The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility of students to appear in the examination is determined by the completion of the prescribed training period as per the Regulations of the Medical Council of India.

DIPAK MISRA, J. :- Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petition they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 687/2008 are exposited herein.

2. The petitioners, eight in number, are the students of second professional course prosecuting their studies in M.G.M. Medical College under Devi Ahiliyabai Vishwavidyalay, Indore. They joined the college in MBBS course in 2005 and appeared in the first professional examination in the month of August, 2006. Result of the said examination was declared on 19-9-06 in which the petitioners were declared as failed. They were directed to appear in the supplementary examination. The supplementary examination was held in February, 2007 and the results were declared on 22-3-2007 in which the petitioners qualified.

3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners cleared the examination of MBBS first professional course on 22-3-2007 since there was supplementary examination in one paper all the students started attending classes along with the second batch. As they had attended the classes they have not lost any class nor any period of study prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It is urged that though the petitioners have completed their course and classes within the time along with other students belonging to the main batch, yet they are being treated in the detained category and not allowed to undertake the examination of MBBS second professional course which is to be held in February, 2008. The last date of filling up the forms has been fixed on 15-1-2008. It is contended that if the petitioners are not allowed to appear in the examination scheduled to be held in February, 2008 they would unnecessarily lose one full academic session. It is contended that if the Regulations of Medical Council of India re-read and appreciated in proper perspective the petitioners would be treated to have been merged in the main batch of the MBBS second professional course and hence, they are entitled to appear in the examination. It is also highlighted that they had attended the classes immediately and they stand on different footing than those who had not passed the supplementary examination. Reliance has been placed on regulations framed by the Medical Council of India in the year 1997 which provide every student is required to undergo a period of certified study extending over 4½ academic years divided into nine semesters of six months each from the date of commencement of study for the subjects comprising the medical curriculum followed by one year compulsory internship. Special emphasis has been placed on Clause 7 of the Regulations to pyramid the stand that a candidate who passes in the supplementary examination held within six months can join the main batch and his case is distinguishable from that of failed students who have not cleared the supplementary examination. It is also highlighted that the respondents have committed illegalities in not allowing the petitioners to take up the main examination by relying on 2000 regulations which have not yet come into force. It is contended that a representation has been made to the Medical Council of India but there has been no response. It is asseverated that they have attended the classes in a regular manner and not lost any single day of study/classes. It is put forth that because of the attitude reflected by the respondents the petitioners are losing one year as they are not being treated at par with the students of main batch. In this factual backdrop prayer has been made to issue of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to merge the petitioners with the main batch of MBBS second professional course and allow them to appear in the examination with the said batch by filling up the forms.

4. When the writ petition was listed on 18-1-2008 before this Court notices were issued and response was called