Judgment : W.P.No.6371 of 2010 is filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the second respondent to implement G.O.Ms.No.206 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(K) Department, dated 06.11.2008 by continuing the selection process based on roster method, from the last turn upto which the selection was already made i.e.,turns 1 to 5 for the year 2008, 6 to 8 for the year 2009 and 9 to 11 for the year 2010 and allot the seat for MD Radio Diagnosis course to the 10th point which is reserved for back ward class to the petitioner, who is a backward class candidate, for the Post Graduate(PG) Degree Course in Radio Diagnosis course in any one of the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the year 2010-2011. 2. In short, the petitioner is claiming right to be admitted in PG degree course in the III seat vacant which is termed as odd seat in MD Radio Diagnosis in Tamil Nadu Government Medical College for the academic year 2010-2011 both on merit basis and by applying roster method of rule of reservation as stated supra. 3. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration in these two writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner belongs to Backward Class and she completed her MBBS course during 2004 from Coimbatore Medical College and she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in Primary Health Centers in rural areas in two districts after passing the qualifying TNPSC examination during 2006. The petitioner had, on the date of the filing of the writ petitions, been working in Primary Health Center at Vijayamangalam, Erode District and she completed more than 3 years of service in the year 2010 thereby became eligible to get admission to PG seats in Government Medical Colleges under service candidate quota. While so, prospectus was issued by the second respondent on 22.01.2010 for the Entrance Examination for admission to PG Degree/Diploma/MDS/5 years M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the year 2010-2011. As per the particulars made available herein, the total number of seats available is 545 in 16 courses in 30 colleges. Out of which 3 vacancies are available in MD Radio Diagnosis course(hereinafter shortly referred to as MDRD) course. As per the particulars made available herein, the total number of seats available is 545 in 16 courses in 30 colleges. Out of which 3 vacancies are available in MD Radio Diagnosis course(hereinafter shortly referred to as MDRD) course. While so, the petitioner appeared before the Entrance Examination for admission to the PG degree and she is ranked second in the open merit list published on 19.3.2010 in the PG Entrance Examination so held. Thereafter, counseling for PG medical course was commenced and the counseling for the petitioner was due to be held on 06.04.2010. In the mean time the petitioner has come forward with these two writ petitions (1) W.P.No.6370/2010 on 29.3.2010 for the relief as stated supra on the ground that as per clause 40, 41A, 51 and 54-B of the prospectus and as per G.O.Ms.No.206 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(K) Department, dated 06.11.2008, out of three seats available for MDRD course for the academic year 2010-2011, one is allotted to service category, two are allotted to non service (i.e) open category and had the roster method as laid down in the Government Order been properly followed the petitioner would have obtained a seat in her optional subject and failure on the part of the second respondent to follow the roster method properly resulted in denial of PG seat in MDRD course to the petitioner. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has reproduced clauses 40, 41-A, 51 and 54-B of the prospectus for the PG Entrance Examination for the year 2010-2011 and, has further reproduced the contents of the Government Order and has in her grounds explained in detail as to how the roster method ought to have been continued and how it was not correctly followed by the second respondent. 4. She has on the same day on 29.10.2010 come forward with the second writ petition W.P.No.6371 of 2010 directing the second respondent to continue the roster method as per G.O.Ms.No.206 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(K) Department, dated 06.11.2008 and as explained in W.P.No.6370 of 2010. Though the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are different (i.e.) first one seeking admission on merit basis and the second petition seeking admission by properly applying the roster method, as per the Government Order above referred to, the pleadings based on which the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are the same. Though the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are different (i.e.) first one seeking admission on merit basis and the second petition seeking admission by properly applying the roster method, as per the Government Order above referred to, the pleadings based on which the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are the same. 5. Both the writ petitions are filed along with direction petitions to reserve one seat in PG degree course in MDRD and to pass an interim direction in the same line as that of the main relief sought for in W.P.No.6371 of 2010. This Court has by order dated 05.4.2010 observed that any allotment to be made in the counseling to be held on 06.04.2010 will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The writ petition along with interim applications came up before this Court on 16.4.2010 on which date it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that one Dr.K.Sudha has been provisionally allotted MDRD odd seat and this Court has passed an order in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.6370 of 2010 that in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, the petitioner would be allowed to pay fees in respect of P.G. Course, Viz. MDRD with that observation the writ petitions along with interim applications are directed to be posted for final hearing. 6. The writ petitions are originally filed against two respondents viz (i) State of Tamil Nadu and (ii) the selection committee represented by its Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education. This Court has by independent order directed the writ petitioner to implead the allottee by name Dr.K.Sudha as one of the respondents in the present petition and Dr.K.Sudha was subsequently, impleaded and was duly served with notice in WPs and also duly appeared through her counsel. 7. The official respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit on 09.04.2010 and the same is followed by reply to the counter by the petitioner on 23.04.2010 which in turn is followed by further reply on behalf of the official respondents on 27.4.2010. In the mean time, the third respondent also filed her counter on 29.4.2010 and rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner on 05.05.2010. The official respondents have also filed their additional counter affidavit on 18.06.2010. In the mean time, the third respondent also filed her counter on 29.4.2010 and rejoinder to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner on 05.05.2010. The official respondents have also filed their additional counter affidavit on 18.06.2010. In addition to the affidavit, counter additional affidavit and counter affidavit and reply affidavit, the petitioner has also submitted type set of papers containing the following documents: (i) G.O.Ms.No.2006, P & AR Department, dated 6.11.2008 (ii) Prospectus for the year 2010-2011 issued by the second respondent. (iii) Provisional merit list for PG course 2010-2011. 