ORDER : 1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the decision of the Medical Council of India, contained in the Annexure P-1 and further to issue a writ of mandamus to permit the petitioner and other students who have passed the Supplementary Examination to join main batch and to appear in the main examination along with regular students and in case, there is any likelihood of shortagage of attendance, the same may be directed to be made good by making arrangements of special extra classes. 2. The petitioner is a regular student of M.B.B.S. IInd phase prosecuting his studies in Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. He appeared in the 1st Phase examination in December, 1999. The result of the said examination was declared on 29-11-1999. The petitioner being unsuccessful appeared in the supplementary examination in January, 2000 the result of which was declared on 25-2-2000. It is put-forth that since the date of publication of result the petitioner is continuously attending the classes, training and practicals with the main batch of students. It has been averred that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government, has framed a regulation called “Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’). This Regulation lays down various provisions relating to admission and other ancillary subjects governing the medical admission. Reference has been made to Clause (7) of Regulation 7 of Chapter II to point out that the petitioner was allowed to join the main batch. In spite of the Regulation in vogue the petitioner apprehended that he was not going to be permitted to appear in the second phase examination with regular students. Under these circumstances, the petitioner along with other 22 students visited this Court in W.P. No. 5962/2000. At that juncture the Medical Council of India through its counsel made a statement that a fair decision would be taken in regard to the case of petitioners within a period of four weeks. Recording such statement the writ petition was disposed of on 24-1-2000 vide Annexure P-2. At that juncture the Medical Council of India through its counsel made a statement that a fair decision would be taken in regard to the case of petitioners within a period of four weeks. Recording such statement the writ petition was disposed of on 24-1-2000 vide Annexure P-2. As a decision was not taken within the stipulated time the petitioners therein filed contempt petition No. 85/2001 which is pending for adjudication. In the meantime the Medical Council of India has recommended for amendment of Regulation 7(7) to the detriment of the petitioner. It is averred that if the petitioner is not permitted to appear in the examination along with main batch he would be late by eight months in obtaining the degree of M.B.B.S. which would adversely affect his chances of appearing in the Pre-post Graduation Entrance Test. It has been averred in the petition that a regular practice is followed by all the Universities in the State to merge the students passing supplementary examination with the regular batch of students. A reference has been made to the decision taken by 31-7-1999 the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Reliance has also been placed on an order of this Court dated 17-11-1998 in passed W.P. No. 3837/1998. It has been further averred that the recommendation for amendment made by the Medical Council of India can not have retrospective or retroactive effect and affect the prospects of the petitioner. It is put-forth that the decision of the respondent in not permitting the students to undertake the examination is illegal and arbitrary. With these averments prayers have been made as have been indicated hereinabove. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the Medical Council of India, contending, inter-alia, that the said Council is an expert body under the provisions of the Act and has been given responsibilities of discharging duties of maintain proper standard of Medical Education. It is also put-forth that the Council has an obligation to maintain the standard and qualification for medical courses. It is also stated that the Apex Court in the cases of State of Kerala vs. T.P. Roshna, (1979) 1 SCC 572 , Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Dr. It is also put-forth that the Council has an obligation to maintain the standard and qualification for medical courses. It is also stated that the Apex Court in the cases of State of Kerala vs. T.P. Roshna, (1979) 1 SCC 572 , Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Dr. Preeti Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 has given ample power to the Medical Council of India to take all such actions which are necessary for maintaining proper standard of medical education. It has been pleaded that the petitioner and some other students could not pass the first MBBS course and were required to appear in the supplementary examination in January, 2000 and the result of the supplementary examination was declared on 25-2-2000. It is submitted that the students who have appeared in the regular examination in September-October, 1999 have joined Second MBBS Professional (2nd Part of the MBBS course) immediately after passing their examination in September-October, 1999. It has been pointed out that there is a gap of approximately five months in the students of the same batch who passed the regular examination in September, 1999 and those who passed the examination of MBBS course in supplementary examination result of which was declared on 25-2-2000. It has been further stated that this Court on earlier occasion directed the Medical Council of India to take a decision by the executive committee and accordingly the executive committee of the Council considered all the aspects and found those students were unable to clear their examination to first MBBS course in regular examination held on September, 1999; did not join the second MBBS course with the students who had passed the regular examination held in September, 1999 and, they did join training and teaching of the second MBBS course in October, 1999 and hence, not entitled to undertaken 2nd phase