Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, declaring Clause 7b of the Post Graduate Degree / Diploma MDS / 6 year M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery) Courses prospectus for the year 2012-2013 for admission to Tamil Nadu Government Medical / Dental Colleges, to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to consider the application of petitioner, who is undergoing the PG diploma course during the year 2010-2012, and thereby permit the petitioner to write the entrance examination scheduled to be held on 04.03.2012. 2. This Court, vide order dated 31.01.2012, had permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and selection, subject to result of this writ petition. 3. It is submitted by petitioner; i) That the petitioner passed his MBBS in the year 2002 and joined as contract Medical consultant during 17.10.2005 to 26.06.2006. The service of petitioner was regularized in November 2006. The petitioner was subsequently selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Civil Surgeon. ii) That the petitioner appeared for the Tamil Nadu Post Graduate Medical Entrance Exam and was selected to undergo two years PG Diploma (DGO) Course at the Government Medical College, Chennai. At the time of joining the PG Diploma course, the petitioner executed a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), undertaking that after completion of the present PG Diploma Course, he shall serve the rural areas with the Government of Tamil Nadu till superannuation. iii) That the petitioner as on date has put in 6 years of Government Service, therefore, is eligible to apply for PG Degree course as a service candidate. iv) That Clause 7B of the Prospectus issued for PG entrance exam 2010, read as under: "Candidates who are undergoing a who is undergoing a Post Graduate Degree / PG Diploma / are not eligible to apply for any Post Graduate Degree / Diploma Course / Five Years Mch (Neuro-Surgery) Courses. However candidates who are completing the Diploma Courses on or before 31.03.2010 are eligible to apply and they have to enclose a certificate from head of institution that they will be completing their course on or before 31.03.2010 failing which their application will be rejected. However candidates who are completing the Diploma Courses on or before 31.03.2010 are eligible to apply and they have to enclose a certificate from head of institution that they will be completing their course on or before 31.03.2010 failing which their application will be rejected. They must produce pass certificate at the time of counseling." v) That Clause 7B of the Prospectus issued for the year 2010, shows, that the policy of respondent no.1 was to enable the candidates, who are completing the Diploma course during the academic year to be eligible for PG Diploma Course in the same academic year. It was on the representation as projected in the prospectus for that Medical PG entrance examination 2010, that the petitioner joined the PG Diploma Course with the expectation that he will be eligible to apply for PG Degree Course as a service candidate for the academic year 2012-2013. vi) That the same eligibility condition was stipulated for the year 2012-2012. vii) That some of the candidates undergoing Diploma Course during the year 2009-2011 filed representation with the respondent no.1, that the PG Diploma course would be over on 29.04.2011, as the courses commenced only on 01.05.2009, therefore, it will not be possible for them to complete the course on or before 31.03.2011 to be eligible for PG Medical entrance exam. viii) That respondent no.1 considered the representation favourably and permitted the Diploma candidates of the year 2009-2011 to apply for the academic year 2011-2012, in spite of the fact that their results were published only in the month of May 2011. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of this fact, as respondent no.1 did not have any jurisdiction to change the eligibility condition, as given in prospectus, as the prospectus has force of law. The eligibility condition laid therein was not only binding on the candidates, but was equally binding on the respondents. ix) That in the prospectus for the year 2012-2013, the candidate, who is completing Diploma course (including All India quota) has been made ineligible to apply for the Post Graduate Degree / 6 year M.Ch Neurosurgery courses in the immediately succeeding academic year. The eligibility condition reads as under: "7.a. Candidates who are undergoing a Postgraduate Degree / PG Diploma / 6 year M.Ch Neurosurgery / MDS course are not eligible to apply for any Post Graduate Degree / Diploma Course / 6 year M.Ch. The eligibility condition reads as under: "7.a. Candidates who are undergoing a Postgraduate Degree / PG Diploma / 6 year M.Ch Neurosurgery / MDS course are not eligible to apply for any Post Graduate Degree / Diploma Course / 6 year M.Ch. (Neurosurgery) / MDS Courses. b. Candidates who are completing a Diploma (including All India Quota) are not eligible in the immediately succeeding academic year to apply for any Post Graduate Degree / 6 year M.Ch.Neurosurgery courses." x) That the prospectus for the year 2012-2013 results in making the petitioner ineligible to apply for PG Degree courses for the yea 2012-2013, as the petitioner would be completing his Diploma Course only in the year 2010-2012, that too by end of April 2012. xi) That the condition has been imposed inspite of the fact, that the eligibility for appearance in the Post Graduate degree entrance exam is only MBBS. 4. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 7b of the Prospectus reproduced above, on the ground of legitimate expectation, on the plea that when the petitioner joined the Diploma Course for the year 2012-2013, he was eligible to compete for admission to PG Degree course for the year 2012-2013, therefore, it was not open to the respondent to change the policy to the detriment of petitioner. 