ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Ld. Single Judge whereby the appellant’s petition seeking a direction to allow him to join the MBBS course in Government Medical College, Kota in pursuance of allotment letter and second round of counseling, has been dismissed. 2. Quint-essential facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the present appeal are that the appellant participated in National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test, U.G. 2021 (hereinafter read as “NEET UG 2021”) and secured 637 marks. Appellant secured All India Rank at Sr. No.6610. Thereafter, the appellant was permitted to appear in the counseling process for admission and in the first round of counseling, he was allotted Government Medical College, Pali where he submitted all his certificates, documents & credentials. As pleaded in the petition, in the second round of counseling, the appellant was allotted Government Medical College, Kota, by way of up-gradation whereafter he deposited the requisite fee in the Government Medical College, Kota. 3. However, the Principal, Government Medical College, Kota did not allow him to join. Vide his letter dated 14.03.2022 addressed to the Chairman, NEET U.G. State Counseling Board, Principal sought appropriate direction and guidance regarding appellant-writ petitioner’s eligibility by highlighting that the appellant had studied 'Biology' in 12th Class alone and therefore, as per the eligibility criteria stated in the information booklet, he was not eligible for admission. A reminder was sent to him on 15.03.2022 again highlighting that 'Biology' subject was not listed as a subject in the mark-sheet of Class 11th whereas the eligibility criteria required study for two years in the subject of 'Biology'. As the appellant was denied admission, he approached this Court by filing writ petition on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner had a brilliant academic record and he passed Class 11th examination with core subjects of Physics, Chemistry and in the electives he had studied and passed in the subjects of Mathematics and Hindi. In the Senior Secondary Examination, 2020, the appellant-writ petitioner had opted Hindi and English as compulsory subjects whereas he had taken Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subject and as an additional he had also taken Mathematics. He passed in Senior Secondary Examination. In the Senior Secondary Examination, 2020, the appellant-writ petitioner had opted Hindi and English as compulsory subjects whereas he had taken Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subject and as an additional he had also taken Mathematics. He passed in Senior Secondary Examination. On such factual assertion, the appellant-writ petitioner claimed that since he had studied 'Biology' as an optional subject in 12th Class, he was entitled to be declared eligible even if he had not taken ‘Biology’ as a compulsory or optional subject in 11th Class. 4. The relief sought in the writ petition was opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that the eligibility criteria clearly stated that in order to be eligible, a candidate must have studied 'Biology' in both 11th and 12th Class. The appellant-writ petitioner having taken 'Biology' as subject only in Class 12th and not in Class 11th, he was not eligible. 5. Ld. Single Judge by impugned order held that among other requirements, last two years of study at the Senior Secondary Level requires study in the subject of 'Biology' and as the appellant-writ petitioner had studied and passed in 'Biology' only in 12th class, he was not eligible. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner contended before us that eligibility criteria as prescribed in the information booklet was under judicial scrutiny in various decisions. In the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India & Others, W.P. (C) 6773/2018, the regulations insofar as it required 'Biology' as compulsory subject through regular course to study was declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by Delhi High Court and therefore, the advertisement clearly provided that the candidates, who have passed 10+2 level with 'Biology' as additional subject will also be eligible for MBBS entrance examination. The appellant stood on a better footing because he had studied 'Biology' in the regular course and passed in 12th class and it was not a case where he had studied and passed 'Biology' from open school or as private candidate. He further contended that in various orders passed by this Court and other High Courts, a candidate studying 'Biology' as an optional or additional subject has been held to be eligible. He further contended that in various orders passed by this Court and other High Courts, a candidate studying 'Biology' as an optional or additional subject has been held to be eligible. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deependra Sharma Versus Union of India & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11747/2019 and Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15014/2020 and judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Dr. T. Rajakumari & Others Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, W.P. Nos. 39022 and 36735 of 2015. He also highlighted that though SLP was preferred against the order of Ld. Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra), taking similar view as that in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra), SLP was dismissed. Therefore, the rejection of appellant-writ petitioner's claim of he being eligible was illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in the eligibility criteria by respondents as also against various decisions. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for National Medical Commission would argue that none of the decisions relied upon by the appellant-writ petitioner decided the issue as in the present case. He would submit that present is a case which neither involves an issue regarding subject being optional or compulsory nor does it involve an issue as to whether a candidate having studied 'Biology' as an additional subject as private student or from open school would be eligible or not. All the decisions which have been cited on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, it is contended, related to the aforesaid issues. All the decisions which have been cited on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, it is contended, related to the aforesaid issues. The issue as to whether a candidate, who had studied 'Biology' only for one year whether as a compulsory or an optional subject or whether in regular course study or from an open school or private school for one year only and not two years would be eligible or not has been decided by this Court in several decisions of this Court in the cases of Rajendra Prasad Saini Versus Medical Council of India & Others, D.B. Civil Writs No.14547/2018 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sohan Chouhan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, Writ Petition No.3619/2022 as well as Delhi High Court in the cases of Niskarsh Singh Patel Versus National Medical Commission & Others, W.P. (C) 2606/2022 and Aayushi Dineshbhai Prajapati Versus Union of India & Others, LPA 422/2023. He would next submit that in one of recent judicial pronouncement in the case of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Versus Srikeerti Reddi Pingle and Others, 2021 SCC ONLINE 94, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively pronounced that there is a rationale and compelling logic in prescribing eligibility requirement of having studied 'Biology' or 'Biological Science' in all the relevant years during intermediate or at 10+2 level. The appellant-writ petitioner having studied 'Biology' as a subject, irrespective of whether it was compulsory or optional and irrespective of whether it was from open school/private student or in regular course of study, was only for one year as against the requirement of having studied 'Biology' as a subject for two years at 10+2 i.e. Senior Secondary Level. This was the operative reason for rejection of appellant's candidature. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 10. The operative reason for dismissal of the writ petition is that the appellant herein was not eligible as he had studied 'Biology' as a subject in 12th Class only and that was not his subject of study in 11th Class. Ld. Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 10. The operative reason for dismissal of the writ petition is that the appellant herein was not eligible as he had studied 'Biology' as a subject in 12th Class only and that was not his subject of study in 11th Class. Ld. Single Judge has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Versus Srikeerti Reddi Pingle (supra). 11. The eligibility criteria as prescribed by the respondents (contained in the information booklet) reads as below:- “Eligibility Criteria 1. Educational Qualification No candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS or BDS course until he or she has passed the qualifying examination as under: MBBS Course The Higher/Senior Secondary Examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher/Senior Secondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of such study comprising of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Bio-technology (which shall include practical tests in these subjects) and Mathematics or any other elective subject with English at a level not less than the core course for English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after introduction of the 10+2+3 educational structure as recommended by the National Committee on Education. Candidates who have passed 10+2 from Open School or as private candidates shall not be eligible to appear for ‘National Eligibility cum Entrance Test’. Furthermore, study of Biology/Biotechnology as an Additional Subject at 10+2 level also shall not be permissible.* *The candidates who have passed 10+2 level with Biology as an additional subject will also be eligible for MBBS Entrance Examination (as per Hon’ble High Court Order No.2341/-W/DHC/WRIT/D-1/2019 dated 24/09/2019 in the Writ Petition (C) No.6773/2019. If the institute has to consider an examination of an Indian University or of a foreign/university to be equivalent to the 12th Class under 10+2 scheme/intermediate science examination, the candidates shall have to produce a certificate from the concerned Indian University/Association of Indian Universities to the effect that the examination passed by him/her is considered to be equivalent to the 12th Class under 10+2 scheme/intermediate science examination. *(NOTE: The proviso in italics has been subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. *(NOTE: The proviso in italics has been subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The provisions of the regulations disqualifying recognised Open School Board candidates and the candidates who have studied Biology/Biotechnology as an additional Subject has been struck down. The Medical Council of India has preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Appeals in the Hon’ble High Courts. Therefore, the candidature of candidates in the NEET (UG)-2020 who have passed the qualifying examinations i.e. 10+2 from National Institute of Open Schooling or State Open Schools or as private candidates from recognised State Boards; or with Biology/Biotechnology as additional subject shall be allowed but subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petitions/Appeals filed by the Medical Council of India) OR The Intermediate/Pre-degree Examination in Science of an Indian University/Board or other recognized examining body with Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology (which shall include practical test in these subjects) and also English as a compulsory subject.” 12. Amongst various criteria prescribed for a candidate to be eligible for admission to MBBS or BDS course, one of the requirements is that the candidate must have passed Higher/Senior Secondary Examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination, which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher/Senior Secondary Examination, after a period of 12 years study, and the last two years of such study must comprise of Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Biotechnology with clear stipulation that it shall include practical tests in these subjects and Mathematics or any other elective subject with English at a level not less than core course for English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after introduction of the 10+2+3 educational structure as recommended by National Committee on Education. 13. The other part of the eligibility prescription was that the candidate who has passed 10+2 from open school or as private candidates shall not be eligible to appear for “National Eligibility cum Entrance Test” with further stipulation that study of Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject at 10+2 level also shall not be permissible. 14. The eligibility criteria provided by the respondents was based on the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education as amended vide amendment of 2018 notified vide notification dated 22.01.2018. 14. The eligibility criteria provided by the respondents was based on the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education as amended vide amendment of 2018 notified vide notification dated 22.01.2018. The notification dated 22.01.2018 which amended the validity of regulations was assailed before the Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) insofar as it prescribed that candidates, who have cleared Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject at 10+2 level after completing 10+2 without Biology/Biotechnology as a subject. The petitioners therein, who were aggrieved by the amendment in the eligibility criteria vide notification darted 22.01.2018, were those who had passed 10+2 level with Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject whether simultaneously or subsequently at 10+2 level, the Regulation debarred also those candidates. The amendment in the Regulations were already subjected to challenge by some of the students in another petition before Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.1917 of 2018. Thereafter, during the pendency of those petitions, without further amending the regulations impugned, another clarification was issued that the Regulations do not apply to students, who have studied Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject simultaneously with other subjects at 10+2 level, however, would debar students, who have studied Biology/Biotechnology as additional subject subsequent to passing 10+2 without these subjects. The grievance as ventilated in the aforesaid petition by Tanishq Gangwar and others was that such classification has resulted in an artificial and arbitrary sub-classification among similarly placed categories of persons, who had studied 'Biology' as an additional subject at 10+2 level. It was noted that the earlier Writ Petition No.1917/2018 was disposed off without considering whether the impugned regulations of MCI, in respect of the petitioners therein and similarly placed persons who have passed Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject subsequent to passing of 10+2 without these subjects was legal and valid. This is clearly discernible from para 2 of the aforesaid decision. It was not even a case of the petitioners on facts, much less, an issue raised or decided in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra). Challenge was to sub-categorisation of candidates who had passed Biology/Biotechnology as additional subject at 10+2 level on the basis of the fact whether they passed it simultaneously with other subjects or subsequently completing it with other subjects. Challenge was to sub-categorisation of candidates who had passed Biology/Biotechnology as additional subject at 10+2 level on the basis of the fact whether they passed it simultaneously with other subjects or subsequently completing it with other subjects. It was finally concluded that lack of any empirical study, supporting the MCIs conclusions that those who qualify from regular scholastic study in 10+2 exams with additional subjects of Biology/ Biotechnology either at one go, or after one year, do so without laboratory experience, rendering Regulation 4 (2) (a) to that extent, arbitrary. It was, further, observed that juxtaposed with clause (b) of Regulation 4(2) which talks of intermediate State Boards, which does not bespeak of any such disqualification, the irrational and arbitrary nature of the Regulation stands out in sharp relief. On such conclusion, thus, the category covered in Sr.No.(7) of the clarification issued by MCI and the Regulation 4 (2) (a) to the extent it sets out the impugned disqualification “Furthermore, study of Biology or Biotechnology as an additional subject at 10+2 level also shall not permissible....” was held discriminatory, arbitrary and set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to clause 7 of the clarification as reproduced in para 17 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court which was held arbitrary and discriminatory to submit that the clarification which stated that those who have studied 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and after passing 10+2 have appeared with Biology/Biotechnology as an additional subject of the same Board as not meeting the test of regular and continuous two years of study of Physics/Chemistry/Biology/ Biotechnology with practicals taken together in Class 11th and 12th and therefore, ineligible was held arbitrary and discriminatory. The submission is sans substratum. The issue as to whether regulation requiring the study for two years in the subject of Biology whether as additional or compulsory is arbitrary, was neither raised nor decided. Therefore, the Delhi High Court had no occasion to decide the issue. The submission is sans substratum. The issue as to whether regulation requiring the study for two years in the subject of Biology whether as additional or compulsory is arbitrary, was neither raised nor decided. Therefore, the Delhi High Court had no occasion to decide the issue. The declaration that clause 7 of the clarification was discriminatory or arbitrary was in the light of challenge to the validity of the Regulations on the ground raised in that petition and not as to whether two years prescription was arbitrary much less a declaration of law that prescription of two years study with Biology as a subject was not mandatory and even one year study in the subject of Biology would make a candidate eligible. 16. It is well-settled legal position succinctly stated in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that only ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding as a precedent. The ratio decidendi of a judgment is what it actually decides and cannot be read as euclid’s theorem. What is binding is not the conclusion but ratio and principle laid down therein. It is equally well-settled that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found. A decision in a case takes its flavor from the facts of the case and the question of law involved and decided. The words used in a judgment are not to be interpreted as those of a statute as the words used should be rendered and understood contextually and not intended to be taken literally. It is equally well-settled that a decision is not an authority for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention of the Judges and inferring from which a proposition of law which the Judges have not specifically or expressly laid down in the pronouncement. The decision is in authority for what it specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. What is the essence of a decision is its ratio and not every observations made therein, nor what logically follows from various observations made therein. The decision is in authority for what it specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. What is the essence of a decision is its ratio and not every observations made therein, nor what logically follows from various observations made therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the recent judicial pronouncements in the case of Secunderabad Club Etc. Versus C.I.T.-V Etc., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660 explained by restating the principles after referring to several authorities as below:- “Ratio decidendi: 13. It is a settled position of law that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding as a precedent. In B. Shama Rao vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480 , it has been observed that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but with regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein. In this context, reference could also be made to Quinn vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495 (HL), wherein it was observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found. In other words, a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. 14. Reliance could also be placed on the dissenting judgment of A.P. Sen, J. in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745 , wherein his Lordship observed that a decision on a question of sentence depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, can never be regarded as a binding precedent, much less “law declared” within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution so as to bind all courts within the territory of India. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic ingredients: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above. For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient (iii) is the material element in the decision, for, it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject-matter of the action. It is the judgment that estops the parties from reopening the dispute. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of precedent, ingredient (ii) is the vital element in the decision. This is the ratio decidendi. It is not everything said by a judge when giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. 15. In the leading case of Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. vs. Haynes, 1959 AC 743, it was laid down that the ratio decidendi may be defined as a statement of law applied to the legal problems raised by the facts as found, upon which the decision is based. The other two elements in the decision are not precedents. A judgment is not binding (except directly on the parties to the lis themselves), nor are the findings of fact. This means that even where the direct facts of an earlier case appear to be identical to those of the case before the court, the judge is not bound to draw the same inference as drawn in the earlier case. 16. The legal principles guiding the decision in a case is the basis for a binding precedent for a subsequent case, apart from being a decision which binds the parties to the case. Thus, the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent for a subsequent case. Therefore, while applying a decision to a later case, the court dealing with it has to carefully ascertain the principle laid down in the previous decision. A decision in a case takes its flavour from the facts of the case and the question of law involved and decided. Therefore, while applying a decision to a later case, the court dealing with it has to carefully ascertain the principle laid down in the previous decision. A decision in a case takes its flavour from the facts of the case and the question of law involved and decided. However, a decision which is not express and is neither founded on any reason nor proceeds on a consideration of the issue cannot be deemed to be law declared, so as to have a binding effect as is contemplated under Article 141, vide State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139 . Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. All courts in India, therefore, are bound to follow the decisions of Supreme Court. This principle is an aspect of judicial discipline. 17. If a decision is on the basis of reasons stated in the decision or judgment, only the ratio decidendi is binding. The ratio or the basis of reasons and principles underlying a decision is distinct from the ultimate relief granted or manner of disposal adopted in a given case. It is the ratio decidendi which forms a precedent and not the final order in the judgment, vide Sanjay Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad; (2007) 3 SCC 720 . Therefore, the decision applicable only to the facts of the case cannot be treated as a binding precedent. 18. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of transactions forming part of daily affairs. Thus, what is binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution is the ratio of the judgment and as already noted, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the reason assigned in support of the conclusion. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter. The ratio of the case has to be deduced from the facts involved in the case and the particular provision(s) of law which the court has applied or interpreted and the decision has to be read in the context of the particular statutory provisions involved in the matter. Thus, an order made merely to dispose of the case cannot have the value or effect of a binding precedent. 19. What is binding, therefore, is the principle underlying a decision which must be discerned in the context of the question(s) involved in that case from which the decision takes its colour. In a subsequent case, a decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide. Therefore, the context or the question, while considering which, a judgment has been rendered assumes significance. 20. As against the ratio decidendi of a judgment, an obiter dictum is an observation by a court on a legal question which may not be necessary for the decision pronounced by the court. However, the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 to the extent of the observations on points raised and decided by the Court in a case. Although the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, it has only persuasive authority as far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned. 21. In the context of understanding a judgment, it is well settled that the words used in a judgment are not to be interpreted as those of a statute. This is because the words used in a judgment should be rendered and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Further, a decision is not an authority for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention of the judges and inferring from it a proposition of law which the judges have not specifically or expressly laid down in the pronouncement. In other words, the decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. 22. In other words, the decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. 22. Further, the precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with. What is of essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein, nor what logically follows from the various observations made therein. 23. Another important principle to be borne in mind is that declaration of the law by the Supreme Court can be said to have been made only when it is contained in a speaking order, either expressly or by necessary implication and not by dismissal in limine. In the words of Mukherji, CJ, in DTC vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress Union, AIR 1991 SC 101 , the expression ‘declared’ is wider than the words ‘found or made’. The latter expression involves the process, while the former expresses the result.” 17. In view of above consideration and that the issue involved for decision making in case in hand was different from what had been raised and decided in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra), reliance on the aforesaid decision in support of its case by the appellant is, therefore, misconceived in law. 18. Learned counsel relied upon two decisions of Ld. Single Judge of this Court in the cases of Deependra Sharma Versus Union of India (supra) and Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra). As far as the order dated 12.07.2019 passed in the case of Deependra Sharma Versus Union of India (supra) is concerned, that was a case where the petitioner contended that in terms of qualification prescribed for admission into MBBS course as per information bulletin issued by NEET UG, 2019, the petitioner despite having studied, only one year of Biology at the 10+2 level should be allowed to be admitted in the medical course. The argument was based on the decision in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) , as if in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) had decided that study in the subject of Biology for one year as against prescription of two years study would make a candidate eligible to pursue MBBS course. 19. 19. As the respondents therein, did not contest on merits and therefore, the Ld. Single judge had no occasion to examine the issue in view of concession made by the respondents. Therefore the disposal of the petition in the case of Deependra Sharma Versus Union of India (supra) was an outcome of the concession recorded by the learned single judge. In view of our consideration as above, wherein we have held that the decision in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that without having studied Biology as a subject for two years, a candidate would be eligible for admission by treating him as fulfilling eligibility criteria, order passed in the case of Deependra Sharma Versus Union of India (supra), which proceeded on concession, does not decide the issue. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment of learned single judge in the case of Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra). The facts of that case as narrated in para 3 of the order shows that the denial of allotment of seat was on the ground that the petitioner therein had studied Biology as an additional subject in Senior Secondary Examination. The submissions which were made before the Court do not show that the issue which fell for determination was whether a candidate having studied Biology for only one year as against requirement of two years would be eligible. The findings of the Ld. Single Judge in para 23 of its order were not in answer to the issue as to whether the requirement of study in Biology subject for two years is compulsory or not but deciding an issue as to whether studying Biology as an additional subject would render ineligible for admission to MBBS course. In that context, the defence of the State that the petitioner therein did not have Biology as an additional subject in both the years i.e. Class 11th and class 12th was rejected. It never fell for consideration as an issue before the Ld. Single Judge as to whether the petitioner therein was eligible on the touchstone of requirement of two years study in the subject of Biology. Rather, the consideration was confined to the issue as to whether a candidate having studied Biology as an additional subject would be eligible or not. 21. Single Judge as to whether the petitioner therein was eligible on the touchstone of requirement of two years study in the subject of Biology. Rather, the consideration was confined to the issue as to whether a candidate having studied Biology as an additional subject would be eligible or not. 21. The rule of sub silentio is an exception to the rule of precedents. This principle was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. Versus Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr., 1991 (4) SCC 139 as below:- “41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law, which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration of law? Here again the English courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule of sub-silentio. “A decision passes subsilentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind” (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn.). In Lancaster Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. 1941 1KB 675, the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any argument, without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority'. It was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur 1989 (1) SCC 101 . The Bench held that, 'precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment'. The Courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v. State of Pondicherry AIR 1967 SC 1480 it was observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down there-in'. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v. State of Pondicherry AIR 1967 SC 1480 it was observed, 'it is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the principles, laid down there-in'. Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent…...” Therefore decision in the case of Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that eligibility criteria of having studied Biology in the last two years at Senior Secondary level is directory and not mandatory. For that reason, it cannot be accepted that disposal of SLP against the decision in the case of Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra) is an affirmation of view of the High Court that Study in the subject of Biology in the last two years of the Senior Secondary Level is not mandatory and study for one year alone would make a candidate eligible. The SLP filed by National Medical Commission against the decision of the Ld. Single Judge in the case of Sourabh Kumar Jeengar Versus State of Rajasthan (supra), was disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2021. The order shows that the only issue which was considered was whether the petitioner therein should be allowed admission for the academic year 2021-22 instead of 2021 as directed by the High Court. The order of the High Court was modified to the extent that the candidate shall be granted admission for the academic year 2021-22 in the SC category. 22. On the other hand, in the judgments relied upon by the respondents, it has been held that requirement of study in Biology and passing is mandatory. Ld. Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Saini Versus Medical Council of India has decided this issue. On similar lines, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sohan Chouhan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and the High Court of Delhi in the case of Niskarsh Singh Patel Versus National Medical Commission (supra) and Aayushi Dineshbhai Prajapati Versus Union of India (supra) have also rendered judgment, which support the argument of respondents. 23. On similar lines, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sohan Chouhan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and the High Court of Delhi in the case of Niskarsh Singh Patel Versus National Medical Commission (supra) and Aayushi Dineshbhai Prajapati Versus Union of India (supra) have also rendered judgment, which support the argument of respondents. 23. The eligibility criteria as stated in the information bulletin had included additional clauses to provide that the candidates who have passed 10+2 level with Biology as an additional subject will also be eligible for MBBS Entrance Examination in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) and other cases. In the note appended to the clause relating to eligibility criteria, it was clearly stated that the proviso in italics has been subject matter of challenge in various Courts and provisions of the Regulations disqaulifying recognized open school candidate and candidates who have studied Biology/ Biotechnology as an additional subject had been struck down against which SLP has been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is pending. 24. The eligibility criteria as provided in the information bulletin clearly provide in unequivocal terms that no candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS Course or BDS course unless he or she passed the qualifying examination as provided therein. For MBBS Course, as would be applicable in the present case, the candidate is required to pass Higher/Senior Secondary Examination or Indian School Certificate examination which is unequivalent to 10+2 higher/Senior Secondary Examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher/Senior Secondary Examination with specific requirement that the last two years of such study should comprise of Biology as one subject. The effect of judicial intervention in view of decision in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Others Versus Union of India (supra) and other decisions is that it could be as an additional subject also and even those who have passed qualifying examination i.e. 10+2 from National Institute of Open Schooling or State Open Schools or as private candidates from recognized State Boards with Biology as an additional subject shall be allowed though subject to the outcome of SLP pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is clear that requirement of last two years of study comprising of Biology is an essential requirement. There is no rationale logic or basis that even if one has studied Biology for one year and not for two years would also be eligible. Doing so would amount to doing complete violence to the mandatory requirement specified under the eligibility criteria clause. On the other hand, prescription of such a requirement of having studied Biology in the last two years as one of the subjects is founded on strong rationale that a candidate aspiring to pursue MBBS course must have Biology at the Senior Secondary Level i.e. for two years. 25. In the case of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Versus Srikeerti Reddi Pingle (supra), their Lordships in the Supreme Court analysed relevant provisions contained in the Regulations and culled out rationale and compelling logic behind such prescription as below:- “14. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate relied upon by the student merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilst in the 10th grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within the description of “equivalent” qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School that the AP course in Biological Sciences is of college standard. 15. In the opinion of this court, there is a rationale and compelling logic on the part of the University to say that the candidate should have studied biology or biological sciences (apart from the other two science subjects, along with the further requirement of having studied English) in all the relevant years during the intermediate or at 10+2 level. Further, the reference to having studied in the first year in a degree course, at the college level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the student would have necessarily undergone academic study and training in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). Further, the reference to having studied in the first year in a degree course, at the college level with the said subject, carries with it, the implication that the student would have necessarily undergone academic study and training in the said three subjects at the 10+2 or intermediate level (without which, admission in a degree course is inconceivable in India). The further emphasis on having attended or undertaken practical lessons, (again at that level, in each of the concerned years) clearly signifies that a candidate should have undergone study in those subjects for the last two years at school or intermediate college level. The regulation is further clear that the examination score (marks) in Mathematics shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of admission to a medical course, in reckoning merit or performance in the qualifying examination.” 26. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that the aforesaid decision was rendered while examining an issue of equivalence and therefore, not applicable is liable to be rejected. Their Lordships in the Supreme Court analysed the provisions and objects behind such requirement of study in the subject of Biology or Biological Science in all the relevant years during intermediate or at 10+2 level. Having interpreted the provision in that manner, it was applied on the facts of that particular case. Therefore, what has been observed in paras 14 and 15 of the decision in the case of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Versus Srikeerti Reddi Pingle (supra) is the ratio decidendi of the said case and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly in the teeth of the aforesaid dictum. 27. Present is not a case where the Regulations are under challenge. It is not even a case where the eligibility criteria as provided in the information bulletin is under challenge. What is assailed is the action of the respondents. Once this Court finds that the appellant-writ petitioner is not eligible in terms of eligibility criteria provided in the Regulations and in the information bulletin, interference with the view taken by the Ld. Single Judge is not warranted. 28. In the result, the view taken by the Ld. Single Judge is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.