G. ROHINI, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners are students of m. B. B. S. course (1998 batch) who passed the subjects of Phase-I of the course in the supplementary examination held in July, 2000. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in constituting the petitioners and other similarly placed persons who passed phase-I of M. B. B. S. course in supplementary examination in July, 2000 as a separate batch for Phase-II M. B. B. S. course is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Regulation 7 (7) of Medical Council of india Regulations on Graduate Medical education, 1997 and to issue consequential direction to integrate the petitioners and others who passed Phase-I of M. B. B. S. course in Supplementary examination along with the main/regular batch of 1998 in phase-II of M. B. B. S course or in the alternative to permit the petitioners and others to take Phase-II M. B. B. S. course examination along with main /regular batch (1998) and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) AT the outset it may be mentioned that by virtue of the orders of this Court dated 12-3-2001 in WP MP No. 5294 of 2001 the petitioners are permitted to file the writ petition in a representative capacity representing all the students of 1998 batch who passed Phase-I M. B. B. S. course in supplementary examination held in July, 2000 from respondents 2 to 10 Colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: the petitioners appeared for the eamcet 1998 conducted in May, 1998 and became eligible for admission to first year M. B. B. S course scheduled to commence in August, 1998. However, the counselling for admission was taken up by the Convener only in December, 1998 and the petitioners and others secured admission in the respondents 2 to 10 Medical Colleges on the basis of their merit and ranking and they joined the course on payment of necessary fees. The first semester for the said batch of 1998 commenced with effect from 11-1-1999. The examinations for the first phase of the course which consists of two semesters were held between 14-2-2000 and 14-3-2000. The first semester for the said batch of 1998 commenced with effect from 11-1-1999. The examinations for the first phase of the course which consists of two semesters were held between 14-2-2000 and 14-3-2000. The petitioners along with other students appeared for the examination consisting six papers and three practical examinations in respect of three subjects. The results were declared on 7-5-2000. However, the petitioners and some other students could not succeed in all the subjects of the first phase. Therefore, the petitioners and other students who could not pass all the subjects appeared for the Supplementary examination held on 10-7-2000. The results of Supplementary examination were declared in August, 2000 and the petitioners and others have cleared all the backlog papers. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join Phase-II of the Course along with the main batch on the ground that they cleared the backlog subjects of Phase-I in the Supplementary examination and they were taken up as a separate batch. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents the present writ petition has been filed. ( 5 ) THE main contention of the petitioners is that the Regulations on Graduate Medical education, 1997, made under the Indian medical Council Act, 1956 do not contemplate treating the candidates who passed the Supplementary examination as a separate batch and as per Regulation 7 (7) they are entitled to join the main batch. ( 6 ) THE petitioners contended that though under the Regulations, a pass in the subjects of Phase-I is compulsory before proceeding to Phase-II training, the Supplementary examinations are to be conducted in such a manner as to enable the students who passed can also join the main batch. The petitioners further contend that as per Regulation 7 (7) only those students who failed in the supplementary examination will have to appear in the subsequent year and regulation 7 (7) does not contemplate treating the students who passed in the supplementary examination as a separate batch. ( 7 ) IT is also pleaded that under the regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, there is nothing like referred batch , and in view of the specific provisions under regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997, which are mandatory and binding on the University, there is no rationality in constituting the students who passed Phase-I subjects in the Supplementary examination as a separate batch. Accordingly, they filed the present writ petition to declare the action of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal and also seeking consequential directions to integrate the writ petitioners with the main batch in Phase-II Programme to enable them to take examinations along with the main batch at the end of Phase-II course. ( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University it has been stated that after successful completion of phase-I of the course a candidate will be allowed to enter Phase-II course, which consists of clinical subjects. It is further submitted that the petitioners who failed in the examinations of the Phase-I held in february, 2000 cannot be treated on par with the main batch. Their claim to permit them to join the main batch by taking special classes would be in violation of the regulation 7 (6) and as a matter of fact no mechanism is provided under the said regulation to conduct special classes. The 1st respondent has specifically contended that the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered on any ground since it would amount to reducing the period of study to four years whereas the total period of study as prescribed under Regulations is 41/2 years. While admitting that the Regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act are binding on the candidates as well as the institutions imparting medical education, the respondent contended that the power of universities to maintain higher standards is not restricted by the Medical Council of india and that the petitioners who failed in the examinations of the Phase-I cannot be allowed to join the main batch interpreting the Regulations to suit their convenience. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the respondent No. 2, the medical Council of India, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed stating that whereas the students who have passed the main examination of Phase-I held in February,2000 started their teaching and training classes in Phase-II immediately after passing the examinations, the petitioners who passed in the Supplementary examination could join phase-II only after August, 2000 and thus there is a gap of about 5 to 6 months between the two groups though they belong to the same batch. Since every student of M. B. B. S is required to undergo the complete teaching and training for a total period of 41/2 years it would not be permissible to allow the petitioners to join the main batch since they did not study Phase-II along withthe regular batch and were lagging behind in teaching and training by about 5 to 6 months. It is further stated that Phase-II course contains vital part of the clinical and teaching and training with duration of 18 months and it cannot be completed in a period of one year by the petitioners and others who passed phase-I examinations in the Supplementary examination. It is further stated that a similar issue was considered by the High Court of madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in respect of the students of Netaji S. C. Bose Medical college, Jabalpur and in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court of madhya Pradesh the matter was considered by the General Body of the Council and decided to modify Clause 7 (7) of the regulations in the following terms. "7 (7) supplementary examination may be conducted within 4 to 6 months and the students who pass the examination shall not be allowed to join the main batch for teaching and training but shall be treated as a separate batch i. e. , Supplementary batch. " ( 10 ) THE said decision of the General body of the Council has been sent to the central Government for its approval, which is still awaited. Accordingly respondent no. 11 contends that it is not permissible for the Medical Council of India to accept the request made by the petitioners to permit them to join the students who passed Phase-I examinations in February, 2000. ( 11 ) THE petitioners filed a reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 stating that the gap between the students of regular batch for whom Phase-II classes were commenced on 15-6-2000 and the students who passed the supplementary examination and started phase-II classes with effect from 11-9-2000 would be less than 3 months, which is within the manageable limit and if additional classes are conducted the students who passed the Supplementary examination can catch up with the main batch. ( 12 ) PURSUANT to the directions issued by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University furnished the relevant information regarding the main examinations and Supplementary examination conducted to the students of phase-I of the 1998 batch which shows that the classes for Phase-II were commenced with effect from 1-6-2000 for those students who passed Phase-I examinations held in february, 2000, whereas Classes for phase-n were commenced for the petitioners and others who passed Phase-I examinations in the Supplementary examination with effect from 30-9-2000. Thus, there is a gap of about 4 months between the main batch and the Supplementary batch in commencing Phase-II classes. ( 13 ) HEARD Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, sri K. G. K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University and sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the medical Council of India. ( 14 ) SIR D. V. Sitarama Murthy submitted that Regulation 7 (7) of the Regulations on graduate Medical Education specifically provides for conducting the Supplementary examination within six months so that the students who pass Supplementary examination can join the main batch. The learned Counsel while pointing out that there is no impediment in the Regulations which deny the petitioners to take examinations along with the main batch vehemently contended that all the clauses in the regulations shall be given their true meaning and on a harmonious construction of all the provisions under the Regulations and keeping in view the intention of the Rule making authority as reflected under regulation 7 (7) the candidates who passed the Supplementary examination shall be allowed to join the main batch. ( 15 ) ON the other hand Sri K. G. K. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the examinations intended under Regulation 7 (7) are on the lines of instant examinations to facilitate the failed students to complete the subjects in which they could not succeed at the first instance, but they cannot be permitted to join the main batch to form an integrated batch, since they have not completed the requisite period of study in Phase-II. ( 16 ) SRI S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical council of India while referring to the relevant provisions under the Regulations which prescribe that Phase-II shall consist of 3 semesters of six months each submits that it is mandatory for the students to complete 18 months of study to get the eligibility to appear for the examinations of Phase-II. He also submits that the 120 teaching days as required under Regulation 7 (1) should be spread over six months and since the petitioners have