Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come forward with these petitions, seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to issue Hall Ticket to the petitioners to appear in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination seeking admission to P.G.Degree/Diploma/6 years M.Ch (Neurosurgery) Course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges scheduled on 01.03.2015 at Chennai. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.2568 of 2015 as follows: i) It is submitted by Dr.Janaki / the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2568 of 2015 that the Tamil Nadu Medical Recruitment Board an examination in the year 2013 for selection of Assistant Surgeon in Tamil Nadu Medical Service, that she has secured higher marks in the examination and that she was selected as Assistant Surgeon, pursuant to which, an appointment order was issued by the Director of Public Health vide proceedings R.No.77278/E5/A3/2013-41 dated 19.09.2013 and she joined in Tamil Nadu Medical Service on 10.10.2013, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital under the control of the 5th respondent. ii) It is also submitted by the petitioner that since her ambition was to pursue higher studies, she submitted her resignation letter to the 5th respondent on 30.04.2014, which was duly accepted by the 5th respondent and thereafter forwarded to the 3rd respondent for necessary orders and she was also relieved from duty. iii) In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent issued a notification for Post Graduate Entrance Examination seeking admission to PG Degree / Diploma / 6 years M.Ch (Neurosurgery) Course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and the last date for submission of application was mentioned as 05.02.2015. The petitioner submitted her application along with necessary documents to the 4th respondent, that the same was accepted and she was allotted Random No.3450569238. iv) The submission of the petitioner is that when she tried to download her Hall Ticket from the website for the exam scheduled on 01.03.2015, she was unable to receive any Hall Ticket, pursuant to which, she approached the 4th respondent in person and enquired about the same. At that time, it was orally informed to her that the 4th respondent sought clarification from the respondents 1 to 3 as to whether the persons, who have resigned from the Government Service are entitled to appear for the Post Graduate Entrance Examination or not?. At that time, it was orally informed to her that the 4th respondent sought clarification from the respondents 1 to 3 as to whether the persons, who have resigned from the Government Service are entitled to appear for the Post Graduate Entrance Examination or not?. The petitioner has stated that she submitted the application under non-service candidate, as she was duly relieved from duty on account of her resignation and therefore, non furnishing of the Hall Ticket to the petitioner is highly illegal. v) It is her further submission that the provisions of Rule 41-A of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules categorically states that if no such order is passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the resignation letter, the resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice and therefore, her legitimate claim is denied by the respondents and that they ought to have issued Hall Ticket to her to appear in the Post Graduate Entrance Examination. 3. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 have filed a counter, in which they have stated as under: i) Dr.Janaki has applied for admission to Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2015-2016 and she was assigned Registration No.2478 and mere assigning of these numbers will not confer any rights to the candidates. As per the amendment to Clause 10 of the Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Courses 2014-2015, out of total number of applications received, 384 candidates, who have suppressed the factum of their appointment through Medical Services Recruitment, were not allowed to write the Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate course for the academic year 2014-2015 and on the same line, the petitioner's application was also rejected. ii) It is stated by the respondents that as per Clause 10(f) of the Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Courses 2015-2016, the candidates who have been selected through Medical Services Recruitment Board will not be eligible to apply for 2 years from the date of appointment. Accordingly, all the applications of candidates including the petitioner, who have been appointed through Medical Recruitment Board and continuing in service; applied for resignation and accepted; applied for resignation and still awaited, were all rejected for this academic year also. Accordingly, all the applications of candidates including the petitioner, who have been appointed through Medical Recruitment Board and continuing in service; applied for resignation and accepted; applied for resignation and still awaited, were all rejected for this academic year also. The petitioner, knowing full well that she is not qualified for the PG Course for the academic year 2015-2016 as per the conditions of the prospectus, has applied for the same. iii) It is further stated in the counter that 1400 candidates, who have been selected through Medical Recruitment Board during 2013, are eligible to apply for admission to Post Graduate Courses only for the next year and in the case of petitioner, though she has submitted her resignation, her resignation was not accepted and therefore, she is eligible to apply for the Post Graduate Course only in the next year as per the conditions of the prospectus. The petitioners, without challenging the condition / clause of the prospectus, have approached this Court seeking for the above relief. As per the policy of the Government, the Prospectus for admission was issued in G.O.