JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present two petitions, I propose to decide the same by way of a common order. In writ petition No. 420/2017, the petitioner-Dr. Shahnawaz Hassan seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Public Notice No. 009-BOPEE of 2017, dated 14.03.2017 and notification No. 16-BOPEE of 2017, dated 20.03.2017 whereby he has been declared ineligible to take admission in the post-graduation course even after clearing the NEET examination held in December, 2016, owing to the fact that his admission for the course of M.S. General Surgery for 2016 had been cancelled. To a similar extent, is the relief claimed by the petitioner-Dr. Shabana Balqees in writ petition No. 421/2017 where the petitioner challenges the notification 23-BOPEE of 2017, dated 24.03.2017, which shows the petitioner ineligible to take admission in the post-graduation course even after clearing the NEET examination held in December, 2016 owing to the fact that her admission to post-graduate diploma course of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for which the petitioner stood selected in the year 2016 had been cancelled. Consequently, a mandamus is sought for a direction to permit the petitioners to take part in the counselling process being undertaken by the BOPEE and the petitioners be permitted to be admitted in accordance with their merit. 2. Briefly stated the material facts, in the background of which the present controversy has arisen, are as under. 3. For making selection for post-graduate degree/diploma courses, the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Govt. Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for post-graduation degree and diploma courses) Procedure Order, 1995 (for short, Procedure Order 1995) issued under SRO 158, dated 12.07.1995. This was amended subsequently vide SRO 57, dated 31.01.2002 and SRO 364, dated 21.10.2003. Subsequently, the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Govt. Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for post-graduation degree and diploma courses) Procedure Order, 1995 (for short, Procedure Order 1995) issued under SRO 158, dated 12.07.1995. This was amended subsequently vide SRO 57, dated 31.01.2002 and SRO 364, dated 21.10.2003. Subsequently, the Govt. by virtue of SRO 08 notified on 18th of January, 2005 substituted sub-clause (v) of Clause-3 with the proviso, which is reproduced hereunder: "Provided that Doctors, who have done their Post-Graduation or Diploma Courses in any specialty at the Government expenses shall be entitled to seek admission for undergoing further Post-Graduation or Diploma in another specialty in the State Medical Institutions on payment of such fee as may be notified by the Government from time to time; Provided further that the Doctors who are doing Post-Graduation/Diploma Courses in any specialty at the Government expenses shall not be eligible to apply for undergoing Post-Graduation Courses in any other specialty in the State Medical Institutions till completion of the Post-Graduation/Diploma Courses, as the case may be." 4. For making selection for post-graduation degree/diploma courses for the year 2016, the BOPEE published an information brochure, which specifically prescribed as under: "XV. The process of allotment of Streams/Institutions for MD/MS/PG Diploma/MDS courses by counseling shall have to be completed by 31st of May, 2016 unless otherwise notified. However, the selected candidates, who have completed their admission formalities but are no more interested in continuing their admission, must resign by or before 25th of May, failing which they shall not be eligible to appear in the Test for admission to MD/MS and other PG Diploma course next year. This is to ensure that no seat remains vacant and Board gets time to notify the unfilled/vacant seats. The candidates selected after 25th of May cannot resign so such candidates should weigh all pros and cons before participating in the counseling held after 25th of May." 5. It appears that both the petitioners participated in the process of selection. Whereas, petitioner-Dr. Shahnawaz Hassan was selected in the post-graduation course in General Surgery, petitioner-Shabana Balqees was selected for a post-graduation diploma course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 6. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner-Dr. Shahnawaz Hassan in OWP No. 420/2017 had taken admission on 31.05.2016 immediately whereafter he left for Kashmir to celebrate Eid but did not return to join the said course. 6. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner-Dr. Shahnawaz Hassan in OWP No. 420/2017 had taken admission on 31.05.2016 immediately whereafter he left for Kashmir to celebrate Eid but did not return to join the said course. The explanation rendered in the writ petition is that he was prevented from re-joining on account of the situation prevailing in his home district Shopian to which the petitioner belongs. On account of the continuous absence of the petitioner-Dr. Shahnawaz Hassan, the Principal Govt. Medical College, Jammu vide notice dated 30th of August, 2016 directed him to report for duty within a weeks' time positively failing which it was made clear that his provisional admission would be cancelled as per statutes 4.4(d). Failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the said notice, resulted in the cancellation of his admission vide order dated 24.10.2016 issued by the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Jammu. Similar is the case with petitioner-Dr. Shabana Balqees, who remained unauthorizedly absent, which resulted in the cancellation of her admission as well. 7. Both the petitioners appear to have then filled up the form yet again in the NEET examination, which was held in the month of December, 2016 and they qualified the same. Both the petitioners according to the impugned notifications have been held to be ineligible as per SRO 8 of 2005 on account of the fact that they were undergoing the post-graduation degree/diploma courses respectively in the Medical Colleges at Jammu and Srinagar respectively. It is these notifications, holding the petitioners ineligible, which are impugned in the present petition. 