Heard Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for writ petitioner and Mr. HN Sarma, learned Govt Advocate appearing for respondents. As it is a case relating to the admission of a student in the Medical College, I have decided to dispose of the matter at the admission stage itself. Learned Govt Advocate has filed an affidavit-in-opposition and I have also heard him. There is a set of rules known as Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1996. There certain reservations of seats have been made. Rule 6 (g) of that Rules provides for 2 seats in MBBS and 1 seat in BDS for sons/daughters/brother/sisters of the Martyrs of Assam Movement. Petitioner's son namely, Bikash Borthakur was selected against this quota as will be evident form Annexure III to the writ application. The petitioner secured 70% of marks. Though a certificate was issued by the Deputy Commissi­oner, Dibrugarh stating that he is the brother of one Anjan Borthakur, the recoginesd martyr, but actually he is not the real borther of one Anjan Borthakur, but he is the cousin being the uncle's son of Anjan Borthakur and that statement also finds place in paragraph 4 of the writ application. Earlier to this case also such problem arose and the authority by exercising the power under Rule 9 (then it was Rule 10) relaxed this provision. Rule 9 as it stands at present provides as follows : "9. Where the Govt is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules, " 2. In this writ application, numerous instances have been given where in order to fill up the quota, this rule have been relaxed umpteen times to accommodate favourites or the blue eyed persons by the authority. Certain instances are given below. 3. One Aminur Rahman was selected against the quota though he was cousin (father's sister's son) of Muzammil Haque, who is a recognised martyr of Assam Movement. In that case by exercising the power under Rule 10, admission was given. Certain instances are given below. 3. One Aminur Rahman was selected against the quota though he was cousin (father's sister's son) of Muzammil Haque, who is a recognised martyr of Assam Movement. In that case by exercising the power under Rule 10, admission was given. That order is at page 25 of the writ application and that is quoted below : "With reference to your above quoted letter, I am to inform you that Sri Aminur Rahman was selected considering all aspects against the seat meant for Martyrs of Assam. You are, therefore, requested to admit him into the Ist Year MBBS course." 4. Another candidate, namely, Miss Tashmin Rahman, who secured 55.83% marks was selected and admittedly she was the cousin of one of the martyrs Nurul Islam. Thereafter, in the year 1993-94, two persons namely Polash Bora and Smti Lakhimi Borah were selected against this quota. They are son and daughter of the same parent and it may be stated herein that they are son and daughter of present Director of Medical Education, Assam Shri AC Borah. Though they were not covered by this rule as quoted above, the authority on 21.2.94 relaxed this rule. That order is quoted below : "No.HLB.530/93/Pt/18 : Whereas the Governor of Assam is satisfied that Shri Polash Borah, Nagaon is the 1st cousin of Martyr Anil Borah, son of Shri Chandra Charan Borah, Village Palashani, Nagaon. Now, therefore, invoking Rule 10 of the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1992 the Governor of Assam is pleased to relax the existing rule and to order that said Shri Polash Borah be admitted into the 1st Year of MBBS course, 1993-94." 5. Regarding other candidate, i.e. Lakhimi Borah, she filed a case being CR No.2198 of 1994 (Smti Lakhimi Borah vs. State of Assam & others) and this Court on 16.6.94 directed the authority that her case may be considered by relaxing the Rule 10 and that was done. There was another case where by invoking Rule 10, relaxation was given and that order is at page 28 to the writ application. That order is quoted below : "No.HLB.325/93/48 : Whereas the Governor of Assam is satisfied that Miss Mayur Pankhi Saikia, daughter of Tankeswar Saikia is a close relation of late Rohiteswar Saikia, a victim of extremist violence in Assam. That order is quoted below : "No.HLB.325/93/48 : Whereas the Governor of Assam is satisfied that Miss Mayur Pankhi Saikia, daughter of Tankeswar Saikia is a close relation of late Rohiteswar Saikia, a victim of extremist violence in Assam. Now, therefore, invoking Rule 10 of the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1992, the Governor of Assam is pleased to relax the provision of the existing rules , 'and to order that said Miss Mayur Pankhi Saikia be admitted into the 1st Year MBBS course for the year 1993-94." 6. So, it is seen that authority has adopted double standard in relaxing the Rule 10. It is relaxing the rule as and when its own blue eyed persons come and/ or wants to show favouritisim to somebody, but when a genuine case conies up for consideration regarding relaxation, it turns if deaf ear. In exercising the power of relaxation the authority must bear in mind that is not dependant on mere fancy of the authority, it must be exercised as pointed out by Lord Halsbury "according to rules of reason and justice, nor according to private opinion, according to law and not humour, it is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular." It must be within certain limits, the consideration must not be fantastic and foreign to subject matter. The authority cannot act according to the will and private affections. The exercise of power must be just arid reasonable, it must not smack of favouritism. 7. The instances given above will show that the authority did not adhere to any principle in exercising the power of relaxation, as and when individual cases came before it, the power was exercised in a most arbitrary manner all throughout. When the case of the petitioner came up for consideration, it took holier than thou attitude violating the principle of equality. When others were given the benefit in the past, the petitioner also deserves the same consideration to say the least to adhere to the concept of fair and just. 8. When the case of the petitioner came up for consideration, it took holier than thou attitude violating the principle of equality. When others were given the benefit in the past, the petitioner also deserves the same consideration to say the least to adhere to the concept of fair and just. 8. In view of that matter, this writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) and the petitioner's son Bikash Borthakur shall be given admission to the seat (a seat already been kept vacant by order dated 11.3.98 of this Court) and it will be the responsibility of respondents 1,4 and 5 to comply with this order. This shall be done within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of this order. Necessary order for relaxation shall be passed without any delay as done in the earlier case. The authority, if it desires, shall realise the cost of Rs.3,000/- from the salary of the persons responsible for it. 9. Before I part with the record, I feel it is high time for the rule making authority to give a second thought to the reservation made as at present, inasmuch as it has opened a flood gate for entry to undeserving persons in a highly competitive field by back door, and as pointed out above by favour of authority by twisting the rule, taking the shelter under the power of relaxation. This disposes of this writ application.