M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was one of the applicants for the I Year M. B. B. S. Course for one of the seats in the government Medical Colleges or seats over which the Government had control lor purposes of filling up those seats in onf of the Private Medical colleges in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 1979-80. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected and kept in the waiting list. By an intimation dated 3-10-1979, the petitioner and another person by name vijayalakshmi were intimated that they were selected provisionally ami that they should join the Bellary medical College on or before 10th october 1978 before 5 P. M. after paying the requisite fee in that behalf. This intimation was sent to the petitioner by registered post addressed to his native village Kini in Ankola Taluk in ankola Taluk in Uttara Kannada district. As is borne but by the postal seals, there is no doubt about its despatch on 3-10-1979. Equally, there is no doubt that it was received at ankola or. 6-10-1979. Apparently by some one at the, Village Kini who was interested in the petitioner, it was redirected to an address at Shankerpuram bangalore-4. The postal seal indicates that the registered cover was received back on 10-10-1979, the date on which the petitioner admits having received the intimation. ( 2 ) THE, petitioner immediately sent a telegraphic money order at about 1-30 P. M. on the same day to the principal, Bellary Medical College (3rd respondent ). However, by the time be reached Bellary by, Car, it was beyond working hours of the College and he could present himself only on the morning of 11th October, 1979 before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent refused to admit him to the college. But, however, the 3rd respondent-Principal by his communication addressed to the 2nd respondent-Selection Committee, informed of the advice he had tendered to the petitioner as well as Vijayalakshmi to seek extension of time for joining the college, from the Selection Committee. This intimation is dated llth October, 1979. On the 12th October, 1979 the petitioner made a representation to the Minister for Health as well as the selection Committee explaining the circumstances under which he could not get himself admitted before 5 P. M. on 10th October, 1979. This intimation is dated llth October, 1979. On the 12th October, 1979 the petitioner made a representation to the Minister for Health as well as the selection Committee explaining the circumstances under which he could not get himself admitted before 5 P. M. on 10th October, 1979. The Minister for health forwarded the application of the petitioner for the consideration of the Director of Medical Education in karnataka who is none other than the chairman cf the Selection Committee (1st resp ndent ). On 16-10-1979 this writ petition has been filed as there was no response from the 1st respondent-Selection committee regarding extension of time. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus to respondent to admit the petitioner to Bellary Medical College. ( 3 ) THIS Court issued notice regarding rule in order to enable quick disposal of the petition but did not grant the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner to admit him to the Medical college at Bellary pending disposal of the writ petition. ( 4 ) IN substance, the ground urged by the petitioner entitling him to the writ of mandamus is that it was for reasons beyond his contnol that he could not join within the prescribed date and time and that the 1st respondent-Selection committee could not fail to admit him to the Medical college on this account alone and therefore the Selection Committee should be directed to admit the petitioner to the Medical College, bellary, on the representation made by him both to the 3rd respondent- principal and the Minister for Health in Karnataka. ( 5 ) THE respondents, inspite of directions, have not filed a return, but have produced, the records. As is evident from the records produced by the learned Government Pleader for respondents, the telegram sent by the 3rd respondent to 2nd respondent on 10th October, 1979 reporting the non-joining of the petitioner and the other candidate Vijayalakshmi, appears to have been received on the same date and there is no endorsement as to the date or time of receipt. But the telegram was sent at 6-30 p. m. on 10th October, 1979. But, the postal seal at Bangalore indicates that it was received in Bangalore on 11th October, 1979. But the telegram was sent at 6-30 p. m. on 10th October, 1979. But, the postal seal at Bangalore indicates that it was received in Bangalore on 11th October, 1979. The same file contains copies of telegrams dated 10th October, 1979 sent by the petitioner and the other candidate, Vijayalakshmi, in which the petitioner has stated that he is proceeding to join the Bellary medical College and that fees of Rs700/- is sent by telegraphic money order Vijayalakshmi has prayed for extension of time in her telegram. The endorsement of the Principal-3rd respondent advising both Vijayalakshmi and the petitioner to seek extension of time irom the 1st respondent appears to have been placed before the Chairman for necessary instructions on 15th October, 1979. ( 6 ) IT is most disheartening to see from the file that instead of issuing the instructions in that behalf, the 1st and 2nd respondents have proceeded to fill-up the seats at Bellary Medical college falling vacant in the circumstances narrated above, by three other candidates on 17th October, 1979. It is to be noticed that the representation made to the Minister for Health in Karnatnka was also placed before the 1st ami 2nd respondents on 17th october,. 