ORDER 1. Is petitioner liable to pay additional fees to clear her MBBS Course under NRI Quota beyond 4 /2 years' of studies? This is the short question posed for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts essential and relevant for the decision are as under. In the year 1999-2000, respondents offered admissions in MBBS Course under NRI quota in five Medical Colleges in the State against lumpsum payment of prescribed fees of US $ 67,500. Petitioner took admission under the said quota and started prosecuting her studies in the MGM Medical College, Indore. The duration of course of the studies is 4 1/2 years consisting of three professional examinations. She timely cleared her first and second professional examination. In the third professional examination held in February-March 2005, she passed in theory papers but could not clear practical examination of Medicine subject. It is undisputed that she has to cleat the subject before entering upon internship. 3. According to petitioner, next examination was scheduled to commence from 20.9.2005 but by impugned communication (Annexure P-3A), respondents demanded US $ 7,500 as additional fees before she was allowed to appear in the examination. This, according to her, is not permissible, hence this petition. 4. After notice, respondents filed reply and justified demand for additional fees. They denied any hostile discrimination and asserted that petitioner, being a student under NRI quota, is bound to pay additional fees as per rules. (Annexure R-I). 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused material available on record. Learned counsel for petitioner made threefold submissions. According to him, respondents did not disclose Rules (Annexure R-l) to petitioner at the time of admission. As a result, they are inapplicable to petitioner to justify demand for additional fees. Secondly, it was contended that even if these Rules are applicable, on true interpretation, demand is unjustified and not supported by Rules. Lastly, it was submitted that demand for additional fees results in hostile discrimination without any reasonable basis or nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents refuting each contention submitted that petitioner is bound to pay additional fees as per rules (Annexure R-l) and in support; he referred to Annexure R-2 filed along with additional reply. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents refuting each contention submitted that petitioner is bound to pay additional fees as per rules (Annexure R-l) and in support; he referred to Annexure R-2 filed along with additional reply. As per said annexure, a similarly, situated MBBS student under NRI quota paid additional fees for completing MBBS Course beyond 4 1/2 years' course of studies. Thus, according to him, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves dismissal. 6. Before embarking upon rival submissions, it is pertinent to point out that respondents issued Rules Annexure R-I. Perusal of Annexure RI reveals that it deals with admissions against payment seats and NRI seats in MBBS Course of studies in the five medical colleges in the State. Except for the amount of fees, other requirements under Annexure R-l are similar for admission and prosecuting studies. There is another source for admission under State PMT Quota governed by different set of Rules. 7. Coming back to submissions, we find no force in the first contention of learned counsel for petitioner. From perusal of Annexure R-l, it is clear that respondents issued, booklet, containing Rules and admission form. Anybody purchasing booklet would get Rules together with application form. It is inconceivable that petitioner filled up and submitted admission form without reading Rules. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for respondents produced the original application form submitted by petitioner together with the affidavit of her mother. It is obvious that petitioner and her guardian had agreed to abide by terms and conditions of admission against NRI payment seat. Thus, petitioner could not feign ignorance of Rules. In fact, one can safely draw an inference that petitioner had the specific knowledge of Rules. It is an afterthought attempt on her part to bypass rules and as such, there is no merit and substance in the foremost contention. It is, therefore, unacceptable in the facts and circumstance of the case. Accordingly, same stands rejected. 8. As regards the second contention, submission is that fee charged was for duration of course of studies requiring a student to attend theory lectures and practical classes. It is, therefore, unacceptable in the facts and circumstance of the case. Accordingly, same stands rejected. 8. As regards the second contention, submission is that fee charged was for duration of course of studies requiring a student to attend theory lectures and practical classes. Thus, according to learned counsel for petitioner there is an element of quid pro quo and lumpsum payment of institutional fee at the time of admission is for the prescribed course study duration for MBBS ^^,deq"r laLFkkxr Qhl ,e ch ch ,l ikB~Øe v/;;u vof/k ds fy;s** It is claimed that a detained student is not required to attend classes before taking on the next examination after six months therefore impugned demand is contrary to Rules. Of course, this submission on the face of it looks attractive but for want of requisite and material data in this regard, it would be undesirable and hazardous for this Court to give any finding on this submission especially when the petition can be disposed of on other count. 9. Now coming to last submission relating to hostile discrimination, it is undisputed that a similarly detained student admitted under State PMT Quota is not required to pay additional fee to clear MBBS Course of Studies in the next examination. Learned counsel for respondents strenuously argued that students admitted against payment or NRI seats form a class by themselves and their case is not comparable with students admitted against State PMT Quota. That charging of additional fee from NRI student is justified because that would fetch more foreign exchange to State coffers. With the aid of Annexure R-2, learned counsel further contended that petitioner is required to pay additional fee as was paid by another NRI student vide Annexure R-2. Thus, according to him there is no discrimination and charging of additional fees has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. provide inexpensive education as compared to the foreign country petitioner hailing from. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, contentions urged by learned counsel for respondents to meet the plea of discrimination are unacceptable. It is established that there may be different streams or sources for admission, but after admission, students become a homogeneous class. During the course of study, 1/4ikB~;Øe v/;;u vof/k1/2 they attend and share lectures and practical classes. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, contentions urged by learned counsel for respondents to meet the plea of discrimination are unacceptable. It is established that there may be different streams or sources for admission, but after admission, students become a homogeneous class. During the course of study, 1/4ikB~;Øe v/;;u vof/k1/2 they attend and share lectures and practical classes. Deployment of staff and necessary wherewithal to run a medical college is for imparting instructions and training to students so that after acquiring qualification they can serve humanity. Our forefathers gave us Constitution for a democratic republic to secure amongst other objects, equality before law. This is enshrined in Article 14. It is not an empty promise. Concept of equality and equal protection of law guaranteed by Article 14 in its proper spectrum is the bedrock of our polity and every State law and action has to pass this test on anvil of Article 14. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. In view of this there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that there is no reasonable differentia justifying classification between petitioner and students admitted against State PMT Quota. So far, reliance placed on Annexure R-2, suffice it to say that one wrong cannot form basis to commit it again and justify it on the touchstone of Article 14. Likewise earning of more foreign exchange as a justification for charging additional fee from petitioner smacks of profiteering and to say the least, such a plea is not only denounced by Supreme Court but also unavailable to welfare State. Thus, demand for additional fee from petitioner results in hostile discrimination and is therefore unsustainable. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed and impugned demand for additional fee is hereby quashed. Since petitioner was permitted to appear in the next semester examination and her results withheld in terms of orders of this Court, respondents are directed to forthwith declare her result. If petitioner has cleared the subject, then respondents shall also permit petitioner to enter upon internship without any further delay. Petitioner shall also be entitled to Rs. 1,500/- as costs of this writ petition.