Dr. Vageesh Ayyar Vs. Post Graduate Selection Committee - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/381170
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnAug-22-1995
Case NumberW.A. Nos. 2302 of 1995 etc
JudgeM.L. Pendse, C.J. and ;A.J. Sadashiva, J.
Reported inILR1996KAR633; 1995(6)KarLJ394
ActsKarnataka Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post Graduate Courses) Rules, 1987 - Rule 7A(5); Karnataka Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post Graduate Courses) (Amendment) Rule, 1994
AppellantDr. Vageesh Ayyar
RespondentPost Graduate Selection Committee
Appellant AdvocateRavivarma Kumar, Adv., ;Kamath and Kamath and ;Udaya Holla, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateChandrasekharaiah, Govt Adv., ;K. Sreedhar, Adv. for Vagdevi Associates
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
karnataka medical colleges & dental colleges (selection for admission to post graduate courses) rules, 1987 as amended in 1994 - rule 7a(5) - scope & object - no prohibition for students accepting allotment made from participating at second counselling, merit alone to be taken into account - second proviso to be read down, if necessary, for selection of more meritorious students in preference - opting for waiting list being chance not certainty, no estoppel by election. ; order in ilr 1995 kar 2166 being appealed against: ; it is clear from the rule that at the time of counselling it is open to the candidates to either accept the allotment of seats as the committee may make alternatively or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at the second round of personal appearance. it is further provided if the candidate cannot get his choice in the second round he shall either accept the allotment at the sitting or reject in which case he shall forfeit his claim. this rule does not prescribe any prohibition prohibiting those students who have accepted the allotment of seats made by the committee alternatively from participating at the second spot counselling. the very object of holding the c.e.t. is to select the meritorious candidate to a specialised course in any branch of medicine. it shall be that merit and merit alone that should be taken into account. the rules have been framed to ensure that a meritorious candidate is selected. the very object of the rules is to prefer more meritorious candidates to less meritorious students. rule 7-a(5) would not prescribe any prohibition for those students who have been allotted seats in a subject other than the one for which they applied for participating in the second counselling. in the absence of any prohibition it is not possible to hold that the conditions prescribed in the impugned notice prohibiting the students who have already been allotted seats at the first round of counselling is in accordance with the rules. even if there is any indication in the second proviso, the same shall be read down so as to give effect to the selection of more meritorious students in preference to the less meritorious students. ; to opt for the waiting list is only to take a chance and is not a certainty. in the absence of certainity if any candidate accepts the seat offered by the committee alternatively, it cannot be said that he would be estopppd from seeking admission to a speciality of his choice by the doctrine of principles of estoppel by election. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 168:[k. sreedhar rao & s.n. sathyanarayana, jj] accident determination of compensation claim by wife of the deceased who has remarried eligibility held, the concept of dependency while awarding compensation is a notional concept. the fact of actual dependency need not be proved in law if one is legally a dependant. it cannot be legally assumed that the remarriage always benefits financially and that the loss of dependency would get fully neutralized. the remarriage of a widow is a not a disqualification for inheritance of the estate. the widow by remarriage if not for dependency would be entitled to seek compensation for loss of estate. the ratio laid down in smt manorama @ monica v v. mohammad & ors. ilr 2006 kar 3929 that widow by remarriage would be entitled to only global compensation would not be a correct proposition of law. that apart in this case, the parents of the deceased are also the petitioners and are entitled to seek compensation for loss of dependency. award is modified. section 168: [k. sreedhar rao & s.n. sathyanarayana, jj] accident determination of compensation - income of the deceased was held as rs.3,000/- p.m. 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses rs.2250/- held to be personal contribution loss of dependency was worked rs.4,05,000/- (rs.2250 x 12 x 15) besides rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectancy and rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses in all rs.4,65,000/- as against rs.6,09,940/- awarded by tribunal.sadashiva, j.1. since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals they are taken up together for disposal.2. w.a. 2302/95 is preferred against the interim order dated 23rd june, 1995 passed in w.p.13699/95 vacating the interim order dated 18.4.1995.w.a.nos. 2397-98/95 are directed against the judgment and order dated 6th june, 1955 passed in w.p.22175/95 and w.p.22176/95 dismissing the same following the judgment dated june 14, 1995 passed in w.p.13893/95.w.a.(f.r.) 1979/95 is the appeal filed by eighteen members of the karnataka state junior doctors' association against the judgment dated june 14, 1995 passed by the learned single judge in w.p.13893/95 with an application for leave to prosecute the appeal. they have also filed two more applications to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order and to condone the delay in filing the appeal. in view of the same order being the subject matter of the appeal in w.a.no. 2385/1995, all these applications are allowed. production of the certified copy is dispensed with, delay condoned and leave granted to file appeals. office is directed to register the appeals.3. that, as all these appeals involve the question of validity of the notification dated april 7, 1995, it is sufficient to narrate the facts as stated in w.p.13893/93 for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.4. the appellant in w.a.2385/95 is the petitioner in w.p.13893/95. the petitioner is a registered association of karnataka state junior doctors' association registered under the provisions of the karnataka societies registration act. it presented the said petition calling in question the correctness of the notification dated april 7, 1995 issued by the first respondent as per annexure-b calling only a certain section of students for second spot counselling and admission to the post-graduate medical and dental courses in karnataka, excluding