5. That the Clause is discriminatory, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the service candidates, who completed PG Diploma Courses in the last year were eligible to compete for the degree course on the year of passing of Diploma, but for this year, a candidate has been made ineligible. 6. That it is not open to the respondents to change the rules after the petitioner had commenced the Diploma course, on the ground, that it is not open to the respondents to change the rule of the game, after the game has commenced. In support thereof, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51 . The ground raised is, that the respondents are estopped from altering the eligibility criteria, which was followed in the previous years. 7. In support thereof, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51 . The ground raised is, that the respondents are estopped from altering the eligibility criteria, which was followed in the previous years. 7. That the impugned clause of the prospectus is contradictory, as according to the eligibility condition, any candidate having qualification of MBBS is competent to compete for the examination and vide impugned condition, the eligible candidate has been made ineligible. The condition, therefore, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is opposed by the 1st respondent by submitting, that the writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable in law. The submission of respondent no.1 is, that the eligibility criteria for the rules have not been altered by the authorities in the middle or after the selection process as commenced. It is submitted by the 1st respondent, that the eligibility conditions was stipulated in prospectus, when it was originally issued inviting applications. 9. It is the stand of respondent no.1, that the Government of Tamil Nadu can determine the eligibility criteria for admission of candidates, so that the Doctors, who undergo courses, are best suited to the need of the State. It is stated, that the service candidates have already executed a bond before taking up the Post Graduate Diploma Course, that they will serve the Government of Tamil Nadu till superannuation. 10. Whereas non service candidates executed a bond to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for not less than two years after completing the PG courses. 11. It is submitted by respondent no.1, that the services of candidates with Diploma qualification in various specialities is extremely essential in the 1539 Primary Health Centres 323 District Headquarters Hospitals, 216 Dispensaries and 125 CeMONC centres to serve the poor and the needy rural population of the State. It is also submitted, that even as per the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 under Clause 9, it is stipulated, that after acquiring PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two years in remote / difficult areas. 12. It is also submitted, that even as per the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 under Clause 9, it is stipulated, that after acquiring PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two years in remote / difficult areas. 12. It is pleaded, that in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.14489 dated 05.08.2011, service of the specialized Doctors are required not only in cities, but also in the rural areas. 13. The case of respondent no.1 is that keeping in view the fact, that the Post Graduate Degree is very essential to further career of the Doctors, both in teaching and non teaching posts and as a special consideration, in the prospectus for PG Degree / Diploma / 6 years Mch (Neurosurgery) MDS for 2012-2013 session, the Government has permitted the candidates, who have completed the Diploma Courses in Government Medical colleges, to apply for Post Graduate Degree Course, by reducing the wait period to only one year. 14. It is also submitted byrespondent no.1, that one year of service has been made mandatory for the candidates undertaking Diploma course taking into consideration the fact, that only MBBS qualification is essential to apply for PG Degree Course. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that in the prospectus for the year 2011-2013, the eligibility to compete is MBBS/BDS degree and that the person should be citizen of India and should have undergone MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Tamil Nadu. 16. The petitioner fulfilled all the conditions, as he is admittedly MBBS from the State of Tamil Nadu. 17. it is further contended, that the fact, that the petitioner is eligible to compete is also clear from Clause 8, which clearly stipulates, that the candidate, who is Diploma Holder, though not eligible to apply for another Diploma course, but he can apply for any Post Graduate Degree Course. 18. The petitioner has only been made ineligible under Clause 7b of the prospectus reproduced above, by imposing condition, that the candidate during Diploma Course cannot apply for admission in the same year, i.e. 2012-2013. It is contended, that this stipulation is totally arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. 18. The petitioner has only been made ineligible under Clause 7b of the prospectus reproduced above, by imposing condition, that the candidate during Diploma Course cannot apply for admission in the same year, i.e. 2012-2013. It is contended, that this stipulation is totally arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended upto March 2012, by the Medical Council of India, regarding Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, wherein again the eligibility condition is only MBBS degree or equivalent, subject to candidate having been registered with the Medical Council of India or any of the State Medical Council. The petitioner fulfils all these eligibility conditions. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the amendment notification, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was the basis for the State Government to incorporate Clause 7b in the prospectus, which reads as under: "4.) Clause 9 subclause III, under the heading 'SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS, as amended vide notification No.MCI.18(1)/2010-Med/49070 dated 21st December 2010, following shall be substituted as under. "In order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate course in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses' held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates as provided in clause 9(II) above with locomotory disability of lower limbs, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All India common merit list in 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses. Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to Post Graduate Courses, the Central Government in consultation with Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only." 21. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that this notification itself makes it clear, that this shall be applicable from the academic year commencing from 2013-2014, therefore, the condition Clause 7b in prospectus is outcome of misreading of this notification. Therefore, impugned clause, on the face of it is arbitrary, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve,(supra), to contend that it was not open to the respondents to change the rules of a game after it has been played. 23. The contention was that on the date, when the petitioner joined the Diploma Course there was no stipulation that he would not be entitled to compete for the Post Graduate degree in the same year of passing, therefore, the respondents in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are now debarred to impose impugned condition Clause 7b in the prospectus. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12065 of 2011 (Dr.M.Leelavathy vs. The Secretary) decided on 19.07.2011, wherein this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner in that writ for admission to M.S.(General Surgery) without producing of diploma pass certificate, in view of the fact, that the eligibility condition for admission to PG degree course is only MBBS, therefore, State could not insist on production of diploma pass certificate. 25. This judgment has no relevance whatsoever to the point in issue, as the petitioner has not been asked to produce the diploma pass certificate for being eligible to compete for M.D. Degree. 26. Learned counsel for the State opposed the writ petition, on the ground, that the condition has been imposed as per the requirement of the State for posting qualified Doctors to the rural areas. 27. It was also the contention of learned counsel for the respondents, that it is for the State Government and the expert bodies to lay down eligibility condition for admission, it is not open to petitioner to challenge it, as the condition cannot be said to be arbitrary. The condition does not bar the petitioner from higher education for ever, but only regulates the admission keeping in view the requirement of the State. The condition does not bar the petitioner from higher education for ever, but only regulates the admission keeping in view the requirement of the State. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of the respondent, therefore, cannot claim right of higher education without permission of the employer. 28. The newly added respondents also opposed this writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim estoppel in view of the prospectus for the previous years, as the petitioner was not eligible for admission as per prospectus issued for previous years, as he did not pass Diploma Course by cut off date, i.e. 30.03.2012. 29. The contention of learned counsel for the newly added respondents was, that it was for the respondent to fix cut off date and once the petitioner was not eligible, he cannot have any grievance. It was further contended, that the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the action of respondent in permitting some candidates for admission in violation of the prospectus, as the order of the Government was totally illegal, as the State had no right to change the criteria after the candidates were allowed to compete, as per the settled law, that the eligibility condition cannot be changed after the game had begun. 30. It is also contention of learned counsel for the newly added respondents, that the petitioner cannot contend the violation of Article 14 and 16, as no candidate, who is completing Diploma this year was allowed to compete for admission to Post Graduate Degree. 31. It may be noticed here, that learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted, that the petitioner is willing to give an affidavit to serve the State Government till the age of superannuation, and also to take up additional rural service. 32. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. The first contention of the learned counsel, that impugned condition is arbitrary being outcome of misreading of Medical Council notification, though looks attractive on the face of it, but when seen in the context of counter, it has no legs to stand. 