JUDGMENT:— Special leave granted.

2. The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant was qualified to appear for the M.D. (General Medicine) Examination as a teacher candidate. The High Court by the impugned order has taken the view that he was not, on the ground that he had not completed 3 years training period including one year of the house-job, prior to qualifying himself for appearing for the examination.

3. The respondents, P.G. Medical Students Association had challenged the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said examination on two grounds. The first ground was that he was not a teacher and the second ground was that he had not undergone the necessary training for 2 years and had also not done housemanship in General Medicine for one year. The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the candidate must have done one years housemanship prior to the admission to the Post-graduate degree in the same subject in which he wants to appear for the examination or at least six months housemanship in the same Department and the remaining six months in the allied Department. The period of training thus, shall be 3 years after full registration including one year of the house-job.

4. The appellant claimed that he was a teacher in the Department of Biochemistry in the Rajendra Medical College (R.M.C.) and filed an application for his registration as a student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to the then Principal of Rajendra Medical College-cum-Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dr. C.J. K. Singh. He objected to his registration on the ground that the appellant was not posted in any of the teaching posts in medical college. The then Head of the Department of Medicine, Dr. S. Sinha also wrote to Dr. C.J.K. Singh that the appellant though attached to the Department of Medicine, was a Bio-chemist attached to the Renal Unit and dealt entirely with the subject of Biochemistry.

5. The appellant filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 755 of 1988 praying for appropriate direction to the University to permit him to submit his thesis irk M.D. (Medicine) examination. The University contested his claim that he was a teacher and took the stand that since he was not a teacher, he was not eligible for training in M.D. (General Medicine). For this purpose, the University relied upon the letters of Dr. C.J. K. Singh and Dr. S. Sinha. The Court dismissed the said petition on 23rd May, 1988 without deciding the issue as to whether the appellant held a teaching post but recorded a finding that the appellant was not entitled for admission to the examination in M.D. as he had not submitted his thesis and had also failed to produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactory training. The High Court also held that the acceptance of the thesis was a pre-requisite for appearing at the examination.

6. However, thereafter the present petition was filed by the respondent-Association when the appellant was granted permission to appear for the said examination being satisfied that the post which he was holding was a teaching post as pointed out by the State Government. In this petition, the University supported the appellant by asserting that the appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine. The High Court has again not decided the point whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the Department of Medicine. For not deciding the point, the High Court has given an additional reason, viz., that many persons who were in fact appointed as teachers would be prejudicially affected since they would become junior to the appellant and they were not before the Court. For the purposes of the disposal of the writ petition, the High Court presumed that the appellant was a teacher in the Department of Medicine in the Rajendra Medical College. The Court has, however, made it clear that this presumption would be confined to the present case only and the appellant would not be entitle