The order was passed under the following circumstances:

The applicant applied for D.M. (Oncology) Code No.24, for which there were two seats both at the Chennai Medical College, that he took entrance examination on 27.3.1999, that the results were announced on 9.4.1999, that he had obtained 64.94 marks out of 100 and that he was placed first, in the merit list and notwithstanding that the respondents did not admit him in the course, necessitating the appellant sending representations dated 24.4.1999 and 25.4.1999.

2. The third respondent filed a counter stating that the proposals to start 2 years D.M. (Oncology) Course at Madras Medical College were sent to the Government of Tamil Nadu, that the Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the proposals on 19.1.1996 with instructions to obtain permission/concurrence/affiliation from the central Government Medical Council of India and Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, that the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University issued the letter of consent of affiliation for the above said purpose on 22.1.1998, but the Government of India rejected the proposals on 9.9.1998 on the ground that there was no provision to give permission to start D.M. (Oncology) Course with retrospective effect by the Government of India and further the Director of Medical Education for the State of Tamil Nadu was instructed to discharge the students already admitted without prior permission from the Central Government and to send fresh proposals to the Ministry for consideration. The counter further stated that fresh proposals were sent on 21.12.1998, that the same had been forwarded to the government of Tamil and the Government of Tamil Nadu was also addressed by Directorate of Medical Education on 11.6.1999, that on 30.7.1999 the above proposals were forwarded to the government of India and that no permission had been received till then and that was the reason for not admitting the candidate for D.M. (Oncology) Course for the Academic year 1999-2000.

3. In para 6 of the counter, it is stated as follows;

It is submitted that the petitioner stands at First Rank in the merit list for service candidates and the petitioner will be given with allotment order in the event of approval from the Medical Council of India is granted.

4. At the hearing of the writ petition, Mr.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner produced a letter of intent from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health, addressed to the Secretary, Healthy and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, stating that the Ministry had come to the conclusion that a letter of intent for starring of P.G. Degree Course in Medical Oncology with annual intake of two students might be issued. the letter required fulfillment of certain conditions. In para 4 of the said letter it was stated that action to grant formal permission of the Central Government for starting of the said P.G. Degree Course in the College would be initiated on receipt of a compliance letter fulfilling the conditions enumerated in paragraph 3.

5. In those circumstances, I passed the following order:

The ball is in the respondents Court. It is not for the Court, but for the respondents to act fast and complete the formalities, so that the approval can be had and the petitioner can join the course.

With the said observation, the writ petition was disposed of.

6. However, since the order was not complied with and the appellant was not admitted, he has taken out the present contempt application. It is stated that the Central Government has granted approval for the D.M. (Oncology) Course and there is now no legal impediment for the applicant being admitted to D.M. (Oncology) Course 1999-2000 as directed by this Court. The applicant sent a legal notice dated 3.8.2000 through his counsel requesting the respondents herein to obey the orders of this Court and admit him to the D.M. (Oncology) Course 1999-2000. Though the respondents have received the notice, the order not having been complied with, the contempt application is necessitated.

7. The first respondent has filed a counter stating as follows:

The Government by letter dated 8.5.2000 granted approval for starting of D.M. (Oncology) Course at Madras Medical College, Chennai, with annual intake of two students with prospective effect under Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act as amended in 1993. In view of that, the respondents have no authority to admit candidates in a course not approved by the Medical Council of India. Candidates to D.M. (Oncology) Course can be admitted only from the Academic Year 2001-2002. Having obtained permission for the said Course, the same was included n the prospectus for the year 2001-2002 and eligible candidates were selected from the candidates, who appeared for the entrance examination for that Academic Year and scored high marks. The applicant appeared for the entrance examination for admission to D.M.(Oncology) Course for 2001-2002 and he got only 49.38 marks. As per list, he was not selected for admission to the above course for 2001-2002. The Supreme Court in Rajiv Kapoor and others v. State Of Hariyana and others Rajiv Kapoor and others v. State Of Hariyana and others (2000)2 C.T.C. 306 has held that direction to admit students who succeeded before Court in subsequent Academic Years cannot be granted. The first respondent has sent a reply to the application informing him of the above facts.

8. The second respondent has adopted the counter of the first respondent. The third respondent has filed a counter to the same effect.

9. The matter had been appearing in the list on several dates andthe Additional Advocate General was instructed to persuade the authorities to favourably consider the claim of the applicant and admit him in the course as undertaken previously in the counter to the main writ petition. The Additional Advocate General represented that inspite of his best efforts, he could not help the applicant.

10. It is indeed unfortunate that the applicant, who stood first in the earlier written test and secured the First Rank is not able to pursue the Course in D.M. (Oncology). In normal course, this Court should direct the respondents to honour their commitment. But, the applicant himself made a serious blunder in taking a chance by appearing for written test for the Academic Year 2001-2002 and in that he has not fared well. The right, which had accrued to him in view of the order passed in the writ petition on the basis of the concession made by the respondents has been forfeited by the applicant. He would have been on stronger grounds if only he had persisted with his right to join the course on the basis of the prior commitment by the respondents. Unfortunately, he took the chance and in the process the right if any that had accrued to him has been lost.

11. Consequently, I have no alternative other than to dismiss the contempt application and accordingly it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.