the State Government. We think it beyond dispute that the exercise of all administrative power vested in public authdority must be structured within a system of control informed by both relevance and reason-relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard to the manner in which it attempts to do so. Wherever the exercise of such power affects individual rights, there can be no greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than its governance by these twin tests. . ." * 13. Wherever the exercise of such power affects individual rights, there can be no greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than its governance by these twin tests. . ." * 13. On the basis of the said decision, it is contended that any restriction must be with in design to achieve its object. When the petitioner is seriously desirous of continuing her studies and, even after obtaining better marks than other students, to disqualify her from applying for admission so that she could continue her studies is arbitrary, and such prohibition has nothing to do with the object which is intended to be achieved. Learned counsel submitted that even from the counter-affidavit, it is seen that what the Government wants is to select the best candidates so that the best of the candidates must come out of the College. If this is the intention, the restriction imposed on the petitioner on the ground that she did not continue her studies, has no nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. The argument, even though attractive, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In the very same decision, the Supreme Court has held that 'the selection of an appropriate procedure lies ordinarily within the domain of administrative policy and when the objective can be fulfilled by more than one constitutionally valid method, the selection must be left to administrative choice. The Courts are generally concerned merely with the legal validity of the choice made. (Vide para 7 of the judgment). 14. In 1964 AIR(SC) 1823, 1964 (6) SCR 368 (Chitralekha v. State of Mysore), in paragraph 8 of the majority judgment, it has been held thus :- ". . . . . .The Government runs most of the medical and engineering colleges. Excluding the State aided colleges for a moment, the position is as follows : The Colleges run by the Government, having regard to financial commitments and other relevant considerations can only admit a specific number of students to the said colleges. They cannot obviously admit all the applicnts who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to Colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. They cannot obviously admit all the applicnts who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only prescribed criteria for making admissions to Colleges from among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the University. Once it is conceded, and it is not dispsuted before us, that the State Government can run medical and engineering Colleges, it cannot be denied the Power to admit such qualified students as pass the reasonable tests laid down by it. This is a power which every private owner of a College will have, and the Government which runs its own Colleges cannot be denied that power." * 15. In that case, their Lordships were considering the Rule which provides for interview for regulating admission to Medical Colleges. The said decision was followed by the Supreme Court again the decision reported in 1987 AIR(SC) 400, 1986 JT 1124 , 1986 (2) Scale 1211 , 1986 (S) SCC 543, 1987 (1) SCR 661 , 1987 (1) UJ 139 , 1986 SSCC 543, 1986 Supp(SCC) 543 (Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meerut). That is also a case regarding the admission to Post Graduate Courts in Medical Colleges. Their Lordships said that 'by laying down such Regulations, it is not in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, nor does it encroach upon the standards prescribed by the said Regulations. In paragraph 22 of the judgment their Lordships said thus :- ". . . .It is pertinent to mention in this connection that the number of seats allotted to each of the prescribed courses is on the basis of two seats per professor and there is a crying necessity in the State for more experts in various disciplines in medicine and Surgery, etc. It is incumbent on the State Government to see that all these seats earmarked for each of these disciplines or course are filled up. . . . ." Their Lordships further went on and said thus :- ". . It is incumbent on the State Government to see that all these seats earmarked for each of these disciplines or course are filled up. . . . ." Their Lordships further went on and said thus :- ". . .It is for the State to consider and to see that the seats are filled up in all the disciplines and they are not left vacant in spite of a large number of applicants applying for admission in the various disciplines and the State Government has to evolve such criterion of eligibility that all the seats in different M.D., M.S. degree and Diploma courses are filled up." In paragraph 18, their Lordships held thus :- " Since the number of seats for admission to various post-graduate courses both degree and diploma in Medical Colleges is limited and a large number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admission to these courses of study, the impugned order laying down the qualification for a candidate to be eligible for being considered for selection for admission to the said courses on the basis of the merits as specified by Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act cannot be said to be in conflict with the said regulations or in any way repugnant to the said Regulations. It does not in any way encroach upon the standards pre-scribed by the said Regulations. On the other hand by laying down a further qualification of eligibility it promotes and furthers the standard in an institution." * 16. In view of the above decision, it cannot be doubted that the State Government has power to impose restrictions or fix criteria of eligibility for admitting a student. The further question is, whether the eligibility fixed is reasonable. It is here we have to consider the statement in the counter-affidavit, the correctness of which is not disputed. It is said therein that the Government is pending nearly five lakhs of rupees per candidate, and if a candidate