(D) No.58/Health and Family Welfare (ME) Department dated 14.01.2015 and it is a settled law that the prospectus is the Magna Carta and (the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again emphasize) that it is a valid document and the same cannot be challenged or changed, when the conditions laid down therein do not fulfill one's own need and will. The respondents have also stated that in obedience of the interim orders of this Court, the petitioners were issued Hall Tickets and permitted to write the Entrance Examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that out of the three petitioners, Dr.A.Devi Sangeetha /petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2417 of 2015 was duly relieved from duty with effect from 03.12.2014 and Dr.Subbiah Sriram / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2567 of 2015 from 13.03.2014. However, in the case of Dr.Janaki / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2568 of 2015, though she has submitted her resignation on 30.04.2014, even after expiry of three months' notice period as stipulated in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, no intimation has been received by her in this regard and therefore, it should be considered as deemed acceptance. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no justification with the respondents for their act except citing their own prospectus. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no justification with the respondents for their act except citing their own prospectus. 5. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently contended that once the petitioners are aware of the conditions stipulated in the prospectus, viz., the candidates, who have been selected through Medical Services Recruitment Board will not be eligible to apply for 2 years from the date of appointment, without bothering about the same and throwing the said clause in the air, the petitioners have applied for the Post Graduate Entrance Examination. He has reiterated that prospectus is the Bible and the conditions stipulated therein should be followed religiously without violating the same. 6. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is true that the prospectus is binding on the parties, but at the same time, when the conditions stipulated therein are contrary to the Rules, statutory Rules alone prevail and in this case, Rules and Prospectus run parallel. 7. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that when the prospectus stipulates some conditions and having accepted the same, the persons like the petitioners cannot go back to suit their own convenience. In the case of Dr.Janaki, even before acceptance of her resignation, she has chosen to apply for the entrance examination without awaiting reply from her parent department. Merely forwarding a resignation letter through proper channel cannot be automatically considered as deemed acceptance and relieved from duty. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material documents available on record. 9. A close scrutiny of the facts would divulge that the petitioners, who are Doctors by profession were selected as Assistant Surgeons in Tamil Nadu Medical Service and on account of their quest in pursuing higher studies, they resigned from their job and decided to apply for the Entrance Examination seeking admission to PG Degree / Diploma / 6 years M.Ch (Neurosurgery) Course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges. The petitioners 1 and 2 were relieved from their duty on 03.12.2014 and 13.03.2014 respectively and though the resignation letter of the 3rd petitioner was accepted, a formal order of relieving was not issued to her even after expiry of notice period as prescribed under the Rules. The last date for submission of application was mentioned as 05.02.2015. The petitioners 1 and 2 were relieved from their duty on 03.12.2014 and 13.03.2014 respectively and though the resignation letter of the 3rd petitioner was accepted, a formal order of relieving was not issued to her even after expiry of notice period as prescribed under the Rules. The last date for submission of application was mentioned as 05.02.2015. Though they applied for the examination in time along with necessary certificates, they were not issued Hall Tickets and on enquiry, it was unveiled that since they have resigned from Government Service, they are not entitled to write the Entrance examination. 10. When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing on 26.02.2015, this Court directed the respondents to issue Hall Tickets to them to take part in the examination, but with a condition not to publish the results until further orders of this Court. However, pursuant to the subsequent order of this Court dated 19.03.2015, their results were published and that they were permitted to attend the councilling based on their marks obtained in the entrance examination. 