JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. Three petitioners before this Court are students of Masters of Physiotherapy (M.P. Th.I) (by research) with respondent No. 3 University. They have been granted enrollment as such in the year 2003 and completed their research in 2008. Evaluation of that thesis was undertaken by respondent No. 3 University and part of Viva-voce is also over. Only one external examiner has still to complete Viva and thereafter the performance of the petitioners would have been finally scrutinized/evaluated to find out whether the masters degree can be conferred upon them. 2. It is at that juncture that provisions of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to 1998 Act) came to be amended by issuing Ordinance No. XXXX of 2010 on 5th October, 2010. By said Ordinance section 94 of 1998 Act came to be substituted. Because of this amendment, respondent No. 3 University is now not in a position to confer masters degree or even to complete the evaluation process of the petitioners for said purpose. 3. Amended provisions require Petitioners to approach respondent No. 2 Health University for said degree. The curriculum of respondent No. 2 for said course is entirely different. It does not envisage masters degree by research i.e. on the strength of thesis. It is a three years course part of which consists even written examination. 4. In this background, Advocate Kulkarni invites our attention to facts on record. According to him, after 1998 for valid reasons Post Graduate degree courses and diploma courses, both, were handed over back to Traditional Universities and those Universities were exclusively competent to award Post Graduate qualification. This situation continued till 2005. In 2005 as respondent No. 2 Health University got its own undergraduate students ready for postgraduate admission, it also started Post Graduate courses but then students undertaking education in those courses with Traditional Universities were not disturbed. He contends that in this situation, respondent No. 3 University should be permitted to complete the remaining very small part of evaluation and petitioners' entire performance should be then completed by it to find out their entitlement to Post Graduate degree. In the alternative, he states that business left incomplete by respondent No. 3 should be completed by respondent No. 2 by adopting relevant Ordinance of respondent No. 3 University. 5. In the alternative, he states that business left incomplete by respondent No. 3 should be completed by respondent No. 2 by adopting relevant Ordinance of respondent No. 3 University. 5. Learned Government Pleader invites our attention to various amendments made to 1998 Act after 1998 and more precisely in the year 2001, 2005 and lastly 2010. She submits that Traditional Universities were empowered because of peculiar situation then prevailing and it was only a transitory measure. The Health University got sufficient time to prepare itself for Post Graduate courses and interest of students were also safeguarded by giving them time of over ten years. She submits that provisions of section 94 substituted by 2010 amendment must now operate and as there is no challenge to constitutionality and legality of any provision, petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Advocate Ghurde for respondent No. 3 University submits that respondent No. 3 is bound by the statutory provisions. 7. Advocate Malokar for respondent No. 2 University also submits that respondent No. 2 University is bound by provisions of section 94 of 1998 Act and it cannot therefore examine performance of petitioners in part. 8. Perusal of first amendment carried out vide Maharashtra Act No. XXIX of 2001 to 1998 Act shows that sub-section (4) came to be added to its section 6. The education in Post Graduate degrees in Medical, Dental, Ayurved, Unani and Homoeopathy Sciences and all students enrolled or to be enrolled by respective Colleges or Institutions for such Post Graduate courses were re-admitted to the privileges and their colleges were re-affiliated to respective Traditional Universities specified in Schedule to the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. This re-admission or affiliation was till Post Graduate degrees to be granted by Health Universities were recognized by Central Government on recommendations of Medical Council of India. A proviso thereto also mentions that such re-admission or re-affiliation shall not be revoked or withdrawn or in any way changed by the State Government or any other authority till those students have acquired such Post Graduate degrees from their respective universities under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. This is a significant material arrangement in present controversy. 9. By Maharashtra Ordinance No. L of 2005 which has later on became an Act, the said sub-sections (4) and (5) came to be deleted. This is a significant material arrangement in present controversy. 9. By Maharashtra Ordinance No. L of 2005 which has later on became an Act, the said sub-sections (4) and (5) came to be deleted. Instead, section 3 of the Amendment Act provide that notwithstanding such deletion, all colleges affiliated to Universities specified in the Schedule to the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 on or before the date of coming into force of the said Ordinance and all students who, on the said date stood enrolled, by such colleges or institutions for Post Graduate Degree or Diploma shall, so far as such Post Graduate Degrees or Diplomas are concerned, continue to be affiliated to or admitted to the privileges of, their respective Universities specified in the Schedule to the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, until those students have acquired such Post Graduate Degrees or Diplomas from their respective Universities under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The "SOR" of this Ordinance 2005 shows that undergraduate students of Health University had passed their examinations from said University and Health University found it necessary to protect their interest and to ensure their academic career. Thus, earlier it was not legal and possible for Health University to conduct the postgraduate degree or diploma courses and hence, students were protected by permitting them to take that education with Traditional Universities. Hence, when Health University could start these courses, the State Legislature again protected the career of students by permitting them to complete the incomplete course with Traditional Universities. 