the petitioners and similarly situated students.5. the petitioner has presented the petition for a writ in the nature of declaration, to declare that the notice dated april 7, 1995, issued by the first respondent, calling only a certain group of students for second spot counselling to select the candidates in different subjects in post-graduate medical and dental courses, excluding the students who have been selected at the first spot counselling, is illegal, invalid and void, with a further direction to the first respondent to permit them and other similarly situated also to participate at the second spot counselling and to allot seats to them on the basis of merit-cum-choice in the subject of their choice if they are found to be eligible.6. the facts in these appeals are as follows :that in order to select students, for admission in different subjects in post-graduate dental and medical courses, the first respondent conducted a competitive, examination called common entrance test, as prescribed by the karnataka medical colleges and dental colleges (selection for admission to post-graduate courses) amendment rules, 1991, for short the rules'. that on the basis of the performance of each student a merit list was prepared to select the students to fill up 526 seats available in various subjects in the medical colleges in the state of karnataka. after preparing the merit list a spot counselling was also held on 23.2.1995 to select 260 students from the general pool to various specialities. after the selection of candidates at the first spot counselling, it appears some of the selected candidates got admission in some other medical colleges under the all india quota and therefore, 161 seats have fallen vacant in respect of which the first respondent issued the notice dated april 7, 1995 calling the students for second spot counselling and admission commencing from 19.4.1995 to 21.4.1995, clauses 3 and 4 of the said notice prescribe the eligibility for the students to attend the second spot counselling and they read as under:'3. eligibility for attending second round of counselling:(a) the candidates who have attended first round of counselling and opted to wait for second round;(b) all candidates with rank above 2143. 4. non eligibility for attending second round of counselling:(a) the candidates who have already been allotted/cancelled seat in first round;(b) those who have been called for the first round but not responded in the first round.' the petitioners in all these petitions have challenged the correctness of these conditions prescribed for the second spot counselling notice. it is seen from the impugned notice that the candidates who have been allotted seats are excluded from attending the second spot counselling. only those students who have attended the first round counselling and opted to wait for second round with a rank above 2143 are invited for second round counselling.7. the petitioners have presented these petitions on the ground that the eligibility prescribed for the second spot counselling has deprived them of an opportunity to seek admission in the subject of their choice at the college of their preference even though they are more meritorious than the candidates invited for spot counselling and the same has also resulted in discrimination between the students possessing same qualification besides resulting in the elimination of more meritorious students in preference to less meritorious students. it is the contention of the petitioners that at the first counselling they have not been given seats in the subject of their choice in the college of their preference and there was no option for them but to accept the seat offered to them by the selection committee outside the subject of the choice, they were forced to accept the said subject at the college offered to them. the acceptance of the said seat is not on their own volition and therefore they are entitled for fresh consideration of their case in respect of the seats that have fallen vacant along with other students. even though they are entitled to be selected for the speciality of their choice on the basis of merit, they are prevented from seeking admission to such subject, solely on the ground that they have already been allotted seats contrary to the rules of admission.8. the learned single judge by order dated june 14, 1995 dismissed the petition on the ground of public policy and doctrine of estoppel by election that the petitioners having accepted the seats offered to them are estopped from contending that they are again entitled to participate in the second spot counselling for selection of candidates. it was held by the learned single judge that the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate. the learned single judge has observed that when once they accept a seat, their acceptance became final and they are not entitled to seek for second spot counselling along with those who opted to wait for second counselling. the learned single judge has also held that in case the prayer of the petitioners is granted, it would result in avoidable delay in starting the courses of study and would prejudicially affect the academic curriculum of the university, detrimental to the interests of the candidates intending to undertake courses. the learned single judge further observed that in order to ensure maintain the academic discipline, there shall be a finality in the matter of selection and admission to the courses, even if it becomes necessary to exclude all those who have already been selected and such a procedure adopted by the respondents is just and reasonable. in so holding he placed reliance on a full bench decision of the delhi high court in dr. veena guptha v. university of delhi, air 1994 delhi 108.9. the only point for our consideration in these appeals is :whether the first respondent selection committee is right in excluding the students who have been selected to the postgraduate course at the first spot counselling from participating at the second spot counselling solely on the ground that they have already been given seats in the post-graduate course?10. it is not in dispute that the petitioners have, in their applications indicated the choice in respect of the subject and the college in the order of preference. it is also not in dispute that the petitioners were selected to the post-graduate courses at the first spot counselling in the subject outside their choice, and in a college other than their preference. rule 7-a(5) of the karnataka medical colleges and dental colleges (selection for admission to p.g. courses) rules, 1994 deals with the selection of the students and it reads:'7a. selection of candidates by personal appearance:-(5) at the time of personal appearance each candidate shall, in the order of his merit, be called to make his choice of the