JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BOTH these writ petitions challenge the vires of clauses (e) and (I) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules for selection of candidates for appointment as House officers in the Medical Colleges which came into force with effect from 1-1-1984 and as such, are being decided by a common order. ( 2. ) THE petitioners of these two writ petitions, after passing their M. B. B. S. Examination and completing the internship, applied for appointment as House Officers, in the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, which has been denied to them. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in regard to the validity of sub-rules. (e) and (f) of Rule 8 aforesaid, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the said Rules at this stage. A copy of the Rules has been attached as Annexure R-4 to the return filed on behalf of the respondents. Rule 6 reads as under : "selection shall be made once in a year strictly on the basis of merit The polled merit list of all batches of candidates who have completed, or shall complete internship in the same calendar year, would be prepared by Dean concerned and notified on the college notice board. Any objections or representations received within ten days shall be considered by the Dean in consultation with the college and hospital council and corrections, if any, made in the list. The final list would be notified. No objection Would be entertained after this final notification. " Sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8 are as follows :- "(e ). From the above aggregate, deduct 15% of minimum pass marks in each subject for each extra attempt. (f ). Non-appearance in an examination would count as an extra attempt in each of the subjects of the examination. However, a candidate who is not eligible to appear in the 1st M. B. B. S. examination because of being admitted late in the first year, will be exempted from this provision by special order of the Dean. " ( 3. Non-appearance in an examination would count as an extra attempt in each of the subjects of the examination. However, a candidate who is not eligible to appear in the 1st M. B. B. S. examination because of being admitted late in the first year, will be exempted from this provision by special order of the Dean. " ( 3. ) THE case of the petitioners is that when the provisional merit list was prepared as contemplated by Rule 6, their names were shown much above in the list It, however, appears that a representation was made by some students on the basis of which, relying on sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, the names of the petitioners were placed down below in the final list with the result that the petitioners could not get appointments as House officers. It is in these circumstances that these petitions have been instituted challenging the validity of sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the petitioners urged that there was sufficient cause for each of the petitioners for not appearing in the main examination and consequently from the mere fact that they could not, for reasons beyond their control, appear in the main examination, markkas contemplated by sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, could not be deducted from their aggregate marks. According to the counsel for the petitioners, since sub-rules (e) and (f) contemplate that even if there was sufficient cause for non-appearance in the main examination, marks would still be deducted, these sub-rules are arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. According to him, these sub-rules do not satisfy the test of reasonableness inasmuch as no reasonable person properly instructed in law, could come to the conclusion that even if non-appearance in the main examination was for sufficient cause beyond the control of the student, marks should yet be deducted. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kulshreshtha, Govt. Advocate, we are of the opinion that so far as sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 is concerned, it does not suffier from any vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. This sub-rule contemplates extra attempt. This term apparently means that the marks on the basis of which the merit list is being prepared, were obtained in a subsequent attempt. Advocate, we are of the opinion that so far as sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 is concerned, it does not suffier from any vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. This sub-rule contemplates extra attempt. This term apparently means that the marks on the basis of which the merit list is being prepared, were obtained in a subsequent attempt. If one candidate gets good marks in the very first attempt and another candidate gets slightly better marks in the second or third attempt, it may reasonably be said that the student getting good marks in the very first attempt, is more meritorious than the student getting slightly more marks in the second or third attempt. At any rate, it is a matter of opinion and there seems to be no doubt that two views are reasonably possible on this point. If the view in favour of deducting marks as contemplated by sub-rule (e) is also reasonable, it cannot be said that the said sub-rule is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law, could have taken that view. This Court would, therefore, not be justified in holding the said sub-rule to be ultra vires, even if it was of the opinion that the other possible view was more reasonable. ( 6. ) AS regards sub-rule (f) of Rule 8, it does, however, appear to us that if this sub: rule is capable of only one interpretation that if a student is unable to appear in the main examination then, notwithstanding the fact that for his non-appearance there was good and sufficient cause beyond his control, his appearing in the subsequent examination would be treated to be an extra attempt for purposes of deducting 15% marks from the aggregate marks under sub-rule (e) of Rule 8, it does not stand the test of reasonableness. Take for instance a student who has always topped the list from matriculation examination to the examination prior to the M. B. B. S. Examination