JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on account of denial of admission to him in Shiksha Shastri course. Petitioner had appeared in the Pre-Shiksha Shastri Test of 2007 and secured 116 marks, however, the petitioner was not called for the counselling for giving admission, hence he preferred this writ petition on the ground that respondents have given admission to the candidates having lessor marks than the petitioner and those candidates are from out of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner further raised grievance regarding reservation of the seats in favour of various categories and further in rejoinder petitioner made allegation regarding keeping certain seats as vacant. 2. This Court vide its order dated 26.10.2007 passed interim order pursuant to which fee of the petitioner was accepted but it is orally stated by the counsel for the petitioner that respondents had preferred an appeal wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench had given direction for final disposal of the case at the early stage and thereby the order dated 26.10.2007 could not remain alive. 3. Today the matter was taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 6 of the Entrance Test Rules, no candidate belonging to out of State can be given admission below the marks of a candidate of State of Rajasthan, however, in the present matter a candidate belonging to out of State having obtained only 80 marks has been given admission whereas the petitioner having secured 116 marks has been denied admission in the course. The further contention of the petitioner is that 19 seats in OBC category and 6 spats in ST category were not filed despite of the fact that as per Rule 8, if reserved vacancies are not filled then those vacancies are to be filled from general caste candidates. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand while referring to Rule 6 submitted that as per the said Rule, a candidate who -is out of State of Rajasthan can be given admission upto the marks obtained by a candidate of the State of Rajasthan belonging to any special category. It was submitted that in the women quota, the last candidate given admission had obtained 80 marks, thus even in the quota meant for the candidates of outside the State, the candidates having obtained 80 marks were given admission. It was submitted that in the women quota, the last candidate given admission had obtained 80 marks, thus even in the quota meant for the candidates of outside the State, the candidates having obtained 80 marks were given admission. So far as other argument regarding existence of vacant seats in OBC as well as ST category, no justified reply could be given rather it was submitted that the respondents themselves have stated such facts in the reply. 5. Considering the rival submissions and after going through the pleadings, it is first necessary to decide as to whether any seat is lying vacant where a general caste candidate can be accommodated as per Rules. Perusal of para 3 of the reply, which is at page 5 of the reply, it reveals that 19 seats remained vacant in OBC category and 6 seats remained vacant in ST category, thus it becomes clear that even as per reply submitted by the respondents, in all 25 seats remain vacant which otherwise were required to be filled from the general caste candidates in view of Rule 8. Rule 8 provides that after selection of the candidates first in general category quota, the candidates of reserved quota would be selected and in case any seat is found vacant in the reserved quota then it would be transferred to general category and would be filled as per merit. In view of Rule 8, the respondents were required to fill 25 seats lying vacant and is otherwise submitted by them in their reply itself because in the reply, it has not been said that those 25 seats were also filled by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner having secured 116 marks and the last candidate given admission in his category had obtained 117 marks, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his candidature against those vacancies. 6. The other aspect pertains to the interpretation of Rule 6. The perusal of Rule 6 shows that 5% of the seats would be filled from the candidates coming from outside State provided their marks in special category would not be less than the merit of the candidate of the State of Rajasthan. 6. The other aspect pertains to the interpretation of Rule 6. The perusal of Rule 6 shows that 5% of the seats would be filled from the candidates coming from outside State provided their marks in special category would not be less than the merit of the candidate of the State of Rajasthan. The intention of interpretation of the Rule seems to be that looking to various categories, no outside State candidate should be given admission if he is not in possession of better marks or equivalent marks to the candidates of the State in that special category in which out of State candidate has to be given admission. If the said interpretation is taken then it becomes clear that the respondents have wrongly granted admission to the candidate who belongs to other State and has secured only 80 marks as compared to the marks obtained by the petitioner being 116. In view of above interpretation, the action of the respondents becomes illegal however for the reason that necessary admissions have already been given and now at this stage it would not be proper to disturb the candidates who have already been given admission, more so when the course have already been started and the candidates with lower merit are not even party to the writ petition but at the same time to redress the grievance of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the course for which admission was initially given pursuant to the interim order against those vacancies, which remained unfilled i.e. 19 seats in OBC and 6 seats in ST category in view of the admission of the respondents in para 3 of the reply. After the petitioner is allowed to continue in the course then 'not only his grievance is redressed but it will not. otherwise disturb any other candidate. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue with his course for which not. only admission was given but even fee was accepted. The aforesaid admission should be allowed against 25 vacancies in view of reply given by the respondents and failure of the counsel for the respondent to explain the fact as to whether those vacant seats have been filled or not during the course of arguments. only admission was given but even fee was accepted. The aforesaid admission should be allowed against 25 vacancies in view of reply given by the respondents and failure of the counsel for the respondent to explain the fact as to whether those vacant seats have been filled or not during the course of arguments. the petitioner having secured 116 marks is in the queue of the next candidate is the cut off marks as shown by.the respondents being 117 marks and it is the petitioner who has approached this Court and initially for some time the petitioner could persue the course as per the interim direction of this Court though modified by the division bench, hence looking to overall circumstances since petitioner has already pursued his studies to some extent and have secured 116 marks, thus he is allowed to continue his studies and t; appear in the examination for Shiksha Shastri Course against the vacant seats. It is made clear that if the respondents feels that even 25 vacancies were filled, they may file an application for recalling of this order but with a clear statement as to how those 25 seats were filled.Writ petition allowed. *******