JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) There appears to be no end of grievance of candidates for seeking admission to post graduate courses in medical colleges in the all India quota and thus endless filing of writ petitions. At times their grievance does appear to be quite genuine but because of the eratic working of the scheme and unintentional mistake or negligence various courts judgments at times flouted and usual delays in disposal of the cases there mostly attributable to the strike by lawyers), the candidates do not get justice in time.
(2) All these petitions numbering nine pertain to admission to post graduate courses in various specialities in all India quota for the year 1992.
(3) The entrance examination is conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). When results are declared data regarding candidates is fed into computer by Aiims and then submitted to the Director General, Health Services (DGHS) for allotment purposes as per choices given by the candidates of their subjects and colleges. The allotment is then made by the DGHS.
(4) We may here set out facts in brief in each of these petitions.
(5) Dr. Panakkal Mohamed Basheer, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2610/92, seeks a direction that he be allotted a seat in M.D. (General Medicines) which was his first preference and the college where he wants admission is Grant Medical College, Bombay, or any other college wherever he says seat in that subject would be lying vacant. The petitioner ranked 581. As per options given by him of the subjects and colleges he was allotted his seat in M.D. (TB and RD) on 18 May 1992 in Grant Medical College, Bombay.
(6) Respondents say that no one below the rank of the petitioner had been allotted any subject of higher choices in the colleges of choice of the petitioner on this day. However, seats made available in various subjects due to non-joining of the candidates had been utilised for allotment to those candidates who could not be allotted any seat earlier or they were refused admission by the colleges allotted to them in the first list. Respondents then say that there is no seat in M.D. (General Medicines) in any of the medical colleges including Grant Medical College, Bombay. It is then stated that there are many other candidates higher in merit than the petitioner and they will be entitled to admission in M.D. (General Medicines) if any seat was available in Grant Medical College, Bombay.
(7) Dr. Ajay Bhatia, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2943/92, seeks a mandamus that he be granted a seat in Post Graduate Course in Medicine in the Medical College, Amritsar. In the merit list he ranked at 987. As per the rules he had given six subject choices and eight choices of colleges. As per his subject choice and college choice he was allotted a seat in M.S. (Opthalmology) at Government Medical College, Rohtak, on 6 July 1992 where he is presently studying. The petitioner was allotted this seat by the Director General, Health Services (DGHS) in terms of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court of India. After the petitioner and other candidates similarly situated had submitted p73 their forms for taking examinations for the all India quota a press release was issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), which conducts the examinations, that candidates could give choice in M.D. (Medicines) for Medical Colleges, Amritsar and Patiala as well as earlier Aiims had been informed that the Medical Colleges, Amritsar and Patiala were conducting only a Post Graduate Diploma Courses in Medicines. A corrigendum was, thus, issued on 4 November 1991 and in terms thereof the petitioner also gave his choice for M.D. (Medicines) in the Government Colleges. Amritsar and Patiala. It so happened, that this application of the petitioner giving choice for Medical Colleges, Amritsar and Patiala was not forwarded by the Aiims to the D.G.H.S. with the result that it was not taken notice of and the petitioner came to be allotted M.S. seat in Opthalmology at Rohtak. When the petitioner came to know that a candidate lower in merit than him had been allotted a seat in Medical College, Amritsar, in M.D. (Medicines) he filed this writ petition.
(8) Respondents say that since earlier Aiims had not informed about the change in choices given by the petitioner, by the time the correct information was received there were no vacancies available in either of the Medical Colleges at Amritsar or Patiala. Aiims in its answer to show cause notice had admitted that the request of the petitioner for change in choices though received in time was overlooked in its office and information to D.G.H.S. could be communicated on 14 July 1992. It is submitted that the petitioner ranked in the merit list at 987 and the candidates who were lower in rank having number 1054 and 1106 had been given precedent over the petitioner.
(9) When we found that the petitioner has suffered for no fault of his, we even issued notice to the Medical Council of India (MCI), who though is not a party before us, if another seat could be created at the Medical College, Amritsar, in M.D.(Medicines). In pursuance to that appearance was put in by Mci and a resolution dated 6 February 1992 of the Mci was brought on record where the case of the petitioner was considered. It is stated that a Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Sandhya Kabra v. Union of India and others had already directed that after15September 1992 all unfilled seats of all India quota to Post Graduate Courses would revert back to local institutions. It was also pointed out that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition had directed the Mci to constitute a committee to consider admission of candidates to post graduate courses from and amongst the waitlisted candidates prepared by the State Government. A committee in pursuance thereto had been constituted and in its reports dated 9 November 1992 and 26 November 1992 had recommended filling up of vacant seats from all India quota in terms of directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Thus, it will appear that no seat in M.D. (Medicines) is available in the Medical College, Amritsar, as of date.
(10) We do not think it is possible for us to issue any mandamus directing Mci to sanction creation of a seat in Medical College, Amritsar, and in fact there is no such prayer is well. No doubt the petitioner has suffered for no fault of his as not having been allotted seat of his choice when candidates lower in rank have been so allotted, it would certainly cause frustration to the petitioner, but that is something which cannot be helped at this stage. In any case the petitioner is undergoing M.S. (Opthalmology) at Government Medical College, Rohtak. When there is no seat available in Medical College, Arnritsar, we cannot direct that petitioner be admitted there. We also cannot direct any candidate over in merit than the petitioner to give tip his seat as no such candidate is also party before.
(11) Dr. Lalan Kumar Singh, petitioner in C.W.P. 3167/92, ranked 942 in the entrance lamination held for all India quota for admission to post graduate medical courses. As per choice of his subjects and colleges given by him he was allotted a seat in Diploma Orthopaedics at Patna Medical College, Patna. The college was his first choice and the subject his fourth choice in the application form submitted by him. The allotment was made in May 1992. The case of the petitioner is that candidates lower in rank than him have been allotted seats in M.S. (Opthalmology) in Government Medical College Rohtak, which was the third choice of the petitioner subject-wise and seventh college-wise. It contended that Diploma is one year course while M.S. (Opthalmology) is a post graduate degree course for three years. The petitioner, therefore, seeks reallocation to any medical college in the country in his subjects M.S. (General Surgery) or M.D. 0pthalmology) which he says were his First, second and third choices given by him.
(12) The respondents have contended that the allotment was made in the first stage self as per the scheme approved by the Supreme Court.
(13) Dr. Vipin Gupta, petitioner in C.W.P. 3408/92, seeks reallocation of his seat. He asked 325 in the merit list As per his choice of college and subject he was allotted M.D. general Medicines) at Government Medical College.Rohtak. The subject of his choice No. 1 and the college choice was No.2. Petitioner has contended that the candidates ranked lower in merit than him were given seats in Medical Colleges in Delhi. He, before, wants reallocation to any college in Delhi.
(14) Dr. Deepak Kumar Das, petitioner in C.W.P. 3563/92, seeks admission to post graduate medical courses of his choice of subject and college. He ranked 970 in the merit list. As per his choice of subjects and colleges he could not be allotted any seat anywhere. The petitioner even did not figure in the second list though he says that he found many candidates lower in rank than him had been admitted. Even in the third list issued by the Dghs the petitioner did not figure. He says thereafter he met the officer concerned in the office of D.H.G.S. and was given offer to accept M.S. (Opthalmology) in Medical College, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. This was on 9 September 1992. Petitioner was also told that last date would be 15 September 1992 as per decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Sandhya Kabra v. Union of India and others Drj . The petitioner, however, did not join the college. He says thereafter he came to know that number of seats were lying vacant in the subject of his choice when M.S. (Opthalmology) was not his subject of choice.
(15) The respondents have stated that in the two lists of allotment made up to 28 August 1992 there was no seat available in the choices of subjects and colleges given by the petitioner in his application. They say after decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sandhya Kabra case as of today no seat is available from all India quota and all seats have been surrendered back to the respective State Governments. It is stated that the petitioner himself requested for allotment of M.S. (Opthalmology) in Government Medical College, Aurangabad, which was vacant and he made his request in writing. It is stated that at the time when the petitioner made his request there were four or five post graduate candidates facing similar type of problem and were being given relief as vacancies were going to lapse w.e.f. 16 September 1992 and it was thought prudent if these seats could be utilised the same will be in the interest of the candidates of all India quota.
(16) Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, petitioner in C.W.P. 3599/92, seeks admission in M.S. (Orthopaedics) Course in B.H.U. Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi. He ranked 270 in the merit list. As per his application form giving choices of subjects and colleges he was allotted a seat in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in Government Medical College, Baroda. The petitioner has contended that he would have opted for Bhu, Varanasi, if the subject was mentioned in the list of subjects and colleges as per prospectus issued.
(17) The respondents contend that at the time of publication of prospectus the information regarding availability of any seat in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in Bhu Varanasi was not available and the respondents were informed only at a later stage of seat available there in the all India quota. Respondents also say that three persons higher in merit than the petitioner had given their choices of M.S. (Orthopaedics) as one of their subjects and Bhu Varanasi as one of the colleges choice, and they in any case had a better claim than the petitioner.
(18) In C.W.P. No. 3791/92 there are two petitioners. They seek direction for admission to post graduate courses in any medical college anywhere in the country in the all India quota for the year 1992. In the entrance examination for the purpose, first petitioner ranked 1795, and second petitioner 1839 in the merit list. First petitioner is Dr.Sarika Aggarwal and second petitioner Dr.Vikas Bajaj. They could not be allotted subject of their choice or college as mentioned by them in their respective admission forms. Respondents have contended that no candidate lower in merit than the petitioners have been granted seat in the subject or college of their choice. The respondents then say that in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr.Sandhya Kabra’s case all seats of all India quota have since been surrendered back to the respective State Governments and now the Dghs is not competent or empowered to make any allotment.
(19) On an interim order made on 3 November 1992 we had directed that if any seat in Radio Diagnosis was lying vacant at G.R.Medical College, Gwalior, that be kept reserved and had further ordered that if any seat in Gynaecology in any of the colleges in all India quota was lying vacant and there was no candidate higher in merit than the first petitioner then one seat in that subject shall also be kept reserved.
(20) Then we recorded on 19 November 1992 on the basis of an affidavit filed by the first petitioner staling that one seat in M.D. (Obst. & Gynae.) in S.M. Medical College. Agra, was still lying vacant, we had then directed that if that be so then that seat if under all India quota be kept reserved unless there was any other candidate higher in merit than the first petitioner. But. as noted above, the respondents have stated that they have since surrendered all the seats in the all India quota and as far as they are concerned, there is no seat.
(21) Then again on 30 November 1992 we recorded on the basis of a letter addressed by the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, to the Director of Medical Education, Bhopal, that one seat in M.D. Radiology of all India quota was available. We directed that if that be so the second petitioner shall be granted provisional admission to that course subject to, however, that there was no person higher in merit than the second petitioner who was seeking admission to that course. The second petitioner, however, filed an affidavit dated 4 February 1993 slating therein that as per orders of this Court one seat in M.D. Radio diagnosis at G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, had been kept reserved for him. From this it is not clear if the second petitioner joined that course, and if so, from which date. An affidavit has also been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh slating that 25% unfilled all India quota seats in post graduate courses have been surrendered to the State Government by letter dated 23 September 1992 of the DGHS..
(22) However, if in terms of the interim order the second petitioner has already got admission in the G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, in M.D. Radiodiagnosis he will continue to pursue his studies as we find that State of Madhya Pradesh which is also a party before us has not responded to the show cause notice.
(23) Dr. Athar Sajjad Mohd, petitioner in Cwp No. 3397/92, seeks reallocation of his seat. In the entrance examination he ranked 911 and as per subject choice and college choice he was allotted a seat in M.S. (General Surgery) in Gauhati Medical College. Petitioner’s case is that course in Gauhati Medical College has not yet started and that he be reallocated of his seat in a college in Bombay or Ahmedabad.
(24) Dr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Cwp 3813/92, ranked 1633 in the entrance examination. He could not be allotted any seat as per choices of his subjects and colleges. He seeks a direction that he be given admission in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in Government Medical College, Baroda, or at Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhu, Varanasi, or in any other medical college in the country where there may be in existence vacancies in all India quota in that subject.
(25) On 5 November 1992 this Court passed an order that one seat in p73M.S. (Orthopaedics) in Lucknow Medical College be kept reserved in case no person higher in merit than the petitioner was claiming that seat.
(26) Respondents say that there are as many as 36 candidates higher in merit than the petitioner and they had not so far been allotted any seat like the petitioner and, therefore. the seat at Lucknow could not be allotted to the petitioner. Respondents also say that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr.Sandhya Kabra’s case a letter was addressed to all the State Governments that all unfilled seats in all India quota shall stand surrendered to the States w.e.f. 16 September 1992. This letter was addressed by the respondents on 23 September 1992.
(27) During the course of hearing of this writ petition we received a communication that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had passed orders that seat in M.S. (Orthopaedics) in K.G. Medical College, Lucknow, be given to Dr. Lalit Kumar which seat had been vacated by Dr. Mohan Kumar.
(28) We have heard the off repeated arguments and have been drawn reference to various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. Respondents have stated that out of total candidates numbering 1958 in the merit list allotment could be made only to 1205 candidates as per their choice and other candidates were left out due to non- availability of seats of their ranks as per their choice of subjects and colleges. After vacancies were communicated on account of non-joining of the candidates including those of the candidates who were allotted seats in some colleges but were refused admissions there, the candidates in the waiting list, etc. were allotted those vacant seats. This is how the respondents explained that the candidates who ranked lower in merit than the petitioners came to be allotted seats in colleges where the petitioners seek admission. Respondents have also contended that as per the scheme approved by the Supreme Court there was no provision for change of subject or college and no change had been given to any candidate who had been allotted seats in all India quota for the year 1992. Then reference has been made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Sandhya Kabra v. Union of India and others to contend that seats from all India quota which remained unfilled as on 15 September 1992 were reverted back to the respective States w.e.f. 16 September 1992. It was stated that this direction of the Full Bench was communicated to all concerned by letter dated 23 September 1992 of the DGHS. Thus, it is stated that no seat in all India quota as of this date would be available. Petitioners say Dr. Sandhya Kabra’s case could not lay such a law and that whatever the Full Bench said regarding automatic surrender of seats of all India quota to respective State Governments w.e.f. 16 September 1992 was per incuriam. We find substance in this submission of the petitioners. If we refer to the case of Dr. Sandhya Kabra the question was change of course of study for the candidates who took entrance examination in the State quota (Delhi University) for 1991 and for the year 1992 again in the State quota. This is what para 2 of the judgment notes:- “IN these writ petitions, the common question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner in Civil Writ No. 1657/92, who joined the M.D. Course in Micro Biology in the University of Delhi in 1991, is entitled to change her course of study and whether the other petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1672/92 and 1925/92, who took the 1992 examination are, likewise, entitled to change their courses.”
(29) The Full Bench referred to the scheme formulated by the Delhi University which was put into effect w.e.f. 1992 for admission to post graduate courses and assignment of medical colleges in Delhi. The Full Bench examined various decisions of the Supreme Court, of this Court and other High Courts and held as under :- “FOR the aforesaid reasons, we conclude that in respect of the examination held in 1991, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and we direct that no fresh admission/change of course in respect of the said year should be granted. In respect of the examination held in 1992, the list of 28th August 1992 issued by the D.G.H.S. will be given effect to. but after 15th of September 1992 the seats, which remain unfilled, will automatically lapse to Delhi University. These seats will be allocated to the candidates in the waiting list on a counselling to be held on or before 30th September 1992. All admissions for the year 1992 in Delhi University will close on 30th September 1992. For the year 1993, we direct that the schedule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) will be strictly adhered to by the D.G.H.S. as well as by the Delhi University. Any seats which are not Filled by the D.G.H.S. according to the time schedule shall stand automatically released and would be available to the local candidates. ”
(30) Thus, it will be seen that the court while approving the new scheme for admission for the year 1992 not only said that no change in course will be permitted in the midst of the session but said something much more. Para 76 of the judgment at page 429 of 1992 (24) Drj is also relevant where the court gave its conclusion:- “INbrief, our conclusions in these writ petitions are as follows:- a) The time schedule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) for admission to Post Graduate Courses should be strictly adhered to. b) The admissions will first be made to the All India quota. c) Seats which are unfilled in the All India quota will automatically lapse and will be available for the local candidates. d) No change of course or hospital is allowable to the candidates who have already secured admission. e) The courses will commence after all the admissions have been completed according to the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court. If due to any error or otherwise any vacant seat is to be filled, the same should be done within two months of the start of the courts? (course). All admissions must come to an end thereafter. f) The order dated 10th July 1991 of the Supreme Court has been misconstrued by the authorities. There is no departure from the time schedule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case and the date of 7th February mentioned in the order of 10th July 1991 pertains only to the State of Goa who was the applicant when that order of 10th July 1991 was passed. ”
(31) At the most it could be said that the scheme formulated by Delhi University was approved by the Full Bench subject to conclusions arrived at by it and as mentioned above. The court could not give directions that seats falling vacant in all India quota would also stand surrendered to other States, though getting such an impression the D.G.H.S. did write letters to various State Governments surrendering vacant seats in all India quota as on 16 September 1992. A seven judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and others v. State of U.P. & others said as under:- “THE position with regard to the control of alcohol industry has undergone material and significant change after the amendment of 1956 to the Idr Act. After the amendment, the State is left with only the following powers to legislate in respect of clcohol: (a)It may pass any legislation in the nature of prohibition of potable liquor referable to Entry 6 of List Ii and regulating powers. (b)It may lay down regulations to ensure that non-potable alcohol is not diverted and misused as a substitute for potable alcohol. (c)The State may charge excise duty on potable alcohol and sales tax under Entry 52 of List II. However, sales tax cannot be charged on industrial alcohol in the present case, because under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Orders, sales tax cannot be charged by the State on industrial alcohol. (d)However, in case State is rendering any service, as distinct from its claim of so-called grant of privilege,it may charge fees based on quid pro quo. See in this connection, the observations of Indian Mica case .”
(32) Then a two judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court (Dr. T.K.Thommen, J.) in State of U .P. and another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another , with reference to power (c) above said as under :- “We are firmly of the view that the decision of this Court in Synthetics is not an authority for the proposition canvassed by the assessed in challenging the provision. This Court has not, and could not have, intended to say that the Price Control Orders made by the Central Government under the Idr Act imposed a fetter on the legislative power of the State under Entry 54 of List Ii to levy taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. The reference to sales tax in paragraph 86 of that judgment was merely accidental or per incuriam and has. therefore, no effect on the impugned levy. ”
(33) We are also reminded of the following famous passage of Earl of Halsbury L.C. in Quinn v. Leathern. [1901] A.C. 495 (House of Lords)] :- “NOW,before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, [1898]A.C.I, and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.”
(34) Apart from what has Supreme Court said regarding scheme for admission from all India quota we find the following passage in the Full Bench judgment (para 74) per incuriam:- "INthe year 1992, therefore, as a second admission list has already been issued and the last date for the candidates to join is 15th September 1992, therefore if any seats in the All India quota remain vacant or unfilled after 15th September 1992, then the same must be regarded as having been surrendered to be filled by the local institutions. " (35) But then on this very basis letter has been addressed by D.G.H.S. surrendering these seats from all India quota to respective States and we do not think D.G.H.S. was an authority to say as to what was the ratio of the judgment or what was per incuriam. (36) The effect is that now no seat in all India quota would be available.
(37) It was pointed out during the course of hearing that studies in post graduate medical courses started in July last. About eight months have gone by since the study started. We find it is too late in the day for us to order allotment of any seat anywhere to the petitioners. We also do not think it is either permissible or even desirable to allow reallocation at this late stage. It was stated before us by the petitioners that admission in M.D. Courses is still going on in some universities in U.P” but that is not something for us to comment. The scheme approved by the Supreme Court for admission to post graduate medical courses has to be followed strictly. Allotment has been made with the help of computer as noted above. Candidates lower in rank than the petitioners have been allotted seats only in second stage as per scheme having the approval of the Supreme Court. However, when a candidate higher in merit finds that though he has not been granted the subject of his choice or college of his choice and a candidate much lower in rank has been admitted to that particular course or college.it is bound to cause much heart-burning and frustration. We think some via media has to be found to avoid such a situation. Merit cannot be given a go by and Supreme Court has repeatedly held so.
(38) In some earlier case we had occasion to say that admission to M.S/M.D. Courses which are professional courses is not like admission to B.A. or M.A. Here after getting proper education, both practical and theoritical, a candidate has to be well-versed in his speciality to look after the health of the people. The observations of the Full Bench in this regard are quite apt and which we reproduce as under:- “THE post-graduate courses in medicine do not contemplate of mere attendance of lectures. For the purpose of imparting post-graduate teaching and training to the student, the University has recognised different hospitals and institutions based on the facilities and expertise available in the said institutions and hospitals. Once a student is selected to undergo post graduate study in a particular speciality in a particular institution, that student is then assigned to the said institution. the said student, apart from being a post-graduate student of the University, is simultaneously required to work as a regular doctor in the institution/hospital concerned, especially if the post-graduate course of the student is clinical innature. The post-graduate student would be required to attend to patients in the particular pertaining to his course of speciality and also discharge the duties of a doctor in the said department. The recommendations of the Medical Council of India also stipulate that in service training should be given to the candidates and the same requires a candidate to be a resident in the hospital campus with responsibility of management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care. A student so working in the hospital is paid monthly stipend for the work he does in the hospital. ”
(39) The Supreme Court in Dr.Ajay Pradhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
has explained the nature of the post graduate course in medical education and while holding that there was no right to admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst or towards end of the academic year said that the syllabus prescribed by the Medical Council of India for the post graduate course in MD/MS as also the student-teacher ratio of 1:1 virtually negate the right of admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of or towards the end of the academic year to which it pertains.
(40) For the year 1992 about 500 seats from the all India quota have been surrendered to the respective States. This is certainly an anomalous position. It was contended before us that before any seat could be surrendered the candidates who have qualified the entrance test could be offered subjects and colleges which were still available. We find substance in the submission of the petitioners that when they are asked to give choices of subjects and colleges this rule has to ensure for their benefits and not to their disadvantages. They say had they known that any other subject or college was still available outside their choices, they could well have opted for that. It requires a hard work and burning of mid night oil to reach the stage when a candidate passes the entrance test and finds himself in the merit list. Suddenly he finds that the choices which he gave were to his disadvantage. We think in the scheme of things and considering the number of seats available in post graduate courses in all India quota each candidate should necessarily be allotted some seat in some subject if he wanted that though outside his choice originally given. One can visualise defects or obstacles in the working of the scheme when originally framed, but at some stage the scheme may need a second look. That will be, however, for the Supreme Court.
(41) During the course of hearing various judgments were cited before us, but we do not think it is necessary for us to refer to them.
(42) We find ourselves unable to grant any relief to the petitioners at this late stage. These writ petitions, except writ petition in the case of Dr. Vikas Bajaj (second petitioner in Cwp No. 3791/92), are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.