Honble PALLI, J. — The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4734/93- Vishnu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & anr. dated 21.9.1993, whereby the learned Single Judge has relied on two decisions of this Court rendered in Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1235/90) decided on 06.8.92 and Dharam Singh Vs. State (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.405/91) decided on 07.10.91, and allowed the writ petition, and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the General Nursing Training Course by treating him eligible and admit him to that course, provided he finds place in order of merit amongst the candidates already admitted within a period of one week. It is this order which has been challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the State on the ground that these two decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge pertained to the cases of admissions which were made in the General Nursing Course prior to the notification dated 16.1.1991 whereby rules were framed for admission to the General Nursing Course. These rules are now statutory rules and have been framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Government under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Nurses Midwives, Health Visitors and A.N.M.Registration Act, 1964 (Rajasthan Act No.9 of 1964) wherein certain qualifications for admission have been prescribed and they are as follows: "5. Qualification- (1) A candidate for admission to the Course shall possess 1st year of the Three Years Degree Course under old scheme/Senior Higher Secondary School Certificate under 10 + 2 Scheme with Physics,Chemistry and Biology of a University established by law in India or of a recognised Board. Provided that if candidates possessing the above subjects are not available then candidates of other subject may be considered with combined merit list." (2). It was contended by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that earlier there were no statutory rules and when the applications were invited for the General Nursing Course of the Year 1988-89 the qualification for admission prescribed by that notification was that a person should have cleared the first year T.D.C. or should have cleared 10 + 2 but it was provided that preference will be given to those persons who have cleared science subjects. When the notification for the course 1988-89 was issued, the eligibility was further clarified and it was provided that although the person will be eligible for admission if he has cleared first year T.D.C. or 10 + 2 but preference will be given to the persons who have cleared science subjects,i.e., Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Now these notifications/circulars, which do not have any statutory force have been superseded by the aforesaid rules promulgated on 16.1.1991 in exercise of powers conferred under Sec.33 of the aforesaid rules. He has, therefore, submitted that these two decisions cannot be made applicable to the eligibility criteria which has been laid down by the aforesaid rules of 1991. (3). Mr.K.C. Samdaria, learned counsel appearing , for Respondent has submitted that in Brijesh Kumars case the petitioner was granted admission because he had cleared optionnal subjects as Agricultural Botany, Agricultural Climatology and Agricultural Zoology which are equivalent to Physics. According to him equivalence has been provided to these agricultural subjects as optional subjects in science, i.e., Physics, Chemistry and Biololgy by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court rendered in Dharam Singhs case. While deciding that case, the learned Single Judge has also relied on a decision rendered in Ashok Chand Singhvi V. Jodhpur University (1). Thus, the contention of Mr.Samdaria is that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the persons who have been admitted in the Course and, therefore, his claim for admission is much sounder than the persons who have been admitted being lower in merit. Moreover, he has submitted that eight seats are still vacant and therefore, petitioners case should be considered* for admission to the General Nursing Training Course. (4). In reply, Mr.Mathur has submitted that after the rules of 1991 came into force, not a single person who has Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural Biology and Agricultural Climatology as subjects has been given admission. According to these rules two select lists have been prepared; one is a general select list of the persons who have Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and their merit will be according to the marks obtained in these three subjects and then a combined merit list of other persons has been prepared in which they have included the name of petitioner also because he had passed the Intermediate examination with Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural Biology and Agricultural Climatology as subjects. It is not clear from the marks whether these subjects were optional or they were compulsory. In Ashok Chand Singhvis case the petitioner had an additional subject in agriculture in addition to three optional subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology and, therefore, that case is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. (5). It has now been contended by Mr.Mathur that in the first list at least 1589 persons with science subjects,i.e.,Physics, Chemistry and Biology, whose names have been included in the merit list are waiting for admission and according to rule 5(1) of the aforesaid Rules persons can be considered for joining this Course from the combined list only when the first list is exhausted and that list has not yet been exhausted and, therefore, the respondent-petitioner has no case for admission. (6). We have bestowed our earnest consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (7). So far as the case of Brijesh Kumar and Dharam Singh are concerned, they pertained to a period before the promulgation of Rules of 1991, when the eligibility was only either first year T.D.C. or intermediate examination and only preference was provided to persons having Science subjects and, therefore, the notifications or circulars which were issued by the State Government and which now stand superseded by 1991 Rules, cannot have any application. (8). It was contended by Mr.Samdaria that in Dharam Singhs case an equivalence has been granted to Agricultural Climatology and Agricultural Zoology with Physics. We have gone through this judgment. Actually certain contentions have been raised and certain facts have been mentioned but the Court has not given a finding that these subjects are equivalent to Gen. Physics. What prevailed in Dharam Singhs case was that when girl candidates with Arts subjects have been given admission why a person who had studied Physics, Chemistry and Biology and had studied Agriculture as a specialized branch of study should not be given admission. Therefore, these two decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge have no application to the present case. (9). Ashok Chand Singhvis case has already been discussed above and in that" case the facts were not suppressed by the petitioner. Therefore, these two decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge have no application to the present case. (9). Ashok Chand Singhvis case has already been discussed above and in that" case the facts were not suppressed by the petitioner. Certain objections were raised by the office but they were overruled by the Vice Chancellor and thereafter when the petitioners admission to the General Nursing Training Course was cancelled and when he has filed the writ petition, a contention was raised that the person who was given admission was ineligible whereas the court ordered to give provisional admission only to those candidates who were eligible and, therefore,the objections were overruled and Ashok Chand Singhvi was given admission. Thus the facts of that case are totally different from the facts of the present case. Here the eligibility criteria is that one should have either passed first year T.D.C. or intermediate with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and , therefore, all those persons who have studied these subjects as General subjects in the branch of Agriculture or any other branch, they cannot be given preference over the persons who have studied Physics, Chemistry and Biology as their optional subjects and, therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge that they should be given admission because of their higher ranking on the basis of the decision rendered in Brijesh Kumar and Dharam Singhs case referred to above cannot be sustained. (10). Mr.Samdaria has also drawn our attention to a decision of another Single Bench of this Court reported in Vinod Kumar Bharti & anr. V. State of Rajasthan & ors.(2), wherein in para 22 of the learned Single Judge has held as under : "Para 22. The next question involved in the other batch of writ petitions mentioned in Schedule C is whether the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination with Agriculture as an additional subject are entitled to admission to the G.N.M. Course or not. This question came up for consideration before this Court and the same has been answered in extenso while disposing of a batch of writ petitions. This question came up for consideration before this Court and the same has been answered in extenso while disposing of a batch of writ petitions. In the case of Ashok Kumar Jangid V. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.397 of 1990, decided on 05.11.1990), it was clearly observed that admissions cannot be denied to the candidates in the general nursing course merely because they have agriculture as one of the subjects in addition to Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Therefore, the candidates who possess Agriculture as one of the subjects in addition to the three aforesaid optional subjects are also eligible and their candidature should also be considered for admission to the G.N.M. Course on the basis of their merit and if they are found meritorious then they will also be admitted to the course." In that case the main controversy was as to whether the merit list should be computed on the marks obtained in the optional subjects or the marks which were obtained totally by a candidate in his intermediate examination or his first year T.D.C. examination. Be that as it may. The learned single Judge has observed that it has been clearly held in Ashok Kumar Jangids case that admission cannot be denied to the candidates in the general nursing course merely because they have agriculture as one of the subjects in addition to Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Thus, this was a case where a person had Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and agriculture was an additional subject. Here in the present case the petitioner- respondent has agriculture as a main subject as he had studied Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural Biology and Agricultural Climatology and Agricultural Zoology which are alleged as equivalent to Physics. Thus, this authority too has no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover, rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1991 was not interpreted in this authority because the sole controversy that was raised was whether the merit has to be computed on the basis of the marks obtained in optional subjects or on the basis of total marks obtained in these examinations. (11). Moreover, rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1991 was not interpreted in this authority because the sole controversy that was raised was whether the merit has to be computed on the basis of the marks obtained in optional subjects or on the basis of total marks obtained in these examinations. (11). In view of the Rules of 1991 in which it has been provided that first preference to the General Nursing Training Course admission will be given to those persons who strictly come within the purview of rule 5(1) of the aforesaid Rules and if that list stand exhausted then persons who are in combined merit list and have other subjects or have studied even in these subjects as compulsory subjects or as optional subjects can be considered for admission. When 1589 persons are still waiting from the first list then the petitioner-respondent has no case for granting admission. Moreover, the course has been started in the year in Feb., 1993 and we are presently in Feb.,1995. This Course is only three years course and, therefore, giving them admission at this stage after expiry of two years will be totally unjust and highly belated. (12). Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the State is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.9.1993 is hereby quashed.