( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition complains that though he had applied to the Selection Committee for admission to the I year MBBS Course in the Government Colleges and though he was eligible for admission, he has been denied a seat. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has passed the one year PUC Examination in the year 1972. He has thereafter passed B. Sc. Part I examination with Physics, chemistry and Biology in April, 1973. ( 3 ) THE old rules pertaining to the admission to Government Medical colleges have been replaced by the new rules published in the Notification dt. 16th July, 1973. Under Rule 2 those who have passed the two- year PUC Examination conducted by Pre-University Education Board of the State of Mysore or an equivalent examination with (i) Physics, Chemistry, biology, or (ii) Chemistry Botany, Zoology as optional subjects and those who are graduates of any Univeraiity established by law in india, with (i) Physics, Chemistry, Biology or (ii) Chemistry, Botany, zoology, as optional subjects, alone are eligibly for admission to I year mbbs Course. The petitioner is neither a graduate nor a person who has passed the two-year PUC Examination conducted by the Pre-University education Board. The case of the petitioner, however, is that he has passed an equivalent examination. It is not possible to accede to the contention of shri Goulay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the one year PUC Examination, which the petitioner has passed in the year 1972, is equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. The clear effect of the rule is to render ineligible those who had passed the one year puc Examination and make eligible only those who had passed the two year PUC Examination. It may be mentioned at this stage that under the old rules, those who had passed the one year PUC Examination were not eligible for admissionn to the I year MBBS Course. They were eligible only for the Pre-professional Course leading to MBBS. After they passed the Preprofessional Course leading to MBBS they were admitted to the i year MBBS Course. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to accede to the contention of Sri Goulay that the one year PUC Examination which the petitioner has passed in the year 1972, should be regarded as equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. After they passed the Preprofessional Course leading to MBBS they were admitted to the i year MBBS Course. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to accede to the contention of Sri Goulay that the one year PUC Examination which the petitioner has passed in the year 1972, should be regarded as equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. Besides it has to be pointed cut that Sri Goulay has not been able to place any order of the competent authority in regard to the equivalence of the Examinations. ( 4 ) THE next submission is that B. Sc. Part I Examination, which the petitioner has passed, at any rate, is an examination equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. Here again, no order of the competent authority has been produced by the petitioner indicating that B. Sc. Part I exmination is equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. Even otherwise, it is unnecessary to investigate this question any further inasmuch as the petitioner has not placed any material to show that any one who has secured marks lower than him, has been given admission. The petitioner has also not placed any material indicating that any candidate who had secured lower marks than him was called for the interview. Hence the petitioner is not right in complaining that the action taken in not admitting him to the 1 year MBBS Course, infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 6. It was lastly submitted that under Rule 2 (1) (a) persons possessing qualification equivalent to two year PUC Examination conducted by the Pre-University Examination Board, are eligible for admission to the 1 year MBBS Course whereas under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, 95 per cent of the seats are set apart for persons who have passed the two year PUC examination and that no seats have been set apart for those who have passed examinations equivalent to the two year PUC Examination. C1. (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, no doubt provides that 95 per cent of seats are set apart for persons who have passed the two year PUC Examination. This clause has to be read with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. C1. (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, no doubt provides that 95 per cent of seats are set apart for persons who have passed the two year PUC Examination. This clause has to be read with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. If both these clauses are read together and harmoniously construed, the only inference possible, is that 95 per cent of seats set apart by clause (a) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 2 are available not only for those who have passed the two year PUC Examination conducetd by the Pre-University Education board of the State of Mysore, but also to those who have passed the equivalent examinations with the specified subjects. Hence there is no substance in the last contention of the petitioner either. 6. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .