ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order dated 5-7-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1979/1999 (Ritwik Pandey vs. Professional Examination Board M.P. and another), wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 4 (herein) (petitioner in W.P. No. 1979/1999) and directed the respondent No. 2 to call the respondent No. 4 as first candidate in the second (next) counselling and allot him the seat of his choice if he is willing to accept it. It is also observed that the benefit of this order shall be given to all the similarly circumstanced candidates. The respondent No. 4 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1979/1999) appeared on 3-1-1999 in All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences. This examination was conducted as per directives of the Hon. Supreme Court for admission to 25% seats of various post graduate courses in the country. This examination is governed by the Rules and Regulations made by the Government of India known as "All India Entrance Examination and Admission to M.D./M.S./Diploma and MDS Courses, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as All India Rules for short). The respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 310 in the merit of the successful candidates. He appeared in All India counselling at New Delhi on 9-3-1999 and he was allotted a seat in S.S. Medical College, Rewa in Madhya Pradesh in Paediatrics course. He did not join this course. The respondent No. 4 had also appeared in the examination for entrance to the post graduate course as per M.P. Medical and Dental Postgraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P. Rules' for short). This examination was conducted on 24-1-1999 and the result was declared on 11-3-1999. The respondent No. 4 secured 4th rank in order of merit in the general category. He was called for counselling on 12-4-1999 at Bhopal. He was, however, not permitted to appear in the counselling and it was adjourned. He made a representation that he may be permitted to appear for counselling, but that was rejected. Hence, the writ petition (W. P. No. 1979/1999) was filed by the respondent No. 4 (petitioner in W. P. No. 1979/1999) before the Single Bench. He was, however, not permitted to appear in the counselling and it was adjourned. He made a representation that he may be permitted to appear for counselling, but that was rejected. Hence, the writ petition (W. P. No. 1979/1999) was filed by the respondent No. 4 (petitioner in W. P. No. 1979/1999) before the Single Bench. The contention of the respondent No. 4 (petitioner in W.P. No. 1979/99) was that he should have been called for counselling under the M.P. Rules and he cannot be prevented from being called for counselling just because he has been called for counselling at All India Level and he has been allotted a seat in the S. S. Medical College, Rewa, in Madhya Pradesh in Paediatrics course. That petition was contested by State and the State relied on Rule 3(VI)(iv) of Chapter-2 of the M.P. Rules. An application for intervention was also filed by Dr. Sameer Agrawal and he appeared through his counsel Shri Sudhir Rawat as Intervener and he was permitted to make submissions in that petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the relevant provisions of the All India Rules as well as the M.P. Rules, came to the conclusion that the Rule 3(VI)(iv) does not prohibit the respondents from calling the respondent No. 4/petitioner for counselling. The learned Single Judge has also held that since the incumbent has not appeared subsequent to the present counselling in any examination held by State under its Rules, therefore, he is not prohibited from being called for counselling. Both the examinations were conducted simultaneously and the first result was announced by the All India Level and subsequently, the result was announced at the State. Therefore, it is not a case that the candidate has appeared in second examination held by the State thereby incurring any disability for being called for counselling. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it may be relevant to refer to the relevant Rules pertaining to All India Entrance Examination and Admission to MD/MS Courses, 1999. All India Level examinations are held for 25% of seats of all States in country in various post graduate specialities, for which certain guidelines have been prescribed by the All India Competitive Entrance Examination. Clause 5 of the All India Rules lays down the eligibility criteria. It says that the candidate must be an Indian National. All India Level examinations are held for 25% of seats of all States in country in various post graduate specialities, for which certain guidelines have been prescribed by the All India Competitive Entrance Examination. Clause 5 of the All India Rules lays down the eligibility criteria. It says that the candidate must be an Indian National. A candidate, who holds a recognised M.B.B.S. degree from a recognised medical college or a foreign medical degree included in the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and who has obtained full registration either from the Medical Council of India or any of the State Medical Councils after completing compulsory rotating internship, shall be eligible to take up the competitive examination for admission to post-graduate degree or diploma courses. It further says that the candidates who have obtained their M.B.B.S. degree from the Medical Colleges which are not recognised by Medical Council of India, shall not be eligible. It also says that a candidate who after passing the final qualifying examination (MBBS or the foreign recognized medical degree), is undergoing compulsory rotating internship/practical training and is likely to complete the same by 31st March, 1999, can take up the competitive test, but he/she shall not be eligible for admission unless he/she has completed the compulsory rotating internship/practical training and obtained full registration on or before 31st March, 1999. It further says that no condonation of compulsory Rotating Internship shall be accepted unless approved by the Medical Council of India along with necessary proof of the approval. Condonation of compulsory rotating internship shall be restricted to the period upto 31-3-1999 and not beyond that date. It further says that all such candidates shall have to submit the documentary proof, from the Principal/Dean of the college regarding the date of completion of internship along with the application. Clause 6 deals with option for medical courses/medical colleges and it says that the allotment of seats shall be made through personal appearance. The candidates are not required to give any choice of subject and college at the time of submission of application form. Clause 6(b) lays down certain prohibition which is relevant for our purposes, and reads as under: "Cl. 6(b): Some of the Universities are having regulations that candidates who are already pursuing the PG Course in their University or in another University are not eligible for admission till they complete the course. Clause 6(b) lays down certain prohibition which is relevant for our purposes, and reads as under: "Cl. 6(b): Some of the Universities are having regulations that candidates who are already pursuing the PG Course in their University or in another University are not eligible for admission till they complete the course. The candidates who are already pursuing PG courses either through All India Quota or State Quota and are applying for a seat under All India Quota may confirm the eligibility conditions of that University in this regard. Refusal of admission to such candidates shall not be the responsibility of DGHS. Such candidates may opt for the subject and the college at their own risks and costs." Clause 7 deals with examination. There shall be one paper of three and half hours duration containing 300 M.C. Qs. All questions will be single response objective type. Clause 8 deals with declaration of results. It further says that the result shall be declared between 18th to 20th February, 1999. Clause 9 deals with merit list and it says that the merit list will consist of number of candidates equal to the number of seats available for allotment. A waiting list containing not more than 10 percent of the merit list will also be declared from amongst the successful candidates who have secured 50 percent or more marks in the competitive examination. Clause 10 deals with application form and fees for examination. Clause 11 deals with conduct of examination and Clause 12 deals with method of selection and admission. Clause 12 says that all the candidates who apply for admission and are found eligible, will be required to take the competitive entrance examination at their own cost. The examination will be conducted at the centres as given in Appendix I. Clause 13 deals with allotment on personal appearance and it says that the allotment of seats shall be made to the candidates through personal appearance. It further lays down that the candidate for personal appearance should bring their Admission Card, Rank Letter and other related certificates including the Internship Completion Certificate etc. It further ordains that the candidates will have the right to choose any one of the available seats at his/her rank and the same will be allotted to him/her and the allotment letters will be issued the next day. It further ordains that the candidates will have the right to choose any one of the available seats at his/her rank and the same will be allotted to him/her and the allotment letters will be issued the next day. In case any candidate is unable to appear in person on the notified date(s) for personal appearance, he/she can send his/her authorised representative with an undertaking and Authority Letter for allotment along with original documents mentioned above, for verification. The allotment made to the authorised representative shall be binding on the candidate. Clause 13(e) says that the candidate shall be given 15 days time from the date of personal appearance, to join the allotted college and course. Clause 13(e) which is relevant for our purposes, reads as under: "Cl. 13(e): Each candidate shall be given 15 days time from the date of personal appearance, to join the allotted college and course. However, the last date of joining shall not be later than 6th April, 1999 and the intimation to the effect that the candidate has joined, be sent to the Assistant Director General Health Services (M.E.), Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. The allotment made will be firm and final. No change is permissible under the scheme. No request for change should be sent to DGHS nor the same will be entertained." Clause 13(f) says that the candidates, who does not appear for allotment in person or through the authorized representative on notified date(s) or who rejects the available seats for allotment or those who will not join the allotted course and college, within the last date of joining mentioned in the allotment letter, shall forfeit a claim for a seat under All India Quota. All the seats remaining vacant after the allotment or falling vacant thereafter, shall be deemed to have been surrendered back to the respective States. Clause 13(h) says that any candidate, after taking admission to the allotted course and college, if discontinues the PG Course of his/her own or his/her admission is cancelled by the Institutions for any reason shall forfeit the claim for a seat under the All India Quota. This is a scheme of the admission to M.D. courses against All India Quota. In the State also, the scheme is almost identical. Here also, examination are held every year against 75% of seats. Rule 3(VI) of the M.P. Rules deals with eligibility criteria. This is a scheme of the admission to M.D. courses against All India Quota. In the State also, the scheme is almost identical. Here also, examination are held every year against 75% of seats. Rule 3(VI) of the M.P. Rules deals