JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:—These three petitions can be disposed of by a common order. Since we have heard counsel at some length we grant special leave in these petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals.

2. In the Motilal Nehru Medical College (M.L.N. College) at Allahabad there are 8 seats for a post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Of these, 6 seats are reserved f r institutional candidates and two are reserved for external candidates. The Principal of the college has filled up all the 8 seats by admitting institutional candidates and without considering the cases of any external candidate. Among the institutional candidates Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani, who had obained the highest percentage of marks have been admitted and Dr. Vandana Singh, who had applied for admission as an external candidate was not considered. Dr. Vandana Singh, therefore, approached the Allahabad High Court, which upheld her contention and held that the two seats in question should have been filled up in accordance with a notification published by the State Government on 26th April, 1986 (amending a previous notification dated 15-12-1982) which provided as follows:

"In every specialty, seventy five per cent seats in a particular medical college shall be reserved for the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from that College and against the remaining twenty five per cent seats, candidates who have passed M.B.B.S. examination from other Medical Colleges and are bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh, shall be eligible for admission on the basis of merit along with the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from that very college.

3. The Court, therefore, set aside the admission of Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani and directed the Principal of the Medical College to consider the cases of Dr. Vandana Singh and other external candidates, who were eligible for admission to the "open" twenty five per cent, seats on merits and in accordance with law.

4. The Principal of the Medical College, Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani have preferred these appeals. It has been submitted that the High Court has overlooked that the admissions in question were to the second year of the post-graduate degree course and were being considered under the terms of a residency scheme dated 22-8-89. As per the terms of this scheme, 25% of the seats in the course (here, two seats) were to be filled in by candidates on the basis of an examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, no such examination had been conducted by All India Institute and the college instead of leaving the seats vacant, decided to fill them up by internal candidates on the basis of merit. In doing this, the Principal of the college was only complying with the terms of a decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. R.P. Pandey (Writ Petition No. 8181 of 1989) and a precedent approved by the Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Examination Cell, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, which, in a letter to the Principal of an Agra college, had, when unable to recommend candidates on the basis of an All India examination for a particular course released these seats in favour of internal candidates. It has been submitted on behalf of Dr. Juhi Jain that, even assuming that the application of Dr. Vandana Singh had to be considered, the High Court should have restricted itself to quashing the admission to one of the two seats and upheld the admission of Dr. Juhi Jain, who had secured higher marks than Dr. Padma Panjwani. It is submitted on behalf of Dr. Padma Panjwani that even assuming that Dr. Vandana Singhs application merited consideration, the interests of all the three candidates could have been safeguarded by directing the State Government to create one additional seat and accommodate all the three candidates. Reliance is placed in this respect on certain observations made by this Court in the case of on