8. The official respondents have filed type set and additional type set of papers containing the following documents: (i) G.O.Ms.No.2006, P & AR Department, dated 6.11.2008 (ii) Prospectus 2008-2009 (iii) Prospectus 2009-2010 (iv) Prospectus 2010-2011 (v) Seat Matrix (vi) Post Graduate MDS 2010-11 Session Entrance Examination Mark for 90 (vii) Letter to Government for modification in the clause No.43(a) and 55(b) (viii) Amendment from Government for clause No.43(a) 2010-2011 session (ix) Publication of Merit List (x) Allotment order for Dr.V.S.Kiruthika Selvanayaki (xi) Relieving order from Government Primary Health Center, Thingalur, Erode. (xii) Joining report by Dean, Madras Medical College for M.D., (Obstetrics and Gynaecology Branch) 9. The third respondent has filed type set and additional type set of papers containing the following documents: (i) List of candidates allotted for M.DObstetrics and Gynaecology (ii) Allotment order by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent for M.D Radio Diagnosis Course. (iii) Vacancy position for PG 2010-2011 session (iv) List of candidates allotted for PG 2010-2011 selection (v) Receipt for payment of fees by the 3rd respondent for M.D Radio Diagnosis Course. 10. (iii) Vacancy position for PG 2010-2011 session (iv) List of candidates allotted for PG 2010-2011 selection (v) Receipt for payment of fees by the 3rd respondent for M.D Radio Diagnosis Course. 10. As already referred to, though different reliefs are sought for in the main writ petitions the pleadings based on which are the reliefs in both the writs are one and the same as if there are 3 seats available in the MD Radio Diagnosis out of which one is for service category and two are for open category and the service and the open category seats are to be filled up on merit basis and by applying the roster method of rule of reservation as per G.O.Ms.No.206, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 6.11.2008 and the roster method is not properly followed and the single roster method ought to have been followed continuously for both service and open category candidates from the year 2008-2009 and had it been properly followed, the petitioner having acquired second rank would have been allotted turn No.10 which is reserved for backward community and failure to properly follow roster method has deprived her to get her desired discipline. 11. Such claim made by the petitioner is seriously opposed by the official respondents. The official respondents have in their counter affidavit have clearly stated that separate roster method is to be followed for both service and open categories and out of three vacancies in MDRD, one reserved for service and one reserved for open and remaining odd seat are to be filled up as per Clause 54 (b) of the prospectus and as the total seats are more than one and less than eight by also applying the rule of reservation. As per the G.O. referred to above, the roster turns adopted for previous year 2008-2009 wherein all the five seats allotted to service category is 1 to 5 and roster turns adopted for the year 2009-2010 for two seats under service quota were turns 6 and 7 and one for open category No.1 and turn to be adopted for the year 2010-2011 for one seat under service category is 10 and for two seats under open category are 2 and 3 and the same is rightly adopted and the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the manner in which the rule of reservation is applied. The manner in which roster points adopted as detailed in the counter filed by the official respondents is questioned by the petitioner by way of reply affidavit wherein the petitioner has for the first time come forward with new plea which is not only totally inconsistent but also contrary to the stand taken in the original writ petition. 11.a. According to the averments raised in the reply affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, the odd seat as per Clause 43 (a) of the prospectus is allotted for the service category and is to be filled up on merit and communal reservation and the petitioner has in para 8 of the same reply affidavit stated that the Rule of Reservation is applicable to only Clause 54 (a) which is meant for vacancy Nos.1 and 2, where the selection will be based on merit and the rule of reservation wherever it is applicable and the same is inapplicable for 3rd seat i.e. odd seat and Clause 54 (b) is applicable for odd seat as per which the same shall be filled up only by merit without following the rule of reservation and the petitioner, being service candidate and having secured 2nd rank in the above merit list, is entitled to get the odd seat. It is for the first time stated in the reply affidavit, dated 23.4.2010, that amending Clause 43 (a) has no validity, since the said amendment has not been published in the web site as per Clause 45 of the Prospectus and Section 43-a has to be read without reference to the amendment and in that event, the odd seat is to be filled up only from and among the service candidate on merit and on communal reservation. 12. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent who comes under open category and belonging to MBC and who is the allottee of MDRD odd seat in the counselling held on 6.4.2010 under open category quota filed her counter. 12. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent who comes under open category and belonging to MBC and who is the allottee of MDRD odd seat in the counselling held on 6.4.2010 under open category quota filed her counter. As per the averments contained therein, the roster method is to be separately applied for service and open category and during the year 2010-2011, out of three seats, one is allotted to service category and two are allotted to open category and all the seats are to be filled up on merit basis and by applying the rule of reservation and there is no odd seat remaining vacant and odd seat referred to in Clause 43(a) of the prospectus is to be understood as single seat course and not as the remaining seat vacant after allotting 50% of the vacancy each to service and non service category. The 3rd respondent has also supported the plea of the official respondents with regard to the roster turns to be adopted for one service category and two open category seats for the year 2010-2011. The 3rd respondent has also come forward with the rejoinder on 05.05.2010, wherein the 3rd respondent has contended that the claim raised in the reply affidavit is totally opposed to the stand taken in the original Writ Petitions and such new claim which is not raised in the Writ Petitions cannot be allowed to be raised in the reply statement and the 3rd respondent is on the date of the allotment of MDRD is not aware of the pendency of this proceedings and any order passed by this Court in the same. It is also further disclosed in her rejoinder that the petitioner has also in the same counselling held on 6.4.2010 opted for M.D. Obstrics and Gynaecology and duly paid the fees and both of them have been continuing in the respective course and as per Clause 43, the candidate who availed one option and accepted one course during the counselling cannot change deny it later and had the petitioner been really serious in her claim, she should have remained in the wait list only for MDRD Course and she should not have accepted the other course and having accepted other discipline, she is now exempted from claiming MDRD Course. The petitioner has suppressed the factum of acceptance of different course by her, the payment of fees, her continuance in the same course and in the event of the wrong roster method as claimed by the petitioner, being adopted the same is likely to disturb the entire selection process involving 545 seats in 16 courses and the writ petition filed by the petitioner without impleading the other selected candidates to other courses is not maintainable. The Official Respondent has also in the additional counter filed on 18.6.2010 reiterated the same stand as raised in the counter affidavit and in their reply affidavit. 13. From the pleadings and the counter pleadings raised on both sides, the points emerge for consideration by this Court are as follows: a. Whether the odd seat mentioned in the prospectus more than once, refers to single seat course or remaining seat vacant after allotting 50% of the vacancies each to service and non-service category. b. Whether as per Clause 43-a and 54-b, the odd seat ought to be filled up from and among service candidates on merit basis without applying the rule of reservation. c. Whether the amendment introduced through letter dated 18.3.2010 thereby amending 43(a) not to keep the odd seat for service category and to fill it up only on merit basis and on communal reservation is valid. d. Whether the roster method is to be continuously or to be separately applied for service category and open category? 14. For the purpose of properly appreciating the respective contentions raised on all sides relating to the issues above referred to the clauses 15, 43, 45 and 54 of the prospectus for PG admission for academic year 2010-2011 are to be necessarily referred to. 15. Clause 15 : The Government Orders issued and to be issued from time to time pertaining to any of the matters contained in the prospectus should be read as part and parcel of his prospectus and such terms and conditions in the Government Order are deemed to have been incorporated in this prospectus." Clause 43 (a) Before amendment After amendment Admission to PG Degree/ Diploma/Five Year M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery)/MDS courses shall be made by counselling on the basis of merit applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable. In case of an odd number of seat remaining that seat will be filled up only from Service Candidates on merit and communal reservation. (Neuro Surgery)/MDS courses shall be made by counselling on the basis of merit applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable. In case of an odd number of seat remaining that seat will be filled up only from Service Candidates on merit and communal reservation. Admission to PG/degree/ diploma/five year M.Ch. /MDS courses/ shall be made by counseling on the basis of merit applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable. In case of odd number of sanctioned seat remaining the seat will be filled by merit and communal reservation. (b) Candidates will be called for counselling according to their rank in batches. (c) Candidates can choose any one of the branches available at the time of counselling. (d) If a candidate wants to be wait listed, he/she can opt to remain in the waiting list for any one particular discipline only. (e) Candidates can remain on the "Wait List" only for courses and not for colleges. (f) If a candidate chooses to be in the waiting list for a particular Degree Course in a Speciality, he/she will not be given a firm seat in any other degree course. (g) If a candidate gets an allotment in a Diploma of a particular speciality at the time of counselling, he will be wait listed for Degree Course in the same Speciality for filling up of any consequential vacancy that may arise later and will be allotted based on merit/community. (i.e) If a candidate is allotted DGO his/her option for MD (OG) will be maintained in Degree (OG) wait list. The candidates who have got allotment for diploma courses also can be in the Wait List for Non Clinical Subjects. (h) A candidate who is allotted to PG Degree Course cannot remain in the "Wait List" for any other discipline. (i) Option once given during the counselling cannot be changed (j) Reallotment from one college to another college is permitted during counselling only. (k) Request for transfer from one college/course will not be allowed strictly after the cut off date as per the MCI norms. (l) Candidates selected for admission should give a declaration in the form given at the time of counselling that he/she is liable for forfeiture of selection/admission if suppression of facts are found at any time during or after the admission to the course. (l) Candidates selected for admission should give a declaration in the form given at the time of counselling that he/she is liable for forfeiture of selection/admission if suppression of facts are found at any time during or after the admission to the course. The selection/admission shall be liable for cancellation based on the declaration at any time during or after the admission to the course." Clause 45 "Any change or modification and relevant information pertaining to this admission process will be made available immediately on the website. (WWW.tnhealth. or/WWW.tngov.in). The candidates are instructed to visit the website from the date of application till the end of counseling without fail. Please do not wait for counseling information to be received by post. All information including the date of counseling will be put up in the website. Candidates will be permitted for counseling accordingly. Postal delay may lead to non appearance on the notified date and time. The candidate can only claim the course and the college. Section 54 : a. The Selection will be made by counselling based on merit and by applying the Rule of Reservation followed by the Government of Tamil Nadu wherever applicable. b. 50% of seats in each branch and in each college are reserved for service candidates, in addition to those service candidates selected in the open category. In case of an odd number seat remaining vacant that seat shall be filled up by merit only. roster method of rule of reservation will be followed if the seats are more than 1 and less than 8 in each branch as per G.O.Ms.No.241/dt.29.10.07 of P&AR (K) Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. This is subject to the final verdict of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP 14014-15/09 filed by the Government against the orders passed by the Bench of the High Court of Madras, dated 12.5.2009 in W.A.Nos.763 and 764/2007 and W.P.No.7067/2009. If the seats are 8 and more, the rule of reservation shall be as follows: Open Competition : 31% Backward Class : 30% Most Backward/Denotified: 20% Scheduled Caste : 18% Scheduled Tribe : 1% Within the 30% reservation of Backward Classes 3.5% reservation will be provided for Muslims. Within the 18% reservation for Scheduled Classes 3% reservation will be provided for Arunthathiyars. 16. All issues relate to mode of selection of 3rd seat i.e. odd seat. Within the 18% reservation for Scheduled Classes 3% reservation will be provided for Arunthathiyars. 16. All issues relate to mode of selection of 3rd seat i.e. odd seat. The clause 43a, 54(a) and (b) refer to the method of filling up of such odd seat. The appropriate authority to explain whether odd seat refers to (1) single seat course or (2) remaining sear after appropriation of seats among service and non-service category is the Government and the same agrees with the petitioners contention that odd seat only refer to the IInd category. The combined reading of Section 43 (a) before amendment 54 (a) and (b) would lead to an inference that out of 3 seats in MDRD course each one seat is allotted to service and non-service category and the odd seat is to be filled up from service candidate on merit basis and on communal reservation. Though the Writ Petitioner has taken an inconsistent stand at different stage as to the mode of filling up of the odd seat Course, the same can be dealt with at the later point of time. Despite the same, this Court has to necessarily decide the mode of filling up of odd seat and for the said purpose has to go into the validity of amending clause 43(a). The clauses above referred to before amendment of clause 43(a) pose no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that it is from and among service candidates on merit basis and on communal reservation. However, the Government has, after the prospectus was issued and after the entrance examination was over and before the publication of the open merit list and before the counselling, issued a letter dated 18.3.2010 thereby amending Clause 43 (a) to the effect that the odd seat will be filled up by merit and communal reservation only and by such amendment, the allotment of the 3rd seat to service candidate stands revoked. The petitioner has attacked the validity of this letter on more than one ground. 17. The petitioner has attacked the validity of this letter on more than one ground. 17. According to the petitioner, any amendment can be effected only made through Government Order signed by the Governor and the same cannot be in the form of letter dated 18.03.2010 as produced herein, and the amendment in the form of intra departmental communication is not made known to the candidates through publication in web site as per Clause 45 as such, the so called amendment is bad in law and invalid and is not binding on the candidates who are guided only by the unamended instructions in the prospectus issued to them. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the said amendment is made known to the petitioner only through the additional counter filed by the official respondents, she had no occasion to question the same in the original affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions and the petitioner is hence able to raise the objection only in the rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit during the pendency of the Writ Petition and in any event, the amendment is without jurisdiction and is legally unsustainable. 18. Whereas the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official respondents strenuously argued in support of the validity of the amendment by saying that what matters is the contents and not the form and the amendment though in the form of letter is only the order of the Government and the same is issued by accepting the proposal for amendment forwarded by Director of Medical Education in his Letter, dated 8.3.2010 enclosed at Page 2 of the typed set 2 (Additional Typed Set dated 18.6.2010) filed by the official respondents and the letter does in all respects satisfy the rules of business framed under Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended on behalf of the official respondents, that even assuming it to be true, that it is not accordance with business rules and Article 166 of the Constitution, the same will not render the same invalid but it will not enjoy the immunity from judicial challenge and that way business rules are only directory and not mandatory. It is further contended that the Government is always free to amend the selection criteria laid down in the Prospectus as and when warranted. It is further contended that the Government is always free to amend the selection criteria laid down in the Prospectus as and when warranted. The following judgments are also cited on behalf of the respondents in support of such contention: 1. AIR 1952 Supreme Court 181 in Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and others; 2. AIR 1997 Kerala 218 in Relly Susan Mathew v. Controller of Entrance Examinations, Trivandrum and others. 19. This Court finds greater force in the argument so advanced by the official respondents for the following reasons: The existence of one such document is not denied on the side of the petitioner. What is denied is the valid execution of the same. It is noteworthy to mention that the amendment is introduced only through the letter dated 18.3.2010, by issuing approval of the proposal of amendment forwarded by the Director of Education in his letter, dated 8.3.2010 to the Government. The letter dated 8.3.2010 proceeds to say that the Government accepted the proposal dated 8.3.2010 and issued amendment to the Clause, the particulars of which were are in the same letter. However, the same does not invalidate the order as laid down in the judgment above referred to. 20. The Supreme Court has in para 7 of its judgment referred above, while dealing with the validity of the order passed by the Government in similar manner clearly held that strict compliance with the requirements of Article 166 gives an immunity to the order but it cannot be challenged on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. If therefore, the requirements of that Article are not complied with, the resulting position in that immunity cannot be claimed by the State. This, however, does not vitiate the order itself. Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate Government must take a decision and it should be made out that such a decision has been in fact taken by the appropriate Government. In the case decided by the Kerala High Court the issue is relating to amendment to the Selection criteria in the prospectus for admission to professional course and therein also amendment was made after the admissions and the Kerala High Court has by following catena of Apex Court judgments upheld the amendment. In the case decided by the Kerala High Court the issue is relating to amendment to the Selection criteria in the prospectus for admission to professional course and therein also amendment was made after the admissions and the Kerala High Court has by following catena of Apex Court judgments upheld the amendment. While doing so, the Kerala High Court in paragraph 11 of its decision observed as follows: "It has been held by the Supreme Court repeatedly that a formal requirement of an order under Article 166(1) of the Constitution is only directory and that the noncompliance will not invalidate any order. The only consequence of such a noncompliance will be that the order may not be immune from challenge. It will be open to the State by the production of files or by a statement in the counter affidavit that the Government has actually passed the order in compliance with the rules of business transactions. In this case, in the counter affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the Government passed an order on 16.7.1996 ordering certain alteration of conditions in the prospectus. ... The order has been communicated to the Controller of Examinations for implementation. Further, Ex.R1 (d) is passed in accordance with the requirements of Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India." 21. That being the legal and factual position in this regard the amendment to Clause 43 (a) introduced through the proceedings dated 18.3.2010 before the publication of the mark list and before the counselling is no way vitiated and is valid in law. 22. As a matter of fact, the petitioner can be attributed due knowledge about the same on the basis of the pleadings raised in the original Writ Petition as well as in the reply affidavit dated 23.04.2010. The pleadings in both the writ petitions definitely proceed on the basis that out of 3 seats one is allotted to service category and 2 are allotted to non service/open category and the same will lead to an inference that the petitioner is aware of the amending clause even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. The pleadings in both the writ petitions definitely proceed on the basis that out of 3 seats one is allotted to service category and 2 are allotted to non service/open category and the same will lead to an inference that the petitioner is aware of the amending clause even as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. Had it been true that she is not aware of the amendment, the pleadings should have been proceeded as if out of 3 seats the seats 1 and 2 are allotted to service and non service respectively and the odd seat to be filled up from and among service candidates on merits and on communal reservation service category-2 and open category-1. Whereas the basis for the relief sought for in the writ petition is totally different and as per amending clause 43 (a) and the definite stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petitions is that out of 3 seats 1 is for service (representing 50% of total vacancy) and 2 are for non service/open category. The petitioner has for the first time in para 7 at page 4 of her reply to the counter filed by the respondents raised different plea and the reply to the counter is sworn in on 23.4.2010. It is noteworthy to mention herein that the official respondents have no where in their original counter filed on 9.4.2010 referred to the document, dated 18.3.2010. The official respondents have referred to this document only in their reply counter affidavit dated 27.4.2010 which is after the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner having the objections against the amendment and the amendment order is also enclosed only in the Additional typed set filed on 18.6.2010 by the official respondents. Thus, the petitioner is quite aware of the amendment much before counter filed by the official respondents, and much before the filing of the Writ Petition. That being so, the petitioner is not justified in basing her claim under amended clause 43-a and is simultaneously challenging the validity of the amendment in the reply affidavit. Had she been really bonafide in her objection against the amendment the petitioner ought to have chosen to suitably amend the relief after filing the reply affidavit. That being so, the petitioner is not justified in basing her claim under amended clause 43-a and is simultaneously challenging the validity of the amendment in the reply affidavit. Had she been really bonafide in her objection against the amendment the petitioner ought to have chosen to suitably amend the relief after filing the reply affidavit. Even in her reply affidavit, her definite stand is that the odd seat does not fall either under open category or under service category but to be filled up only by merit. 23. But the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would urge before this court that the Court is even in the absence of appropriate relief, empowered to mould its relief to meet the requirement on the basis of all the materials available herein. In my considered view such contention is not tenable. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents by relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (1) MLJ 22 in P.G.Narayanan, Member, Rajya Sabha Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India the court cannot be asked to grant the prayer for proper relief by itself by moulding appropriate relief without any application by the petitioner requesting amendment of the prayer for proper relief. Such contention is fully fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of Our High Court which has observed so by following the reasoning of earlier Supreme Court judgment made in Prabodh Verma V. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1985) 1 SCR 216 . In the said judgment the Apex Court has observed as follows: "The fact that the High Courts and a fortiori this Court have power to mould the reliefs to meet the requirements of each case does not mean that the draftsman of a writ petition should not apply his mind to the proper relief which should be asked for and throw the entire burden of it upon the Court. An advocate owes a duty to his client as well as to the court - a duty to his client to give of his best to the case which he has undertaken to conduct for his client and a duty to assist the court to the utmost of his skill and ability in the proper and and satisfactory administration of justice. In our system of administration of justice, the courts have a right to receive assistance from the Bar and it is the duty of the advocate who drafts a writ petition or any other pleading to ask for appropriate reliefs. The High Court granted the proper relief by declaring that Ordinance to be void but it should have, before proceeding to hear the writ petition, insisted that the petitioners should set their house in order by amending the petition and praying for proper reliefs." 24. Though the official respondents as well as the individual respondent have seriously objected to the nature of the pleadings and the reliefs sought for in the Original Writ Petition, the petitioner has not chosen to come forward with any application to suitably amend the prayer. Such failure on the part of the petitioner cannot be liabily brushed aside. 25. One more aspect to be considered in this regard is the omission to publish the amendment in the Website as provided under Clause 45 of the Prospectus. It is not in dispute that the amendment is not made available immediately on the Website. It is already observed by this Court that the petitioner is aware of the amendment on the date of filing of this writ petition on 29.3.2010. That being so, failure to publish the same in the Web site will not affect the validity of the order. However, the order regarding this amendment is, as per clause 15, after it is duly issued, to be read as part and parcel of the prospectus. 26. The petitioner has also sought to dispute the validity of the amendment on one more ground that the same is malafide in nature as it is issued by an individual officer so as to benefit a particular candidate. In the opinion of this Court such a contention is totally baseless having regard to the stage at which the amendment is introduced. The proposal for amendment is submitted by the Director of Medical Education as early as on 8.03.2010 and the same was approved by its proceedings dated 18.3.2010. Only thereafter, open merit list was published on 19.3.2010 and thereafter the Counseling was commenced. The Counseling for both the petitioner and the third respondent was held on 6.4.2010. The proposal for amendment is submitted by the Director of Medical Education as early as on 8.03.2010 and the same was approved by its proceedings dated 18.3.2010. Only thereafter, open merit list was published on 19.3.2010 and thereafter the Counseling was commenced. The Counseling for both the petitioner and the third respondent was held on 6.4.2010. That being the list of dates and events, no malafide can be attached to the proceedings, dated 18.3.2010, as if it is issued only to favour some independent candidate. In that event, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivatsava and another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 188 came for the rescue of the official respondents. The Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above is of the view that there is always presumption in favour of administration that exercise of power is in good faith and public benefit and in the absence of specific allegations and probable case made out in support of the same, the impugned amendment can not be nullified. Thus once the amendment is held valid the allotment of the 3rd remaining vacant seat is no longer available to service category. 27. The next aspect to be seen is as to whether the same is to be filled up only by merit or both on merit basis and on communal reservation. Though the petitioner has, in the reply statement seriously contended that no communal reservation is applicable to the 3rd odd seat and it shall be filled up only by merit, the petitioner has also in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as in the same reply affidavit, raised a contention that the same is to be filled on merit basis as well as by applying rule of reservation. The relief sought for in the writ petitions are mainly on the ground that the roster method is not followed properly and had it been properly and continuously followed and had 10th turn be adopted for odd seat in open category, she would have obtained the same in MDRD. In the reply affidavit the plea that the 3rd seat is not allotted to either service or non-service and the same is to be filled up only by merit is so vaguely raised. In the reply affidavit the plea that the 3rd seat is not allotted to either service or non-service and the same is to be filled up only by merit is so vaguely raised. The averments raised in the counter filed by the official respondents to the effect that the 3rd seat is to be filled up by merit is also sought to be relied upon on the side of the petitioner, in support of her contention in this regard. In the opinion of this Court, the averments raised in the counter to that effect does in no way alter the basic selection criteria. The combined reading of amended Clause 43 (a), 54(a) and entire 54 (b) would only lead to an irresistible conclusion that the 3rd seat is to be filled up both on merit basis and by applying communal reservation. 28. In this regard if the amended Clause 43(a) is recollected it is very clear in stating that it will be filled up on merit basis and on communal reservation. The clause 54 (a) is general in nature in saying that the selection will be made through Counselling on merit basis and by applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable. The Clause 54(b) para 1 proceeds to say that the odd seat remaining vacant shall be filled up by merit only. But the same cannot be read in isolation without reference to para 2 of Clause 54 (b). Clause 54(b) para 2 says that roster method of rule of reservation will be followed if the available seats are more than one and less than 8 in each branch and the combined reading of Clause 43 (a), 54(b) paras 1 and 2 makes it very clear that as the total number of seats in MDRD Course is more than 1 and less than 8 i.e. 3 in number, the rule of reservation has to be applied to fill up the same on merit as well as by rule of reservation. Thus for the discussion held above, this Court has now come to a conclusion that out of 3 vacancies in MDRD course the first 2 seats are allotted to each one to service and non-service/open category and as the allotment of 3rd seat to service category is subsequently withdrawn and as it is to be filled up on merit basis and by applying communal reservation, the same is to be necessarily treated as open category and the number of seats allotted to open category is hence increased to 2. This position is also rightly understood by the petitioner on the date of filing of the writ petition and the petitioner has in unequivocal terms averred in the writ petitions that out of 3 seats one is for service category and two are for open category. Having stated so, the petitioner cannot be now by way of reply affidavit permitted to take a different stand without even taking any steps to suitably amend the pleadings or the relief column in the Writ Petitions. 29. The next issue is relating to the mode of applying the rule of reservation. As per the averments raised in the Writ Petitions and in the reply statement, the roster method is to be continuously adopted for both service and open category as per G.O. Ms.206, P&AR. Dated 6.7.2008. The petitioner has also in both the writ petitions put forth the mode of applying the roster method. As per such mode the turns 1 to 5 are adopted for 5 seats for the academic year 2008-2009 (wherein all the five seats are allotted to service category) and turns 6 to 8 are adopted for 3 seats for the year 2008-2009 (wherein out of three seats two seats are for service category and one is for non-service/open category) and turns to be adopted for 2010-2011 are 9 to 11 and that the 10th point which is reserved for Backward Class ought to have been adopted for the petitioner whereas the official as well as the individual respondents would say that roster method is to be separately applied for both service and open category. The leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also in the course of argument fairly conceded this position. 30. The leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also in the course of argument fairly conceded this position. 30. The relevant Order G.O.Ms.No.206 in which is originally having 100 roster points is revised and as per the revised Government Order dated 06.11.2008 it is 200 roster points and revised order is applicable to selection or appointment made on or after 22.10.2008 and the revised roster shall be continued from the last turn up to which the selection was already made. For the purpose of appreciating the mode of applying roster 1 to 11 out of 200 points in the roster method enclosed as Annexure to the revised Government Order is given as follows: 1. General Turn 2. Scheduled Castes 3. Most Backward Castes and Denotified communities 4. Backward Classes (other than backward class Muslims) 5. General Turn 6. Scheduled Castes 7. Most Backward Classes and Denotified communities 8. Backward Classes (Other than backward class Muslims) 9. General Turn 10. Backward Classes (other than backward class Muslims) 11. General Turn 31. As per the Government Order, the revised roster method is to be applied for the selections held on 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. It is not in dispute that for the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the seats available in MDRD were 5 and 3 respectively and all the 5 seats for the academic year 2008-2009 are allotted to service category and out of 3 seats for the year 2009-2010 service category is given 2 seats and open category is given one seat. As per the mode of applying the rule of reservation as claimed by the petitioner in her writ petitions, for the vacancies in the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 the turns adopted and to be adopted are as follows: 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 1to 5 6 to 8 9 to 1 32. For the first vacancy in 2010-2011 which is allotted to service category, the turn to be adopted is No.9 which is reserved for general turn and as per the open merit list enclosed at page No.28 of the petitioners typed set, one Dr.M.Ramesh secured 79.12 marks and first rank is allotted the same. For the second and third seat the turns to be adopted are 10 and 11 reserved for backward class and general turn. For the second and third seat the turns to be adopted are 10 and 11 reserved for backward class and general turn. Though the petitioner has in her writ petitions claimed 10th turn to be adopted the same is incorrect and the turn to be adopted for odd seat is 11. If the 3rd remaining vacant seat is to be filled up from and among service candidates on merit basis and by applying the communal reservation, as per unamended Clause 43 (a) then the roster point to be adopted for odd seat is 11 which is reserved for general turn and the petitioner is the only service candidate entitled to get the same. But whether it is 10 or 11 the petitioner will be benefited. That is why the petitioner having obtained 78.84 marks and 2nd in rank in merit is claiming the same on the basis of merit and rule of reservation. 33. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has in the course of arguments changed the stand taken in the petition and advanced arguments as if the roster method is to be separately followed for service and open category. If that is so, the roster turns to be adopted is to be assessed for the purpose complete adjudication of all the issues raised herein in two methods. In the first mode the odd seat should be filled from and among service candidate on merit and communal reservation basis as claimed by the petitioner. The second mode is by treating the same as open category to be filled up on merit basis by applying communal reservation. First method (service candidates - 1 and 3 seats merit basis and on communal reservation) Year Seats Total Service Open 2008-2009 5 1 to 5 ... 2009-2010 3 6 and 7 1 2010-2011 3 8 and 9 2 34. For the academic year 2010-2011 the points 8 and 9 to be adopted for 1 and 3 seats under service category are reserved for Backward class and general turn and the turn to be adopted for the odd seat is 9 and in that event points 8 and 9 should be allotted to Rank holders 1 and 2 in the merit list. As the petitioner herein, is the 2nd rank holder in the merit list the odd seat is as claimed by her to be allotted to her. As the petitioner herein, is the 2nd rank holder in the merit list the odd seat is as claimed by her to be allotted to her. Second method (service candidates - 1 non service/open seats Nos. 2 and 3) Year Seats Total Roster turn Service Non Service (Open) 2008-2009 5 1 to 5 ... 2009-2010 3 6 and 7 1 2010-2011 3 8 2 & 3 35. Under the second method the turns to be adopted for one service and 2 non-service/open category are 8 and 2 and 3 respectively and 2 and 3 are reserved for scheduled case and most backward class and the same are accordingly allotted to such community candidates having the higher marks and third respondent is hence allotted the third odd seat by adopting roster turn No.3 (MBC). 36. As already discussed, the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are different. In W.P.No.6370/2010 the selection sought for is on merit basis and in W.P.No.6371/2010, the selection is sought for by continuously applying roster method. However, as per the original pleadings based on which are the reliefs sought for the odd seat is to be filled up on merit basis and by applying roster method. Even after the reply statement, the relief sought for in the writ petitions is not suitably modified and this Court would like to recollect the observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Prabodh Vermas case and the judgment of Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2000 (6) MLJ 22. This Court has in the foregoing paragraphs accepted the case of the official respondents, as per which out of 3 seats, one is allotted to service category and other 2 seats i.e. seat No.2 and the odd seat are to be filled up under open category on merit basis as well as by applying rule of reservation and the 3 seats are to be allotted by separately applying the roster method for service and open category. Thus the seats No.2 and 3 under open category are by adopting the turns 2 and 3 allotted to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Most Backward Class and the allotment of odd seat to the 3rd respondent who belongs to MBC is, in the considered view of this Court legally valid and the same dis-entitles the petitioner to get any relief in both the writ petitions. 37. 37. The claim of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected on one more ground. The petitioner has been seeking to place serious reliance on the terms the prospectus. The petitioner has sought to rely upon Clause 43-a regarding the mode of selection of odd seat. Clause 43 (a) also provides for mode of selection of courses and the option available to the candidates in selecting the course and college and reallotment of course and college etc. The clauses relevant for consideration herein are 43 (c), 43(d), 43 (f), 43 (h) and 43(i) which are as follows: (c) Candidates can choose any one of the branches available at the time of counselling. (d) If a candidate wants to be wait listed, he/she can opt to remain in the waiting list for any one particular discipline only. (f) If a candidate chooses to be in the waiting list for a particular Degree Course in a Speciality, he/she will not be given a firm seat in any other degree course. (h) A candidate who is allotted to PG Degree Course cannot remain in the "Wait List" for any other discipline. and (i) Option once given during the counselling cannot be changed. 38. The combined reading of the clauses above referred to would reveal that the candidate is given option to choose any one of the branches and she can opt to be in the waiting list for anyone discipline and if she choses to be in the waiting list in the particular degree course, she will not be given firm seat in another degree course and if she is allotted PG degree course in one of the courses, he or she cannot remain in the waiting list in another discipline and the option once given during Counselling cannot be changed later. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has in the Counselling held on 6.4.2010 chosen different course M.D. Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, the petitioner has not chosen to bring it to the notice of the Court that she opted for different course. Though the occasion to do so for the petitioner did not arise on the first hearing date on 5.4.2010, she had not chosen to do so during the subsequent hearings. However, the petitioner has not chosen to bring it to the notice of the Court that she opted for different course. Though the occasion to do so for the petitioner did not arise on the first hearing date on 5.4.2010, she had not chosen to do so during the subsequent hearings. It is true that this Court on 5.4.2010 granted an interim order in the stay petition that any selection shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner has while arguing M.P.No.1/2010 only sought for appropriate direction to protect her interest by saying as if that day is the last day for payment of fees to P.G. MDRD Course and the same day it was submitted on behalf of the 3rd respondent that she may be given an opportunity to file her counter in respect of the points raised by the petitioner in her reply affidavit one among which is relating to the issue regarding amended clause 43(a). The High Court after hearing the arguments made on both sides inclined to make an observation in M.P. No.1/2010 to the effect, that in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, the petitioner shall be allowed to pay the fees for MDRD P.G. Course as claimed by her. It is not the case of the petitioner that such an observation is made by the Court after the attention of the Court is duly drawn to other sub clauses of clause 43 and to the fact that the petitioner has already selected different course and paid the fees on 7.4.2010 and has been continuing in the same course. In my opinion, such an observation is obtained from the Court without bringing it to the notice of the Court about the material facts as above referred to. 39. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, she is totally unaware of the pendency of the writ petition on 5.4.2010 and about the order made thereon on the date of her counselling on 06.04.2010. The 3rd respondent was only thereafter impleaded. 40. It is also argued by the respondents that though the power of this Court to pass appropriate direction to protect the interest of the parties to the litigation during the pendency of litigation cannot be questioned, the same cannot be exercised in such a manner so as to relax the terms of the prospectus. 40. It is also argued by the respondents that though the power of this Court to pass appropriate direction to protect the interest of the parties to the litigation during the pendency of litigation cannot be questioned, the same cannot be exercised in such a manner so as to relax the terms of the prospectus. Such argument advanced on the side of the Official as well as individual respondent is fortified by the observation of the Division Bench judgment of our High Court dated 5.2.2008 made in W.A.No.89 to 91/2008 in Dr.R.Saravanan Vs. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. In the case referred above 14 appellants completed M.B.B.S. Course during 2002 and applied for selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon during the year 2002-2003 and were selected. As the duration for the course is two years, they applied for relaxation under Rule 21A of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services to join the post of Assistant Surgeon after completing their post diploma courses which were to be over in March and June 2008. In the meanwhile, the appellants were served with impugned notice on 9.1.2007 directing them to join duty immediately within 7 days. When the same was questioned by the appellants, the impugned notice was defended on the side of the respondent authorities by relying upon one of the conditions in the advertisement inviting applications for selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon as per which the candidates selected for appointment should join duty within 30 days and no extension of joining time will be given to them under any circumstances even if they are undergoing the Post Graduate courses and in the event of not joining the duty within the stipulated time, they would be removed from the approval list and those who are undergoing Post Graduate Courses and applying for the post of Assistant Surgeon should submit a declaration that they will join duty within the time limit of 30 days. It is not in dispute that the appellants therein have duly complied with the relevant condition by submitting a declaration to the effect. 41. That being the factual position, the Division Bench of Our High Court held that there is no power in the authorities to grant relaxation of condition to join duty as instructions are binding on the candidate. It is not in dispute that the appellants therein have duly complied with the relevant condition by submitting a declaration to the effect. 41. That being the factual position, the Division Bench of Our High Court held that there is no power in the authorities to grant relaxation of condition to join duty as instructions are binding on the candidate. It is further observed by our Division Bench that it is not permissible for the Court to make any modification and/or relaxation to the conditions stipulated in the prospectus and granting one such relief would mean the post in question will have to be kept open for another 6 months or one year causing serious prejudice to general public. Our High Court has in the same judgment cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1963 SC 560 in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh Vs. Sanjay Gulati and (2) 2005 WLR 697 Division Bench of Our High Court in Dr.M.Ashiq Nihmathullah Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others. The Supreme Court has clearly held therein that the rules and norms of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to and the same is binding on all the persons concerned. The same view is also expressed in the judgment in reported 2006 (3) CTC 449 Dr.M.Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission rep. by Deputy Secretary. In view of the law so laid down the petitioner cannot be permitted to take shelter under any observation made by this Court while disposing of miscellaneous petition which tantamounts to modification/relaxation of the terms of the prospectus. 42. Further this Court has in the foregoing paragraphs held that amended Clause 43 (a) is valid. As per Clause 15 the Government orders issued from time to time pertaining to any of the matters contained in the prospectus should be read as part and parcel of this prospectus and such terms and conditions of the Government Order are deemed to have been incorporated in this prospectus. If that is so, all the rules and norms including the Government Order, dated 18.3.2010 forming part of prospectus is binding on all the candidates including the petitioner herein. The petitioner having selected one course thereby giving up her claim to be in the waiting list for another PG degree course cannot now seek different course. 43. If that is so, all the rules and norms including the Government Order, dated 18.3.2010 forming part of prospectus is binding on all the candidates including the petitioner herein. The petitioner having selected one course thereby giving up her claim to be in the waiting list for another PG degree course cannot now seek different course. 43. Thus, viewing from any angle, the petitioners claim has to necessarily fail. 44. In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.