M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner possesses final degree in bsam (Bachelor of Shudda Ayurveda medicine ). He applied for admission to short term course in modern medicine leading to BAMS degree in the Government college of Indian Medicine, Bangalore. But admission to the said latter course is governed by Government Order No. HMA 443 PIM 76, dated 30th June, 1977, for the academic year 1981-82. The Rules framed under the said Order are known as 'karnataka College of Indian Medicine (Selection for Admission to the short term course leading to BAMS Degree) Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). The petitioner was informed by post that he was to appear for interview before the Selection Committee constituted under the Rules on 25th June, 1981. That intimation which is at annexure-A in the original was received at Gondichetnahalli post office on 25th June, 1981, and delivered to him on the same day. Immediately on receipt of the intimation, the petitioner informed the Selection Committee by a telegram, of his inability to appear before the Selection Committee on that day, as he could not possibly reach bangalore having received the intimation on the very day of the interview. He arrived at Bangalore on the following day and requested the Selection Committee to interview him and consider his application. The 1st respondent-Selection committee refused the request of the petitioner on the ground that the selection was over on the 25th itself and the list of selected candidates was announced. In that circumstance, he has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that his application has been rejected without reasonable opportunity being given to him for no fault of his, as delay if any, in transit of the postal card was not attributable to him. ( 2 ) AFTER notice the respondents have entered appearance and the records of the case pertaining to the petitioner have been made available to the Court. It is seen from the records that postal intimation was sent by the Selection Committee to all the candidates on 17th 81, under postal certificate. It is also seen that all the other applicants have appeared before the Selection Committee though it is not known as to when they received their intimation concerning the interview. It is seen from the records that postal intimation was sent by the Selection Committee to all the candidates on 17th 81, under postal certificate. It is also seen that all the other applicants have appeared before the Selection Committee though it is not known as to when they received their intimation concerning the interview. It is also seen that the interviews of all the applicants were over on the 25th itself and the Selection Committee notified on the notice Board the list of selected candidates for the 100 seats available in the College for short term course in modern medicine in the current academic year. ( 3 ) ON the basis of these facts, it is contended for the respondents that respondents are not at fault for the non-appearance of the petitioner. It is not disputed, however, that the telegram was received, but on the 26th. It is also stated that even the telegram sent by the petitioner was received by the Selection Committee only on the 26th and therefore they could not make any provision for interviewing the petitioner on the 26th. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the mandamus which he has prayed for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to hold an interview for the petitioner and consider his case and select, if on merit he is above some of those who have been selected in the current academic year. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government pleader that all the selected students have joined the College and also two months have elapsed, since the College commenced its classes. It is also not disputed by the respondents, as disclosed from the records, that some of the selected candidates in the current academic year for short term modern Medicine course have secured lesser marks in the qualifying examination i. e. , BSAM Degree Examination than the petitioner. In other words, had the petitioner appeared on the 25th, he would have been entitled to get selected and admitted to the Course. ( 5 ) THE question is whether in these circumstances admission should be denied to him in the current academic year. In other words, had the petitioner appeared on the 25th, he would have been entitled to get selected and admitted to the Course. ( 5 ) THE question is whether in these circumstances admission should be denied to him in the current academic year. It is useful to notice that the candidate selected under the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission to 1 Year MBBS course) Rules, there is a provision requiring the selected candidate to report to the college to which he is assigned for admission on a specified date falling which his selection is deemed to have been cancelled. In the case of Srinivasadamodar v. Selection committee for Admission to Government medical Colleges (1), I have held that such a rule cannot deprive a selected candidate of his right to admission if he has reasonable cause to show as to why he has not joined the College on the specified date and explains satisfactorily the delay, and the selection Committee has inherent power to permit late admission to that College. ( 6 ) IN the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2), the Supreme Court also had occasion to consider a similar question. There, the candidate was required to appear for medical examination on a specified date. But the intimation to so appear reached the candidate one day beyond the specified date. In that circumstance he was refused admission to the school. The Supreme Court took the view that as long as the authorities concerned therein had not taken the precaution of sending the intimation early to ensure that it would reach the student at ambala address, no blame couuld be attached to the student therein, and allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to admit him to the School. ( 7 ) I am unable to see why the ratio of the Supreme Court decision should not be applied to the facts of the present case, which are not in dispute. Had the Selection Committee taken the precaution to send the intimations early enough to ensure they would reach the addressees in all parts of the State well in time, this unfor unate tragedy for the petitioner would not have occurred. Had the Selection Committee taken the precaution to send the intimations early enough to ensure they would reach the addressees in all parts of the State well in time, this unfor unate tragedy for the petitioner would not have occurred. Posting the interview card just 8 days before the interview cannot be said to be a reasonable time to ensure postal delivery to the addressees in different parts of this State, particularly to places like where the petitioner lives and there was no justification also for the selection Committee to refuse to interview the candidate and consider his application on the 26th as a special case, as I see no prohibition in the Rules for such a step being taken. ( 8 ) THE Selection Committee is entrusted with the task of selecting the best candidates in accordance with the Rules and not necessarily go by the fact of having completed the selection on 25th itself. It would not have been objection able, having regard to the merit of the petitioner, if his application had been considered on 26th and a selection made having regard to the relative merits of the selected candidates, and the last candidate should have yielded the place if the petitioner should have been selected. ( 9 ) NO useful purpose will be served by issuing mandamus as prayed for, as the petitioner is bound to be short of attendance in the current academic year, if direction is given to admit him to the present year course. It is submitted that the strength fixed for the 1 Year Course cannot be raised for legal reasons. Therefore, all that this Court can do, is to issue a direction to the Selection Committee to reserve a seat for the petitioner in the next academic year 1982-83 for the same course. The petitioner is directed to make an application at the relevant time for admission to the course in the academic year 1982-83. ( 10 ) IN the result, rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Direction as above will issue. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .