I have heard Shri DN Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri RP Sharma, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Smti A. Hazarika, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 regarding the interim order prayed for by the petitioner. The interim order prayed for by the petitioner is that a direction may be given to respondent No. 1 to admit the petitioner in the Regional Dental College at Guwahati subject to the outcome of the case and/or to provisionally allow the petitioner to attend the classes in the First Year BDS Course in the ensuing season by keeping one seat reserved for him. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner is the son of a Doctor and the Doctor is presently the Chief Medical Officer of the CRPF Base Hospital at Guwahati. It is stated that the petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination under the CBSE in 1993 and obtained 55.02% of marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. However, the petitioner did not clear al! the subjects in one .sitting and in fact cleared Chemistry in the second sitting on repeat. The admission to the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College is governed by a set of Rules known as the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Student) Rules, 1994. Rule 3 of that Rules provides for condition for admission and eligibility for appearing for admission test. Rule 3 (c) inter alia, provides as follows: "3. (c) He/she must have passed the qualifying examination with Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English appearing in all the subjects in the one sitting, securing at least 50% marks in the aggregate in the above subjects in case of candidates belonging to the general category and 40% marks in those subjects in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes irrespective of the Board under which the candidates have passed the qualifying examination." 3. Rule 5 provides for exemption for admission test. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner was nominated as a candidate by the State of Manipur. Rule 5 provides for exemption for admission test. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner was nominated as a candidate by the State of Manipur. The proviso to Rule 5 provides as follows : "Provided the candidate nominated shall fulfil all the eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 3 (a), 3 (c), 3 (f) and 3 (g)." So even a candidate who is exempted from admission test must fulfil the eligibility criteria as laid down in the aforesaid Rule. Rule 3 (c) has already been quoted above. In the instant case though the petitioner was nominated by the Government of Manipur for admission in the 1st Year BDS Course in the Dental College, Guwahati, the respondent No.1 refused to admit him inasmuch as this candidate did not fulfil the eligibility criteria which is mandatory and being followed uniformly all over the country. As required by Rule 3 (c) he did not pass the qualifying examination in the same sitting and he passed the qualifying examination only in two sittings. The respondent No. 1 has produced record before me to show that the matter was processed by him and he found that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria inasmuch as the academic eligibility as laid down by the Dental Council of India and approved by the Central Government, and it was futher pointed out by him that this is not a thing which can be relaxed in respect of an individual candidate and as a matter of fact there was not relaxation, as required under Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules. 4. In that view of the matter I am prima facie satisfied that the refusal made by respondent No. 1 to admit the petitioner is valid and proper and accordingly I am net inclined to issue any interim order as prayed for by tile petitioner. 5. This matter can be looked at from another angle. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has pointed out that with regard to admission to Medical College and Dental College, the Court should not pass any interim order as and when prayed for. 6. 5. This matter can be looked at from another angle. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has pointed out that with regard to admission to Medical College and Dental College, the Court should not pass any interim order as and when prayed for. 6. The argument is advanced by Shri Chowdhury, the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the higher authority of the respondent No.1 gave direction to the respondent No. 1 to admit the petitioner, but that order has been violated by the respondent No. 1 and this is absolutely arbitrary. The respondent No. 1 is the authority and competent to decide the eligibility of a candidate. If a State Government nominates an Arts Graduate or a student of Arts for being admitted in a Medical or Dental College the authority certainly can refuse to admit such a candidate. Such a refusal would not amount to flouting the order of the authority. In this connection Shri Chowdhury placed reliance in (1977) 4 SCC 337 (Chintapalli Agency Talik Arrack Sales Co-operative Society Ltd & others vs. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh & others). That was a case of some co-operative societies and there the Supreme Court made an observation as follows : "Any request of the Government to a subordinate authority is tantamout to a positive direction or order and it will be difficult for the subordinate authority to disregard the same." That may be the correct proposition of law. But in the instant case as will be evident from the facts of this case it will appear that by Annexure 2, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Planning Department made a request to the Principal to admit the petitioner without the matter being linked up with the payment of prorata constribution. But this letter Annexure 2 did not show anything regarding the eligibility of the candidate. By Annexure 4 on 21.5.94 the request was made by the Director of Medical Education, Assam, Khanapara, Guwahati to invoke the Rule 10 of Admission Rules to pave the way of admission of the petitioner. But that was never done. Thereafter there was a letter Annexure 5 and there also again there is a direction to admit the petitioner. But nothing was said regarding Rule 10. But that was never done. Thereafter there was a letter Annexure 5 and there also again there is a direction to admit the petitioner. But nothing was said regarding Rule 10. Vide Annexure 6 another request was made to the respondent No. 1, but nothing was said regarding Rule 10. So at no point of time any power was exercised under Rule 10. Rule 10 is quoted below: "10 Power to relax: Where the Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these Rules and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these Rules." 7. A bare reading of Rule 10 will show that this power can be exercised when it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rules. In an interpretation is given that the Government will have the power of relax anything and everything that will give a long handle to the Government and that cannot be the interpretation of Rule 10. By exercising the power under Rule 10 the authority cannot relax the eligibility criteria with regard to essential things/requirements. This aspect of the matter need not detain us inasmuch as the State of Assam never exercised this power. Accordingly the prayer for interim order shall stand rejected.