Judgment Case ID: 6534

Judgment:
vil Appeal No. 432938 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5. 1990 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 18102	 18036	 22161	 22836 and 22877 of 1989. Kapil Sibal	 Additional Solicitor General	 Satish Chan dra	 Ms. Shobha Dixit	 Pradeep Mishra	 R.K. Virmani	 Gopal Subramaniam	 Harish N. Salve and D.K. Garg for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 898 RANGANATHAN	 J. We have come to the conclusion that the . High Court 's decision under appeal has to be upheld. But	 as the question raised is one of importance and difficulty	 we have heard the counsel at length. We grant leave in all the petitions and proceed to give the reasons for our conclusion in detail. Both sets of appeals are the off shoots of a "Residency Scheme" for junior doctors introduced in the State of U.P. and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. In the State of U.P.	 post graduate courses in medicine were of two types: degree and diploma. The duration of the degree course was two years and that of the diploma course	 one year. The minimum requirement for admission to a post graduate course (whether degree or diploma) was that the candidate should have passed the M.B.B.S. degree examina tion	 then done one year 's internship and then done a house job for one year. The "Residency Scheme" was notified on 22.8.89. This was the culmination of a long period of agitation by junior doctors in the State for better emoluments and conditions of service. This scheme was given retrospective effect from 1.8.1987	 for para 8 of the scheme says: "The above residen cy scheme shall be deemed to have been enforced from 1st August	 1987". Under the scheme	 every candidate selected for a post graduate degree course would have a tenure of three years which would also be the tenure of the course itself. All such candidates were to be called Junior Resi dents 1st year	 2nd year and 3rd year respectively during their tenure. Each candidate selected for postgraduate diploma course would have a tenure of two years which would also be the tenure of the course and all such candidates were to be called Junior Residents 1st year and 2nd year respectively. In other words	 the duration of the degree course was raised to three years and that of the diploma course to two years. However	 simultaneously	 the eligibili ty requirement of one year 's experience in a house job was dispensed with	 the net result being that the total period needed	 after taking a M.B.B.S. degree	 to acquire a post graduate degree/diploma remained the same as before. The modifications introduced by the new scheme needed certain transitory provisions being made for two purposes. The first was to devise a formula of equation between the old and the new systems. This was done by redesignating all students	 junior doctors	 house officers and others in position in the manner set out in para 5 of the 899 scheme. The original notification is in Hindi but a free translation of the first part of the above para	 as set out in the judgment of the High Court	 reads thus: "Upon enforcement of the above Residency Scheme	 all the House Officers	 Junior Residents 1st year working since 1st August	 1987 and similarly working all Juniors Doctors ("all junior doctors similarly working" is perhaps a better translation) shall stand converted to the following new designation propose in the residency: section No. President designation Designation upon enforcement of residency scheme. House Officer/Demonstrator	 Junior Resident 1st year. 1st year. Junior Resident/RMO 1st year/ Junior Resident RSO 1st year/RGO 1st year/ 2nd year. Demonstrator 2nd year/P. G. degree student 1st year/ P.G. Diploma student 1st year. Senior Resident/RMO 2nd year/ Junior Resident RSO 2nd year/RGO 2nd year/ 3rd year. Demonstrator 3rd year/ Registrar/P.G. Degree students 2nd year. The second provision necessary was in regard to their admis sion to the post graduate courses. This was done by the second sub para or para 5 which ran thus: "At the same time ("Iske sath hi sath") the admis sion and registration of the House Officers	 working at the time ("us sumay") to post graduate courses (degree/diploma course) shall be done after completion of their tenure and on the basis of their merit at M.B .B .S. and house job". [Words in brackets give the original Hindi expressions used; emphasis added by us. ] 900 The provisions of the scheme do not explicitly say that the category of persons dealt with under the second sub para above will be admitted to the second year of the degree course (junior resident 2nd year) of the residency scheme on the basis of inter se merit. A somewhat different line of thinking seems to have been adopted by the High Court in Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava 's case (to which we will be referring later). But	 so far as the present appeals are concerned	 all parties have proceeded on the footing that the scheme is a valid one and that it envisaged that a person who had completed house job for one year could get admission into the second year of the course (whether degree or diploma). The only controversy is whether this admission is open only to those persons who were in a house job as on 22.8.89 and completed it before 30.10.1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants ') or to all persons who had been in a house job on or after 1.8.87. The question arose when a number of doctors (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioners) who had done their M.B.B.S.	 internship and house job by April	 1988 and who (save for one) had even obtained admis sion	 in March 1989	 into a diploma course sought admission in the Motilal Nehru Medical College at Allahabad ( 'M.L.N. College '	 for short) into the second year of a degree course in the same or a different speciality by taking advantage of clause 5 of the residency scheme. Their applications were rejected on the ground that the relevant clause of the scheme was a transitory provision intended to benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989. They alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed the house job; not persons who had completed their house job much earlier to that date. The writ petitioners went to Court and this time they were successful. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held	 interpreting rule 5	 that rule 5 extended the privilege of admission to the second year of the degree course to all persons who were working as house officers on or after 1st August	 1987. The State	 as well as certain doctors who were in house jobs as on 22.8.89 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree courses on the basis of the State 's interpretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result of the High Court 's decision	 have preferred these appeals. Four questions arose for the consideration of the High Court (1) Is the concession contemplated by rule 5 of the scheme limited only to doctors in house jobs as on 22.8.89 or available to all those who were in house jobs as on 1.8.87 and later? (2) Is a candidate who has already been admitted to	 and is 901 undergoing a diploma course eligible to seek admission to a degree course under rule 57 (3) Is it open to a candidate who is a student in a post graduate diploma course in one speciality to seek admission to the postgraduate degree course in any particular special ity? (4) Is it permissible for a candidate who is undergoing a diploma course to abandon it in the middle and join a degree course? The High Court expressed no opinion on the latter two ques tions leaving it to the Principal of the College to decide the same in due course but answered the first two questions in favour of the writ petitioners. We are concerned here only with these two questions. We may take the second of these questions first. The writ petitioners say that a direct answer to this question is provided by a notification issued on 13.8.87 by the Governor of the State in pursuance of the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution read with section 28(5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (Act X of 1973)	 as amended Act 29 of 1974. This notification effects an amend ment to an earlier notification dated 15.12.1982 (as subse quently amended) by adding a new para thereto. The new para provides: "(7A) If any candidate has been admitted in post graduate Diploma or Degree Course in one speciality he shall not be eligible for admission in Post Graduate Diploma or Degree Course in any other speciality. For removal of doubts it is clarified that if a candidate has been admitted in Post Graduate Diploma Course in one speciality he may be allowed admission in Post Graduate Degree Course in that very spe ciality. " If this is correct	 there can be no doubt that none of the writ petitioners can be denied registration and considera tion for admission to the degree course merely on the ground that he has earlier been admitted to a diploma course in some speciality. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that this rule has lost its force on the promulgation of the new scheme. It is difficult to see why this should be so because its principle could be applied	 mutatis mutandis	 to the residency scheme as well. But even if this is correct and this para is kept out of consideration altogether	 there is no rule which prohibits a person (even though he may already be a student in a post graduate course) from seeking 902 admission to the second year of junior residency	 the eligi bility clauses for admission to which he fulfills. The High Court was	 therefore right	 while expressing no view on the question whether any of the writ petitioners are eligible to be admitted to any particular speciality	 in holding that they could not be excluded from consideration for admission to the second year of the degree course merely because they are already students in a diploma course. The first question	 however	 is a more difficult one. We have considered the contentions of both sides carefully and we have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to disturb the High Court 's conclusion. Prior to the enforce ment of the scheme	 all candidates who had completed their M.B.B.S. together with one year of internship and one year of house job were eligible for admission to a postgraduate degree or diploma course and a particular candidate could make repeated attempts for being considered for admission to a particular post graduate speciality	 irrespective of the batch to which he belonged or the particular year in which he was admitted to the M.B.B.S. course or the particular year in which he passed the final M.B.B.S. examination. That liberty is available after the introduction of the new scheme also to all M.B.B.S. graduates who have completed one year of internship. Irrespective of the year in which they qualified in the M.B.B.S. degree examination	 it is open to all such candidates to seek admission to the first year of the new three year degree/two year diploma course. That is not in dispute. The question only is whether any of them are entitled to claim admission in the second year of that course on the ground that they had also completed their house job earlier. The answer to this question must depend on the interpretation of the none too clear para 5 of the Residency Scheme. In interpreting the scheme	 it is first necessary to point out that the preamble to the notification sets out a two fold objective of prescribing a policy/procedure (a) for the conversion of the existing designations in the depart ments to equivalent designations and (b) for specification of the number of seats for various degree/diploma