and expects to top the list in the M. B. B. S. also and makes preparation for the examination and his preparation is such that if he appears in the examination, he is likely to top the list. However, a day before the commencement of the examination, he suddenly falls ill and for that reason, he is unable to appear in the examination. However, a day before the commencement of the examination, he suddenly falls ill and for that reason, he is unable to appear in the examination. He, however, appears in the subsequent examination and tops the list. Deducting 15% marks for preparing the merit list under sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 would be unreasonable as no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that it was a case where marks must be deducted. It is, however, settled principle of law that if a particular rule can be saved from being declared ultra vires by watering it down, courts should always take recourse to the process of watering down rather than declaring it ultra vires. On the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that recourse to this process deserves to be taken in the instant case. In our opinion, sub-rule (f) of Rule 8 can be saved from being declared ultra vires if it is interpreted to impliedly provide that non-appearance should be for a cause which is not sufficient. In other words, if the words without any sufficient cause are implied to be there between the words non-appearance and the words in an examination in sub-rule (f) of Rule 8, it would be a perfectly valid rule and would pass the test of being reasonable. ( 7. ) WE accordingly hold that the words "without any sufficient cause" have to be impliedly read between the words non-appearance and the words in an examination in sub-rule (f)le 8 and that rule has to be interpreted in that manner. ( 8. ) IN the instant case, as seen above, the name of each of the two petitioners of these writ petitions was placed higher up in the provisional merit list, but was taken down in the final list on account of a representation made by some students. It is not the ease of the respondents that before doing so, the petitioners were given any opportunity to make a counter representation. It is not the ease of the respondents that before doing so, the petitioners were given any opportunity to make a counter representation. For ought we know if in the provisional list, the names of the petitioners had been shown down in the list after determining their merit by deducting 15% marks as contemplated by sub-rule (e) of Rule 8, and they had made a representation as contemplated by Rule 6 of the Rules, the said representation may have been allowed on the interpretation made by us of sub-rule (f) of Rule 8. This interpretation may have found favour with the authorities concerned, but opportunity to file representation was denied to the petitioners. We must hasten to add that these observations are being made on the facts of the instant cases and should not be considered to mean that in every case, a further opportunity contemplated by Rule 6 has necessarily to be given. On the above interpretation of sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 8, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered afresh by the authorities concerned for giving appointments as House Officers. ( 9. ) SHRI Kulshreshtha appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that those who are given appointments as House Officers, are paid stipends and there are only a fixed number of posts of House Officers. He submitted that all those posts have been filled and it would not be possible for the respondents to appoint the petitioners as house Officers even if on their representation, it was found that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance in the main examination. In our opinion, on the facts of the instant cases, this difficulty can be resolved by directing the respondents to create two unpaid posts of House Officers to accommodate the petitioners in case, on their representation that may be made in pursuance of this order, the authorities come to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance in the main examination. This, on one hand, would absolve the respondents from any additional financial obligation and on the other, enable the petitioners to have the benefit of the extra qualification of having done the house job in the subject concerned. ( 10. ) IN this connection it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the petitioners, i. e. Dr. ( 10. ) IN this connection it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the petitioners, i. e. Dr. Sanjay Phadke, had been appointed as House Officer in e. N. T. and he is prepared to forego that appointment and the stipend which is being paid to him, may be transferred and paid to him in case he is appointed House Officer in medicine, as desired by him. We are not inclined to issue any mandamus in this regard. We, however, leave it open to the authorities concerned to consider the feasibility of tailing recourse to this procedure if a representation is made by the petitioner in this behalf. ( 11. ) IN the result, both these writ petitions succeed and are allowed to the extent that we direct that in case the petitioners make representations within two weeks from today in regard to there being sufficient cause for their non-appearance in the main examination, the respondents shall consider the said representations expeditiously and preferably within three weeks of the filing of the representations and in case it is found that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of one or both the petitioners in the main examination concerned, one or two extra unpaid posts as the case may be of house Officers in the subjects concerned, shall be created by the respondents and appointments on that or those posts as the case may be shall be made of the petitioners we also wish to make it clear that in spite of our direction to create two unpaid posts, it will be open to the respondents to create the necessary extra posts as paid posts on representations being made in this behalf by the petitioners. ( 12. ) NO order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Order accordingly.