ORDER : Brijesh Kumar, J. Leave granted. 2. The controversy relates to the change of the discipline in the second year of Engineering course as per Rule 3.6(xvii). According to the said rule, a student after having completed first year of the Engineering course could opt for another discipline which is to be considered strictly on merit of the first-year examination result. Another condition is that the change will not be allowed exceeding 5% of the strength of that discipline. It is also indicated that change shall be effected immediately after commencement of the third semester. 3. The respondent herein who was pursuing his studies in Civil Engineering, on completion of the first-year course, applied for change to Mechanical Engineering. Others also applied, namely, one Nisha Sharma and Pooja Trivedi. They have been allowed the change but not the respondent herein. The respondent preferred a writ petition in the High Court. 4. The High Court after some discussion of the matter ultimately permitted the change on the basis that looking to the total strength of the students which was 45, 5% would come to 2.5 which may be rounded off to 3. Taking into account the fact that in the previous year in somewhat similar situation three students were permitted the change, the said order was passed. 5. We find it difficult to uphold the reasoning adopted by the High Court by rounding off 2.5 to 3. At this stage, it will also be relevant to mention that the learned counsel for both the parties agree that 5% of 45 would come to 2.25 and not 2.5. We, therefore, do not approve of the rounding off as done by the High Court. 6. Insofar as the change permitted to other students is concerned, it is submitted that Nisha Sharma was a student for the session 2000-2001. She had dropped in that year and appeared in the session 2001-2002 along with the respondent. It is submitted that having not undertaken the examination in the previous session, she should be held to have lost her right for change in the seats available for change for the session 2001-2002. So far as the change permitted to Pooja Trivedi is concerned, it is submitted, which is also not denied, that the result of the first year was declared in June 2002. The respondent, it is informed, stood first in Civil Engineering discipline. So far as the change permitted to Pooja Trivedi is concerned, it is submitted, which is also not denied, that the result of the first year was declared in June 2002. The respondent, it is informed, stood first in Civil Engineering discipline. Pooja Trivedi could not clear her second semester, that is to say, she had failed, but as per the rules she was permitted to undertake supplementary examination. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the result of the supplementary examination was declared in July 2002. As a result of this supplementary examination, Pooja Trivedi cleared her first-year course and also secured better marks as compared to the respondent. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the respondent that the merit obtained after undertaking the supplementary examination should not be taken into account, rather the merit on the basis of the result declared in June 2002 should be taken into account. In view of the facts indicated above, it is submitted that the respondent will have a preferential right to be accommodated in the other discipline, namely, Mechanical Engineering. 7. Even if the submissions made are considered favourably, there is yet another hurdle since the course of study of the third semester has already come to an end and the examinations are scheduled to start from 12-2-2003. It is also indicated that according to the provisions for relaxation of attendance, it cannot be relaxed more than 10%. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent would be ready to undertake the examination at his own risk. We feel that it would not be appropriate to give permission to appear in the third semester of Mechanical Engineering without undergoing the course of study prescribed for the third semester. 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the respondent had stood first in merit in the first year of Civil Engineering, we provide that his case for change to Mechanical Engineering may be considered for the next year provided he is prepared to forgo the second year of the course of Civil Engineering and start with the third semester in the Mechanical Engineering as given out on his behalf by the learned counsel appearing for him. The merit of the respondent as secured in the first-year examination shall be taken into account while considering his case for change of discipline along with the merit of other students who may apply for such a change. 10. The appeal stands finally disposed of in the manner indicated above.