M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was an applicant for a seat in the B. E. Degree Course for the academic year commencing from 1981-82. The petitioner has asserted that he belongs to Valmiki community which is listed as one of the backward tribes in the State of Karnataka. He has further asserted that the annual income of his mother is Rs. 2500 and that his father is no more. The petitioner passed in the year 1980 his Preuniversity Examination with Physics, chemistry, Mathematics and Biology securing first class and he scored 74. 6 per cent average in physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. In the academic year 1980-81 he had applied for a seat both for. First Year mbbs. Course as well as the B. E. Degree course. Admission to both Courses the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Art. 162 of the constitution. In 1980 admission to medical Colleges were regulated by the rules promulgated for that year in 1980. The admission to Engineering Colleges were governed by the 1979 Rules known as Karnataka Engineering Colleges and technological Institutes (Selection of candidates for Admission) Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). He was selected in the year 1980 and given a seat in each of the two course for which he had applied. The petitioner chose to. accept the seat given for First year MBBS Course, though he had joined the Engineering College in that academic year itself. He, in that circumstance, gave up his studies in the Engineering College and joined, the Medical course at Bellary Medical College. But the petitioner found that he was too sentimental and could not stomach blood and flesh while dissecting dead bodies. Therefore, he left the medical college at Bellary and in the following year, that is in the academic year 1981 -82, applied once again for a seat in the Engineering college for B,e. Degree Course under the Rules. He was called for interview by the 1st respondent-Selection Committee and as directed appeared before it on 25th September, 1981. At the interview, it is alleged, he was informed that he is not entitled to a seat because he had deserted the course in the earlier year when he was selected. Soon thereafter he has approached this Court under art. He was called for interview by the 1st respondent-Selection Committee and as directed appeared before it on 25th September, 1981. At the interview, it is alleged, he was informed that he is not entitled to a seat because he had deserted the course in the earlier year when he was selected. Soon thereafter he has approached this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the Selection Committee has no power to refuse him a seat which he claimed under the reserved catagones of backward tribes where he v/as more meritorious than the other candidates with lesser marks'. He has also contended that there is no power in the selection Committee to reject a seat to the candidate merely because in the earlier year he had not utilised the seat to which he was selected ( 2 ) FOR a long time the 1st respondent though served had remained unrepresented and in that circumstance Mr. Motigi learned High Court Government pleader, was directed to take notice on 15-1-1982 and submit to the Court. Today, the mater coming up for further hearing in Group 'b preliminary hearing cases, it is seen from the records produced by the learned government Pleader that the petitioner's application was rejected by the 1st respondent-Selection Committee with the endorsement "repeater" since joined mechanical Engineering in B. D. T. Engineering College, Davanagere during 1981-82. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the scheme of selection under the Rules. The selection Committee under Rule 5 (v) of the Rules is required to arrange in order of merit, the applicants who are qualified to enter that course and who have fulfilled the domicile requirements. Thereafter giving effect. to the provisions for reservation under the Rules for the various categories, the seats available will be divided into merit pool seats and the seats for reserved categories. In the respective pools having regard to the merit, that is, marks obtained by the candidate in the relevant optional subjects, the candidate or applicant securing higher marks shall be preferred to the one "who has obtained lesser marks and the seats in that manner filled both for the merit pool and the reserved category. ( 4 ) NO doubt, the scheme of the rules provides selection of the candidate an'd his allotment to any College in the State of Karnataka. ( 4 ) NO doubt, the scheme of the rules provides selection of the candidate an'd his allotment to any College in the State of Karnataka. In the scheme of the Rules no specific provision is made as to the circumstances under which the Selection Committee could reject a candidate's application. They have to be inferred. ( 5 ) RULE 3 of the Rules provides for eligibility by domicile with certain exceptions to it, as well as by academic qualification. Therefore, when a student does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules, the Selection Committee will have to reject his application. The applications can also be rejected on the ground that they are not received within the prescribed time and that they do not contain any material on the basis of which the selection could be made in accordance with the Rules. But there is no express provision in the Rules which entitles the Selection Committee to reject an application. As I have already pointed out by illustrations they have to be inferred from the scheme of the Rules. ( 6 ) BAT, strangely, the word repeater is defined in Rule 2 (g) of the Rules which reads as follows :"2 (g) 'repeater' means a candidate who was admitted to the relevant course in a college during any of the previous years within the limit, if any, specified by the University and who from the above, it is seen that 'repeater is not to be rejected having regard to the note appended to sub -rule (g) that as amongst the 'repeaters' themselves falling into the three categories, priority should be given in the order in which the 'repeater' is defined under Rule 2 (g) (i), (ii), (iii) of the Rules. In other words what can be gathered from the note is that while an order of priority should be maintained among the 'repea- sers' themselves, no prohibition is imposed for at mitting them to the course and for that reason the action of the Selection Committee in the instant case, rejecting the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that he was a repeater', does not appear to be correct in law, nor does it appear to be in accordance with any of the provisions of the rules specifically or impliedly conferring that power on the Selection Committee. " ( 7 ) IT is most unfortunate that this has happened. It is still worse that one shanmukhappa had also joined the BDT. Engineering College in the year 1980 and gave up that seat and joined the m. B. B. S. Course in the Medical College at Bellary in the same year. That Shanmukhappa also gave up MBBS Course and applied in 1981-82 academic year once again for a seat in the B. E. Degree course. He has been selected. The learned Government Pleader submits that that allegation is true and that shanmukhappa was admitted because his application came through the Principal of the College as a'repeater' explaining the circumstances in which he was forced to repeat, while the petitioner's application had come up as if it was a fresh application. I do not see how that makes any difference because the endorsement of the Selection Committee on the application of the petitioner shows that he was a repeater. If he was a 'repeater' then they could only prefer inter-se repeater', the order sought to be maintained in accordance with Rule 2 (g) of the Rules. I have already held, that that is not a disqualification/or an express provision for rejecting the applicant. Therefore, admitting Shanmukhappa does constitute a violation of the fundamental right of equality guaranteed to the petitioner, as a similarly placed person has been favoured while the petitioner has been discriminated. ( 8 ) IN the result, I am compelled to declare that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a seat in the B. E. Degree Course for the academic year 1981-82 was clearly illegal and therefore impermissible. Unfortunately though the petitioner approached this court, promptly, this decision could not be taken without examining the matter in dispute. The academic year is almost coming to an end and no useful purpose will be served ia directing the Selection committee to reserve a seat in this academic year to the petitioner. But, ends of justice with be served if a seat for the B. E. Degree Course is reserved for the petitioner in the academic year 1982-83, and the petitioner shall also send his application for the coining academic year, if he is desirous of joining the course. But, ends of justice with be served if a seat for the B. E. Degree Course is reserved for the petitioner in the academic year 1982-83, and the petitioner shall also send his application for the coining academic year, if he is desirous of joining the course. He is directed to send the application with the necessary information and the circumstances in which he discontinued his B. E. Degree Course and mbbs Course in the academic year 1980-81 through the College which he had joined. ( 9 ) THE petitioner's Counsel submitted that there should be a specific direction to give a seat to the petitioner in the B. D, T. College at Davanagere as he belonged to backward tribe and as he is very poor and as the free hostel facilities are only available at Davanagere. Such a specific direction by this court at this point of time will not he proper as discretion is given to the Selection Committee to allot the candidates to any Engineering College in the State of Karnataka to which the Selections are made on a state-wide basis. I am sure the Selection Committee will bear in mind the fact that the petitioner belongs to backward tribe, that he has free hostel facilities, and that facility may not be available at all the centres where Engineering Colleges are located. ( 10 ) IN the result, rule will issue and be made absolute. The Selection committee is directed to reserve a seat for I Year B. E. Degree Course for the 'academic year 1982-83 for the petitioner and if he applies for the same, he shall be given that reserved seat, notwithstanding the fact that the last student to be selected in 1982-83 has scored more marks than the petitioner in the relevant optional subjects. Mr. M. H. Motigi, learned High court Governmem Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .