JUDGMENT : Surendra Mohan, J. The Medical Council of India is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.5.2015, allowing W.P.(C) No. 23576 of 2013. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent challenging Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the appellant disposing of a representation submitted by the first respondent. By the said proceedings, the request of the first respondent to grant recognition to the DM (Nephrology) Course undertaken by her in June, 1996 had been declined. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P4. A declaration that the first respondent is entitled to get recognition for her DM (Nephrology) Degree has been issued with a consequential direction to the appellant to issue formal orders in the said regard within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As per an interim order granted by this Court, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has been stayed. 2. The short facts necessary to be noted are the following: The first respondent is a person who is working as an Assistant Professor (Nephrology) in the Government Medical College, Alappuzha. She was selected and granted admission to the DM (Nephrology) course started at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, in the year 1996. It is stated that permission to start the course was granted by the Government of Kerala on 21.9.1995. The Academic Council as well as the Board of Studies of the University of Kerala also granted approval and recommended that the course be started, as per letter dated 28.9.1995. However, such approval was subject to the permission to be obtained from the appellant/Medical Council of India. Thereafter, according to the first respondent, a requisition letter was issued by the Principal, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram to the Secretary (Health), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi for the conduct of an inspection and approval of the course. It is stated that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was also remitted towards inspection fee and other expenses. Accordingly, an inspection was conducted. Though the inspection detected certain deficiencies, they were later on rectified and compliance report was submitted on 24.4.1997. Thereafter, there was no response from the appellant despite a reminder. 3. Later on, on the basis of the compliance report, a further inspection was conducted in May, 2004 and the report was finalized only in 2008. Accordingly, an inspection was conducted. Though the inspection detected certain deficiencies, they were later on rectified and compliance report was submitted on 24.4.1997. Thereafter, there was no response from the appellant despite a reminder. 3. Later on, on the basis of the compliance report, a further inspection was conducted in May, 2004 and the report was finalized only in 2008. On the basis of the said proceedings, the Government of India issued a letter of permission to start the course. Such permission was to be effective only from 3.12.1999. However, the first respondent had joined the course in the year 1996 and completed the same in 1998. The case of the first respondent is that, such permission should be deemed to have effect from the year 1995 itself since the requisition for such sanction was issued on 28.9.1995. 4. It is further contended that, since she had successfully completed the course way back in 1998 and has been issued with a Degree Certificate by the University of Kerala, she is entitled to have her qualification recognized. For the purpose, she had submitted a representation to the appellant. Since there was no response to the same, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22108 of 2012. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court to consider the said representation, the Medical Council of India issued Ext.P4 order declining to grant recognition to her course, as sought for by her. 5. The first respondent therefore challenged Ext. P4 by filing W.P.(C) No. 23576 of 2013, contending that the delay in issuing sanction to the course undergone by her was solely attributable to the appellant. She was the only student who was selected for undergoing the course since she was the first rank holder. After she had undergone the study and successfully completed the same, her qualification was accepted by the Kerala University and a Degree Certificate Ext.P1 has also been issued to her on 19.2.1999. However, recognition to the course was granted only with effect from the year 1999, which according to her was illegal. 6. The writ petition was contested by the appellant, who was the fourth respondent, by filing a counter affidavit as well as a counter statement. According to the counter affidavit, permission of the appellant ought to have been obtained before starting the course. 6. The writ petition was contested by the appellant, who was the fourth respondent, by filing a counter affidavit as well as a counter statement. According to the counter affidavit, permission of the appellant ought to have been obtained before starting the course. Such permission not having been obtained, the course cannot be granted recognition as sought for by the first respondent, especially after such a long lapse of time. According to the appellant, permission to start the course was granted only with effect from 3.12.1999 and therefore, a course conducted before the said date cannot be recognized. Another contention of the appellant was that the course undergone by the first respondent was only of two years duration, whereas similar courses approved by them was of three years duration. 7. The third respondent filed a separate counter affidavit supporting the first respondent producing the documents by which the course was sanctioned. According to the University, the affiliation that was granted to the course was, subject to the approval of the Medical Council. The case of the University is that, as per the Regulations framed by them, the course of study was to extend only over a period of two years. 8. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that there was nothing on record to show that similar courses conducted during the relevant period were only of three year duration. Since a requisition had been submitted by the Principal of the Medical College in 1995 itself, followed by remittance of the inspection fee, it is held that the sanction ought to have been issued with effect from the date of the application. Thus, the contention of the appellant was rejected. The learned Single Judge also found that similar courses conducted by the Medical College, Calicut were given permission from a prior date. Therefore, Ext.P4 is quashed and the writ petition has been allowed directing that formal orders be issued recognizing the DM Nephrology Degree of the first respondent. Now this appeal. 9. According to Adv. Titus Mani, who appears for the appellant, the first respondent admittedly underwent her DM course in Nephrology during the period from 1996-1998. The course undergone by her was only of two year duration. It is a Super Speciality Course undertaken by holders of MD Degrees. Now this appeal. 9. According to Adv. Titus Mani, who appears for the appellant, the first respondent admittedly underwent her DM course in Nephrology during the period from 1996-1998. The course undergone by her was only of two year duration. It is a Super Speciality Course undertaken by holders of MD Degrees. According to the learned counsel, the course was started without the permission of the Medical Council of India. Years after the course was completed, this Court was approached by filing a writ petition seeking a direction to dispose of a representation submitted by her. Accordingly, as per Ext.P3 judgment a direction was issued. The representation was considered and rejected as per Ext.P4. It was challenging Ext.P4 that the present writ petition was filed. 10. The counsel places reliance on Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to contend that, prior permission of the Medical Council was necessary to be obtained before a new course of study could be started by any institution. Section 10B of the Act provides that a course started without obtaining permission under Section 10A of the Act would not be recognized. In view of the admitted position that no prior permission under Section 10A of the Act was obtained by the authorities before commencing the course, no recognition could be granted as sought for by the first respondent. The decision of the learned Single Judge being against the provisions of law, is liable to be interfered with and set aside, it is contended. It is further pointed out that, Section 11 of the Act deals with the grant of recognition to medical qualifications. The said provision mandates that a medical qualification that does not find a place in the first schedule shall not be recognized. The provisions of the enactment being clear and unambiguous, it is contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan and Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran contend on the other hand that the course was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala, was affiliated to the Kerala University and was commenced in accordance with law. In 1995 itself a requisition to the Medical Council of India was issued. The requisite fee for conducting an inspection was also paid. N.N. Sugunapalan and Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran contend on the other hand that the course was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala, was affiliated to the Kerala University and was commenced in accordance with law. In 1995 itself a requisition to the Medical Council of India was issued. The requisite fee for conducting an inspection was also paid. It was in the above background that the course was commenced, to which the first appellant being the first rank holder was selected. She being an Assistant Professor of the TD Medical College at Alappuzha, on the verge of further promotion, it is only appropriate that her qualification is granted recognition. 12. According to the learned counsel, Section 10A of the Act was inserted into the Statute only on 27.8.1992. Permission was in fact sought in accordance with the said provision. It is pointed out that, every application for grant of permission is processed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 10A. Particular reliance is placed on Section 10A(5) to point out that where an application is not rejected by the Medical Council within a period of one year, it would be deemed that such permission was granted. The learned counsel also places reliance on the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) to contend that Regulation 6 deals with the starting of Post Graduate Courses and its recognition. According to the learned counsel, under Section 11(2) of the Act, the appellant is clothed with sufficient powers to grant recognition even retrospectively wherever circumstances warrant the grant of such recognition. This is a fit case in which such a course ought to have been adopted. The learned Single Judge has only granted the relief in the interests of justice. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore, the counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 13. The Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent University made submissions, supporting the contentions of the counsel for the first respondent. According to the University, the course that was sanctioned by the State Government in 1995 was granted provisional affiliation for the academic year 1995-1996 with an annual intake of one student. The matter was thereafter considered by the University and affiliation was granted on 22.8.1995 subject to the approval of the Medical Council of India. According to the University, the course that was sanctioned by the State Government in 1995 was granted provisional affiliation for the academic year 1995-1996 with an annual intake of one student. The matter was thereafter considered by the University and affiliation was granted on 22.8.1995 subject to the approval of the Medical Council of India. According to the University, such affiliation was granted after assessing the infrastructural and institutional facilities available at the College. The first respondent was granted admission to the course in 1996 by the Director of Medical Education. She completed the course in June, 1998. As per the Regulations framed by the University, the relevant portion of which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.R3(a), the course of study was to extend over a period of two academic years. The case of the University is that, Ext.R3(a) regulations were framed on the basis of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, that was in force, at that time. The present Regulations, the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, was framed only later. It is only as per the said Regulations that, the course of study for the DM Degree was fixed as three years. 