ORDER : The petitioner appeared for Educational Common Entrance Test 2002 (EdCET-2002), She got 1108 rank, and she was admitted to B.Ed., in Yarra Krishna Murthy College of Education, Maripivalasa, Sitanagaram Mandal. Vizianagaram District. She paid requisite fee, submitted her original certificates and joined B.Ed. course. 2. Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education (APSCHE) issued notification in the newspapers informing all the concerned that National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has sanctioned some new B.Ed., Colleges for the academic year 2002-2003, that the Government have decided to fill up seats in the new colleges and applications were invited. A rider was added in the Notification in bold letters to the effect that candidates who have already taken admission in any one of the existing colleges are not eligible for admission into the newly sanctioned B.Ed., colleges. The petitioner who believes that she would get a better seat in one of the new colleges, wanted to apply pursuant to the Notification issued by APSCHE. By reason of the clause prohibiting admitted candidates from applying, the petitioner cannot be considered. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Notification referred to hereinabove insofar as the same disqualifies already admitted B.Ed., candidates from appearing counselling as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Venkatram Reddy raised two contentions. First, he contends that the clause disqualifying admitted candidates for admission into newly sanctioned B.Ed. colleges is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He elaborates that all the candidates, who appeared for EdCET-2002 are one class and therefore there cannot be any invidious classification. Secondly, it is contended that the same is arbitrary to Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed. Course through Common Entrance Test), Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called, the Rules). 4. Insofar as the submission based on Article 14 is concerned, it is axiomatic that the classification of persons and things is permissible, provided it satisfies the twin-tests of classification; rationality test and nexus test. A classification must have discernible principle having some relation or nexus sought to be achieved. Classification must be rational, in that, it should not result in arbitrariness to those who are left out of the classification. A classification must have discernible principle having some relation or nexus sought to be achieved. Classification must be rational, in that, it should not result in arbitrariness to those who are left out of the classification. The admitted B.Ed., candidates, by no imagination, can be classified with those who are not admitted by the date of issue of Notification by APSCHE. The new Colleges admissions' were thrown open only for those candidates who could not get admission in earlier counselling. The object sought to be achieved has nexus with the classification made of those candidates who are not admitted. I do not find any irrationality in the same. Further, the petitioner by seeking a direction to include category to which the petitioner belongs is virtually asking this Court to admit such class of persons to new colleges. It is not permissible to do so under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that excessive classification can be struck down by this Court, but in a case of under-inclusion no such direction can be granted by this Court to include left out persons as it amounts to legislating (See B. Meenakshi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh : 2002 2 ALT 356 ). 5. Insofar as second contention is concerned, a reference to sub-rules (1) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules is necessary which read as under.9. Allotment of candidates for admission: (1) Candidates who have secured higher ranks at the Entrance Test will be called for an interview in the order of merit for selection and allotment of institutions, namely, Government, Campus/Constituent Colleges of Universities and Private. For the convenience of the candidates, representatives of all the Universities concerned and Principals of all the Colleges of education shall sit at a common table. For the convenience of the candidates, representatives of all the Universities concerned and Principals of all the Colleges of education shall sit at a common table. As and when each candidate gets his turn for interview in the order of merit, choice of institution will be given to him depending upon availability at that point of time with due regard to the eligibility of the candidate for a seat in a particular local area for a particular reserved-unreserved category.(2) ...........(3) .........(4) The selection of candidates and allotment of institutions in respect of the private colleges including those administrated by minority communities, shall also be solely on the basis of merit as adjudged by the rank obtained in the Entrance Test subject to the condition that the candidates should have passed the qualifying examination, with the minimum marks prescribed for the Entrance Test. However, mere appearance at the entrance test and obtaining of high rank in the merit list does not entitle candidate to be considered for admission automatically into any institution unless he also satisfies the rules and regulations of admission prescribed by the concerned University and the Government including marks to be obtained in the qualifying examination. 6. A reading of sub-rules (1) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules would show that admission to B.Ed., course does not by itself confer any right on a person to seek re-admission in B.Ed. If this is extended to its logical end, a person who pursuant to his/her rank is admitted to B.Ed., during first year counselling in relation to seats available as on the date losses any right to seek admission in second counselling. The admission programme is a time bound programme, and if shifting and re-shifting, allotting and re-allotting of students, who already admitted, is resorted, there cannot be any end and the same would ultimately result in lowering academic standards. Therefore, the classification is justified even in the background of Rule 9 of the Rules. 7. For the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.