JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the third respondent who appeared in person.

3. The matter pertains to admission to M.S. (Gynaecology and Obstetrics) in the Medical College at Jaipur, in the all-India merit quota, for the academic year 1993-94. 25 per cent of the available seats in the postgraduate medical courses were reserved for being filled from among the candidates allotted by Director General of Health Services on the basis of an all-India examination keeping in view the preferences indicated by each candidate. According to the orders of this Court governing admissions for the said academic year, any seats remaining unfilled on the prescribed date should be surrendered to the State quota.

4. The third respondent, Dr Sumit Mathur, appeared in the all-India examination expressing her first preference for Jaipur Medical College and for the speciality of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. She also sought admission in the State quota whereas the appellant, Dr Santosh Kumari, applied for a seat only under the State quota. In the all-India examination, the third respondent was assigned the merit ranking at 1816. Because there were several candidates above her, she could not be given admission in M.S. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) degree course. Four other candidates above her in the merit list were allotted. One of the candidates so allotted to degree course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Jaipur College, Dr Manisha Jitendra Singhi, did not join within the prescribed date, with the result, one seat remained unfilled. While considering candidates for allotment against the said seat, the third respondent was not considered inasmuch as she had joined Obstetrics and Gynaecology diploma course under the State quota. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court had directed that a candidate admitted in a course shall not be considered for admission to another course. Thereupon, the third respondent approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 4271 of 1993 seeking admission against the said vacant seat. A learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on 11-1-1993 holding that the writ petitioner (third respondent in this appeal) was not entitled to the said seat for more than one reason recorded by him. The third respondent questioned the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing a special appeal in the Rajasthan High Court. The Division Bench which heard the special appeal observed at more than one place in its judgment that the third respondent was not entitled to admission on the basis of her merit. The Bench observed:

"We had called for the records from the respondents on pursuance of the appellant which were made available to the court for perusal and from the perusal of the said records we do not find any infirmity or d violation of the rules having been committed by the respondents. Since the petitioner was neither eligible at the time of first counselling which took place on 5-5-1993 or even on the date of second counselling (which ?) took place on 10-6-1993, the question of the petitioner having been considered for allotment of a seat in the speciality of her choice, does not arise."

5. The Division Bench also expressed its full agreement with the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sandhya Kabra (Dr) v. University of Delhi1. Indeed, the Bench set out the several directions made by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court including the one relating to automatic surrender of unfilled all-India seats after the prescribed date and the other saying that "no change of course or Hospital is allowable to the candidates who have already secured admission." Even so, the special appeal was allowed in part on the following reasoning: Pending the writ petition filed by the third respondent, the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had directed that one seat shall be kept reserved pending disposal of the writ petiti