M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these three petitions arising out of selections made for admission to the post graduate courses in Government Medical colleges by the selection Committee appointed by the State Government, the following questions of law arise for consideration : (I) Whether having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Medical Colleges Selection for Post Graduate Course rules, 1980 and the right to equality guaranted under Art. 14 of the Constitution, the Selection Committee was right in not calling the petitioners for interview ? (II) Whether rule 7 of the Rules which provides that a candidate could submit only one application for Post Graduate Degree or diploma course and for only one subject, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution ? ( 2 ) (I) Petitioner in WP. No. 17505 of 1980 applied for selection for admission to Post Graduate course in Orthopedics The petitioner was not called for interview. He has secured 54. 3 per cent marks in the M. B. B. S. examination. (ii) Petitioner in WP. 17646 of 1980 applied for Post Graduate course in Pediatrics She belongs to Scheduled caste she has secured 56. 18 per cent in the m. B. B. S. examination (iii) Petitioner in WP. 17719 of 1980 applied for Post Graduate Course in optholmology. She has secured 53. 33 per cent in the M B. B S. examination. He also belongs to Scheduled caste. The three petitioners were not called for interview. The explanation given by sri G. R. Nataraj, learned High Court government Pleader, appearing for the selection committee, was that the committee decided to call for interview in the ratio of 1:2 of the number of seats required to be filled up in open competition and the candidates eligible for selection for those seats and in the ratio of 1:3 of the seats reserved in favour of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and the candidates eligible for selection for those seats, in the respective subjects. ( 3 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the selection committee was right in restricting the number of candidates to be called for interview. Rule 8 of the rules prescribes the procedure for selection. According to the said rule, the selection committee is entitled to award marks at the interview for professional knowledge. The maximum marks fixed is ten. Rule 8 of the rules prescribes the procedure for selection. According to the said rule, the selection committee is entitled to award marks at the interview for professional knowledge. The maximum marks fixed is ten. The merit of the candidate is required to be judged on the basis of the percentage of the marks secured in M. B. B. S. and the marks secured in the interview. Rule 2 of the rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are eligible for consideration of their cases for selection to post graduate course to which they had applied. Rule 8 does not empower the committee to exclude any eligible candidate, while calling the candidates for interview. The ratio adopted by the committee was impermissible and unreasonable and had resulted in discrimination as the candidates were entitled to get interview marks in addition to the marks secured in the M B. B. S. examination. (I) For instance as disclosed by the learned counsel appearing for the committee, in respect of the course to which the petitioner in WP. No. 17505 of 1980 had applied, the last candidate called for interview has secured 54 44 percent, whereas the petitioner has secured 54. 3 per cent. Therefore, it is clear, if the petitioner had been called for interview and he had secured one mark more than that candidate in the interview, he would have been above him in the merit list. Apart from this, restricting the interview in the ratio of 1:2 is on the face of it unreasonable as it results in discrimination against candidates who have fair chances of selection if called for interview. (II) In the case of the petitioner in wp. No. 17646 of 1980, the last candidate called for interview has secured 56. 9 per cent whereas the petitioner has secured 56. 15 percent. (III) Similarly, in respect of the petitioner in WP. No. 17719 of 1980 the position is not different. The petitioner has secured 53. 3 per cent in M B B S. , the last candidate called for interview has secured 54. 28 per cent. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the selection committee submitted that as there were large number of candidates, the selection committee considered necessary (to restrict two number of candidates) for interview. The petitioner has secured 53. 3 per cent in M B B S. , the last candidate called for interview has secured 54. 28 per cent. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the selection committee submitted that as there were large number of candidates, the selection committee considered necessary (to restrict two number of candidates) for interview. If it was considered impracticable and unnecessary to call for interview all the eligible candidates, a fair ratio, having due regard to the number of seats available and the marks fixed for interview should have been fixed in the rules itself. Further, even in the absence of such a rule, it might be conceded that the selection committee could have called a reasonable number of candidates for interview. However, on the facts of this case, it has to be held that the number of candidates called for interview at the ratio of 1:2 in the case of candidates for open competition and in the ratio of 1:3 in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled caste and Tribes was contrary to rules and resulted in denial of opportunity to the eligible candidates like the petitioners, who had fair chances of selection depending upon their performance at the interview and therefore discriminatory. ( 5 ) THE second contention of the petitioners is that rule 7 of the rules is viola- tive of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It reads as follows :"7. Applications how made : (1) Every application for admission to a post-graduate degree or diploma course shall be sent to the member-Secretary. Selection committee on or before the last date fixed for its receipt. (2) Each candidate shall send only one application and apply for a Degree and/or Diploma in one subject only, provided doctors who have already obtained a Post-Graduate diploma in any particular subject or is a teacher in Medical College shall be eligible to apply for the P. G. Course in that subject only. (3) Where a candidate sends more than one application, or applies for more than one subject/speciality, such application shall be rejected. (3) Where a candidate sends more than one application, or applies for more than one subject/speciality, such application shall be rejected. " ( 6 ) SRI R. N. Narasimha Murthi and sri P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rule is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution for the reason that though having regard to the right to equality guaranteed under that article, the petitioners were entitled to compete for selection both for post graduate degree course as well as diploma course in every subject, the rules prevented the petitioners from sseking selection in more than one subject. ( 7 ) THE first submission made by Sri g. R. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, to sustain the validity of the rule was by giving an interpretation to the rule which is not at all warranted by the wording of the rule. He submitted that according to the rules every candidate could submit any number of applications, but the restriction incorporated in the rule was that in each appli- cation he or she could spec fy only one post Graduate degree or diploma course in one particular subject and, therefore the rule did not prevent the petitioners from submitting more than one application seeking selection for more than one Post Graduote Course. The second submission was that none of the three petitioners had submitted more than one application seeking selection for more than one course and therefore they have no locus standi to question the validity of the rule. ( 8 ) THE answer furnished on behalf of the petitioners is that having regard to the plain language of the rule, they could not submit more than one application and therefore, they submitted onle one application specifying one subject, though they actually intended to apply for more than one subject and presented these petitions questioning the validity of the rules even before the interviews were held and selections were considered. ( 9 ) I am unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the wording of Rule 7 permitted the submission of more than one application by one candidate. The language is plain and clear. ( 9 ) I am unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the wording of Rule 7 permitted the submission of more than one application by one candidate. The language is plain and clear. The only meaning of the rule is that no candidate who intended to submit an application to the selection committee could submit more than one application and if any one does so he would be doing so at his own risk, in that all such applications are liable to be rejected. Therefore, the explanation of the petitioners that they did not submit more than one application because of the wording of the rule has got to be accepted. Consequently there is no force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that as the petitioners had not submitted more than one application and such applications had not been rejected, the petitioners can make no grievance or that they have no locus standi to question the validity of the rule. ( 10 ) THE next point for consideration is as to whether rule 7 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Art. 14 requires the State to ensure equality before law to every person or in other words every person has the fundamental right to equality and equal opportunity. Therefore every applicant is entitled to compete for selection to every Post Graduate degree and post Graduate diploma course. Tn the very nature of things, it is impossible for any candidate to speculate in which particular subject and in which particular course he has a chance of being selected. It is only after the applications are received and the list of applicants is prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the m. B. B. S. examination, and interview marks are awarded, the subject or course in which he stands a chance of being selected becomes known. It is quite possible that a candidate may not be entitled to get selected in the subject or course which he likes most and which is his first preference but he may be entitled to be selected to the subject or course which is his next preference and so on. It is quite possible that a candidate may not be entitled to get selected in the subject or course which he likes most and which is his first preference but he may be entitled to be selected to the subject or course which is his next preference and so on. Therefore to compel an intending applicant to submit only one application specifying degree or diploma course in one subject, in which ultimately he may not stand a chance of being selected and to prevent him from seeking selection to any other course in any other subject in which he is entitled to be selected on merit clearly amounts to denial of equal opportunity to compete for selection in the subject in which he has the right to be selected. ( 11 ) IT is true that if the rule had provided that intending candidates could submit more than one application specifying the particular degree or diploma course to which they were applying, and not to incorporate all the subjects in the ame application, it could not be considered as discriminatory as it would have only facilitated the selection committee in arranging the applications subject-wise and arranging the candidates according to the merit in respect of each subject and it would not have deprived the intending applicants of their right to compete for selection for the various courses and subjects by submitting as many applications as they desire. But rule 7 of the rules by prohibiting the submission of more than one application and thereby compelling them to make a choice of the course or subject at the time of submitting the applications without knowing their chances of selection, deprived the petitioner of the right to equality. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents lastly submitted that these rules were promulgated on 8th July 1980 and were printed on 19th July 1980 and therefore the petitioners not having approached the court before submitting the applications, they are disentitled to the relief on the ground of delay and acquiescence. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the last date for receipt of applications was 2nd August 1980, they submitted their applications by way of abundant caution and presented the writ petitions before the interviews were commenced. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the last date for receipt of applications was 2nd August 1980, they submitted their applications by way of abundant caution and presented the writ petitions before the interviews were commenced. ( 14 ) THE date on which these petitions were presented indicates that the petitioners have approached this Court prior to the making of selections. They also sought for interim orders staying the publication of selected candidates. However having regard to the fact that the proceedings involved selection and admission of large number of candidates to the post Graduate course, no interim order had been made, but the Government Advocate was directed to take notice for the respondents and the petitions were directed to be posted for hearing within a week. Therefore, I am unable to agree that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief on the ground of delay or laches. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that large number of candidates have been selected and therefore a declaration to the effect that rule 7 was void may upset the entire list of selected candidates and further that all the selected candidates are not parties to these writ petitions. As observed by the Supreme Court in Charles K. S. Karia v. C. Mathew AIR. 1980 SC. 1230, 1241 Para 36. , in a case of this type it is sufficient to confine the relief to the consideration of the cases of the petitioners for the course and subjects of their choice without causing disturbance greater than absolutely necessary. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order : (I) Rule made absolute. (II) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the first respondent to call the petitioners for interview and thereafter to consider in the first instance their entitlement to selection either for the Degree r diploma course in the subject mentioned in their application and if they are not entitled to be selected in tke said subject, to consider their entitlement for a seat in any other subject after ascertaining their choice. (III) If the petitioners are found entitled to be selected in view of their better merit than the candidates already selected for any course of their choice, they shall be selected and admitted to that course in any one of the Government Medical colleges. (III) If the petitioners are found entitled to be selected in view of their better merit than the candidates already selected for any course of their choice, they shall be selected and admitted to that course in any one of the Government Medical colleges. (IV) No costs. --- *** --- .