1. Petitioner having BDS degree to his credit and thus eligible to compete for admission to MDS Course, responded under Reserve Backward Area (RBA) category to Notification No. 01-BOPEE of 2012 dated 04.01.2012 issued by respondent No. 1 ("Board" for short), inviting applications from the eligible candidates for admission to said course. The petitioner appeared in Common Entrance Test held by the Board on 9th February, 2012, obtained 203 marks and was ranked 13 in the order of merit. The Board in the first round granted admission to only 4 candidates—3 in Open Merif category and 1 in Reserve category (Actual Line of Control—(ALC) category). Thereafter, 8 more MDS seats became available and the Board vide Notification No. 16-BOPEE of 2012 dated 5th May, 2012 notified the candidates selected for admission against the newly available seats. The petitioner was selected under RBA category and appeared at S. No. 1 in the list of Reserve category candidates. He appeared for counselling on 9th May, 2012. The streams/disciplines in terms of Information Brochure were to be allotted strictly on the basis of merit. The selected candidate had to signify his choice in order of preference, and the stream/discipline of his choice would be allotted to him in the event no candidate having superior merit would mark his choice against said stream/discipline. The petitioner exercised his option for allotment of stream/discipline in the following order:- (i) Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (ii) Conservative Dentistry (iii) Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge (iv) Oral Medicine and Radiology. The petitioner claims to have been made to believe that having regard to his merit, he was entitled to be allotted his third choice i.e. Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge. The petitioner acting under such belief put his signatures on the Option Form and accordingly the Board vide its Notification No. 19-BOPEE of 2012 dated 9th May, 2012 notified MDS "Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge" to have been allotted to the petitioner. Shri Sneh Kelgotra—respondent No. 4 in the petition selected for MDS course under CDP category, also appeared for counselling and was shown to have been allotted MDS "Orthopaedics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics". 2. Shri Sneh Kelgotra—respondent No. 4 in the petition selected for MDS course under CDP category, also appeared for counselling and was shown to have been allotted MDS "Orthopaedics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics". 2. The petitioner immediately made a representation to the Board, voicing his grievance and pleading that he on the basis of his higher merit was entitled to get the stream/discipline of his first choice, unless said stream/discipline was claimed by any candidate having merit higher than the petitioner. The Board failed to take decision on the representation so made, constraining the petitioner to file the writ petition on hand. 3. The petitioner impugnes the Notification No. 19-BOPEE of 2012 dated 9th May, 2012 on the grounds set out in the petition to the extent it relates to allotment of "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics", to the respondent No. 4 instead of petitioner. The petitioner as a sequel to the quashment of the Notification to the aforestated extent, seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to allot the discipline of MDS "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics", to the petitioner and to admit him to the said stream/discipline. 4. The respondent Board resists the writ petition on the grounds that though vide Notification 01-BOPEE of 2012 dated 04.01.2012 the Board indicated number of seats in MDS course as 12 in six disciplines yet availability of 8 seats out of 12 notified seats, was subject to approval of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and as no approval was granted by the Ministry, the Board went for selection against 4 confirmed seats notified it vide Notification No. 5-BOPEE of 2012 dated 22.02.2012. It is pleaded that 3 out of 4 available seats went to Open Merit category and in accordance with the mandate of Reservation Rules, one seat was allotted to ALC category on the basis of roaster maintained by the Board; the seat allotted to ALC category went to one Ashish Chaudhary though having lower merit than the candidates belonging to other reserve categories. The 4 selected candidates were allotted streams/disciplines on the basis of merit, rank and choice exercised by them during counselling, as notified vide Notification No. 6-BOPEE of 2012 dated 29.02.2012. 5. The 4 selected candidates were allotted streams/disciplines on the basis of merit, rank and choice exercised by them during counselling, as notified vide Notification No. 6-BOPEE of 2012 dated 29.02.2012. 5. It is next pleaded, that after the initial selection against 4 MDS seats was made, the approval was received from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to increase of the number of seats from 4 to 12; that the respondent No. 3—Principal Government Medical College, Srinagar, accordingly vide his letter No. GDC/Acad/1682-85 dated 28.03.2012 requested the Board to make selection against 8 available seats—5 in Open Merit category and 3 in Reserve category; that the 3 Reserve category seats as per SRO 154 of 2009 dated 27th May, 2009 vide notification No. 16-BOPEE of 2012 dated 05.05.2012 were allotted to CDP, RBA and RR categories. According to the respondents the Reserve category candidates already selected after GET held in February, 2012 for the said course, were allowed to participate in counselling on 09.05.2012; that the candidates gave their choice which were considered at their own turn as per SRO 154 of 2009 dated 27th May, 2009 and result notified vide Notification No. 19-BOPEE of 2012 dated 09.05.2012. The respondents 1 and 2 insist that the streams/disciplines were allotted to the Reserve ca tegory Candida tes strictly in accord ance wi th mandate of SRO 154 of 2009 and that in terms of said SRO the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of MDS "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics". 6. The respondent No. 4 opposes the writ petition on the grounds that as the CDP category figured at S. No. 8 in the roster maintained in terms of SRO 154 of 2009 and RBA category figures at S. No. 9 in the said roster the respondent No. 4 was called for counselling before the petitioner and picked up Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, as his first choice stream/discipline; that the petitioner was called for counselling after the respondent No. 4 and the stream/discipline of "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics", by that time was not available— having been allotted as first choice to the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner therefore could not be allotted said discipline. It is next contended that as process for admission to MDS course is in terms of Supreme Court judgement is to be completed by 31st May every year, the admission of the petitioner to a stream other than one allotted to him would amount to fresh admission and therefore not permissible under law. The respondent No. 4 seeks dismissal of the writ petition, also on the ground that the petitioner having not objected to his appearing for counselling after the respondent No. 4, having accepted allotment of "Prosthodon-tics and Crown Bridge" without any objection and put having his signatures on the "option form" without any objection, he was stripped of, any right to maintain the writ petition. 7. I have gone through the pleadings as also record made available by the learned Counsel for the Board and have heard Counsel for the parties. 8. Section 9 Reservation Act, provides for reservation of seats in Professional Institutions for candidates belonging to Reserve category candidates and such classes and categories as may be notified from time to time. The Government is empowered to prescribe percentage for each Category for admission in the Professional Institutions. Section 23 of the Act, empowers the Government to make rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act. The Government in exercise of powers under Section 23 has made Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (hereinafter "the Rules") 9. Part (IV) of the Rule deals with reservation in Professional Institutions. Rules 13 and 14 indentify Reserve categories as Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes, Socially Backward Classes, Children of Defence Personnel, Children of Para Military Force and State Police Personnel and candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports. Rule 15 deals with distribution of seats in Post-Graduate courses like, MD, MS, M.Tech etc. In terms of Rule 15 65% of seats in such courses are to be filled up from Open Merit category and 35% seats from the Reserved categories as per the ratio shown against each category. Rule 17 deals with a situation, where a Reserve Category candidate gets selected against Open Merit seat. It provides that such a candidate would be considered for allotment of stream/discipline allocable to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. Rule 17 deals with a situation, where a Reserve Category candidate gets selected against Open Merit seat. It provides that such a candidate would be considered for allotment of stream/discipline allocable to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. The resultant, discipline/stream in Open Merit category is to go to the Reserve category candidate selected in place of the Reserve category candidate, selected in Open Merit category. 10. The Government vide Notification dated 26th May, 2009 (SRO 154) added following proviso to Rule 15:- SRO 154:- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act 2004, the Government hereby directs that the following amendments shall be made in the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005:- "After rule 15, the following proviso shall be inserted namely:- Provided that in case sufficient number of reserved seats are not available to accommodate all the reserved seats shall be rotated in such a manner that all reserved categories get their due share in a phased manner. For the said propose, the following running roaster of 35 seats shall be maintained and followed till the same gets exhausted:- 01 Resident of Backward Areas 02 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 03 Schedule Tribes 04 Scheduled Castes 05 Resident of backward Areas 06 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 07 Resident of Areas adjoining Actual Line of Control 08 Children of Defence Personnel/State Police 09 Resident of Backward Areas 10 Open Merit candidates who has served in Rural Areas 11 Scheduled Tribes 12 Scheduled Castes 13 Resident of Backward Areas 14 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 15 Social Caste 16 Scheduled Tribes 17 Resident of Backward Areas 18 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 19 Candidates possession outstanding of proficiency in sports 20 Scheduled Castes. 21 Resident of Backward Areas 22 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 23 Resident of Area adjoining Actual Line of Control 24 Scheduled Tribes 25 Resident of Backward Areas 26 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 27 Children of Defence Personnel/State Police 28 Scheduled Caste 29 Resident of Backward Areas 30 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 31 Schedule Tribes 32 Resident of Backward Areas 33 Open Merit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 34 Resident of Backward Areas 35 OgenJVlerit candidate who has served in Rural Areas 11. The proviso has been added to obviate difficulty that may confront the Board and Professional Institutions where number of available slots in an academic year is less than the number of Reserve categories. In absence of running roster, the few available seats would be claimed by a few Reserve categories, leaving other Reserve categories without any chance to get the benefit of reservation. In view of the running roster, if because of shortfall in number of available vacancies for reserve categories in an academic year some of the categories do not get the benefit, the benefit is extended to left out Reserved categories in the next academic year, so that all the categories get the benefit under Reservation Act, and Rules, made there-under. In the academic years preceding 2012-2013,6 of the reserved categories from S.No. 1 to 6 of the running roster had already been given the benefit and the benefit in the academic year 2012-2013 was to be given to the Reserve categories from S. No. 7 onwards. Since in February, 2012 only 4 seats were available out of which 3 were to go to Open Merit category, only I seats was left for the Reserved categories. The seat obviously was claimed by the Reserved category at S. No. 7 i.e. the resident of area adjoining actual Line of Control(ALC). There was no difficulty in allotment of stream/discipline as the Reserve category candidate had no competition. In May 2012 8 more seats became available out of which 3 seats were to go to the reserve category candidates from S. No. 8 to 10. The candidates from three categories were therefore to be called for counselling as per the guidelines contained in Information Brochure and the available streams/disciplines distributed on the basis of their preference and merit. 12. The candidates from three categories were therefore to be called for counselling as per the guidelines contained in Information Brochure and the available streams/disciplines distributed on the basis of their preference and merit. 12. The case set up by the respondent and in particular respondent No. 4 is that as the category to which respondent No. 4 belonged figured at S. No. 8 in the running roster, he was to be called first for counselling, allowed to pick up the stream/discipline of his choice without any competition from the candidates from other reserve categories, that candidate figuring at S. No. 9 was to be called for counselling thereafter, allowed to take up the stream/discipline of his choice as available on his turn and so on and so forth is devoid of any merit and better to be ignored. The effort made by the respondents to make use of SRO 154 of 2009 dated 27th May, 2009 to justify allotment of stream/discipline petitioner and respondent No. 4 is ill designed and to bear not fruits. It is pertinent to point out that SRO 154 of 2009 only prescribes a running roaster of 35, with the only object to ensure that all the Reserve categories get benefit of reservation irrespective of number of seats available in a particular academic year. It is designed to spread the benefit across the board to all the Reserve categories, as in absence of running roster, there would be a chance of restricting the benefit to only few of the categories, leaving other categories without such benefit. SRO 154 of 2009 does not mandate that the candidates from the Reserve categories are to be called for counselling one after another in the order their category appear in running roster, given absolute freedom to pick-up the stream/discipline irrespective of their merit. The interpretation that learned Counsel for the respondents wants to be placed on SRO 154 of 2009 is irrational, illogical and against the spirit of the Constitution. Such an interpretation would convert merit into demerit, dampen and down-play the efficiency and performance. The interpretation that learned Counsel for the respondents wants to be placed on SRO 154 of 2009 is irrational, illogical and against the spirit of the Constitution. Such an interpretation would convert merit into demerit, dampen and down-play the efficiency and performance. To illustrate a candidate from the Reserved Category figuring at serial number, say 1 would get stream or discipline of his choice, though he has far inferior merit than the candidates from other Reserve categories who do not get stream/discipline of their choice only because they figure below the Reserve category to which such candidate belongs, in the running roster. This would be as if SRO 154 of 2009, prefers one Reserve category over other and gives such candidates an edge not because of superior merit but because of placement of his category in the running roster. The stand taken by the respondents and in particular respondent No. 4 also runs counter to the Information Brochure. It would be appropriate to extract here-under para 14 sub-para 3 of the Information Brochure:- 13.14. (1).......... (2).......... (3) The selection though made strictly on the basis of merit of eligible candidates determined by marks obtained/rank in the entrance examination, allotment of Streams/institutions, shall be made through counselling. The selected candidates will be called for counselling one after another in order of merit and rank for allotment of discipline/institution. Rank wise counselling schedule will be published in two leading English Newspapers of the State at least five days prior to the date of commencement of the counselling process. No.separate intimation will be sent to individual candidates for appearing at counselling sessions, (emphasis supplied). 13. In terms of Information Brochure, therefore counselling is not to be done as per serial number in running roaster but on the basis of merit. The petitioner having highest merit amongst the selected Reserve category candidates was to be called for counselling and on the basis of his overall merit and rank allotted the stream/discipline of his first choice, and not to be called after the respondent No. 4 only because the respondent No. 4 belonged to Reserve category that figured at S. No. 8 in the running roster, whereas the Reserve category to which the petitioner belonged was shown at S.No. 9, in the said roster. 14. 14. The legal proposition that emerges from the above discussion is thai where because of availability of more than one seats in a professional course more than one reserve category candidates are selected, such candidates are not to be called for counselling one after another on the basis of the serial number of their category but the streams/disciplines are to be distributed/allotted on the basis of their inter-se merit. 15. Evaluating and assessing the petitioner's claim on the touchstone of the above stated proposition, it becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner on the strength of his superior merit as against the respondent No. 4 was to be allotted his first choice stream/discipline i.e. "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics". The respondent No. 4 in view of allotment of aforesaid stream/discipline in favour of petitioner, could not get said stream/discipline allotted in his favour. It is important to note that respondents do not deny factual averments made in the petition. They do not deny that the petitioner got 13th rank, obtained 203 marks and had superior merit as compared to other two selected Reserve category candidates including respondent No. 4. It is also not denied that the petitioner's first choice was "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics". The Board therefore went wrong in allotting Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics" to respondent No. 4 and denying it to the petitioner on erroneous assumption that it had to call three Reserve category candidates i.e. CDP, RBA and RR turn by turn—one after another in the order their categories were mentioned in running roster, and allow each to pickup the stream/discipline of his choice, irrespective of his merit as if he had no competition from other two candidates. 16. The plea that the petitioner accepted "Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge" without demur or objection as asserted by the respondent No. 4 (not by the Board), does not deprive him of his right to get what was rightfully due to him. One has to understand the atmosphere, in which a candidate making the grade has to accept or refuse the stream/discipline allotted to him or to draw inference from the conduct of the candidate. One has to understand the atmosphere, in which a candidate making the grade has to accept or refuse the stream/discipline allotted to him or to draw inference from the conduct of the candidate. It is an atmosphere where everything is hazy for the candidate and he would jump for whatever comes his way, under a fear that if he does not take a decision in a jiffy, whatever is given to him by right hand may be with the same speed, taken over by the left hand. If the candidate is made to believe that whatever is given to him only is due to him i.e. available to him on the basis of his merit, he having no access to the record, would rush to take whatever is offered, scared that he may loose even whatever is given. The candidate in such atmosphere is in a helpless and disadvantageous position and has to dance at the tune of the Board. The petitioner therefore, cannot be penalised for his having accepted "Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge" under the mistaken belief that it was the only stream/discipline available to him 17. This takes us to a more important question raised by the respondent No. 4. Would it be permissible to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to select the petitioner, and the respondent No. 4 to allot, the petitioner "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics" stream/discipline after the deadline of 31st May laid down by Supreme Court for completing the process of admission, is the question that requires to be an answer. 18. The Supreme Court in MCI v. Madhu Singh and others 2002 (7) SCC 258 after scanning the case law on the subject, held that there was no scope for admitting students midterm as that would be against very statutes governing the Medical Education. The Supreme Court, quoted with approval following observations made in Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. & others (1993 Supp(1) SCC 594). Considering form this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the mid-stream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Admission in the mid-stream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained. 19. The law was reiterated in Mridhul Dhar v. UOI 2005 (2) SCC 65 . The Supreme Court after reproducing "time schedule for Post-Graduation and Super-speciality course admissions", in para 31 of the judgement held that all authorities are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for; tha t there should not be midstream admission and admission should not be in excess of sanctioned intake -capacity or in excess of quota of any one, whether State or Management. The Court in para 35 of the judgement issued various directions including one requiring all concerned States and Union Territories to stick to the time table laid down in MCI Notification dated 25th February, 2004. 20. A closer look at the case law on the subject would reveal that adherence to admission schedule is insisted on and any deviation from the prescribed Schedule for completion of admission process is frowned upon as such departure is likely to cut down the duration of the training/course fixed by the experts after considering all ne :essary inputs. To illustrate if a course like MBBS or BDS is decided to be of five years duration by the experts and so prescribed by competent authority, for a candidate admitted, say after six months or in mid-session it would be reduced to four and a half years. This would have negative fallout on academic discipline and above all the end product i.e. the candidate admitted in mid-session. This will leave room for addition of half trained professionals to national human resource pool. 21. In the present case, the respondents 1 to 3 have adhered to the prescribed time table and completed the process for admission, way before the cut of date of 3Ist. May, 2012. The petitioner does not seek admission to MDS course. He stands already admitted to the MDS course on the strength of his performance in Common Entrance test held in February, 2012. May, 2012. The petitioner does not seek admission to MDS course. He stands already admitted to the MDS course on the strength of his performance in Common Entrance test held in February, 2012. The dispute in the present petition relates to the allocation or allotment of stream/discipline. The petitioner's case is that he and respondent No. 4 both granted admission to the MDS course have not been allotted streams/discipline to which they were entitled having regard to their merit in Common Entrance test. The present controversy therefore, does not fall within ambit of the time table prescribed under regulations for completion of process of admission nor does the allocation of stream/discipline fall within purview of the above referred Supreme Court judgements. The petitioner therefore, cannot be deprived of the stream/discipline of his choice only because the respondent 1 and 2 first induced him to believe that his first choice stream/discipline was not available to him and thereafter slept over the representation made by the petitioner, immediately after 9th May, 2012 when he came to realise that he was a victim of misrepresentation and not allotted the stream/discipline to which he was entitled on the strength of his performance in the Common Entrance test. The allotment of stream/discipline due to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 having regard to their respective merit, is not to have any adverse effect on their studies, in as much as, the first few weeks in every course are introductory in character and intended to lay down a broad base for the specialisation a candidate has to go for as the course proceeds. It is also not to violate underlying principle of above referred case law, as allotment of stream/discipline due to the petitioner is not to cut, shorten or have adverse effect of the duration of the course, they have to undergo. 22. For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is allowed and Notification No. 19—BOPEE of 2012 dated 9th May, 2012 quashed to the extent it allots "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics" to the respondent No. 4 and "Prosthodontics and Crown Bridge" to the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are accordingly directed to allot "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics" stream/discipline, to the petitioner, and respondent No. 3 is directed to enrol the petitioner who stands already admitted for MDS course in "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics", stream/discipline. The respondents 1 and 2 are accordingly directed to allot "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics" stream/discipline, to the petitioner, and respondent No. 3 is directed to enrol the petitioner who stands already admitted for MDS course in "Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics", stream/discipline. The respondents 1 and 2 shall allot the stream/discipline to the respondent No. 4 to which he is entitled having regard to his merit in Common Entrance test and the choice/preference signified by him in his option form. The respondents shall complete the follow up action within ten days from the date of this judgement. 23. No order as to costs.