ORDER The writ petitioner, who has completed his MBBS in the year 1994 and also Diploma in Child Health (DCH) in the year 1998 at Madras Medical College, joined the Government service on 24.4.2000 as Assistant Surgeon, Government Primary Health Centre at Erasakkanayakkanur, Theni District. He has applied for the entrance examination conducted by the third and fourth respondents for post graduation studies, viz., M.D. (Paediatrics). The 4th respondent has called him for counselling and allotted seat in Coimbatore Medical College by his proceedings dated 21.5.2004. The petitioner was relieved on 22.5.2004, to enable him to join the said course and then, he has joined at Coimbatore Medical College on 24.5.2004 and remitted his admission fees and tuition fees for the entire two years. 2. Even though the prospectus has not specified about M.D. (Paediatrics) course in the 5th respondent College, the petitioner was allotted on the basis that the 5th respondent College has been recognised by the Medical Council of India, though the petitioner has not opted 5th respondent College on his volition. It was, after joining the course in the 5th respondent College on 24.5.2004, the petitioner came to know that in the previous year the 5th respondent had admitted a student without proper recognition. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have replied that the petitioner will be allowed to write his examinations for the two academic years in M.D. (Paediatrics) in the final year. The petitioner has submitted his dissertation to the Dean of the 5th respondent College for onward transmission of the same to the University and at that time he came to understand that the University will not permit him to sit in the examinations, which are normally scheduled in February, 2006. 2.) It is the case of the petitioner that even a candidate who was admitted in the 5th respondent College in the previous year, viz., Dr. R. Balakrishnan, has filed W.P. No. 24505 of 2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2.) It is the case of the petitioner that even a candidate who was admitted in the 5th respondent College in the previous year, viz., Dr. R. Balakrishnan, has filed W.P. No. 24505 of 2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government of India on 09.06.2003 has given Letter of Intent (in short, “LOI”) to the 5th respondent College to start P.G. Degree in Paediatrics as per Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (in short, “the IMC Act”) with certain conditions and the petitioner understands that the said conditions have already been complied with and therefore, there is a deemed recognition of the course and hence, the 4th respondent has no justification in not permitting the petitioner to have enrolment in the University and consequently to write the examinations. 2.) According to the petitioner, the conduct of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent having allowed the petitioner to continue the course for two years, is estopped from denying the permission to the petitioner to appear for the examinations. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is an existing institution, which is also conducting diploma course in Paediatrics and therefore, the infrastructures are already available. It is also his case that in respect of M.D. (General Science), one such student has been allowed to writ examinations and that has been denied to this petitioner and therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, present writ petition is filed for a direction against the 4th respondent, Controller of Examinations of Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, to permit the petitioner to have his enrolment for M.D. (Paediatrics) for the academic years 2004-2006 and to sit for the ensuing examinations for M.D. (Paediatrics) 2004-2006. 3. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, in which he has stated that as per the prospectus issued for 2004-2005, in Clause 16(b) the duration of Post Graduate Degree Courses for the Diploma candidates, who have undergone two years course, shall be two years in the same speciality and three years in other speciality. 3. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, in which he has stated that as per the prospectus issued for 2004-2005, in Clause 16(b) the duration of Post Graduate Degree Courses for the Diploma candidates, who have undergone two years course, shall be two years in the same speciality and three years in other speciality. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as a person who has completed two years diploma course in Child Health, his duration in post graduation for M.D. (Paediatrics) is only two years. It is also his case that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, he has completed two years course and also appeared for the examinations conducted in March,2006 and as per the interim orders, results are not published. 3.) It is also stated in the additional affidavit that during the pendency of the writ petition, Union of India has granted permission to the 5th respondent College to start M.D.(Pae-diatrics) with effect from the academic year 2006-2007. It is also stated by the petitioner that the 5th respondent College has also represented to the Union of India to treat the petitioner as having been admitted in the year 2004-2005, granting retrospective permission. The 5th respondent has also undertaken not to admit any student for the next two years, viz., 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University has also granted affiliation to the 5th respondent College in the year 2006. 3.) In the affidavit the petitioner has also stated that he has already remitted fees for two years, i. e., for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and he is willing to take the course with effect from March, 2006 and will be completing his course in March, 2008. By virtue of the order of this Court, he, having taken second year examinations in M.D. (Paediatrics) in March, 2006, has rejoined his service and is now working as a Tutor in Anatomy, Madurai Medical College and prayed to sit in for the supplemental examinations to be held in 2008 by treating him as a student admitted for the years 2006-2008. 4. 4. The 6th respondent Medical Council of India in the counter affidavit has stated that as per Section 10-A of the IMC Act, 1956 any person intend to establish a medical college or to start any higher course of study or to increase the annual intake capacity, specific prior permission must be obtained from Central Government for such establishment. In order to implement the provisions of Section 10-A of the IMC Act, the sixth respondent, Medical Council of India has notified regulations providing for detailed procedure to be followed for making applications to Central Government for grant of permission for establishment of Medical College or starting a new course, etc. Therefore, unless and until prior permission is obtained from the Central Government, no course can be started and no person can be admitted. Prior permission is granted by Medical Council of India only after its satisfaction as to the complete infrastructure and teaching and other facilities that are available in the institution to establish a college or to start a new course and also to increase the admission capacity. 4.) As per the statutory Scheme, on application made for the purpose of establishing a Medical Institution or starting a fresh course, the Central Government make an evaluation of the application and then forward the same to the Medical Council of India for further investigation. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India recommends: (i) for issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) by Central Government based on its recommendation; and (ii) for issuance of Letter of Permission (LOP) by Central Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, which enables the Institution for starting admission. (iii) The first batch of students admitted as stated above, while they are writing final year examinations, the Central Government may grant formal recognition, on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. Therefore, according to the 6th respondent, Medical Council of India, unless permission is obtained from Central Government for starting a medical college, no admission can be made and it is a mandatory provision. 4.) It is stated by the sixth respondent that an application for starting M.D. (Paediatrics) course in the 5th respondent College was received from the Central Government by the six respondent in the letter dated 7.3.2002 and inspection for consideration of issuance of LOI for starting the course was conducted in July, 2002. 4.) It is stated by the sixth respondent that an application for starting M.D. (Paediatrics) course in the 5th respondent College was received from the Central Government by the six respondent in the letter dated 7.3.2002 and inspection for consideration of issuance of LOI for starting the course was conducted in July, 2002. The Postgraduate Committee (in short, “P.G. Committee”) of the six respondent Council on 26.9.2002 has decided not to recommend the Central Government to issue LOI for starting M.D. (Paediatrics) in the 5th respondent College due to deficiency in the Department, which is not headed by a professor and the teaching faculty available was not sufficient even for imparting MBBS course. After the compliance report was received from the 5th respondent College, again, the P.G. Committee considered the same in its meeting on 17.4.2003 and it was decided by the said Committee of the 6th respondent Council to recommend to the Central Government to issue LOI to the 5th respondent College to start M.D. (Paediatrics) course. Accordingly, with certain conditions, the LOI was issued by the Central Government to the 5th respondent College on 9.6.2003. 4.) The LOI contained various conditions to enable the Central Government to issue LOP. One of the conditions in the LOI given by the Central Government dated 9.6.2003 to the 5th respondent College was that the College will not admit students unless and until LOP is issued for starting the course. Therefore, the 5th respondent, who was only given LOI could not have validly admitted any student at that time, including the petitioner. It is also stated by the sixth respondent that only those students who have been validly and legally admitted in medical course are eligible to appear for examinations. When the admission itself is contrary to law, any permission granted to such candidates to write examinations cannot confer any better right on such candidates. 5. On a perusal of the records, it is clear that the Central Government has issued LOP to the 5th respondent Institution for M.D. (Paediatrics) course from the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore, as per the Scheme of the Central Government, the 5th respondent would have been entitled to admit a student in M.D. (Paediatrics) only from the academic year 2006-2007. It is also not in dispute that in the 5th respondent College the sanctioned strength of students in M.D. (Paediatrics) is one(1). Therefore, as per the Scheme of the Central Government, the 5th respondent would have been entitled to admit a student in M.D. (Paediatrics) only from the academic year 2006-2007. It is also not in dispute that in the 5th respondent College the sanctioned strength of students in M.D. (Paediatrics) is one(1). The 5th respondent College has also given an undertaking not to admit any student for M.D. (Paediatrics) in the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. 