subject and in the institution in the order of preference given in his application for admission out of the seats notified as available for allotment on the particular day.provided that if by reason of his lower ranking in the merit list a candidate cannot be allotted the subject or institution of his preference, he may choose either to accept the allotment of seats as the committee may make alternatively, or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at a second round of personal appearance.provided that if the candidate cannot get his choice at the second round, he shall either accept the allotment made by the committee at the sitting or reject it in which case he shall forfeit his claim for allotment of seat for any course in any institution'.the learned high court government advocate placing reliance on this provision contends that the rule prescribes a prohibition for the petitioner to participate in the second counselling in view of their acceptance of a seat at the first counselling and clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned notice is in accordance with the rules and as the validity of the rule is not challenged the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. sri sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants also supports the view of the learned high court government advocate. from a reading of the said rule we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned high court government advocate. it is clear from the rule that at the time of counselling it is open to the candidates to either accept the allotment of seats as the committee may make alternatively or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at the second round of personal appearance. it is further provided if the candidate cannot get his choice in the second round he shall either accept the allotment at the sitting or reject in which case he shall forfeit his claim. this rule does not prescribe any prohibition prohibiting those students who have accepted the allotment of seats made by the committee alternatively from participating at the second spot counselling. the very object of holding the c.e.t. is to select the meritorious candidate to a specialised course in any branch of medicine. it shall be that merit and merit alone that should be taken into account. the rules have been framed to ensure that a meritorious candidate is selected. the very object of the rules is to prefer more meritorious candidates to less meritorious students. as stated above, rule 7-a(5) would not prescribe any prohibition for those students who have been allotted seats in a subject other than the one for which they applied for participating in the second counselling. in the absence of any prohibition it is not possible for us to hold that the conditions prescribed in the impugned - notice prohibiting the students who have already been allotted seats at the first round of counselling is in accordance with the rules. even if there is any indication in the second proviso, the same shall be read down so as to give effect to the selection of more meritorious students in preference to the less meritorious students. as the impugned notice violates the very object of selection of candidates, it must be held to be illegal and invalid.11. the learned single judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are barred by the doctrine of estoppel by election. while considering the doctrine of principles of estoppel by election, the learned single judge has considered the option available to the students either to accept the seats offered by the committee alternatively or to opt for the waiting list. in our considered view it is not possible to hold that the students have option to choose either of the two. the candidates must have option to choose either of the two where both are available on hand. to opt for the waiting list is only to take a chance and is not a certainty. in the absence of certainty if any candidate accepts the seat offered by the committee alternatively, it cannot be said that he would be estopped from seeking admission to a speciality of his choice by the doctrine of principles of estoppel by election. the learned single judge has further held that if the prayer of the petitioners is granted it would result in avoidable delay and affect the academic curriculum of universities on account of the postponement of selection of candidates by repeated spot counselling. in the scheme of the rules we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned single judge. the delay if there is any would occur if there is postponement of the last date for admission. if the authorities specify the date within which all the candidates must be admitted and holds spot counselling within that period the delay would be naturally avoided. even otherwise the mere delay in selecting the candidate shall not defeat the object of the rules to select the meritorious students for the post-graduate courses.12. at this juncture the learned high court government advocate made a submission that in case these appeals were to be allowed a direction may be issued to the petitioners to surrender the seats allotted in their favour so that the selection committee may take a final step for allotment of all seats available including those which have been allotted to the petitioners even though against their choice. we find considerable force in the submission of the learned high court government advocate. we feel that it is absolutely necessary that the petitioners in order to participate in the second counselling should surrender their seats so that they may take their chance with all the eligible candidates.13. for the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed. the order of the learned single judge dated june 14, 1995 passed in w.p.13893/95 is set aside. w.p.13893/95 and connected writ petitions, w.p. 13699/95, w.p.22176/95 are allowed.14. the rule is made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners and similarly situated students who wish to participate in the second spot counselling to be held in the month of september shall surrender the seats allotted in their favour, in writing, before the director for medical education in karnataka on or before september 4, 1995. the first respondent shall hold the second spot counselling during the week commencing from 18th september 1995. it is made clear that it is only those who surrender their seats alone are entitled to take part in the second spot counselling along with other eligible candidates. the candidates who surrender their seats are also eligible for consideration of their case in respect of the seats which they surrender.in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Sadashiva, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals they are taken up together for disposal.

