ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED. 3. APPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION ARE ALLOWED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES CONSIDERATION SINCE, PRIMA FACIE, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT SEEM TO RUN COUNTER TO THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN SAURABH CHAUDRI V. UNION OF INDIA1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, HOWEVER, CONTEND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE ACT, IN PARTICULAR SECTION 28(5) OF THE UTTAR PRADESH STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1973, WILL HAVE TO BE EXAMINED AND IN THAT LIGHT, THE QUESTION HAS TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER THOSE WHO ARE DOMICILE OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH BUT DO NOT BELONG TO THE INSTITUTION ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIFTY PER CENT INSTITUTIONAL QUOTA SEATS OF POSTGRADUATE COURSES. CLAUSE 3.1.3 IN THE INFORMATION BROCHURE ISSUED FOR THE UTTAR PRADESH POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 2005, FOR ADMISSION IN SESSION 2005 FOR A MD/MS/MDS POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA MAKES THEM ELIGIBLE FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL QUOTA SEATS AS WELL. TO THAT EXTENT, CLAUSE 3.1.3, PRIMA FACIE, IS CONTRARY TO SAURABH CHAUDRIL. THUS, WHILE GRANTING LEAVE, WE STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE RESPONDENT STATE/UNIVERSITY WOULD DECLARE THE RESULTS KEEPING IN VIEW THIS ORDER OF STAY. COURT MASTERS