courses and for "eligibility examination for selection thereon". [sic: apparently	 this should read: "eligibility	 examina tion or selection thereto". ] One further important factor to be borne in mind is that the scheme was given effect to from 1.8.87. To ask persons	 who had already completed a one year house job	 to undergo the three year degree/two year diploma course would be a severe handicap to them as	 earlier	 they could have got their post graduate degree/diploma after two years/one year. In order to adjust them into the new scheme 903 the State designated holders of house jobs as "junior resi dents (first year)" under the new scheme. This enabled the holders of house jobs to get into the second year course under the residency scheme. It has been stated	 in the appellants ' rejoinder	 that a large number of candidates who had completed their M.B.B.S. even ten years earlier and some candidates who were even on the verge of completing a post graduate degree course had applied for registration as junior residents (2nd year) along with the appellants and the writ petitioners. This kind of situation would be im practical. Obviously	 the scheme could not be stretched and converted into a limitless provision making it possible for all persons who had completed their house jobs at some distant past to compete for admission to the second year of the degree course. That is why para 5 limited the scope of the redesignation and admission. The first part of it limit ed the equation above referred to only to persons who were working on house jobs since 1.8. 1987. The High Court was clearly right in saying that the words "1st year" used in column of the table in para 5 against serial No. 1 govern only "demonstrator". It is clear that the words "House Officer"	 "Junior Resident" and "Senior Resident" used against serial Nos. 1	 2 and 3 redesignate all such officers working since 1.8.87 as "junior residents 1st 	 2nd and 3rd year" respectively. That being so	 both the writ petitioners as well as the appellants before us are all "junior resi dents (1st year)" and should be eligible for admission to the second year of the residency scheme course. But	 it is said	 this cannot be	 for two reasons. One is that the second sub para of para 5 is restricted only to those who were House Officers on 22.8.89. We think that this contention has been rightly repelled by the High Court. To accept this construction would mean a segregation of the two parts of para 5 and the substitution of the words "on 22nd August 1989" for the words "since 1st August 1987" used in the first para of para 5. The words "us sumay" clearly establish a nexus between the two parts of para 5 and can only refer to the period referred to in the first part viz. "since 1st August 1987". It is difficult to see how a refer ence to two different periods could have been intended by the two parts of para 5. That this could not be so is also clear for the scheme	 though announced on 22.8.89	 was to be effective from 1.8. 1987. That is why a line is drawn as on that date and all persons who are working as house officers	 junior resident doctors or senior resident doctors since that date are all assimilated into the new scheme. There is no justification to read such assimilation as partial	 as contended for by the State. It was contended that the scheme was the outcome of negotiations with junior doctors in the State who were 904 agitating for better conditions of service and higher emolu ments and that the settlement with them was only that higher emoluments will be paid w.e.f. 1.8.87. Necessary material to substantiate this plea was not placed before the High Court or before us. But even assuming that the negotiations and agreement had a limited scope	 we have to interpret the scope of para 5 on its language. The reference to the period since 1.8. 1987 in para 5 fits in with the declaration in para 8 that the scheme should be deemed to have come into force on 1.8.87. In this context	 it is of significance that the scheme notified on 22.8.89 states that the scheme has been introduced in pursuance of proposals submitted to the State Government "for the desired improvement in under graduate/post graduate training" in all colleges and hospi tals but makes no reference to the revision of the scales of pay of the junior doctors. It is	 therefore	 difficult to accept the plea that the date 1.8.87 has significance only in the matter of pay scales and nothing else. This objection is not	 therefore	 sustainable. The second point made by the State and the appellants is that the writ petitioners	 under the scheme	 are already "junior residents 2nd year" as they are already in the first year of a post graduate diploma course and they can not	 therefore	 be eligible for admission to the second year of the degree course where also they will be designated as "junior residents 2nd year". In our view	 the objection is untenable. In the first place	 it is only a variation of the argument that a person already undergoing a diploma course cannot be admitted to a degree course	 which we have reject ed already. But that apart	 there is ' nothing wrong in the writ petitioners being admitted to the second year degree course and being called "junior residents 2nd year" there instead of in the diploma course. In this context	 it is necessary to point out that they have been admitted into the diploma course only in March 1989 and that they are not seeking any credit for the period of education they have undergone in the diploma course. It is then argued that the words "ussamay" occurring in the second part of para 5 of the scheme is really a mistake for "at this time" or "is sumay" or "vartman mein". In support of this contention	 it is pointed out that the Director of Medical Education had written to the secretary to the Government on 2.11.1989 requesting that the word "vartman" be substituted in place of "us samay" in the notification of 22.8.89 "so that the meaning of the above lines shall be clear". It is also submitted that the refer ence to such persons being eligible for admission "after the completion of the tenure" in the house job also makes it clear that persons who had already completed 905 their house jobs in 1987 or 1988 are not within contempla tion. We are unable to agree. When the notification talks of "us samay"	 we cannot read it differently. The letter of Director of Medical Education dated 2.11. 1989 finds a reference only in the appellants ' rejoinder affidavit and the writ petitioners have had no opportunity to meet it. The State has not referred to this letter	 or the action taken on it	 anywhere. These difficulties apart	 the letter pat ently seeks to bring about a change in the contents of the notification and is not a simple request for clarification as it purports to be. At best	 it only reflects the Direc tor 's understanding of the notification and cannot bind the writ petitioners or the Court. Also	 no information has been furnished by the appellants or the State as to whether the request of the Director has been accepted and an amendment published by the Government for the amendment suggested can become effective only on such publication. It may be pointed out a propose this contention that the notification of 22.8.89 itself had been published in the Gazette only on 25.11.89	 much subsequent to the Director 's letter. Even assuming that her suggestion has since been accepted and the words "at that time" stand replaced by the words "at the present time" by a proper notification later	 that amendment cannot affect the parties before us. The date material for the purposes of their admission was 30.9.89	 the last date by which the applications had to be sent in. That being so	 the words "us samay" used in the second sub para of para 5 are the operative words. They clearly embody a reference to an anterior point of time and this can only be a reference to the period since 1.8.87 which finds specific mention in the first sub para and which is the period subsequent to the scheme coming into operation. Thus	 all persons doing house jobs after 1.8.87 are covered by the second sub para of para 5. The words "after completion of the tenure" had to be used here because the class of persons referred to also included those who were in house jobs as on 22.8.89. Indeed this was how the scheme was understood by the Principal of the M.L.N. College and	 perhaps	 by the other principals too. We find that the terms of the advertisement issued by the Principal	 M.L.N. College	 to which the writ petitioners had responded said this: "Candidates must have passed M.B.B.S. Degree from a University recognised by M.C.I.	 should have completed one year compulsory rotatory internship training and should have completed/will be completing one year house manship in the subject concerned by 30th October	 1989 . " 906 This was the understanding of the scheme by the College Principal and	 admittedly	 the writ petitioners fulfilled these requirements. There is	 therefore	 no substance in the second contention either. Ms. Sobha Dixit	 appearing for the State	 submitted that the interpretation placed by the High Court creates two types of major difficulties. The first is that though the High Court 's decision related only to M.L.N. College at Allahabad	 similar claims have also been made for admissions into post graduate courses all over the State and	 in some cases	 the High Court	 following the present case	 has issued directions to a like effect with the result that a large number of candidates who have secured admissions are now facing the loss of their seats and of the benefit of almost one year of study which they have already undergone by now. This argument	 in our opinion	 has no force. It does not appear to be correct to say that the High Court 's deci sion in the present case will affect admissions all over the State. The respondents have stated thus in para 13 of their counter affidavit: The admission in other Medical Colleges of U.P. have been done on the basis of old rules i.e. on the basis of Govt. Notification dated 15.12. 1982 and 13.8.1987 and the students who have completed their house job much earlier prior to 22.8.89 were given admission in 2 year degree and 1 year diploma course according to their respective merits after the introduction of residency scheme dated 22.8.89." (underlining ours) This remains uncontroverted. Further	 the validity of the admissions made to the other colleges would depend on those who had applied for admission there. If earlier batches of house officers had also applied for admission to those colleges and been refused admission	 as in the M.L.N. Col lege	 the position may be similar to that in the present case. If	 however	 such persons had not at all applied or had been duly considered	 no question can arise now for their consideration. No unjustified revision of completed admissions is	 therefore	 likely to result. The plea that the appellants have already completed about a year in the course and should not lose the benefit thereof cannot also be given much weight because	 by interim orders passed in the writ petitions	 the High Court had made it clear that they were being allowed to continue in the course only on the specific understanding 907 that their admissions will be subject to the result of the writ petitions. The second point made by the State counsel is that it compels the batch of students working in a house job as on 22.8.89 to face competition from earlier batches and this according to her	 is contrary to law. In support of this contention	 she referred to certain observations made by this Court that it would not be correct to compare the merits of candidates in different examinations and different States. We see no force in this contention. As pointed out earlier	 before and after the introduction of the scheme	 admission to the first year of the scheme was and will by open competition between medical graduates who had completed house jobs or internships irrespective of the batch to which they belong. It is stated in an affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that	 though the writ petitioners	 while getting admission to the postgraduate diploma course earlier had to compete with earlier batches of students	 they were given some preference. We do not know on what basis such preference was given and it is too late now to examine that aspect. But the fact remains that they were considered along with candidates of earlier batches. We	 therefore	 see no justification for contending that great injustice will be caused to the appellants because it has become necessary for them to face competition from two earlier batches of stu dents. On the contrary	 as pointed out by the High Court	 it is the interpretation pleaded for by the State that may offend article 14 of the Constitution. We have held earlier that the scheme	 though introduced in 1989 is effective from 1.8.87. If that be so	 to place house officers working on 22.8.89 alone in a better position than those who had com pleted house jobs in 1987	 1988 or earlier in 1989 would result in a discrimination in their favour and against the writ petitioners unrelated to indeed	 contrary to the very object and purpose of giving the scheme retrospective effect from 1.8.87. One further contention raised on behalf of the state and the appellants is based on a decision of the High Court in the case of one Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 13419/89)	 a petition for special leave against which was dismissed by this Court (SLP 1380/89 dismissed on 6.4.90). Dr. Srivastava had completed M.B.B.S. in 1987 and one year internship in June 1988 and had applied for admission to a house job but before the admission could be decided upon	 the Residency Scheme had been introduced. She challenged the admission to the first year of the degree course granted by the M.L.N. College	 in preference to her	 to one Dr. Surabhi Rai who 908 had completed her M.B.B.S. in 1987	 completed her internship in 1988 and was in a house job as on 22.8.89. A very pecul iar situation seems to have arisen in that case. Dr. Surabhi Rai had applied for admission to the first year and not the second year of the new residency course though she was on a house job as on 22.8.89. It appears she could not apply for the 2nd year like the writ petitioners here as her house job could not be completed by 30.10.89	 the date mentioned in the advertisement with which we are concerned. Dr. Srivasta va contended before the High Court (a) that only the 1983 batch of students who had passed M.B.B.S. in 1988 were eligible for admission to the degree course and not those who had passed out earlier; and (b) that Dr. Surabhi Rai should have sought admission to the second	 and not the first	 year of the Junior Residency course. The court re jected the first contention which was patently untenable and this was sufficient to dispose of the writ petition. The court	 however	 also proceeded to consider the second con tention and dealt with it as follows: "The second contention of the petitioner has also no force. For this proposition	 the petitioner has relied on the last part of para 5 of the Government order dated 22.8.89. Para 5 of the Government Order has laid down that house officers and Junior doctors working since August 1	 1987 will be converted into Junior Residents of First Year. Second year etc. in accordance with the chart given in this para. Last part of this para lays down about these house officers	 who were working since 1.8.87. This para does not provide for the criteria or deal with the admission of those candidates	 who have joined the First Year House Job and have not yet completed even first year. The cases of those	 who have joined the course of house job but could not complete till the introduction of the new scheme of the residency	 has been considered in the meeting of the Principals of all the Medical Colleges of U.P. and Director of Medical Education and Training on 16.9.1989. Para 6 of this resolution laid down that as the course of house job has been abolished after the enforcement of the residency scheme and the candi dates	 who are undergoing training of house job cannot pursue their studies and training any more and as such. all those candidates	 who are undergoing training of house job should be admitted in the first year course of Junior Resi dency on the basis of merit. This resolution of the Princi pals of all the Medical Colleges appears to be fair and 909 most reasonable. ' As the course of house job has been abol ished and the candidates undergoing this course cannot possibly pursue their studies and if they are not admitted in the first year of the Junior Residency	 they will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss	 because they have been deprived of their right to persue their course of house job in the middle of the session. When the course of house job has been abolished	 it is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of house job to persue their studies any more. In fact respondent No. 3 would have been happy	 if she was permitted to continue and conclude the one year course of house job	 because in that case after few months she would have got admission in the second year of Junior Residency and would have become senior to the petitioner and all others	 who will be joining the first year of Junior Residency course now	 but on ac count of the abolition of the system of house job it became impossible for the Respondent No. 3 to continue with the course and as such	 she had to be contended with the admis sion in the