10. Thus, this amendment made in 2005 in effect deleted sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) earlier added to section 6. Hence, thereafter Traditional Universities could not have enrolled any students for Post Graduate Degree or Diploma. However, interest of students already enrolled were protected by continuing affiliation or admission, "until those students have acquired such Post Graduate Degrees of Diplomas". 11. This position continued till Ordinance No. 14/2010 came into force on 5th October 2004. The Ordinance has now become Act No. XXXV of 2010. 12. By said Act, the Government has substituted old section 94 with new section 94. New section 94reads as under:-- "94. 11. This position continued till Ordinance No. 14/2010 came into force on 5th October 2004. The Ordinance has now become Act No. XXXV of 2010. 12. By said Act, the Government has substituted old section 94 with new section 94. New section 94reads as under:-- "94. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or rules, any student, who immediately prior to the date of commencement of this Act and on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 was studying for a degree in Health Sciences in any of the Universities specified in the Schedule to this Act, shall be deemed to be the student of the University". 13. To understand implication flowing from this substitution, look at old section 94 becomes necessary. Old section reads as under :-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or Rules,-- (a) any student who immediately prior to the date of commencement of this Act was studying for a degree in Health Sciences in any of the Universities specified in the Schedule to this Act be conferred degree in Health Sciences of the respective Universities for which he qualifies on the result of such examination; (b) If any of the University specified in the Schedule to this Act, has held any examination in Health Sciences, the result of which has been published but the degrees relating thereto have not been conferred or issued or the result of any such examination has not been published by the said University, then such examination shall be deemed to have been held by such University under this Act, and it shall be competent to confer or issue such degrees and to declare results of such examinations". 14. Thus, old section 94 which appeared in 1998 Act itself was a transitory provision which protected students, who were studying for a degree in Health Sciences in any of the Universities prior to its commencement i.e. prior to 21st January 1999 i.e. prior to formation of Health University. It also protected and recognized examination already conducted by such Universities. In contrast, new section 94, which opens with a non obstante clause specifically authorizes only Health University to conduct such courses and examinations. It also protected and recognized examination already conducted by such Universities. In contrast, new section 94, which opens with a non obstante clause specifically authorizes only Health University to conduct such courses and examinations. Said section contemplates that every student, who immediately prior to date of commencement of "This Act" and on the date of commencement of 2010 Ordinance was studying for degree in Health Science in any of the Universities specified in Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to be student of the University i.e. Health University. Admittedly, Ordinance L of 2010 or Act No. 35 of 2010 does not add any University to the Schedule appended to 1998 Act. Section 94 at its opening also uses the word "In the Act". Therefore, after coming into force new section 94 all students who were immediately prior to the date of commencement of 1998 Act, were students of traditional Universities specified in Schedule and also students, who on the date of commencement of 2010 Ordinance, were the students of such Universities, are deemed students of Health University. Thus, students like petitioners are automatically shifted to Health University. 15. In view of this clear statutory provision, it is apparent that intention was not to wipe out protection given to students of Traditional Universities or colleges affiliated to such Traditional Universities vide sub-sections (4) and (5). Treatment extended to them in past is duly given credit by accepting them as students of Health University. Petitioners, therefore, have also become students of respondent No. 2 Health University. Petitioners are not at fault anywhere and no notice was given to them that they should clear their examination or complete their studies with Traditional University within particular number of chances or else their entire past labour or work would be permanently lost. State Legislature, having always taken care of interest of students like petitioners, it cannot be presumed that after coming into force of new S. 94 of 1998 Act, they are the victims. 16. These provisions do not show an interaction to victimize students or to wipe out their education with Traditional Universities. Principles like estoppel, equity and fair-play all require or expect respondents to strive for ensuring the career of petitioners. 16. These provisions do not show an interaction to victimize students or to wipe out their education with Traditional Universities. Principles like estoppel, equity and fair-play all require or expect respondents to strive for ensuring the career of petitioners. In this situation, we find that respondents 1 and 2 have right from year 2000 acted in best interest of the students and arrangements made earlier and in vogue till Act No. XXXV of 2010 came into force are aimed at protecting their education and prospects. From the date of said change, petitioners have become students of respondent No. 2-University by operation of law. We, therefore, find that in this situation, respondent No. 2 University cannot discard the education which petitioners have completed with respondent No. 3 University. Respondent No. 2 is obliged to continue and complete their course. Therefore, it has to give education undertaken by petitioners with the Traditional University, appropriate weightage and find out how the remaining exercise of revaluation can be completed in accordance with law. If necessary for that purpose respondent No. 2 may take aid of the relevant Ordinance or procedure of respondent No. 3 University regulating petitioners' education. In this situation, with direction to respondents 1 and 2 to work out appropriate further steps or via media as per law within three months from today, we partly allow the petition accordingly. No costs. Petition Partly Allowed.