Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner, an in-service candidate, who belongs to OBC category appeared in Pre. P. G. Test, 2008 and had secured 117. 95 marks out of 200 marks. He has been working for last five years in Primary Health Centre at village Pagarkhurd in the district of Satna and the said village, as pleaded, is approximately 50 Kms. away from the district headquarters of Satna. It is averred that said village does not have newspaper circulation or internet/mobile/telephone connection. When the result of Pre. P. G. , 2008 was declared, the petitioner though was declared qualified, could not know his result till 28. 5. 2008. Jhe result of the examination was declared on 22. 5. 2008 and the first counseling was scheduled from 27. 5. 2008. ( 2. ) THE petitioner, as setforth, came to know about his result only on 28. 5. 2008 when he came to Satna to a Cyber Cafe. On downloading his result, he found that he was declared as qualified but in the said result marks were not shown in the internet site. He had not received any information of the result nor was he aware of the date of first counseling. After getting information on 28. 5. 2008 he rushed to Bhopal where he got the information that he had secured 117. 95 marks and his merit position was 42 amongst the in-service candidates of OBC category. Had he been aware of the publication of the result and holding of counselling on 27. 5. 2008 to 01. 6. 2008, he would have got allocation in a very good subject, but as he was not aware of such information, he could not reach on or before the date of first counselling. Accordingly, he met the Director, Medical Education, the respondent No. 2 herein, and was informed that he would get the seat as per his merit in the second counselling scheduled to be held on 8. 6. 2006. He also requested the authorities to give him sponsorship letter which is a pre-requisite for in-service candidates to appear in the counselling, but the authorities refused to give him sponsorship letter on some pretext or the other. Despite this the petitioner reposed faith in the respondent No. 2 and waited for the second counselling. ( 3. ) AS averred, he appeared in the second counselling on 08. 6. Despite this the petitioner reposed faith in the respondent No. 2 and waited for the second counselling. ( 3. ) AS averred, he appeared in the second counselling on 08. 6. 2008 and requested the respondents to allot a seat as per Rule 1. 20 (8) of the Medical and dental Post Graduate Entrance (Conduct of Examination and Admission) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) but, to his utter surprise, the respondent no. 2 refused- to allot a seat to him on the ground that in the notification dated 07. 6. 2008 published in the newspaper on 08. 6. 2008 it was made clear that the students who had remained absent in the first counselling, would not be allowed to get the seat in the second counselling. The petitioner put forth his stand that due to unavoidable circumstances he could not attend the first counselling and, therefore, he was entitled to participate in the counselling but the respondents declined to accept the explanation as a result of which he has been denied a seat in Post Graduation course despite his merit position in the second counselling. It is averred that as per rule 1. 20 (8) he was eligible to appear in the second counselling and also eligible to get post Graduate M. D/ms seat but the said benefit has been denied to him. ( 4. ) IT is contended that the petitioner is from a rural background and is serving for last 5 years in a village which is totally cut off from the modern equipments. As he did not have any information of publication of result and date of counselling, he could not appear and said non-appearance has to be treated as non-appearance due to unavoidable circumstances. In this backdrop a prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to allot a Post Graduate (MD/ms) seat to the petitioner as per his merit position and to allot him the seat in the next academic year of 2009-10. A prayer has also been made to issue a command for payment of compensation as the respondents No. l and 2 have acted in violation -of the rules and caused hardship to the petitioner. ( 5. A prayer has also been made to issue a command for payment of compensation as the respondents No. l and 2 have acted in violation -of the rules and caused hardship to the petitioner. ( 5. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the non-appearance of the petitioner in the counselling which commenced on 27. 5. 2008 cannot be said to be due to unavoidable circumstance. The petitioner had appeared in the Pre. P. G. Entrance Examination in the month of april, 2008 and it was expected of him to be careful and alert about the declaration of the result. It is further put-forth that he is posted only 15 Rms. away from district headquarters and hence, that cannot be a ground to advance a stance that he was not in a position to know about the result. Due to carelessness on the part of the petitioner, he could not know the result of the Entrance Examination and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of Rule 1. 20 (8) of the Rules. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioner was having number of friends and relatives in Satna and, therefore, he could have been informed about the result of the examination. It is asserted that it is beyond acceptation that on the date of declaration of the result he did not have the information. ( 6. ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the result of Pre. P. G. Test was declared on inter-net in which the only information was "qualified" or "disqualified" and no marks whatsoever were mentioned in the result which means that the petitioner did not have any knowledge with regard to the marks received in the Pre. P. G. Test, 2008. It is contended that the counselling was delayed indefinitely as first counselling was done 27. 5. 2008 to 30. 6. 2008. As the petitioner was expecting the counselling in the month of April, 2008, where he is working, He enquired in the month of April, 2008 for counselling but no positive reply was received by him. It is reiterated that village is without any communication and hence, it was difficult to know about the publication of the result. 6. 2008. As the petitioner was expecting the counselling in the month of April, 2008, where he is working, He enquired in the month of April, 2008 for counselling but no positive reply was received by him. It is reiterated that village is without any communication and hence, it was difficult to know about the publication of the result. It is urged that the petitioner is covered under the ambit and sweep of Rule 1. 20 (8) of the rules which deals with "unavoidable circumstance". as the petitioners nonappearance in the first counselling is absolutely due to unavoidable circumstance. ( 7. ) AN additional reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 wherein it has been stated that by letter dated 08. 8. 