Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS Gulshan Kumar and Rakesh Seth passed their M.B.B.S. examination from Medical College, Rohtak in the years 1983 and 1985, respectively. Petitioner No. 1 obtained diploma course in Orthopaedics in November 1985 and thereafter he joined M.D. degree course in Department of Pharmacology the duration of which was to expire on May 3, 1989. Petitioner No. 2 joined diploma in Child Health in the month of May, 1987, but failed to clear the same. He took admission in Radiology in July, 1988 and meanwhile he appeared for supplementary examination in diploma in Child Health under the orders of the Civil Courts for which the Respondent -University had declined permission on the plea that he had subsequently taken admission in Diploma in Radiology. The duration of Radiology course was to expire in June, 1989. Petitioner No. 1 applied for admission to M. S. Orthopaedics and M. D. Radiology. Similarly Petitioner No. 2 also applied for admission to M.D. Paediatrics, a degree course and to M.D. Radiology. According to the Petitioners, they applied for respective disciplines being fully eligible but have been denied admission on the plea that as per conditions laid down in the Prospectus and Bulletin of Information issued by the Government Medical College, Rohtak - - Respondent No. 2 they were not eligible to apply.
(2.) THE Petitioners, therefore, by means of this writ petition prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing condition Nos. 4(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Prospectus aforementioned which according to them stood in their way in getting admission applied for. In the return the Respondent -University while controverting the allegations made in the petition, pleaded that the Petitioners were not at all eligible to apply for admission to the Post -Graduate Courses for the session 1989 -90. for Petitioner No. 1 was already pursuing one degree i.e. M.D. Pharmacology whereas Petitioner No. 2 though was eligible to apply for admission to degree course in Radiology as he was pursuing Diploma Course in the same subject, but he was not eligible to apply for admission to M.D. Paediatrics.
(3.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the provisions of condition Nos. 4(ii) to (iv) of the Prospectus on the ground that these conditions have been inserted in the Prospectus against the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India. Had the Petitioners known that they would be ineligible for future admission they would not have sought admission earlier. The Respondent -University was under an obligation to have informed them about the conditions of admission at the time when they took admission.;