8. The impugned notifications are challenged on the grounds firstly, that the bar created in the notification of BOPEE issued in the year 2016, making the petitioner ineligible for degree/diploma courses in the subsequent year if they failed to resign by or before 25th of May, is a bar, which is non est in the eyes of law inasmuch as it has no genesis or basis, which can be traceable to the Procedure Order 1995. Secondly, that the bar would apply only in a case of resignation and not in a case where admission had been cancelled by the authority concerned; thirdly that the rules and regulations that would be applicable would be the ones' governing the NEET examination for purposes of allotment of seats in the PG courses and that SRO 158 which notified the Procedure Order 1995, had become redundant. Lastly, it was urged that since the petitioners were not undergoing any PG degree/diploma courses in any specialty, therefore, the bar contained in SRO 8 of 2005 was not applicable and further that the impugned notifications, which reflected the petitioners to be undergoing PG courses were issued with a view only to somehow make them ineligible, who otherwise had made up the merit in the NEET examination. It was further urged that the BOPEE had been ignoring these conditions, which were treated as a bar in the case of the petitioners yet granted admissions to one Feroz Ahmad Banday and Jawad Nazir Wani, details whereof are given in the writ petition. 9. In the reply affidavit, the official respondents have taken a stand that the Govt, of India was conducting the National Eligibility-cum-En-trance Test (NEET) pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Sankalp Charitable Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 487 . 10. It is stated that while the Examination is being conducted through the National Board of Examinations (NBE), the final merit list/category wise list is to be generated by the respective states as per the qualifying/eligibility criteria, reservation policy, guidelines and regulations as applicable in the respective states. Communication dated 10.02.2017 issued by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) and addressed to the BOPEE, which is on record, was relied upon in this regard. In that background, it was urged that SRO 8 and for that matter the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Govt. Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for post-graduation degree and diploma courses) Procedure Order 1995 had not been rendered redundant. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of the Srinagar wing of this court in Dr. Mujtaba Waris & Ors. Medical Colleges (Selection of candidates for post-graduation degree and diploma courses) Procedure Order 1995 had not been rendered redundant. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of the Srinagar wing of this court in Dr. Mujtaba Waris & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., OWP No. 367/2017 wherein in similar circumstances, the contention of the petitioners was rejected and the petition was dismissed in limine. 12. In the present case, adopting the 'literal construction rule' regarding interpretation of statutes, the statute-8 suffers neither any ambiguity nor does it pose a challenge even to a person with ordinary legal interpretative skills that the rule intended to make ineligible a candidate for admission to a post-graduation course in any other specialty in the State Medical Council till the completion of post-graduation degree/diploma course as the case may be. The information brochure issued by the BOPEE in addition to this had made it very clear that it intended to make ineligible any person in the subsequent years if despite admission such a candidate did not resign before the prescribed date of 25th of May. This date was prescribed so that any seat vacated by a candidate, who did decide to give up his right to admission against a seat for a PG Course could be offered to another candidate before the final cut-off date of 31st of May by which date, the process of admission had to be completed in all respects. 13. Testing SRO 8 and the conditions in the admission brochure issued by the BOPEE for admission to the PG courses in the year 2016, on the touchstone of the 'purposive construction rule of interpretation of statutes', it appears that the intention clearly appears to be that the rule framing authority clearly intended to prevent candidates from abandoning the course and wasting a seat, since no other candidate in those circumstances could be admitted against such a vacant seat. The bar clearly would operate during and was co-terminus with the duration of the course. 14. One cannot ignore the fact that there are a limited number of seats in PG courses available in various disciplines on account of the strict regulatory standards fixed by the Medical Council of India. The bar clearly would operate during and was co-terminus with the duration of the course. 14. One cannot ignore the fact that there are a limited number of seats in PG courses available in various disciplines on account of the strict regulatory standards fixed by the Medical Council of India. A large number of doctors apply each year through the competitive tests such as NEET, which has now been introduced. Despite the strict competition, the ratio of specialists, who have undergone these post-graduate courses, is abysmally low in comparison to the avalanche of patients, which descends upon health care institutions in the country. In Govt. Hospitals including the Premier Medical Research Institute like AIIMS Delhi, it is a common sight that the patients are seen on any ordinary day at 3 A.M. in the morning standing outside the institution in queues so that they could have the facility of being examined by the doctors with the requisite expertise, skill and the required higher academic background. 15. Looking to the deficiencies, which already all our basic medical infrastructure throughout the country, one can ill afford, candidates, who further contribute to perpetuate such deficiencies. It was precisely for that reason and in that background that the competent authorities appear to have incorporated such conditions by way of proviso to SRO 8 and for that matter, those issued by BOPEE in the year 2016. 