11. The main contention of the respondents is that since the petitioners have gone beyond the conditions stipulated under Clause 10(f) of the Prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Courses 2015-2016, they were debarred from appearing for the entrance examination by treating them as service candidates. This submission cannot be accepted, because prospectus is an administrative guideline or a statement outlining the main features of a new or proposed publication, business enterprise, etc. and it does not supersede the provisions of the statutory provisions. It is not stated as to how the respondents have unanimously taken a decision to reject the candidature of the persons, who have been appointed through Medical Recruitment Board; continuing in service; have applied for resignation and accepted and have applied for resignation and still awaited, without any authority of law and in absence of any stipulation therein. It is not stated as to how the respondents have unanimously taken a decision to reject the candidature of the persons, who have been appointed through Medical Recruitment Board; continuing in service; have applied for resignation and accepted and have applied for resignation and still awaited, without any authority of law and in absence of any stipulation therein. Moreover, the petitioners do not come under any of the above categories, because the petitioners 1 & 2 were duly relieved from duty by accepting their resignation and the third petitioner was relieved verbally and no written communication has been issued in this regard ever after expiry of the period of notice as per the provisions of 41-A of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, which states as follows: “if no such order is passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the resignation letter, the resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the period of notice.” Therefore, it cannot be said that consuetudo ex certa cause rationabili usitata privat communem legem (a certain and reasonable custom overrides the common law). Since the provisions of the Rules prevail over the instructions issued by the Government by way of prospectus, the clause 10(f) of the prospectus, which is contrary to the rules, will not apply to the third petitioner. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910 , has held that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. 12. In the present case on hand, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, it cannot be said that the Rules are silent with regard to acceptance of resignation letter and therefore, the prospectus cannot supersede the provisions of the Statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has even stated that the special law prevails over even the general law. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. CBI, 2008 (5) CTC 277, was pleased to lay down as under: "15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has even stated that the special law prevails over even the general law. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Nanda vs. CBI, 2008 (5) CTC 277, was pleased to lay down as under: "15. In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, Section 104, Cr.P.C. states that the Court, may if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is because impounding a "passport" is provided for in Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law while the Cr.P.C. is a general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition pg.133). This principle is expressed in the maxim "Generalia specialibus non derogant". Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104, Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing." It is pertinent to mention here that all the petitioners have submitted their applications under non-service candidates. The prospectus only implies the meaning that the candidates, who are in service at the time of submission of application, will not be eligible to apply for the entrance examination for admission to PG Course for 2 years from the date of appointment. 14. There is already paucity of meritorious and service oriented Doctors in our country and a few Doctors have converted the medical profession into the biggest commercial arena for minting money. For admission into any professional institution / colleges, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to judge the merit of the applicant, who seeks admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious, but more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Merit is usually determined for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies. 15. In this case, after declaration of the results of the petitioners as ordered by this Court, it is seen that the petitioners have scored high marks in the entrance examinations compared to others, which are as follows: Sl.No. Exam No. Name Entrance Exam Marks for 90 1 18688 Dr.Devi Sangeetha.A 59.76 2 18689 Dr.Subbiah Sriram.M 59.04 3 18690 Dr.Janaki.R 64.44 Therefore, the attempt of the respondents in repressing the petitioners in terms of the prospectus does not hold good inasmuch as they have given up their Government jobs in order to achieve their ambition in life and such kind of Doctors are required in plenty to make our country a disease free and also for the better growth and development of our country and the respondents should not be the barriers in the way of the petitioners in one way or the other. 16. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Though the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.2417 and 2567 of 2015 have prayed for issuance of Hall Tickets, in view of the fact that all the petitioners have already been permitted to write the entrance examination and they also participated in the counseling, this Court, in exercise of its power, is inclined to mould the relief. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue allotment orders to the eligible petitioner considering them as private candidates and also permit them to pay their tuition fees so as to enable them to join in their respective courses as per their eligibility and marks obtained in the entrance examination. The respondents are also directed to return all the original certificates to the petitioners on completion of its verification. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.