G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be an association of junior doctors, which has been registered as such under the societies Registration Act. It claims to represent the interest of general body of junior doctors. This writ petition has been filed by the said association for declaring the notice dated 7th april, 1995 (Annexure-B) issued by the first respondent namely the post-graduate selection committee and the director of medical education in karnataka, inviting the eligible candidates to participate in the second spot counselling for admission to 1994-95 post-graduate medical and dental seats (hereinafter called as available post-graduate seats) as being void and illegal and for a further direction directing the first respondent even to permit such candidates who had already been allotted seats to participate in the second counselling to avail fresh choice of subject from among the seats available in second counselling as per the ranking in the selection list. At this stage, it is worthwhile to mention that "junior doctors" whose interest the petitioner-association claims to represent, and the expression "junior doctors" has nowhere been elaborated in the writ petition so s to show that any of the members of the association, had participated in the post-graduate entrance test in question or that having so participated, they had opted for the subjects in the first counselling and for that reason, denied the opportunity of participating in the impugned second spot counselling thereby prejudicially affecting their fundamental or any other constitutional right. The validity of the impugned notice Annexure-B has been questioned by the petitioner without laying any foundation of facts which can legitimately lead to a grievance for adjudication by this court under writ jurisdiction. The question raised seems to be more academic in nature. Highlighting these aspects, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities and the impleaded respondents, have seriously challenged the locus standi of the petitioner-association to maintain the present writ petition in the form it has been framed. ( 2 ) THE state government has framed "the Karnataka medical colleges and dental colleges (selection for admission to post-graduate courses) rules, 1987 (hereinafter called as the "rules") for the purpose of selection of candidates for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma course as specified in the rules. In respect of seats in government medical colleges, government seats in private medical colleges and seats in government dental college, Bangalore. In respect of seats in government medical colleges, government seats in private medical colleges and seats in government dental college, Bangalore. These rules seems to have been framed under the executive powers of the state and are not suppbrted by any statute. In accordance with these rules, the entrance test is held by the state every year for the purpose of admitting candidates to various post-graduate and diploma courses in accordance with the principles laid down in the said rules. These rules were subject to an amendment by a notification dated 17-1-1995 whereby Rule 7 of the rules was substituted by new rules 7 and 7 (a) which read s under:"7. Preparation and publication of merit list: 1. The selection comrnittee shall prepare the merit list of all the eligible candidates who have appeared for the entrance test and cause publication of the list in all the government medical and dental colleges in the state. 2. A candidate appearing for the entrance test may not be considered for admission unless the candidate also satisfied the other conditions stipulated in these rules. 7a. Selection of candidates by personal appearance: 1. For the purpose of selecting candidates for the course of study the selection committee shall out of the merit list prepare a further list of candidates, to be called the selection list, comprising such number of candidates in their order of merit as in the merit list as equal to one hundred and fifty percent of the total number of seats available in all the courses. 2. The selection committee shall then call each candidate in the selection list in the order of his ranking for allotment of seats to appear personally before the committee on a day to be notified by it. Provided that the committee may not call more than two hundred candidates to appear for selection, on any single day. ( 3 ) ON each day notified for personal appearance of candidates, for selection, the committee, shall cause to be displayed on a notice board set up at the spot of meeting, up-to-date details showing the number of seats open for allotment under each course of study in each college, for the general information of the candidates. ( 3 ) ON each day notified for personal appearance of candidates, for selection, the committee, shall cause to be displayed on a notice board set up at the spot of meeting, up-to-date details showing the number of seats open for allotment under each course of study in each college, for the general information of the candidates. ( 4 ) THE committees shall make allotment of seats for each candidate in the order of his ranking in the selection list, from out of the seats notified s available under each subject on each day notified for personal appearance. ( 5 ) AT the time of personal appearance each candidate shall in the order of his merit be called to make his choice of subject and in the institution in the order of preference given in his application for admission, out of the seats notified as available for allotment on the particular day. Provided that if by reason of his lower ranking in the merit list a candidate cannot be allotted the subject or institution of his preference, he may choose either to accept the allotment of seats as the committee may make alternatively, or to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at a second round of personal appearance. Provided that if the candidate cannot get his choice at the second round, he shall either accept the allotment made by the committee at that sitting or reject it in which case he shall forfeit his claim for allotment of seat for any course in any institution. ( 6 ) A candidate who is unable to appear in person on the notified date either in the first round or the second round, can send his/her authorised representatives with a letter of authority duly signed by the candidate, and in such case the candidate would be bound by the choice made by his/her authorised representative. ( 7 ) A candidate who fails to appear in person or through his/her authorised representative on any notified dates, shall forfeit his claim for allotment of seat. ( 8 ) THE candidates who are allotted seats at the sitting of the committee on a particular day will be issued with the letter of allotment on the day after such date of sitting". 3. ( 8 ) THE candidates who are allotted seats at the sitting of the committee on a particular day will be issued with the letter of allotment on the day after such date of sitting". 3. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the amended rules, the respondent-committee, prepared the selection list s required under Rule 7-a (1) including the candidates upto the rank 2143 of the merit list and called them for personal appearance on 23-2-1995 and 26-5-1995 for giving them an option, to select their subject and institution as per the stipulations in the rules. This system of affording choice to the candidates is commonly called s "counselling" and appears to have been coined from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of anand S. Bi v State of Kerala and others. According to the statement made in the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent-committee, in the spot counselling so held, out of 526 seats available for allotment, all seats except 72 were filled up. It has further been stated that subsequently about 89 candidates, have surrendered their seats for various reasons. Accordingly, the impugned notice Annexure-B has been published inviting the eligible candidates to participate in the second round of spot counselling on an allotment. This notice contains subject-wise, college-wise and category-wise details of the seats available. Clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned notice are the eligibility and non-eligibility clauses since these are the offending clauses, therefore, the same are being quoted hereunder: (3) eligibility for attending second round of counselling; (a) the candidates who have attended first round of counselling and opted to wait for second round (b) all candidates with rank above 2143. 4) non-eligibility for attending second round of counselling: (a) the candidates who have already been allotted/ cancelled seat in first round. (b) those who have been called for the first round but not responded in the first round". 4. Now it has to be examined whether the offending clauses 3 and 4 of the impugned notice Annexure-B are in accordance with rules. The relevant rules as embodied in the rules are as under: ( 9 ) ADMISSION of selected candidates: (1) the candidates selected shall get them selves admitted to the colleges concerned within the dates notified by the selection committee failing which their selection shall stand automatically cancelled. The relevant rules as embodied in the rules are as under: ( 9 ) ADMISSION of selected candidates: (1) the candidates selected shall get them selves admitted to the colleges concerned within the dates notified by the selection committee failing which their selection shall stand automatically cancelled. However, the admission shall be provisional and subject to the approval of the concerned universities. (2) the principals of respective colleges shall verify the original certificates of selected candidates before admitting them to courses. (3) no requests for change of subjects or courses or colleges shall be entertained by the selection committee after publication of the list under these rules. ( 10 ) FOR feiture of seats: the candidates who are on ceadmitted to any medical college are required to attend the classes regularly and such candidates who remain absent continuously for a period of thirty days within three months from the date of admission without obtaining prior permission from the principal of the concerned medical college, admission of such candidates shall be kable to be cancelled. The principal of the concerned medical college shail immediately cancel the admission of such candidate and inform the selection committee which shall fill up such vacancy in the manner specived in Rule 11. ( 11 ) VACANCIES: any vacancy due to the failure of aselected candidate to join the college within the last date and time specified by the selection committee or for any other reaspn, such seats shall be filled up by the selection committee from among the next available candidates. However, while filling the vacancies, candidates who are already selected for any course shall not be considered. 4. A combined reading of relevant rules, makes a candidate ineligible for attending the second counselling, if i) he had already been selected for any course but had failed to join the course within the period prescribed (rule 11) ii) if he has forfeited his seat under Rule 10, iii) if he has already opted for the subject, course or a college s per Rule 9 (3) and iv) if he has failed to appear before the selection committee on the notified date (rule 7 and Rule 7-a ). 5. 5. From the above clauses, it seems quite clear to me that the eligibility and non-eligibility clauses 3 and 4 as contained in the impugned notice annexure-b, are in conformity with the rules framed by the state government for selection of candidates to post-graduate medical and dentistry courses. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has nowhere challenged the validity of the rules s framed by the state government. But has nonetheless come out with an assertion that the procedure adopted by the government for selection to post-graduate courses acts to the detriment of the more meritorious students who under the compelling situation had to opt for a course which is not to his desire or choice thereby depriving him to have a better choice by participating in the second counselling though a candidate, lower in rank, may get a chance to have that choice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this aspect of the selection process has been looked at with concern even by the Supreme Court in anand's case, supra, which had to formulate a scheme of its own to obviate any such result. To support this part of his submission, he has also placed reliance on a bench decision of this court in the case of N. Deepak v State of Karnataka and others, which relates to the selection process envisaged under the Karnataka selection of candidates for admission to engineering, medical, dental, pharmacy and nursing course rules 1993 and some of the instructions issued by the state government in that regard. The learned counsel for the respondents have seriously repudiated the stand of the petitioner by submitting that the said decision has no bearing on the issues involved in the present case. Since according to them, a candidate once having opted for a course in a particular institution, could not have raised any such contention and s such, the petitioner-association claiming to espouse their cause, cannot stand on a better footing. 7. To support their contentions, they have relied on a full bench decision of the Delhi high court in the case of Dr. Veena Gupta v University of Delhi. 8. The main question to be answered in the present case is whether the procedure of selection based on counselling s envisaged under the rules, can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable thereby offending article 14 of the Constitution of india. Though Mr. Veena Gupta v University of Delhi. 8. The main question to be answered in the present case is whether the procedure of selection based on counselling s envisaged under the rules, can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable thereby offending article 14 of the Constitution of india. Though Mr. Udaya holla, appearing for the petitioner has not raised the question in this form, but keeping in view this submission raised at the bar, this can only be the question which reasonably requires an answer from this court. 9. The question needs a little elaborate consideration. The candidates who had been invited to participate in the first counselling and could not get the subject/institution of their choice per priority, had been afforded with two options under the rules, namely i) to accept the choice given by the committee or ii) to reserve an opportunity to make his choice at the second counselling. The candidates having opted for the first choice, now cannot turn around and say that they have a right to participate in the second counselling s well. This will amount to both approbate and reprobate. Such a course has always been found to be opposed to public policy and has given rise to the doctrine of estoppel by election. According to this doctrine if out of the two alternatives and mutually exclusive options available, one knowingly and consciously opts for either one, then law presumes that the other is waived. It means that thereafter the right of exercising the option is lost (see chapter on 'election' in the law relating to estoppel by representation by spencer bower and turner, 3rd edition ). In the Case of Amber Nair v Kelan Nair, the privy council has approved the principle that "a person cannot at the same time blow hot and cold. He cannot say at one time that the transaction is valid and thereby obtain advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and at another time say it is void for the purpose of securing some further advantage". 10. It is true that, as held in the case of Dr. Jagdish Saran and others v Union of India and others , "if equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks then another is entitled to preference for admission. 10. It is true that, as held in the case of Dr. Jagdish Saran and others v Union of India and others , "if equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks then another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be that test when choosing the best, according to this Rule of equal chance for equal marks". It was adhering to these principles emanating from articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of india, that the more meritorious students were given the first option to choose from amongst the available course/institutions. Thus the constitutional requirement was well complied with. On exercising the option, such candidates formed a well defined class. Having so taken the advantage based on their merit, subsequently they cannot plead equality with the left over candidates who were denied the said opportunity at the earlier point of time because of not being offered or if offered, not exercising the option to their detriment. Our Constitution clearly permits protective discrimination which has to be based on a reasonable and intelligible classification having sufficient nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. 11. In the present case there cannot be any unreasonableness in the prescription of a procedure like the impugned herein, because the selection process has to be brought to a close within the reasonable time frame so that courses of study may commence at the earliest. Delay in starting the courses of study will not only act to the prejudice of the candidates intending to undertake course but it will also affect the academic curriculum of the universities and the colleges, and will adversely affect the interest of the society. I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning of the full bench of the 'bombay high court in the case stated supra that permitting the candidates having already opted for a course in the first counselling to participate in the second counselling s well, will lead to a chain reaction and unending process of ccunselling. It is because the seats surrendered in the particular subject by the successful candidates of first counselling will have to be re-notified for third counselling. In the third counselling again all the candidates who had opted in the first and second counselling, have to be given a chance and some of them may opt for new subjects. It is because the seats surrendered in the particular subject by the successful candidates of first counselling will have to be re-notified for third counselling. In the third counselling again all the candidates who had opted in the first and second counselling, have to be given a chance and some of them may opt for new subjects. This will give rise to fourth counselling. Thus, finality in the matter of selection and admission to the courses can never be attained. Such a course will again be offending the public policy and interest, and cannot be pheld by a court of law. ( 12 ) SO far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of anand u State of Kerala is concerned, in the very scheme that has been laid down by the Supreme Court, their lordships have. Not approved repeated counselling. In that case, which related to central quota of post-graduate medical course, their iprdships have laid down that any seat remaining vacant after the first counselling, has to be surrendered to the state government. This was one of the modes designed to arrive at a finality of the selection process at the central level. So far as the judgment of this court in case of n. Deepak's case, is concerned, in this case, the question s is posed in paragraph 11 of the report, was that if the rules do not warrant denial of candidate's right to choose his/her course, then can such a right be tken away by executive instructions which are without any authority of law, and not warranted by the rules. The answer naturally was in the negative and certain parts of instructions were declared to be invalid being ultra vires the rules. In the present case, there is no such challenge s observed by me earlier. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not even challenged the validity of the rules in question. Rules in question. ( 13 ) THOUGH in the facts of the present case, I have serious doubts about maintainability of the present writ petition, at the instance of the petitioner-association, but I have not addressed to that question since considering the importance of questions involved, i find it desirable to hear the parties on merits and settle the law on the question involved. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any declaration or direction as claimed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any cost. --- *** --- .