2. W.A. 2302/95 is preferred against the interim order dated 23rd June, 1995 passed in W.P.13699/95 vacating the interim order dated 18.4.1995.

W.A.Nos. 2397-98/95 are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6th June, 1955 passed in W.P.22175/95 and W.P.22176/95 dismissing the same following the judgment dated June 14, 1995 passed in W.P.13893/95.

W.A.(F.R.) 1979/95 is the Appeal filed by eighteen members of the Karnataka State Junior Doctors' Association against the Judgment dated June 14, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.13893/95 with an application for leave to prosecute the Appeal. They have also filed two more applications to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order and to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. In view of the same order being the subject matter of the Appeal in W.A.No. 2385/1995, all these applications are allowed. Production of the certified copy is dispensed with, delay condoned and leave granted to file Appeals. Office is directed to register the Appeals.

3. That, as all these Appeals involve the question of validity of the Notification dated April 7, 1995, it is sufficient to narrate the facts as stated in W.P.13893/93 for the purpose of disposal of these Appeals.

4. The appellant in W.A.2385/95 is the petitioner in W.P.13893/95. The petitioner is a registered association of Karnataka State Junior Doctors' Association registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It presented the said Petition calling in question the correctness of the Notification dated April 7, 1995 issued by the first respondent as per Annexure-B calling only a certain section of students for second spot counselling and admission to the Post-graduate Medical and Dental Courses in Karnataka, excluding the petitioners and similarly situated students.

5. The petitioner has presented the Petition for a Writ in the nature of declaration, to declare that the notice dated April 7, 1995, issued by the first respondent, calling only a certain group of students for second spot counselling to select the candidates in different subjects in Post-graduate Medical and Dental Courses, excluding the students who have been selected at the first spot counselling, is illegal, invalid and void, with a further direction to the first respondent to permit them and other similarly situated also to participate at the second spot counselling and to allot seats to them on the basis of merit-cum-choice in the subject of their choice if they are found to be eligible.

