TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner appeared in the common entrance test conducted by the CET Cell for admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges in the state. He was allotted a Medical seat in A1 Ameen College at Bijapur in the payment category, which allotment was subsequently cancelled pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and on the ground that seat allotted to the petitioner was in excess of the intake capacity of the College. He was thereafter granted admission against an Engineering seat in what is known as BOT College, Davanagere, where he is presently undergoing the Course. In the meantime certain casual vacancies appear to have occurred in the Medical Colleges which were notified by the CET Cell inviting only such candidates for counselling as had not already secured admission in any Course. Although the petitioner had been allotted an Engineering seat, he appears to have approached the cet Cell for consideration against one of such vacancies. The Cell declined that request on the ground that the petitioner having been admitted to one of the Engineering Colleges was ineligible for allotment of a casual vacancy in terms of Rule 18 (ix) of Karnataka Selection of candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of the rule aforementioned and for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot a Medical seat in his favour. ( 2 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner contended that the refusal of the CET Cell to consider the petitioner's claim for admission against one of the casual vacancies was unjustified and in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. He urged that once a vacancy occurred, all such candidates as were eligible for admission had a valuable right of consideration against the same. The admission of candidates with lesser merit than the petitioner against such vacancies, was according to the learned Counsel, unjust, unfair and offensive with equality clause, not could the admission of the petitioner to the Engineering College be a valid ground for excluding him from consideration against any such vacancies. ( 3 ) MR. The admission of candidates with lesser merit than the petitioner against such vacancies, was according to the learned Counsel, unjust, unfair and offensive with equality clause, not could the admission of the petitioner to the Engineering College be a valid ground for excluding him from consideration against any such vacancies. ( 3 ) MR. Manjunath, Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned earlier excluded from consideration such of the candidates as had already been admitted against any seat in any Medical or Engineering College. Exclusion of such candidates from consideration was, according to the learned counsel, necessary in order to avoid the process of filling up the vacancies becoming unending. He urged that if all vacancies that become available in both Medical and Engineering Colleges, were to be filled up after giving an opportunity to every candidate, who is desirous of getting admitted against the same, it will become difficult to conclude the process within a reasonable time. Rule 18 (ix) was therefore framed with a view to preventing any such anomaly, which is bound to affect the academic programme in the colleges to the prejudice of those, admitted to the same. He urged that since the casual vacancies, had already been filled and none was presently available against which the petitioner could be considered, the entire grievance had become academic. ( 4 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar. The casual vacancies notified by the CET Cell have been admittedly filled up. Those, admitted against the same not being parties to these proceedings, it will not be possible to interfere with their admission at this stage. The petitioner's grievance against his exclusion from consideration is in that view academic. All the same, since the constitutional validity of Rule 18 (ix) was argued at some length, I may as well deal with that aspect. Rule 18 of the Rules regulates the admission to the professional colleges in the State and inter alia entitles the candidates in the order of merit to confirm the seat selected by them in the preliminary round. Rule 18 of the Rules regulates the admission to the professional colleges in the State and inter alia entitles the candidates in the order of merit to confirm the seat selected by them in the preliminary round. Sub-rules (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Rule 18 alone are for the present relevant and may therefore be extracted:"rule 18: (vii) A seat surrendered or forfeited by a candidate who had obtained the admission order after complying with all the formalities shall be treated as casual vacancy; (viii) Soon after the completion of admission round, the Special officer shall publish in the premises of CET Cell a list containing the details of all the casual vacancies that arise till the date of publication of such a list. A notification shall be published in at least two newspapers with wide publication in the State announcing the publication of such a list; (ix) Candidates who have already been selected and received admission orders in any of the disciplines shall not be eligible to seek allotment of casual vacancy seats. " ( 5 ) A reading of the above would show that the Special Officer is required to publish a list containing the details of all the casual vacancies that arise till the date of such publication. It is also evident that only such candidates as have not already been admitted to undergo any course are eligible for allotment against such casual vacancies. The theoretical basis behind the exclusionary provision made by sub-rule (ix) above is that unless such a provision exists in the rule book, the process of counselling against the vacancies that become available will remain unending. There is indeed some merit in that submission, but the question is whether the provision in the form in which it now exists is an ideal answer to that problem without creating situations, which may be so anomalous as to sound totally irrational, unfair and even discriminatory. ( 6 ) MR. Manjunath was directed to indicate the cut off for M. B. B. S. admissions during 1997-98. From the statement filed, by him it appears that in General Merit Category, the last candidate admitted was one mr. Pramod J. M. appearing at merit rank No. 1457. ( 6 ) MR. Manjunath was directed to indicate the cut off for M. B. B. S. admissions during 1997-98. From the statement filed, by him it appears that in General Merit Category, the last candidate admitted was one mr. Pramod J. M. appearing at merit rank No. 1457. As against that, the get Cell has admitted on 4th of March, 1998, the following candidates against the casual vacancies in the free seats category: name of the candidate Medical Rank Name of the candidate Medical Rank Category of Fee collected seat 1. Jayaprakash Channashetti 2618 Free Rs. 12,350/- 2 Ravikumar V. 2946 Free Rs. 12,350/- 3. Thejaswi K. P. 3471 Free Rs. 12,350/- 4. Kiran L. J. 3100 Free Rs. 12,350/- 5 Vijayalakshmi S. 3476 Free Rs. 12,350/- 6, Sangeetha R. V. 3539 Free Rs. 12,350/- 7. Sundararasu M. 3548 Free Rs. 12,350/- 8. Kavitha M. M. 3594 Free Rs. 12,350/- ( 7 ) IT would thus appear that those relatively low in merit have by reason of the provisions of Rule 18 (ix) benefitted and secured seats in the General Merit (Free Seats) category while others, who had secured better ranks in the overall merit list were denied such seats. This is a patent anomaly, difficult countenance. While it is permissible for the rule making authority to reduce the zone of consideration so as to ensure the completion of admission process within a reasonable time and start of the academic session without causing prejudice to the generality of the candidates admitted to the Course, yet any such Rule aimed at achieving that purpose cannot martyr the compelling requirement of the admissions being made only in accordance with the inter se merit of the candidates. It is possible to say that in the interest of speedy finalisation of the selection process, it is necessary to prevent those admitted in one category from claiming consideration against a casual vacancy occurring in the very same category, but it may not be equally sound to say that those who have been admitted in the payment category of the seats are disqualified for consideration against casual vacancies occurring in the free seats category. The denial of any such consideration to candidates in the payment category will be patently unjust and therefore offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution, if such denial is supported by nothing except the need to finalise the admissions early. The denial of any such consideration to candidates in the payment category will be patently unjust and therefore offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution, if such denial is supported by nothing except the need to finalise the admissions early. The sense of denial, which candidates with better merit would suffer by exclusion will be more severe than the prejudice resulting from a marginal delay in the completion of the admission process. The Rule in its present form is therefore perilously close to the vice of unconstitutionality and but for the fact that the challenge arises in the context of the previous years' admissions the same may have been declared to be ultra vires. The question may however arise even in future and may have to be re-examined very soon. Indeed Mr. Manjunath in his characteristic fairness did not dispute the possibility of an improvement in the position by reducing as far as possible the extent of prejudice that may occur to candidates on account of the exclusionary provisions contained in Rule 18. He did not see any serious difficulty in providing for consideration of candidates already admitted in the payment category of any discipline being considered against casual vacancies occurring in the free seats category in the same discipline. The rule can, without defeating the purpose underlying its incorporation be reframed so as to ensure that all casual free seats available in the Medical Colleges and so also in the Engineering and dental Colleges are offered first to the students admitted in payment category in the order of their merit. Given a choice all such candidates or at least most of them are bound to opt for the free seats, that become available as casual vacancies, in which event the consequential vacancies caused in the payment category could be offered to those, who have not been admitted to undergo either Medical, Dental or Engineering course. The modification will ensure that candidates lower in merit do not benefit only by the fortuitous circumstance of a casual vacancy arising and falling to their lot even when candidates with better merit are denied admission against the same. It will reduce heart burning and eliminate the sense of deprivation among meritorious students which is but natural if the rule continues in its present form. It will reduce heart burning and eliminate the sense of deprivation among meritorious students which is but natural if the rule continues in its present form. The State would therefore do well to have a fresh look at the rule and to make proper amends in the same to avoid the anomalies involved in its continuance. ( 8 ) WITH the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .