D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in not giving admission into B. Ed. , course for the academic year 2002-2003 in the 5th respondent-college on different grounds. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner obtained the rank of 12526 in the Ed. CET-2002. He submitted an application on 13-1-2002 to the District education Officer, Medak at Sangareddy (for short "the DEO") for admission into b. Ed. , course for the academic year 2002- 2003 in the 5th respondent-college at siddipet, Medak District, as per the authorization given by the Government of andhra Pradesh under G. O. Ms. No. 150 minorities Welfare (Mandr) Department, dated 11-8-2000, and the same had been forwarded to the 5th respondent-college. The applications were scrutinized and the merit list had been displayed in the notice board of the 5th respondent-college on 20-1-2003. After such display of merit list, selections were commenced in three phases i. e. , on 22-1-2003, 27-1-2003 and 29-1-2003. The petitioner could not get the seat. Therefore, challenging the action of the 5th respondent- college in not giving a seat in spite of the fact that the petitioner would have got a seat as per his rank in the Ed. CET-2002, he filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI K. S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the merit card issued by the convener, Ed. CET-2002, he filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI K. S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the merit card issued by the convener, Ed. CET-2002 was not enclosed along with the application and this deficiency/ defect could have been rectified by the authorities of 5th respondent-college; secondly that the DEO, Medak at sangareddy, who is an agent to receive the applications must have scrutinized all the documents, which are supposed to have been enclosed along with the application and if any deficiencies/defects are found, they should have been pointed out then and there itself to enable the petitioner or similarly situated persons to correct such deficiencies/ defects; thirdly that the petitioner had approached the authorities of 5th respondent- college on 22-1-2003 i. e. , the date on which the first phase of selections were made; fourthly that when the applications have been received by the DEO, Medak at sangareddy, and forwarded to the 5th respondent-college, it is presumed that the applications have been filed with all relevant enclosures inasmuch as no acknowledgments have been given by the DEO after receipt of the applications indicating the receipt of the enclosures also. ( 4 ) IN reply to the said contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri giridhar Rao. learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-college, submits that the application of the petitioner had been received by the 5th respondent- college from the office of the DEO and the applications so received were scrutinized by a specially constituted committee, which consists of the Principal and two Lecturers, and after due verification, certain deficiencies/defects insofar as 8 applications have been noticed and those applications have been rejected. He also pointed out that it was indicated categorically by way of instructions to the applicants in the application form itself that defective and incomplete applications will summarily be rejected. He further submits that since the application of the petitioner along with 7 other applications were found to be defective and incomplete, those applications were rejected on 18-1-2003 by the committee after a thorough scrutiny. He further submits that the DEO had no such specific authorization to verify the applications so received and point out the deficiencies/defects in the applications and to inform the same to the applicants. He further submits that the DEO had no such specific authorization to verify the applications so received and point out the deficiencies/defects in the applications and to inform the same to the applicants. His further submission is that as per the merit list, which was prepared after scrutiny of applications, the candidates were selected in accordance with merit and subject to method of selection. He further submits that all the seats for B. Ed. , course in the 5th respondent-college have been filled up and notified in the newspapers after the entire selections were over, by 29-1-2003 i. e. , even before this Court granted interim direction in w. P. M. P. No. 2773 of 2003, dated 5-2-2003. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the above submissions, it is to be seen that the DEO was authorized by the Government through g. O. Rt. No. 831 Education (SE-TRG-1) department, dated 29-12-2002. In the said g. O. , certain measures were indicated in column No. 4, which deals with Transparency measure in Admission of Minority candidates. ( 6 ) THE following are the measures in the said G. O. (A) The application for admission should be made available to the Minority Candidates at the Colleges and also at the office of the District Educational Officer concerned. The candidates may submit filed in application form either to the DEO Office or to the college concerned directly. (b) Acknowledgment should be issued to the applicants on the spot instead of sending them by post. (c) The District Educational Officer shall send the list of candidates who applied for admission along with the original application form to the colleges concerned. (d) The Management shall consider all applications received (both in the college and through District Educational Officer concerned) for preparing merit list for admission. The merit list methodology- wise, of all the applicants shall be prepared and displayed on the notice board as per the admission schedule as mentioned in ANNEXURE-1. (e) The candidates selected for admission should be informed telegraphically and also the list of selected candidates shall be displayed on the notice board of the college and also in the Office of the district Educational Officer concerned as per the admission schedule. The copy of the selection list shall be published in the newspapers also. (e) The candidates selected for admission should be informed telegraphically and also the list of selected candidates shall be displayed on the notice board of the college and also in the Office of the district Educational Officer concerned as per the admission schedule. The copy of the selection list shall be published in the newspapers also. (f) All the applicants shall be eligible for obtaining a copy of the list of selected candidates on payment of nominal charges to be prescribed by the concerned management. " ( 7 ) FROM the above, it is to be seen that item (a) of column No. 4 of the said g. O. , authorizes the DEO concerned also, to receive the applications from the applicants apart from the colleges; that as per item (b) acknowledgement should be issued to the applicants instantaneously; that as per item (c) the DEO concerned shall send the list of candidates who applied for admission along with the original application form to the colleges concerned; that as per item (d) the management shall consider all applications received (both in the college and through the DEO concerned) for preparing the merit list for admission. ( 8 ) IT is nowhere stated that a duty is cast upon the DEO concerned to scrutinize the applications so received and advise the candidates to correct the deficiencies/ defects therein and what all is indicated therein was that the DEO concerned shall receive the applications and shall send the list of candidates who applied for admission along with the original application form to the colleges concerned. It is only for the management to consider the applications for preparing the merit list, which implies that the scrutinizing authority is the college concerned and not the DEO concerned. ( 9 ) UNLESS a specific duty is cast upon the DEO concerned, it is not for the DEO to examine each and every application and reject the same or advise the candidates to correct the deficiencies/defects pointed out by him. Further, there is no whisper in the said G. O. Rt. No. 831, dated 29-12-2002, in this regard. ( 10 ) IN other words, a facility had been provided to the applicants to make the applications not only to the colleges directly but also to the DEO. It is only an additional facility provided for the candidates. Further, there is no whisper in the said G. O. Rt. No. 831, dated 29-12-2002, in this regard. ( 10 ) IN other words, a facility had been provided to the applicants to make the applications not only to the colleges directly but also to the DEO. It is only an additional facility provided for the candidates. Just because the DEO was authorized to receive the applications along with enclosures, he cannot be saddled with the burden of examining or scrutinizing each and every application and reject the same instantaneously or advise the candidates to rectify the same. Such procedure had not been either impliedly or expressly contemplated under the said G. O. ( 11 ) THE specific contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in fact the petitioner had furnished the rank card also but he came to know that his case was rejected on the ground that the rank card was not enclosed along with his application. He further contends that the deo himself would have rejected the application if the rank card was not enclosed along with the application. In view of the foregoing discussion, this contention cannot be accepted. ( 12 ) THE further averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, in categorical terms is that he approached the authorities of 5th respondent-college on 21-1-2003 and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- as donation to give a seat in B. Ed. , course to the petitioner. His further specific contention is that on 22-1-2003 the 5th respondent-college notified the details of total number of applications received and the first list of candidates selected. ( 13 ) IN this context, it is to be seen that under G. O. Rt. No. 831, dated 29-12-2002, in Annexure-1, which is a schedule for B. Ed. , admissions through Convenor, Ed. CET- 2002, had been notified. ( 14 ) AS per the above schedule, it is clear that the preparation of merit list methodology-wise has to be done from 17-1-2003 to 19-1-2003. It is on record that on 18-1-2003 all the applications have been scrutinized by a specially constituted committee, which consists of the Principal and two Lecturers of the college. ( 15 ) I have verified the original record and the endorsements made by the committee while rejecting all the applications including that of the petitioner. It is on record that on 18-1-2003 all the applications have been scrutinized by a specially constituted committee, which consists of the Principal and two Lecturers of the college. ( 15 ) I have verified the original record and the endorsements made by the committee while rejecting all the applications including that of the petitioner. Thus, a perusal of the scrutiny proceedings, dated 18-1-2003, would reveal that, in all, eight applications have been rejected on different grounds. Some of the applications were rejected on the ground that the marks memos were not enclosed and some were on the ground that the hall ticket number was not mentioned and the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the rank card has not been enclosed though the rank was indicated in the application. ( 16 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that it is a curable deficiency/defect and as and when such deficiency/defect was found by the authorities of 5th respondent-college, they could have informed the petitioner and asked him to cure/correct the mistake. But, no such procedure had been contemplated in any of the proceedings. As per the schedule, by 19-1-2003 the scrutiny of applications should be completed and the merit list of the applicants has to be displayed on the notice board of the colleges on 20-1-2003. ( 17 ) IT is not in dispute that a merit list had been displayed on the notice board of the 5th respondent-college on 20-1-2003 after rejecting some applications including the application of the petitioner. Only after the said merit list was displayed on the notice board of the respective colleges, the selection process would commence and would be completed by 29-1-2003, after publication of the selected list of candidates. ( 18 ) IT is to be noted that, when in the notification it was specifically indicated that the defective and incomplete applications would be rejected summarily, the applicants should take all reasonable care to furnish all the relevant material. Ignorance in this regard cannot be accepted nor can be treated as curable deficiencies/defects. If the theory of curable deficiencies/defects put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the selection process would become a cumbersome and a herculean task, which eventually would turn into a quagmire. Ignorance in this regard cannot be accepted nor can be treated as curable deficiencies/defects. If the theory of curable deficiencies/defects put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the selection process would become a cumbersome and a herculean task, which eventually would turn into a quagmire. But, there might be some exceptions and only in such exceptional cases, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the deficiencies/ defects can be permitted to be cured. ( 19 ) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, when there is no duty cast on the DEO concerned to scrutinize the applications received by him from the candidates and when his duty is only to the extent of forwarding the same to the respective colleges after issuing acknowledgments for receipt of the said applications, and in such a situation, if the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, it amounts to conferring jurisdiction, which otherwise is not conferred by G. O. Rt. No. 831, dated 29-12-2002, upon the DEO. ( 20 ) IT is to be further noted that as indicated in the schedule of selection, the scrutiny should take place between 17-1-2003 and 19-1-2003. The record reveals that the application of the petitioner was rejected for want of rank card and the merit list was displayed on the notice board on 20-1-2003 and then only the actual selections in accordance with the merit list took place. ( 21 ) IN other words, to have the selection, one must find his name in the merit list. Therefore, a duty is Firstly cast upon the candidate to verify as to whether he finds a place in the merit list, which was displayed on the notice board of the respective colleges on 20-1-2003. But, in the instant case, the petitioner apparently did not verify as to whether his name was there in the merit list or not, which was displayed on the notice board of 5th respondent-college on 20-1-2003. On the other hand, as per the specific averment made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had approached the authorities of 5th respondent-college on -22-1-2003, the day on which actually selection process of candidates for B. Ed. , course had been commenced. On the other hand, as per the specific averment made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had approached the authorities of 5th respondent-college on -22-1-2003, the day on which actually selection process of candidates for B. Ed. , course had been commenced. His further specific averment was that the authorities of 5th respondent-college asked him to pay a donation of Rs. 50,000/- for providing a seat and the same was not accepted and denied by the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent-college. ( 22 ) IN this context, it is to be noted that the reasons for rejection of 8 applications, in all were recorded and singed by all the members of the committee on 18-1-2003 itself. By any slretch of imagination, the authorities of 5th respondent-college cannot be said to have made such a demand on 22-1-2003, when it was already on record that the application of the petitioner was rejected. The authorities of 5th respondent- college cannot be allowed to give a different reason than the one, which was recorded and signed by the committee on 18-1-2003 itself. Therefore, I am of the view that the averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that the authorities of 5th respondent- college have demanded Rs. 50,000/- as donation and since he was not able to pay the same, a seat was denied to him cannot be countenanced. ( 23 ) FURTHER, the petitioner apparently is duty bound to verify as to whether his name was in the merit list or not, which was displayed on the notice board of 5th respondent-college on 20-1-2003 itself. He did not choose to do so. He approached the authorities of 5th respondent-college, after display of the merit list, only on 22-1-2003 i. e. , after the selection process had commenced. At that point of time, the deficiencies/defects cannot be cured at all inasmuch as the application of the petitioner has been rejected on 18-1-2003 itself by the Selection Committee, which consists of the Principal and two Lecturers, and the merit list was already displayed on the notice board on 20-1-2003. At that point of time, the deficiencies/defects cannot be cured at all inasmuch as the application of the petitioner has been rejected on 18-1-2003 itself by the Selection Committee, which consists of the Principal and two Lecturers, and the merit list was already displayed on the notice board on 20-1-2003. Had the petitioner noticed that his name was not there in the merit list, which was displayed on the notice board of the 5th respondent- college on 20-1-2003, he should and could have approached the 5th respondent-college immediately in order to cure the said deficiency/defect. Therefore, the deficiency/ defect was curable by the petitioner himself by approaching the 5th respondent-college in right time,, but not by the 5th respondent- college. ( 24 ) ON the contrary, the petitioner had thrown the blame on the5th respondent college by approaching belatedly. In other words, when the petitioner did not care to know as to whether his name was in the merit list or not, which was displayed on the notice board of 5th respondent-college on 20-1-2003 itself, it is not open for him to blame the 5th respondent-college at a later point of time that too at the stage of selection process for the admission had commenced. Therefore, it is a curable deficiency/defect by the petitioner himself but not by the 5th respondent-college. ( 25 ) VIEWED from any angle and for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 26 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 27 ) BEFORE parting with the case, i would like to point out certain defects in the method of selections. No doubt, G. O. Rt. No. 831 Education (SE-TRG-1) department, dated 29-12-2002, has been issued enabling the applicants to make the applications to the DEOs concerned, without casting a duty upon the DEOs concerned to scrutinize the said applications. Even this cannot be found fault with. But, in the instant case, it is to be seen that the petitioner had specifically averred that in spite of the fact that he filed the ranking card along with the application, the same might have been misplaced. Even this cannot be found fault with. But, in the instant case, it is to be seen that the petitioner had specifically averred that in spite of the fact that he filed the ranking card along with the application, the same might have been misplaced. Had the DEO, who is the receiving authority of the applications, issued an acknowledgment indicating all the enclosures filed along with the application, this controversy would not have arisen. Therefore, this Court feels that it is imperative to direct the DEOs concerned to issue a receipt/acknowledgement indicating all the enclosures that were filed along with the applications, so that at a later point of time the assertions and counter assertions with regard to filing of the relevant documents can be avoided. ( 28 ) THEREFORE, the Commissioner and director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-the 3rd respondent herein, is directed to take all necessary steps to plug such loopholes, which may create controversies like the present one.