JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C. J.—The above writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents (1) to issue call letter to the petitioner for counselling to be held on March 26, 1999 for three seats in M.D. Course and three seats in Diploma Course, and (2) not to readvertise one seat in MD (Medicine) and to hold counselling for the same on March 26, 1999 alongwith other seats and consider the case of the petitioner by way of counselling for one seat of MD (Medicine). The first respondent-Government issued the Prospectus for Postgraduate Degree and Diploma Courses for the Sessions 1998-2000/2001 fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 21.12.1998 and other schedule to select candidates for admission. The date for holding the competitive examination by the University was fixed as 1.11.1998 and the declaration of result was to be on 13.11.1998. 23.11.1998 has been fixed as a date for counselling. The petitioner claims that in the competitive examination she secured 140 out of 200 marks and was said to have been placed eighth in the merit list. On 18.12.1998 the first counselling was said to have been held and the petitioner was said to have been offered Clinical Pathology for Postgraduate Diploma Course and she joined the same on 30.12.1998, which was said to be the last date for joining. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the subsequent counselling held on 18.1.1999, 28.1.1999 and one proposed to be held on 26.3.1999, she has not been called for the purpose of counselling despite her representation made on 9.2.1999. 2. The reply filed by the respondents brings out the relevant factual details and it is worth noticing the facts from the same as also to refer to the stand of the respondents before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. For the Session in question, it is claimed that there were 35 seats in Degree Courses and 18 seats in Diploma Courses, of which 9 seats in Degree Courses and 4 seats in Diploma Courses were said to have been allotted to All India Quota and the remaining 26 seats in Degree Courses and 14 seats in the Diploma Courses were made available for distribution amongst the service candidates as also the direct candidates. The internal distribution has also been notified. The internal distribution has also been notified. In the reply, the respondents have stated as to the vacant seats available remaining unfilled as on 1.1.1999, in the following manner :— "Degree Seats Diploma Seats 1. Anatomy -1 G.D.O. 1. Anaesthesia -2 G.D.O. 2. Forensic Med. -1 G.D.O. 2. Forensic Med. -2 one G.D.O. & one direct 3. Community Med. -2 G.D.O. 4. Microbiology -2 G.D.O. 3. Ophathalomology -2 G.D.O. 5. Pharmacology -1 G.D.O. 4. Child Health -2 G.D.O. 6. Pathology -1 G.D.O. 5. D.M.R.D. -2 one G.D.O. & one direct 6. Orthopaedic -1 Direct 7. E.N.T. -1 Direct" Since some of the students selected did not join till the last date stipulated therefor and inasmuch as some of the already selected candidates including the petitioner put in applications for change in respect of the speciality, there appears to have been a counselling on 6.1.1999 with reference to such claims and though the petitioner also turned up at that time, she preferred to retain the same subject. The resultant vacancy position thereafter is stated to be as follows:— "Direct Seats Diploma Seats 1. Anatomy -1 G.D.O. 1. Anaesthesia -1 G.D.O. 2. Forensic Med. -1 G.D.O. 2. Forensic Med. -2 one G.D.O. & one direct 3. Community Med. -2 G.D.O. 4. Microbiology -2 G.D.O. 3. Ophathalomogy -2 G.D.O. 5. Pharmacology -1 G.D.O. 4. Child Health -1 G.D.O. 6. Pathology -1 G.D.O. 5. E.N.T. -1 Direct" Inspite of the initial counselling as also the counselling held for change over, some of the seats remained unfilled and vacant even thereafter and a second counselling was said to have been made on 18.1.1999 and in this only those candidates who have been left out initially were offered to be selected. 27.1.1999 was said to have been fixed as the last date for joining the course and inter-change was said to have been allowed to the selected candidates of the second counselling also and the resultant position thereafter was said to be as hereunder :— "Degree Courses Diploma Courses 1. Anatomy -1 G.D.O. 1. Forensic Med. -2 one G.D.O. & one direct 2. Forensic Med. -1 G.D.O, 3. Community Med. -1 G.D.O. 2. Anatomy -1 G.D.O. 1. Forensic Med. -2 one G.D.O. & one direct 2. Forensic Med. -1 G.D.O, 3. Community Med. -1 G.D.O. 2. Anaesthesia -1 G.D.O." Referring to Clause 5.2.2 in the Prospectus, it is stated in the reply that since vacant seats have to be filled in within one month from the date of first counselling and thereafter seats remaining unfilled are required to be advertised in supplementary admission, a decision was said to have been taken to do so but in the meantime one Dr. Nidhi Puri filed a writ petition in this Court in CWP No. 36/99 seeking for a direction to the respondents not to re-advertise the seats which had fallen vacant and to consider the case also for counselling. When the said writ petition came up before the Court, the respondents through their Counsel represented that they are prepared to hold the third counselling on 26.3.1999 in respect of those seats which