JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard Shri S.B. Mhase for the petitioners and Shri A.M. Kanade, Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the procedure for filling the drop out vacancies of students, who are already admitted to M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner No. 1 Samradni Ghorpade was not admitted in the first instalment of admissions to the free seats and was standing in the que in the waiting list. The process for filling in the payment seats started from 30th August, 1995. Different dates were allotted to the students as per the merit list and on 5th of September, 1995, the claim of petitioner No. 1 was considered and she was admitted against the payment seat and is now studying at Pravara Medical College in Ahmednagar District. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after she was admitted on payment seat, she came to know that on 29th August, 1995, a student namely Amit Mohan Shah having merit serial number 278, who was below the petitioner in the merit list, was admitted against a free seat on drop out vacancy. 5. The rules are silent as to how the drop out vacancies are to be notified and whether the students in the merit list waiting for such a chance are to be informed personally. Rule No. 8.2.1.4 prescribes that: "The Designated Authorities will fill up casual or drop out seats in descending order of merit and for each applicant for Medical or Dental Course, as per the order of choice given by applicant. Candidates are required to attend office of the respective Designated Authorities at the time and date published from Designated Authorities for selection of drop out/casual vacancy." Therefore, it is obvious that the drop out vacancy will have to be published by the Designated Authority and then the applicant-candidate will have to attend the office of the Designated Authority. The Rule does not prescribe as to how the drop out vacancies are to be published and does not give any specific span of time to be left between the date of publication of such drop out vacancy and the time at which the candidates are to appear before the Designated Authority. 6. The Rule does not prescribe as to how the drop out vacancies are to be published and does not give any specific span of time to be left between the date of publication of such drop out vacancy and the time at which the candidates are to appear before the Designated Authority. 6. It is alleged in the petition that on 27th August, 1995 at about 9 p.m., petitioner No. 1's father i.e. petitioner No. 2 contacted on telephone the Designated Authority i.e. the Dean of B.J. Medical College, Pune to enquire about the drop out vacancies and the programme to fill in such vacancies but it was told that no decision in that regard had been taken. Therefore, the petitioner had to take admission as against the payment seat and had to spend much higher amount than what the free seat students have to spend. 7. In the return filed by Smt. Phadke, Dean of the B.J. Medical College, Pune, the factum of telephonic conversation as alleged, is denied. On the basis of the documents annexed to the petition, the learned Government Pleader wanted to point out that the notification about the drop out seats was also sent to the newspapers but unfortunately, the newspapers did not publish it as a news item. What we actually see from the record, copies of which are annexed to the return, is that the time table of free and payment seats for M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses and fees structure of the payment was only notified in this news item and there was no news item in respect of the programme for filling in the drop out vacancies, which was sent to the newspapers. What we find at page No. 38 of the compilation is a notice titled as 'Press Release' but in the absence of any covering letter of sending this press release to the newspapers, we can not assume that this was the news item, which was sent to press. 8. It is true that the rules do not require a particular mode for publishing the drop out vacancies but in the absence of any rules therefor, the authorities are expected to be reasonable and cautious in respect of the career of the students particularly in the matter of Medical education, which has become a subject of keen competition. 9. 8. It is true that the rules do not require a particular mode for publishing the drop out vacancies but in the absence of any rules therefor, the authorities are expected to be reasonable and cautious in respect of the career of the students particularly in the matter of Medical education, which has become a subject of keen competition. 9. The Press Release and the notice is signed for the Dean, B.J. Medical College, Pune on 28th August, 1995 at 18 hours and the students are intimated that the waiting list for the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses will be operated at 4 p.m. on 29th August, 1995 in the order of merit. It is not only unreasonable but is also absurd to presume that the notice, which was put in on the notice board, or so sent to the press in the evening on 28th August, 1995 after closure of the office hours, the students will notice and will rush to the office of the Dean on the next day when it is a matter of common knowledge that the Designated Authority knew that the competing students reside at various remote places in the area controlled by that authority. 