Judgment :- Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 9.9.2011 - annexure L and 31.10.2011 - annexure M by the 1st respondent and also for a direction to the 1st respondent to permit her to complete DNB training programme in accordance with the allotment of seat made in her favour in the year 2006. Petitioner having completed MBBS course, having appeared for Common Entrance Test conducted by the National Board of Examination, was issued with a qualifying certificate to under take training leading to a degree/diploma of National Board and accordingly, she joined Kidwai Institute of Oncology and was admitted to DNB course in Radio Diagnosis. During September 2007, she suffered illness and under went intensive care treatment. Later, after marriage she had been to the United States of America and thereafter, there was some marital differences between her and her husband and she came back and, she was permitted to rejoin the course with effect from 14.7.2009. After eight months, 1st respondent by the impugned order, rejected the representation of the petitioner and has directed the 2nd respondent to relieve her from the course. That action had been questioned by the petitioner in WP 28123/2010. The said order was quashed and 1st respondent was directed to re-examine the matter in the light of observation made in the writ petition order. The case of the petitioner is, in similar circumstances, for continuation of the course after lapse of some time due to various reasons had been granted to two other persons, as such, petitioner having preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench, it was disposed of with a direction to consider the aspect within two months from September 2011. After the order in writ appeal, once again an order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for continuation of the course as per allotment made in the year 2006 on the score that petitioner had undergone only 14% training which has lost its significance. Heard the counsel representing the parties. It is the contention of the petitioner's counsel, in similar circumstances two others have been accommodated to pursue the course further after discontinuation due to various reasons and similarly, petitioner's case also should have been considered by the respondent authorities. Heard the counsel representing the parties. It is the contention of the petitioner's counsel, in similar circumstances two others have been accommodated to pursue the course further after discontinuation due to various reasons and similarly, petitioner's case also should have been considered by the respondent authorities. Counsel representing the respondent submitted that a decision would be taken on such representation if given once again by the petitioner and that would be pursuant to the law prevailing. The main ground on which the case of the petitioner has been rejected is that she joined the course in 2006 and had completed only 14% training which was said to be not sufficient. However, in the circumstances, if other persons have been accommodated, on the same analogy, petitioner's case could be considered once again to continue the course based on her admission during 2006 and appropriate decision could be taken by the respondent authorities to accommodate her, if found feasible, relaxing the rules. Ordered accordingly. Petition is disposed of.