Judgment :- Same questions arise for consideration in these Original Petitions. They relate to admission to the post graduate courses in modern medicine. So, I consider it advantageous to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners in all these cases are eligible for admission to the post graduate course of study in the medical college in India. They had applied for being selected through the competitive examination held in 1990 by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as "AIIMS". Selection is made in pursuance to the directions given by the Supreme Court towards 25% seats in the post graduate courses on the basis of merit only. For such selection AIIMS issued Ext.P1 Bulletin. All the petitioners applied in pursuance to Ext. P1. They secured higher ranks. 3. Petitioner in O.P.8871/90 secured rank No.248 in the examination conducted by AIIMS. Petitioner had given the following options in the order of preference for six courses: (i) M.D. (Paediatrics) (ii) M.D. (General Medicine) (iii) M.D. (T.B. and Respiratory Diseases) (iv) M.S.(ENT) (v) M.S.(Orthopaedics) (vi) M.D. (Gynaecology) The colleges which were chosen by him in the order of preference were: (i) Calicut Medical College (ii) Grant Medical College, Bombay (iii) Delhi-(1) Moulana Azad Medical College (2) University College of Medical Sciences (3),V.P. Chest Institute (iv) G.S. Medical College, Bombay (v) B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad (vi) S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur (vii) B.J. Medical College, Poone (viii) N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. Petitioner received Ext.P2 memorandum informing him that he has been selected for admission to M.D. (General Medicine) in the N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. {Petitioner's first choice is M.D. (Paediatrics). Since he has obtained rank No. 248 it is contended that no candidate who has obtained a lower rank than him can be admitted to that course in any of the medical colleges. According to him, persons who secured lower ranks have been admitted to M.D. (Paediatrics). It is his case that indication of preferences given by the candidate will not deprive him of his right to get admission to the seats in other colleges of his choice if there arises vacancy subsequently. From clause 6ofExt.P1 it would appear that a candidate will not be considered for admission to any of the colleges not included in the preferences indicated by him. From clause 6ofExt.P1 it would appear that a candidate will not be considered for admission to any of the colleges not included in the preferences indicated by him. This, according to the petitioner, will result in candidates having lesser merit getting admission to the course of his first choice in the other colleges. This is volatile of the provisions contained in Art.14 of the Constitution. Admission on all India basis is made only to 25% of the seats. Remaining seats are to be filled up by the respective States. Candidates who apply for admission to the course are practically the same. State Government have selected candidates for admission to various colleges. This has resulted in candidates selected by AIIMS and allotted to various colleges also getting admission in the colleges of their respective States to courses of their choice. Hence there will be a substantial number of vacancies in the seats in All India quota. These seats must be offered by AIIMS to the candidates placed in the ranked list in the order of merit depending on their choice of the course. The practice adopted by AIIMS is to refuse to consider the claims of the candidates who have been once offered admission to one of the courses of their choice, irrespective of the fact whether they accept such admission or decline the same. In the case of petitioner who has been offered admission to M.D. (General Medicine) which is his second choice, he will not be considered for admission to M.D. (Paediatrics) which is his first choice, even-if vacancies arise in that course in any of the medical colleges opted by him. So, also, a candidate selected to the course of his first choice and admitted to the 8th college preferred by him, will not be considered for admission in the institutions of his earlier choice, if vacancies arise subsequently. According to the petitioner, the above actions of AIIMS is grossly illegal and unfair. Petitioners wants a direction to be given to AIIMS to offer vacancies in the colleges of candidates' choice depending on the merit and option. 4. Petitioner in O.P.8876/90 secured rank No.378 in the competitive examination conducted by AIIMS. He had opted the following course in the order of preference: (i) M.D. (Paediatrics) (ii) M.D. (General Medicine) (iii) D.C.H. (iv) M.S.(ENT) (v) M.D. (Gynaecology). 4. Petitioner in O.P.8876/90 secured rank No.378 in the competitive examination conducted by AIIMS. He had opted the following course in the order of preference: (i) M.D. (Paediatrics) (ii) M.D. (General Medicine) (iii) D.C.H. (iv) M.S.(ENT) (v) M.D. (Gynaecology). The eight colleges preferred by him in the order of priority are: (i). Calicut Medical College. t (ii) Trivandrum Medical College, (iii) B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad. (iv) S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, (v) Grand Medical College, Bombay (vi) N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. (vii) G.S. Medical College, Bombay, (viii) Delhi (all medical colleges). Petitioner got selection for admission to D.C.H. (third course opted) in the Calicut Medical College (first institution preferred by him). According to him, persons ranked below him have secured admission to M.D. (Paediatrics) and M.D. (General Medicine). This is violative of the provisions contained in Art.14 of the Constitution. He prays that AIIMS should be directed to consider his case for admission to the M.D. (Paediatrics) or M.D. (General Medicine) in case vacancies arise in any of the colleges opted by him in preference to those who secured lower ranks. 5. Petitioner in O.P. 8886/90 secured rank No.600 in the examination conducted by AIIMS. The course opted by him in the order of preference were: (i) M.D. Paediatrics (ii) M.D. (General Medicine) (iii) M.D. (T.B. and Respiratory Diseases) (iv) D.C.H. (v) D.T.C.D. (vi) D.L.O. The medical colleges to which he sought admission in the order of preference were: (i) Calicut Medical College, (ii) Trivandrum Medical College, (iii) Delhi. (iv) Grant Medical College, Bombay, (v) Medical College, Mysore, (vi) Medical College, Bangalore, (vii) N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad. (viii) M.K.G.C. Medical College, Birhampur, Ganjam. By Ext.P2 petitioner was informed that he was selected to admission to D.T.CD. course in the Government Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. According to him, no candidate who secured a lower rank can be admitted to M.D. (Paediatrics) which was his first choice in any colleges opted by him. Since he has been admitted to the course which was his 5th choice, he will not be considered for admission to courses of his first or 2nd choice even-if vacancies in those courses arise in the colleges of his preference. This action of AJIMS is under challenge. 6. In O.P. 9504/90 petitioner secured Rank No. 643, in the examination conducted by AIIMS. This action of AJIMS is under challenge. 6. In O.P. 9504/90 petitioner secured Rank No. 643, in the examination conducted by AIIMS. The courses opted by her in the order of preference were: (i) M.D. (General Medicine) (ii) M.D. (Paediatrics) (iii) Diploma in Child Health (iv) D.L.O. (v) M.S.(General Surgery) (vi) M.S.(Gynaecology.) The eight colleges opted by her in the order of preference were: (i) Medical College, Trivandrum. (ii) Medical College, Calicut. (iii) Medical College, Kozhikode. (iv) Medical College, Bangalore. (v) Medical College, Madurai. (vi) Grand Medical College, Bombay. (vii) Moulana Azad Medical College, Delhi. (viii) Lady Harding Medical College, Delhi. Petitioner has been informed that she is selected for admission to D.L.O. (Dip. in ENT) in the Medical College, Trivandrum. She wants admission to one of the courses of her earlier choice in preference to those who secured lower ranks in the competitive examination. Her alternate prayer is in case vacancies arise in the colleges of her choice in the first or 2nd subject opted by her she must be preferred to persons who secured lower ranks. 7. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents land 2 to the following effect. Candidates are selected for admission to the various discipline in the various institutions opted by them in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. Candidates are to be allocated to the respective Medical Colleges on the basis of merit-cum-preference-cum-eligibility. Each candidate was allotted the subject/ colleges on the basis of (1) merit, (2) subject of choice, (3) college of choice and (4) eligibility. Each candidate has to give choices of six subjects and maximum of eight colleges. By using Computer allotment was made according to the preference of subject/ college given by the candidate. If the seat is not available on merit in the subject of first preference of the candidate in any of the eight colleges given by him, subject of 2nd preference is taken into account and he is considered for the 2nd subject in all the eight colleges in the order of preference and so on. Thus the candidates are allotted seats in the subjects of their preference and colleges of their choice. This is the criteria for allotment fed into the computer for making allocation. Thus the candidates are allotted seats in the subjects of their preference and colleges of their choice. This is the criteria for allotment fed into the computer for making allocation. Once a candidate has given option for six subjects and eight colleges, it shows his willingness to join any of these courses/ colleges which may be offered to him strictly on merit, he may get any of his preferences, even the last one, due to limited availability of seats in the courses/ colleges for which he has opted. This method of allocation of candidates to the seats in various medical colleges on the basis of merit-cum-preference has been approved by the Supreme Court. It is stated that there is no other practical way of selecting candidates to the courses. 8. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. 8871/90 it is submitted that a detailed counter affidavit will be filed in that O.P. and connected cases without much delay. Since the courses have already been started and the contentions of the respondents are those contained in the statement, I took that statement to be one applicable to all the O. Ps. and I am disposing of the same without waiting for a detailed counter affidavit. 9. The short question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether a candidate who secured admission in these cases is whether a candidate who secured admission to one of the courses opted by him in one of the medical colleges of his choice, is to be considered for a change of course preferred by him as first or second in the colleges of his preference if there arises vacancy in those course in preference to a candidate who secured lower rank in the examination conducted by AIIMS. So also can a candidate who has been admitted to an institution change the same to one of his earlier preference in case vacancy arises in that institution in the course to which he is offered admission. 10. So also can a candidate who has been admitted to an institution change the same to one of his earlier preference in case vacancy arises in that institution in the course to which he is offered admission. 10. In Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (AIR 1985 SC 1059) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Students seeking admission to post graduate courses can express their preference for any particular University or medical college or colleges as also for any specialty or specialties which they wish to take up for the post graduate course and admissions should be granted to the post graduate course in various medical colleges in the country on the basis of marks obtained at such entrance examination and while granting admissions, the preferences expressed by the students must be kept in mind and as far as possible effort should be made to conform to such preferences." By the decision in Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (AIR 1986 SC 1877) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the Government of India to arrange for the conduct of All India Entrance examination for post graduate courses by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. AIIMS is to rank the successful candidates on the basis of the result in the entrance examination. Their eligibility for the courses of their preference is examined on the basis of the seats available in the Institutions of their choice. In view of this direction given by the Supreme Court no candidate can ask for the preparation of an All India rank list for admission to all the colleges. A candidate can get admission to one of the courses chosen by him in any of the institutions of his preference. If this system is to be varied it can be done only by the Supreme Court. 11. Depending on the rank a candidate may be getting the course chosen by him last in one of the institutions preferred by him. If a vacancy subsequently arises in one of the courses of his earlier choice, in one of the institutions chosen by him, his claim will not be considered to that vacancy. Once a candidate is selected to any of the courses chosen by him and allotted to an institution of his preference, he will not get a chance to improve his position even-if vacancy arises in the institutions chosen by him. Once a candidate is selected to any of the courses chosen by him and allotted to an institution of his preference, he will not get a chance to improve his position even-if vacancy arises in the institutions chosen by him. This creates hardships to the candidates. A candidate who secured higher rank will be denied admission to the course of his first choice because the vacancy which arises later in that discipline will be taken by a person in the waiting list. Thus one in the waiting list will get the subject of his first choice while the candidate who secured higher rank and opted the same course will have to be satisfied with the first allotment. 12. Learned Central Government standing counsel submitted that the controversy now raised by the petitioners cannot be examined by this court because of the specific observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1987) 4 SCC 459. The observations made by the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed is: "All directions necessary for the post-graduate courses are now complete. We direct the Union of India, the Medical Council of India, the State Governments, Universities, Medical Institutions and all other authorities that may be involved in implementation of the scheme to give full effect to the orders and directions made by the court in the proper spirit so that the scheme may become operative as directed. We make it clear that no application for any modification of matters already covered by our order henceforth shall ordinarily be entertained." (emphasis added) The above direction of the Supreme Court pertains only to' matters already covered' by the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Those matters which are not dealt with by Their Lordships will not fall within the above prohibition. The matter now before me is one such. re-allocation of subjects when a vacancy in that discipline arises subsequently was not an aspect dealt with by Their Lordships in the above judgment. So, I do not think that the above observations in (1987) 4 SCC 459 will debar this court from dealing with the issue. 13. A similar question came up before the Supreme Court in relation to admission to MBBS course in Amanjit Singh Gill v. D.G. of Health Services, (1989) 1 SCC 231. So, I do not think that the above observations in (1987) 4 SCC 459 will debar this court from dealing with the issue. 13. A similar question came up before the Supreme Court in relation to admission to MBBS course in Amanjit Singh Gill v. D.G. of Health Services, (1989) 1 SCC 231. There 1428 candidates were allocated to the MBBS course and 111 to BDS course. 532 candidates did not join the course. Their Lordships had to deal with the manner in which the above seats were to be allocated. The candidates who have exercised their choice for MBBS course by way of first preference and B.D.S. course by way of 2nd preference and got admitted to B.D.S. course for want of seat in the MBBS course were directed to be absorbed in the available vacant seats in MBBS course in the order of merit. Is not the same principle applicable for admission to the post graduate course as well? According to me, the answer must be in the affirmative. 14. A candidate seeking admission to post graduate course has to give names of six courses in the order of preference in the application form. As also he has to name eight institutions or colleges for admission in the order of preference. The present practice is that if a candidate is given admission to one of the courses in one of the institutions preferred by him, he will have to be satisfied with the same. Even if vacancies in the course of his earlier preference arise in the institutions preferred by him, he will not be selected to that course. A person who secured a lower rank will be admitted to that course. So also, a person who gets admission to one of the 8 institutions of his choice will not be preferred for the same course if a vacancy arise in the institutions of his earlier choice. This approach of AIIMS is not reasonable. If a vacancy in one of the courses of earlier priority given by a selected candidate arises, he must be preferred to that course to a candidate who secured lower rank. The same principle must apply to the institutions as well. 15. Petitioner in O.P.8871/90 has been selected to M.D. (General Medicine), (Subject of 2nd choice) in the N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad, (8th College preferred by him). The same principle must apply to the institutions as well. 15. Petitioner in O.P.8871/90 has been selected to M.D. (General Medicine), (Subject of 2nd choice) in the N.H.L. Medical College, Ahmedabad, (8th College preferred by him). If a vacancy in M.D. (Paediatrics) arises in any of the institutions chosen by him he must be admitted to that course in preference to a candidate ranked lower than him. Petitioner in O.P.8876/90 has been given admission to D.C.H. (third subject chosen by him) in the Medical College, Kozhikode (first institution preferred by him). If a vacancy either in M.D. (Paediatrics), or M.D. (General Medicine) arises in any of the institutions chosen by him, he must be selected to one of those courses in preference to a candidate ranked below him. Petitioner in O.P.8886/90 has been selected to D.T.C.D. (5th subject chosen by him) in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (2nd institution preferred by him). The first four subjects preferred by him are M.D. (Paediatrics), M.D. (General Medicine), M.D. (T.B. and Respiratory Diseases and D.C.H. If a vacancy in any one of these courses arises in any of the institutions chosen by him, he must be selected to one of those courses in preference to a candidate ranked lower in the list. Petitioner in O.P.9504/90 is admitted to D.L.O. (Dip. in ENT) (4th preference in subjects) in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (first institution selected by her). The first three preferences given by her are M.D. (General Medicine), M.D. (Paediatrics) and Diploma in Child Health. In case a vacancy in any of these courses arises in any of the institutions chosen by her, she must be admitted to that course in preference to candidates ranked below her. 16. 2nd respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in implementation of the above directions as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Original Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.