JUDGMENT 1. The merit has been converted into demerit. This is the basis of the plea put across by the appellant in the present appeal preferred under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. He submits that notwithstanding the fact that his merit was higher than the other candidate belonging to the same category, he has been denied the discipline of his choice. He submits that notwithstanding the fact that the process was initiated more than a year ago he can still be granted the relief. According to the appellant, in the first academic year the Course of Study is common in all the disciplines. The change takes place in the second academic year. 2. So far as this factual position is concerned both sides are agreed. The dispute is regarding the main issue. This be noticed as under: - 3. The appellant applied for the Course of Bachelor of Engineering in Computer. This was his first preference. His second preference was Electronics and Communication Branch. The preference which was last of all was in Mechanical Engineering. This aspect of the matter has been adverted to in para 4 of the writ petition. The appellant submits that he had applied under Scheduled Caste category He had secured 109 marks and came in the open merit category at SI. No. 322. It is submitted that one Namrata Karlupia respondent No. 7 secured 99 marks. He was also selected in the open category but was considered for admission under Scheduled Caste category to which he belonged and was given the discipline of his choice. It is thus submitted that the appellant having applied under Scheduled Caste category and having secured 109 marks should have been considered for admission to a discipline of his choice i.e. which was his first preference under the above said category. It is accordingly submitted that by considering his case in the open merit category, he has been deprived of the benefit which has been given to others. 4. It is this factual position which was projected in the writ petition. His writ petition was opposed by the competent authority. The opposition was on the ground that the appellant writ petitioner having come high in the open category, was required to be considered in this category also. His merit was not required to be examined vis-a-vis Scheduled Caste candidates. It is this factual position which was projected in the writ petition. His writ petition was opposed by the competent authority. The opposition was on the ground that the appellant writ petitioner having come high in the open category, was required to be considered in this category also. His merit was not required to be examined vis-a-vis Scheduled Caste candidates. Reference in this regard has been made to R. 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules popularly known as SRO 126 of 1994. It is submitted that this Rule stands clarified by Circular No. 03-GAD of 1999 dt. 19th March, 1999. What is sought to be urged is that as the appellants name came in the open merit category, therefore. whatever discipline was available in this category has been given to him. He cannot contend that he in his capacity as Scheduled Caste candidate be judged vis-a-vis other candidates belonging to the same category. 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court examined the contentions put across by both the sides. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant was rightly considered in the open category and has been rightly allocated the discipline. It is this view which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 6. The facts have already been noticed above. These may again be summarized.- i. The appellant submitted his application for being considered for admission for Bachelor of Engineering in Computer: ii. He applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate; iii. The first preference given by him was for the Course of Bachelor of Engineering in Computer, the second preference was for Electronics and Communication and the third was for Mechanical Engineering; iv. The appellant obtained 109 marks and came at SI. No. 322 of the list in the. open category; v. He was allotted the discipline which was available to him in the Open category and this is the Mechanical Engineering; vi. In this category (Scheduled Caste), respondent No. 7 who got lesser merit than the appellant was given the discipline of Bachelor of Engineering in Computer; vii. That respondent No. 7 who got 99 mark in the Open category was considered for admission alongwith the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category and was also allotted the discipline of his choice i.e. Bachelor of Engineering in Computers; viii. That respondent No. 7 who got 99 mark in the Open category was considered for admission alongwith the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category and was also allotted the discipline of his choice i.e. Bachelor of Engineering in Computers; viii. That the appellant even though having applied under the category of Scheduled Caste was considered for admission under Open merit category and was not allotted the discipline of his choice. 7. Another factor which is required to be taken note of is that the list of selected candidates was notified in the Daily Excelsior on 27th Aug., 1999. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1996 SC 1378, Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others. Particular reliance is being placed on the observations made by the Supreme Court which are to the effect that the provisions should be so made that these should not work out to the disadvantage of such a candidate and he should not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than other less meritorious candidate. It was observed that the aforementioned objective can be achieved after finding out a candidate from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit and then asking their option for admission into different colleges which have been kept reserve for reserved categories and thereafter the case of less meritorious candidates should be considered and they should be allotted seats in whichever colleges these are available. These very observations were taken note of by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition but he came to the conclusion that it is difficult to hold that even where a person is shifted to open merit category from a reserved category, he will have some preference as he offered in the reserved category. 9. We are of the opinion that whatever was observed by the Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned case is clear. It is that while fitting a candidate of the reserved category in the open merit category, his option for admission has also to be taken note of. In the present case, the appellant had given his option for the Course of Bachelor of Computer Engineering. It is that while fitting a candidate of the reserved category in the open merit category, his option for admission has also to be taken note of. In the present case, the appellant had given his option for the Course of Bachelor of Computer Engineering. If his merit was to be determined in the open merit then not only his position in the merit list but also as to whether he was entitled to a particular discipline as per his choice was also required to be gone into. It is the combination of these two factors which would determine the merit of the appellant What has happened in this case is the that only one side of the picture has been kept in view and the other side which deals with the option regarding the discipline has been totally ignored. It is here where injustice has been caused to the appellant. This conclusion of our would find support from the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. The interpretation which is sought to be placed would work out and as a matter of fact, has worked out to the disadvantage of the appellant and this precisely what is not supposed to happen. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents urges that the Rule has to be read as it is and unless and until the rule is declared as arbitrary or ultravires of the Constitution, no relief can be granted to the appellant. 11. We are of the opinion that there is no inconsistency in the rule in question. The only question is as to how this rule has to be implemented while determining the merit position which a particular candidate obtains and his choice of discipline is required to be taken note of. In the case which was there before the Supreme Court, it was the choice regarding colleges, here it is the choice about the discipline. By taking into consideration this fact or the appellant who came low in the open merit category, was definitely entitled to the benefit of being considered against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste for the purpose of choice of his discipline under which he had applied. This has not happened in this case. By taking into consideration this fact or the appellant who came low in the open merit category, was definitely entitled to the benefit of being considered against the reserved category of Scheduled Caste for the purpose of choice of his discipline under which he had applied. This has not happened in this case. Accordingly, we are of the view: - i. That the appellant having obtained 109 marks and he having opted for the course of Bachelor of Computer Engineer, his merit should have been determined by taking into consideration the discipline offered by him; ii. That in case his merit was low in the open merit category, then he was entitled to the benefit of being considered under Scheduled Caste category under which he had applied and should have been considered for the discipline as offered by him. 12. Before parting with this case, reference may be made to the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477. Particular reliance was placed by the learned counsel for appellant on a paragraph wherein it has been observed that if a candidate in the reserved category can come and compete in the open merit category, then he is required to be adjusted in the open category. There is no dispute with this proposition. Had the petitioner come in the open merit category and had obtained the merit in the discipline to which he was seeking admission, then the observations on which reliance is being placed by the respondents would have applied. The situation in this case is different. The appellant in the present case, as indicated above, could not come high up in the open merit category and was therefore, required to be considered under the category of Scheduled Caste to which he belonged and under which category he had applied. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to the course of Bachelor of Computer Engineering. No doubt, this might lead to the displacement of respondent No. 7, but then if on the plain reading of the Rules and Regulations, this consequence ensues, then the appellant cannot be put to a dis-advantageous position. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to the course of Bachelor of Computer Engineering. No doubt, this might lead to the displacement of respondent No. 7, but then if on the plain reading of the Rules and Regulations, this consequence ensues, then the appellant cannot be put to a dis-advantageous position. It is, however, observed that if the respondents can keep the discipline of respondent No. 7 intact, they would be at liberty to do so, but this would not be at the cost of appellant. 13. Disposed of as such in the manner indicated above.