M. Ramakrishna, C.J.— These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of Civil Rule No.2622 of 1997 and the connected civil rules, dated 3rd December, 1997. 2. These petitioners and others appeared in a common test and examination for the purpose of making selection of candidates to the Post Graduate courses in Assam for the session 1995-96. The admission to the above said course is regulated by the procedure, known as, the Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission to Post Graduate Courses) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1994). These Rules have been framed by the Governor of Assam and the word Government has been defined to mean thereby as the Govt of Assam. These Rules came into force on 21st February, 1995. 3. It is undisputed that by virtue of an advertisement notice having been issued by the Director of Medical Education, Housefed Complex, PO Dispur, Guwahati 6, (2nd respondent herein), with a view to making admission into the Post Graduate course for the session 1995-96 (as per Annexure 2 at p. 91 in Writ Appeal No.629 of 1997), wherein it is stated that interview for admission into the Post Graduate session 1995-96 shall be held in the time and place mentioned below. Candidates whose roll numbers are published below should attend the interview personally with the original documents. Date of interview is fixed on 5th June. 1997 for general candidates and 6th June. 1997 for candidates claiming reservation. The place of interview PMRT Hall, Guwahati Medical College Hospital. Guwahati. The date of admission is the same day at the venue of interview Condition No.5 of the notice lays down as follows : "The vacancy position of all seats shall be displayed to the candidates at the beginning of the interview." 4. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New-Delhi, as published the Bulletin of Information in respect of the All India Entrance Examination to MD/MS/Diploma and MDS Courses. 1995. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New-Delhi, as published the Bulletin of Information in respect of the All India Entrance Examination to MD/MS/Diploma and MDS Courses. 1995. In clause (f) of paragraph 13 of the said bulletin dealing with "Allotment on personal appearance", t has been laid down as follows : "The candidates, who will not appear for allotment in person or through the authorised representative on notified date(s) or who will reject the available seats for allotment or those who will not join the allotted course and college, with the last date of joining mentioned in the allotment letter, shall forfeit a claim for seat under All India Quota. All the seats remaining vacant after the allotment, or falling vacant thereafter, shall deemed to have been surrendered back to the respective States." (emphasis supplied). It is relevant to mention here that these Rules contained in the Bulletin have been framed by the Govt of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 5. It is now brought to our notice, at the time of hearing of the appeals, that 55 number of vacancies were made available for the purpose of making allotment of seats for the competing students for the above course, the vacancies arising out of the 25% All India Quota, not being made available for allotment to the candidates, as, according to the stand taken by the competent authority, as on the date of allotment, the 49 number of vacancies, shown to be the 25% All India Quota, had not been released by the Govt. of India to the State of Assam. In the counter affidavit presented on behalf of the respondents in the writ Court a specific stand was taken that the above number of vacancies (49 seats), which could have been surrendered back to the State Govt. by the Govt. of India having not been released for being made available for allotment to these students for the session 1995-96 as on the date of selection, these number of vacancies (49 seats) were not made available. by the Govt. of India having not been released for being made available for allotment to these students for the session 1995-96 as on the date of selection, these number of vacancies (49 seats) were not made available. On the other hand, a specific stand was taken that these 49 number of vacancies shall be made available only with a view to consider the case of those candidates who are kept in the waiting list for the session 1995-96 and that thereby these number of vacancies, known as 25% All India Quota, will be made abvailable only to those candidates who are in the waiting list. Based upon the above submission on behalf of the State of Assam, the learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel on both sides, held that the writ petitioners cannot be considered for the 25% All India Quota seats, after having exercised their option and accepting admission in subjects offered to them by the authority. The writ petitions were, therefore, ordered to be dismissed. Hence these appeals. 6. The salient facts of the case, in addition to what is stated above, are that these petitioners having challenged the allotment of seats and the selection made by the competent authority for the session 1995-96 pursuant to the advertisement notice, Annexure 2 referred to above, not being satisfied with the discipline (subjects offered to them) challenged the said selection on the main ground of attack that the respondents (competent authority) ought to have made available the 49 vacancies of 25% All India Quota, which were available as on the date of the interview; the petitioners have been prevented from availing their choice of option (disciplines) offered in their applications for the purpose of selection for the Post Graduate Medical courses. However, this challenge before the writ Court was turned down. 7. In appeal, the main grounds taken and canvassed before the appellate Court are that: (1) The learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the petitioners having got themselves admitted to the subjects offered to them by the authority. Rule 14 (j) of the Rules come in the way of their choice. This view of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, since as on the date of the interview the 49 number of vacancies of 25% All India Quota was available for making allotment. Rule 14 (j) of the Rules come in the way of their choice. This view of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, since as on the date of the interview the 49 number of vacancies of 25% All India Quota was available for making allotment. (2) The other argument is that the selection made by the competent authority withholding from consideration these 49 seats of 25% All India Quota, available as on the date of the interview, only with a view to making available these 49 vacancies for the candidates in the waiting list; and that this approach of the respondents having been upheld by the learned Single Judge is illegal and not sustainable in law. 8. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 9. Shri AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, along with Shri NN Saikia, learned senior counsel, Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel, who, having taken us through the averments of the writ petitions, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the grounds taken in the appeals, urged that: (1) In the light of facts and circumstances of this case and regard being had to the submission made by the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State of Assam, that as on the date of the interview, that is, 5th June, 1997 the 49 number of vacancies of 25% All India Quota being available with the competent authority, the competent authority could not have withheld these 49 vacancies in the Post Graduate Medical Courses from being considered with a view to allot these 49 number of vacancies among the petitioners. (2) It is impermissible for the competent authority to have denied these 49 vacancies of 25% All India Quota in Post Graduate Medical Course for the State of Assam, only with a view to prevent the petitioners from being considered, though they secured better marks than the marks scored by the candidates in the waiting list for the session 1995-96. (3) The last submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellants is that the approach of the learned Single Judge in dealing with the cases of the writ petitioners is not tenable in law, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the real questions arising in the writ petitions. (3) The last submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellants is that the approach of the learned Single Judge in dealing with the cases of the writ petitioners is not tenable in law, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the real questions arising in the writ petitions. On the other hand, he has chosen only to place reliance upon Rule 14 (j) of the Rules with a view to deny the disciplines opted by these petitioners at the time of selection. Therefore, he submits that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions is contrary to the intendment of the legislation and that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the rights of the writ petitioners to have their choice of discipline at the time of selection. 10. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate fairly submitted that it is true that pursuant to the advertisement notice (Annexure2 at P. 91 of Writ Appeal No. 629 of 1997), though Note No.5 intended that the vacancy position of all seats shall be displayed to the candidates at the beginning of the interview, the competent authority failed to include the 49 vacancies of 25% All India Quota which were available for Assam State with a view to consider the cases of the candidates for distribution of seats in accordance with the law. On the other hand, he fairly submitted that these 49 number of vacancies were available for the purpose of distribution among the meritorious candidates. This submission of the learned Senior Govt. Advocate clearly goes to show that as on the date of selection made for the session 1995-96 the 25% All India Quota being 49 vacancies available for the Post Graduate Medical Course in the State of Assam the competent authority ought to have taken into consideration these 49 number of vacancies in addition to the 55 vacancies considered for distribution. Of course, Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Additional Senior Govt. Of course, Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, brought to our notice that in the counter affidavit presented by way of objections opposing the claim of the writ petitioners in the writ Court, a specific stand was taken on behalf of the State that since the petitioners have accepted the offer made to them, though not according to their choice or option, in the light of Rule 14 (j) of the Rules, such candidates who had already accepted the offer and got themselves admitted to the colleges, cannot claim the vacancies of 25% All India Quota. This submission was considered by the learned Single Judge accordingly. But the fact remains, whether this stand taken by the State of Assam could be justified. 11. In view of the foregoing, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals: (1) Whether the selection made by the competent authority for the session 1995-96 at the interview dated 5th June, 1997, withholding the number of seats of 25% All India Quota (49 vacancies), is justifiable? (2) Whether the selection made by the competent authority in following the mandatory requirement of law as envisaged by the 1994 Rules, by not taking into consideration the number of vacancies available under 25% All India Quota with a view to enable the petitioners to claim their choice of discipline, could be justified? (3) Whether the approach of the competent authority to provide these 49 number of vacancies of 25% All India Quota only to those persons found in the waiting list excluding the meritorious candidates, could be justified? (4) Whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners is sustainable in law? 12. We will take up points No.(l), (2) and (3) together, because they contain the similar common elements and questions of law with a view to appreciate the legal contentions urged in support of the appeals. 