- (1.) Vide this order, two civil writ petitions (Nos. 9721 of 1987 and 42 of 1988) are being disposed of as the question involved in both these cases is similar. The judgment is prepared in CWP No. 9721 of 1987.
(2.) The petitioner Miss Aranjit Kaur sought admission in the Diploma Course (DHMS) in Homeopathy for the Sessions 1987-88 in the month of August, 1987. The minimum qualifications as per prospects required were 45 per cent marks in Pre-Medical or its equivalent. Regulation 4 of the Homoeopathy (Diploma Course) Regulation, 1983 framed under the Homoeopathic Central Council Act of 1973 provides as under :- "No candidate shall be admitted to DHMS (Diploma) Course unless he has : (a) passed the intermediate course or its equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as his subjects. (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x" The petitioner was given provisional admission to First Proficiency in the Course by Principal of the Homoeopathic Medical College, Abohar, respondent No. 2, subject to the condition that the petitioner would clear her compartment in Physics in September, 1987. After admission, the petitioner deposited requisite fees. She was allotted Roll No. 103. The Principal of the College wrote to Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicines, respondent No. 1, on October 27, 1987 for granting approval of the candidature of the petitioner after relaxing the qualifications. Copy of the letter in Annexure P-1. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated November 18, 1987 rejected the same. Copy of the letter is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 cancelled the provisional admission of the petitioner vide letter, Annexure P-3. In the supplementary examination, the petitioner cleared the compartment by getting 50% marks. The principal again wrote to respondent No. 1 for allowing the petitioner regular candidature in view of the fact that she had passed the examination. Copy of the letter is Annexure P-4. No admission was taken on this letter. The petitioner continued attending the classes under orders of this Court passed on this writ petition.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 contested the writ petition inter alia alleging that at the time of admission, the petitioner was not eligible. Her candidature was rightly declined wide order, copy Annexure P-1.;