Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ-petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order at annexure 8 by which the petitioners admission to Post Graduate Study in medicine in M. S. (Surgery) has been changed from Patna Medical College, patna to Rajendra Medical College, ranchi. 3. This writ-petition was filed on 5th December, 1995. Thereafter, it was taken up on 17th January, 19% and on-that date a learned Judge of this Court directed the issuance of notice to the concerned parties including respondent no.6 and on that date itself a learned judge of this Court made it clear that the petitioner has taken admission in rajendra Medical College, Ranchi under protest. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted on 26th March, 1996 and on the basis of an application filed for party hearing this matter is being heard today. 4. The brief facts of this case are not under dispute. Both the petitioner and respondent No.6 have been selected for admission to the Post graduate Medical Studies on the basis of an examination which is known as post Graduate Medical Admission course Test, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said lest ). It is also not in dispute that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 are scheduled caste candidates. Petitioner is occupying 11th and the respondent No.6, 8th position in the merit list prepared on the basis of the said test. 5. The notice which was issued with the provisional merit list of the respective candidates made it clear that:- "such candidates who fail to turn up for verification of documents on the date and time specified below will forfeit their claim for selection and placement. " The said clause was also reiterated in the notice issued by the Principal patna Medical College, Patna, dated 20th March, 1995. Clause 9 of the said notice is set out below:- "candidates who fail to turn on the date and time mentioned for verification will not be considered for selection and admission. Placement in different cour-ses/inst. actions shall be done by system of "counselling". You will be called in order to merit, after verification of original documents will have the right to choose any one of the available seats at your rank and the same shall be allotted to you. " 6. Placement in different cour-ses/inst. actions shall be done by system of "counselling". You will be called in order to merit, after verification of original documents will have the right to choose any one of the available seats at your rank and the same shall be allotted to you. " 6. In the said notice it is made clear that the candidates will be called in order of merit. It is also made clear that the candidates who fail to turn-up on the date and time mentioned for verification will not be considered for selection and admission. 7. In this case the date of verification was initially on 19th April, 1995, but the same was deferred to 3rd november, 1995. It is not dispute that petitioner appeared on 3rd November, 1995 for verification in accordance with the said notice. After counselling the petitioner was offered Surgery (M. S.)for Post Graduate Medical Studies, and he was also given an allotment order which shows that he was allotted a seat in Patna Medical College, Patna, and the date and time of such allotment was also mentioned in the said slip dated 3.11.1995 at 15.14.56, i. e.15 hours, 14 minutes and 56 seconds. The said order is at Annexure 5 of the writ-petition. 8. The petitioner was directed to take admission latest by 27.11.1995. When the petitioner went to take admission against the said allotment order on 25.11.1995 he was asked to take admission in Rajendra Medical College, ranchi and the admission which was offered to him vide Annexure-5 at Patna medical College, was thus refused. The petitioner was thus totally perplexed on getting another allotment letter which is at Annexure-8, which shows that the petitioners allotment letter issued previously on 3.11.1995 at 15 hours 14 minutes 56 seconds has been altered and the petitioner has been given admission at Rajendra Medical College, at ranchi on the basis of another allotment order dated 3.11.1995 issued at 17 hours, 48 minutes and 3 seconds. The petitioner took admission to the said college at Ranchi under protest on 27.11.1995 as he would have otherwise lost his chance and then filed this writ petition before this Court on 5.12.1995. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents the facts stated in the writ-petition are mostly not disputed. The petitioner took admission to the said college at Ranchi under protest on 27.11.1995 as he would have otherwise lost his chance and then filed this writ petition before this Court on 5.12.1995. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents the facts stated in the writ-petition are mostly not disputed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents only pressed before this Court one paragraph of the counter-affidavit in justification of their action in alteration of the centre which was offered to the petitioner on the basis of this choice. Reliance was placed on para-8 of the counter-affidavit and following reasons are given in support of the action of the respondents, namely, "that due to error of the computer and late arrival of respondent No.6. " para 8 of the counter-affidavit is set out below:- "that with respect to the statements made in paras 7 to 10 of the writ application it is stated that due to error of the computer and late arrival of the respondent no.6, the petitioner was wrongly allotted M. S. Surgery in Patna Medical college, Patna and after the same was detected the error was rectified and the petitioner was allotted M. S. Surgery in ranchi Medical College, Ranchi and respondent No.6 was allotted M. S. Surgery in Patna Medical College. " 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents was asked to explain the error which the computer made. But he failed to explain anything. In fact, he could not point cut to any error in the computer. 11. It is an admitted position that respondent No.6 was at serial No.8 and was called for counselling and verification of the documents earlier than the petitioner. This is not in dispute. But he did not respond at the time of call. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the notices, referred to above, he has forfeited his right. This is clear from a reading of Annexure-2 issued by the controller of Examination and also notice at Annexure-3 issued by the office of the Principal, Patna Medical college dated 20th March, 1995. 12. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the notices, referred to above, he has forfeited his right. This is clear from a reading of Annexure-2 issued by the controller of Examination and also notice at Annexure-3 issued by the office of the Principal, Patna Medical college dated 20th March, 1995. 12. Therefore, the petitioners contention is that the allotment made in his favour on the basis of choice and counselling for admission in M. S. Surgery in patna Medical College, Patna, cannot be altered by the authorities asking him to go to Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi in order to accommodate respondent no.6 who did not respond at the time of call and responded late and certainly after the petitioners counselling and allotment of Centre in his favour was over. 13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 has highlighted the fact that respondent No.6 secured higher marks in the said test and secured higher position in the mem list, so there is nothing wrong in the alteration made by the authorities by giving him a berth in Patna Medical college and Hospital (hereinafter called p. M. C. H.) in recognition of his merit. This Court however cannot accept this submission. The respondent No.6 by securing higher position in the merit list cannot afford to remain absent when his turn comes and when he is supposed to respond to the call. This shows the indiscipline and casual attitude on the part of respondent No.6. 14. In my view, merit does not merely mean securing good marks in the examination. A person seeking admission in Post-Graduate Medical Course must show a due sense of urgency and responsibility and must abide by the discipline which is imposed by Annexures 2 and 3. If he chooses to ignore the specific clauses in these documents (Annexures 2 and 3) he must suffer the consequences. But for his default, the prior allotment issued to the petitioner on a valid basis cannot be disrupted. This court by accepting the pleas of the respondent No.6 cannot put a premium to the indisciplined and casual approach on the part of a student. The word discipline has its origin in the word disciple which means a student. But for his default, the prior allotment issued to the petitioner on a valid basis cannot be disrupted. This court by accepting the pleas of the respondent No.6 cannot put a premium to the indisciplined and casual approach on the part of a student. The word discipline has its origin in the word disciple which means a student. When a student does not show the minimum adherence to disciplined conduct by a timely response to a call of his candidature, he does not deserve any order or sympathy at least from a Court of law in a discretionary jurisdiction. The Court has also noticed that in the counter of respondent No.6 there is not even an iota of reasonable explanation for his delayed response. 15. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6 however tried his very best to salvage the situation. He relied on clause-10 Sub-clause- 8 of the Prospectus which shows that the allotment letters are to be issued on the next date. Relying on the said clause Counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the allotment orders were issued in this case on the day of counselling itself and they are bad. While advancing this submission counsel for respondent No.6 possibly failed to appreciate the fact that the allotment order in favour of his client was issued on the same day. If on that ground the allotment orders are to be cancelled in that case the admission of his client on the basis of such allotment order will also be cancelled. This Court is of the view that the respondents has not committed any error by issuing allotment letters immediately after counselling. This Court reads Clause 10-C to mean that the next date is the outer limit for issuance of allotment order. In the name of issuance of allotment order the authorities cannot indefinitely delay the matter. 16. Next reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 on Sub-clause (xix) of Clause 15 of the prospectus to show that those who do not turn up for verification of the documents and are not present for counselling on the final date shall forfeit their claim for admission. Counsel submits that the forfeiture clause will apply if only respondent No.6 did not appear on the date in question, but by appearing late on that date he does not forfeit his right to claim admission. Counsel submits that the forfeiture clause will apply if only respondent No.6 did not appear on the date in question, but by appearing late on that date he does not forfeit his right to claim admission. In fact, for late appearance on the date of counselling his right to claim admission has not been forfeited, but because of his late appearance on the date no premium can be given to that by accommodating him in P. M. C. H. , at the cost of the petitioner who appeared in time and got a valid allotment order in P. M. C. H. 17. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 also relied on a particular clause of the Prospectus to show that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of filing a representation to the Controller of Examination. It was submitted that the writ-petition was therefore misconceived. 18. This Court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, once the writ petition is admitted with notice to the respondent No.6, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of non- exhaustion of a statutory remedy. 19. Proposition to this effect has been laid down in the case of Late Hirdai Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer, bareilly reported in A. I. R.1971 S. C.33. Apart from that it is well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a writ petition. The existence of such a remedy merely operates as an auto-restraint on the exercise of discretionary power of the Court sitting under article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, discretion is left with the Court to find whether in the facts and circumstances of a case refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India will bring about a failure of justice. 20. In the instant case, after its admission, if now the petitioner is asked to pursue the alternative remedy the time for which has already been expired, this court thinks that injustice would be caused to the petitioner. The course in which the petitioner has sought admission has proceeded for about eight months and the course is for two years only. This writ-petition is pending in this Court for the last eight months and now to ask the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy will not be just in the present state of affairs. The course in which the petitioner has sought admission has proceeded for about eight months and the course is for two years only. This writ-petition is pending in this Court for the last eight months and now to ask the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy will not be just in the present state of affairs. The alternative remedy must be an efficacious one which will not be so in the facts of this case. So this writ-petition, having regard to the justice of the situation, should be entertained by this Court. 21. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has stated that the court should not be exercised in this matter its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as out of the span of two-year course already about more than eight months have elapsed. It is true that more than eight months have elapsed but for that the petitioner cannot be blamed. This delay which has been caused is attributable to laws delay and there is no laches of the petitioner. If in a deserving case like this, the Court refuses to do complete justice between parties on the grounds of its own delay, people will lose faith in the efficacy of the justice delivering system and system itself will come under a disrepute. Therefore, this Court chooses to allow this writ-petition with the following observations:- 22. Respondents have no right to alter the allotment order (Annexure-5)which was first issued to the petitioner and which according to the terms of the prospectus should be treated as firm and final. No plausible reason has been put forward to this Court by the respondents authorities who have altered the first allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner in which he was given a seat in P. M. C. H. The petitioner cannot suffer due to default of respondent No.6 in the sense that his preference in favour of P. M. C. H. will be substituted by annexure-8. 23. This Court therefore allows this writ-petition by directing respondent No.4 to admit the petitioner immediately in P. M. C. H. in M. S. Surgery in accordance with the allotment order which is at Annexure-5 issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.11.1995 at 15 hours 14 minutes 56 seconds. 24. 23. This Court therefore allows this writ-petition by directing respondent No.4 to admit the petitioner immediately in P. M. C. H. in M. S. Surgery in accordance with the allotment order which is at Annexure-5 issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.11.1995 at 15 hours 14 minutes 56 seconds. 24. As time is running out fast, this court directs the respondent No.4 to immediately implement the Courts order within a period of seven days from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 25. The operative portion of the order may be given to the petitioners counsel for admission in M. S. Surgery in P. M. C. H. on the basis of Annexure-5 which is the allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.11.1995 at 15 hours 14 minutes and 46 seconds. This writ-petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition Allowed.