14. The State of Kerala, the second respondent herein, has placed on record Annexures I to VII documents. According to the learned Government Pleader Smt. Pooja Surendran, as per the Prospectus for admission to PG Super Speciality Courses for the years 1996 and 1998 produced as Annexure I, the course of study stipulated is for a period of two years. Annexure II is an order issued by the Government for starting DM Degree Course in Nephrology in the Medical College, Calicut from the year 1991. According to the learned Government Pleader, the said course was recognized by the Medical Council of India as per Annexure VI with effect from 1993. The same is evident from Annexure VII also, according to the learned Government Pleader. Therefore, it is pointed out that, the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require to be interfered with. 15. Heard. The facts in this case are not disputed. Though sanction was accorded by the State Government to start the Super Speciality Course of DM (Nephrology) in the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College in 1995, no one has a case that prior permission of the appellant was obtained for starting the said course. 15. Heard. The facts in this case are not disputed. Though sanction was accorded by the State Government to start the Super Speciality Course of DM (Nephrology) in the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College in 1995, no one has a case that prior permission of the appellant was obtained for starting the said course. The course was affiliated to the Kerala University. The affiliation was granted subject to the permission of the appellant. Therefore, a requisition was sent to the appellant seeking such permission after having an inspection of the Medical College conducted. An amount of Rs.One Lakh was paid towards the inspection fee and the expenses for conducting such inspection. Though an inspection was conducted after the lapse of some time, no permission was granted for the reason that, certain defects were detected. After such defects were rectified, a further inspection was conducted and permission to start the course was finally granted only with effect from 3.12.1999 as per Ext.R4(b) proceedings dated 14.1.2009. The first respondent had undergone the course during 1996-1998. According to the counsel for the appellant, the course was stopped after she passed out. Later on, the course was started only in the year 2001. The contention is that the standards prescribed by the appellant form the basic standard. It is permissible for the institution to stipulate higher standards, but lesser standards cannot be permitted. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that neither the sanction granted by the State Government nor the affiliation granted by the University could clothe the course undertaken by the first respondent with legal validity for the reason that, no prior permission from the appellant was obtained. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Single Bench seriously erred in allowing the writ petition. 16. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1958 is enacted by the Union Parliament in exercise of the legislative power conferred by Entry 66, List I, Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. The power to co-ordinate standards and determine standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions fall within the domain of the legislative sphere of the Centre. It is the settled position of law that the Medical Council of India is the authority competent to stipulate standards in so far as medical education is concerned. The power to co-ordinate standards and determine standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions fall within the domain of the legislative sphere of the Centre. It is the settled position of law that the Medical Council of India is the authority competent to stipulate standards in so far as medical education is concerned. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated the above aspect in a number of decisions, Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. ( (1999) 7 SCC 120 ) being a decision on the point. The stipulation of standards in higher education in medicine being exclusively within the Central sphere, there cannot be any doubt that neither the grant of sanction by the State Government nor the affiliation granted by the University could justify the commencement of the course in 1995. In the above context, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act. Sub section (1) of Section 10A of the Act dealing with the above aspect is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference. “10A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, - (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or (b) no medical college shall- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of study or training), except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, 'person' includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, 'person' includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, “admission capacity”, in relation to any course of study or training (including post-graduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training.” The above provision mandates that, without the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the said provision; (i) no person shall establish a Medical College; or (ii) no Medical College shall open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification; or (iii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training including a post-graduate course of study or training. 17. It is clear from the above provision that, prior permission of the Central Government is necessary before a new or higher course of study is started. Therefore, there is no justification for the action of the respondents in commencing and conducting the course, without the permission of the appellant. 18. A contention is put forward on behalf of the first respondent that, the requisition made in the year 1995 was under the consideration of the appellant and had finally got permission but, only with effect from 3.12.1999. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the delay in the grant of sanction was attributable entirely to the appellant. Therefore, no prejudice on the said count should be permitted to be passed on to the first respondent. According to the learned counsel, since there was no response to the requisition of the year 1995, it was open to the respondents to presume under Sub section (5) of Section 10A that permission had been granted. However, pursuant to Annexure III which is stated to be the requisition so sent, an inspection of the department appears to have been conducted on 14th and 15th December, 1996 as evident from Annexure IV letter issued by the Professor of the Department of Nephrology, Thiruvananthapuram to the first respondent. However, pursuant to Annexure III which is stated to be the requisition so sent, an inspection of the department appears to have been conducted on 14th and 15th December, 1996 as evident from Annexure IV letter issued by the Professor of the Department of Nephrology, Thiruvananthapuram to the first respondent. The said letter is dated 24.6.1999 and shows that the inspection of December, 1996 had detected certain deficiencies and that they had been directed to be rectified. In view of the above, a compliance report appears to have been submitted on 24.4.1997. It is clear from the above correspondence that proceedings on the basis of the requisition of the year 1995 was all along progressing. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to presume that their application had been granted under sub section (5) of Section 10A, especially in view of the fact that the inspection had detected deficiencies that were directed to be rectified. Without satisfactorily complying with the directions issued after the inspection, there could not have been any further progress in the matter. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that permission to conduct the DM (Nephrology) course was ultimately granted with effect from 3.12.1999. Therefore, this is a case in which sub section (5) of Section 10A has no application. This is not a case in which there was an absence of response from the appellant as the counsel for the first respondent wants to suggest. 19. Apart from the above, the question as to whether an institution was entitled to commence and conduct a course even in a situation where there was undue delay on the part of the sanctioning authority was considered by the Apex Court in the context of the powers of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in National Council for Teacher Education v. Venus Public Education Society ( (2013) 1 SCC 223 ). Dealing with the contention that the NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage, it is laid down as follows in paragraph 33 thereof. “33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. “33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the University/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been “transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence ad desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same.” The above observations apply on all fours to the situation in this case also. The student, the first respondent, who holds an MD in Medicine and has undergone the DM (Nephrology) course, ought to have ascertained whether the course was recognized before undertaking the study. 20. The student, the first respondent, who holds an MD in Medicine and has undergone the DM (Nephrology) course, ought to have ascertained whether the course was recognized before undertaking the study. 20. Another contention put forward is that, since the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College is one of the oldest and most prestigious institutions in the country, any degree granted by it is protected without any further act of recognition being granted by the appellant, in view of Section 11(1) of the Act. Section 11 of the Act reads as under: “11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India.-(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted after a specified date.” It is true that, going by Sub-section (1) of Section 11, the Medical qualifications granted by any University or Medical Institution in India included in the First Schedule 'shall' be recognized Medical qualifications for the purpose of this Act. However, the above provision cannot be read de hors Sub-section (2) which provides that any University or medical institution that grants a qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized. Therefore, before the grant of a medical qualification not included in the First schedule by an University or medical institution, permission of the Central Government is necessary. The above position is clearer on an examination of the First schedule of the Act which lists not only the Universities and medical institutions, but also the qualifications to which recognition has been granted. The purpose for insisting on such recognition is also quite evident. Even reputed institutions may not have sufficient facilities or the necessary infrastructure to start a new course. The purpose for insisting on such recognition is also quite evident. Even reputed institutions may not have sufficient facilities or the necessary infrastructure to start a new course. Grant of a blanket permission to a recognized institution to start any course as deemed fit by it would have a deleterious effect on the standards of such courses. In order to ensure that standards are maintained, it is absolutely necessary that the appellant conducts an inspection of the institution and the facilities available there before permission to start a new course is granted. The number of students who could be admitted to each course is also to be stipulated on an assessment of the facilities available. 21. The above question had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. Rama Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur ( (2012) 8 SCC 80 ). Paragraphs 56 and 57 relevant in the above context are extracted herein. “56. We repeat that by allowing itself to get confused with the use of the expression “recognition” in Regulation 3(1) of the 2000 Regulations, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court came to the erroneous conclusion that once permission had been granted under Section 10-A to establish a new medical college/institution, the question of having to take fresh permission each year for any subsequent steps to be taken after grant of such permission till the fifth year of the course was completed, did not arise. 