JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C J—In these two writ petitions a common question is raised as to whether an option should be given to the candidates to seek admission to Post Graduate/Diploma Courses after some seats arc released from All India Quota, The facts are similar excepting with regard to one circumstance that the petitioner in C.W.R No. 50/97 was not selected for any of the specialities opted by her whereas the petitioner in C W.P. No. 4/i->97 was selected for speciality in Microbiology which she had opted even at the time of original application inspite of the fact that the seat was reserved for the had area and the petitioner did not belong to such area. The contention of the petitioner is that in the examination notice issued on 10-7-1996, the names of the specialities in the reserved category were set out. Certain categories were not available to the GDO (general) candidates to which the petitioner belongs. When the seats were released from All India Quota and were being filled up those seats were offered to the persons who had exercised option for those specialities even at the time of original application on the basis of merit in that category. On that basis, the seats were allotted to respondents No, 4 and 5 in CWP No. 50/97 and respondents No. 4 to 6 in CWP No. 4/97. It should be mentioned that respondent No. 5 and 6 in CWP No. 4/97 are the same as respondents No 4 and 5 in CWP No. 50/94. The contention urged by the petitioners is that at the time when the allotment was made to respondents No. 4 to 6 in CWP No. 4/97 an opportunity should have been given to the persons who belong to GDO (general) category to exercise their option with regard to the specialities in which seats were available at the time by virtue of reliquishment from AH India Quota. 2. There is no rule in support of the petitioners contention, On the other hand the rule contemplates the exercise of option only once. Rule 5.2.2 in the prospectus sets out that the choices for any three courses have to be given. 2. There is no rule in support of the petitioners contention, On the other hand the rule contemplates the exercise of option only once. Rule 5.2.2 in the prospectus sets out that the choices for any three courses have to be given. There is no provision for changing the choice at any time after the application ; nor is there any provision for giving an opportunity to exercise a fresh option to those candidates who have not been selected op have been selected for other specialities. 3 The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of examination a notice was issued and there was no chance for the petitioners knowing that seats would be available in some of the specialities, which are not reserved for GDO (general) to which category the petitioner belonged. There is no substance in this contention. It is not in dispute, on the material placed before us that even when the applications were filed by the candidates, the options were exercised and the specialities were chosen on the footing that there is likely hood of relinquishment of some seats from All India Quota, Respondents No. 4 to 6 have exercised their options even at the time of filing of applications for the respective specialities In which they have been allotted seats The forth respondent has been allotted seat in CWP No 4/97 in M, S. Otolaryngology while 5th and 6th respondents have been allotted seats in M. D. Paediatics, M. D. Radiology respectively. Those specialities have bean mentioned by them in their applications filed originally as their choice. It is on the basis of the option exercised at the time of application and also on the basis of the merit in the entrance examination that they have been selected and seats have been allotted to them. No grievance can be made by the petitioner to such a course adopted by the respondents, 4. It is also to be noted that the petitioner in CWP No. 4/97 had exercised an option for Microbiology at the time of original application though there was a reservation only for the candidates who had served in hard and very hard areas of the State for two years. The petitioner was not at that time entitled to claim that seat as he had not served in hard or very hard areas. The petitioner was not at that time entitled to claim that seat as he had not served in hard or very hard areas. However, when no person was available from the hard areas the seats were allotted to the GDO (general category) and the petitioner got that seat To that effect a communication was issued by the University produced by the petitioner herself as Annexure P-3. It is clear there from that the allotment was made on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test held on 18-8-1995 keeping in view the option given by the candidates concerned. If the petitioner had not exercised that option a the time of the application she could have not got the seat in Micro biology speciality. It is clear that this practice had been adopted through out. The University had been allotting the seats which are relinquished from All India Quota on the basis of the option exercised at the time of original application. The same principle is also found in Rule 3.2 in the prospectus which reads as follows : "66.6% seats will be filled by in service regularly appointed HPHS-] in Himachal Pradesh Health Cadre out of which 7 seats in Post-Graduate degree and 3 seats in diploma courses will be reserved for HPHS-I Officers who serve in hard and very hard areas of the State for two years and 33 3% seats will be available by open competition from amongst the graduates of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Children of bonafide Himachali/Himachal Government Employees and employees of autonomous bodies wholly or partially financed by Himachal Pradesh Government getting admission into MBBS through CBSE in MCI recognised Medical Colleges in India. If sufficient number of candidates in one category not available the seats reserved for them will be allotted to the candidates of other category.” 5. Thus, it is clear that if the candidates belonging to a category for which specialities are reserved are not available then the specialities are released for the general category candidates and it is allotted on that basis. At the same time option exercised by the candidates for the specialities is kept in view and the allotment is also made on the basis of the merit list prepared after the entrance examination is held for that course. 6. At the same time option exercised by the candidates for the specialities is kept in view and the allotment is also made on the basis of the merit list prepared after the entrance examination is held for that course. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1086 of 1993, Dr. Sharat Garvya and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The Division Bench had to consider the rules in the prospectus for the Post-Graduate degree and diploma courses 1993-95/96 of Indira Gandhi Medical College. Referring to Rule 5.2.1 which laid down that every candidate will be allowed to give option in order of preference for admission to any of the two Post-Graduate Courses, the Bench held that the option had to be exercised only after the candidate successfully posses in open competitive examination, In fact the Bench pointed out that it was only on that basis information was given to the candidates concerned after the results of the examination are announced and candidates are required to make choice. The rulihg has no relevance in the present case as the rules are entirely different in the prospectus for Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses issued for 1996-98/99. We have already referred to Rule 5.2.2 which required that the choices of any three courses are to be given and Rule 5.2.1 reads :— “The admission will be by an open competitive examination conducted the Himachal Pradesh University” Hence the ruling of the Division Bench will have no application in the present case. 7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Sandhya Kaira v. University of Delhi, AIR 1993 Delhi 40. Our attention is drawn to paragraph-9, wherein the Delhi High Court referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court dated !6th September, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 11178 of 1985 whereby the Supreme Court directed that the seats earmarked to be filled on the basis of the All India Entrance Examination shall be filled first and it is only thereafter the remaining seats would be filled up on the basis of institutional preferences The direction given by the Supreme Court will have no application in the present case. It should be noted that in the judgment of Delhi High Court it is held that no change of course or hospital is available to the candidate who had already secured admission. Thus, the judgment of the Delhi High Court is really against the petitioner in CWP No. 4/97. 8. We are not pursuaded to hold that another opportunity should be given to the candidates who have filed the applications and exercised option to the specialities after the relinquishment of the seats from the All India Quota. If that contention of the petitioner is accepted it will lead to an impractical course and such a course cannot be directed to be adopted by the University. It is also argued that counselling is the best course and the University should have adopted the course of counselling. It is not for this Court to prescribe the procedure to be adopted by the University. We are only concerned under Article 226 of the Constitution whether any particular rule already prescribed has been violated in the matter of selection and admission. 9. In this connection it should be noted that Note-3 in Rule 22 reads as follows : “Out of the above seats 25% seats to be filled through All India Entrance Examination, in the event of seats surrendered back as unfilled by the D. G H, S. the same will be restored to their respective faculty position according to roster point. The allocation to the A. I. Q. will be allocated to the extent of 25% in such a way that where there are 4 or more seats, to will go to A I Q arranged as per Prospectus.” 10. It also indicates that there is no question of giving any fresh opportunity to the candidates to exercise option if the seats are surrendered back as unfilled by the D.G.H.S, The Rule contemplates only that the seats will be restored in the respective faculty position according to roster point. The contention at that stage option should have been given or that those seats should be filled according to the merit of all the candidates who had appeared in the examination is unsustainable. 11. In the result, we are not able to accept any of the contentions of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to cost. Petition dismissed.