JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. Following reliefs are claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition:- (i) To issue directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo the M.B.B.S. course in NCCB Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh or Darbhanga Medical College, Lehariassrai, Bihar as the petitioner is duly selected at Sr. No. 2 in Central Pool M.B.B.S. under category-III in the Colleges outside the J & K State for the year 2012-13 in pursuance of Notification No. 55-BOPEE of 2012 dated 7th September 2012, by issuance of writ mandamus; (ii) To quash the order by which the respondents have deleted the name of the petitioner from the array of the selected candidates and selected the private respondent No. 5 who is less meritorious and figures at Sr. No. 3 in the selection list, by issuance of writ of Certiorari; (iii) To issue directions to the respondents restraining them to allow the private respondent No. 5 to join in M.B.B.S. Course against the seat of petitioner on which the petitioner is duly selected and restraining the respondents to issue any formal order of admission in favour of the private respondent No. 5, by issuance of writ prohibition; (iv) To declare the act of the respondents by which the respondents have not allowed the petitioner to undergo the M.B.B.S. course in NCCB Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh or Dharbhanga Medical College, Lehariassrai, Bihar as the petitioner is duly selected at S. No. 2 in Central Pool M.B.B.S. under category-III in the Colleges outside the J & K State for the year 2012-13 in pursuance of Notification No. 55-BOPEE of 2012 dated 7th September 2012, as ultra virus, illegal, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus; 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner alongwith other family members migrated from Salamabad Tehsil Uri District Baramulla (Kashmir) to Jammu in the year 1990 after his father was killed in a terrorist attack on 30.07.1990. The petitioner alongwith other family members was registered as migrant as revealed by the migration certificate dated 04.06.2012. Petitioner, being qualified as 10+2, responded to Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 for selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S. four seats in different Colleges outside the State for the year 2012-13. The petitioner alongwith other family members was registered as migrant as revealed by the migration certificate dated 04.06.2012. Petitioner, being qualified as 10+2, responded to Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 for selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S. four seats in different Colleges outside the State for the year 2012-13. The applications were invited from the candidates belonging to following categories:- (i) children of families where a parents or direct member of the family has been killed in acts of terrorism or has been an innocent victim in cross firing or in firing by the Armed Forces in combating terrorism; (ii) Children of such persons who are exposed to substantive risk due to their assignment mainly related to combating acts of terrorism; added weightage to be given to a person who have come in the “hit list” of terrorist organization; and (iii) Children of such families of both Muslims and Non-Muslims who have migrated from Kashmir due to the current situation and have lost their means of livelihood including their business or use of their property.” 3. Petitioner claims to be covered under Category-III. He claims to have also applied under Category-I as his father had been killed by the terrorists. An admit Card No. 143937 was issued in favour of petitioner for examination scheduled on 23rd-24th June, 2012. According to averments in the petition, four candidates were to be selected for the categories mentioned in the notification for two seats each in NCCB, Medical College, Jabalpur and Darbhanaga Medical College, Lehariassrai, Bihar. Other conditions mentioned in the notification required:- a) The candidate should have appeared in the Common Entrance Test-2012; b) Selection was to be made strictly on the basis of merit and rank obtained in the Common Entrance Test-2012; c) The candidate was to submit certificates regarding loss of means of livelihood and deprivation of use of property; and d) The candidate was to submit the Police Verification/authentication certificate countersigned by Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Home Department.” 4. The petitioner claims to have complied with all the requirements. He claims to have obtained 128 marks in the merit. According to petitioner, respondents did not issue the selection list. His uncle Syed Ishtaq Mehmood applied under RTI for seeking information regarding selection of candidates. The information furnished on 15.10.2012 revealed that the petitioner was shown at S. No. 2 under Category-III but candidates figuring at S. Nos. He claims to have obtained 128 marks in the merit. According to petitioner, respondents did not issue the selection list. His uncle Syed Ishtaq Mehmood applied under RTI for seeking information regarding selection of candidates. The information furnished on 15.10.2012 revealed that the petitioner was shown at S. No. 2 under Category-III but candidates figuring at S. Nos. 1 and 3 had been selected. It was further revealed that the benefit against priority-I, II and priority III categories was restricted only to the wards of civilian victims of terrorism and in the event of such benefit having been availed in respect of one ward, 2nd and 3rd was not eligible to be selected against these reserved seats. It is claimed that there is no provision under Terrorism Act which prevents a candidate from getting benefit of the State Quota of M.B.B.S. against the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the State in Central Pool. Petitioner’s case is that except three categories and the conditions laid down in Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012, no guidelines of Health and Family Welfare Ministry have been incorporated in the aforesaid notification and in regard to seats of M.B.B.S. reserved for Ministry of Home Affairs, a separate notification No. 42-BOPEE dated 27.07.2012 has been issued inviting applications for nomination/selection in the Central Pool. Petitioner claims that despite being more meritorious, his name has been deleted from the list of selected candidates while he was entitled to be selected under State Quota reserved for J & K State in outside Colleges in terms of Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012. Petitioner also claims that his case is covered under Category-III. Thus, the petitioner bases his claim against the State Quota in Central Pool M.M.B.S. four seats in different Colleges outside the State. Further case of the petitioner is that State Government makes the nomination under State Quota while against the Quota of Home Ministry it is the Home Minister who has to make the nomination. The two categories, according to petitioner, are different. Thus, the petitioner claims to be duly selected on the basis of merit at S. No. 2 under Category-III and assails the inclusion of private respondent No. 5 who is less meritorious. 5. The two categories, according to petitioner, are different. Thus, the petitioner claims to be duly selected on the basis of merit at S. No. 2 under Category-III and assails the inclusion of private respondent No. 5 who is less meritorious. 5. The official respondents have filed the objections pleading that the petitioner sought selection for M.B.B.S. course on account of figuring at S. No. 2 in Central Pool M.B.B.S. under Category-III in Colleges outside the J & K State for the year 2012-13. Twenty five Candidates applied in response to Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012. Two candidates were found to have applied under two categories by way of single application. List of eligible candidates in accordance with merit category-wise was drawn up. Petitioner figured at S. No. 2 while Private respondent No. 5 figured at S. No. 3 in Category-III. The merit list was forwarded to the concerned Colleges after ensuring that where a member of any family had availed benefit under Central Pool seat, no other family member was allowed to avail the benefit. It is further pleaded that petitioner’s sister, Aisha Talat was found to have availed the benefit under Central Pool seat in JLNM Medical College, Chhattisgarh for the year 2009. Thus, in accordance with the instructions from Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 09.06.2014, petitioner was not considered for selection. It is further pleaded that petitioner figuring at S. No. 4 in Priority-1 and at S.N. 2 in Priority-3 was not eligible for any seat as his sister had been selected in the year 2009. 6. In his supplementary affidavit, petitioner has contested the plea of respondent by stating that no guidelines of Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India had been incorporated in Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012. It is stated that a separate notification No. 42 BOPEE dated 27.07.2012 had been issued for inviting applications for selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S. and the notification has laid down three priorities. It is further stated that only four seats in two Colleges outside the State were available in terms of later notification. It is further stated that the petitioner was deleted despite being more meritorious as per the guidelines of Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India. It is further stated that only four seats in two Colleges outside the State were available in terms of later notification. It is further stated that the petitioner was deleted despite being more meritorious as per the guidelines of Health and Family Welfare Ministry, Government of India. It further stated in supplementary affidavit that the petitioner had applied under the State Quota reserved for J & K State in outside Colleges and his case was covered under the priorities and categories mentioned in Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012. It is further stated that guidelines mentioned by the respondents are applicable only to candidates who have applied under the quota of two seats of M.B.B.S. of Home Ministry not under the State. It is stated that the sister of petitioner Aisha Talat was not selected under State Quota but under Central Quota. Thus, no disqualification was attached to petitioner for consideration under the State Quota. 7. In response to supplementary affidavit of petitioner, reply affidavit has been filed by Sh. Ishfaq Ahmad Wani, Deputy Secretary Law (J&K, BOPEE) wherein it is stated that the petitioner was not entitled to any seat under the Central Pool Quota as his sister namely Aisha Talat had already been given a seat under the said quota. It is further stated that the bifurcation sought to be made by the petitioner between Central Pool Quota and State Quota, is superficial and no distinction could be made as all Central Pool seats are subjected to condition that the benefit under the categories specified cannot be extended to more than one member of the affected family. 8. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner had applied under State Quota. Therefore, conditions governing the priorities under Central Quota were not attracted. It is further contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner having obtained 128 marks cannot be debarred from selection as he ranked higher in merit to the private respondent. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of respondents that both the petitioner as also the private respondent claimed benefit of Terrorist Act under Category-III and benefit was not available to petitioner as his sister namely Aisha Talat had availed such benefit. It is further contended that the candidates figuring at S. Nos. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of respondents that both the petitioner as also the private respondent claimed benefit of Terrorist Act under Category-III and benefit was not available to petitioner as his sister namely Aisha Talat had availed such benefit. It is further contended that the candidates figuring at S. Nos. 1 & 3 were selected strictly in adherence to the guidelines which have not been assailed being arbitrary or violative of Article 14. It is further contended that the conditions governing the selection have been incorporated in the advertisement notice and the same have not been assailed in this petition. In rebuttal, it is contended on behalf of petitioner that he need not have challenged the guidelines as the same were not applicable to his case. 9. Heard and considered. 10. Advertisement Notification No. 55-BOPEE dated 07.09.2012, under which the petitioner claims to have applied for selection, pertained to Central Pool M.B.B.S. four seats in different Colleges outside the State for the Year 2012-13. This is manifestly clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid notification issued by BOPEE. The said notification invited applications from the candidates belonging to either of the following three categories:- i) Children of family where a parents or direct member of the family has been killed in acts of terrorism or has been an innocent victim in cross firing or in firing by the Armed Forces in combating terrorism; ii) Children of such persons who are exposed to substantive risk due to their assignment mainly related to combating acts of terrorism; added weightage to be given to a person who have come in the “hit list” of terrorist organization; and iii) Children of such families of both Muslims and non-Muslims who have migrated from Kashmir due to the current situation and have lost their means of livelihood including their business or use of their property.” 11. A bare look at the categories specified hereinabove would reveal that the selection was meant for the wards of victims of terrorism, wards of those exposed to substantive risk of terrorism and wards of migrants deprived of their means of livelihood due to terrorism. Notification incorporated conditions which included production of certificate in regard to loss of means of livelihood and deprivation of use of property where the candidate happened to be ward of a migrant. Notification incorporated conditions which included production of certificate in regard to loss of means of livelihood and deprivation of use of property where the candidate happened to be ward of a migrant. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner applied for selection in Category-III of the aforesaid categories on the strength of his migration certificate issued on 04.06.2012. It is not in controversy that the father of petitioner namely Talat Mehmood was shot at by some unknown terrorists in respect whereof case under FIR No. 189/1990 dated 30.07.1990 was registered at Police Station Baramulla. It is also not in controversy that the aforesaid Talat Mehmood died in consequence of gun shot injuries. Status of the family of deceased Talat Mehmood including that of petitioner as registered migrant and conferring of benefit upon the sister of petitioner namely Aisha Talat for selection in Common Entrance Test 2009 for M.B.B.S. Central Pool seat in JLNM Medical College Chhattisgarh, too is not disputed. The sole question for consideration is whether in view of the benefit derived by a ward of deceased Talat Mehmood, it was open to the petitioner to avail the same basing his claim upon the strength of his assertion that he had applied for State Quota reserved for J & K State in outside colleges. 12. Notification No. 55/BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 issued by J & K BOPEE, under which the petitioner applied for selection related to Central Pool M.B.B.S., seats numbering four in different Colleges outside the J & K State. The categories mentioned in the notification as noticed hereinabove, covered terrorists affected cases. A plain reading of the classification of’ categories in the notification brings it to fore that the object was to confer benefit upon wards of victims of terrorism or those exposed to substantive risk due to their assignment or those who migrated thereby loosing their means of livelihood and being deprived of the benefits arising out of their property or business. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the petitioner had applied under the State quota. It further appears that in terms of Notification No. 42/BOPEE dated 27.07.2012, BOPEE invited applications from the candidates belonging to three categories mentioned therein for nomination/selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S. two seats of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for Colleges outside the State for the year 2012-13. It further appears that in terms of Notification No. 42/BOPEE dated 27.07.2012, BOPEE invited applications from the candidates belonging to three categories mentioned therein for nomination/selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S. two seats of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for Colleges outside the State for the year 2012-13. Three categories described as priorities included; wards of victims of terrorism where both parents had been killed by terrorists, wards of family where only bread winner had been killed by terrorist and wards of victims with permanent disability and serious injury caused by terrorist operation. The notification specified the conditions for eligibility. However, it is manifestly clear that the intention of classification of categories/priorities was to confer benefit upon the wards of those affected by the acts of terrorism but did not include those who had migrated from the valley of Kashmir in the wake of terrorist activities thereby loosing their hearth and homes and being deprived of means of income and benefits arising out of their property, trade or business. The benefit in terms of Notification No. 42/BOPEE dated 27.07.2012 was restricted only to the wards of actual victims of terrorism who suffered death or disability. It therefore, follows that eligibility under this notification would not extend to wards of victims who have not suffered death or permanent disability. The two notifications do not operate in different spheres and are essentially overlapping. Mitigation of hardships faced by wards of victims of terrorism is the common denominator in cases covered under both notifications However in both cases covered under Notification No. 55/BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 and Notification No. 42/BOPEE dated 27.07.2012, the benefit of priorities is restricted to only one ward of civilian victim of terrorism. Petitioner has suppressed the factum of his sister Aisha Talat being allotted M.B.B.S. seat under Central Pool Quota in the year 2009. His claim that he applied under Notification No. 55/BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 under State quota is ridiculous in so far as the aforesaid notification relates to selection of four seats under Central Pool Quota. 13. It is an admitted fact that the sister of petitioner availed benefit under the Central Pool Seat. His claim that he applied under Notification No. 55/BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 under State quota is ridiculous in so far as the aforesaid notification relates to selection of four seats under Central Pool Quota. 13. It is an admitted fact that the sister of petitioner availed benefit under the Central Pool Seat. Instructions from Government of India regulating the criteria for selection to the Central Pool Seat in terms of its letter dated 09.06.2004 inter alia, lay down that the benefit against the priority-1, II or III category would be restricted only to one ward of the civilian victim of terrorism and if such benefit has already been availed of in respect of one ward, then 2nd ward, would not be eligible to be considered against these reserved seats. This eligibility criteria applies to the Central Pool Seats irrespective of the fact that the selections are against the seats reserved for Colleges located outside the State or against the Central Quota under Ministry of Home Affairs. The benefit in case of selection in both cases is meant for the wards of the terrorist affected families which covers children of families whose parents or either of them has been killed in acts of terrorism or cross firing, children of those exposed to substantive risk due to nature of their assignments and the children of families who have migrated from Kashmir and lost their means of livelihood. Bifurcation of the beneficiaries under different priorities appears to have been done to confer benefit priority-wise depending upon degree of hardship. Viewed thus, it cannot be held that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in terms of letter dated 09.06.2004 restricting the benefit to only one ward of a victim of terrorism, do not constitute the eligibility criteria for selection of Central Pool Seats and the seats reserved by the Home Ministry equally. The quota of candidates for Colleges located outside the State may be different from the quota of Ministry of Home Affairs but the truth is that in both cases the selection is reserved for wards of victims of terrorism in Colleges located outside the State. The State Government appears to have realized this position which is clearly emerging from letter dated 21.09.2012 emanating from Deputy Secretary to Government, ARI and Trainings Department to Chairman BOPEE. The State Government appears to have realized this position which is clearly emerging from letter dated 21.09.2012 emanating from Deputy Secretary to Government, ARI and Trainings Department to Chairman BOPEE. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that in view of petitioner’s sister having availed benefit under the Central Pool Seat, petitioner was ineligible to claim the benefit. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMA.