ORDER S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging refusal by the authorities to permit the Petitioner from appearing in the counselling for admission to the post-graduate medical Course in Madhya Pradesh 2. Petitioner Ritwik Pandey appeared on 3.1 199- in All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate Medical Course conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, This examination is conducted as per directives of the Supreme Court of India for admission to 25% seats of various post graduate Courses in the country. This examination is governed by the Rules and Regulations made by Government of India (hereinafter to be referred to as All India Rules). The Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 310 in the merit list of the successful candidates. He appeared in all India counselling at New Delhi on 9.3.1999. He was allotted a scat in the S.S. Medical College. Rewa in Madhya Pradesh in Paediatrics Course. He did not join the course The Petitioner had also appeared in the examination for entrance to post graduate Course as per M.P. Medical and Dental Post-Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred to as M.P. Rules) This examination was conducted on 24.1.1999. The result was declared on 11.3.99. The Petitioner secured 4th rank in order of merit in the general category. The Petitioner was called for counselling on 12.4.1999 at Bhopal He was, however, not permitted to appear in the counselling and it was adjourned The representation made by the Petitioner has been rejected by Respondent No. 2. 3. Rule 3(VI) (iv) of the M.P. Rules is as under: Rule 3 M.D./M.S. and Diploma Courses (VI) : Eligibility Criteria: (iv) . A person admitted to any postgraduate course in Madhya Pradesh in previous year who has not completed the postgraduation course is not eligible to take the examination up to three years from the date of his previous admission. The candidates who were allotted postgraduate seat in Madhya Pradesh at the time of counselling for which candidate agreed but later did not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of Madhya Pradesh arc not eligible to take the examination upto three years from the date of previous conselling. 4. The argument of the Petitioner is two-fold. The candidates who were allotted postgraduate seat in Madhya Pradesh at the time of counselling for which candidate agreed but later did not join the course in particular subject in Medical College of Madhya Pradesh arc not eligible to take the examination upto three years from the date of previous conselling. 4. The argument of the Petitioner is two-fold. Firstly the said Rule would apply to those candidates who were allotted post graduate scats in Madhya Pradesh before year 1999 and secondly, the said Rule is not applicable to him as he was not allotted any post graduate scat for which examination was conducted as per M.P. Rules. In other words, the contention of the Petitioner is that he cannot be denied admission against the seats for which the examination was held according to M.P. Rules and his failure to avail the seat which was allotted to him in the Medical College of Madhya Pradesh as per All India rules docs not come in his way to appear in the counselling for admission against the seats available as per M.P. Rules. It is also submitted that the word "Counselling" in the said rule docs not cover "all India counselling" and it means the "counselling" as per M.P. rules. 5. The arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents and the intervenor are that the candidate who has been allotted post graduate seat in Madhya Pradesh in all India counselling is not eligible to appear in the counselling as per M.P. rules for three years and this restriction would apply to the candidates coming from both the sources. 6. In order to appreciate the first point raised on behalf of the Petitioner it has to be borne in mind that the M.P. Rules for admission the post graduate courses arc framed every' year. It was not disputed during the course of arguments It is also borne out from the record that at least for the last four years i.e. from the year 1996 these rules are being framed every year A copy of the M.P. rules for 1999 is Annexure P-2. The date on which these x rules came into force is not specifically mentioned therein. The date on which these x rules came into force is not specifically mentioned therein. The examination was conducted on 24.1 99 and therefore it can be presumed that these rules must have been framed before that date Now the language and the words used in the rule in question should be seen. The past tense has been used in place of the present tense The first limb of the rule clearly provide that a person admitted to any postgraduate course in Madhya Pradesh in "previous year" is not eligible to take the examination up to three years. The second limb of the rule does not use the words previous year but the use of the words 'were', 'agreed', 'did' and previous counselling' in the second part furnish the answer to the meaning which is to be assigned to this part. The use of these words and the past tense in the sentence clearly go to show that it does not cover the counselling of the year 1999 but of previous years. That would be of the year 1998 or backwards. As already stated, the rules were framed before 24.1.1999 and if it was contemplated that the counselling of the year 1999 is also to be covered by the second part of the rule the present tense would have been used while drafting that part. A plain reading of both the parts of the rule admits no doubt that the bar which is created is of the 'counselling' held prior to the year 1999. The candidates who were either actually admitted or who were even allotted the scats prior to the year 1999 were rendered ineligible to seek admission in the year 1999. That is the simple grammatical meaning of the rule. That plain meaning is sought to be rendered ambiguous by fitting into it a matter which was alien to this rule when it was framed. 7. So far as the second point raised by the Petitioner is concerned it has to be kept in mind that 75% seats are to be filled in by M.P. Rules and 25% by All India Rules. The two sources are distinct covered by different set of rules. In the M.P. Rules there is no reference at all to All India rules. The two sources are distinct covered by different set of rules. In the M.P. Rules there is no reference at all to All India rules. It is not clearly spelt out in the rule which is subject matter of interpretation that the candidates who are allotted seats in Madhya Pradesh on the basis of all India counselling would not be eligible. If the intention was to debar them also that ought to have been expressed in unmistakable language. The Petitioner is right in contending that the word 'counselling' used in the second part of the rule refers to counselling as per M.P. rules. The all India counselling covered by the Central rules cannot be imported and engrafted in the word 'counselling' used in this rule It is not shown that there was any conscious decision after due deliberation by the Government or concerned authorities to exclude the candidates who were allotted seats in M.P. on the basis of all India counselling from seeking admission against the seats covered by M.P. rules 8. The object of the rule and the mischief which was sought to be remedied must also be considered The postgraduate course is of three years duration If a candidate is allotted a seat under M.P. rules and he does not join it that seat may go waste if he is permitted to take another seat in the next year. It is to suppress this evil that the rule in question has been framed. There is no likelihood of the All India seat remaining vacant if a candidate docs not utilise it as that reverts back to the State quota for being allotted to some other candidate. Therefore, the object and purpose of the rule could not be to debar an All India candidate from appearing in the counselling seeking admission from M.P. quota if he is otherwise eligible. 9. The rule in question is of penal nature and restrictive of the fundamental and legal rights of a citizen. It has to be construed strictly and if two constructions are possible the Court has to adopt that interpretation which does not affect those rights. The right of the Petitioner is in jeopardy and therefore the rule has to be interpreted in his favour. It has to be construed strictly and if two constructions are possible the Court has to adopt that interpretation which does not affect those rights. The right of the Petitioner is in jeopardy and therefore the rule has to be interpreted in his favour. The law has been summed up in these words by Justice G.P. Singh in his book on Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 7th Edition at page 640: If the prohibitory words are reasonably capable of having a wider as also a narrower meaning and if there, is no indication in the statute or in its policy or object that the words were used in the wider sense, they would be given the narrower meaning. 10. The Respondents themselves have placed that interpretation on this rule consistently for many years which the Petitioner is seeking in the present case That was not disputed during the course of arguments. It is difficult to understand the somersault taken by the Respondents this year. The candidates who appear in such examination are not possessed of the legal knowledge to interpret the rules nor are they expected to take legal advice before appearing for the counselling. They are generally governed by the past practices and the views of the authorities who are entrusted with the administration. Therefore there cannot be a sudden switch over. The rights of the candidates cannot be taken away by such unusual interpretative process. The bright future of a brilliant candidate cannot be rendered bleak in such manner. The candidates need real counselling and they should not be hoodwinked in the name of the counselling. This is a serious matter. The candidates should not be placed on the horns on dilemma. If by opting an All India Seat he is to be disabled from seeking admission under M.P. rules then the least which is expected is that the result of the examination under M.P. rules should be declared before the All India Counselling commences so that the candidate may take a proper decision The authorities should for a moment examine the problem from the point of view of the candidates and take an objective decision. The candidates should not be confronted with Hobson's choice. They should not be made to gamble. The candidates should not be confronted with Hobson's choice. They should not be made to gamble. If the result of the examination under the M.P. rules cannot be declared before all India counselling how the candidate would be able to decide which route he should adopt. It would be an act of arbitrariness to deprive the candidate the opportunity to appear in the counselling under M.P. rules if he has qualified in that examination simply because he has taken a decision on the basis of all India result to opt for a seat at a time when the M.P. result is not known to him. That is the raison-detre that the rule was never interpreted in the manner it has been done this year. 11. The learned Counsel for the Intervenor has raised certain peripheral points which are not very relevant The form and the language of the affidavit' which a candidate is required to submit before the counselling was read over That would not alter the construction of the rule. That does not lead to a different conclusion. It is also pointed that the first counselling is over and now for the second counselling the candidates have been wait-listed and they should have been impleaded as parties to this petition. Their rights arc inchoate and they have no right to oppose the present petition. They need not be impleaded as parties. 12. It appears that irreparable damage has been done to the Petitioner. The only way to give him some succour is to issue a direction to call him as first candidate in the second (next) counselling as he is having 4th rank and the candidates having ranks higher to him have already been granted admission. 13. This petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to call the Petitioner as first candidate in the second (next) counselling and allot him the scat of his choice if he is willing to accept it. The benefit of this order shall be given to all the similarly circumstanced candidates.