first year of Junior Residency course. " We do not wish to say anything about this part of the judgment as we are not aware whether any appeal has been sought therefrom. It is sufficient to point out that all the appellants before us are persons who were in a house job on 22.8.89 and are claiming admission to the second year of the degree course. We shall	 therefore	 simply content ourselves by saying that	 since all the parties before us have pro ceeded on the footing that persons in the position of the appellants are eligible for admission as Junior Residents 2nd year	 we are not called upon to consider the correctness of the judgment in Dr. Sandeep Srivastava 's case on this point. That was a case which dealt with an admission to the first year of the degree course and	 since there is nothing in the scheme which prohibits any person in the position of the appellants or Dr. Surabhi Rai from applying for admission as junior resident 1st year	 the decision of the High Court was clearly correct. The dismissal of the SLP in that case does not	 therefore	 affect our present discus sion. The Judgment of the High Court in appeal before us	 the judgment in Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava 's case and the other judgments to which Ms. Sobha Dixit made a reference	 howev er	 make it clear that the interpretation of the clauses of the scheme is	 by no means	 an easy 910 task. In practice also	 the basis on which the principals at least the principal of the M.L.N. College proceeded does not appear consistent with the letter of the Director of Medical Education dated 2.11.89. In this state of affairs	 we think that it is upto the State to find out a practical solution to ensure that the student community is not prejudiced by the ambiguities in the scheme. In this context	 our attention was drawn to the directions of this Court in the case of Mridula Avasthi and Others vs University of Delhi and Others	 ; "In this background we are of the view that the impasse created on account of the rival claims advanced by the freshers and the seniors has to have a rough and ready solution yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying as possible. We find that the two year degree course spe ciality wise has 149 seats while the three year degree course has 139 seats. For convenience we extract the partic ulars made available at page 4 of the Bulletin of Informa tion. It may be pointed out that there are 1003 candidates as against total 270 vacancies (degree and diploma courses together) for the seniors; and there are 33 1 candidates as against 205 vacancies for the two courses for the freshers. With a view to providing some more seats for seniors we suggested to Mr. Rao appearing for the University that the number of seats may be increased and he has on instructions agreed	 provided the Union of India provides funds and the Medical Council agrees to accommodate. There are 21 special ities as indicated above. We direct that the University shall create one seat in every speciality and thus 21 addi tional seats will be available over and above the 149 seats fixed by the University representing the 75% quota. To this enhanced number of seats the 25% reservation of All India Selection shall not apply. From the reserved seats made for the freshers	 21 seats being one from every speciality shall be taken away and made available to the seniors. Thus 42 seats in all will be available for the seniors in the Post Graduate course to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit keeping the senior group apart. The creation of the 21 seats will involve addi tional funds to be provided by the Union of India. It will also require approval of the Medical Council of India and there 911 will perhaps also be necessity for permitting the variation of guide student ratio. Since it is for one year and there would be no scope for recurrence and this has arisen in peculiar circumstances explained above	 we direct the Gov ernment of India to take our order made without hearing it with a sense of understanding and make the necessary provi sions. We also suggest to the Indian Medical Council to provide the necessary accommodation by relaxing the require ments. These may be done quickly so that the time schedule may not be affected. " Based on the above observations	 an application has been filed before us praying that directions may be issued to the State of create	 with the approval of the Medical Council of India	 an adequate number of additional seats to accommodate all the applicants in the second year of the degree course in some speciality subject to the other rules in force in the State in this behalf. We do not know how far this will be feasible having regard to the position prevalent not only in the M.L.N. Medical College but also elsewhere in the State. We do not know how many additional seats will have to be created on this footing and whether it is at all possible to do so. We	 therefore	 give no specific directions but leave it to the State Government to review the situation in the entire State and see if any solution that will accommo date all the contestants	 who qualify on merit	 can be found out. However	 any such review should not stand in the way of the immediate consideration subject to other rules in force of the writ petitioners for admission as "junior residents 2nd year". They have already lost almost one year of the degree course though	 presumably	 (except perhaps for one) they have been continuing their studies in the post graduate courses where they had been earlier admitted. This should be set right and such of those as are admitted should be enabled to make up for lost time and to complete their post graduate course	 if possible	 by the end of 1991. With the above observations	 these appeals are dis missed. We	 however	 make no order as to costs. R.S.S. Appeals dismissed.

Summary:
The appellants are junior doctors who were in a house job on 22.8.1989. They had been admitted to post graduate degree course (second year) in the M.L.N. Medical COllege under the "Residency Scheme" for junior doctors	 which was notified on 22.8.1989 but was given retrospective effect from 1.8.1987. They	 however	 lost their seats as a result of the High Court 's decision allowing the writ petitions flied by the respondent doctors whose applications for admission to the same course had been rejected. The modifications introduced by the Residency Scheme needed certain transitory provisions being made for two purposes. The first was to devise a formula of equating between the old and the new systems. This was done by redes ignating all students	 junior doctors	 house officers and others in position in the manner set out in para 5 of the scheme. The second provision necessary was in regard to their admission to the post graduate courses. This was done by the second sub para of para 5. The respondent doctors who had done their M.B.B.S.	 internship and house job by April 1988 and who had even obtained admission	 in March 1989	 into a diploma course	 sought admission in the M.L.N. College into the second year of a degree course by taking advantage of clause 5 of the Residency Scheme. Their applications were rejected on the ground that the clause 5 of the scheme was a transitory provision intended to benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989; they alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed the house job; and not persons who had completed their house job much earlier to that date. Thereupon	 these doctors filed writ petitions in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court al lowed the petitions and held that clause 5 extended the privilege of admission to 896 the second year of the degree course to all persons who were working as house officers on or after 1st August	 1987. The State as well as certain doctors who were in house jobs as on 22.8.1989 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree courses on the basis of the State 's inter pretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result of the High Court 's decision	 have preferred these appeals. So far as the present appeals are concerned	 all parties have proceeded on the footing that the residency scheme is a valid one and that it envisaged that a person who had com pleted house job for one year could get admission into the second year of the course (whether degree or diploma). The only controversy is whether this admission was open only to those persons who were in a house job as on 22.8.1989 and had completed it before 30.10.1989. Dismissing the appeals	 this Court	 HELD: (1) There is no rule which prohibits a person (even though he may already be a student in a post graduate course) from seeking admission to the second year of junior residency	 the eligibility clauses for admission to which he fulfills. The High Court was	 therefore	 right in holding that they could not be excluded from consideration for admission to the second year of the degree course merely because they were already students in a diploma course. [901H; 902A B] (2) To ask persons	 who had already completed a one year house job	 to undergo the three year degree/two year diploma course would be a severe handicap to them as	 earlier	 they could have got their postgraduate degree/diploma course after two years/one year. In order to adjust them into the new scheme the State designated holders of house jobs as "junior residents (first year)" under the new scheme. This enabled the holders of house jobs to get into the second year course under the residency scheme. [902H; 903A] (3) The scheme	 however	 could not be stretched and converted into a limitless provision making it possible for all persons who had completed their house jobs at some distant past to compete for admission to the second year of the degree course. That is why para 5 limited the scope of the redesignation and admission. The first part of it limit ed the equation only to persons who were working on house jobs since 1.8.1987. [903B C] 897 (4) The date material for the purpose of their admission was 30.9.1989	 the last date by which the applications had to be sent in. That being so	 the words "ussamay" used in the second sub para of para 5 are the operative words. They clearly embody a reference to an anterior point of time and this can only be a reference to the period since 1.8.1987 which finds specific mention in the first sub para and which is the period subsequent to the scheme coming into opera tion. [905D E] (5) All persons doing house jobs after 1.8.1987 are covered by the second sub para of para 5. The words "after completion of the tenure" had to be used here because the class of persons referred to also included those who were in house jobs as on 22.8.1989. [905F] (6) It is clear that the words "House Officer"	 "Junior Residents" and "Senior Residents" used against serial Nos. 1	 2 and 3 in para 5 of the scheme redesignate all such officers working since 1.8.1987 as "junior residents 1st	 2nd and 3rd year" respectively. That being so	 both the writ petitioners as well as the appellants are all "junior resi dents (1st year)" and should be eligible for admission to the second year of the residency scheme course. [903D E] (7) It is clear from the judgments of the High Court on the subject that the interpretation of the clauses on the scheme is by no means an easy task. In this state of af fairs	 it is upto the State to find out a practical solution to ensure that the student community is not prejudiced by the ambiguities in the scheme. [909H; 910A] Mridula Avasthi and Others vs University of Delhi and Others	 ; 	 referred to.