leaves the Course after six months, another candidate cannot be substituted in his/her place, and in such an event, the entire amount becomes a waste. If the candidate discontinues she study before the expiry of six months, probably, the Government can substitute another candidate so that the expenditure incurred could be properly accounted for, and another meritorious candidate could come out of the college. Clause 17 is really in the interest of the public. If the candidate discontinues she study before the expiry of six months, probably, the Government can substitute another candidate so that the expenditure incurred could be properly accounted for, and another meritorious candidate could come out of the college. Clause 17 is really in the interest of the public. In the sense that the public money is not wasted. By discontinuing the studies after six months, candidate who was already admitted not only causes loss to the public exchequer, but also deprives another meritorious student from attending the courses. According to me, the reason stated in the counter-affidavit is reasonable and has nexus with the object to be achieved. In an early decision of this Court reported in 1984 (2) MLJ 296 (Suganthi v. State of Tamil Nadu), the question, was whether a student admitted to one professional college can be debarred from going to another professional college. The prospectus prohibited such candidates from getting admission to M.B.B.S. Course. The vires of the said clause came for consideration in that case. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has held thus :- "Selection of the best candidates for admission to available seats in different categories in the professional colleges with an eye to restrict the number on some reasonable basis since the colleges cannot hold beyond a particular number of students, is a power given to the authorities after evolving certain policies for the selection. One such policy in the present case is to deny admission to those students who have already got into the professional colleges mentioned in clause 7(1) of the prospectus and had undergone six months course (first semester) such a policy, in our opinion, is reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz., manning all the colleges run by the Govt. effeciently and in distributing the seats available equitably. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the said decision on the ground that that was a case where the same candidate while choosing two professional colleges, after obtaining admission in one college, jumped into another without completing it. Learned counsel submitted that the principle laid down in that judgment has no application to the facts on hand, where the petitioner seeks admission to the same Course. 18. I do not think the distinction sought to be made out could be accepted. Learned counsel submitted that the principle laid down in that judgment has no application to the facts on hand, where the petitioner seeks admission to the same Course. 18. I do not think the distinction sought to be made out could be accepted. Whether it is the same professional course or some other professional course, loss to the exchequer and deprivation of opportunity to another promising student are there in both the cases. 19. A Division Bench of our High Court had occasion to consider a similar question in writ Appeal No. 380 of 1996 (J. Rengasamy alias Mahesh v. Director of Medical Education, Chepauk, Madras-5 and 3 others). Relevant instructions i.e., Instructions 7 and 10 governing admission are extracted in paragraph 6 of the Judgment which reads thus :- " * 7. A candidate who has undergone a Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course in any discipline either clinical or non-clinical and discontinued the course on his/her own or any other grounds after 6 months is ineligibile to apply for any Post Graduate Diploma/Degree Course during 1996-97. "10. A candidate who has undergone a Post Graduate Diploma Course in any one discipline and discontinued the course on his/her own is eligible to apply for any post graduate degree course only but ineligible to apply for any post graduate Diploma Course during 1996-97" * . In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, their Lordships have held thus :- "We find it very difficult to accept this submission. Instruction No. 7 makes a candidate ineligible for seeking admission to either to Post Graduate Diploma Course or to Post Graduate Degree Course, if he discontinues his study in Post Graduate Diploma or Post Graduate Degree after a lapse of six months. Whereas, Instruction No. 10 provides that if a candidate, on obtaining admission to Post Graduate Diploma Course in any one discipline and discontinues that course, he or she will be eligible to apply for any Post-Graduate Degree Course but not to any Post Graduate Diploma Course. These instructions are to be read together. Whereas, Instruction No. 10 provides that if a candidate, on obtaining admission to Post Graduate Diploma Course in any one discipline and discontinues that course, he or she will be eligible to apply for any Post-Graduate Degree Course but not to any Post Graduate Diploma Course. These instructions are to be read together. A reading of these two instructions together makes it clear that if a candidate discontinues his studies in Post-Graduate Degree or Diploma after a lapse of six months, he is made ineligible for admission either to Post Graduate Degree or Diploma Course, irrespective of the fact whether he had obtained the admission either for Post Graduate Degree or Diploma Course and discontinued. Whereas, instruction No. 10 only deals with a candidate who has obtained admission for Post Graduate Diploma Course and discontinues. No period is mentioned as to discontinuation. Such candidate is made eligible for applying to Post Graduate Diploma Course. Thus, it is only in the event the Course is discontinued within a period of six months a candidate who was secured admission to Post Graduate Diploma Course would be eligible to seek admission to Post Graduate Degree Course. If such candidate discontinues his or her studies after a lapse of six months, he or she would not be eligible to seek admission to either Post-Graduate Degree Course or Post Graduate Diploma Course. Any other way of reading these two instructions would defeat the very object of these instructions. The object is to ensure that no seat in the Medical Course remains vacant and a student who after seeking admission wants to discontinue his course of studies should make up his mind before the expiry of six months, so that the vacancy arising therefrom can be made available to another student who is waiting for admission. In paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4, it has been specifically brought out that huge amount is spent on each candidate. Therefore, if the vacancy is allowed to remain vacant, it will not only cause financial burden to the State Exchequer, but also causes hardship and injury to the other students, who are eligible to be admitted to the course. Therefore, if the vacancy is allowed to remain vacant, it will not only cause financial burden to the State Exchequer, but also causes hardship and injury to the other students, who are eligible to be admitted to the course. Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit is as follows :- " * without prejudice to the above contentions, I submit that the Government is the competent Authority to prescribe norms and the guidelines for methods of selection and admission and also the eligibility criteria. The Government, after taking into consideration of various aspects, have decided to make certain categories of candidates ineligible to apply for admission to post-graduate courses. The Government is paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Indian Medical Council for creation of one seat for each course. Further, the Government is spending approximately a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on each candidate for every year of the course. In the event a candidate discontinues within a period of six months, the consequential vacancy can be filled up by selecting and admitting the next eligible candidate. However, when a vacancy arises due to the discontinuance of a candidate after six months, the said seat should not be filled up as no admission could be made after the period of six months from the date of commencement of the course as the said date is the cut-off date for admission. The Government taking the above relevant and vital factors into consideration, decided that the candidates who have completed six months of the course and thereafter discontinued, are ineligible to apply for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course. " Therefore, it is clear that if a student who is admitted to a post graduate diploma course or a post graduate degree course, discontinues the course after 6 months, he will not be entitled to be admitted to any of the courses, viz., the post graduate degree course, or the post graduate diploma course. This Rule is intended to ensure that all the Seats in the Medical Course are filled up and no seat remains vacant and those who intend to discontinue before the Expiry of 6 Months. (Emphasis)* * [*Not found in certified copy . . . .Ed.] 20. A learned Judge of this Court has also considered a similar question in W.P. No. 6894 of 1995 (S. K. Buddha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary, Health Department, Fort St. (Emphasis)* * [*Not found in certified copy . . . .Ed.] 20. A learned Judge of this Court has also considered a similar question in W.P. No. 6894 of 1995 (S. K. Buddha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary, Health Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 - Order dated 23-7-1996). The clause that came for consideration in that case is extracted in paragraph 2 of that order, which reads thus :- " * A candidate who has undergone a Post-Graduate Degree Course in any one discipline either Clinical or Non-Clinical and discontinued the Course on his/her own accord or on any other grounds is ineligible to apply for any Post Graduate/Diploma/Degree Courses during 1995-96 Sessions. " Paragraph 4 of the judgment considers the reasonableness of that Rules. It reads thus :- " * So far as the validity of Clause 8 of the Prospectus, I have no doubt, in my mind, that the State Government is entitled to impose such restriction in the interest of the general public. Certainly, the aspiring students cannot apply for a course and later on decide to discontinue the same. Restriction imposed on such candidates applying again during the next academic Year is perfectly justified and warranted. The candidates cannot play with the number of disciplines offered by the Government in a light-hearted manner. They should apply to the Course in which they have aptitude. Unfortunately, these are days when the students do not care for such aptitude, but only care for getting some Post Graduate Degree to augment their future income as a Doctor. The counter-affidavit has disclosed that there are 17 disciplines in medicines, five disciplines in Surgery and there are 17 disciplines in the Diploma Course. If a person is really interested in particular specialised subjects he must apply for the same and wait till he gets it. Whatever that may be, I am unable to find anything illegal or invalid in Restriction Clause B of the Prospectus..........." 21. The Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 380 of 1996 (J. Rengaswamy alias Mahesh, M.M.C. Mens Hostel Park Town, Madras-3 v. The Director of Medical Education, Chepauk, Madras-5) (referred to supra) was also followed by the learned single Judge. 22. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that an absolute bar is arbitrary and the Authorities must be given a right to decide whether the explanation offered by the petitioner is genuine. 22. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that an absolute bar is arbitrary and the Authorities must be given a right to decide whether the explanation offered by the petitioner is genuine. 23. I do not think the said contention also could be accepted. If the Authorities are given the right of choice of exempting a particular student, there will be scope for discrimination and favouritism. It is to avoid such a contingency, a general bar is incorporated in clause 1.7 of the Prospectus. The bar under clause 1.7 is intended in the interest of the general public, and is valid. No other argument was put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner. 24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. No. 6359 of 1997 for direction is dismissed consequently. Petition dismissed.