ORDER Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against order dated 14.5.1999 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1327 of 1999 whereby the learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the appellants to admit the respondent (petitioner) in M.S. (General Surgery) Course forthwith and has awarded cost of Rs. 5, 000.00. 2. Petitioner (respondent) after passing M.B.B.S. examination aspired to persue studies in Post Graduate in General Surgery. He appeared in the M.P. Pre-Post Graduate Examination and he was selected for admission in M.D. Course in Skin anti V.D. in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. Hereafter, the petitioner appeared in 'All India Pre-P.G. Examination for admission' to Post Graduate Medical Courses and Dental Courses in January 1999. He was informed by communication dated 9th March 1999 that he was admitted in M.S. General Surgery course of three years' duration in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. The petitioner pursuant to the communication dated 9th March 1999 appeared before the Dean. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to 'Medical College') for admission but the Dean of Medical College informed him that by virtue of paragraph 6 (b) of Bulletin of Information for Guidance for All India Pre-P.G. Examination 1999, he cannot be admitted to the course. Though the Vice Chancellor of the University informed that the University has no objection for petitioner being admitted in the M.S. General Surgery Course, but the petitioner was not given admission in view of paragraph 6 (b) aforesaid. Therefore, the petitioner was driven to file this petition. 3. The State contested the matter with reference to paragraph 6 of the Bulletin of Information for Guidance for All India Pre-P.G. Course 1999 read with Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the M.P. Medical and Dental Postgraduate Entrance Examination Rules (for short the Rules) and submitted that the petitioner cannot be admitted in M.S. General Surgery Course. Learned Single Judge after considering the impact of Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules read with paragraph 6 of the All India Bulletin came to the conclusion that the interpretation of the State (appellant) is not correct and directed admission of the petitioner by his order dated 14.5.1999. 4. Learned Single Judge after considering the impact of Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules read with paragraph 6 of the All India Bulletin came to the conclusion that the interpretation of the State (appellant) is not correct and directed admission of the petitioner by his order dated 14.5.1999. 4. It may be relevant to reproduce paragraph 6 (b) of the Bulletin of Information for Guidance for All India Pre-P .G. Course 1999 (hereinafter referred to All India Bulletin 1999) which reads as under: "6. Option for Medical Courses/Colleges-- (a) ....... (b) Some of the Universities are having regulations that candidates who are already pursuing the P.G. Course in their University or in another University are not eligible for admission till they complete the course. The candidates who are already pursuing P.G. 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." Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules which is relevant for our purpose reads as under" "3. ......... (VI) ......... .. (iv) A person admitted to any post-graduate course in Madhya Pradesh in previous year who has not completed the post graduate course is not eligible to take the examination upto 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 agrees, but later did not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of Madhya Pradesh are not eligible to take the examination upto three years from the date of previous counselling." A combined reading of the aforesaid two provisions makes it clear that in case a candidate who is already admitted in M.S. course and pursuing his studies, then he would not be entitled for re-test for the next three years from the date of previous counselling. This is a condition contained in Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules. Paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin 1999 also mentions very clearly that a candidate already pursuing P.G. course in his University. This is a condition contained in Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules. Paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin 1999 also mentions very clearly that a candidate already pursuing P.G. course in his University. or in another University is not eligible for admission till he completes the course and the candidate who is already pursuing P.G. course either through All India Quota or State Quota and is applying for a seat under All India Quota may confirm the eligibility conditions of that university in this regard. It further says that refusal of admission to such candidate shall not be the responsibility of Director General Health Services. Such candidate may opt for the subject and the college at his own risks and costs. 5. The petitioner was already admitted to skin and V.D. course of M.D. pursuant to the Pre-PG test held in the State of M.P. in 1998 and was prosecuting his studies in that course. He appeared in Pre PG test against All India Quota in 1999 for admission in M.S. General Surgery Course and he was selected for admission. But he was not granted admission by virtue of paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin 1999 which clearly lays down that such candidate may appear in the All India Pre-PG Examination at his own risks and costs because he has to verify the eligibility conditions in the University concerned of the State. The admissions in the State of M.P. are not conducted by the Universities. They are conducted under the Rules known as M P. Medical and Dental Postgraduate Entrance Examination Rules 1999. Tests for admission to P.G. courses in Colleges in the State are conducted under the aforesaid Rules and the Universities of the State are not responsible for conducting such examinations or for admissions. It is only after exan1inations are held under the Rules, candidates are called for counselling and they are distributed to Medical Colleges all over the State of M.P. as per directions issued by the Director of Medical and Health under the Rules. Rule VIII which is relevant for our purposes reads as under: "(VIII) Declaration of results -- The Board will conduct the examination, evaluate the answer sheet, prepare the merit list and declare the result. Rule VIII which is relevant for our purposes reads as under: "(VIII) Declaration of results -- The Board will conduct the examination, evaluate the answer sheet, prepare the merit list and declare the result. It shall forward the merit list to the Director of Medical Education, who will in turn allocate the candidates to various Medic'al Colleges through counselling." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent has strenuously urged before us that paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin clearly lays down that a candidate shall check the eligibility conditions of the University and the University has no objection under the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam or Statute which prohibit the second examination being undertaken under the All India Quota or State Quota. It is true that the expression 'University' is used in paragraph 6 (b). Here the university does not conduct the examination for admission to Medical Colleges of the State of M.P. nor does it examine the eligibility of the candidates for admission to P.G. courses. In the State of M.P. examinations are conducted by the State and admissions are also made on the basis of recommendations made by Board constituted under the Rules. Therefore, expression 'University' used in paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin means a body which admits the students in the P.G. Courses and the students are admitted under the Rules of 1999. Thus, the expression 'University' here has to be read in the context of a body which conducts the exan1ination for admissions. In the present case, it is the body which is constituted under the Rules to admit students to various courses and the University has no say in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for respondent/petitioner invited our attention to the decision of Apex Court given in the case of Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India ( AIR 1999 SC 911 ). This was a case with regard to admission of a candidate in M.B.B.S. course. There was a condition in the State of Maharashtra that a candidate' should have passed H.S.C. or equivalent examination in one and the same attempt. But there was no corresponding condition in the All India Pre Medical Examination Rules for 15% All India Quota that the candidate should pass H.S.C. or equivalent examination in one and the same attempt. There was a condition in the State of Maharashtra that a candidate' should have passed H.S.C. or equivalent examination in one and the same attempt. But there was no corresponding condition in the All India Pre Medical Examination Rules for 15% All India Quota that the candidate should pass H.S.C. or equivalent examination in one and the same attempt. Therefore, their Lordships held that since there was no such condition in the All India Pre Medical Examination Rules, the Dean Medical College Solapur could not have denied admission to the petitioner. The denial of admission to the petitioner was 'therefore' held to be wholly illegal and unjustified. It is not the case here. We have quoted paragraph 6 (b) of the All India Bulletin above which stipulates that the admission to the P.G. Courses shall be with reference to the University of the State where admission is sought. In the present case. the admission is sought in the State of M.P. and the eligibility test is conducted under the Rules of 1999, therefore, we have to see the eligibility criteria in the State of M.P. and the rules obtaining in the State of M.P. Under Rule 3 (VI) (iv) of the Rules quoted above, it is clearly stipulated that a person already admitted to any post graduate course in Madhya Pradesh in previous year in one University would not be permitted to appear again for three years course from the date of admission. Therefore. reading of these to provisions makes it clear that the petitioner/respondent who is already undergoing studies in P.G. course pursuant to Pre-PG Examination conducted under the Rules of 1990 cannot seek admission under the All India Quota Rules 1999 for a three Years P.G. Course. Similar question has already been decided by this Court in the case of D. Naveen Kumar Dulhani v. State of M.P. and Lothers (L.P.A. No. 196 of 1999) dated 20th July 1999, and in that context, it was clearly observed by interpreting the provisions of Rule 3 (VI) (iv) as under: " ...So far as first part is concerned, it only ordains that once a candidate has been admitted to a particular postgraduate course and he is undergoing studies in that specialty then he shall not be permitted to take up the fresh examination for postgraduate for another speciality for a period of 3 years. (A cross reference be made of Rule 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 scat 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 postgraduate courses and scats arc limited. therefore, there is a necessity of laying down certain prohibition so that the scat may not remain vacant and prospective candidates, may not suffer... " . 8. Learned counsel for petitioner/respondent contended that the skin and V.D. Course in which the petitioner/respondent is admitted is not recognised by the All India Medical Council. The petitioner/respondent is already undergoing studies and he had sought admission and therefore, now he cannot turn back to say that the course in which he was admitted is not a recognised course. This is too belated a stage and the petitioner/respondent cannot turn back to disown his admission in skin and V.D. The contention of the petitioner/respondent• is 'therefore' rejected. 9. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct and the petitioner is not entitled to admission to M.S. (General Surgery) Course. The judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside and the petition is dismissed. The L.P.A. is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.