completed only four months of study in Phase-n they cannot be permitted to appear for the examinations along with main batch in October, 2001. He relied upon two decisions of this Court reported in dr. S. Suryanarayana v. University of health Sciences and Nisha A. Shenai v. NTR university of Health Sciences and others, in support of his contention. He also relied upon the Amendment contemplated to regulation 7 (7) and contended that since the ambiguity in the wording of Regulation 7 (7) is sought to be removed, the petitioners are not entitled to grant the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The learned Counsel also relied upon Medical Council of India v. State of karnataka and Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M. P. and contended that the regulations are mandatory and cannot be deviated and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. ( 17 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on a perusal of the material on record the question that falls for consideration in the writ petition is whether the petitioners and other students who passed phase-I subjects in Supplementary examination are entitled to join the main batch and to appear for the Phase-II examinations along with main batch? ( 18 ) FOR proper appreciation of the contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary to traverse the relevant provisions under the Regulations on Graduate Medical education, 1997 which prescribed the entire scheme of the M. B. B. S. course. ( 19 ) THE Medical Council of India, the respondent 2 herein, was constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. ( 19 ) THE Medical Council of India, the respondent 2 herein, was constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 33 of the Indian Medical Council act, 1956 the Medical Council of India with the prior sanction of the Central Government made Regulations on Graduate Medical education, 1997 which came into force with effect from 17-5-1997. ( 20 ) THE issue raised in the present writ petition is concerned with the interpretation of the said Regulations particularly regulation 7 which provides for training period and time distribution of M. B. B. S. course. Regulation 7 so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition runs as follows:"7. Training Period and Time distribution: (1) Every student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 41/2 academic years divided into 9 semesters, (i. e. of 6 months each) from the date of commencement of his study for the subjects comprising the medical curriculum to the date of completion of examination and followed by one year compulsory rotating internship. Each semester will consist of approximately 120 teaching days of 8 hours each college working time, including one hour of lunch. (2) The period of 41/2 years is divided into three phases as follows: " (a) Phase-1 (two semesters) - consisting of Pre-clinical subjects (Human Anatomy, physiology including Bio-Physics, Bio-chemistry and introduction to Community medicine including humanities ). Besides 60 hours for introduction to Community medicine including Humanities, rest of the time shall somewhat equally divided between anatomy and Physiology plus biochemistry combined (Physiology 2/3 and biochemistry 1/3) (b) Phase-II (3 semesters) -Consisting of Para- clinical/clinical subjects. During this phase teaching of Para- clinical and clinical subjects shall be done concurrently. The Para-clinical subjects shall consist of Pathology, Pharmacology, microbiology, Forensic Medicine including Toxicology and part of community Medicine. The clinical subjects shall consist of all those detailed below in Phase III. Out of the time for Para-clinical teaching approximately equal time be allotted to Pathology, Pharmacology, microbiology and Forensic Medicine and Community Medicine combined (1/3 Forensic Medicine and 2/3 Community Medicine ). See appendix-C. (c) Phase-Ill (Continuation of study of clinical subjects for seven semesters after passing Phase-I) the clinical subjects "to be taught during Phase II and III are Medicine and its allied specialties, Surgery and its allied specialties, Obstetrics and gynaecology and Community medicine. See appendix-C. (c) Phase-Ill (Continuation of study of clinical subjects for seven semesters after passing Phase-I) the clinical subjects "to be taught during Phase II and III are Medicine and its allied specialties, Surgery and its allied specialties, Obstetrics and gynaecology and Community medicine. Besides clinical posting as per schedule mentioned herewith, rest of the teaching hours be divided for didactic lectures, demonstrations, seminars, group discussions, etc. in various subjects. The time distribution shall be as per Appendix-C. The Medicine and its allied specialties. . . . . . . . . " (3) The first 2 semesters (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase-I (pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspective of medical education leading to delivery of health case, specifically mandated that no student shall be permitted to join the phase-II (Para-clinical/clinical) group of subjects until he has passed in all the phase-I (pre-clinical) subjects for which he will be permitted not more than four chances (actual examination) provided four chances are completed in three years from the date of enrolment. (4 ). . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . (6) Universities shall organize admission timings and admission process in such a way that teaching in first semester starts by 1st of august each year. (7) Supplementary examination may be conducted within 6 months so that the students who pass can join the main batch and the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year. " ( 21 ) RELYING upon Regulation 7 (7) the petitioners contend that the students who pass the subjects of Phase-I in the supplementary examination are entitled to join the main batch in Phase-II and that the action of the respondents in treating them as a separate batch is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Regulation 7 (7) of the regulations, 1997 which are mandatory and binding on all the Universities and medical colleges recognized by the Medical Council of India. However, the respondents opposed on the ground that the petitioners who commenced Phase-II only 30-9-2000 have not completed the 18 months of study which is mandatory under Regulation 7 (1) read with 7 (2) and therefore they cannot be permitted to join the main batch and to appear for Phase-II examinations along with them. However, the respondents opposed on the ground that the petitioners who commenced Phase-II only 30-9-2000 have not completed the 18 months of study which is mandatory under Regulation 7 (1) read with 7 (2) and therefore they cannot be permitted to join the main batch and to appear for Phase-II examinations along with them. ( 22 ) IT is true that under Regulation 7 (1) it is provided that every student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 41/2 academic years divided into 9 semesters from the date of commencement of his study to the date of completion of examination. It is also provided that each semester will consist of approximately 120 teaching days of 8 hours each College working time including one hour lunch. Further Regulation 7 (3) mandates that no student shall be permitted to join Phase-II group of subjects until he has passed in all the Phase-I subjects. That apart, Note (a) appended to Regulation 8 also states that passing in first professional i. e, Phase-I, which consists of two semesters is compulsory before proceeding to Phase-II training. ( 23 ) HOWEVER, it is pertinent to note that Regulation 7 (7) provides for conducting supplementary examination within six months so that the students who pass can join the main batch. It is also specifically stated that the failed students will have to appear in the subsequent year. ( 24 ) THUS it can be seen that whereas passing in all the subjects of Phase-I is mandatory for permitting a student to join phase-II group of subjects which consist of para-clinical/clinical, regulation 7 (7) provides an additional opportunity to the students who failed in the first attempt to appear for the Supplementary examination which has to be conducted within six months. The object of conducting supplementary examination is also clear from Regulation 7 (7) which itself states that the student who passed the supplementary examination can join the main batch. Thus the intention of the Medical Council of India while making the Regulations appears to be very clear that by conducting Supplementary examination within six months, those students who pass the subjects in the supplementary examination can be integrated with the main batch so far as the remaining period of the course of study is concerned. Thus the intention of the Medical Council of India while making the Regulations appears to be very clear that by conducting Supplementary examination within six months, those students who pass the subjects in the supplementary examination can be integrated with the main batch so far as the remaining period of the course of study is concerned. ( 25 ) THE settled principle of interpretation of a statute is that when the words of statute are clear, precise and unambiguous and the intention of the Legislature is clearly conveyed, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. To determine whether the language used is plain or ambiguous, the particular provision must be studied in its context and it has to be examined whether the language used in that context is capable of having more than one meaning. ( 26 ) FURTHER a statute must be read as a whole and the provisions thereunder should be construed with reference to the other provisions of the same statute so as to make the whole statute consistent. While interpreting the provisions of the Act it has to be borne in mind that one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the provisions of other section unless reconciliation between the two sections is impossible. When a particular provision is found to be repugnant to another provision of the same Act, it is not for the Courts to lightly assume that the privilege conferred under a particular provision has been taken away by another provision of the same statute. While interpreting two apparently repugnant or inconsistent provisions of an act the Courts will have to adopt harmonious interpretation keeping in view the intendment and purpose of the Act so that no provision or any part thereof is rendered otiose. ( 27 ) IN Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand jain the Supreme Court held that the Rule of interpretation requires that while interpreting two inconsistent or obviously repugnant provisions of an Act, the Courts should make an effort to so interpret the provisions as to harmonise them so that the purpose of the Act may be given effect to and both the provisions may be allowed to operate without rendering either of them otiose. ( 28 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Santhosh shankar Acharya, the Supreme Court observed that it is too well-known a principle of construction of statutes that the legislature engrafted every part of a statute for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should be given effect. The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction, which attributes redundancy to the Legislature, will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. ( 29 ) IN State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, the Supreme Court held that the Court is required to interpret the statute as far as possible agreeable to justice and reason, and that while interpreting the statute the Courts have to keep in mind the underlying policy of statute itself and the objects sought to be achieved by it. ( 30 ) FURTHER while referring to the case law in which similar views have been expressed, the Supreme Court in the case of state of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (supra) has enumerated the following principles with regard to harmonious interpretation: (1) It is the duty of the Courts to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner as to harmonise them. (2) The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the Court, in spite of its efforts, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them. (3) It has to be borne in mind by all the courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions in an act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of harmonious construction . (4) The Courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a dead letter or use less slumber is not harmonious construction. (5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose. This is the essence of the rule of harmonious construction . (4) The Courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a dead letter or use less slumber is not harmonious construction. (5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose. ( 31 ) AS held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, in interpreting the provisions of a statute, the plain and unambiguous language of that particular provision shall be taken into consideration keeping in view that context in which it is used and also all the provisions of the statute shall be read harmoniously and particularly taking care that one provision of the statute does not defeat the object of the other provision. ( 32 ) IN the instant case, as noted above, regulation 7 (2) (b) provides that Phase-II of m. B. B. S. course consists of three semesters and Regulation 7 (1) states that each semester (i. e. , of six months) consists of approximately 120 teaching days, thereby requiring that the course of study of phase-II spreads over 18 months. At the same time, Regulation 7 (7) provides for conducting the supplementary examination within six months to enable the students who passed the supplementary examination to join the main batch. The wording of regulation 7 (7) is clear and unambiguous and has been prescribed with a specific object to see that those students who passed the supplementary examination can be integrated with the main batch. But, if regulation 7 (7) is read with reference to regulation 7 (1), it is apparent that there is inconsistency between the two provisions. ( 33 ) ADMITTEDLY, the respondents conducted the supplementary examination for Phase-I within six months from the regular examination as prescribed under regulation 7 (7 ). That being so, if the petitioners who passed the supplementary examination of Phase-I subjects are not allowed to join the main batch on the ground that they have not completed the 18 months of course of study as required under Regulation 7 (1), the purpose of regulation 7 (7) itself would be defeated. That being so, if the petitioners who passed the supplementary examination of Phase-I subjects are not allowed to join the main batch on the ground that they have not completed the 18 months of course of study as required under Regulation 7 (1), the purpose of regulation 7 (7) itself would be defeated. It cannot be said that the Medical Council of india while making the Regulations, in particular, Regulation 7 (7), was not conscious of the fact that the students who passed the supplementary examination would fall short of the period of study prescribed under Regulation 7 (1 ). ( 34 ) IN the circumstances, applying the principles of interpretation as laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the Regulations 7 (1) and 7 (7) cannot be interpreted in isolation, but both the provisions must be construed harmoniously keeping in mind that the object of Regulation 7 (7) is not defeated. In my considered opinion it is not a case where reconciliation between the said two provisions is impossible. On a harmonious interpretation of Regulations 7 (1) and 7 (7), it has to be concluded that the Medical council of India while making the regulations presumably intended not to apply the requirement under Regulation 7 (1) that each semester shall consist of six months, to the students who passed the supplementary examination conducted under regulation 7 (7 ). ( 35 ) IT is pertinent to note that in the rejoinder filed in the writ petition, the petitioners stated that they have completed 95 per cent of the syllabus of theory part of phase-II and the clinical postings would also be conducted by the end of October, 2001, and therefore, sought a direction to allow them to appear for the examination along with the main batch scheduled to be commenced from 3rd October, 2001. The petitioners have pleaded that since clinical examination will be conducted at the end of phase-Ill, it is proper to permit them to appear for Phase-II examination along with the main batch scheduled to be commenced on 3-10-2001 and that non-completion of clinical postings, if any, by the date of examination would not in any way work to the detriment of the students since clinical examination will be conducted only at the end of Phase-Ill. ( 36 ) NOW, it is brought to my notice by both the parties that the examinations scheduled from 3-10-2001 have already been conducted as per the schedule and the regular batch have appeared for the same. Therefore, there is no question of permitting the petitioners to appear for Phase-II examination along with the regular batch. ( 37 ) HOWEVER, as expressed above, the petitioners and others who passed Phase-I subjects in the supplementary examination cannot be denied the benefit of joining the main batch for the rest of the course of study. Denying the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to join the main batch on strict interpretation of Regulation 7 (1) would render the Regulation 7 (7) itself otiose. ( 38 ) IT is not in dispute that as on to-day the petitioners have already completed the prescribed syllabus of theory of Phase-II subjects. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that Regulations 7 (1) and 7 (7) should be construed harmoniously in consonance with justice and reason and to avoid hardship and inconvenience rather than defeating the very purpose of regulation 7 (7 ). This interpretation appears to be reasonable, particularly in view of the fact that the respondents conducted the supplementary examination as prescribed under Regulation 7 (7 ). Having conducted the supplementary examination if the respondents are allowed to treat the petitioners and others who passed the supplementary examination as a separate batch throughout the course of study, it would lead to anomaly in the course of study itself since the Regulations do not provide for "referred batch" which was in vogue prior to the enforcement of Regulations of 1997. ( 39 ) THE contention of the respondent no. 2 that an amendment is proposed to regulation 7 (7), and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief cannot be accepted since the mere fact that an amendment is contemplated does not dispense with the implementation of regulation 7 as it stands and the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit under regulation 7 (7 ). On the other hand, the fact that amendment is now proposed itself reveals the intention of the Medical Council of India at the time of making the regulations that the students who passed the supplementary examination shall be permitted to join the main batch for the rest of the course. On the other hand, the fact that amendment is now proposed itself reveals the intention of the Medical Council of India at the time of making the regulations that the students who passed the supplementary examination shall be permitted to join the main batch for the rest of the course. It is always open for the Rule making authority to bring about an amendment, but on the ground of an amendment proposed, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of Regulation 7 (7) as it stands as on the date. ( 40 ) IT is also pertinent to note that in the judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 viz. , dr. S. Suryanarayana v. University of health Sciences (supra) and Nisha A shanai v. NTR University of Health Sciences and others (supra), the facts are different and in none of the said cases, the effect of regulation 7 (7) has been considered. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said cases is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similarly, there is no dispute that the Regulations in question are mandatory and it is so held by the Supreme court in Medical Council of India v. State of karnataka (supra), and Dr. Preeti srivastava v. State of M. P. (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent no. 2. However, in the instant case the issue involved relates to harmonious interpretation of two provisions under the Regulations which are repugnant to each other, and therefore, the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases cannot be of any assistance to resolve the question raised in the present writ petition. ( 41 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University relied upon two decisions of this Court in W. P. No. 19974 of 2001 dated 26-9-2001 and W. P. No. 95 of 2000 and batch dated 4-7-2000, wherein it has/been held that the period of study prescribed under Regulation 7 (1) is mandatory. However, in those two cases also the question relating to implementation of regulation 7 (7) did not fall for consideration. The effect of Regulation 7 (1) alone has been considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the said cases, and it is held that the period of study prescribed is mandatory. However, in those two cases also the question relating to implementation of regulation 7 (7) did not fall for consideration. The effect of Regulation 7 (1) alone has been considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the said cases, and it is held that the period of study prescribed is mandatory. It is true that the period of study prescribed under Regulation 7 (1) is mandatory, but in the instant case, the implementation of regulation 7 (7) is required to be considered and therefore, regulation 7 (1) has to be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the Regulations in a way not to defeat the entire scheme provided under the Regulations. Therefore, i am of the view that the principle laid down in the said cases does not attract to the facts of the present case. ( 42 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, in my considered opinion, the petitioners and other similarly placed persons who passed phase-I of the M. B. B. S. course in the supplementary examination held in July,2000 cannot be treated as a separate batch and they are entitled to be integrated along with the main regular batch of 1998. Since the course of study of Phase-II is already over and the examinations of Phase-II for the regular batch have already been conducted, i deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the respondents shall hold the examinations of Phase-II of m. B. B. S. course to the petitioners and other similarly placed persons, who passed the subjects of Phase-I in the supplementary examination, at the earliest, preferably before declaring the results of Phase-II examinations of regular batch held in october, 2001, and all the necessary further steps shall be taken expeditiously, so that an integrated batch can be commenced in phase-Ill of the course. ( 43 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.