Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. - In this application the petitioner has questioned the processes of admission in different Engineering Colleges belonging to the government of Bihar, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur and other Regional Engineering Colleges situate outside the State of Bihar wherein the State of Bihar has some quota of seats. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The State has established and manages the affairs of some Engineering colleges situate in the State of Bihar viz. Bhagalpur College of engineering Bhagalpur, Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri, Muzaffarpur institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Engineering College, patna Regional Engineering College, Jamshedpur. 4. Admittedly, the Science and Technology Department of Government of Bihar conducts an entrance test for admission in the aforementioned engineering Colleges as also in the Engineering Colleges situate outside the State of Bihar and other technical institutions where some seats are reserved for the State of Bihar. 5. The minimum prescribed qualifications for admissions in the said examination are as follows ; - (i) the candidates should have pissed Intermediate (I. Sc.) or equivalent examination in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. (i!) the candidates should have been not less than 16 years of age and not more than 22 years of age as on 1-7-1992. 6. The State for the aforementioned purpose in the year 1992 made an advertisement and prospectus had also been issued for that purpose which is contained in Annaxure-1 to the writ application. 7. Clause 4 provides for reservation of seats for certain categories of candidates which is as follows: 7_556_BLJ2_1993.htm Besides the above, some seats are also reserved in each of the Engineering colleges for ex-army men etc. 8 Clause 7 provides for eligibility. Clause 9 provides for the procedures relating to the holding of the Engineering Pharmacy examinations. 9. Clause 10 provides that after a select list Is prepared, the candidates would be called for interview and in terms whereof the date, time and place of interview would be intimated to the concerned candidates and the same would also be advertised in some prominent newspapers of the state. 10. 9. Clause 10 provides that after a select list Is prepared, the candidates would be called for interview and in terms whereof the date, time and place of interview would be intimated to the concerned candidates and the same would also be advertised in some prominent newspapers of the state. 10. It has further been provided therein that after verification of the original certificates, the combined Engineering Admission Committee shall invite options relating to the institute, from the candidates concerned but the candidates would be admitted in such Colleges and also in such branches as may be available therefor. In other words, the choice of a candidate relating to the branch of Engineering College may not be accepted. 11. It has further been provided that, thereafter, they would be sent to proper institutes where they would be examined medically for physical fitness whereafter they would be admitted therein. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner parsnant to an advertisement issued in that regard applied for appearcuce at the competitive examination for the year 1992 and his Roll number appears in the advertisement dated 19th august, 1992, published in the time of India which is contained in annexure-2 to the writ application. 13. The petitioner was called for intetview on 29-8-1992. The petitioner has contended that from a perusal of Annexure-2 it would appear that no separate list for most backward and backward class candidates and girl candidates have been published. It has further been stated that against 90 seats of Scheduled Tribes category Roll Numbers of only 42 qualifying candidates were published and against 126 reserved seats of Scheduled castes category only list of 75 qualifying candidates have been published. 14. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned incomplete list of qualifying candidates of reserved category had kept the petitioner and other candidates in dark regarding their actual position in the merit list. The petitioner also appeared before ttie Interview Board but he came to learn from a notice in the Notice Board that no seats were available in any other branch except in Civil and Electrical Engineering at Bhagalpur college of Engineering, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, muzaffarpur and in Civil Engineering at Bihar Institute of Technology, sindri. 15. The petitioner also appeared before ttie Interview Board but he came to learn from a notice in the Notice Board that no seats were available in any other branch except in Civil and Electrical Engineering at Bhagalpur college of Engineering, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, muzaffarpur and in Civil Engineering at Bihar Institute of Technology, sindri. 15. The petitioner has submitted that the respondents have taken an arbitrary decision in the matter of selection and in support of the contention it has been stated as follows : "that one example of such arbitrary allocation, which came to the notice of the petitioner is that the candidate Praveen Shankar whose position in the merit list was at Serial 373 had to opt for civil Engineering (having left with no other choice) at R. E. C. , trichi, when the Electronics branch at R. E, C. , Surat, was allotted to candidate at Serial No.385 in the merit list. One candidate at Serial No.507 in merit list was allotted Mathology branch at R. E. C. , Warrangal. These two examples in itself are sufficient to show that no criteria was fixed neither any specified norm was adopted by the respondents in allotting the branches and place to the qualified candidates. " 16. In this case a Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter-affidavit it has been contended that a list of qualifying candidates of the different categories like general, most backward or B. C-I, Backward or B. C-II and girl candidates have been kept in one block for facilitating the candidates in choosing of the branch or institution in order of merit but Casie certificates started pouring thereafter. 17. It was further contended that it was very difficult for the combined engineering Admission Committee to sort out such applications and placed them under B. C-I and B. C-II categories. 17. It was further contended that it was very difficult for the combined engineering Admission Committee to sort out such applications and placed them under B. C-I and B. C-II categories. The result was actually ready by 12-8-1992 but for this computation it was delayed for a few days but the in flow of applications from the erstwhile general quota was almost never ending So, the Committee decided to publish the result by taking into account the cut off marks, i. e. the marks obtained by the list candidate of the general quota no be 165 in which quite a large number of general candidates have been included out of which candidates were giving certificates of being B. C-I and B C-II. This was one of the basis reasons for keeping geneial, B. C-I, B. G-II and girl candidates in one block. It was clear that the number of B. C-I candidates was quite less than the reserved quota but in view ot the fact applications from erstwhile general, b. C-II candidates started coming claiming seats for B. C-I, it was felt and decided that the result be published in one block so that the ex-state quota in R. E. Cs. does not lapse because of the time bar of sending the candidates to the Regional Engineering Colleges. 18. It has been denied by the State that any manipulation has been done and it is stated that the Interview was conducted in an open hall where representatives of all the Engineering Colleges were present. 19. It has been further contended that the allocation of branch/ subject and place/institution was done strictly on the basis of the merit list. 20. It has been contented that so far as non-publication of separate list of BC-I. BC-II, girls is concerned, sufficient reasons have been given by the State. But as regards SC and ST candidates and their numbers it is submitted that they have followed the instruction of the Government (Annexure-4) which is based on the guidelines of All-India Council of Technical education (Annexure-B) and also the guidelines of the Regional engineering Colleges (Annexure-C) 21. But as regards SC and ST candidates and their numbers it is submitted that they have followed the instruction of the Government (Annexure-4) which is based on the guidelines of All-India Council of Technical education (Annexure-B) and also the guidelines of the Regional engineering Colleges (Annexure-C) 21. It has been contended by the State that the apprehension of the petitioner that incomplete list of the qualifying candidates particularly SC and ST candidates may be indirectly affecting bis merit position has no legs to stand as there is no provision for releasing the so-called vacant seats of SC and ST candidates. The new reservation policy of the Government has made provision of the release of vacant seats of SC/st candidates to ba filled up by either of the two and if there is yet some vacancy left it will go to first BC-I candidate and even there is vacancy left will go to BC-II, it will not go to general category as there is no such provision. 22. It has been further stated in Para 18 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner got any opportunity to exercise his option and according to his choice he was given Electrical branch in Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, muzaffarpur. 23. Mrs. Mridula Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that a copy of the merit list was not supplied to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the merit list was not prepared scientifically as there has been no cut off marks for the Regional college of Engineering as is evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 24. It has been further stated that it appears that a reservation policy as reflected to the Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit has not been acted upon as the State purported to have been withdrawn that income criteria of the backward candidates and most backward candidates. 25. So far as the question of preparing merit list on the basis of reservation category of candidates and girl candidates are concerned we have considered the matter in C. W. J. C. No.8050/92 (Namita Jaiswal V/s. State of Bihar ). 26. We have also considered the matter relating to the selection of the candidates on the basis of cut off marks so far as the reserved category of candidates is concerned in C. W, J. C. No.8212 of 1992 (Sunil Kumar and other V/s. The State of Bihar ). 26. We have also considered the matter relating to the selection of the candidates on the basis of cut off marks so far as the reserved category of candidates is concerned in C. W, J. C. No.8212 of 1992 (Sunil Kumar and other V/s. The State of Bihar ). 27. In view of the decisions of the aforementioned Writ applications, now a fresh panel has to be prepared in terms of the directions given therein. If need be, if some seats in other branches are found vacant, the petitioner and other candidates similarly situated may exercise their options, which we hope and trust shall be considered strictly on merits and in accordance with law. However, at this juncture no writ or direction as prayed for by the petitioner can be Issued in as much as it has been categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had opted for and was allotted the branch of Electrical Engineering in Muzaffarpur institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has not controverted the aforementioned allegations made in the counter-affidavit. 28. In view of the categorical statements made by the respondent in their counter-affidauit in this regard, no credence can be given to the statements made by the petitioner in Paragraph 11 to the writ application as mentioned hereinbefore. 29. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed with the aforementioned observations. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.