M. Ramakrishna, C.J.— Dr. Duban Bagra was the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No.666 of 1996 (Imphal Bench), which came up for consideration before the Imphal Bench of this Court. In the writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Including the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal were arrayed, but Dr. Takar Daning. the appellant herein, was not made a party. The petitioner therein however sought for a writ of Mandamus by issuance of directions to the respondents therein to nominate his name to one of the seats in Post Graduate Degree Courses in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel on both sides, by an order made on 4th September, 1996 allowed the writ petition and issued the following direction: "In the result, the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh is directed to recommend the petitioner in any of the aforementioned seats for the sessions 199/-98 as per choice of the petitioner. This choice is given to the petitioner because he has been deprived of seat in MD in the last two sessions in spite of Courts order." It is this order that is called in question by the appellant for the reasons stated and the grounds taken in the appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. A few facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows : It is stated that for several years when vacancies arose for filling up seats in Post Graduate Degree Courses in Medical Sciences, the competent authority namely, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, will have to follow the guidelines issued by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences. On 16th of May, 1996, the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal addressed a letter to the Commissi-oner/Secretary (Health) to the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, apart from others, for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, five seats were allocated for Post Graduate studies in different disciplines for the academic session 1996-97. Out of the five seats allocated for the State, one seat is required to be allotted by nomination. 4. For the purpose of nomination, certain guidelines have been given, as per Annexure A to the appeal. It is stated therein that the criteria of selection of candidates (marking system) was enclosed. Out of the five seats allocated for the State, one seat is required to be allotted by nomination. 4. For the purpose of nomination, certain guidelines have been given, as per Annexure A to the appeal. It is stated therein that the criteria of selection of candidates (marking system) was enclosed. The criteria also provided as to how marks will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of allocation of seats by nomination. Secondly, it is stated that the course is of 3 years for MS/ MD degree and 2 years for Diploma. It is further specified that in addition to the prorate contribution of Rs.50,000/- per student per year, a sum of Rs.3,500/- for MS/MD degree and Rs.3,000/- for Diploma course are to be paid by the State Govt for examination expenses to the Manipur University per student per examination six months prior to Post Graduate Examination. One of the criteria enumerated in the guidelines is that a minimum of 3 (three) candidates for each seat will be sent by the State, that is, so far as the State of Arunachal Pradesh is concerned, option was given to them to select a panel of three names in respect of one seat. It is not in dispute that by exercising the power conferred upon them in view of the above guidelines, the State of Arunachal Pradesh could have sent a panel of three names to fill up one seat; whereas the State of Arunachal Pradesh has chosen to sponsor only one name for each seat for the academic session 1996-97. 5. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that - (1) the authorities of the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh committed an error in not having availed the option given to them to sponsor three names for each seat instead of sponsoring only one name. (2) It was not right on the part of the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh to have acceded to the writ issued by the writ Court to nominate the 7th respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) without considering the Cases of the seniors. It is stated that Dr. Takar Darung, appellant herein, is senior to the 7th respondent. The Govt did not consider the cases of the senior persons; on the other hand, they proceeded to act upon the writ given by the writ Court. It is stated that Dr. Takar Darung, appellant herein, is senior to the 7th respondent. The Govt did not consider the cases of the senior persons; on the other hand, they proceeded to act upon the writ given by the writ Court. These are the main grounds of appeal to seek for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, which is contrary to the law. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we will have to refer to the order made by the learned Single Judge. It is seen therefrom that merely because the learned Advocate appearing in the writ Court submitted that RIMS would have no objection to admit the 7th respondent if he is recommended by the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. acceding to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the RIMS, the writ Court issued a writ in favour of the 7th respondent. 7. It is now brought to our notice that the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue the writ as aforestated in favour of the 7th respondent/petitioner for the academic session 199/-98 solely on the ground that his name was earlier sponsored by the Govt, which the Govt wanted to obey. In otherword. the argument advanced by learned counsel for the Arunachal Pradesh Govt is that because a writ has been issued in Civil Rule No.666 of 1996 (Imphal) and that the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh wanted to obey that writ, this was the reason why they did not consider the application of the appellant, though he was senior to the 7th respondent. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in the light of the guidelines was well as fee, writ having been issued earlier in Civil Rule No.666 of 1996 (Imphal), the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition was that his case may be considered ' for the purpose of nomination for the academic session 1996-97, because he was a candidate for the session 1995-96, in which event the Govt should have considered his candidature for the purpose of nomination only for that academic session and not for the following year. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen the guidelines in question. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen the guidelines in question. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge failed to apply his mind to the sensitive question of nomination of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree Course in Medical Sciences and allowed the writ petition by issuing a writ in favour of the writ petitioner, which is contrary to law. 8. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to set aside the orders made by the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, the order made by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.666 of 1996 (of Imphal Bench) on 4th September. 1996 and the subsequent order made on 3rd December, 1996. whereby he has incorporated some amendments in his earlier order dated 4th September, 1996, are set aside. The appeal is allowed to that extent. 10. However, a direction shall issue to the respondents that they shall consider the cases of all eligible candidates, including the 7th respondent and those who applied before the last date of making applications for the current year 199/-98, and to sponsor the names of three candidates in accordance with the guidelines, as per Annexure A and B to the appeal. 11. We have to mention here that as on the date when the writ was issued in Civil Rule No.666 of 1996 (Imphal), there was a seat for Post Graduate Degree in Medicine, which was available for nomination by the State Govt of Arunachal y Pradesh; but as on today, there is only one vacancy in Post Graduate Degree in Obstetrics and Gyneachology. Therefore, the State of Arunachal Pradesh will have to nominate a panel of three names only against this vacancy in Post Graduate Degree in Obstetrics and Gyneachology. 12. It is needless to say that as on today it is stated that after selection from other States, the regular classes in Post Graduate Degree Courses for the session 1997-98 have already been started with effect from 15th of My, 1997. Therefore, the State of Arunachal Pradesh will take prompt action, at the most within two weeks, to comply with this order. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. Parties to bear their own costs.