C. K. MAHAJAN, J. ( 1 ) BY this common judgment, I propose to dispose of wp (C) No. 5463-65/2004 WP (C) Nos. 4860-66/2004 as the reliefs sought are common and similar. ( 2 ) BY way of these petition, the petitioners assail the impugned letters/communications issued by the respondent/university whereby the petitioners were prevented from taking examination to be held on 12th april, 2004. It was stated in these letters that Board of Research Studies in its meeting held on 25th February, 2004 had decided that the students who had been admitted in the session 2002 after the last date of admission could appear in the examination only after completing the prescribed duration of the course. ( 3 ) IN terms of the Bulletin of Information for post- doctoral/post-Graduate Degree/diploma Courses issued by the University of Delhi for the session-2002, the course was to commence on 2nd May, 2002. The admissions were to be completed between the period 10th April, 2002 to 30th june, 2002. The last date of admission was 2nd July, 2002. The duration of the diploma courses was two years. The students seeking admission to the examination for the diploma course were required to pursue the course as full- time regular student in the respective Department of a teaching Institution/hospital in Delhi where he/she had been assigned. The examination for the eligible students was to be held in April/may, 2004. ( 4 ) IT is admitted fact that the All India Medical institute of Medical Sciences conducted the All India entrance Examination for admission to the 25% All India quota seats for the academic session 2002. The results were declared in February, 2002. Counseling for All india quota began on 5th March, 2002 and was scheduled to continue till 22nd March, 2002. However, on 7th March, 2002, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad stayed the counseling on a petition filed by some medical students alleging therein that the examination papers were leaked at the Lucknow center. Till then, counseling of the students upto Sr. No. 575 was completed. The stay was vacated on 20th March, 2002. The said petition was transferred to this Court. The writ petition was decided on 6th June, 2002 and the respondents were permitted to continue the counseling from rank 575. Counseling was rescheduled from 3rd July, 2002 to 9th july, 2002. Till then, counseling of the students upto Sr. No. 575 was completed. The stay was vacated on 20th March, 2002. The said petition was transferred to this Court. The writ petition was decided on 6th June, 2002 and the respondents were permitted to continue the counseling from rank 575. Counseling was rescheduled from 3rd July, 2002 to 9th july, 2002. Accordingly, the respondents resumed the counseling and completed the same on 9th July, 2002. Last date of admission was fixed on 24th July, 2002. Thereafter, some candidates filed writ petitions praying therein that the lapsed seats and the other seats of All india quota which accrued on account of lapse/surrender in favour of the Delhi University be offered to the them. Pursuant to directions of this Court, the respondents held 3rd counseling on 8th August, 2002 and those students who were not admitted in 2nd counseling were permitted to appear in the 3rd counseling. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners were allotted seats in various medical institutions to pursue their respective courses. However, they were not permitted to join classes. They were finally allowed to join course between the period from 15th July, 2002 and 25th september, 2002. The petitioners have not been permitted to take the examination on the ground that they joined the course after the last date of examination. Hence the present petition. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned communications/order was stayed and the petitioners were permitted to take the examination. However, it was directed that result of the petitioners be not declared. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners contend that the regulations were to be followed by the University and the petitioners were not aware of the same. The petitioners were admitted pursuant to the directions of this Court. The University neither at the time of admission nor subsequent thereto during the entire period of two years training ever warned the petitioners of the consequences of such delayed admission. The petitioners were directed to fill up the application form and deposit the fee for the examination. Admit cards were also issued to some of the candidates. However, at the last moment, the respondent/university arbitrarily issued the impugned communications denying the petitioners to appear in the examination on the ground that they had not completed prescribed duration of the course. The petitioners were directed to fill up the application form and deposit the fee for the examination. Admit cards were also issued to some of the candidates. However, at the last moment, the respondent/university arbitrarily issued the impugned communications denying the petitioners to appear in the examination on the ground that they had not completed prescribed duration of the course. However, they had decided to allow the candidates to appear in the examination, who were admitted on the last date of admission i. e. 2nd July, 2002 and thereafter. ( 7 ) RELIANCE was placed on the judgments reported as dr. Neera Gupta and etc. Vs. University of Delhi and another AIR 1997 Delhi 175; Principal, King George s medical College, Lucknow Vs. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal and another (1984) 1 SCC 416 and Ramesh Chandra Vs. Kota open University AIR 2001 Rajasthan 394. ( 8 ) THE respondent/mci has opposed the petition on the ground that the Regulations framed by the mci provide that each candidate, who was admitted to postgraduate diploma course was required to undergo a training for two completed years including the examination period. The Regulations are mandatory in nature and the affiliated Universities are bound to follow these regulations. ( 9 ) THE respondent/university has also taken the same stand. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was placed on the judgments reported as chandigarh Adminsitration and Another Vs. Jagjit Singh and Another (1995) 1 SCC 745 , Harpal Kaur Chahal (SMT) vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, Gursharan Singh and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others (1996) 2 SCC 459 , A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1986) 2 SCC 667 , State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. St. Joseph teachers Training Institute and Another (1991) 3 SCC 87 , k. S. Bhoir Vs. State of Maharastra and Others (2001) 10 scc 264, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Another (1994) 2 SCC 718 , union of India Vs. Joginder Sharma (2002) 8 SCC 65 , Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M. P. And others (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 120 and Trojan and Co. Ltd. Vs. RM. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar 1953 SLR 789. Asha ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Another (1994) 2 SCC 718 , union of India Vs. Joginder Sharma (2002) 8 SCC 65 , Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M. P. And others (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 120 and Trojan and Co. Ltd. Vs. RM. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar 1953 SLR 789. ( 11 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents on record. ( 12 ) IT is unfortunate that our admission procedures get disoriented on account of Court orders and pending litigations. The present case is one such instance. Admission process, which commenced in May ended in september, 2002. Some students were admitted in July and the others were admitted in September, 2002. ( 13 ) THE delay in admission of the petitioners has not been attributed to them. The delay was on account of pending litigation in the Court and delay in conduct of counseling by DGHS. Although the petitioners in WP (C) 5463-65/2004 reported for admission to the university on 3rd and 6th July 2002, the university for administrative convenience gave them admission on 15. 7. 2002. The admission to petitioners in WP (C) No. 4860-66 was cleared on 8th August, 2002 but again on account of pending litigation the admission was finally granted in september, 2002. The University neither at the time of admission nor subsequent thereto during the entire period of two years training ever warned the petitioners of the consequences of such delayed admission. In September 2003, the petitioners were called upon to submit their application forms along with examination fees for issuance Admit Cards for the examination to be conducted on 12th April, 2004. If the admission of the petitioners was irregular or the petitioners were not eligible to take the exam the respondents ought not to have issued the admit cards. Having taken a decision to issue the admit card despite the fact that the petitioners had joined the course late the respondent University ought not have sent the impugned communication one day before the examination. The petitioners had by then prepared for the exam and to send a communication at the very last moment would seriously affect the career of the petitioners and have serious repercussions. The petitioners had by then prepared for the exam and to send a communication at the very last moment would seriously affect the career of the petitioners and have serious repercussions. It is strange that the University has in the past 10 years been permitting a large number of students similarly placed to appear in the examination and whereas they have prevented the petitioners from taking the said exam. ( 14 ) IN the present case, all the petitioners have been permitted to continue their training after the examination to make up their deficiency. The petitioners cannot now be discriminated against and treated differently from the students who were admitted on 2nd july, 2002 and thereafter. The petitioners were allowed to file the application form and deposit the fee for the examination and admit cards were also issued. Judicial notice can be taken that the admit cards were duly issued on the basis of verification of records of the student. Whenever a power is vested in an authority it is presumed that the power has been exercised properly. Having once issued the admit card it is obvious that by their own conduct the University was consistently following a practice of permitting students to take the exam even though they have admitted beyond the admission date. The university is now estopped from preventing the petitioners to write the examination. The petitioners were led to believe that there was no impediment in their taking the examination. They prepared for the examination and devoted their energies, time and efforts towards that goal and the respondents cannot now take a somersault. During the entire course of arguments the respondents were unable to justify how students who joined on or after 2nd July, 2002 were eligible to appear in the examination and the petitioners who are similarly situated were not allowed to sit in the exam. ( 15 ) THE University on the one hand permitted the students, who were admitted on 2nd July, 2002, to take the examination in April, 2004 despite the fact that they have not completed the duration of complete two years and on the other hand denied the petitioners to take examination for the reason that they have not completed the duration of the course. It was not expected of the university to have issued the impugned communications at this stage in recalling the admit cards on the ground that they have not completed the duration of the course for the reason that the University had allowed the other similarly situated students, who are admitted on and after 2nd July, 2002 to appear in the examination. University cannot adopt a policy of pick and choose. In dr. Neera Gupta and Ors. Vs. Delhi University AIR 1997 delhi 175 the action of the Delhi University in withdrawing the permission to take examination just four days before examination was challenged in this Court. The Court held that :- "30. One fails to comprehend why the letter dated 14. 3. 1996 was sent at all? Even if it is assumed that there was any irregularity in availing the maternity leave in 1993, why was no action taken immediately? What is the justification of the delay for more than three years? Why did the respondent University choose to send the letter dated 14. 3