JUDGMENT 1. :- The sole controversy in this writ petition is whether a candidate who although had failed to appear on the appointed date of counselling in order to avail a seat in a particular course as per the merit, can be denied a seat even in further counselling in which he participated alongwith the candidates of the waiting list who were lower in merit. 2. The petitioner who has raised the aforesaid controversy in this writ petition is a candidate bearing Roll No. 7200 who had appeared for Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test 2002 and secured 654 marks out of 900. Thus he had qualified for the counselling and interview for allotment of a seat as per his merit position and was directed to appear for the same on 25th September 2002. The petitioner admittedly failed to appear for the counselling on the said date for personal reasons. The seats for the B.D.S. Course however did not get exhausted on the said date and hence a further counselling was scheduled to be held on 4th October 2002. On 4th October 2002 the petitioner appeared for the counselling but the counselling was postponed by the Convenor, Central UG Admission Board, who is respondent No.2 herein, and another date was fixed for counselling which was 14th October 2002. The petitioner in pursuance of the direction of the authorities appeared again for the counselling for the purpose of seeking a seat for the Dental Course as per his merit on 14th October 2002 but on this date he was refused a seat for the Dental Course. On enquiry he was informed that he was not eligible for a seat for the Dental Course as he had failed to appear on 25th September 2002 when the date t,as fixed for the counselling. It was also informed to the petitioner that 14th October 2002 was the date on which the candidates from the waiting list were to be considered for admission and the petitioner had already missed his chance to obtain a seat in a Dental College. The petitioner for obvious reason felt aggrieved with this repl as he would have been deprived of a seat in the Dental College and hence he fied this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in the interview for admission to B.D.S. Course in Pacific Dental College at Udaipur on payment seat. 3. The petitioner for obvious reason felt aggrieved with this repl as he would have been deprived of a seat in the Dental College and hence he fied this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in the interview for admission to B.D.S. Course in Pacific Dental College at Udaipur on payment seat. 3. After a preliminary hearing of this writ petition a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.10.2002 issued show cause notice to the respondents and further directed that a seat in the B.D.S. Course in Pacific Dental College at Udaipur be allowed to remain vacant till 17.10.2002. It is informed that this seat is still lying vacant in view of the order of this Court. 4. After service of show cause notice to the respondents Mr. Rafiq-Addl. Advocate General appeared for the State of Rajasthan and the Convenor Central UG Admission Board, Principal & Controller of SMS Medical College and Attached Hospitals-Jaipur and justified the action of the respondents who had denied a seat to the petitioner solely on the ground that he had failed to appear for the counselling on the appointed date i.e. 25th September 2002. It was contended by him that as per the admission procedure, if a student fails to turn up for the counselling, he loses his chance to appear in further counselling as the unfilled seats have to be made available to be candidates of the waiting list even though they are having less marks than the candidate who had failed to appear earlier but appeared on the subsequent counselling. 5. Thus it is apparent that the question which falls for consideration is whether a candidate who although had failed to appear on the date fixed for counselling in order to avail a seat in a particular course as per his merit, can be denied a seat even in further counselling. The answer in my view is clearly in the negative as the purpose of the counselling for admission is specifically to assess the merit of the candidate as per the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination and thereafter to allot a seat to him as per his position on the merit list. The answer in my view is clearly in the negative as the purpose of the counselling for admission is specifically to assess the merit of the candidate as per the marks obtained by him in the qualifying examination and thereafter to allot a seat to him as per his position on the merit list. The petitioner no doubt was directed to appear for the counselling on 25th September 2002 but if he failed to turn up to obtain a seat on that date, denial of a seat cannot be allowed to be challenged by the petitioner if any candidate on the said date having lower percentage than the petitioner is allowed to avail a seat. But that does not mean that it will shut the doors for admission into the Course for such candidates even in further and future counselling. It is clearly obvious that subsequent counselling are meant to fill the unfilled seats and that has to be done as per the marks obtained by the candidates who participates in the subsequent counselling on a particular date. The petitioner admittedly has secured 654 marks and he had also appeared for the subsequent counselling-on 4th October 2002 which was postponed to 14th October 2002 and was keen to get a seat on the said date. On this date if other candidates including the candidates on the waiting list were having lower marks than the petitioner which is an admitted position in this case, the authorities had absolutely no logical or legal reason to inform the petitioner that he was not eligible for a seat merely because he had failed to appear in the previous counselling which was 25th September 2002. The petitioner no doubt could not have been allowed to raise a grievance that persons of lower merit could not have been granted a seat on 25th September 2002 i.e. on the date when the petitioner had failed to turn up for the counselling but that position would not be allowed to prevail on the date of the subsequent counselling as is the case in the instant matter. On 14th October 2002 the petitioner was a candidate of higher merit than those who were on the waiting list and therefore the admission authorities were legally bound to offer a seat to the candidate who was having higher marks than the other candidates. On 14th October 2002 the petitioner was a candidate of higher merit than those who were on the waiting list and therefore the admission authorities were legally bound to offer a seat to the candidate who was having higher marks than the other candidates. It is perhaps needless to mention that the candidates on the waiting list obviously would be eligible for a seat for admission into the course only after all the candidates of higher merit have been granted a chance to seek admission on the date of counselling who have participated in it. In this case, the petitioner at least is one such candidate who was higher in merit than the other candidates on the waiting list and therefore a seat could not have been denied to him on 14th October 2002 merely for the reason that he had not turned up for the counselling earlier on 25th September 2002. The situation which was existing on 25th September 2002 was gone-by story and the petitioner very much appeared and presented himself for counselling on 14th October, 2002 which was also the date of counselling for admission and on this date if he was having higher merit than the other candidates from the waiting list who had appeared and participated in the counselling, the petitioner obviously was eligible to get admission into the Course. This was the only right and just course which should have been adopted by the respondent-authorities and that having not been done, a direction to keep a seat vacant was only in the fitness of things. One seat was therefore, rightly directed to be kept vacant to be filled later and now that the matter has been analysed and scrutinised, it is considered just, appropriate and legal to direct the respondents to offer a seat to the petitioner in the Pacific Dental College at Udaipur which is the College wherein seats were available in the B.D.S. Course on 14th October, 2002. Hence the respondents are directed to grant admission to the petitioner in the B.D.S. Course in Pacific Dental College at Udaipur as soon as he presents himself but not later than a period of 15 days after completing the formalities against payment seat which he has prayed for. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, but in the circumstance, without any order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******