remained vacant and unfilled as on the date of disposal of CWP No. 36 of 1999, namely, 24.2.1999. It is further stated that one seat in the speciality of Medicine fell vacant on 17.3.1999 on account of the candidate who was selected and undergoing training left the studies by discounting the course. In view of the provisions contained in Clause 5.2.2 the respondents propose to advertise the same to make supplementary admission and it is further stated that the said course has already been commenced with effect from 30.12.1998. The further stand taken for the respondents in the reply is that such of those candidates who had the benefit of first counselling held on 16.12.1998 and the change over counselling held on 6.1.1999, have not been again given option in the subsequent counselling. At the time of re-counselling said to have been held on 18.1.1999 for the seats available as on that date the service candidates appear to have not chosen the specialities in which the seats were available though there were sufficient number of such service candidates in the merit-list, as a consequence of which in terms of Clause 3.2 of the Prospectus the respondents decided to allot the remaining courses to the direct category candidates strictly according to merit. It is reiterated for the respondents in the reply that those candidates, who have joined Postgraduate Degree/Diploma Courses on 30.12.1998 and who were allowed an opportunity to change over on 6.1.1999 were not called for recounselling thereafter for the reason that if they are allowed to change the specialities in mid session there would be no end or finality of the selection process. It is on this ground, the respondents tried to justify the procedure adopted by them in not calling the petitioner for counselling held on 18.1.1999 and subsequently thereafter. 3. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decisions reported in (1993) 3 SCC 332 (Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services and another); AIR 1996 AP 389 (K. Srinivasa Rao v. Convener, EAMCET-95, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad and others); (1998) 2 SCC 402 (Rajiv Mittalv. Maharshi Dayanand University and others) and (1998) 5 SCC 534 (Medical Entrance Problems Redressal Forum (Regd.) v. Director General Health Services and another) contended that the fact that the petitioner had appeared in the first counselling and got a course assigned or could not get it changed in the subsequent consideration, shall not stand in the way of the petitioner getting a change of the course as against the seats available, commensurate with the merit ranking of the petitioner and that, therefore, the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for subsequent counselling is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that some of the covetous and important courses which are now available for being filled up were not available for the petitioner so as to have exercised her choice in respect of the same either at the time of the first counselling held on 16.12.1998 or in the change over counselling held on 6.1.1999 and, therefore, the petitioner could neither be denied of the opportunity to exercise her option against the important courses available now for being filled up nor could the claim of the petitioner, vis-a-vis, her permit ranking be denied to her. Relying upon a catena of cases starting from the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1012 (Minor P. Rajendran and others v. State of Madras and others); (1984) 3 SCC 654 (Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others) and (1997) 3 SCC 90 (Dr. Relying upon a catena of cases starting from the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1012 (Minor P. Rajendran and others v. State of Madras and others); (1984) 3 SCC 654 (Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others) and (1997) 3 SCC 90 (Dr. Sadhna Devi and others v. State of UP. and others) etc., learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in respect of Postgraduate Degree/Diploma Courses admission by merit must be given prominent role and inasmuch as even the respondents have committed themselves to such a position, the fact that the petitioner had got a course assigned to her in the first counselling or could not make up for a change in the counselling held on 6.1.1999, the merit criteria could not be sacrificed, particularly when persons who are admitted to the courses have atleast already commenced their course unlike those to be admitted afresh and there is no justification therefore to deny the meritorious candidate, who has already got her admission in an insignificant course, being allowed to stake his claim and to be considered as against other important courses in the various disciplines which fell vacant and became available to direct candidates later, for the first time. 4. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit has contended that as an uniform principle such of those candidates who have been assigned courses and joined Post Graduate Degree /Diploma Courses on 30.12.1998 pursuant to the first counselling and who were given chance also to have a change over by the counselling on 6.1.1999, were not again called for re-counselling and, therefore, the action of the respondents could not be said to be in any way illegal or arbitrary or unreasonable, as alleged. Argued the learned Counsel for the respondents further that having regard to the provisions contained in Clause 5.2.2 of the Prospectus, the seats remaining unfilled within one month from the date of declaration of the result after the first counselling should be advertised by holding the supplementary examination and, therefore, the decision taken by the respondents to do so and adopt such course as stipulated in the Prospectus in respect of the Speciality of Medicine cannot be said to be illegal and on the other hand if only the request of the petitioner is to be acceded, it would amount to altering the stipulation contained in the Prospectus exposing the action of the respondents to challenge. It was also contended for the respondents that allowing frequent chances by giving options to the candidates, who got already admitted, during mid sessions, would result in a nebulous situation leaving no finality to the selection process itself and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner should not. be countenanced. 5. When the matter came up before this Court, notice has been ordered to the respondents and having regard to the paucity of time available in between the date of hearing of the matter and the date fixed for counselling, this Court permitted the respondents to proceed with the counselling fixed for 26.3.1999 as proposed with a direction that the final result therefor shall not be declared until further orders of this Court. On a final hearing of the matter, after filing a reply by the respondents, we are informed that the counselling, as proposed, took place on March 26, 1999 for three seats in Post Graduate Degree Courses and three seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses, though the results have not been announced in obedience to the directions of this Court. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. There is no controversy over the position and it is by now well settled that the admissions to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses has to be primarily on the basis of merit consideration giving predominant role to the merit performance of the competing candidates. Even in the reply this position is and has to be conceded by the respondents. There is no controversy over the position and it is by now well settled that the admissions to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses has to be primarily on the basis of merit consideration giving predominant role to the merit performance of the competing candidates. Even in the reply this position is and has to be conceded by the respondents. In view of the above, the only issue that requires to be considered is as to whether the stand taken for the respondents both in their reply as also at the time of hearing that all the candidates who have joined Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses on 30.12.1998 and who were allowed change over on 6.1.1999, need not be called for re-counselling thereafter, is a correct stand and can be justified. In our view, the stand taken for the respondents could be justified to be correct only if on the date of first counselling as also on the next date of counselling meant only for change over held on 6.1.1999, the petitioner or for that matter any other eligible direct category candidate, had the option to exercise his choice in respect of the courses, which are now proposed to be filled up excluding the petitioner and other similarly situated persons for the simple reason that they had their turn earlier and they need not be once over again offered a chance on the pretext and guise that the courses are in mid session. If a new candidate could be admitted in the mid of the session or course, we fail to see any reason or justification in denying the same opportunity to a candidate, who has already commenced his course in a different discipline, which only was available to him and at that point of time because he could atleast satisfy the requirement of attendance, which perhaps those who are to be admitted in the middle of the course for the first time may not be in a position to do without appropriate condonation. Consequently, we do not see the said stand taken for the respondents to be justifiable. Further, the petitioner and similarly situated persons though possessed the required merit ranking could if at all be denied relief in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if only they were shown to be at fault initially in not exercising their option properly and in time. Further, the petitioner and similarly situated persons though possessed the required merit ranking could if at all be denied relief in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if only they were shown to be at fault initially in not exercising their option properly and in time. It is not in controversy, on facts, in this case at any rate, that the important and prestigious courses, which are now sought to be filled up by the counselling on 26.3.1999 without giving a chance of choice to the petitioner and similarly situated persons, were not available to be filled up with a direct recruit candidates for admission and such courses became available for the first time after 18.1.1999 either for the reason that the service candidates who are otherwise eligible, did not opt for getting admitted to these courses or that anybody, who has been already selected has not joined such courses or discontinued such courses. That was to be also after 6.1.1999 and apparently on or after 18.1.1999 only. Therefore, the petitioner in this case or persons similarly situated could not legitimately be faulted or denied of their legitimate chances to participate in the counselling and stake their claim with other candidates, who are now called for the first time who perhaps by virtue of their less meritorious ranking could not be earlier called for counselling. Accepting the stand taken for the respondents in this case would amount to putting a premium on less meritorious candidates because they could not initially come in the range of selection by being conferred with the boon of being selected against important and prestigious courses now fallen vacant, to the detriment of meritorious candidates. In (1998) 2 SCC 402 (supra), while dealing with a claim for admission in University courses, it has been observed as hereunder : "The people standing in the queue reserve or book their seats out of those which are available according to their preference. Once the chart fills up the booking closes. Only sometimes, if tickets are returned they may be reissued. But once the dramatic performance starts no one is allowed to enter. Similarly counselling for seats to medical colleges must stop once the courses of study commence." 7. Once the chart fills up the booking closes. Only sometimes, if tickets are returned they may be reissued. But once the dramatic performance starts no one is allowed to enter. Similarly counselling for seats to medical colleges must stop once the courses of study commence." 7. The exception in this case is as we indicated, that not only the petitioner and similarly situated candidates had no option to prefer or exercise their choice with reference to the courses in question now available for the first time and which have fallen vacant subsequently, but by virtue of their merit ranking they have a preferential right to choice once the vacancies are found to arise particularly when an opportunity is proposed to be given to less meritorious candidates. If only the respondents have chosen not to resort to counselling after the commencement of course of study, we would not have compelled them to undertake the counselling, but the respondents have now undertaken to call for counselling on 26.3.1999 the candidates who could not be called earlier for the courses in question. The question is whether the petitioner and similarly placed persons who have better and higher ranking could be denied of the benefit of such counselling, which was held on 26.3.1999. Our answer has already been in the negative that they could not be so denied. 8. So far as the claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the course pertaining to Medicine which has fallen vacant on 17.3.1999 by discontinuance of studies of the student who got admitted after due selection, the respondents, in our view, are right in placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Clause 5.2.2, and no infirmity, whatsoever, could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard, as the Prospectus and the stipulations contained therein stand. We do not propose to interfere with the course of action that has been resolved to be adopted in respect of the seat pertaining to said course. If only the same course of action was sought to be adopted for the other seats at the appropriate point of time, this Court might not have interferred with the decision of the respondents but it is only the respondents who were prepared to show some indulgence by offering to hold a third counselling, which necessitated the directions being given on the earlier occasion. 9. 9. For all the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled to the relief in the following terms : 10. The petitioner and persons similarly placed, who are desirous of exercising their option to the courses, which will be for three seats in Post Graduate Degree Courses and three seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses, in respect of which counselling was held on 26.3.1999 by excluding the petitioner and similarly situated persons, may also be considered before declaring the result, which has been directed to be withheld pending further orders in this writ petition. 11. This direction will not apply to the course in Medicine with reference to the seat fallen vacant on 17.3.1999, which has been proposed to be dealt with by the respondents under Clause 5.2.2 of the Prospectus. 12. Before parting with the case, we are contrained to observe that it is better to improvise the Prospectus as well as the method of selection to avoid such problems and it would be equally better to strictly adhere to the Prospectus and the schedule for admissions stipulated in the Prospectus. 13. The writ petition shall stand ordered, accordingly on the above terms. No costs. CMP No. 172 of 1999 14. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the present application is also disposed of. Petition allowed.