6. The facts in these Appeals are as follows :

That in order to select students, for admission in different subjects in Post-graduate Dental and Medical Courses, the first respondent conducted a competitive, examination called Common Entrance Test, as prescribed by the Karnataka Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post-Graduate Courses) Amendment Rules, 1991, for short The Rules'. That on the basis of the performance of each student a merit list was prepared to select the students to fill up 526 seats available in various subjects in the Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka. After preparing the merit list a spot counselling was also held on 23.2.1995 to select 260 students from the general pool to various specialities. After the selection of candidates at the first spot counselling, it appears some of the selected candidates got admission in some other Medical Colleges under the All India quota and therefore, 161 seats have fallen vacant in respect of which the first respondent issued the notice dated April 7, 1995 calling the students for second spot counselling and admission commencing from 19.4.1995 to 21.4.1995, Clauses 3 and 4 of the said notice prescribe the eligibility for the students to attend the second spot counselling and they read as under:

'3. Eligibility for attending Second Round of Counselling:

(a) The candidates who have attended first round of counselling and opted to wait for second round;

(b) All candidates with rank above 2143.

4. Non eligibility for attending second round of counselling:

(a) The candidates who have already been allotted/cancelled seat in first round;

(b) Those who have been called for the first round but not responded in the first round.'

The petitioners in all these Petitions have challenged the correctness of these conditions prescribed for the second spot counselling notice. It is seen from the impugned notice that the candidates who have been allotted seats are excluded from attending the second spot counselling. Only those students who have attended the first round counselling and opted to wait for second round with a rank above 2143 are invited for second round counselling.

7. The petitioners have presented these Petitions on the ground that the eligibility prescribed for the second spot counselling has deprived them of an opportunity to seek admission in the subject of their choice at the College of their preference even though they are more meritorious than the candidates invited for spot counselling and the same has also resulted in discrimination between the students possessing same qualification besides resulting in the elimination of more meritorious students in preference to less meritorious students. It is the contention of the petitioners that at the first counselling they have not been given seats in the subject of their choice in the College of their preference and there was no option for them but to accept the seat offered to them by the Selection Committee outside the subject of the choice, they were forced to accept the said subject at the College offered to them. The acceptance of the said seat is not on their own volition and therefore they are entitled for fresh consideration of their case in respect of the seats that have fallen vacant along with other students. Even though they are entitled to be selected for the speciality of their choice on the basis of merit, they are prevented from seeking admission to such subject, solely on the ground that they have already been allotted seats contrary to the Rules of Admission.

8. The learned Single Judge by order dated June 14, 1995 dismissed the Petition on the ground of public policy and Doctrine of Estoppel by Election that the petitioners having accepted the seats offered to them are estopped from contending that they are again entitled to participate in the second spot counselling for selection of candidates. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate. The Learned Single Judge has observed that when once they accept a seat, their acceptance became final and they are not entitled to seek for second spot counselling along with those who opted to wait for second counselling. The learned Single Judge has also held that in case the prayer of the petitioners is granted, it would result in avoidable delay in starting the courses of study and would prejudicially affect the academic curriculum of the University, detrimental to the interests of the candidates intending to undertake courses. The Learned Single Judge further observed that in order to ensure maintain the academic discipline, there shall be a finality in the matter of selection and admission to the courses, even if it becomes necessary to exclude all those who have already been selected and such a procedure adopted by the respondents is just and reasonable. In so holding he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Dr. VEENA GUPTHA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI, AIR 1994 Delhi 108.

9. The only Point for our Consideration in these Appeals is :

Whether the first respondent Selection Committee is right in excluding the students who have been selected to the postgraduate course at the first spot counselling from participating at the second spot counselling solely on the ground that they have already been given seats in the post-graduate course?

10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have, in their applications indicated the choice in respect of the subject and the College in the order of preference. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were selected to the Post-graduate Courses at the first spot counselling in the subject outside their choice, and in a College other than their preference. Rule 7-A(5) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges (Selection for Admission to P.G. Courses) Rules, 1994 deals with the selection of the students and it reads:

'7A. Selection of candidates by personal appearance:-

(5) At the time of personal appearance each candidate shall, in the order of his merit, be called to make his choice of the subject and in the institution in the order of preference given in his application for admission out of the seats notified as available for allotment on the particular day.

Provided that if by reason of his lower ranking in the merit list a candidate cannot be allotted the subject or institution of his preference, he may choose either to accept the allotment of seats as the committee may make alternatively, or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at a second round of personal appearance.

