ORDER As common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioners in W.P. No. 14420 of 2006 are challenging the Memorandums dated 16-3-2006 and 30-9-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the 1st petitioner-Institution seeking approval of the admissions of petitioners 2 to 4 for D.Ed. Course. Petitioner in W.P. No. 15621 of 2006 is challenging the list vide Annexure-D, whereby the approval of her admission is rejected stating that she has not studied two elective subjects in the qualifying examination. 2. In W.P. No. 14420 of 2006, the 1st petitioner is an Institution imparting education in Diploma in Education. It has an intake capacity of 50, out of which 25 seats are earmarked for management quota and the remaining 25 for the Government quota. Admissions are made in respect of 25 seats for the management quota by the Management. As regards the Government quota of 25 seats, the Government sent 23 students under its quota. The 1st petitioner has filled up the remaining two seats to make up the quota of 25 seats, which was earmarked for the Government quota. 3. As the admission process was over, the 1st petitioner-Institution has sent the list of admitted candidates for approval. The 2nd respondent-Principal of the District Training Institute, Bangalore Urban District has not approved the admission of the petitioners 2, 3 and 4. Approval of the 2nd petitioner is rejected on the ground that she has not studied the two elective subjects in the Pre-University/12th Standard course. The admission of petitioners 3 and 4 have been rejected on the ground that 5% of the admissions which were required to be made from out of the students who have studied in Kannada medium from 1st standard to 10th standard has not been complied with by the 1st petitioner-Institution. Aggrieved by the rejection of the approval of admission of petitioners 2 to 4, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Insofar as the rejection of the approval of admission of petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, the State Government by order dated 10-11-2006 has directed that for the year 2005-06 by collecting a sum of Rs. 2,500/as penalty, the admission of the students is ordered to be regularised and permission is accorded for them to appear for the examination. 4. Insofar as the rejection of the approval of admission of petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, the State Government by order dated 10-11-2006 has directed that for the year 2005-06 by collecting a sum of Rs. 2,500/as penalty, the admission of the students is ordered to be regularised and permission is accorded for them to appear for the examination. A copy of the communication addressed by the State Government to the Director, Teachers Training Institute is produced along with the Memo by the learned Additional Government Advocate. In view of the decision of the State Government and the communication dated 10-11-2006 issued by the State Government, the admission of petitioners 3 and 4 has to be approved by the authorities by collecting a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each as penalty from the 1st petitioner-Institution. 5. As regards petitioner 2, approval of admission, is rejected on the ground that she has not studied two elective subjects in the qualifying examination. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referring to the Brochure published by the Department of Public Instructions pertaining to the admission to the D.Ed. Course for the year 2005-06, extract of which is produced at Annexure-K, contends that the requirements as spelt out at Sl. No.4 to the note found in Chapter I is that Arts and Science candidates should have studied minimum two electives of the elective subjects specified therein in the II PUC/XII Standard/Equivalent Examinations. The elective subjects mentioned are: History/Civics, Economics, Geography, Political Science, Sociology, Kannada, Education I, Education II, Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Botany/Zoology, Mathematics and Statistics. 6. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidate in order to be eligible must have studied any two elective subjects from among the subjects enumerated hereinabove apart from the requirement that they must have either studied in Arts or Science subjects for the IT PUC/XII Standard/Equivalent Examinations. In the instant case, the 2nd petitioner-Kum. Akhilapriya B. has studied the two elective subjects, viz., Biology and History during the Higher Secondary Course as is clear from the Higher Secondary Course Certificate issued to her by the Secretary, Secondary Board of School Examination, Tamil Nadu which is an equivalent course to the Pre-University Course is his submission. The Counsel appearing in the connected writ petition -reiterates the same submissions stating that the petitioner in this case has studied Mathematics and Economics as two elective subjects. The Counsel appearing in the connected writ petition -reiterates the same submissions stating that the petitioner in this case has studied Mathematics and Economics as two elective subjects. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed) Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules'), there is no requirement that the candidate should have passed IT PUC/XII Standard only in Karnataka and must have studied the Science or Arts Course taking the elective subjects as specified. 7. Sri Manohar, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand strongly contends that as required under Rule 3 of the Rules read along with the Brochure, it is clear that in order to be eligible a candidate must have studied either IT PUC/Xll Standard or equivalent examination and further ought to have studied two elective subjects in each of the category, either Arts or Science. His contention is that the two elective subjects to be studied by the student of Arts must be elective subjects in Arts and if he is a Science student the two elective subjects shall be elective subjects in Science as permitted in the State of Karnataka. This submission is based on the premises that the D.Ed. students would be required to teach the primary school students in Arts or Science subjects depending upon their efficiency in the elective subjects they have studied in the D.Ed. Course. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the relevant rules and the Brochure published by the Department while inviting applications for conducting the entrance test, the question that arises for consideration is: "Whether the petitioner 2 in W.P. No. 14420 of 2006 who has studied Biology and History as elective subjects and the petitioner in W.P. No. 15621 of 2006 who has studied Mathematics and Economics in the qualifying examination are eligible to take up D.Ed. Course as per the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed.) Rules, 2002?" 9. The relevant Rule for this purpose prescribing the eligibility is enacted in Rule 3. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of Rule 3, which is as under: "3. Course as per the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Diploma in Education Course (D.Ed.) Rules, 2002?" 9. The relevant Rule for this purpose prescribing the eligibility is enacted in Rule 3. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of Rule 3, which is as under: "3. Eligibility.-No person shall be eligible for admission under these rules, unless he/she is a citizen of India, and he/she has passed the Second year Pre-University Course or Examination and shall have studied any two of the languages among Kannada, English, Hindi, Telugu, Arabic, Tamil, Malayalam, Urdu, Marathi and Sanskrit either in SSLC or in PUC or 12th Standard: Provided that a Commerce candidate shall have studied in PUC any two of the elective subjects among History, Economics, Geography, Political Science, Sociology, Kannada, Education I and Education 2 he/she has studied at High School level”. As can be seen from the 1st portion of Rule 3 read along with 1st proviso it is clear that Arts, Science and Commerce students who have passed the II year Pre-University Course or examination and who have studied any two of the languages enumerated therein will be eligible for taking the D.Ed. Course. However, as regards the Commerce candidates, no doubt, as provided under (1) proviso to Rule 3 they are required to study the two elective subjects mentioned therein. In the Brochure published by the Department of Public Instructions at the time when applications were invited from eligible candidates for admission for First year D.Ed. Course, it is mentioned that the students must have studied two elective subjects. Neither Rule 3 nor the Brochure published states that the Science students should have studied the elective subjects only in the science subjects, as specified in the State of Karnataka and the Arts students should have studied two elective subjects in Arts subjects alone as specified by the Department herein. In the absence of such an intention being expressed either in the Rule or in the Brochure published, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate who submits that the elective subjects studied by the students must be either the one falling in the Arts category or the Science category. 10. In the absence of such an intention being expressed either in the Rule or in the Brochure published, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate who submits that the elective subjects studied by the students must be either the one falling in the Arts category or the Science category. 10. If there is an option provided for studying the subjects falling both in Arts and Science categories in the qualifying examinations in any of the States as is the case in the instant case of the 2nd petitioner, who has studied Biology and History as elective subjects in her qualifying examination he/she cannot be held as ineligible as per Rule 3. The Rule cannot be interpreted in this manner to eliminate such candidates. Ineligibility cannot be inferred from such an interpretation of the Rule in the instant case as the consequences that flow would be serious. 11. It is not the case of the State Government that the eligibility for appearing for D.Ed. Course is confined only to the students who have passed Pre-University Course or equivalent examinations only in the State of Karnataka. In fact, admission is open to even candidates who have studied outside the State of Karnataka. If the elective subjects in that particular Institution for an Arts students are Biology or for that matter Mathematics along with History etc., then it cannot be said that such a student who has studied Biology and History shall be regarded as ineligible. If that was the intention of the Rule making authority, the same would have been specifically spelt out stating that the students who have studied Science subjects shall have studied two elective subjects in Science category by specifying the subjects. Such is not the intention discernible from the Rule. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner 2 herein is ineligible as per the provisions contained under Rule 3 and the Brochure published. At any rate, the Brochure published cannot be read or construed so as to run counter to the relevant rule. Such is not the intention discernible from the Rule. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner 2 herein is ineligible as per the provisions contained under Rule 3 and the Brochure published. At any rate, the Brochure published cannot be read or construed so as to run counter to the relevant rule. For the aforementioned reasons as the 2nd petitioner has studied two elective subjects in Biology and History coupled with the fact that Rule 3 does not lay down that the elective subjects to be studied by the students shall be from out of either Arts or Science category by specifying the subjects, it cannot be said that the 2nd petitioner is ineligible to study the D.Ed. Course. In that view of the matter, both these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders/memorandums are set aside. A direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to approve the admission of the 2nd petitioner in W.P. No. 14420 of 2006 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 15621 of 2006 for the D.Ed. Course in the respective Institutions. Insofar as petitioners 3 and 4 in W.P. No. 14420 of 2006 are concerned, the 1st petitioner-Institution shall pay Rs. 2,500/- each as penalty for approval of their admission in terms of the Government communication dated 10-11-2006 whereupon their admission shall be regularised and approved. Petitioner-students shall be permitted to appear for the ensuing examinations subject to such approval of their admissions. No costs.