JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

The unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 18599 of 2011 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash Clause 4.2 of OJEE, 2011 Brochure prescribing the upper age limit of 25 years for the entrance examination of 2011, which is the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to the first year MBBS who has secured 141 rank in medical stream and 36 rank as Green Card holder has filed this writ appeal urging various facts and legal contentions and prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Writ Appeal and quash the Clause 4.2 in the Prospectus of OJEE, 2011.

2. The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether the appellant has made out a case for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and issue a writ of certiorari to quash Clause no. 4.2 of the OJEE, 2011 Prospectus prescribing the upper age limit of 25 years for admission to the first year MBBS and as to whether refusal to quash the same amounts to failure to exercise judicial review power as it is in violation of Articles 14,21, and 21A of the Constitution of India. That amounts to substantial question of law that would arise for consideration of this Court ? What order ?

3. The date of birth of the appellant is 10th of May, 1984. Clause 4.2 of the Brochure of OJEE, 2011 prescribes the upper age limit as 25 years for admission to MBBS Course and accordingly he was issued admission card for appearing at the entrance examination conducted by the OJEE, 2011 which he did. He secured 141st rank in the general category and 36th rank in the Green Card holder category in the merit list. Learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that in the absence of prescription of the upper age limit in the regulation framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and also in the Rules or Regulation under Section 4(1) of the Orissa Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee)Act, 2007 prescribing the upper age limit by the OJEE in its prospectus is without authority of law and the various decisions of the Supreme Court upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mohapatra, particularly the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 2894, Medical Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1998)6 SCC 131, Sanatan Gauda V. Berhampur University & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075, Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1209, State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana & Anr., reported in (1979) 1 SCC 572 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mangal Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1974 in support of the proposition that regulation made under Statute have the force of law. Any action or order in breach of terms and conditions of Regulations is illegal and invalid. Learned Single Judge also did not consider the prospectus of various States in the country which did not prescribe the upper age limit as per the MCI guideline. There are different entrance examination for admission to MBBS course of AIIMS and other Universities and institutions conducting entrance examination for admission to MBBS course where there is no prescription of upper age limit except the minimum age limit of 17 years. In the prospectus for AIIMS MBBS Examination August, 2011 it is mentioned that candidates born on or after 2nd January, 1995 are not eligible to apply. The aforesaid relevant facts and legal contentions have not been examined in the proper perspective by the learned Single Judge with reference to the various judgments of the Apex Court upon which strong reliance is placed. Non-conside