Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner seeks relief in the writ petition of admission in the engineering college wherever the seat is vacant. ( 2. ) THE petitioner cleared the Pre-Engineering Test conducted by the Professional Examination Board of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal in the year 2001. The minimum qualification required for appearing the examination is that the candidate must have passed 12th Class under 10 + 2 system of examination. The petitioner appeared in 12th Class examination in the year 2001. The petitioner submits that he cleared the test and was sent call letter for counselling, but, in spite of clearing the examination of 12th in supplementary before the date fixed for counselling. The petitioner was not given admission, thus, the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner admission in engineering college is illegal and arbitrary. ( 3. ) THE respondent No. 2 in the reply contends that the petitioner was not eligible as he could not clear class 12th examination in the main examination. He was awarded supplementary. As per Clause 4. 4. 1. 1 of the Conduct of Examination and Admission Rules framed by the Professional Examination Board for the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh joint examination, it was clearly provided that the student who appears in qualifying examination in the year 2001, and is unable to clear it in the main examination and is awarded supplementary, shall not be entitled/eligible for admission. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of such a condition in Clause 4. 4. 1. 1 is illegal and arbitrary. Since the petitioner had cleared the examination before the date of counselling. The counselling was held on 12-9-2001 whereas the examination was cleared in August, 2001. The mark-sheet (Annexure P-3) clearing supplementary was issued on 14-8-2001. Thus, he was eligible before the date of counselling. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been admitted. There is infringement of right under Articles 14 and 21 inasmuch as the petitioner has been deprived of his right of education, which is the fundamental right. ( 5. ) SHRI S. K. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner is bound by the eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules which cannot be departed to. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, Rule 4. 4. 1. ( 5. ) SHRI S. K. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner is bound by the eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules which cannot be departed to. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, Rule 4. 4. 1. 1 is clear which requires an incumbent to clear the main examination and an incumbent who is awarded supplementary is not eligible. Since the rule framed is clear about the eligibility which criteria cannot be said to be arbitrary. It cannot be said that rule has the effect of unfairly depriving the petitioner from his eligibility. Passing in supplementary examination may some time delay the selection procedure by Board with that view it appears that rule has been framed for passing in the main examination itself which cannot be said to be arbitrary or oppressive or taking away fundamental right of petitioner, it is a restriction in the interest of education itself and to prevent delaying of admission on passing the eligibility exam on supplementary. ( 7. ) I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Costs on parties.