57. 57. The aforesaid position would be doubly clear from the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 10-B, which, in no uncertain terms, provide that: “10-B.(3) Where any medical college in creases its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section10-A,nomedicalqualificationgrantedtoany student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the Act.” In other words, without the previous permission of the Central Government within the scheme as prescribed under Section 10-A i.e. without the recommendation of the Medical Council, any degree granted would not be recognized as a medical degree which would entitle such degree-holder to function as a medical practitioner.” In view of the above, the contention on the basis of Section 11(1) of the Act is rejected. 22. A further contention advanced on behalf of the first respondent is that, at the time when the first respondent had joined the course, the duration thereof was of only two years. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel points out that the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations came into force only in the year 2000. As per the said Regulations, the period of training for DM Degree Course has been stipulated as three years. Prior to the coming into force of the Regulations, the position was governed by orders issued by the appellant. As per such orders, the duration was only two years. In answer to the above contention, the counsel for the appellant submits that even before the Regulations were framed, the duration of the DM Degree course was three years. The learned Single Judge has in the judgment appealed against, referred to the above point and observed that no material was available to show that the duration of the course was two years prior to the coming into force of the Regulations. No document has been produced even before us to clarify the above position. However, we notice that according to the counter affidavit of the University the duration of the course prior to the Regulation of 2000 was two years. A copy of the relevant portion of the Regulations framed by the University in conformity with the stipulations of the appellant has been produced as Ext.R3(a). However, we notice that according to the counter affidavit of the University the duration of the course prior to the Regulation of 2000 was two years. A copy of the relevant portion of the Regulations framed by the University in conformity with the stipulations of the appellant has been produced as Ext.R3(a). The said document shows that the course of study was two years, prior to the coming into force of the Regulations of 2000. Though a counter affidavit was filed by the University in the writ petition, the above aspect has not been traversed by the appellant, even in this appeal. Therefore, there is lack of clarity on the above aspect. 23. Since the appellant has been granted permission to conduct the degree course, DM (Nephrology), it is contended that permission ought to have been granted from the year 1995 instead of 3.12.1999. It is also contended that, Section 11(2) of the Act clothes the appellant with sufficient powers to recognize the said course from the date on which the appellant joined the same. A proper consideration of the above aspect is necessary, especially in view of the fact that the first respondent is the only person who had undertaken the course, that the course was stopped thereafter and was later on commenced only after obtaining permission. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Single Bench was justified in granting relief to the first respondent. 24. It is true that, Section 11(2) of the Act confers power on the appellant to declare that the qualification to which recognition is granted should relate back to a particular date. In the present case, we notice that while granting such recognition in 2009, the same has been directed to relate back to 3.12.1999, as evident from Ext.R4(b). However, we notice that the power to take a decision on the above aspect is conferred on the appellant. Therefore, it is for the appellant to take a decision as to whether the recognition granted as per Ext.R4(b) should be made effective from 1996 onwards. We are further handicapped in taking any decision in that regard for the reason that, we do not have any information as to whether the duration of the course at the relevant point of time was two years or three years. We are further handicapped in taking any decision in that regard for the reason that, we do not have any information as to whether the duration of the course at the relevant point of time was two years or three years. In the absence of any material on record, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and directing that formal orders be issued by the appellant recognizing the DM (Nephrology) course undertaken by the first respondent. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 25. Considering the fact that the first respondent was the only student for the DM (Nephrology) course during 1996-1998 and taking into account the further fact that the course had been discontinued thereafter until permission was obtained from the appellant, we are of opinion that it is necessary for the appellant to consider the request of the first respondent for recognition of the course undertaken by her, afresh and to take a pragmatic decision in the matter. We feel that a fresh consideration is necessary for the further reason that, there is absolutely nothing on record to show whether the duration of the DM Course was three years or two years, prior to the framing of the Regulations of 2000. In the result, the following orders are issued: (1) The writ appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.5.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 23576 of 2013 is set aside. (2) The appellant is directed to consider the request of the first respondent for the grant of recognition to her DM (Nephrology) Degree granted by the University of Kerala as evidenced by Ext.P1 in the writ petition and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.