D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy involved in these two LPAs is concerning application of the rule for admission to post-graduate medical courses in the medical colleges under the Saurashtra University. ( 2 ) THE students-appellants herein in LPA No. 644/01 and the Saurashtra University , appellant in LPA No. 748/01,both feel aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2. 7. 2001. ( 3 ) SAURASTHRA University framed the rules in November 1983 laying down the procedure for calculation of marks of the eligible candidates for admission to post-graduate medical courses. Under the said Rules, what is relevant to be stated is that only marks of final year MBBS examination were to be considered along with other criteria laid down under the Rules for preparing merit list for grant of admission to the post-graduate medical courses. Admission Rules for admission to post-graduate courses of Saurashtra University were subsequently modified on 1. 9. 1995 to the extent that merit of eligible candidates will be comparatively determined on the basis of weightage of 25%, 25% marks in the first and second year MBBS examination and 50% marks in the final MBBS examination. It was also resolved by the University that this amended rule of giving weightage of 25%, 25% marks for the first two MBBS examinations and 50% marks for the last MBBS examination would apply to students seeking admission in the first MBBS in August 1995 and onwards. For students who were admitted prior to August 1995, it was decided that unamended 1983 Rules would be made applicable for determining comparative marks of candidates for admission. ( 4 ) MEDICAL Council of India has now framed Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which were published in Government of India Gazette dated 7. 10. 2000. They were brought into force with effect from the date of their publication in the official gazette. Rule 9 lays down the prescribed mode of selection for post-graduate medical courses in the States or Institutions and Universities where no competitive test is held for grant of admission to post graduate medical courses. The Medical Council under Regulation 9 (2) (iii) provides that where students had passed MBBS examination from the same University, their academic merit shall be determined `on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations. The Medical Council under Regulation 9 (2) (iii) provides that where students had passed MBBS examination from the same University, their academic merit shall be determined `on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations. Relevant Regulation 9 (2) (iii) along with sub-regulations thereunder is reproduced herein for better appreciation of the Regulation for deciding the controversy of its application to the MBBS students of Saurashtra University:"9. SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS: (1) students for postgraduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their academic merit. (2) for determining the academic merit, the university/institution may adopt any one of the following procedures both for degree and diploma courses: (I) on the basis of merit as determined by a competitive test conducted by the State Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State government or by the university/ group of universities in the same State; or (II) on the basis of merit as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the national level; or (III) on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations, if such examinations have been passed from the same University. . . " ( 5 ) SAURASHTRA University, despite publication and enforcement of the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India effective from 7. 10. 2000, decided to apply its own admission rules by giving effect to the regulations only to students who were admitted to first MBBS course in August 1995 and onwards. The University did not apply the Medical Council Regulations to those students who were admitted to first MBBS course prior to August 1995. To such batch of other students admitted to first MBBS course prior to August 1995, the University applied 1983 unamended rules. This decision of the University gave rise to discontent among the students, and in SCAs which have given rise to these LPAs, the students who got admission to first MBBS course in August 1995 challenged the policy of admission adopted by the University to be discriminatory and unfair. ( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge by the impugned order dated 2. 7. ( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge by the impugned order dated 2. 7. 2001 under these LPAs, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the students and the university, came to the conclusion that the two different methods adopted by the University to the students admitted to first MBBS prior to August 1995 and thereafter were not reasonable and were not in accordance with the Medical Council Regulations. Learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the University to modify the merit lists or admission to post-graduate courses prepared for the academic year 2000-2001 after re-determining the merit of all the candidates uniformly irrespective of their different dates of taking admission in the first year MBBS course. It is against the above part of the decision and direction of the learned Single Judge that the Saurashtra University has approached in LPA No. 748 of 2001. ( 7 ) WE consider it proper to first dispose of LPA No. 748 of 2001 filed by the Saurashtra University. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the students and the University, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the two different systems of selection adopted for students admitted to first MBBS course prior to and after August 1995 are unfair and discriminatory. We find the conclusion well supported by an additional reason. Once the Medical Council of India has framed statutory Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, in exercise of its power under section 33 read with section 19a of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and as admissions to post-graduate medical courses by the University are for academic year 2000-2001 are to be governed by the regulations brought into force with effect from 7. 10. 2000, any rules contrary to the same in existence would have no efficacy. We are also of the view that for granting admission to post-graduate courses, students who are eligible on clearing their third MBBS examination constitute one class and their comparative merit has to be considered on one uniform basis. Two different methods adopted for students admitted to first MBBS course before and after August 1995 are not reasonable. We are also of the view that for granting admission to post-graduate courses, students who are eligible on clearing their third MBBS examination constitute one class and their comparative merit has to be considered on one uniform basis. Two different methods adopted for students admitted to first MBBS course before and after August 1995 are not reasonable. The argument advanced on behalf of the University has no force that students who took up three MBBS examinations on the basis of unamended rules prepared and performed for the examinations keeping in view the unamended rule that they have to score best marks only in final MBBS examination. Such students, it is argued, would suffer disadvantage by applying to the old batch of students newly enforced regulations of the Medical Council. It is a matter of common knowledge that a student in different examinations tries to perform to his best ability and his attempts are not dependent upon the nature of rules of admission obtaining for post-graduate courses at the relevant time. we are considering the matter of grant of admission to students who have passed final MBBS examination after the enforcement of Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. Therefore, on the basis of a uniform criteria of evaluation, they have to be selected. Applying two different criteria to such class of students would not only be discriminatory but contrary to the statutory regulations of Medical Council of India. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the University. LPA No. 748 of 2001 ,therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ( 9 ) NOW, we take up for consideration, LPA No. 644 OF 2001 preferred by three medical students who have passed third MBBS examination and seek admission to the post-graduate courses in the medical colleges under the Saurashtra University. The contention advanced by the learned senior counsel Mr. P. M. Thakker is that intention of the Medical Council of India in framing Regulation 9 (2) (iii) is very clear that instead of granting admission only on the basis of result of final year MBBS examination, as was done in the past, individual cumulative performance of the students in all three examinations of MBBS has to be comparatively evaluated with other candidates for the purpose of preparing select list. It is submitted that for giving effect in letter and spirit to Regulation 9 (2) (iii) of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, proper mathematical formula should have been adopted by the University. But unfortunately, it has adopted wrong mathematical formula which has resulted in depriving the appellants and many other candidates from getting chance of admission when on proper application of the Regulations by use of correct mathematical formula, they were entitled to be admitted on the basis of their improved position in the select list. ( 10 ) TO demonstrate that mathematical formula adopted by the University to judge the cumulative performance of the candidates in third MBBS examination is erroneous, in their writ petition, the students have given a chart. Giving an illustration of the case of appellant No. 1candidate Dr Jayesh Meghani, it is demonstrated that as per the mathematical formula given below, Dr Jayesh Meghani is shown to have secured 60. 96% marks on cumulative performance in the three examinations. According to the petitioners, if mathematical formula would have been correctly applied, appellant No. 1candidate Dr Jayesh Meghani secures 62. 14% and thus, his position in the merit list gets improved from Sr No. 66 to 42. Similarly, by showing two different calculations, one adopted by the University and the other by the petitioners, it is stated that position of appellant No. 2- candidate Dr Jaimin Patel gets improved (on his percentage which should have been 62. 53% instead of 61. 66%) from Sr No. 48 to 37. Same would also be the position with regard to appellant No. 3- candidate Dr. Tapan Maniyar whose percentage is worked out at 60. 69%; whereas, it should have been 61. 77% and his position should be at Sr. 48 instead of 70. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is cut-throat competition for admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges and even a difference of one or half percent mark makes lot of difference in grant or refusal of chance to a candidate. 77% and his position should be at Sr. 48 instead of 70. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is cut-throat competition for admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges and even a difference of one or half percent mark makes lot of difference in grant or refusal of chance to a candidate. To substantiate their contention that the mathematical formula adopted by the Saurashtra University is erroneous and not in consonance with the Regulations as have been applied by use of correct mathematical formula as done in Gujarat University, the students in their petition have given in tabular forms the calculation as adopted by Saurashtra University and the calculations which should have been adopted according to the petitioners: @@@ -- Dr Jayesh Meghani -- Total Year Percentage Marks Percentage x marks marks obtained secured. -- 600 FY MBBS 600x25%=150 400 25%x400= 100 480 SY " 480x25%=120 310 25%x310= 77. 50 1120 TY " 1120x50%=560 657 50%x1120=328. 50 -- Total 830 Total= 506. = 506/830x100= 60. 96. %. --ACCORDING to the petitioners, the above calculation made by the University is totally erroneous and the correct calculations should have been made in the following manner: -- @@@ Dr Jayesh Meghani -- Total Year Marks Percentage Weightage to be marks obtained. given. - 600 FY MBBS 400 66. 67 66. 67x25%=16. 67% 480 SY " 310 64. 58 64. 58x25%=16. 15% 1120 TY " 657 58. 66 58. 66x50%=29. 33% - total: 62. 14% Learned counsel made strenuous effort to explain to the court correct mathematical formula which has to be applied to best achieve the object of the Regulation of making comparative assessment of individual cumulative performance in the three MBBS examinations. In short, it is explained that on the method of calculation adopted by the University, instead of 25% weightage each for first two examinations and 50% weightage for the last examination, actual weightage which is worked out in case of Dr Jayesh Meghani is only 18. 08% and 14. 45% for the first and second year examinations. This is sought to be demonstrated by the petitioners on the basis of the third table shown below: @@@ Dr Jayesh Meghani Maximum Marks as per weightage Percentage of marks marks as per weightage. 600 150 150/830x100= 18. 08%. 480 120 120/830x100= 14. 45% 1120 560 560/830x100= 67. 47% 2200 total 830. 45% for the first and second year examinations. This is sought to be demonstrated by the petitioners on the basis of the third table shown below: @@@ Dr Jayesh Meghani Maximum Marks as per weightage Percentage of marks marks as per weightage. 600 150 150/830x100= 18. 08%. 480 120 120/830x100= 14. 45% 1120 560 560/830x100= 67. 47% 2200 total 830. ( 11 ) IT is submitted that this difference in the weightage so gets worked out in view of the fact that maximum marks for the respective three examinations are different. Had the marks for each year been uniform, there would not have been any problem for determining the weightage of marks. Calculation as done by the University results in giving, instead of 25% weightage, actual weightage of 18. 08% for the first year to candidate Dr. Jayesh Meghani; for second year, instead of 25%, it is 14. 45% weightage and for the third year, instead of 50% gives 67. 47% weightage. It is submitted on behalf of the students that this is so because of faulty mathematical formula adopted by the University. ( 12 ) SINCE the question posed to this court was one of mathematics and the same was difficult for the court, assistance was taken of Mr. S. N. Soparkar as Amicus Curiae who is not only an advocate of this court but also a qualified Chartered Accountant. Learned Amicus Curiae fully supports the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners and states that proper calculation method should give the same result as has been shown in the table given on behalf of the petitioners. Learned Amicus Curiae explains that the intention behind the Regulation is clear enough that for each years performance in three MBBS examinations, weightage of 25%, 25% and 50% respectively has to be given on the basis of performance for each year. This can be done mathematically in more ways than one but on proper mathematical formulae; result should be the same and cannot be different. Since method of calculation adopted by the University is faulty, therefore, different result is reached. Learned Amicus Curiae has given his own table which fully conforms to the calculation given by the petitioners in the example of candidate Dr Jayesh Meghani. Since method of calculation adopted by the University is faulty, therefore, different result is reached. Learned Amicus Curiae has given his own table which fully conforms to the calculation given by the petitioners in the example of candidate Dr Jayesh Meghani. The calculation method given by learned Amicus Curiae is as under : @@@ -- Total marks Years Marks Percentage Total obtained of marks on necessary scale -- 600 FY MBBS 400 25x400 16. 666 600 480 SY MBBS 310 25x310 16. 146 480 1120 TY MBBS 657 50x657 29. 330 1120 -- -- 100 62. 142 Out of Marks obtained 600 400 25 ? = 25x400 = -- ( 13 ) THE petitioners, to support their mathematical formula, have also produced opinion of the Mathematician Dr B. B. Jani , Professor and Head of Department of Statistics, University School of Sciences, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad and his opinion is contained in his letter dated 23. 4. 2001 which reads as under : TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERNI, the undersigned Dr B. B. Jani, Professor and Head, Statistics Department, Gujarat University, hereby express my opinion regarding the governing rules for P. G. admission at Saurashtra University (Faculty of Medicine) as under:25% weightage of marks of First MBBS 25% weightage of marks of Second MBBS 50% weightage of marks of Third MBBS for 100% to be considered for P. G,. admission,the calculations should be done as under:it should be done on percentage basis as he marks of First, Second and Third MBBS vary greatly and hence uniformity is needed in the form of percentage. I. E. to illustrate: First MBBS- Percentage of marks divided by 4 is= 25%. Second MBBS- Percentage of marks divided by 4 is= 25%. Third MBBS- Percentage of marks divided by 2 is= 50%. Thus, calculations should be done as 25%, 25% and 50% of the respective percentages obtained in First, Second and Third MBBS examinations respectively. sd/ Dr B. B. Jani. "learned Single Judge, on the question of application of correct mathematical formula, rejected the claim of the students and held that there can be different procedures for determining cumulative performance of candidate in examination and if the method adopted by the University cannot be held to be improper, merely because there is another method of doing the same, decision of the University cannot be faulted and no interference can be made with the select list prepared. Learned Single Judge also held that whatever may be the mathematical calculation adopted by the University, it has been adopted and applied uniformly for all the candidates without causing any prejudice to any of them. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners states that petitioners are aggrieved by the abovementioned part of the decision of the learned Single Judge and have, therefore, approached in LPA No. 644 of 2001. Submission made on behalf of the students is that only a correct mathematical formula can be held to give effect in law and spirit to the Medical Council Regulations. The mathematical formula which has been shown by the petitioners has in fact been adopted and applied by other Universities like Gujarat University. It is only the Saurashtra University which has adopted faulty mathematical formula and has committed mistake. ( 15 ) SINCE the question involved in the appeal preferred by the students is clearly of mathematics, we have to go by the opinion of the experts like Mr. S. N. Soparkar and Dr B. B. Jani. We find ourselves in disagreement with the view and conclusion of the learned Single Judge that if there are more than one mathematical formulae for working out cumulative performance of candidate for three examinations in MBBS, the one mathematical formula adopted by the University cannot be held to be erroneous. Learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that the University was obliged in law to adopt that mathematical formula which, in best manner,gives effect to the intention of Regulation 9 (2) (iii) and makes possible assessment inter-se of the candidates based on their individual cumulative performance at the three MBBS examinations. As has been explained to us, each years marks should be compared on percentage basis and on that basis,weightage of 25%, 25% and 50% respectively for each year has to be worked out. That appears to be the correct method of working out weightage and finding out cumulative performance of each candidate in comparison with others. Mathematics alone is perfect science and if there are different methods for such calculation, all methods should give one result and there cannot be two different results. On behalf of the University, it is not demonstrated that calculation method suggested by the students and by the learned Amicus Curiae is erroneous or faulty. Mathematics alone is perfect science and if there are different methods for such calculation, all methods should give one result and there cannot be two different results. On behalf of the University, it is not demonstrated that calculation method suggested by the students and by the learned Amicus Curiae is erroneous or faulty. If that be so and is held to be one correct method which has also been applied by other Universities like Gujarat University, in our opinion, the University should adopt that method as it makes lot of difference so far as chance of admission to each candidate is concerned. ( 16 ) SINCE revision of select list by adopting correct mathematical formula is likely to affect some other students, we allowed in representative capacity,intervention of four candidates who were likely to be affected by the result of this LPA. Learned counsel appearing for them is also heard who supported the stand of the University in the matter of adopting mathematical formula. ( 17 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, LPA No. 748 of 2001 preferred by the Saurashtra University fails and is hereby dismissed. LPA No. 644 of 2001 succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondent University is directed to modify the merit list/ select list for admission to post-graduate courses for the academic year 2000-2001 (Annexure `b to SCA No 2957 of 2001) and prepare fresh modified list on the basis of calculation as given by the learned Amicus Curiae shown in the table reproduced above. After such preparation of fresh merit list, the University shall grant admission to the students strictly in the order of merit prepared. In view of the final judgment, civil applications and interim arrangement made therein are vacated. No orders on civil applications. The court thankfully acknowledges the assistance of Amicus Curiae Mr. S. N. Soparkar, advocate. .