2008 the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Majhgawan, District Satna informed the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Satna that the petitioner is residing at Birsinghpur as no land was available at Pagarkhurd for construction of residential house and Rs. 300/- is being deducted towards its rent. Copy of such letter has been brought on record as Annexure-R/1. It is put forth that the petitioner has made erroneous assertion that he is residing in village Pagarkhurd which is 50 Kms, away from Satna. It is highlighted that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court about his place of residence to claim the benefit of unavoidable circumstance, though actually it is the carelessness and callousness of the petitioner, it is asseverated that in village Pagarkhurd landline as well as mobile phone facility is. available and is in working condition and the. statement made by the petitioner is false. ( 8. ) AN additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent by way of additional reply wherein it has been set-forth that the petitioner has to look after the Government Hospital on 24 hour basis and in most of the days he has to remain present at Government Hospital, Pagarkhurd, though his official residence is at Birsinghpur and bis family is only living there but due to pressure of work be is staying at Pagarkhurd. Various assertions have been made to highlight that he did not have the communication about the result. It is reiterated that there is no land line facility at Birsinghpur and emphasis has been made on the marks obtained by him. Various assertions have been made to highlight that he did not have the communication about the result. It is reiterated that there is no land line facility at Birsinghpur and emphasis has been made on the marks obtained by him. It is contended that on 16. 6. 2008 he had been given the additional duty at Birsinghpur and prior to that he was working exclusively at Pagarkhurd. He has also been directed to combat the natural calamities at village Pagarkhurd and, therefore, it is clear that he was working full time as a Medical Officer in village Pagarkhurd. ( 9. ) WE have heard Mr. Aditya Sanghi teamed counsel for the petitioner and mr. Deepak Awastfay, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. ( 10. ) THE singular and seminal question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can be given the benefit as enshrined under Rule 1. 20 (8) of the rules. Rule 1. 20 deals with counselling. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule stipulates that programme for counselling will be published in the leading newspapers of the state. Separate call letters wilt not be sent to the candidates. Various provisions have been engrafted to meet out certain contingencies. Rule 1. 20 (8) which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:- " (8) If the candidates or his/her representatives due to any unavoidable circumstances does not remain present on the date and time fixed for them for scrutiny of the documents and counselling, then such candidates, if they come afterwards, will be considered only at the stage, where the counselling is progressing irrespective of their merit. They will be considered only if the counselling of their category is going on and allotment done earlier to other candidates on the basis of their merit will remain unchanged. This rule will be applicable to candidates of all categories. " Submission of Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to unavoidable circumstance, neither the petitioner nor his representatives could remain present on the date and time fixed for scrutiny of documents and counselling. The ground has been pyramided, as has been indicated hereinbefore, on the foundation that there was no possibility to know about the result. ( 11. ) THE controversy, as we perceive, rests on a factual dispute. The ground has been pyramided, as has been indicated hereinbefore, on the foundation that there was no possibility to know about the result. ( 11. ) THE controversy, as we perceive, rests on a factual dispute. We are absolutely conscious that merely* because some disputed question of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. " It has been held in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal committee, Bhatinda, AIR (1969) 3 SCC 769 that mere existence of disputed questions of fact ipso facto does not prevent a writ Court from determining the disputed question of fact. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in ABL international Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of india Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 . lt would be depend upon the facts of each case to make it a case exclusively in the domain of disputed facts. ( 12. ) IN the case at hand, as the narration of factual assertions would show, the petitioner has been given official accommodation at Birsinghpur and the rent is being deducted. A tall stand has been put forth that he has been working for 24 hours in the hospital and his family has been staying at Birsinghpur. The allotment of quarter at Birsinghpur is not controverted. It is difficult to lend credence to the asseveration that the petitioner was working on 24 hours basis at Pagarkhud and not going to meet his family. It is well nigh impossible to accept that he could not have been made aware of the marks. ( 13. ) MR. SANGHI, learned counsel has laid immense emphasis on the terms "unavoidable circumstances". In this context, we may refer with profit to the meaning ascribed to the term "unavoidable" in P. Ramanatha Aiyars Law lexicon which is as under: - "if no human agency concerned with the process could, by the exercise of a high standard of reasonable care have avoided the contamination, the consequence, if a consequence of the process, is unavoidable. " in the said Law Lexicon the terms "unavoidable cause" has been described as follows :-"a cause which will not be avoided by ordinary prudent person. " ( 14. ) IN Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition the term unavoidable has been described as follows: "unavoidable. " in the said Law Lexicon the terms "unavoidable cause" has been described as follows :-"a cause which will not be avoided by ordinary prudent person. " ( 14. ) IN Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition the term unavoidable has been described as follows: "unavoidable. Not avoidable, incapable of being shunned or prevented, inevitable, and necessary. " in the said dictionary unavoidable causality has been described to mean an event or accident which human prudence, foresight, and sagacity cannot prevent happening against will and without negligence. ( 15. ) FROM the conduct of the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion, that he was either careless or callous to find out his result. Carelessness, callousness or negligence cannot be equated with unavoidable circumstances. Hence, the benefit of said Rule cannot be made available to the petitioner. ( 16. ) IN the result, we perceive no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same has to pave the path of dismissal which we direct. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.