examination. It is pleaded that the students who did not pass the first MBBS course in regular examination were late in joining in second MBBS Courts admittedly after 25-2-2000 and their training was belated by a period of five months. It is pleaded that the students who did not pass the first MBBS course in regular examination were late in joining in second MBBS Courts admittedly after 25-2-2000 and their training was belated by a period of five months. It is put-forth that the students are required to undergo complete period of training prescribed by the Regulation and same can not be curtailed as that would have an adverse effect and prejudicial impact on the maintenance of proper standard of medical education. Thus the students are not entitled to join the main batch of students who have successfully completed first MBBS course in September, 1999 and had availed the requisite training. It is averred that second year of MBBS course which is known as 2nd MBBS professional, involves actual clinical teaching and training and treatment and management of patients. This clinical teaching and training, where the students are involved in the treatment of patients can neither be condensed nor expedited being directly related to the actual treatment of patients. It is imperative for each and every student to undergo training for a duration of 18 months in the 2nd MBBS professional course. It is highlighted that when a student of first year of MBBS course fails in the first year examination he/she is not allowed to join the clinical teaching and training of the 2nd MBBS profession along with other successful candidates who are able to pass their 1st MBBS course in the regular examination. It is pleaded that these two categories of students are distinct and separate class and cannot be equated with each other. It has been averred that since it is the minimum statutory requirement that each student must undergo actual clinical teaching and training for a period of 18 months the students who fail in their first MBBS examination have to wait for appearing in the supplementary examination and cannot join the 2nd year of clinical teaching and training and, therefore, cannot be allowed to sit in the 2nd MBBS examination. If such permission is granted it would virtually amount to permitting these students to undergo only one year of clinical teaching and training against the statutory prescribed minimum period of 18 months and such an act would violate the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder. If such permission is granted it would virtually amount to permitting these students to undergo only one year of clinical teaching and training against the statutory prescribed minimum period of 18 months and such an act would violate the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder. Keeping all the aspects in view the Executive Committee came to hold that the petitioner and likes who joined second 2nd MBBS course after 25-2-2000 and attended clinical teaching and training after the said date can only be permitted to undertake 2nd MBBS examination after undergoing complete training and clinical teaching of 18 months only in August, 2001 whereas the other students who passed the regular examination could be allowed to appear in the examination after expiry of 18 months. It has been pointed out that as Clause 7(7) of Regulation created an ambiguity a recommendation has been made to amend the same. It has been put-forth that the General Body of the Council has decided to modify the clause 7(7) of the Regulation and the same has been sent to the Central Government for its approval. It has also been pointed out that a medical student has to go through a proper study and cannot conceive of a short cut method. In para-wise reply the stand of the petitioner has been controverted and justification has been given in respect of the decision taken by the Medical Council of India. The practices followed by the other universities have been seriously refuted. The assertion that the petitioner is not required to undergo training of 18 months which is minimum clinical teaching and training in the 2nd MBBS course has seriously been denied. 4. A rejoinder has been filed to the reply filed by the respondent No. 1 highlighting that certain erroneous facts have been stated in the return which required the filing of the rejoinder. It has been put-forth that the petitioner after publication of his result on 25-2-2000 immediately started attending his classes and there is only a difference of 45 to 50 days between the petitioner and the main batch. It is put-forth that the main batch would complete their 18 months in the middle of June. It has also been stated that in actual practice 18 months training were never taken in strict sense and students who completed 15 months were allowed to take the examination. It is put-forth that the main batch would complete their 18 months in the middle of June. It has also been stated that in actual practice 18 months training were never taken in strict sense and students who completed 15 months were allowed to take the examination. Reference has been made to 12(1) of the Regulation to show that the students who secure 80% of attendance as per requirement of the Medical Council of India Regulations are permitted to appear in the examination and the petitioner fulfils such eligibility criteria. It has been urged that recommendations made by the Medical Council of India to amend the clause 7(7) of the Regulation will be applicable after its approval by the Central Government. It is put-forth that the recommendations can not have retrospective effect and hence, the existing Regulation 7(7) would apply in full force. It has been highlighted that in other universities like Bhopal, Indore and Gwalior students of supplementary batch have been permitted to appear in the examination along with the main batch but the students of Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalya have been discriminated. 5. I have heard Mr. N.S. Kale, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Grishm Jain for the petitioner and Mrs. Indira Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. 6. It is contended by Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel that as per the Regulation of Medical Council of India the petitioner and the likes are entitled to join the main batch and undertake the examination. He has laid immense emphasis on clause 7(7) of Regulation. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on chapter IV which deals with examination Regulation to show that the eligibility criteria have to be given complete meaning. Mrs. Indira Nair, learned counsel appearing for Medical Council of India in her turn has submitted that regulation 8 prescribes that there has to be 18 months training and unless the said period is completed the students can not claim to undertake the examination. The learned counsel has also submitted that Appendix-C prescribes teaching hours and suggested model time tables. It is her submission that there are paraclinical subjects and clinical subjects and its importance cannot be marginalised. Mr. The learned counsel has also submitted that Appendix-C prescribes teaching hours and suggested model time tables. It is her submission that there are paraclinical subjects and clinical subjects and its importance cannot be marginalised. Mr. P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General after obtaining instructions from the respondents No. 4 has submitted that the petitioner and his likes got clinical posting on 25-2-2000 and there is difference of 90 days. It is put-forth by him that the students have to undergo training for 18 months and such training is compulsory and it cannot be curtailed under any circumstance. It is also put-forth by him that the Medical Council of India has sent clarification on 1-8-2000 indicating that the students who have passed supplementary examination for Ist Phase should not be allowed to join the main batch for the training of the IInd phase. 7. It is apposite to state at the very outset that the facts are not in dispute to the extent that the petitioner and the likes passed supplementary examination and there is a gap between main batch and the likes of the petitioner. The seminal question that requires determination in this case is whether the petitioner and his likes should be allowed to undertake the examination of the IInd phase of MBBS course along with the main batch. The Medical Council of India has framed a set of Regulation called 'Regulation of Graduate Medical Admission 97' in exercise of power conferred on it by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Regulation 2 deals with general consideration and teaching approach. Regulation 3 deals with objectives of Medical training programme. Regulation 4 provides for admission, selection, migration and training. Regulation 5 provides for selection of students. Regulation 6 deals with migration. Regulation 7 provides for training period and time distribution. 8. The said Regulation reads as under:- “7. Training period and Time Distribution: (1) Every student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 4½ 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 compulsorily rotating inter-ship. Each semester will consist of approximately 120 teaching days of 8 hours each college working time, including one hour of lunch. 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 4½ months 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 be 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-III (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 specialities, Surgery and its allied specialities, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Community Medicine. Besides clinical posting as per schedule mentioned herewith, rest of the teaching hours to 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 specialities training will include General Medicine, Paediatrics, Tuberculosis and Chest, Skin and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Psychiatry, Radio-diagnosis, Infectious diseases etc. The Surgery and its allied specialities training will include General Surgery, Orthopaedic Surgery including Physio-therapy and Rehabilitation, Opthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, Anaesthesia, Dentistry, Radio-therapy etc. The Obstetrics Gynaecology training will include family medicine, family welfare planning etc. (3) The first 2 semester (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (Pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. 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 enrollment. 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 enrollment. (4) After passing pre-clinical subjects, 1½ year (3 semesters) shall be devoted to para-clinical subjects. Phase II will be devoted to para-clinical and clinical subjects, along with clinical postings. During clinical phase (Phase-III) pre-clinical and para-clinical teaching will be intergrated into the teaching of clinical subjects where relevant. (5) Didactic lectures should not exceed one third of the time schedule; two third schedule should include practicals, clinicals or/and group discussions. Learning process should include living experiences, problem oriented approach, case studies and community health care activities. (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 years.” (Emphasis supplied) Regulation 8 provides for phase distribution and timing of examinations. It is apposite to reproduce the same: “8. Phase Distribution and Timing of Examinations: 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months (1) (2) Ist professional examination (during second semester) (3) (4) & (5) IInd professional examination (during fifth semester) (6) (7) IIIrd professional Part I (during 7th semester) (8) (9) IIIrd professional Part II (final Professional) during 9th semester. NOTE: (a) Passing in Ist Professional is compulsory before proceeding to Phase II training. (b) A student who fails in the IInd professional examination, shall not be allowed to appear in IIIrd Professional Part I Examination unless he passes all subjects of IInd Professional examination. (c) Passing in IIIrd Professional (Part I) examination is not compulsory before entering for 8th and 9th semester training, however, passing of IIIrd Professional (Part I) is compulsory for being eligible for IIIrd Professional (Part II) examination. (c) Passing in IIIrd Professional (Part I) examination is not compulsory before entering for 8th and 9th semester training, however, passing of IIIrd Professional (Part I) is compulsory for being eligible for IIIrd Professional (Part II) examination. During third to ninth semseters, clinical postings of three hours duration daily as specified in the Table below is suggested for various departments, after Introductory Course in Clinical Methods in Medicine and Surgery of two weeks each for the whole class.” It is apposite to state here that the table appended to the said Regulations is not reproduced. 9. I have quoted the aforesaid Regulations in entirety because the learned counsel for the parties have laid immense emphasis in their respective ways on the said Regulations. Mr. Kale relying on Regulation 7(7) contended that the students who passed in the supplementary examination are allowed to join the main batch and, therefore, they come into the mainstream to avail all the facilities that are available to the students of the main batch. The learned counsel further submitted that the students who had failed in the supplementary examination are required to appear in the subsequent year. The interpretation given by Mr. Kale is in consonance with the Regulation 7. The privilege has been conferred on the students who passed in the supplementary examination to join the main batch. A mandate is cast by the Regulation to conduct the supplementary examination within six months. Mrs. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the Indian Medical Council, per contra, emphatically urged that Regulation 8 has to be purposively interpreted, as the said Regulation stipulates that there has to be phase distribution and timings of examination. The learned counsel has also referred to Clause (2) of Regulation 7 to highlight that four and half academic years has to be divided into three phases and, therefore, a student has to undergo a training of 18 months and that cannot be reduced under any circumstance. The learned counsel has also referred to Note (a) to highlight that passing in 1st Professional is compulsory before proceeding to Phase II training. In essence, the proponement of Mrs. Nair is that unless a student has undergone the training of 18 months he cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. The learned counsel has also referred to Note (a) to highlight that passing in 1st Professional is compulsory before proceeding to Phase II training. In essence, the proponement of Mrs. Nair is that unless a student has undergone the training of 18 months he cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. It is her submission that in the present case as the petitioner had not completed 18 months training he cannot be allowed to undertake the examination. In this context Mr. Kale, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Chapter IV which deals with Examination Regulations. Before I advert to the same it is relevant to state here that Chapter III of the Regulation deals with Curriculum (subject-wise). Regulation 9 deals with Pre-Clinical Subjects-Phase I; Regulation 10 deals with Para-Clinical Subject of Phase II; Regulation 11 covers the field Clinical Subjects of Phase II and Phase III; and Regulation 12 as has been stated earlier deals with Examination Regulations. It provides for essentialities for qualifying to appear in the professional examination. It stipulates that performance is essential components of training are to be assessed, based on attendance and internal assessment. It is apposite to reproduce the Regulation 12(1) and (2). They read as under:- “12(1) ATTENDANCE: 75% of attendance in a subject for appearing in the examination is compulsory provided he/she has 80% attendance in non-lecture teaching i.e. seminars, group discussions, tutorials, demonstrations, practicals. Hospital (Tertiary, Secondary, Primary) postings and bed side clinics, etc. (2) INTERNAL ASSESSMENT: (i) it shall be based on day-to-day assessment (see note), evaluation of student assignment, preparation for seminar, clinical case presentation etc. (ii) regular periodical examinations shall be conducted throughout the course. The question of number of examinations is left to the institution. (iii) day-to-day records should be given importance during internal assessment. (iv) weightage for the internal assessment shall be 20% of the total marks in each subject. (v) student must secure at least 50% marks of the total marks fixed for internal assessment in a particular subject in order to be eligible to appear in final university examination of that subject. NOTE: Internal assessment shall relate to different ways in which students participation in learning process during semseters is evaluated. Some examples are as follows:- (i) Preparation of subject for student seminar. (ii) Preparation of a clinical case for discussion. (iii) Clinical case study/problem solving exercise. NOTE: Internal assessment shall relate to different ways in which students participation in learning process during semseters is evaluated. Some examples are as follows:- (i) Preparation of subject for student seminar. (ii) Preparation of a clinical case for discussion. (iii) Clinical case study/problem solving exercise. (iv) Participation in Project for health care in community (planning stage to evaluation). (v) Proficiency in carrying out a practical or a skill in small research project. (vi) Multiple choice questions (MCQ) test after completion of a system/teaching. Each item tested shall be objectively assessed and recorded. Some of the items can be assigned as Home work/vacation work.” Clause (3) of the aforesaid Regulation deals with University examinations; and Clause (4) deals with distribution of marks to various disciplines. Regulation 13 deals with appointment of examiners. Chapter V of the Regulation deals with internship. It is apposite to state here that Regulation provides for certain appendices. Appendix-A provides the curriculum ‘Family Welfare’ for the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of surgery (MBBS) Course; Appendix-B deals with comprehensive list of skills recommended as desirable for MBBS Graduate; and Appendix-C provides for prescribed teaching hours and suggested model time tables. Part C of the Appendix-C deals with clinical subjects (Phase II and III of the Course). I have referred to the aforesaid appendices as Mrs. Nair and Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents endeavoured to impress upon this Court that a student has to undergo this training before he is permitted to appear in the examination. Mr. Gupta after obtaining instructions from the Dean, Medical College, submitted if a student does not undergo the training he cannot be fully equipped to become a medical professional. At this juncture, Mr. Kale submitted that the appendices are to be read conjointly with the Regulation 7(7) and Regulation 12 of the Regulation. 10. Before I proceed to construe the basic and real essence of the aforesaid Regulations I think it apposite to deal with the stand of the Medical Council which has been vehemently put-forth by Mrs. Nair. The learned counsel has submitted that the Medical Council is the expert body to control the minimum standard of medical education to regulate their observance. It has the authority to prescribe medical standard of medical education and the said standards cannot be allowed to take the backseat. Nair. The learned counsel has submitted that the Medical Council is the expert body to control the minimum standard of medical education to regulate their observance. It has the authority to prescribe medical standard of medical education and the said standards cannot be allowed to take the backseat. The learned counsel has drawn inspiration from the decision rendered in the case of Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 . The aforesaid stand of the Medical Council, can by no stretch of imagination be marginalised. As has been observed by the Apex Court when a medical student comes out he should be perfect in the science of treatment of human-beings, as the country does not want half-baked medical profession. Mrs. Nair has also drawn attention of this Court to the recommendation made by the Council in amended Clause (7) of Regulation 7. At this juncture it is appropriate to reproduce the said recommendations: “7(7) Supplementary examination may be conducted within 4-6 months and the students who pass the examination shall not be allowed to join the main batch for teaching and training and examination but shall be treated as a separate batch, i.e. supplementary batch.” It is not disputed by Mrs. Nair that the aforesaid amendment has not come into force. In absence of amendment coming into force, I am not inclined to deal with the same or interpret the effect and impact of the same. I will confine myself to the present Regulation and its necessary implications. 11. As indicated above that relevant Regulations have to be read conjointly to give purposeful meaning to the same and to see that purpose and object are not frustrated. It has been laid down by the Apex Court that Medical Council is the expert body and has expertise to provide guidelines and fix minimum standards of medical education and to see to it that the prescribed norms are observed in letter and spirit. It has been laid down by the Apex Court that Medical Council is the expert body and has expertise to provide guidelines and fix minimum standards of medical education and to see to it that the prescribed norms are observed in letter and spirit. In this context I may profitably reproduce a few relevant lines from Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 : “A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-backed medical professionals teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of study.” 12. I have referred to the aforesaid as Mrs. Indira Nair impressed upon this Court with regard to maintenance of standard. The case at hand does not relate to an arena where there has been non-observance of the norms prescribed by the Medical Council. It is not a case where the Court is required to see whether there has been any inadequacy or deficiency in the imparting of education or from providing facilities to a student who has to eventually become a medical professional to look after the health of the citizens of the country. The question that falls for consideration is whether the likes of the petitioner can be allowed to sit in the ensuing Phase II examination. Regulation 7(7) has been couched in the most simple and clear language. A student who passes in the supplementary examination can join the main batch. It is not the case of the respondents that the supplementary examination was held beyond six months and, therefore, this regulation is not attracted. As has been stated hereinabove the supplementary examination was held in quite promptitude and the results were also published expeditiously and the students were allowed to join the main batch. The heart of the matter is whether the students who join the main batch are to be allowed to appear along with main batch or they have to undergo the phase which spreads over a period of 18 months. Mrs. The heart of the matter is whether the students who join the main batch are to be allowed to appear along with main batch or they have to undergo the phase which spreads over a period of 18 months. Mrs. Nair, learned counsel for the Council has harped upon the Regulation 8 which deals with phase distribution and timing of examination and Mr. Kale has also laid heavy reliance on Regulation 12. Both the regulations have to be read conjointly and it cannot be said that Council was not aware about the consequences while framing the Regulations. The specific stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has not undergone the total training period of 18 months of Phase II and there is a gap of 90 days between the first batch and the likes of the petitioner and hence, they cannot be allowed to appear in the examination. The eligibility criteria have been provided, as quoted above, in Regulation 12. Clause (1) of the said regulation deals with attendance and Clause (2) deals with internal assessment. If a student satisfied the eligibility criteria as provided in Regulation 12 should he be denied the facility to appear in the examination? Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that a student may have the required attendance but he may not have undergone the training for 18 months and in that event he can not allowed to sit in the examination. In course of hearing a hypothetical example was put-forth before the learned counsel for the respondents: a student who passed in the main examination of first professional and takes admission in the Phase II training but due to certain unavoidable circumstances remains absent for three months and thereafter he religiously attends the classes and the non-lecture teachings and obtains the attendance as provided for in Clauses (1) of Regulation 12 in that case whether he would be deprived of appearing in the examination. Explanation given by the learned counsel related to training. I feel obligated to state here the solution given by the learned counsel related to the norms prescribed in the Appendix-C and the same was not quite satisfactory. In my considered opinion if a student satisfied the eligibility criteria as laid down in Regulation 12 of the Regulation he cannot be denied the opportunity to undertake the examination. I feel obligated to state here the solution given by the learned counsel related to the norms prescribed in the Appendix-C and the same was not quite satisfactory. In my considered opinion if a student satisfied the eligibility criteria as laid down in Regulation 12 of the Regulation he cannot be denied the opportunity to undertake the examination. I may hasten to clarify that the attendance as provided in Clause 12. One has to be understood to convey that the percentage of attendance is relatable to the entire period of 18 months, not the percentage from the date of his joining in the main batch. To elaborate, if a student who has passed in the supplementary examination joins the main batch and is able to obtain the requisite percentage of attendance qua the entire period of training and satisfied the other eligibility criteria, he cannot be deprived of the privilege to appear in the examination. In the case at hand the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner joined at a subsequent stage in the main batch and as he has not appeared in the training for 18 months, he cannot undertake the examination. As has been indicated earlier if a student who takes admission in the main batch but remains absent for the some reasons or the other but satisfies the eligibility criteria, he cannot be denied the privilege to appear in the examination. Thus, the sole test is satisfaction of the eligibility criteria. There cannot be a class within a class as that would suffer from the vice of artificial discrimination without any rationale. There cannot be two compartments between the students of main batch on the ground that the students who join later in the main batch having qualified in the supplementary examination cannot be treated similarly with the students who had initially become the students of the main batch. If a student belonging to the main batch is permitted to appear if he satisfied the eligibility criteria, I am of the considered opinion, similar facility has to be extended to a student who joins later on. 13. The matter can be looked at from another spectrum. There are conditions precedent for undertaking the examination. Though a period has been prescribed for a Phase, attendance has been provided which has also to be given its due meaning. 13. The matter can be looked at from another spectrum. There are conditions precedent for undertaking the examination. Though a period has been prescribed for a Phase, attendance has been provided which has also to be given its due meaning. The said provision cannot be treated as a redundant one and the concept of Phase cannot be allowed to have dominance so that the eligibility criteria provided under Regulation 12 is militated. They must exist in harmony and the harmony is possible if the percentage is determined qua the period provided in Clause (2) of Regulation 7. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that a student has to avail the training to become a properly qualified medical professional and if he has not undergone necessary non-lecture teaching, he cannot server the country in proper perspective. The aforesaid submission has its own force in its own realm, but one cannot be oblivious of the fact that student who undertakes an examination is tested from all angles and if he does not qualify in the examination he is bound to meet with the failure and by mere appearing in the examination one does not pass out in the examination. Providing of an eligibility criteria to appear in an examination is one aspect and determining the quality of a student in an examination is another facet. The two has to be differently/separately compartmentalised so that the confusion does not usher in. 14. In view of my preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner to the extent to appear in the examination along with regular students if he satisfies the eligibility criteria as per Regulation 12 as interpreted in this order has to be allowed but the prayer that if there is any shortage of attendance the same should be provided to be made good by making arrangement of special extra classes, cannot be accepted as that would be contrary to the norms of the Medical Council and in a matter relating to the professional field this Court should not interdict in passing such a direction. I may further hasten to add though the writ petition has been filed by a singular petitioner but the respondents shall consider all the cases of the students who had been allowed to join the main batch and permit them to appear in the examination if they meet the eligibility criteria. As far as the prayer for quashment of Annexure P/1 whereby the Clause 7(7) has been modified no order need be passed on the same as the said modification is at the stage of recommendation and has not yet been approved by the Central Government to obtain the status of a Regulation. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.