33. The learned counsel vehemently contended, that in the counter filed by the State the reason for laying down stipulation 7b in the prospectus is, that the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, have been amended, but reading of amended regulations, shows that it was made applicable for the year 2013-2014 admission only. 33. The learned counsel vehemently contended, that in the counter filed by the State the reason for laying down stipulation 7b in the prospectus is, that the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, have been amended, but reading of amended regulations, shows that it was made applicable for the year 2013-2014 admission only. As already noticed, this contention is outcome of misreading of the counter filed by the State. The reading of the counter shows, that Clause 7b is not included to comply with Medical Council Regulations, but in view of the requirement of qualified Doctors in 1539 Primary Health Centres, 323 District Headquarters Hospitals, 216 Dispensaries and 125 CeMONC centres to serve the poor and the needy rural population of the State. The prospectus has been framed in exercise of power vested in the State to regulate the admission, by laying down eligibility criteria. 34. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that Clause-7b of the prospectus is outcome of misreading of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 35. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned condition is violative of principle of "legitimate expectation" is also misconceived. Merely because, the prospectus for the earlier years laid down different eligibility condition, does not take away the right of the rule making authority to alter the eligibility condition. If this argument is accepted, then it will not be possible for Rule making authority to change the rules ever. The principle of "legitimate expectation" cannot be extended to cripple the right of rule making authority on misconceived expectations. The petitioner was fully aware, that prospectus is issued every year, which means that it was open to respondent to change eligibility condition. The expectation conceived by petitioner therefore was misconceived. 36. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner, that the rule of admission could not be changed midway after the process had begun, is misplaced. The rules of prospectus, which have the force of law, have not been changed and they stand as it was framed at the time of issuance of the prospectus. The petitioner is wrongly claiming the change of rules by relying on previous year prospectus, which has no bearing on the prospectus for the year 2012-2013, as every year new prospectus is issued. The petitioner is wrongly claiming the change of rules by relying on previous year prospectus, which has no bearing on the prospectus for the year 2012-2013, as every year new prospectus is issued. Otherwise also, the petitioner is not eligible even under the prospectus of previous years, as he did not complete Diploma before cut off date. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of relaxation in the previous years as the relaxation was contrary to prospectus. 37. The reading of the previous years' prospectus also shows, that the petitioner was not eligible for admission, as Diploma Course was to be over by cut off date. This Court is not concerned with this for the present, as the illegality, if any in relaxation of rules in the previous years' prospectus, as it has outlived its utility, as to no reference is required to be made to previous years' prospectus. 38. The plea of legitimate expectation also deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as the expectation was misplaced on presumption, that rules would continue. It is well settled, that prospectus or rules of admission can be changed by rule making authority depending on the requirement. 39. Otherwise also, the rule of "legitimate expectation" cannot take away the rights of rule making authority to make rules. 40. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that it was not open to the respondents to change the rule midway also deserves to be noticed to be rejected. The prospectus with Clause 7b was issued before commencement of admission process, which has not been changed. It is the petitioner, who is seeking admission in violation of prospectus, after admission process has started. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that this Court had permitted admission of some of the candidates in MBBS course, wherein similar stipulation was there, in view of the modification circular issued under the direction of this Court, to contend that the impugned condition in prospectus is bad in law. 42. This contention again deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as this Court in the said case, on the basis of acceptance of certain terms and conditions by the parties, disposed of the writ petition without deciding the constitutional validity of the rule, which was challenged in the writ petition. 43. The judgment, therefore, cannot be said to be a binding precedent to be followed by this Court. 44. 43. The judgment, therefore, cannot be said to be a binding precedent to be followed by this Court. 44. The condition Clause 7b as imposed, has nexus sought to be achieved, i.e., to use qualified Doctors for service of the public at large, therefore, this condition in the prospectus cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor the petitioner can claim right of legitimate expectation, as the prospectus is issued every year, and it is for the rule making authority to frame rules for admission of the candidates as per requirement. 45. The rule making power, being legislative power, does not fall under the judicial review of this Court, unless the rule is patently arbitrary or is violative of any statutory provisions of law. This Court also cannot direct the respondents to frame rules for admission in a particular manner. 46. Consequently, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. 47. No costs.