10. Shri Kanade, learned Government Pleader, advanced an argument before us that since 30th August, 1995 was a day on which the programme for payment seats was to start, the waiting list for the drop out vacancies had to be operated immediately i.e. on 29th of August, 1995. We fail to understand as to why this notice was not published earlier than 28th August, 1995. No material has been placed before us to hold that the drop out vacancies were caused on the very day or only a day earlier to it. We do not know as to when the drop out vacancies had occurred and as to why the procedure was so delayed. A reasonable time of at least 3 to 4 days should have been left for students to rush to the office of the Designated Authority and the proper publication of the drop out vacancies should have been there by way of notification in various medias now available to the State. We do not understand as to why this was not published on the radio or television and in various newspapers. We do not understand as to why this was not published on the radio or television and in various newspapers. We do not wish to prescribe a particular mode of publication but the State will have to publish it by such mode which would satisfy the purpose of the publication. 11. It is true that a student securing lesser marks is admitted against a free seat and the petitioner had to spend a huge sum since she is admitted on payment seat. But we find from the waiting list, which is at page 20, that as many as five other students were above the petitioner and Amit Mohan Shah, who was admitted. Therefore, it is not that if Amit Shah would not have been admitted, the petitioner would have got that seat. Anyone of these five persons, who were above, would have got that seat. We are told by the learned Government Pleader that Panse Sagar Jayant at merit list No. 165 securing PCB Marks 283; Kotihal Ramesh Murugappa at merit list No. 226 securing PCB marks 281 and Amit Mohan Shah at merit list No. 278 securing PCB Marks 279 have been admitted against the drop out vacancies, which were there. So far as the first two persons i.e. Panse and Kotihal are concerned, admittedly they have secured more marks than the petitioner. But so far as Amit Mohan Shah is concerned, though he has secured marks equal to the petitioner, because of the rules deciding inter-se merit between the students securing same number of PCB marks, he is placed below the petitioner. However, we find that Ingale Sai Adinath at merit list No. 234 securing 280 PCB marks, Prerna D. Kulkarni at merit list No. 191 securing 282 PCB marks and Gosavi Snehashree Avinash at merit list No. 227 securing 281 PCB marks were above the petitioner. We do not know whether their claims to the admission for M.B.B.S. Course was considered or not before considering the claim of Amit Mohan Shah. Therefore, it would not be possible to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. 12. Unfortunately, neither of these persons, including Amit Mohan Shah, who is admitted, is party before us in this petition. We do not know whether their claims to the admission for M.B.B.S. Course was considered or not before considering the claim of Amit Mohan Shah. Therefore, it would not be possible to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner. 12. Unfortunately, neither of these persons, including Amit Mohan Shah, who is admitted, is party before us in this petition. An unhappy situation was created since these students were not either individually informed or publicly informed by giving a reasonable time for them to know the date of their required appearance before the Designated Authority. The rule required that such vacancies should be published, it was published on the notice board and the rule was followed in letter though not in spirit. 13. Though we do not propose to grant any relief to the petitioner in this case, we wish to give certain directions to the respondents in respect of the rules or in the absence of the rules, the procedure to be followed by the authorities who have to operate waiting list for the drop out seats. We direct that henceforth every drop out vacancy will be notified on the notice board of the Designated Authority within one week from its occurrence and along with this notification, it will also be published in at least one newspaper having wide circulation in the area controlled by that Designated Authority. Any such drop out vacancy shall not be filled in before the lapse of five clear days (excluding public holidays) from the date of its notification and a date for appearance of candidates shall be given after this span of five days. We also direct that the candidates in the merit list should be informed telegraphically about the drop out vacancies and at least two candidates in the merit list per vacancy should be informed so that in the absence of first candidate, the second one can be considered. These directions are necessary and we hope that the State Government will strictly follow them. 14. Though we are reluctant to grant the request of the petitioner to admit her against a free seat, we feel that though her claim having been negatived because of the situation, she should be awarded the costs for approaching to this Court and bringing to our notice the injustice which would have been perpetuated even hereafter. 14. Though we are reluctant to grant the request of the petitioner to admit her against a free seat, we feel that though her claim having been negatived because of the situation, she should be awarded the costs for approaching to this Court and bringing to our notice the injustice which would have been perpetuated even hereafter. We, therefore, saddle the State Government with costs of the petitioner for this writ petition and quantify it to Rs. 1,500/- and direct the State Government to pay it to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. 15. Writ petition stands disposed. Rule discharged accordingly. Petition disposed with direction.