Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Selection Committee represented by its Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, the first respondent herein to admit the petitioner in the Post Graduate Degree Course in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis). 2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner completed Under Graduate degree in Medicine-M.B.B.S. in the year 2004 at Madras Medical College, Chennai and after completion of the course, the petitioner attended the selection test conducted by the TNPSC in the year 2005 and got selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon under the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. He was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Primary Health Centre, Mullandram in Tiruvannamalai District on 30.06.2006 and from the said date, he worked in the said centre till he joined in D.M.R.D., course in Madras Medical College. The selection for admission to the Post Graduate courses in medicine is conducted by the first respondent and the petitioner being a service candidate, applied for selection under the service candidate category and the petitioner is interested in undergoing Post Graduate degree in Radio Diagnosis. In January 2012, the application for admission to the Post Graduate/ Degree / Diploma courses were called for by the first respondent. The entrance examination was conducted on 04.03.2012 and in Clause 7 of the prospectus it is stated that (a) candidates who are undergoing Post Graduate 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 Course (including All India quota) are not eligible in the immediately succeeding academic year to apply for any Post Graduate/ 6 year M.Ch. Neurosurgery courses. 3. One Dr.Bagath Singh, who was a service candidate undergoing PG Diploma course in O & G for the year 2010-12had applied for PG degree course. The said Dr.K.Bagath Singh challenged the said clause 7 in W.P.No.2207 of 2012 and an interim order was granted on 31.01.2012 permitting him to write the entrance examination and thereafter, on 22.06.2012 another interim order was passed permitting him to join in M.D.(R.D.) course. The petitioner was wait listed in PG degree course of M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) and he was selected for Diploma Course (D.M.R.D.). The petitioner was wait listed in PG degree course of M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) and he was selected for Diploma Course (D.M.R.D.). The petitioner joined in the said PG Diploma course in Madras Medical College and undergoing the Diploma Course as on date. 4. The writ petition filed by the said Dr.K.Bagath Singh was dismissed by this Court on 02.08.2012. The said order was accepted by Dr.K.Bagath Singh and the same has become final. Thus, he is not attending M.D. (R.D.) course. 5. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner being placed in Sl.No.1 in the waiting list for M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) course, submitted a representation on 03.08.2012 before the first respondent seeking admission in M.D.(R.D.). It was also pointed out in the representation that he is already undergoing D.M.R.D., PG Diploma course. No action being taken, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with the said prayer. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner who is pursuing D.M.R.D., course at Madras Medical College was wait listed for M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) course. He joined D.M.R.D., on 28.05.2012, i.e. before the last date of admission to Post Graduate Degree/ Diploma Courses for 2012-2012 session and the Government of Tamil Nadu was addressed to give necessary orders and direction regarding filling up of the vacancy now available in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis) and after getting orders, the next eligible candidate as per merits, will be selected. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the last date for admission to PG Degree courses being 31.05.2012, the petitioner even though is placed in the wait list Sl.No.1, who was denied admission due to the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by the said Dr.K.Bagath Singh, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be given admission in the PG. Degree course, even though he is undergoing PG diploma course in the same subject. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is found eligible as a service candidate and based on the marks secured by him in the entrance examination, he was placed in Sl.No.1 in the M.D.(R.D.) course and the petitioner was denied admission in the said course due to the writ petition filed by one Dr.K.Bagath Singh, whose writ petition was dismissed on 02.08.2012. The petitioner joined in D.M.R.D., Diploma course on 28.05.2012 and therefore, the petitioner's admission cannot be treated as a fresh admission after the last date. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AshaVs. PT.D.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors. reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 287 particularly paragraph-31, in support of his contention. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. There is no dispute regarding the admission of the petitioner in D.M.R.D. Diploma course on 28.05.2012 and placing his name in Sl.No.1 in the waiting list under the service candidate quota for selection to M.D.(R.D.) course. The only reason for not giving admission in M.D.(R.D.) was the writ petition filed by one Dr.K.Bagath Singh, which was ultimately dismissed on 02.08.2012. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 287 (cited supra), paragraph-31 reads as follows: "31.There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to a meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. Though there can be rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer Arti Sapru and Others v. State of J & K and Others [ (1981) 2 SCC 484 ]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director General Health Services [ (1994) 2 SCC 370 ]; and Aravind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 355 ]." (Emphasis supplied) 11. Here the petitioner is diligently pursuing his remedies. He got impleaded himself in the writ petition filed by Dr.K.Bagath Singh. The writ petition was dismissed on 02.08.2012. The petitioner submitted representation on 03.08.2012 and no action being taken for ten days, this writ petition was filed on 13.08.2012. Thus, the petitioner is properly prosecuting his legal remedies for getting admission. 12. Further, the petitioner is undergoing the Diploma course in the very same relevant subject (D.M. R.D.). Hence, his admission cannot be treated as a fresh admission in PG course and he only seeks to change the course from D.M.R.D., Diploma course to PG degree course in M.D. (R.D.). In such circumstance, the cut off date fixed by the Medical Council of India cannot be treated as breached while giving admission to the petitioner in M.D.(R.D.) course. 13. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent to forthwith give admission to the petitioner in M.D. (R.D.) course. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.