13. At the outset, it is not in dispute that for the session 1994-95 in the State of Assam, while following the scheme available in that year before coming into force of the present Rules, 1994, the number of vacancies available under the 25% All India Quota in the Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges of Assam, the competent authority in the State did take into consideration that number of vacancies available for the purpose of making selection. But, unfortunately, in the session 1995-96, this system was not followed. The submission of Mr. SS Dey, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate is that: (1) In respect of the 49 number of vacancies under the 25% All India Quota, surrendered by the Govt. of India under the scheme, there was no communication by the competent authority of the Govt. of India, informing or communicating the State authorities in Assam that these 49 number of vacancies have been made available for being considered for making selection of candidates for the session 1995-96. (2) This is the reason why a specific stand was taken in the counter affidavit presented on behalf of the State that the writ petitioners had no right to seek for their choice of discipline in the Post Graduate Medical Course, as on the date of selection these 49 number of vacancies were not made available to the Director of Medical Education, Assam, to proceed with. (3) This is the reason why in Note No.5 of the advertisement notice (Annexure 2 to the Writ Appeal No.629 of 1997) it was clearly mentioned that the exact number of vacancies to be considered for the purpose of selection will be made known to the candidates before the commencement of the interview. 14. Therefore, the factual position is made clear from the submission of learned Add! Senior Govt. Advocate that though this was the position when the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge, but as on today when the matter was heard, Mr. Dey fairly submits that later on, by a communication, the competent authority in the Govt. of India made available these 49 number of vacancies, which were surrendered earlier, for the purpose of making selection. 15. In the light of this submission of learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, it is clear that there was no difficulty for this Court to take into consideration this factual position and reconsider the entire matter in these appeals. 16. Coming to the legal position, whether it will be right on the part of the competent authority to have proceeded to distribute the existing number of vacancies in the Post Graduate Medical Course following the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules 1994. Let us look into the provision of Rule 9 for the purpose of declaration of results, which lays down as follows; "9. Let us look into the provision of Rule 9 for the purpose of declaration of results, which lays down as follows; "9. Declaration of results: (a) Results of examination shall be declared by the Chairman of the Selection Board subject to the approval of the Govt. The selection of candidates on the basis of merit in subject wise and institution wise done by the Selection Board shall be communicated to the respective colleges and the candidates by the member-Secretary. (b) A list of all successful candidates shall be prepared by the Selection Board in order of merit along with a waiting list to the extent of 10% of the available seats which shall also be prepared in order of merit (emphasis supplied). 17. Therefore, in the light of the provision of the law under Rule 9 of the Rules for declaration of results, there is no difficulty to understand the argument advanced on both sides that a list of all successful candidates had been prepared by the Selection Board in order of merit. It is also not in dispute that along with the said list, a waiting list to the extent of 10% of the available seats was also prepared in order of merit. But the difficulty giving rise for complication arose at the stage. The competent authority has come to know at the stage that 49 number of vacancies which were surrendered to the Govt. of India were made available, being the 25% All India Quota for Post Graduate Medical Courses. That number of vacancies was available to be allotted at the time of distribution of seats in accordance with Rule 9. It is very unfortunate to find out that these 49 number of vacancies, which came to be allocated by the Union of India for the State of Assam, instead of being made available for being distributed among the candidates in the select list in order of merit, the competent authority intended solely to distribute that number of 49 vacancies only among those persons in the waiting list, excluding the right of candidates who are found in the first list in order of merit for being considered. In other words, this act on the part of the competent authority to allocate the 49 number of vacancies made available subsequently only to those persons in the waiting list to the exclusion of the meritorious candidates found in the first list under Rule 9 (b), has given rise for the difficulty. 18. The argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellants is that: (1) Although some of these appellants who are in the first list under Rule 9 (b) were allotted certain seats of discipline not according to their choice offered in the application, had to accept the same and remit the fees with a view to obtain admission, as there is a provision under clause (i) of Rule 14, dealing with method of selection and admission, which reads as follows: "Selected candidates must join in the respective colleges on or before the date fixed for admission and failure may render the candidate liable to be disqualified." It is in this context, according to the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, that the appellants had to get themselves admitted to the disciplines offered by the competent authority, contrary to their choice. (2) The second limb of argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya is that merely because the appellants had to pay admission fees and get themselves admitted within the given time in the light of the provision of clause (i) of Rule 14 referred to above, nonetheless, since mere were 49 number of vacancies available for being considered by the competent authority, in which event these appellants would have got their choice of discipline, regard being had to the marks scored by them. The writ Court ought to have considered the right accrued to them by virtue of these appellants being found in the meritorious list under Rule 9 (b) referred to above. The learned Single Judge rejected this contention solely on the ground that some of these appellants have already been admitted to some disciplines, offered 8 to them, contrary to their choice, and they are Mowing their course in the respective discipline for about two months as on the date when the writ petitions were heard. That being so, such persons would not be entitled for seeking a change either in the subject matter or in the college. That being so, such persons would not be entitled for seeking a change either in the subject matter or in the college. To say so, the learned Single Judge has referred to the provision of clause (j) of Rule 14, which lays down as follows: "A candidate once admitted in one institution or in a subject shall not be transferred to another institution or another subject under any circumstances." Interpreting this provision of the law, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the writ petitioners. 19. Now. let us examine what is the view taken by the Supreme Court in a matter of this kind in more than one rulings of the Supreme Court. 20. In Anand S. Biji vs. State of Kerala & others, (1993) 3 SCC 80 , the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with a similar set of circumstances, in respect of allocation of seats on the basis of All India Post Graduate Entrance Examination. In para 4 of the judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows: "In the place of present requirement of a candidate indicating his preference for eight colleges and six subjects, on the basis of which admissions are finalised, a modified scheme called 'counselling' system is being introduced for allotment of the candidates declared successful in All India Post Graduate Entrance Examination for admission to MD/MS/Diploma and MDS courses. The new system, in short, is this; after the examination is over, the result would be published in the order of merit. The selection committee will call 150 candidates a day in the order of merit. A chart will be kept ready and displayed at all relevant places indicating the colleges and subjects wherein the seats are available. Candidates will be called in the order of merit and asked to indicate his/her choice. The slot chosen by him/her then gets closed. This procedure will be gone through until all the seats are filled up. There would be no second or third list. Any seats remaining vacant thereafter will be surrendered to the State Govt. But this modification will apply to and come into effect only for and from the admission for the year 1994. So it will not apply to the admissions currently under way." (emphasis supplied) 21. There would be no second or third list. Any seats remaining vacant thereafter will be surrendered to the State Govt. But this modification will apply to and come into effect only for and from the admission for the year 1994. So it will not apply to the admissions currently under way." (emphasis supplied) 21. Subsequently in a number of other rulings of the Supreme Court the other Benches of the Supreme Court have also followed this ruling in Anand's case (supra). 22. In Dr. A. Eranklin Joseph vs. State of TN & others, (1994) 2 SCC 387 , dealing with admission to Post Graduate course including All India Quota, the Supreme Court had to lay down, referring to the facts and circumstances of the case, as follows: "A candidate with a lesser percentage of marks of 71.50% has been preferred / as against the appellant who had secured 76.75%. Equality is a laudable principle but not to be used by the State at its whims and fancies. The stand of the State is wholly untenable. The appellant being the first in the waiting list having secured 76.75% marks would be legally entitled to admission in preference to Dr. Balamurgan whose selection is clearly arbitary. The State has adopted the principle of "show me the man, I will show you the law". The appellant should not be S deprived of his legitimate due. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the State-respondent shall admit the appellant within two weeks from today since the academic year had commenced and the course is in progress. The civil appeal will stand allowed with costs." 23. This conclusion had been reached in the above case based upon the set of, facts and circumstances where a person who has secured higher marks in the examination and having offered a discipline of his choice, was not acceptable to the competent authority, when the latter preferred a person in the waiting list securing lesser marks than the marks scored by the former. It is for this reason the Supreme Court had to come down heavily on the State Govt. allowing the appeal of the appellant. 24. It is for this reason the Supreme Court had to come down heavily on the State Govt. allowing the appeal of the appellant. 24. In Amarjit Singh Gill vs. Directorate General of Health Services, (1989) 1 SCC 231 , the Supreme Court dealing with the rights of the persons in the waiting list of the All India Entrance Examination for MBBS/BDS course, had to lay down the following guidelines in para 4: "(1) The candidates, who have been allocated seats to the Dhanbad Medical College which is not a recognised college by the Medical Council of India after, 1982, should first be reallocated to the recognised medical colleges having vacancies keeping in view the aspect of the minimum distance from their home towns. (2) Those candidates who have exercised their choice for MBBS course only or to MBBS course by way of first preference and to BDS course by way of second perference and admitted to BDS course for want of seats in the MBBS course shall, if they or any of them desire to be admitted in the MBBS course, be absorbed against the available vacant seats in order of merit. The change from BDS course to MBBS course will, however, be at their own cost and responsibility. (3) The vacant MBBS or BDS seats, thereafter available, should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list in order of merit Allocation may be made to medical colleges on the basis of the five preferences indicated by the candidates in the application forms. Any allocation of seat made to a candidate in the waiting list either in the MBBS or BDS course shall be final and no request for change from one course to the other will be entertained. In the case of those candidates in the waiting list, who cannot be allocated to medical colleges on the basis of five preferences given by them in the application forms, the Director General of Health Services will allocate them colleges as near to their places of residence as possible subject to the availability of seats in those nearby colleges. (4) The candidates will be given maximum time of 20 days to join the medical colleges allotted to them, failing which the seats will be declared vacant. (5) The allocation of MBBS seats already made shall not be disturbed. (4) The candidates will be given maximum time of 20 days to join the medical colleges allotted to them, failing which the seats will be declared vacant. (5) The allocation of MBBS seats already made shall not be disturbed. (6) The Director General of Health Services shall consider the question of allotment of Medical Colleges to candidates, who have been already admitted to MBBS or BDS course, nearer to their home towns in order of merit. (7) Absorption in the said 532 vacant seats of candidates who have already been admitted in the BDS course and reallotment of medical colleges to candidates also already admitted in the MBBS or BDS course, as the case may be, nearer to their home towns, and the reallocation to the recognised medical colleges of candidates who have been already allocated seats to the Dhanbad Medical College, shall be made within a period of three weeks from today." (emphasis supplied) 25. The facts and circumstances and the nature of selection made in the case of Amarjit Singh Gill (supra) are more or less similar with the facts and circumstances of the present appeals. The rulling of the Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh Gill case (supra) abundantly makes it clear that: (1) Preference must be given to those meritorious candidates who are found in the first list. Thereafter, if any vacancies are available, the competent authority can consider the persons in the waiting list. (2) The competent authority should not have ignored the choice of discipline given by those applicants (appellants herein) who are found to be in the meritorious securing higher marks than those persons found in the waiting list. In such an event, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court, it will be illegal and injustice if the competent authority were to choose only the persons in the waiting list with a view to conferring upon them the benefit of selection to the available seats, to die exclusion of those persons found in the first list, securing higher marks. 26. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing, there is no difficulty to accept the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, to record a finding in favour of the appellants. 27. 26. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing, there is no difficulty to accept the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, to record a finding in favour of the appellants. 27. To reiterate, the specific stand taken by the Director of Medical Education (respondent No.2 herein) in his statement of objections by way of a counter affidavit presented in the writ Court on 4th September, 1997, referring to the specific stand taken in paragraphs 5 to 10, saying that: "As and when the same will be available, the steps will be taken to distribute the seats (49 vacancies of All India Quota) amongst the intending candidates from the waiting list which is in the process strictly in order of merit at the exclusion of these candidates who had already been admitted provisionally." is contrary to the rullings of the Supreme Court referred to above. This statement of the Director is contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as, distribution of seats amongst the persons in the waiting list, to the exclusion of those found in the merit list, having secured higher marks than those found in the waiting list, is clearly contrary to the rulings of the Supreme Court in the above reported judgments. 28. On this point, there is one more judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Santosh Kumari (Mrs) vs. Union of India & others, (1995) 1 SCC 269 . In that case the Supreme Court, dealing with admission to Post Graduate course in Medical Colleges, considering allotment of seats against All India Quota, held as follows: "The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the Court. Be that as it may, even the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has not directed that the said seat should be given to the third respondent (appellant before them). The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the Court. Be that as it may, even the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has not directed that the said seat should be given to the third respondent (appellant before them). On the other hand, they have directed the official respondents to "consider the candidature of the petitioner (third respondent in this appeal) or any other candidate who may deserve the admission to that said post.'' The Division Bench has further directed that "proper notice on the Notice Board may be affixed by the respondents in all the colleges giving 15 days' time for making applications and the said seat may be allotted to the meritorious candidate." It is in pursuance of this direction that notices were sent to six candidates referred to above. The submission of the third respondent cannot, therefore, be accepted. The direction made in Ashok, (1992) 1 SCC 28 , related to selection to the post of Engineers and was made in the particular facts and circumstances of that case. The direction made therein cannot be treated to be one of general application. As stated hereinabove, there are not only six candidates above the third respondent in the merit list but two of them have indicated their willingness to be admitted against the said vacancy." 29. Referring to the specific finding of the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, interpreting the provision of clause (1) of Rule 14, extracted above, in regard to the prohibition contained therein for transfer of the college or the subject matter, the finding is against the writ petitioners. 30. Referrring to the very question that in the event of a candidate appearing in the examination for selection, securing better marks than others and whose choice of discipline was- not given at the initial stage, this question cropped up for consideration in Dr. Santosh Kumari's case (supra). In paragraph 7 of the judgment, this point was considered by the Supreme Court. Santosh Kumari's case (supra). In paragraph 7 of the judgment, this point was considered by the Supreme Court. Referring to the merit of the candidate who having accepted the discipline offered to him and having joined the college, such a person questioning the validity of selection, the Supreme Court held as follows: "The Division Bench, however, says that the said direction of the Delhi High Court is not applicable to the vacancy in question on account of the interim orders made by the Rajasthan High Court in the writ petitioin filed by the third respondent. Firstly, the said direction was made by the learned Single Judge pending writ petition which writ petition came to be dismissed on 11.1.1994. (The aforesaid direction was made on 23.7.1993). The Division Bench while hearing the special appeal made a direction on 15.3.1994 to keep that seat vacant but on that very date - and before receiving the said order - the seat was allotted to the appellant. Secondly, even if we assume that the said seat is still available in the all India quota, it has to be allotted in the order of merit among the available candidates. In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it has been stated by Professor Girish Tayal that there are six candidates above the third respondent in the merit list who are similarly placed to her and that when letters were sent pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench to the said candidates, two of them, viz., Dr. Vibha Agarwal and Dr. Shiv Prasad Agarwal have expressed their willingness to take the seat. It is not disputed by the third respondent that all the said six persons including the aforesaid two named candidates have obtained a higher merit ranking than her in the All India Test." (emphasis supplied) 31. Therefore, the conslus. " In reached by the Supreme Court in Dr. Santosh Kumari (supra) clearly goes to show that allotment of seats among the candidates in the waiting list to the exclusion of the meritorious candidates securing higher marks, is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this approach on the part of the respondents cannot be sustained The learned Single Judge overlooked this important aspect of the matter while deciding the merits of the writ petitions. 32. 32. Now, we will consider the point No.(4), that is, dealing with the specific finding recorded by the learned Single Judge interpreting the provision of clause (j) of Rule 14 and holding that since some of the appellants having already obtained admission, accepting the offer made to them, in different disciplines, though not of their choice, such persons cannot be considered to fill up the Existing vacancies of All India Quota. This finding of the learned Single Judge must be held to be unsustainable in view of the rulings of the Supreme Court in Dr. Santosh Kumari's case (supra) to reiterate, we cannot lay down a law with a view to interpret the provision of the statute for the purpose of allotment of seats in the Post Graduate Medical course sacrificing the meritorious candidates and upholding the claims of candidates securing lesser marks to be preferred as they are found in the waiting list. The concept of the law in dealing with this subject matter would run contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a number of rulings of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Therefore, our; finding on this point is in favour of the appellants. 33. There is a latest decision of the-Madhya Pradesh High Court on this point in State of MP & others vs. Jitendra Kishore Bhargava, AIR 1997 MP 56 . A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court presided over by the Chief Justice, interpreting the provisions of MP Medical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1995, vis-a-vis the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dealing with a similar situation where the appellant (State Govt.) rejected the representation of the respondent/petitioner seeking for admission to Post Graduate Medical course after the cut off date of 2nd July, 1995. In paragraph 11, the Division Bench pointed out, following the decision in Dr. Dinesh Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 459 , that following the mandate of the Supreme Court the scheme was formulated by the State Govt. and in the scheme: "It was clearly mentioned that admissions should be closed by the 2nd May and no admissions should be given after 2nd July. Dinesh Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 459 , that following the mandate of the Supreme Court the scheme was formulated by the State Govt. and in the scheme: "It was clearly mentioned that admissions should be closed by the 2nd May and no admissions should be given after 2nd July. This was clearly mandated in the rules and authorities were right in their approach not to grant admissions after 2nd July because this is the cut off date fixed by the authorities keeping in view the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the series of decisions quoted above." 34. Again, in paragraph 13 referring to the provision of the Rules of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that: "Simply because the enabling provisions there in the Rules of 1995, that does not provide any right to wait listed candidates to seek a Mandamus to State to admit in course after the cut off date. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the State Govt. keeping in view the decision in Dinesh Kumar (1987) 4 SCC 459 (supra) is proper and the State Govt has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 24th November, 1995 and both the petitions do not call for any interference by this Court." 35. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court had to deal with a case in Saurabh Mathur & others vs. Director General, Health Services & others, (1993) Supp 4 SCC 87. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with admission to 15 % All India quota for MBBS/BDS courses, when the State Govt appropriated the vacancies occuring within 15% quota depriving admission to waitlisted candidates of All India Quota, certain guidelines had been given by the Supreme Court, in paragraph 5, as follows: "The DGHS shall allocate the available seats to the candidates who have conveyed their willingness within the specified time to be admitted to the All India Quota. 1992 in the manner indicated below: (i) The candidates who have already been admitted to BDS course as per their second option be offered seats in the MBBS course in accordance with their first option and in accordance with their position in the merit list. 1992 in the manner indicated below: (i) The candidates who have already been admitted to BDS course as per their second option be offered seats in the MBBS course in accordance with their first option and in accordance with their position in the merit list. (ii) Simultaneously the remaining seats, if any, in MBBS course and in BDS course shall be allotted to the candidates from rank No.2246 downwards in the order of merit to the candidates who have expressed their such willingness. (iii) The DGHS may decide the allocation of seats to candidates having regard to their original preference and/or proximity of the State to the residences of the candidates, subject to the availability of seats, and the decision of the Director in this regard shall be final. (iv) The DGHS shall inform the Directors of Medical Education of the concerned Slates to admit these candidates in the Medical/Dental Colleges of the State against the unfilled seats. (v) Directors of Medical Education of the concerned States on receipt of such intimation shall take steps for admitting students allocated to each State within a period of 15 days of such intimation." (emphasis supplied) 36. In the light of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Saurabh Mathur case (supra), it is abundantly made clear that even on reconsideration of the matter afresh the competent authority should take into consideration the option given by the meritorious candidates found in the first list securing higher marks than those found in the waiting list, with a view to offer the discipline or subject matter of their choice first and then, after complying with this requirement, go down to the candidates having scored lesser marks, with a view to consider their case according to their choice, depending upon the vacancies available for allotment. This is the main scheme of the several rulings of the Supreme Court referred to above, including the Saurabh Mathur case (supra). Therefore, in the instant case the learned Single Judge overlooked this basic principle that we cannot sacrifice the meritorious candidates and consider those found in the waiting list only for the simple reason that some of these appellants having already been admitted to the colleges accepting the subject or discipline offered to them by the competent authority not considering the 49 vacancies available under the 25% All India Quota with a view to do justice. 37. 37. In view of the foregoing these nine writ appeals, being Writ Appeal No.627 of 1997,629 of 1997,630 of 1997,637 of 1997,638.of 1997,3 of 1998, 4 of 1998. 5 of 1998 and 10 of 1998, stand allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rules No.2622 of 1997, 2890 of 1997, 2936 of 1997, 3005 of 1997,3198 of 1997 dated 3rd December, 1997 and in Civil Rule No.4414 of 1997 dated 12th December, 1997, are set aside. A writ of Mandamus by way of direction shall issue to the Director of Medical Education, Assam (respondent No.2) that considering the 49 vacancies of 25% All India Quota along with the other number of vacancies which were made available for distribution as on the date of selection, action shall be taken to distribute all these seats in accordance with sub-rule (b) of Rule 9 of the Rules with a view to provide seats in favour of all those persons found in the first list in the order of merit, considering the choice of subject matter or discipline given by each one of these appellants, in the order of merit. After fulfilling the choice of these persons found in the first list in the order of merit, the remaining seats shall be filled up considering the choice given by those found in the waiting list, taking into consideration their' choice as well as the merits of each candidate in the order of merit. Shri AK Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants made a statement at the Bar that the time and money spent by these appellants at the time of admission to several colleges shall not come in the way of complying with the direction first made hereunder. These directions issued by way of writ of Mandamus shall be complied with by the second respondent within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 38. Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. SS Dey, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam forthwith to enable him to comply with these directions within the given time. 39. Parties to bear their own costs.