Provided that if the candidate cannot get his choice at the second round, he shall either accept the allotment made by the Committee at the sitting or reject it in which case he shall forfeit his claim for allotment of seat for any course in any institution'.

The learned High Court Government Advocate placing reliance on this provision contends that the Rule prescribes a prohibition for the petitioner to participate in the second counselling in view of their acceptance of a seat at the first counselling and Clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned notice is in accordance with the Rules and as the validity of the Rule is not challenged the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Sri Sreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants also supports the view of the learned High Court Government Advocate. From a reading of the said Rule we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned High Court Government Advocate. It is clear from the Rule that at the time of counselling it is open to the candidates to either accept the allotment of seats as the Committee may make alternatively or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at the second round of personal appearance. It is further provided if the candidate cannot get his choice in the second round he shall either accept the allotment at the sitting or reject in which case he shall forfeit his claim. This Rule does not prescribe any prohibition prohibiting those students who have accepted the allotment of seats made by the Committee alternatively from participating at the second spot counselling. The very object of holding the C.E.T. is to select the meritorious candidate to a specialised course in any branch of medicine. It shall be that merit and merit alone that should be taken into account. The Rules have been framed to ensure that a meritorious candidate is selected. The very object of the Rules is to prefer more meritorious candidates to less meritorious students. As stated above, Rule 7-A(5) would not prescribe any prohibition for those students who have been allotted seats in a subject other than the one for which they applied for participating in the second counselling. In the absence of any prohibition it is not possible for us to hold that the conditions prescribed in the impugned - notice prohibiting the students who have already been allotted seats at the first round of counselling is in accordance with the Rules. Even if there is any indication in the second Proviso, the same shall be read down so as to give effect to the selection of more meritorious students in preference to the less meritorious students. As the impugned notice violates the very object of selection of candidates, it must be held to be illegal and invalid.

11. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Petition on the ground that the petitioners are barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel by Election. While considering the Doctrine of Principles of Estoppel by Election, the learned Single Judge has considered the option available to the students either to accept the seats offered by the Committee alternatively or to opt for the waiting list. In our considered view it is not possible to hold that the students have option to choose either of the two. The candidates must have option to choose either of the two where both are available on hand. To opt for the waiting list is only to take a chance and is not a certainty. In the absence of certainty if any candidate accepts the seat offered by the Committee alternatively, it cannot be said that he would be estopped from seeking admission to a speciality of his choice by the Doctrine of Principles of Estoppel by Election. The learned Single Judge has further held that if the prayer of the petitioners is granted it would result in avoidable delay and affect the academic curriculum of Universities on account of the postponement of selection of candidates by repeated spot counselling. In the scheme of the Rules we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Single Judge. The delay if there is any would occur if there is postponement of the last date for admission. If the authorities specify the date within which all the candidates must be admitted and holds spot counselling within that period the delay would be naturally avoided. Even otherwise the mere delay in selecting the candidate shall not defeat the object of the Rules to select the meritorious students for the Post-Graduate Courses.

12. At this juncture the learned High Court Government Advocate made a submission that in case these Appeals were to be allowed a direction may be issued to the petitioners to surrender the seats allotted in their favour so that the Selection Committee may take a final step for allotment of all seats available including those which have been allotted to the petitioners even though against their choice. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned High Court Government Advocate. We feel that it is absolutely necessary that the petitioners in order to participate in the second counselling should surrender their seats so that they may take their chance with all the eligible candidates.

13. For the reasons stated above, these Appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated June 14, 1995 passed in W.P.13893/95 is set aside. W.P.13893/95 and connected Writ Petitions, W.P. 13699/95, W.P.22176/95 are allowed.

14. The Rule is made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners and similarly situated students who wish to participate in the second spot counselling to be held in the month of September shall surrender the seats allotted in their favour, in writing, before the Director for Medical Education in Karnataka on or before September 4, 1995. The first respondent shall hold the second spot counselling during the week commencing from 18th September 1995. It is made clear that it is only those who surrender their seats alone are entitled to take part in the second spot counselling along with other eligible candidates. The candidates who surrender their seats are also eligible for consideration of their case in respect of the seats which they surrender.

In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.