Judgment : Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice 1) Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.24252 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original respondents – Dr.N.T.R. Health University wherein the present respondents – original petitioners have been admitted for prosecuting their studies in the field of medicine. 2) By virtue of the impugned order, it has been directed that the result of the respondents – students should be declared as they had appeared at 1st year MBBS examination and, if found to be eligible upon passing the examination, they should be permitted to continue their studies for the 2nd year of MBBS. 3) Relevant facts necessary to decide the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: 4) Respondent Nos.1 to 6 – students were not given admission in the medical college and, therefore, they had filed Writ Petition No.21192 of 2008. By virtue of an interim order passed in the said writ petition, the appellants were directed to give admission to them. The admission given to the respondent – students is subject to final order which might be passed in the said petition and at the time of final hearing, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258 )is to be considered. The said petition is still pending for final hearing. 5) After respondent Nos.1 to 6 were given admission, they wanted to appear at the 1st year of MBBS examination, but they were not permitted to appear at the examination for the reason that their attendance was not sufficient as per the rules and regulations framed by Medical Council of India (for short, 'MCI'). 6) In the afore-stated circumstances, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 wherein it has been prayed that they should be permitted to appear at the 1st year MBBS examination. By an interim order dated 16.7.2009 passed in WPMP No.16596 of 2009, they were permitted to appear at the examination. However, it was directed that the result of the said examination should not be declared till further orders of this Court. By an interim order dated 16.7.2009 passed in WPMP No.16596 of 2009, they were permitted to appear at the examination. However, it was directed that the result of the said examination should not be declared till further orders of this Court. 7) It is, therefore, clear that though respondent Nos.1 to 6 had not undergone requisite training by putting in sufficient attendance, they were permitted to appear at the examination and accordingly they had appeared at the examination, but the result has not been declared. 8) Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed WPMP No.24252 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009 praying that the appellants be directed to declare their result of the 1st year MBBS examination. 9) By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to declare the result and, if they are found eligible upon passing the examination, to permit respondent Nos.1 to 6 to continue their studies in the 2nd year of MBBS. 10) The learned advocate appearing for the appellants – Dr.N.T.R. Health University has submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 6 were, in fact, not eligible to get admission after the expiry of the cut-off date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Singh(supra). However, by virtue of an interim order, the appellants were directed to give admission to the respondent students and accordingly they were given admission and the petition in which the afore-stated direction was given, is still pending. 11) It has been further submitted by him that according to the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, it is necessary to have 75% attendance, both in theory and practicals, so as to be eligible to appear at the examination and admittedly attendance of respondent Nos.1 to 6 is less than 75%. 12) The afore-stated fact could not be disputed by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent students, but their case is that because of the delay caused solely by the State Government in permitting respondent Nos.1 to 6 to be admitted into the medical course for which they were not responsible, the admission procedure had been delayed and, therefore, it was not possible for them to have 75% attendance. 13) Be that as it may, we are now not concerned with the said subject as the petition on the said subject is still pending. 13) Be that as it may, we are now not concerned with the said subject as the petition on the said subject is still pending. 14) It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that respondent Nos.1 to 6, while getting admission, have given an undertaking to the appellant institution that they would abide by the Regulations of the Medical Council of India with regard to the course duration and eligibility for university examinations. A copy of the said undertakings is at page 57 of the paper book. It has been, therefore, submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are bound by their undertaking and as they were not eligible to appear at the examination as per the MCI Regulations, their result cannot be declared. 15) On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 that in the interest of justice, the result should be declared because by permitting respondent Nos.1 to 6 to appear at the examination and by not declaring their result, substantial harm would be caused to them because they would not be in a position to get admission in the 2nd year of MBBS course. 16) The short question with which we are concerned at present is: whether the result of the respondents should be declared and if they have passed in the said examination, whether they should be permitted to get admission in the 2nd year of MBBS course? 17) Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that when respondent Nos.1 to 6 were permitted to appear at the examination, they appeared at the examination, but their result has been withheld; the learned Single Judge has directed that their result should be declared and if respondent Nos.1 to 6 are found eligible, they should be given admission to the 2nd year MBBS course. 18) Looking to the facts of the case, we direct that the result of respondent Nos.1 to 6 should be declared. The respondents, who have failed in the examination would not get any benefit, as they cannot get admission to the 2nd year of MBBS; but those who pass the examination be given admission to the 2nd year classes. 18) Looking to the facts of the case, we direct that the result of respondent Nos.1 to 6 should be declared. The respondents, who have failed in the examination would not get any benefit, as they cannot get admission to the 2nd year of MBBS; but those who pass the examination be given admission to the 2nd year classes. In giving this direction, we have kept in mind the balance of convenience in order to ensure that in the event of the students succeeding in the writ petitions, they will not be made to loose one academic year or a part thereof. We further clarify that in giving the above direction we have not expressed any opinion on merits. The respondents – students are not entitled to claim any equities whatsoever only on account of their being permitted to attend 2nd year classes. 19) So far as the respondents, who have failed in the examination are concerned, they should be asked to have, in all, 75% of attendance so that they may be permitted to appear at the ensuing 1st year MBBS examination. 20) Needless to say that this arrangement will be subject to the final orders that may be passed in Writ Petition No.21192 of 2008, which is pending adjudication and which relates to admission of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and other students. The appellants are permitted to move the appropriate Bench for early disposal of Writ Petition No.21192 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.12816 of 2009. 21) The impugned order stands modified accordingly and the writ appeal is allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.