M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an applicant to one of the seats available in the Private medical Colleges to the Government in the reserved category of paying special tuition fees of Rs. 1,60,000 or 20,000 Dollars. The petitioner \ has passed out from Edison Township high School, Edison, New Jersy with physics, Chemistry and Biology as his subjects in the High School. He has obtained 70. 7% in those subjects. The selection for the seats in the Medical colleges of the State is governed by the Rules made by an executive order in that behalf, by the Government of karnataka for the academic year 1980-81 by an order No. HFW 28 MSF 80 dated 6-6-80 as Karnataka Medical colleges (Selection for Admission) rules, 1980 (herinafter referred to as the Rules' ). Under Rule 2, eligibility is prescribed and it is as follows:" (1) No person shall be eligible for admission: - (a) if he has not passed the* two year PUC examination conducted by the Pre-University Education board of the State of Karnataka with Physics, Chemisitry, Biology as optional subjects or an equivalent examination declared as such by the Universities or. " (not relevant for our purpose) ( 2 ) THE petitioner in terms of the provisions made in regard to equivalent examinations to the two year puc course of Karnataka, along with his application produced the provisional eligibility certificate issued by the Registrar of the University of bangalore, certifying that he is eligible subject to his satisfying other admisssion requirements as per the university regulations. Similarly, the Registrar of University of Mysore certified the petitioner provisionally eligible subject to the minimum age of admission regulation. Similarly, the registrar of Karnataka University apart from finding him eligible as having passed equivalent examination, strongly recommended his admission. The true copies of the certificates are all produced as Annexures-E, F and G to the petition. The petitioner together with the equivalent examination certificates, referred to above, and after remittance of 20,000 Dollars against special tuition fees, submitted his application fulfilling all the requirements of the Rules. Yet he was not called for an interview. OP approaching the 2nd respondent- selection Committee, he was informed that he was not called for interview as he did not possess the necessary eligibility in terms of Rule 2 (a) extracted above. Yet he was not called for an interview. OP approaching the 2nd respondent- selection Committee, he was informed that he was not called for interview as he did not possess the necessary eligibility in terms of Rule 2 (a) extracted above. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court for redress, inter-alia, contending that the decision of the Selection Committee in excluding him from the selection Committee interview was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the rules as well as discriminatory inasmuch as persons similarly placed were indeed called for interview and allotted a seat in 3rd respondent M. S. Ramaiah's College of Medicine. ( 3 ) THE petition was filed on 8-9-80. Though the respondents were served particularly respondents 1 and 2 soon thereafter, 'the matter has been adjourned from time to time on the requests of respondents 1 and 2. It is only today, when practically the academic year has come to an end that the respondents 1 and 2 have chosen to file a return with the permission of the Court. ( 4 ) IT is useful to notice the submission made in the return. While there is no denial of the assertion made by the petitioner in regard to the facts of the case except the denial that any person with qualifications similar to the petitioner has been called for interview by the Selection committee, the justification for not calling the petitioner and the other candidates appears to be that "the selection Committee formed the opinion that the certificates given by the Universities being provisional and in their estimate even the provisional certificates of equivalence would not meet with the standards prescribed for second year PUC examination of karnataka State and therefore decided not to call the petitioner and others for interview as being ineligible under rule 2 (a) of the Rules. It is best to put the case of the Selection Committee the way in which it has been stated in the return itself and it is as follows:"the eligibility certificate issued by the University is only provisional. The equivalence has not been determined by the University. The selections to Medical Colleges are governed by Rules formulated by the State Government for that purpose. The petitioner has passed an examination after 12 years of schooling. The equivalence has not been determined by the University. The selections to Medical Colleges are governed by Rules formulated by the State Government for that purpose. The petitioner has passed an examination after 12 years of schooling. But, he has studied only physics, in the 12th grade examination and has not studied Chemis and biology as required by Selection Rules. He has passed Chemistry at 11th Grade or I PUC level. Thus it may be seen that the subjects concerned at the SSLC level and I puc level do not constitute subjects of qualifying examination. " ( 5 ) IN the light of the return filed as above, Sri V. C. Bhramarayappa, the learned Government Advocate, has submitted that there is no error or illegality in the decision of the 2nd respondent-Selection Committee in not calling the candidate for interview. He has also strenuously argued that the Rules are in no way violated as the Selection Committee is entrusted with the task of maintaining the fine academic standards of education in the State and, therefore, was competent to assess the provisional equivalence granted by the university. ( 6 ) I find it difficult to accept the arguments advanced, having regard to the power conferred on the Selecction Committee by the Rules as well as the scheme of the Rules. It is clear that the body that has to maintain fine standards of medical education in the State as well as the country, is the Indian Medical Council as well as the respective Universities to which the Medical Colleges in the state or the Country stand affiliated. The Government Advocate is not able to point out in the Rules the academic standards of medical education which are required to be maintained by the selection Committee while doing selection, though a feeble attempt was made to point out Rule 16. Rule 16 is as follows:"verification of Information furnished in Applications of Certain categories: all applications of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste, scheduled Tribe and Backward classes shall invariably be got verified by reference to the appropriate authorities like Deputy commissioner, Superintendent of police, Officers of Social Welfare department etc. In case where the information furnished is found to be false, action under Rule 16 shall be taken. In case where the information furnished is found to be false, action under Rule 16 shall be taken. "it is obvious that it has no reference to academic standards of medical education, but only in regard to the caste or class to which the candidates belong and no more. Even that verification has to be made as directed in the Rule itself. ( 7 ) THE question of consulting the deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police or the Officers of the Social welfare Department does not at all prise in deciding eligibility under 2 (a ). In the instant case, when the government Advocate has not placed any material before the Court that the Selection Committee even so much as consulted the Universities as to the provisional nature of the equivalence granted and whether the universities had taken a final decision in that behalf. ( 8 ) IT is useful to set out the scheme of the Rules. While Rule 2 provides for academic eligibility, Rule 3 provides for eligibility by Domicile. Rule 4 provides for distribution of seats in favour of certain categories of persons such as children of defence personnel, Children of Ex-Defence personnel, Children of Political sufferers etc. Rule 5 provides for reservation of seats in favour of S. C. and S. T. , Backward Tribes, Backward castes, Backward Communities and special Groups. In Rule 6, the seats are divided into General or Merit pool and Reservation Pool of seats. Rule 7 provides for a Bond being executed" by the Selected candidate to serve the rural areas for a minimum period of 2 years after graduation in the Medical College. Rule 8 provides for the constitution of the Selection committee. Rule 9 provides for the mode of making applications by candidates and the documents required to accompany the same. Rule 10 provides for the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee in making selection. Rule 11 provides for allocation of seats to various Colleges. Rule 12 provides for publication of lists of selected candidates and the manner in which the same shall be sent to the college allotted. Rule 13 provides for the preparation of the waiting lists and how the vacancies occurring should be filled from the waiting list. Rule 11 provides for allocation of seats to various Colleges. Rule 12 provides for publication of lists of selected candidates and the manner in which the same shall be sent to the college allotted. Rule 13 provides for the preparation of the waiting lists and how the vacancies occurring should be filled from the waiting list. Rule 14 provides for selection which is subject to the decision of the University and this is a Rule which should be noticed to dispose of this writ petition. Therefore Rule 14 is set' out and is as follows:"selection subject to decision of university: (a) With regard to eligibility or qualification for admission, the decision of the University shall be final and any applicant who had been selected by the Selection committee but found to be ineligible or disqualified by the University is liable to be refused admission. The Selection Committee shall not in such an event be held responsible in any manner whatsoever for any loss or prejudice which may result to the applicant. (b) Where an ineligible applicant has been admitted to a College inadvertently by mistake or other- wise, such applicant shall not claim to continue his studies in the College, (c) Where a seat is allotted by mistake to an ineligible candidate, possessing lower merit than another candidate seeking admission, it is open to the competent authority to review the earlier allotment and to cancel it. "rule 15 provides for admission of applicants. Rule 16 as already extracted is verification of information furnished in applications of certain categories. Rule 17 provides for imposing penalty for false or incorrect statement. Rule 18 provides for the selection Committee's decisions being subject to orders of the State government. By Rule 19, rules governing the previous orders providing for selection in 1979 have been repealed. ( 9 ) THE Government, subsequent to the framing of the Rules have modified or altered some of the Rules by orders. One of such orders issued on 23-7-80 provides for deletion of Rule 3 (1) (f) of the Rules and substitution of a new Rule which reads as follows:"3 (1) (F): Applicants to private medical Colleges against seats with special tuition fees of 20,000 dollars or Rs. 1,60,000 and the seats at the discretion of managements. One of such orders issued on 23-7-80 provides for deletion of Rule 3 (1) (f) of the Rules and substitution of a new Rule which reads as follows:"3 (1) (F): Applicants to private medical Colleges against seats with special tuition fees of 20,000 dollars or Rs. 1,60,000 and the seats at the discretion of managements. "this must be read as an exception to the Domicile Rule 3 (1) because the exceptions are contained after the proviso, from (a) to (f ). It is useful to notice by another order subsequently that even the special tuition fees seats had to be given not only on the basis of the merit among the applicants but also on the ground of preferring Indian citizens. ( 10 ) FROM what I have stated above, it is clear that the Selection Committee under Rule 10 of the Rules, has only to arrange the merit students in the general pool as well as in the reserved category and thereafter proceed to distribute the seats in accordance with the lists so prepared university-wise or College wise, as the case may be, and fill up any vacancies that occur in those seats from the waiting lists. ( 11 ) NONE of the Rules provide for the Selection Committee performing any functions in the matter of deciding equivalence under Rule 2 (a ). If the petitioner produced the equivalent certificate, he ought to have been called for interview even though the certificate was provisional and if he or she was found eligible for selection and was so selected, he or she ought to have been told that the eligibility was subject to the Universities' final decision in that matter, as Rule 14 of the Rules itself makes it abundantly clear. The Selection Committee had no power at all to reject the application on its determination that the petitioner had not passed the equivalent examination. Therefore, I have no hesistation to come to the conclusion that the selection Committee acted in excess of its powers contrary to the Rules and, therefore, it is illegal. The petitioner has a right to be called for interview. Since that academic year for which his deposit is lying with the Selection Committee has come to an end, I direct the Selection Committee to consider his application for the M. B. B. S. Course commencing from 1981-82. ( 12 ) RULE is made absolute. The petitioner has a right to be called for interview. Since that academic year for which his deposit is lying with the Selection Committee has come to an end, I direct the Selection Committee to consider his application for the M. B. B. S. Course commencing from 1981-82. ( 12 ) RULE is made absolute. Petition is allowed and a direction will issue as above. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .