Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge Clause No.43 of the prospectus issued for the year 2012-2013 for admission into the Post Graduate Degree / Diploma courses M.D.S / 6 year M.Ch. (Neuro-surgery) courses and the consequential notification of the first respondent issued for Tamil Nadu Post Graduate Degree / Diploma / 6 year M.Ch. Neuro-surgery / MDS admissions 2012-2013 session II phase of counselling on 28.06.2012 and 29.6.2012 and quash the same insofar as it prohibits the candidates who obtained admission in the first phase of counseling from participating in the second phase of counseling and opting for change of speciality and for consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the second phase of counseling for admission into Post Graduate Degree / Diploma courses and permit him to choose any post graduate course including MD-Psychiatry medicine course found available on the commencement of second phase of counseling as per his merit in the rank list and pass such further orders. 2. When the matter came up on 29.06.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. The respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 4.7.2012. 3. The impugned Clause 43 as per the prospectus reads as follows : "COUNSELLING PROCEDURE : 43.a) Admission to PG Degree / Diploma / 6 year M.Ch. (Neurosurgery) / MDS courses, shall be made by counselling on the basis of merit applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable. (b) Candidates will be called for counselling according to their ranks in batches. (c) Candidates can choose any one of the branches or colleges available at the time of counselling. (d) If a candidate wants to be waitlisted, 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. (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 the 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. (h) A candidate who is allotted a PG Degree Course cannot remain in the "Wait List" for any other discipline. (i) Option once given during the counselling cannot be changed later. (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. The selection / admission shall be liable for cancellation based on the declaration at any time during or after the admission to the course. Further he/ she will not be allowed to apply for the Post Graduate Courses for Two Years." 4. It is seen that the counseling for Post Graduate course was conducted from 14.5.2012 to 21.5.2012 for Government Medical Colleges. At the time of first phase of counseling, the petitioner had opted for DCH course in Stanley Medical College. As per the procedure, if a candidate has opted for a seat in a particular speciality, he is not eligible to attend further counseling unless and otherwise a vacancy arises in the same speciality i.e., in the M.D. Course. The petitioner had opted for DCH in the first phase of counseling on 16.5.2012. Another counseling was conducted for admission to P.G. Courses in self financing private medical colleges. The second phase of counseling was also conducted on 28th and 29th June, 2012. The petitioner had opted for DCH in the first phase of counseling on 16.5.2012. Another counseling was conducted for admission to P.G. Courses in self financing private medical colleges. The second phase of counseling was also conducted on 28th and 29th June, 2012. At the time of counseling, no M.D. Course in Pediatrician seat was available. Hence the petitioner was made ineligible to attend the second phase of counseling as per the prospectus. As per the cut-off date prescribed by the Supreme Court in Mridhul Dhar Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 , the last date for P.G. Course admission is 30th June of every year and accordingly, seats were filled up through counseling and admission procedures were completed on 30.6.2012. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that it is the policy of the Government not to allow candidates to exercise double option during counseling and it has been published in the prospectus, based on which the petitioner had applied. He is well aware of the terms in the prospectus. Hence it is not open to him to challenge the same. 6. Mr.S.Thankasivan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 for contending that when the procedure of selection and the exercise of power to exclude the posts from the purview of the selection board suffered from glaring illegalities, the candidate appearing for selection and remaining unsuccessful is not a bar in questioning the selection and that the acquiescence and estoppel will not apply in such a case. 7. But, in the present case, it is not as if the petitioner was not selected. The question was whether he can have second choice after having been obtained selection for P.G. diploma course and there was no post graduate course in the same discipline was available. 8. The Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 in paragraphs 54 and 55 had observed as follows : "54.) The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. The Supreme Court in K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 in paragraphs 54 and 55 had observed as follows : "54.) The Corporation did not violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant having participated in the selection process along with the contesting respondents without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process having failed to qualify for the promotion. 55.) In Madan Lal v. State of J&K12 this Court observed: (SCC p. 493, paras 9-10) “9.) “It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair”. 10.) Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful.” Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla." 9. The Supreme Court, more or less, in a similar circumstance had upheld the validity of a similar rule on the ground that if such options are allowed, then it will become endless exercise and the seats cannot be filled up within the cut off date, vide its judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 355 and in paragraph 4, it was observed as follows : "4.) We have carefully examined the contentions put forth before the High Court and before us and we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench and the Delhi High Court in Dr Veena Gupta case1 and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain case2 is in accordance with reason and stands the test of rationality. It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period." 10. Further even if the petitioner has to succeed in getting the opportunity of having a second counselling, he cannot be admitted to the course of his choice as the cut off date for admission as fixed by the MCI is over by 30.06.2012 and hence it will be futile exercise for him to pursue this litigation. 11. In the light of the above, the case of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.