with eligibility criteria. It says that a person must fulfil the criteria that he/she must be a citizen of India and that he/she must have passed MBBS (All Examination of M.B.B.S. course) from a Medical College of Madhya Pradesh recognized by Medical Council of India on or before 30th April of the year in which the Examination is held and must have full registration with the State Medical Council of Madhya Pradesh. Sub Clause (iv) of Clause (VI) of Rule 3 which is very crucial for our purposes, reads as under:- "R. 3(VI)(iv): A person admitted to any post-graduate course in Madhya Pradesh in previous year who has not completed the postgraduate course is not eligible to take the examination up to three years from the date of his previous admission. The candidates who were allotted post graduate seat in Madhya Pradesh at the time of counselling for which candidate agreed, but later did not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of Madhya Pradesh are not eligible to take the examination up to three years from the date of previous counselling". Clause (VIII) of Rule 3 lays down how the examination will be conducted. It further says that the results shall be declared and the merit list shall be prepared. Clause 10 deals with counselling. It says that candidates will be called in batches for counselling at their own cost by the Director of Medical Education. It also says that the candidates shall appear before a Committee for counselling. We are not concerned with the members who constitute the counselling Committee. It further says that the candidates so admitted and assigned to a particular course, subject and to a particular institution will not be entitled to seek change of subject or institution later on any ground. No request for change of subject or institution shall be entertained. It further says that a candidate who does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects available at the time of his/her counselling may so indicate in writing. No request for change of subject or institution shall be entertained. It further says that a candidate who does not wish to be admitted to any of the subjects available at the time of his/her counselling may so indicate in writing. Such candidate would forfeit her/his right to admission to any subjects available at the time of her/his counselling and will not be admitted to any subject and his/her name will be placed in waiting list in order of merit. She/he will be again considered for admission if any seats fall vacant in any subject and institution available at the time of subsequent counselling before the closing date of admission, 2nd July. It also says that if any seat remain or fall vacant in any subject in any institution the same would be filled up from the waiting list strictly in the order of merit by subsequent counselling in the same manner as mentioned above. The date of subsequent counselling for the candidates in waiting list will be communicated to them by registered post and also displayed on the notice board of the office of the Director of Medical Education. While filling up such vacant seats, candidates already admitted to any subject in any institution will not be considered and candidates in waiting list will be considered. Rule XI deals with admission and it says that the course will commence from 2nd May every year. If due to any reason any vacant seat is to be filled, the same would be done through counselling within two months i.e. by Second July. All admissions will come to an end on that date. Seats reverted from All India Quota to the State will be filled up from the merit/waiting list by counselling as stated in the Rules, before closing date of 2nd July. The candidates who have been admitted, must join their college on or before the date to be notified at the time of admission. It further says that the selection for the admission will be automatically cancelled if the selected candidates do not report the college on or before the date stipulated at the time of counselling. Now in the background of the scheme of these Rules, we may examine the facts. It further says that the selection for the admission will be automatically cancelled if the selected candidates do not report the college on or before the date stipulated at the time of counselling. Now in the background of the scheme of these Rules, we may examine the facts. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 4 (petitioner in W. P. No. 1979/1999) appeared on 3-1-1999 in All India Competitive Entrance Examination and in the State Examination for admission to M.D.M.S. courses, on 24-1-1999. The result of All India Quota was declared on 18-2-1999 and that of the State was declared on 11-3-1999. The respondent No. 4 in All India Quota was called for counselling and he was allotted a seat in the subject of Paediatrics in S.S. Medical College, Rewa, on 9-3-1999 and in the case of State of M.P., he was called for counselling on 12-4-1999. But he was not permitted to appear for counselling on account of prohibition contained in Rule 3(VI) (iv). Therefore, it is to be examined whether the respondent No. 4 was rightly prohibited from counselling after he was declared successful in the examination conducted by the State of Madhya Pradesh on account of admission to M.D. Course in Paediatrics against All India Quota. The basic question before us is what is correct interpretation of clause (VI)(iv) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Rules. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (VI) of Rule 3 can be divided into two parts; the first part that a person who was admitted to any post graduate course in M.P. in previous year and who has not completed the post graduate course, shall not be eligible to take the examination upto 3 years from the date of his previous admission and the second part relates to that the candidates, who were allotted post graduate seat in M.P. at the time of counselling for which candidate agreed but later did not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of M.P. are not eligible to take the examination upto three years from the date of previous counselling. So far as first part is concerned, it only ordains that once a candidate has been admitted to a particular post graduate course and he is undergoing studies in that speciality then he shall not be permitted to take up the fresh examination for post graduate for another speciality for a period of 3 years. (A cross reference be made of Rules 6(b) of All India Examination). This provision appears to have been incorporated for avowed purpose that in case the candidate who is undergoing his studies in a particular subject and he occupies that seat and if he is permitted to appear in next examination and selected then that will result in vacation of that seat and it will go waste because it will not be filled up by any new candidate. As there is a keen competition for admission to the post graduate courses and seats are limited, therefore, there is a necessity of laying down certain prohibition so that the seat may not remain vacant and prospective candidates, may not suffer. Therefore, this provision appears to have been made for a bona fide purpose that the student who have joined the post graduate course, should prosecute and complete it, he will not be permitted to change in mid stream. The three years period has been prescribed which will prohibit the student who has already been admitted to a particular study to change at his whim. This provision has already been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Swati Wandana Sinku Kuzur vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 22-9-1997 in Writ Petition No. 2301/1997 and it was observed that "the object of the rule is that a post graduate student, who is admitted to any post graduate course, according to his merit, such student must complete the post graduate course to which he is admitted. It is with a view so that the seat allotted may not go waste and the student admitted should complete the course and is debarred from venturing to change his discipline in midway by taking a chance in the next year which he may do after 3 years, on completion of the post graduate course." Therefore, the view taken by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Swati Wandana Sinku Kuzur's case (supra) appears to be well founded. Swati Wandana Sinku Kuzur's case (supra) appears to be well founded. Thus, we are of the opinion that so far as first part of the Rule 3(Vl)(iv) is concerned, the prohibition contained in the Rule is well founded and the Rule Framing Authority has rightly interpreted the provision so as to stop the waywardness of the student and they are pin down to complete the course in speciality where they have been admitted so that the seat shall not go waste. Now coming to the second part of Rule 3(Vl)(iv), it says that once a candidate has been allotted post graduate seat in M.P. at the time of counselling for which candidate agreed and if he does not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of Madhya Pradesh then he will not be eligible to take the examination for another period of three years from the date of previous counselling. This second part only shows that if the candidate has been offered a seat for a particular course for the post-graduation and if he does not join, then in that case, he will have to wait for another three years for being called for counselling after passing the examination and being in the merit. This was also made with a view to see that the whole exercise of counselling should not go waste. The student appears in examination and he is called for counselling on selection in merit for admission to a particular course and he agrees then he will not be permitted to avail another chance for a period of three years if he fails to join the same. This provision is with regard to the admission to the post graduate course at the threshold. The seats are limited and there is a keen competition and if a candidate accepts a seat offered to him but he does not avail that chance then he has to wait for three years because he had an opportunity, but he failed to avail the same. This provision appears to be a rational one and justified, in view of the fact that there are limited seats and there is keen competition. If the students are permitted to change their speciality then this will cause hardship to other meritorious candidates, who are in queue for admission. Therefore, this restriction also appears to be rational. This provision appears to be a rational one and justified, in view of the fact that there are limited seats and there is keen competition. If the students are permitted to change their speciality then this will cause hardship to other meritorious candidates, who are in queue for admission. Therefore, this restriction also appears to be rational. But the question is with regard to the respondent No. 4 (herein) (petitioner in W.P. No. 1979/1999) who had appeared in both the examinations, one undertaken by All India Quota and second at the State Level. At the time of appearing in the examinations, he did not know whether he will get into post graduate studies through which of the examinations. Both the examinations are held almost simultaneously as per the programme fixed by the Medical Council of India and in view of the direction given by the Apex Court. Therefore, a bona fide candidate has to take a chance by appearing in both the examination. Unpredictability is always there in the examination and it is not assured whether a candidate will get into examination conducted by All India Quota or the State. Therefore, he has to appear for both the examinations and take a chance. It is a normal human tendency that whenever a candidate gets a chance at the first opportunity, he will like to avail it because he does not know the result of the second examination. Therefore, in the present case, the respondent No. 4 took a chance of accepting a seat allotted to him in All India Quota little realizing that he might land