1979 and no action or consideration appears to have been made on that representation as well, in spite of the minute of the Minister to that effect. The file discloses further that even two of the three candidates selected on 17th October, 1979 for the bellary Medical College, did not join in time and in their place finally on 25th October, 1979 the 1st and 2nd respondents have filled up the seats by allotting the same to two other candidates namely, Kumari Suchitra and Shri Balasubramaniam, S. N. ( 7 ) IT is clear from the above, that the Selection Committee has understood rule 12 of the Karnataka medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to mean that if a person is unable to join on the specified date before the specified time, such candidate forfeits that seat and the same shall go to the candidate next in the waiting list. But the learned Government Pleader says that the vacancy caused is filled and not the seat forfeited. To my mind, there does not appear to be much difference in effect. But the learned Government Pleader says that the vacancy caused is filled and not the seat forfeited. To my mind, there does not appear to be much difference in effect. ( 8 ) THE question, therefore, is whether rule 12 of the Rules should be cons-trued so strictly as to deny the student an opportunity to join later than the specified date for reasons which may be beyond his control or deny power to the Selection Committee to extend the time in appropriate cases. Rule 12 of the Rules is as follows:"12. Filling up of Vacancies arising after selection: any vacancy arising owing to the failure of a selected person to join the College within the specified time or for any other reasons shall be filled up from among persons in order of merit in the waiting list. In the event of the waiting list being exhausted, the Selection committee shall prepare a further list or lists following the procedure:"if Rule 12 of the Rules is so construed, merit in a number of cases will be the first casualty and students of inferior merit will automatically get pumped up in the waiting lists prepared in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. Such mechanical working of Rule 12 smacks of arbitrariness. ( 9 ) WHILE perusing the, file produced by the, learned Government Pleader, it is noticed that as far back as 31-8-1979 Karnataka University medical College admitted one Kumar parveen after the prescribed period at her own risk subject to the approval of the Chairman, This is evidenced by the telegram sent by the concerned medical College to the Chairman. Thereafter there is no evidence in the file that the approval sought for had been refused. This in my opinion is an act of blatant discrimination. ( 10 ) EVEN otherwise, it is seen, from the records, the mechanical manner in which the seats not taken by the selected candidates are automatically assigned to others presumbly eligible in the respective waiting lists. Nothing more can be said about it because there is no material in the file to support any other conclusion. ( 10 ) EVEN otherwise, it is seen, from the records, the mechanical manner in which the seats not taken by the selected candidates are automatically assigned to others presumbly eligible in the respective waiting lists. Nothing more can be said about it because there is no material in the file to support any other conclusion. ( 11 ) I am unable to understand Rule 12 of the Rules has disentitled the selection Committee to use its discretion well within reasonable time, if it is brought to its notice that for reasons beyond the control of the candidate, he could not avail himself of the selection made and admit himself to the College to which he was allotted within the specified time. Such construction, as I have already observed, would render merit candidates first casualties. That could not be either the scheme underlying the rules or the intention of the Government which framed it. What is stranger is that the records disclose that inspite of Rule 12 joining time has been extended upto Sl-10-1979 indicating that the time specified was not sacrosanct. ( 12 ) MORE than this what really puzzles the Court is the total indifference of respondents 1 andi 2 to the representations made by the petitioner and another candidate Vijayalakshmi. In fact, the indifference has been extended even to the representation forwarded by: the Minister for Health. ( 13 ) IT is quite normal to presume that the Selection Committee being a creature of the Rules, it is expected to perfoirm its duties with certain degree of reasonableness when a representation is made. It is bound to reject the representation and make its stand clear or consider the representation on merits. Neither having been, done, it is difficult to understand the conduct of respondents 1 and 2. I am inclined to hold that the Committee had the power to extend the time on a reasonable construction of Rule 12 of the rules and they should have done so on the representation made soon after the event. It has failed to act on the representation in a reasonable manner. It would be incorrect to read Rule 12 as a penal provision for Rule 16 of the rules clearly provides for forfeiture and penalties in certain cases. It has failed to act on the representation in a reasonable manner. It would be incorrect to read Rule 12 as a penal provision for Rule 16 of the rules clearly provides for forfeiture and penalties in certain cases. ( 14 ) THE learned Government Pleader has also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief because it was not the fault of the Selection committee to have sent the intimation to the Village, Kini, in Uttara Kannada district, while he was really at bangalore and the delay caused in the postal despatch, both ways, has to be laid at the doors of the petitioner and the respondents should not be held liable on that account. This is cutting the, corners too fine. Such technicalities should not come in the way of justice being done. ( 15 ) I, therefore, hold that a duty was cast on the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and having failed to discharge that duty inspite of a demand made in writing, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for. It will issue accordingly. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's Fee is Rs. 250/. ( 17 ) SHRI G. R. Nataraj, learned High court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .