Judgment :- Heard Mr.T.Arulraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. The petitioner has stated that her son S.Gowri Shankhar had written the Joint Entrance Examination for admission in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, for the academic year 2009-2010. He was selected on merits, in the general category. He was called for counselling, on 16. 2009, and he was admitted and allotted a seat in Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal. He was asked to join the said Institute, on 27. 2009. 4. The petitioner has further stated that her son S.Gowri Shankhar was directed to make his option of places upto 108 places and the courses of his choice. He had given 30 choices at Madras and he had given 78 choices at other places. Even though his first option was for admission at Madras he was allotted a seat in Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal. 5. The petitioner has stated that three candidates, who are shown as respondents 2 to 4, in the present writ petition, belonging to the general category, who have lesser ranks than the petitioners son, S.Gowri Shankhar, have been allotted seats in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, in the second round of counselling. M.Vinay Lathi, the second respondent herein, was ranked at 3974, G.Aravind, the third respondent herein, was ranked at 4161 and Nithish Mathur, the fourth respondent herein, was ranked at 4560, in the general category. Since the petitioners son, S.Gowri Shankhar, was ranked at 3708, as per the common merit list, in the general category, he should have been given admission in one of the first 30 places preferred by him at Madras. The representation sent by the petitioner for allotment of a seat at Madras for her son, S.Gowri Shankhar, had been rejected by the first respondent. Non-consideration of the request of the petitioner would amount to discrimination, as it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The representation sent by the petitioner for allotment of a seat at Madras for her son, S.Gowri Shankhar, had been rejected by the first respondent. Non-consideration of the request of the petitioner would amount to discrimination, as it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr.Vijay Narayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted, on instructions from the first respondent, that there is no dispute that the petitioners son, S.Gowri Shankhar, was at 3708, according to the All India Rank, as per the Common Merit list, under the general category. He had given the first 30 choices at Madras, for his admission in the Indian Institute of Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010. From the declaration made by the candidate, on 16. 2009, it is clear that the options exercised by him for the Institutes and Courses are final and that no change in the options given by him is permissible in future. 7. The candidates are given the counselling brochure, which is a guide to the candidates, qualified in JEE-2009. A successful candidate, who has been admitted for a course in the Indian Institute of Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010, gives an undertaking, which is as follows: "I hereby declare that I have read the Counselling Brochure of JEE-2009 thoroughly and agree to the procedures regarding filling up the vacant seats by the individual institutes as stated in Section 1. 3 of the Counselling Brochure. I declare that in case of any vacancy of seats in the institute I join, I will accept the course reallocated to me according to my choices of courses in that institute as submitted in JEE counselling. I understand that in case I am offered a seat in an institute through JEE-2009 or in the second allotment by an institute, I will not be considered for allotment of seats in any other institute. I also understand that his procedure may lead to some candidate with a lower rank than mine getting a course at an institute which may be a higher choice of mine than my actual allotment." The petitioner had signed the undertaking, on 16. 2009, and it has been countersigned by his parent. 8. Section 1. I also understand that his procedure may lead to some candidate with a lower rank than mine getting a course at an institute which may be a higher choice of mine than my actual allotment." The petitioner had signed the undertaking, on 16. 2009, and it has been countersigned by his parent. 8. Section 1. 3 of the Counselling Brochure, reads as follows: "Each of the participating institutes will take measures to fill up the seats which fall vacant in the respective institutes. Candidates who are allotted seats through JEE-2009 should register at the respective institutes on the day of registration as given in the back page of this Counselling Brochure, failing which the seat allotted to him/her will be treated as unfilled. Such unfilled seats will be first re-allotted within the institute among the candidates who have already registered in the institute on the basis of their Ranks in JEE-2009 (students will "slide up" within the institute to fill up the vacant seats). The seats which remain vacant in the institute after this process will be filled up by the institute by selecting candidates from the list of candidates who are counseled but not allotted seats in any of the institutes. Notifications to this effect will be made in websites of the respective institutes at appropriate time. Please note that all allocations will be based on the choices given by the candidates at the time of counselling. Further, any candidate who is allotted a seat in an institute in the second round will not be eligible for any further allotment." 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent had further stated that the last date for registration at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, was 27. 2009. The petitioners son, S.Gowri Shankhar, had reported at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, as prescribed in the admission procedure and the classes for the courses have begun, from 27. 2009. 10. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that if the seats fall vacant in an Institute the sliding rule is followed, whereby, the candidates would have the choice of sliding up to get slotted in the vacancies arising in the concerned disciplines and programmes, in the same Institute. However, no candidate is permitted to get transferred from one Institute to another Institute, even if vacancies arise in the other Institute. However, no candidate is permitted to get transferred from one Institute to another Institute, even if vacancies arise in the other Institute. Respondents 2 to 4, even though they had been ranked lower than the petitioners son, S.Gowri Shankhar, they were allotted the seat at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, based on their ranking and their choice of Institute and Courses, in the second counselling. As there is no discrimination in the allotment of seats for respondents 2 to 4 at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Since the procedures followed by the first respondent, in the allotment of seats and institutes, is based on the established procedure for admissions of candidates in the various Indian Institute of Technology, as per the Counselling Brochure for admissions, for the academic year 2009-2010, for the candidates qualified in JEE-2009, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. There is no discrimination in the admission of the respondents 2 to 4 in the Indian Institute of Technology at Madras, as claimed by the petitioner. Further, the undertaking signed by the candidate, as well as by his parent, on 16. 2009, makes it clear that they had accepted the procedures followed by the first respondent, for the admission of candidates in the Indian Institute of Technology, for the academic year 2009-2010. The petitioner has not shown that the procedures followed by the first respondent for admission of candidates is arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in nature. In such circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.