TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) SELECTION of candidates for teachers training courses is regulated by what are known as Karnataka selection of candidates for admission to teachers certificate higher course and bachelor of education course (b. ed.), 1996. Rule 3 of the said rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility and stipulates that no person shall be eligible for admission under the said rules unless he is a citizen of India and has for admission to teachers certificate higher course, passed the ii year puc or an equivalent examination with a minimum of 50% marks in the general merit candidates or 45% in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, backward classes and physically handicapped candidates. Rule 4 provides that there shall be two categories of seats viz. , 'government seats' and 'other seats'. While government seats have to be filled up by Karnataka candidates and other candidates specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, the 'other seats' left to the managements have to be filled up in accordance with the norms stipulated by the rules. Rule 5 deals with determination of merit and inter alia provides that insofar as admissions to tch course are concerned, the same shall be determined by taking the aggregate marks obtained in the ii year puc or in an equivalent examination passed by the candidate. Proviso to Rule 5 envisages grant of weightage of 5% marks to rural candidates while preparing the merit list. Since the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition turns on the interpretation of Rule 5, it is useful to extract the same in extenso. "determination of merit. The merit shall be determined. (i) for admission of tch course by taking the aggregate marks obtained in the second year pre-university course examination or in any other equivalent examination: (ii) for admission to the b. ed. Course by taking the aggregate marks obtained in all the three years examinations in the b. a. or b. sc. Examination. Provided that while preparing the merit list, a weightage of five per cent shall be added to the percentage of marks secured by a rural candidate". ( 2 ) RULE 6 prescribes the procedure for selection of candidates and requires the special officer to prepare a list of all eligible candidates in the order of merit called the merit list. Provided that while preparing the merit list, a weightage of five per cent shall be added to the percentage of marks secured by a rural candidate". ( 2 ) RULE 6 prescribes the procedure for selection of candidates and requires the special officer to prepare a list of all eligible candidates in the order of merit called the merit list. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 reads thus. " (3) the special officer shall, out of the applications received, prepare a list of all eligible candidates in the order of merit called the merit list. The list of candidates whose applications are rejected shall be notified. The merit list shall be displayed on the notice board of the office of the special officer and also in all the nodal centres". ( 3 ) INSOFAR as selection of candidates for other seats are concerned, Rule 8 requires the institution to call for applications from eligible candidates and to fill up such seats in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria in accordance with merit. The list of candidates so prepared has to be approved by the principal of the diets of the concerned district. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was admitted to undergo the tch course in the 3rd respondent-institution for the academic session 1996-97 commencing from 3rd of november, 1997. She was not however allowed to appear in the I year examination as the principal of the diet-respondent 2 had declined to approve her admission on the ground of her being ineligible. The reason apparently was that the petitioner did not possess 50% marks in the ii year puc examination and did not therefore qualify under Rule 3 for consideration or for award of the weightage in the matter of determination of her merit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the correctness of the interpretation placed upon the rules by the respondents and for a mandamus directing the principal of diet, Bangalore to approve the admission and permit the petitioner to appear in the examination. ( 5 ) MR. Sabarad, counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the respondents had committed a mistake in taking the view that determination of merit under Rule 5 was different from the preparation of the merit list. ( 5 ) MR. Sabarad, counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the respondents had committed a mistake in taking the view that determination of merit under Rule 5 was different from the preparation of the merit list. He submitted that the scheme of the rules and in particular Rule 5 did not suggest that the weightage admissible to rural candidates was not available for purposes of determining their eligibility. He urged that the interpretation placed by the respondents upon the rules would expose the same to the vice of unconstitutionality by bringing about an irrational and invidious classification between candidates situate similarly one entitled to the weightage and the other not so entitled. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tejkumar Balakrishna Ruia v A. K. Menon and another in support of his submission that the court should prefer an interpretation which supports the constitutional validity of the Provisions instead of exposing it to the vice of unconstitutionally. ( 6 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by Mr. Sabarad and Mr. Ramesh, appearing for the respondents. Rule 3 as noticed earlier provides that no person,shall be eligible for admission unless the conditions of eligibility stipulated thereunder are satisfied. One of the conditions of eligibility admittedly is that candidates other than those falling under the reserved categories have secured in the qualifying examination the prescribed percentage of marks. That the petitioner did not satisfy the said requirement is admitted. The question then is whether for purposes of determining even the basic eligibility, the petitioner could invoke the proviso to Rule 5, according to which an additional weightage is envisaged in favour of rural candidates. A closer reading of Rule 5 would however show that the same prescribes the method of determination of the merit of the candidates. It is only in the process of determination of the merit and preparation of merit list, that a weightage of 5% is envisaged in favour of candidates belonging to rural areas. The preparation of a merit list is however a stage that comes after the determination of the eligibility of the candidates. It is only among candidates, who are eligible for admission under Rule 3 that the authorities are supposed to prepare a merit list indicating their inter se merit. The preparation of a merit list is however a stage that comes after the determination of the eligibility of the candidates. It is only among candidates, who are eligible for admission under Rule 3 that the authorities are supposed to prepare a merit list indicating their inter se merit. In the process of any such determination, a rural candidate would have the advantage of getting 5% marks apparently to off-set the disadvantages, which accompany studies in a rural area. There is nothing in Rule 5 or for that matter any other Rule to suggest that for purpose of determination of eligibility also the candidates are entitled to claim any additional weightage. This is evident from the Provisions of Rule 6 (3), that the special officer has to prepare "a list of all eligible candidates in the order of merit", which implies that the special officer has to prepare a list of only such candidates as are found to be eligible having secured the required percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. It is only in the matter of determining their inter se merit that the special officer shall have to give weightage to a rural candidate. Stated conversely, before a candidate can stake his claim for additional weightage he must figure in the list of eligible candidates. Such weightage is not meant to be used as a crutch to acquire eligibility if it is not otherwise possessed by the candidate. There is no gainsaid that if the intention of the Rule making authority was to prescribe a lower percentage of marks for rural candidates, it could have done so as indeed it has been done in the case of sc/st and other reserved category candidates. The scheme of the rules does not therefore envisage any concession in the form of additional weightage insofar as the eligibility of the rural candidates is concerned. They must possess the requisite percentage of marks to claim any such advantage in the matter of determination of their merit qua other eligible candidates. The same pattern is prescribed for admissions against other seats, which the institutions can fill up under Rule 8. The expression fill up such seats in accordance with the eligibility criteria as envisaged in these rules and merit sufficiently indicate that eligibility is distinctly different from the inter se merit of the candidate. The same pattern is prescribed for admissions against other seats, which the institutions can fill up under Rule 8. The expression fill up such seats in accordance with the eligibility criteria as envisaged in these rules and merit sufficiently indicate that eligibility is distinctly different from the inter se merit of the candidate. It is therefore difficult to accept the submission made by Mr. Sabarad that the determination of merit and eligibility is a composite process, in which the rural candidates may be entitled to an additional weightage of 5% marks. ( 7 ) EQUALLY untenable is the alternate submission made by Mr. Sabarad that the interpretation placed on the rules by the respondents would render the same unconstitutional, inasmuch as it would bring about a classification among rural candidates some of whom may be eligible for additional weightage while other may not be. The weightage is as per the scheme of the rules available only to eligible candidates. The classification of rural candidates based on a rational method for determination of eligibility giving rise to two categories one of eligibles and the other of ineligibles cannot be dubbed as impermissible so long as the norms for determining eligibility meet the requirement of law and are applied uniformly. Eligible candidates would then constitute a class distinctly different from the ineligibles. A differential treatment given to eligibles in the matter of the determination of the inter se merit qua other candidates cannot in that view be considered either unconstitutional or arbitrary. There is therefore no danger to the constitutional validity of the rules on account of the interpretation that has found favour with the court. ( 8 ) IN the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs. The examination, if any, taken by the petitioner pursuant to the court order shall stand cancelled. --- *** --- .