JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for a relief that he be permitted to change his Diploma Course of Pathology to Post Graduate Degree Course (Pathology) on a vacant seat. The petitioner passed M.B.B.S. examination in the Year 2009 from L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut. After completing internship, he appeared in All India Pre P.G. Examination held in the year 2012 from un-reserved category. He secured 6771 rank in the aforesaid examination of All India quota. He was allotted a seat of Diploma in Pathology at G.R. Medical College Gwalior for the academic session beginning from 2012 on the basis of his rank in all India Pre PG Examination. The respondent No. 4 was allotted M.D. seat in Pathology at G.R. Medical College Gwalior. She submitted her resignation on 14-6-2013 and the same was accepted by the Dean of G.R. Medical College vide order dated 17-6-2013. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is eligible to be transferred or allotted PG Pathology course on account of the vacancy occurred due to resignation of Ms. Monika Khare because the seat has fallen vacant. 3. The respondent/State and MCI opposed the prayer of the petitioner. They pleaded that the petitioner was granted admission in degree course in the year 2012 and Ms. Monika Khare was also allotted seat of P.G. Course of Pathology in 2012. She submitted her resignation in 2013, which was accepted in June 2013. Hence, the PG Seat of 2012 could not be said to be fallen vacant in the year 2013, there was no vacancy or vacant seat of PG in the year 2012 and the petitioner was admitted in Diploma Course in 2012, hence, he has no right for transfer of his seat from Diploma to Degree course in the year 2013. It is also pleaded by the respondents that in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. It is also pleaded by the respondents that in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 , Medical counsel of India has fixed time schedule and as per the aforesaid time schedule and in accordance with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India named as PG Medical Education Regulations 2000 and as per the amendment made in the Regulations on 23-03-2006, last date of admission is 30th September of the particular year and after that period no candidate could be permitted to take admission in the Post Graduate course. 4. The State Government has framed rules in regard to entrance in Post Graduate MD course and Post Graduate Diploma in the State of M.P. The rules are called as Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Tata Dental Chikitsa Snatkottar Pathyakram Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2012" (hereinafter referred to Rules of 2012). In accordance with the aforesaid rules, the entrance examination shall be conducted for the aforesaid purpose by M.P. Professional Examination Board. Rule 22 of the aforesaid rules prescribes time schedule in regard to admission. In accordance with the aforesaid rules, the last date of admission is 31st May 2012. It is further mentioned in the Rules of 2012 that the admission in Post Graduate Course would be governed by the rules framed by Medical Council of India. 5. Respondent No. 5-Medical Council of India constituted under the provisions of India Medial Council Act 1956 has also framed Regulations under Section 33 of the Act of 1956 with the prior approval of Union of India, named as the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000. Clause 9 of the aforesaid regulations prescribes selection of post graduate students. It is as under:- Clause 9 under the heading "Section of Postgraduate Students" shall be substituted as under:- (1) (a) Students for post Graduate medial courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their inter-se academic Merit. (b) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas. (b) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas. (2) For determining the 'Academic Merit,' the University/Institution may adopt the following methodology: (a) On the basis of merit as determined by a 'Competitive Test' conducted by the state government or by the competent authority appointed by the state government or by the university/group of universities in the same state; or (b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralized competitive test held at the national level; or (c) On the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations provided admissions are University wise. (d) Combination of (a) and (c) Provided that wherever 'Entrance Test' for postgraduate admission is held by a state government or a university or any other authorized examining body the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical course shall be 50 percent for general category candidates and 40 percent for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.... 6. Class 10 of the aforesaid Regulations prescribes period of training and in accordance with the aforesaid clause, the period of training of Master Degree is three years and period of training of Pathology Diploma is two years. Vide amendment in the Regulations in 2006, the Medical Council of India fixed time schedule for completion of admission process for post graduate medical courses. The aforesaid time schedule is as under:- Time Schedule for completion of admission process for postgraduate medical courses. NOTE:- Head of the Colleges should intimate the vacancies existing after the last date for joining the course by the candidate concerned in respect of the All India Quota of seats to the DGHS within seven days and latest by 6th April for postgraduate courses and 23rd July for super-specialty courses. 7. In accordance with the aforesaid time schedule, last date of admission against vacancies arising due to any reason from the waiting list is 30th September. After the aforesaid period, no candidate is permitted to take admission in the course. 8. 7. In accordance with the aforesaid time schedule, last date of admission against vacancies arising due to any reason from the waiting list is 30th September. After the aforesaid period, no candidate is permitted to take admission in the course. 8. In the present case, the seat in M.D. (Pathology) course, which was of 2012 year, had fallen vacant on 17th June 2013. The petitioner was admitted in Pathology Diploma Course in the year 2012. He wants admission and change of seat in MD (Pathology) after June 2013. Admittedly, the aforesaid date is contrary to the last date fixed by the MCI as 30th Sept. 2012. It is also contrary to the Rules of 2012 framed by the State Government. In accordance with the aforesaid rules, the last date of admission is 31.5.2012. 9. Another question in this regard is that the petitioner was granted admission in Diploma of Pathology from All India quota and the seat of MD in Pathology after resignation of Ms. Monika Khare is of State quota. As per the regulations of MCI, the post graduate seats have to be filled up to 50% from State quota and 50% on the basis of All India quota, so this is not the seat of All India Quota. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Pradhan Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 514 has considered Rule 10 of State Rules framed by the State of M.P. under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The relevant rule is as under:- 10. The seats available in any particular year will be filled up in that year. No candidates will be admitted against the seats remaining vacant from previous year. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Pradhan (supra) held as under:- 8. On a plain construction, Rule 10 is in two parts. The power to admit a student under the first part arises when a seat falls vacant in a particular year. The words 'filled up in that year' necessarily qualify the preceding words 'the seats available in any particular year'. It must logically follow that a necessary concomitant of the power under the first part of Rule 10 is the 'availability' of the seat being filled up in the academic year to which it pertains. The words 'filled up in that year' necessarily qualify the preceding words 'the seats available in any particular year'. It must logically follow that a necessary concomitant of the power under the first part of Rule 10 is the 'availability' of the seat being filled up in the academic year to which it pertains. The words 'filled up in that year' which follow clearly imply that the vacancy cannot be carried over to the next academic year or Rule 10 which, by the use of negative language, clearly creates a bar against the seat being filled up in the next or succeeding academic year. What is implicit in the first part of Rule 10 is made explicit in the second part. The use of the negative words in the second part 'No candidates will be admitted... etc.' are clearly prohibitory in nature and exclude the applicability of the carry-forward rule. It follows that if a seat falls vacant for any reason, namely, that the 4 candidate selected in order of merit does not join the PG course in MD/Ms in a medical college or by reason of his death or otherwise, and due to inaction on the part of the authorities the seat is not filled up in the academic year to which it pertains, there is no question of the vacancy being carried forward to the next academic year. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has specifically held that if a seat could not be filled up in the particular medical year, to which it pertains, there is no question of vacancy being carried forward to the next academic year. 12. Ms. Monika Khare resigned in June 2013, hence, it could not be held that the vacancy in post graduate course of Pathology which had fallen vacant in 2012 could not be filled up in 2013. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of decisions viz. Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India - (2005) 2 SCC 65 and Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh - (2012) 7 SCC 433 has held that the time schedule fixed under the MCI Regulations for admission to various courses shall be followed strictly. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433 has held as under in regard to time schedule:- 33. State of Chhattisgarh - (2012) 7 SCC 433 has held that the time schedule fixed under the MCI Regulations for admission to various courses shall be followed strictly. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433 has held as under in regard to time schedule:- 33. Lastly, in Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India, this Court cautioned all concerned that the Schedule specified in Mridul Dhar should be maintained and the Regulations should be strictly followed. The Court suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time for setting right the deficiencies pointed out. 34. In State of Bihar & Others v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, a Bench of this Court took exception to the non-adherence to the time schedules and reiterated that the admissions to medical colleges and post-graduate courses were governed by the orders of this Court and the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, which must be strictly followed. This Court issued a warning, that if there was any violation in future, the same shall be treated as default and viewed very seriously. 35. Further, in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, this Court declared two very important principles. Firstly, it declared that midstream admissions should not be permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of compassion in review of such admissions, this Court also held that late or midstream admission, even just four months after beginning of the classes, cannot be permitted. 36. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these standards cannot be deviated from. Reference can be made to State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, (2003) 7 SCC 258 paras 24 and 26; Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 11 SCC 755 paras 20; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 3 SCC 617 paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18 and Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava, (2003) 8 SCC 69 -paras 14 to 21. 39. Now, let us examine the adverse consequences of non-adherence to the prescribed schedules. 40. 39. Now, let us examine the adverse consequences of non-adherence to the prescribed schedules. 40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, University or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counselling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has clearly held that the authorities have no vested power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, hence, this court has no such power in this regard. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on an unreported judgment delivered by this court in Dr. Shahina Bano Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 28437/2003). In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was placed at S. No. 137 of the merit list of the year 2002 and she prayed that she be permitted to change the seat which had fallen vacant in Doctor of Medicine, Radio Diagnosis at same Medical College. Learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and further observed that one year period, which the petitioner prosecuted as student of Diploma course, shall be given due adjustment in degree course. In passing the aforesaid order, the court has relied on an earlier order passed by this court in Dr. S. Nitin Vs. State of M.P. and another (W.P. No. 1520 of 2002). At that time, there was no time schedule in regard to last date of admission in PG course neither there was any regulation framed at that time by the MCI. S. Nitin Vs. State of M.P. and another (W.P. No. 1520 of 2002). At that time, there was no time schedule in regard to last date of admission in PG course neither there was any regulation framed at that time by the MCI. In the present case, MCI has framed the regulations and in accordance with the aforesaid regulations, the admission in Post Graduate Course is not permissible against vacant seat in any circumstance after 30th Sept. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that no authority has power to relax time schedule, hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cited by the learned counsel does not help him. Against the aforesaid judgment, a writ appeal was also filed and the Division Bench vide order dt. 25.8.2004 disposed of the writ appeal and modified the directions issued by the writ court and directed that the Director of Medical Education shall consider the case of respondent No. 1 Dr. Shahina Bano in regard to her claim for admission to the seat of MD Radio-diagnosis vacated by Dr. Mahendra Badole in accordance with the rules. It means that the Division Bench has modified the order and has not decided any point or question of law. 17. It is well settled principle of law that a decision is an authority to the point it decides. It is equally well settled that the text of decision can not be read as if it were a statute [Heinz India (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 443 ]. 18. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not what flows from it. 19. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, subsequently was modified by the Division Bench. In the aforesaid order, no principle of law has been decided in view of the regulations framed by the MCI and the Rules framed by the State Govt. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.