16. Mr. Johal, learned senior counsel, urged that the conditions prescribed in SRO 8 as also the brochure issued by the BOPEE applied only to a case of resignation and did not extend to a case of cancellation of admission and, therefore, the bar, according to him, was not applicable to the case of the petitioners. To support and buttress this argument, he invoked the principle that if law required a particular thing to be done in particular manner, it had to be done in that manner and not at all. Reference in this regard was made to Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs v. Govind Joti Chavare & Ors., 1975 (1) SCC 559 and Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India & Ors., 1976 (2) SCC 128 . 17. While the legal proposition propounded by Mr. Johal with reference to the judgments (supra) is correct, its application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, is totally inapt. 17. While the legal proposition propounded by Mr. Johal with reference to the judgments (supra) is correct, its application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, is totally inapt. The reason for this conclusion is that proviso to SRO 8 aims at preventing candidates from abandoning the PG courses after the completion of the selection and admission process. This is done with a view to prevent wastage of seats in the PG courses, which would otherwise directly affect the health care system in our country by affecting adequate supply of skilled and trained doctors in various health care institutions. An option was thus given to candidates as per the brochure that if at all they had to resign, they must resign by or before 25th of May failing which they would be held ineligible in the next year's admission, extending to the duration of the course. The bar would get squarely attracted the moment a candidate got admission and did not resign by or before 25th of May. 18. In fact, resignation is a formal intimation to the authorities regarding the intention to abandon the course, while cancellation of an admission granted is a necessary concomitant of action taken by the authorities after coming to a conclusion that the candidate has abandoned the course. 19. To go to the basics, the shorter oxford dictionary-III edition defines "resign" as under: To Relinquish, Surrender, give up, abandon The word "Abandon" is defined as under: To surrender, to give up control. 20. From a bare perusal of the definitions above, it would, thus, be clear that a person may decide to resign to show his express intention to surrender or abandon his rights or he may not resign but yet may abandon his rights, which, in this case, has led to a definite action by the Principal Govt. Medical Colleges, resulting in cancellation of the admissions of the petitioners. 21. It also requires to be highlighted that the intention to abandon their courses can be gauged even from the fact that the orders of cancellation of their admission were accepted and not challenged before any judicial forum, although it was feebly urged that the representation in that regard had been filed. 22. 21. It also requires to be highlighted that the intention to abandon their courses can be gauged even from the fact that the orders of cancellation of their admission were accepted and not challenged before any judicial forum, although it was feebly urged that the representation in that regard had been filed. 22. The next argument as urged by the learned senior counsel was that after the introduction of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), the provisions of SRO 8 along with the procedure Order 1995, had become redundant. This argument, however, is untenable inasmuch as even as per the communication dated 10.02.2017 issued by the National Board of Examinations, which conducts the NEET examination, the NBE is only entrusted with the task of conducting a centralized examination and prepares an overall merit list. This has necessarily to be followed by preparation of state wise merit list in accordance with the applicable guidelines/regulations and the reservation policies of the respective states. 23. Lastly, it was urged that the provisions of SRO 8 and the action of declaring the candidates ineligible on the touchstone of the provisions was being selectively applied. Reference in this regard was made to the cases of Dr. Feroz Ahmad Banday and Dr. Jawad Nazir Wani, who according to the petitioners, were similarly ineligible but had been given the benefit. 24. It is trite law that an illegal action in a past can never form a good precedent for future and the courts will not be obliged to follow a practice to issue an order, following a precedent, which was patently illegal. 25. Needless to say that it is expected to BOPEE that they shall ensure that the merit list is prepared strictly in accordance with the conditions of SRO 8 and the conditions prescribed by the BOPEE. 26. It will not be out of place here to place reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in Mabel v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2773 . This was a case where a similar condition was prescribed for candidates seeking admission in the Medical/Dental Colleges, which stated as under: "18. 26. It will not be out of place here to place reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in Mabel v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2773 . This was a case where a similar condition was prescribed for candidates seeking admission in the Medical/Dental Colleges, which stated as under: "18. The candidates already admitted in any Medical/Dental Colleges will not be considered eligible for admission to the Course." The court while upholding the aforesaid clause 18 held that the same was intended to ensure that a candidate who had already secured admission should not abandon the studies after the commencement of that course to seek admission in another course, which, it held was in public interest, for otherwise it would result in the wastage of a seat. 27. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment squarely applies in the present fact situation as well. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitions are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed along with connected MPs.