JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition concerns with the validity of the method employed by the Selection Committee for selecting candidates to the Government medical Colleges for the academic year 1976-77. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was a graduate from the Mysore University. He applied for a seat in any one of the Govt Medical Colleges by submitting two applications one against the quota reserved for graduates and another against the sea's reserved fur PUC. or other equivalent examinations, ( 3 ) THE Selection Committee considered the first application of the petitioner and did not even take note of his second application. On merits, the petitioner v/as not selected against the seats reserved for graduates. His complaint in this petition is that he ought to have been considered also for the seats reserved for PUC. Respondents 2 to 10 who have secured less percentage of marks have been selected against those seats, and the den at of admission to the petitioner is characterised as arbitrary. ( 4 ) THE question is whether there was any discrimination shown by the Selection Committte in not considering the case of the petitioner against the seals reserved for PUC or other equivalent examinations. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions, it will be necessary to set out the relevant rules prescribed for selection. The State Government in the exercise of executive power, has framed rules called "the kamataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1975. Rule 2 (2) states that out of the available number of seats, five per cent shall be set apart for persons who are graduates and 95 per cent shall be set apart for persons who have passed the two year PUC. or equivalent examinations. Rule 10 provides procedure for selection. It states that the Selection committee shall call for interview such of the applicants who are found eligible, and then, after the interview, must prepare separate lists of candidates finally selected University-wise, one for persons who have passed the PUC. examination or other equivalent examinations, and the other for persons who are graduates. The Selection Committee shall also prepare two lists called "the waiting lists", one for graduates and another for PUC. candidates. Accordingly, the Selection Committee has prepared the two lists, considering the case of the petitioner for the seats reserved for graduates wherein he could not find a chance on the merits. The Selection Committee shall also prepare two lists called "the waiting lists", one for graduates and another for PUC. candidates. Accordingly, the Selection Committee has prepared the two lists, considering the case of the petitioner for the seats reserved for graduates wherein he could not find a chance on the merits. ( 6 ) WE will now turn to the contention, whether the petitioner was entitled to have his case considered also for the seats reserved for PUC. or other equivalent examinations. The rule does not provide that a graduate whose application has been considered against the seats reserved for them should again be considered for the seats reserved for puc. or equivalent examinations. In the absence of such a rule, if the selection Committee has adopted a reasonable method of selection, this court cannot find fault with the procedure followed by the Selection committee. Mr. Chandrakanthraj Urs learned High Court Government Advocate, has placed before us the relevant records in which it is revealed that the graduates were considered only against the five per cent seats reserved them and none of them were considered for the seats reserved for PUC. There was, therefore, no discrimination against the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition fails and is dismissed; but in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .