Order 1. Pursuant to the order dated 28th July 2016 of the larger Bench, the matter was placed before this Bench. Heard the learned counsel. 2. It appears from the abovementioned order that, it was argued before the larger Bench that by the order of this Bench dated 12th may 2016, a reference was made to a larger Bench. The submission is factually incorrect. 3. It is clear from the order dated 12th may 2016 that there was a disagreement between both of us regarding the final order to be passed in the appeals before us. Both of us recorded a concurrent opinion that the examination process in issue in these appeals conducted by Vyapam for the years 2008 to 2012 was vitiated with reference to the appellants before this Court and few others. We also agreed upon the conclusion that the appellants herein are the beneficiaries of such vitiated process. 4. The only point of divergence between both of us is that whether the appellants should be disentitled to retain the benefits of the training in medical course which they secured by virtue of their being beneficiaries of a tainted examination process conducted for the purpose of admitting them for training in medical colleges? 5. While one of us (Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.) is clearly of the opinion that the case of the appellants deserves no further consideration, the moment we concluded that they are the beneficiaries of such tainted examination process, the other (J. Chelameswar, J.) opined for the reasons recorded that their cases deserve some consideration and also opined that the appellants should be permitted to pursue their medical course and complete the same subject to certain conditions indicated in the order. 6. We completely fail to understand the reference made to Article 145(5) of the Constitution in the order dated 28th July 2016. We are of the opinion that neither the Constitution of India nor any other law of this country provides an intra-court appeal insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned. A rehearing of the entire matter as apparently suggested to the larger Bench, in our opinion, would amount to an intra-court appeal. If the larger Bench of this Court wishes to create such an intra-court appeal, we obviously are powerless to stop it. We can only record our understanding of the law on the question and it is as recorded above. Ordered accordingly.