Judgment :- The petitioner was a candidate, who took the Common Entrance Examination for admission to Professional Degree Courses, in 2004. His rank was 563. He participated in the Centralised Allotment Process, held in July, 2004 and he was admitted on 30.07.2004 in the Medical College, run by the Academy of Medical Science, Pariyaram, Kannur. When the admissions were made, everyone including the petitioner thought that the fees for the merit quota in the self-financing colleges will be the same, as in the Government Colleges. So, many students, who were having higher ranks and could have got admission in the Government Colleges, opted to be admitted in the self-financing colleges, under the merit quota. Later, the Apex Court, by an interim order, directed that for this year, the fee structure for the self-financing colleges will be, as recommended by Justice K.T.Thomas Committee. As a result, many students, who opted to join the self-financing colleges, even though, they were eligible to get admission in the Government Colleges, according to their rank will have to pay fees at the rate fixed by Justice K.T.Thomas Committee. To rectify this injustice, the Government issued Ext.P8 notification, re-opening the allotment from rank No.332 onwards. The candidates, having rank upto 331 only opted for admission in Government Colleges. As a result of the issuance of this notification, the petitioner has to again attend a Centralised Counselling and his admission in the Pariyaram Medical College is under threat of cancellation. In the above background, this Writ Petition was filed challenging Ext.P8. 2. Though, several grounds were raised against Ext.P8, the main ground of attack, pressed at the time of hearing, is that it permits the students who stayed away at the time of earlier counselling also to participate in the second counselling and stake their claim for allotment of seats. The same, the petitioner submits, is contrary to the conditions contained in Ext.P1 prospectus and also the instructions contained in Ext.P4 information brochure. Reliance is placed on Clauses 11.4 and 11.10(a) of Ext.P1prospectus. Clause 11.4 reads as follows: Candidates are advised to strictly observe the date and time of his/her appearance for the allotment. A candidate who does not turn up for the allotment as per schedule, at the place and time notified, will forfeit his/her chance for admission, and will not be considered for admission to any future or arising vacancies, irrespective of the rank. A candidate who does not turn up for the allotment as per schedule, at the place and time notified, will forfeit his/her chance for admission, and will not be considered for admission to any future or arising vacancies, irrespective of the rank. However, if a candidate is not able to attend the allotment process on genuine grounds, the parent/guardian, or any authorised person can act as a proxy at the risk of the candidate, on production of authorisation letter in the form given in Annexure-XIX. Authorisation letter once received will be considered as valid for the entire allotment process, unless it is revoked in writing by the candidate. An attested photocopy of the filled up authorisation letter should also be brought by the proxy at the time of first appearance. This attested copy should be produced at the time of subsequent appearance. Candidates who do not turn up for the allotment as per the schedule will forfeit their chance for admission, and will not be considered for admissions to any future vacancies, irrespective of the rank". A reading of the above clause would show that a candidate, who does not turn up for the allotment as per the schedule, at the place and time notified, will forfeit his/her chance for admission. Clause 11.10 (a) reads as follows: "Allotment memos will be issued to the selected candidates at the end of allotment process. It is obligatory for the candidate to report to the college to which he/she is allotted. No extension of time for reporting the college will be granted under any circumstances. Failure to appear before the Principal concerned for joining the course on the date and time fixed, will forfeit his/her admission to the course and he/she will not be considered for any future or arising vacancies". The said clause makes it mandatory for the student to join the college allotted, as per the allotment memo, within the stipulated time; otherwise, the admission will stand cancelled. 3. Clauses 2.3 and 3.13 in Ext.P4 information brochure also provide similar stipulations. But, the petitioner points out that clause (D) of Ext.P8 would show that the persons who did not attend earlier, can also attend the counselling. They have to produce all the documents mentioned in clause (D). According to the petitioner, the said stipulation in the notification, is plainly illegal and contrary to the prescriptions contained in Exts.P1 and P4. But, the petitioner points out that clause (D) of Ext.P8 would show that the persons who did not attend earlier, can also attend the counselling. They have to produce all the documents mentioned in clause (D). According to the petitioner, the said stipulation in the notification, is plainly illegal and contrary to the prescriptions contained in Exts.P1 and P4. Therefore, the petitioner prays, persons who did not attend the earlier counselling, but have chosen to attend this time, may not displace his placement. 4. The first respondent has filed a statement. The circumstances, under which, the admissions granted to persons having rank No.332 onwards are re-opened, are explained in the statement. Regarding the point raised by the petitioner, the answer is contained in paragraph 6 of the statement, which is quoted below for convenient reference. SP 1. 6. It is also submitted that as per the revised@@ schedule, no restrictions have been made to the absentees of the earlier allotment to attend the revised seat allotment. This was necessitated on various grounds. Candidates were to be allotted to two Medical Colleges, that were not included for seat allotment at the first round of seat allotment, on account of their not having Medical Council approval for the current year then. The allotment to one Medical College made earlier had to be withheld on specific directions from the affiliating University. Seat allotment made to a Homoeo Medical College earlier had to be withheld on court directions. Two Dental Colleges that did not have Dental Council's approval for the current year had received approval subsequently and allotments to these colleges were to be made now. Two Medical Colleges in the self-financing sector, owned by Co-operative institutions, which could collect fees as recommended by Justice K.T.Thomas Committee, announced their willingness to collect fees at Government rates for the current year. Thus, the position as far as the availability of seats and fees in self-financing colleges were totally different when compared to those that existed at the time of first round of allotments held from 19.07.2004 to 30.07.2004. Hence, candidates who did not attend the first allotment were not restricted from attending this revised seat allotment". SP 2 5. Thus, the position as far as the availability of seats and fees in self-financing colleges were totally different when compared to those that existed at the time of first round of allotments held from 19.07.2004 to 30.07.2004. Hence, candidates who did not attend the first allotment were not restricted from attending this revised seat allotment". SP 2 5. The reason urged for re-opening the allotment, is that some more seats are available, as a result of the availability of seats in two more Medical Colleges, for which approval of the Medical Council was obtained later. The allotment made earlier, to one of the Medical Colleges, had to be withheld as per the directions of the affiliated University. Similarly, the allotment made to a Homoeo Medical College was withheld as per the court directions. For starting two Dental Colleges, the approval of the Dental Council was obtained subsequently. In view of the above developments, there was scope for admission to some more students and the same appears to be the reason for allowing the participation of the candidates in the second counselling, who did not attend the earlier counselling. 6. If persons with lower rank, when compared to the petitioner, who attended last time, are also allowed to participate, the same may not affect anyone. But, if persons with higher rank, whose chances stood forfeited by the operation of the provisions in the prospectus and the information brochure, are allowed again to take part in thesecond counselling, the same will affect the placement of candidates like the petitioner. The re-opening was admissible only for the limited purpose of allowing certain innocent students to take part in the counselling, who opted for admission in self-financing colleges, even though, they were eligible to be admitted in the Government colleges, according to their rank. Under the guise of rendering justice to such candidates, the wholesale reopening of the allotment and allowing persons, who stayed away last time also to participate in the second counselling, may not be justified. It cannot be said to be the rectification of any mistake or rendering justice to candidates, who unwittingly opted for admission in self-financing colleges. It will amount to smuggling of new candidates who are ineligible for admission according to the provisions contained in Exts.P1 and P4. In view of the above position, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. It will amount to smuggling of new candidates who are ineligible for admission according to the provisions contained in Exts.P1 and P4. In view of the above position, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. If any candidate having rank above the petitioner, who did not attend the earlier counselling, has attended this time and has been alloted a seat, to the detriment of the petitioner, such candidate is liable to be removed from the admission list. This aspect, the first respondent shall examine and take a decision in the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the above direction will affect only the candidates who would have got admission, if they had attended the counselling earlier. A candidate, who would not have got any seat, does not forfeit any of his rights, by being absent. So, if in a particular course, additional seats are available, persons with lower rank, who did not have a chance last time, can also be considered. The observations made in this judgment, will not stand in the way of considering them. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.