6. The LOP has been granted for the academic year 2006-2007 on the basis that the petitioner was admitted in the year 2004-2005, at the time when there was no LOP. Therefore, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the admission of the petitioner in the 5th respondent College in M.D. (Paediatrics) course in the year 2004-2006 is not valid in law. In fact, the Central Government has delayed in granting LOP to the 5th respondent College on many grounds, including that in spite of the undertaking given by the 5th respondent while obtaining LOI that it would not admit any student till LOP is granted, the 5th respondent has admitted the writ petitioner and another candidate for the years 2003-2005, which are in violation of the conditions of LOI. 7. Pending the above writ petition, on the petitioner filing W.P.M.P. No. 4622 of 2006, this Court by order dated 3.3.2006 has passed the following order: “Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to sit for the examination. However, the results shall not be published until further orders.” Pursuant to the above said order, the petitioner was permitted to sit in for the examinations and he wrote the final year examinations, however, the results are not published. 8. The petitioner has filed another W.P.M.P. No. 16292 of 2006 in the above writ petition, praying for direction against the 4th respondent, Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University to publish the petitioner's result of final year M.D. (Paediatrics) examinations held during March, 2006 to enable the petitioner to receive the provisional certificate. The said petition came to be dismissed after hearing all the parties by order dated 27.6.2006. 9. MGR Medical University to publish the petitioner's result of final year M.D. (Paediatrics) examinations held during March, 2006 to enable the petitioner to receive the provisional certificate. The said petition came to be dismissed after hearing all the parties by order dated 27.6.2006. 9. In fact the petitioner has filed an application even in the year 2005 itself in W.P.M.P. No. 36978 of 2005 for direction against the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to have his enrolment for M.D. (Paediatrics) relating to the year 2004-2006, so as to enable him to sit in for the ensuing examinations and that W.P.M.P. also came to be dismissed on 14.11.2005. 10. The permission granted to the petitioner to write examinations in W.P.M.P. No. 4622 of 2006 in the order dated 3.3.2006 itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner's admission in 2004-2006 has to be approved. On the factual situation, it is clear that the 5th respondent had no right to admit the petitioner in M.D. (Paediatrics) in the year 2004-2006, since, admittedly, the Central Government has issued LOP to the 5th respondent only in 2006-2007 and only after that the 5th respondent could have validly admitted anybody in the first year M.D. (Paediatrics) course. 11. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the 5th respondent College has been granted LOI on 09.06.2003 itself and therefore, it cannot be said that the admission of the petitioner which was made in the year 2004-2005 should be held invalid. His further submission is that in fact pursuant to LOI granted by the Central Government on 09.06.2003, the 5th respondent College has sent the compliance report, which is evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. Nos. 29779 and 29780 of 2004 in W.P. No. 24505 of 2004 filed by one Dr. R. Balakrishnan, wherein this Court found that without any proper permission, the Selection Committee during the counselling has admitted the petitioner therein in the 5th respondent College and directed the State Government to expedite the steps for getting permission from the Central Government. This Court also recorded the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the State Government has already forwarded the report of compliance pursuant to the LOI. That was the order passed by this Court on 14.12.2004, in the following words: “ 3. This Court also recorded the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the State Government has already forwarded the report of compliance pursuant to the LOI. That was the order passed by this Court on 14.12.2004, in the following words: “ 3. Taking the above into consideration, the sixth respondent Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University is directed to receive the application form submitted by the petitioner for the examination to be held during the month of February,2005 on production of the copy of this order and such application shall be kept pending awaiting further orders from this court. As the State Government has allotted the petitioner to a course which has not been permitted by the Union of India, the State Government shall expedite steps for getting permission from the Union of India. It is the specific case of Mr. V. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader that the State Government had already forwarded the report on compliance pursuant to the letter of intent and the same has not been so far considered by the first respondent Union of India. It is made clear that in the event of such compliance report had been made by the State Government already, the first respondent Union of India shall expedite the disposal of the same for grant of permission.” 12. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it was not a fault on the part of the petitioner in admitting himself in the 5th respondent College and it was only the Selection Committee which has forwarded his name and therefore, a lenient view must be taken in respect of the petitioner, who has in fact filed an affidavit, as enumerated above, undertaking that he may be deemed to be a student admitted in the 5th respondent College for the years 2006-2008 and to permit him to write the supplemental examinations in 2008. In other words, the contention of the learned senior counsel is that the course stated to have been undertaken by the petitioner in the 5th respondent College in 2004-2006, during which time there was absolutely no authority on the part of the 5th respondent to admit any student in M.D. (Paediatrics), since LOP was not granted by the Central Government, should be deemed to be the course undertaken by the petitioner for the academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. 13. 13. This is relevant because as it is admitted by the petitioner himself, that after writing the examinations in March, 2006 as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner has joined in services as Tutor in Anatomy in Madurai Medical College, Madurai and therefore the contention of the learned senior counsel is that in 2006-2008, the time during which the 5th respondent College had valid LOP, the petitioner should be deemed to have undergone the course, even though during the said period the petitioner has not actually undertaken the course. 14. It is not in dispute that on the application filed by the 5th respondent College, which is an existing Government College, the Medical Council of India through its P.G. Committee has recommended to the Central Government to issue LOI for starting M.D. (Paediatrics) course as per Section 10-A of the IMC Act, in which it is specifically stated that the grant of LOI is prospective restricting one student per year. The operative portion of the said letter of the Medical Council of India dated 6.5.2003 is as follows: “The Postgraduate Committee considered the compliance together with Council Inspector's report (July,2002) and decided to recommend to the Central Government to issue Letter of Intent for starting of M.D. (Paediatrics) course at Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University under Section 10-A of the IMC Act,1956 prospectively restricting the number of admission to 1 (one) student per year. The Committee further decided to draw the attention of the institution for rectification of the following deficiencies as pointed out by the Council Inspector in the inspection report: (i) ICU in the department of Paediatrics is not well equipped and (ii) No Paediatric emergency room is available for acute care management of children.” 15. Based on the recommendations of the said Medical Council of India, the Central Government, which is the authority, has issued LOI to the 5th respondent on 09.11.2003 with the following specific conditions: “ 3. This letter of intent is subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) The applicant should provide all infrastructural facilities in terms of teaching and non-teaching staff, buildings, equipment's and hospital facilities as per the MCI norms. (ii) The applicant should provide a bank guarantee of a nationalised/scheduled bank of required sum as per Council's norms (wherever required). This letter of intent is subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) The applicant should provide all infrastructural facilities in terms of teaching and non-teaching staff, buildings, equipment's and hospital facilities as per the MCI norms. (ii) The applicant should provide a bank guarantee of a nationalised/scheduled bank of required sum as per Council's norms (wherever required). (iii) Other deficiencies pointed in the inspection report should be rectified. A copy of inspection report is enclosed. (iv) No student should be admitted to the above course still the formal permission of the Central Government is granted.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the LOI granted to the 5th respondent by the Central Government is subject to the specific condition that the 5th respondent shall not admit any student till LOP is granted by the Central Government. 16. It is also seen that considering the fact that the 5th respondent has admitted a student in M.D. (Paediatrics) in the year 2003-2004 against the specific condition of LOI, the P.G. Committee in its meeting has deferred the consideration for recommendation of LOP as it is seen from the letter of Medical Council of India dated 1.9.2004, the relevant portion of which is as follows: “The Postgraduate Committee considered the compliance verification report (March, 2004) together with compliance and council Inspector's report (July, 2002) and decided to defer the consideration of the matter during the pendency of the receipt of clarification in regard to as to how one MD (Paediatrics) candidate was admitted in the academic year, 2003.” 17. In fact, the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, viz., the third respondent in the reply to the first respondent State Government, has acknowledged that anticipating the LOP from the Central Government, the petitioner was admitted in 2004 in the first year M.D. (Paediatrics) course and requested to condone the inadvertent mistake and pleaded for consideration of LOP retrospectively with an undertaking that after LOP, no student would be admitted for two years in the 5th respondent College, so as to adjust the admission of the petitioner made by mistake. The operative portion of the letter of the third respondent is as follows: “The office of the Directorate of Medical Education deeply regrets this inadvertent mistake and pleads favourable consideration to grant Letter of Permission retrospectively. The operative portion of the letter of the third respondent is as follows: “The office of the Directorate of Medical Education deeply regrets this inadvertent mistake and pleads favourable consideration to grant Letter of Permission retrospectively. Moreover in lieu of these 2 extra unwarranted seats admitted, we assure the Government of Tamil Nadu that no admissions will be made in MD (Paediatrics) in Coimbatore Medical College for the next 2 years. Therefore I request the Government to move the Government of India to ratify these inadvertent admissions keeping in mind that they will be adjusted against the non admission of candidates for the next 2 years to this course and ratify the above action retrospectively.” 18. It is also seen that ultimately, the Central Government by letter dated 13.1.2006 has granted LOP with effect from the academic year 2006-2007 as per Section 10-A of the IMC Act in the following words: “In continuation to this Department's letter of intent of even number dated 9.6.2003 and with reference to your letter No. Nil 28687/MCA/03 dated 26.9.2005, I am directed to convey the permission of the Central Government for starting of the MD (Paediatrics) course with annual intake of 1 (one) student at your college with prospective effect i. e. From the academic year 2006-2007 under Section 10-A of IMC Act, 1956, as amended. This permission for starting of the above course and admission of students will be till such time the first batch of students admitted against the above course appear for the first final examination in the subject. The college authorities may take up the matter for recognition of the qualifications under Section 11(2) of IMC Act at the time of first batch admitted against the course appears for final year examinations.” 19. The Medical Council of India in its letter dated 14.05.2007, addressed to its counsel as exhibited in the typed set of papers filed by the writ petitioner has specifically stated that the admission of the petitioner made by the 5th respondent College without getting permission of the Central Government under Section 10-A of the IMC Act, is not a valid, legal admission. The operative portion of the said letter is as follows: “I am further to inform you that on the recommendation of the Council, the Central Govt. Vide letter dated 17.1.2006 had issued LOP for starting of MD (Paed.) course at Govt. The operative portion of the said letter is as follows: “I am further to inform you that on the recommendation of the Council, the Central Govt. Vide letter dated 17.1.2006 had issued LOP for starting of MD (Paed.) course at Govt. Medical College, Coimbatore with annual intake of 1 (one) student from the academic year 2006-2007. A copy of Central Govt. Letter dated 17.1.2006 is enclosed herewith. The admission made by the college without getting the permission of the Central Govt. under Section 10-A of the IMC Act, 1956 is not valid and legal admission.” 20. In view of the categoric stand taken by the Medical Council of India, it is relevant to refer to some of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India, which is constituted as per Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, deemed to be a body corporate as per Section 6, is an expert body to control the minimum standard of medical education and the Act makes an overall vigilance by the Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualification for medical courses, both graduate as well as postgraduate level, as it was emphasised by the Constitution Bench of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v. State of M. P. AIR 1999 SC 2894 : (1999) 7 SCC 120 , in the following words: “ 57. In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka a Bench of three Judges of this Court has distinguished the observations made in Nivedita Jain. It has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory. The Court was concerned with admissions to the MBBS course and the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council relating to admission to the MBBS course. The Court took note of the observations in State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshana to the effect that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into medical institutions. There is, under the Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses. These observations would apply equally to postgraduate medical courses. We are in respectful agreement with this reasoning.” 21. Section 10-A of the IMC Act which deals with the permission to establish new medical college or new course of study, makes it clear that no person or no medical college can either establish or open a new course or even increase the admission capacity including the postgraduate course of study except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Section 10-A (1) of IMC Act is as follows: “ Section 10- A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study, etc.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force- (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training). Except with the previous permissions of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this Section, person includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2.- For the purpose of this Section, “admission capacity”, in relation to any course of study or training (including postgraduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training.” 22. Explanation 2.- For the purpose of this Section, “admission capacity”, in relation to any course of study or training (including postgraduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training.” 22. A reference to the Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulations, 1993 framed by the Medical Council of India with the previous approval of Central Government as per the powers conferred under Section 10-A read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act,1956 makes it clear that on a Scheme submitted by a person to establish a new medical college or to open a higher course of study or to increase the admission capacity, the Medical Council of India makes evaluation on the said application to find out the prima facie feasibility of setting up of the medical college and capability of the applicant to show source of infrastructure and in that regard, the Council may also seek further information, clarification, etc., or to make out physical inspection. 23. It is stated in the said Regulations that on recommendation of the Medical Council of India, the Central Government may issue the LOI to set up a College with various conditions modifying the original proposal or Scheme submitted by the College and after the conditions are fulfilled, the Central Government will issue a formal permission, which include the clear cut definition of preliminary requirements to be made in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipments before admitting the first batch of students. The said permission is granted initially for one year, which may be renewed on yearly basis on verification of achievements of annual targets. The relevant portions of the Regulations are as follows: “ Education by MCI: Medical Council of India will evaluate Part I of the application in the first instance to establish the desirability and prima-facie feasibility of setting up the medical college at the proposed location and the capability of the applicant to provide the necessary sources and infrastructure for the scheme. While evaluating each, part of the application, the Council may seek further information/clarification or additional documents from the applicant as considered necessary or may carry out physical inspection to verify the information. While evaluating each, part of the application, the Council may seek further information/clarification or additional documents from the applicant as considered necessary or may carry out physical inspection to verify the information. Grant of Permission: The Central Government on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, may issue a letter of intent to set up a new college with such conditions by modification in the original proposal as may be considered necessary. The formal permission will be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the applicant. The formal permission will include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. This permission will also be include a clear cut definition of preliminary requirements to be me in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipment, faculty and stall etc., before admitting the Ist batch of students. The permission will also define annual targets to be achieved by the applicant to commensurate with the intake of students during the following years. The above permission to establish a new medical college and admit students will be granted initially for a period of one year and will be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets and revalidation of the performance bank guarantees. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities is completed and a formal recognition of the medical college by the Medical Council of India is granted. Further admissions are liable to be stopped at any stage unless the requirements for various steps of development are to the satisfaction of Medical Council of India.” 24. Therefore, it is clear that mere grant of LOI by Central Government after the recommendation of Medical Council of India does not authorise the College to admit students. The LOI being the first step, directs the concerned College to comply with various conditions put forth by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. It is only after the conditions are fulfilled or modified Scheme is accepted and on the performance guarantee, the Central Government grants a formal permission, which is called LOP. The LOI being the first step, directs the concerned College to comply with various conditions put forth by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. It is only after the conditions are fulfilled or modified Scheme is accepted and on the performance guarantee, the Central Government grants a formal permission, which is called LOP. Therefore, it is clear on the factual matrix in this case that in respect of the 5th respondent College the Central Government has issued LOP only from the academic year 2006-2007, as it is seen in the order dated 13.1.2006 elicited supra and therefore, the admission of the petitioner in the 5th respondent College in the year 2004-2006 for M.D. (Paediatrics) course can never be held to be valid in the eye of law. 25. It is only on understanding the same, the petitioner has chosen to file an affidavit dated 23.3.2008 stating that the course which he has undergone during 2004-2006 in the 5th respondent College should be deemed to be the course undergone by him in the year 2006-2008, the period for which LOP was granted to the 5th respondent College by the Central Government. I am unable to accept the said contention made by the learned senior counsel in this regard for more than one reason. First of all, by accepting the above said contention it would mean that the LOP granted by the Central Government to the 5th respondent College on 13.1.2006 is made applicable retrospectively from the year 2004-2006, which is not permissible. 26. Secondly, the contention that the course viz., M.D. (Paediatrics) stated to have been undergone by the petitioner in the 5th respondent College during the year 2004-2006 cannot be deemed to be an approved course, since during that relevant time there was no approval of such course at all to the 5th respondent College. It may be due to various reasons including that during that period there was no required infrastructure or teaching faculty to the satisfaction of Medical Council of India, as a result of which the Medical Council of India has not recommended to the Central Government for issuance of LOP from the year 2004-2005 to the 5th respondent College. It may be due to various reasons including that during that period there was no required infrastructure or teaching faculty to the satisfaction of Medical Council of India, as a result of which the Medical Council of India has not recommended to the Central Government for issuance of LOP from the year 2004-2005 to the 5th respondent College. Therefore, by permitting the course undertaken by the petitioner in the 5th respondent College in 2004-2006 to be deemed to be a course undertaken by him in 2006-2008 would make the entire provisions as enumerated above and the powers of the competent authority as nugatory. This would result in nullifying the very object of the Act, which is intended to maintain the minimum standard in medical education, both at graduation and post graduation level. 27. Thirdly, as admitted by the petitioner himself, he has joined back in his service after March, 2006 and therefore, admittedly, he cannot be even deemed to have undergone the course during 2006-2008 in the 5th respondent College, since he was in employment during the relevant point of time. The fact that the 5th respondent College or the Director of Medical Education has undertaken not to admit any student in the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 in M.D. (Paediatrics) to adjust the admission of the petitioner, cannot make such invalid admission of the petitioner in the 5th respondent College during the year 2004-2005 as valid. Merely because the 5th respondent or Director of Medical Education has kept the seat of M.D. (Paediatrics) in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 vacant, it does not confer any right on the petitioner to have completed this course in 2008, so as to enable him to write the supplemental examinations for the final year M.D. (Paediatrics). Admittedly, the affiliating University, viz., the 4th respondent has not granted affiliation to the 5th respondent during the period 2004-2006 and therefore, the course stated to have been undergone by the petitioner during that period in the 5th respondent College cannot be recognised by the University which has to confer degree. 28. Admittedly, the affiliating University, viz., the 4th respondent has not granted affiliation to the 5th respondent during the period 2004-2006 and therefore, the course stated to have been undergone by the petitioner during that period in the 5th respondent College cannot be recognised by the University which has to confer degree. 28. Lastly, the interim order passed by this Court itself is on specific condition that the result shall not be published and therefore, such permission granted to the petitioner to write examinations cannot be taken as a right granted to him to complete the course in the 5th respondent College during the time when it was admittedly not having approval from the Central Government, and such order permitting the petitioner to write examinations in March, 2006 can only be subject to the result in the writ petition. Inasmuch as, on facts, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the petitioner is deemed to have completed his M.D. (Paediatrics) in March 2008, when he has not actually undergone the course during 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in this writ petition followed by his undertaking filed by him in the additional affidavit on 23.3.2008. 29. The Supreme Court in Minor Sunil Oraon and Others v. CBSC Minor Sunil Oraon and Others v. CBSC Minor Sunil Oraon and Others v. CBSC 2007 (4) LW 97 has held that the practice of educational institutions admitting students without requisite recognition or affiliation should be deprecated though the ultimate victims are innocent students, which cannot be a ground for granting relief. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “ 23. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. A the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations.” 30. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations.” 30. Grant of affiliation by the University was elaborately dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in Rukmani College of Education v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (1) CTC 545 . In view of the above said factual and judicial dictum, this court can at the most show sympathy on the petitioner, who may not be certainly at fault as it is admitted by the Director of Medical Education, that a mistake has crept in admitting the petitioner, but that itself is not a ground for this Court to permit the petitioner to complete the course as claimed by him, which is totally against the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations, 1993 as enumerated above. 31. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Writ petition dismissed.