R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner student, an aspirant for admission to the medical course has preferred this petition for a direction on the respondents to admit him to the First M. B. B. S. course in Government Medical College, surat or in M. P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar contending that he is entitled to get admission on the strength of merit in one of these colleges. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner secured 371 out of 450 marks at the 12th Standard examination. The petitioner made an application for admission to the First M. B. B. S. course and admittedly, he had shown preference for B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad and next for the medical College at Baroda. The petitioner admittedly did not give any preference for the other medical colleges. The petitioner came to be interviewed on 4/08/1993. According to the petitioner, he had indicated before the interview committee that since admissions were given at Ahmedabad and baroda colleges upto the point where the last admitted student had secured 374 out of 450 marks and the petitioner fell short by three marks, he was willing to be admitted in any of the other colleges. However, the authority did not acceed to his request on the ground that he had not given any preference for those colleges. ( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel Mr. P. K. Jani that admissions to these colleges were to be given on the basis of merit, as envisaged by Rule 5 which relates to determination of merit order. The aggregate marks of the Science subjects mentioned were to be taken into account and the petitioner according to the merit order was entitled to be admitted to the Jamnagar and Surat colleges, the last admission being of candidate who secured 360 out of 450 marks. He submitted that even if preference was not shown, a meritorious candidate could not be excluded from admission to the course and Rule 8 of the Rules for Admission to the First M. B. B. S course to the Government Medical Colleges was required to be read harmoneously with Rule 5 and merit was to be the dominant factor and not preference. Therefore, the interview committee ought to have countenanced the oral request of the candidate that he may be admitted to any of the colleges for which he had not indicated preference in his application form. Mr. Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Rule 8 was mandatory in nature and it was consistently followed and no change in preference was ever allowed nor any preference not earlier given in the application form was ever permitted to be given. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner gave preference only for Ahmedabad and baroda Medical Colleges. The preference was required to be shown in the application for admission. It was open to the petitioner to give order of preference for all the colleges; but he had chosen to confine it only to ahmedabad and Baroda colleges. It is also not disputed that had the petitioner shown preference for Jamnagar and Surat colleges, he would have been entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit, since, students who secured less than 371 out of 450 marks also came to be admitted according to their preference in those colleges. ( 5 ) RULE 8 of the Admission Rules which falls for consideration, in so far as it is relevant, reads as under:"8. The placement of candidate to a Medical College/dental College/school of physiotherapy in the State shall be decided on the basis of merit-cum-preference given by them in their application for admission. Order of preference once given in the application form will not be allowed to be changed. 8. 1. Placement to the Medical College will only be offered at the highest available preference College, i. e. , under no circumstances, a candidate will be admitted to a lower preference Medical College, if admission to a higher preference college is available at his/her merit level. "rule 8 deals with placement of candidates to a medical college and it lays down criteria for deciding such placement. The placement is to be made on the basis of merit and the preference of college given by the candidate in their application for admission. The words "shall be decided on the basis of. . . " clearly show that the requirement to decide placement on the basis of the criteria of merit-cum-preference is mandatory. The placement is to be made on the basis of merit and the preference of college given by the candidate in their application for admission. The words "shall be decided on the basis of. . . " clearly show that the requirement to decide placement on the basis of the criteria of merit-cum-preference is mandatory. There is no dispute about the fact that the word "preference" refers to the preference for medical colleges. The medical colleges are enumerated in Annexure "a" to these Rules. The order of preference of medical colleges from among these colleges is to be shown by the candidates in the application form. The result of applying criteria of merit-cum-preference would be that candidates higher in merit order and who have preferred a particular college shall get into that college depending on the vacancies available. If those who have shown higher preference for particular college are more in number than the seats available on the basis of merit, then after allocating seats on the basis of merit to that college of preference, the remaining candidate will be considered for placement in the next college of preference given by them in their respective application forms and that is how, the process would go on, until all the seats are filled up in these colleges. When the basis adopted is merit and the preference given by a candidate in his application for admission, it would mean that if a candidate has not given preference in his application for any college, he docs not wish to be considered for admission to that college and that he has confined his application for admission only to the colleges of his preference. In other words, there would in fact, be no application for admission to a college for which no preference is shown. Therefore, the question of considering such candidate for admission to a college for which no preference is shown would not arise. Rules for Admission were admittedly part of the papers which were supplied with the admission form issued to the candidates and all the candidates were put to guard by Rule 8 that order of preference once given in the application will not be allowed to be changed. When even order of preference already given is not allowed to be changed, fresh preference cannot obviously be allowed to be injected at a later stage. When even order of preference already given is not allowed to be changed, fresh preference cannot obviously be allowed to be injected at a later stage. No such contingency of giving fresh preference or additional preference is contemplated by the Rules. The Rules do not at all contemplate giving of any opportunity to candidate at the interview stage to show his further preference. Once a meritorious candidate has chosen not to seek admission in a particular college, then at a later stage, he cannot be heard to complain against his non-admission in that college. Exclusion of college or colleges from the order of preference shown by him in the admission form should be treated as a deliberate act in view of the mandatory nature of Rule 8 which provides that admission of the candidates to a medical college shall be decided on the basis of merit-cum-preference given by them in their application for admission. The petitioner cannot draw any strength from the decision in H. G. Patel v. K. S. Parikh, reported in [1985 (2)] xxvi (2) GLR 1385 in which the Court was concerned with the interpretation of Rule 9. 2 of the Rules for preparation of merit list for admission to Post Graduate Medical Course in view of the fact that, that particular rule specifically provides for giving a final choice to the candidates by permitting them to change number and preference of earlier choice/ choices on the basis of the actual vacancies available. No such provision is made in Rule 8. Therefore, the decision in H. G. Patel (supra) has no bearing on the issue involved in the present case. ( 6 ) NEEDLESS to say that should any vacancy occur in Ahmedabad or baroda Colleges by 15/10/1993, the date which is mentioned in rule 8. 2 after which no vacancy can be filled up, the petitioner will get his admission on merits and for that purpose, if petitioners turn comes according to merits, the authorities shall duly intimate him about the same. ( 7 ) UNDER the above circumstances, There is no merit in this petition which deserves to be rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. .