JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the intervenors, who claim to be similarly situated students of Post-graduate courses in medicine as the writ petitioners. 2. Petitioners took the Post-graduate medical admission test, 2006 and after being successful they have been admitted in degree course for various medical disciplines in Patna Medical College Hospital, which is under the Patna University. The usual session for the diploma courses of two years and degree courses of three years should have begun by 21st of April, 2006 so that by that time the examinations could be held in April in the 2nd and 3rd years, students should have completed two years teaching for diploma course or three years teaching for the degree course. The counselling and admissions suffered delay on account of stay order of the Honble Supreme Court. The second round of counselling and admissions for the diploma courses was done on 20th of June, 2006. In the case of petitioners who are in the degree courses the second round of counselling and admissions were held in between 6th of June, 2006 and 20th of June, 2006. 3. It appears that the concerned authority decided to permit only those students who were admitted on account of first counselling for both diploma courses as well as degree courses. 4. The affected students of diploma course approached this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 15801 of 2007 which was disposed of on 18.3.2008 by order contained in Annexure-4. Those petitioners were granted relief and allowed to appear for the diploma examinations of 2008 conducted by the Patna University and their results were directed to be declared in the light of their performance mainly on account of the fact that second counselling was delayed leading to admission by 20th June, 2006 on account of stay order of Honble Supreme Court. It was further noticed in that order that as per submissions the petitioners had prosecuted their course since their admission, to the satisfaction of all concerned and, therefore, they should not be deprived from taking the examination on account of few days delay due to stay order of the Supreme Court. 5. It was further noticed in that order that as per submissions the petitioners had prosecuted their course since their admission, to the satisfaction of all concerned and, therefore, they should not be deprived from taking the examination on account of few days delay due to stay order of the Supreme Court. 5. On behalf of petitioners, it has been submitted that on account of interim order passed by this Court on 22.9.2008 the University has accepted the thesis of the petitioners before the last date i.e. 30th of September, 2008. It has been further submitted that as would appear from the order of the University dated 15.12.2008 contained in Annexure-A which has been challenged by the petitioners through I.A. No. 13 of 2009, the University has turned down the request for allowing the petitioners to take the examination of April, 2009 only on the ground of provisions in the regulation which require that the course for taking the degree examination is of three years. It has been submitted that none of the concerned authority has expressed any reservation on the ground that petitioners have not prosecuted their course to the satisfaction of all concerned and cannot take the examination on account of non- completion of the course on account of few days delay in second counselling and admission. 6. On behalf of University, it was pointed out that the University has the responsibility to act as per regulations and in the case of students of diploma course which was allowed by a judgment and order by this Court (Annexure-4), it was noticed that there was delay in admission not only of those petitioners but also of those who were admitted pursuant to first counselling, so far as diploma course is concerned. 7. Having considered the relevant facts and submissions of the parties this Court is of the view that in the present context the only difference in the diploma course and degree course is that for one the duration is of two years and for the other the duration is of three years. The requirement of regulations are similar except for the aforesaid difference in the duration of the course. The delay in second counselling for diploma and the degree course is almost identical and for the same reason, that is, stay order of the Honble Supreme Court. The requirement of regulations are similar except for the aforesaid difference in the duration of the course. The delay in second counselling for diploma and the degree course is almost identical and for the same reason, that is, stay order of the Honble Supreme Court. Hence, it is found that like the students of diploma course, the petitioners should also not be made to suffer loss of one year for a small delay in petitioners admission on account of stay order of the Honble Supreme Court. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the University is directed to allow the petitioners and other similarly situated students like the intervenors to appear in the degree examination, 2009 conducted by the Patna University. It goes without saying that their results shall be published on the basis of their performance in the said examination.