himself in trouble, in case he succeeds in State Level. The stand taken by the respondents/State is that since the respondent No. 4 has been allotted a seat in M.P. in S.S. Medical College, Rewa in Paediatrics against 25% of seats of All India Quota; therefore, he cannot avail himself a chance of counselling at the State seats. Hence, he was not called for counselling on his succeeding in the State Level examination held by the State of M.P. We are of the opinion that this stand of the respondent/State does not appear to be well founded. Hence, he was not called for counselling on his succeeding in the State Level examination held by the State of M.P. We are of the opinion that this stand of the respondent/State does not appear to be well founded. As already mentioned above, the second part of Rule 3(VI)(iv) of M.P. Rules ordains that in the State of M.P., if a candidate has declined to avail the admission to the post graduate course in M.P. then he will not be entitled to avail that opportunity next year, but he will have to wait for another three years. The idea is that he should be called first in the State of M.P. for courseling and in case he gets admission in postgraduate course and if he does not avail it, then he will not be entitled to second opportunity in succeeding year in M.P., and he will have to wait for three years. That means that the candidates should be admitted to a particular postgraduate course in M. P. and if he declines to avail the same, then he will be deprived for three years to take that examination in M.P. But, in case, the candidate appears at the All India Quota simultaneously and not subsequent to the admission to the postgraduate in M.P. then can he be deprived the opportunity? Our answer is negative. As per the scheme of the examination at the All India level, the examination is scheduled to be held first and the State Level Examination has to follow next. Therefore, this prohibition which is contained in the examination to be held in M.P., shall not be mutatis mutandis applicable to the All India Quota Examination. If it is permitted to be done then it will operate more harshly and will not be conducive to the benefit of the competing candidates. The examination is always competitive and results are always unpredictable. Therefore, it is a human tendency for a candidate to take a chance wherever it is possible specially in the country like ours where seats are limited and the students are in large number. As such, the candidate would like to appear in both the examinations simultaneously. The examination is always competitive and results are always unpredictable. Therefore, it is a human tendency for a candidate to take a chance wherever it is possible specially in the country like ours where seats are limited and the students are in large number. As such, the candidate would like to appear in both the examinations simultaneously. In the present case, the respondent No. 4 availed the chance at the All India Quota as well as at the State Level and when he succeeded in All India Level he did not wait for the result of the M.P. Examination and when he was allotted a seat in S.S. Medical College, Rewa, in M.P. in Paediatrics course, he availed the same. When he succeeded in the State of M.P. also, he was denied the counselling on the basis of admission in the All India Quota. This act of the respondent/State, in our opinion, is not correct and nor is correct interpretation of second part of sub-clause (iv) of Clause (VI) of Rule 3 of M.P. Rules. As we have already mentioned above that this second part of counselling only relates when the candidate in the State of M.P. has failed to avail the admission in post graduate course after having accepted a seat and in that case, he would be denied the next opportunity for a period of three years. But the interpretation of the said rule that this provision will also be applicable to the candidate, who has succeeded at the All India Level, is not correct nor is correct understanding of the Rule. In our opinion, the candidate who appeared at the All India Level and State Level examinations simultaneously and if he succeeds in All India Level examination and he is offered admission at counselling that will not deprive him opportunity at State Level. Wherever there are prohibitory provisions then such provisions should be construed strictly. Prohibitive or negative words can rarely be directory. Such prohibitory words are legislative device to make statute imperative. Therefore, Clause 3(VI)(iv) is imperative and it restricts a second chance to candidate who has declined the offer at the counselling by not availing the same in M.P. But it does not prohibit simultaneous examination undertaken by the candidate at All India Level. Wherever there are restrictive or negative provisions then such provision should not be read more than it is intended or necessary. Wherever there are restrictive or negative provisions then such provision should not be read more than it is intended or necessary. Therefore, this restriction has to be read to the extent it is necessary. This clause only prevents second opportunity in the State of M.P. and does not prohibit the opportunity availed at All India Level. Therefore, as per clause 3(VI)(iv) what is prohibited is second chance to candidate for a period of three years, who has, after acceptance, failed to avail the chance offered to him at counselling in M.P. It does not prohibit the candidate who has appeared simultaneously at All India Level Examination and succeeded. Therefore, we are of the opinion that denying the opportunity to petitioner for appearing for counselling despite being in merit is not correct. We direct that the petitioner's case should be considered in the light of the observation made above by us and he shall not be denied counselling and admission to the courses, if otherwise he is found to be eligible on merit. The appeal filed by the petitioner/intervener has no merit and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed