JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. The petitioners in the present petition are seeking writ of certiorari for quashing Notification No. 15-BOPEE of 2015 dated 23.04.2015 and Notification No. 12-BOPEE of 2015 dated 10.04.2015 issued by the J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination; notifying the dates for counseling of professional courses to the extent of candidates having qualified against the Open Merh/Reserved Category seats for allotment of MD/MS & PG Diploma seats in Government Colleges and in ASCOMS. Before dealing with the present case, it would be relevant to note that some of the candidates under Rural Service Reserved Category, who were aggrieved of their exclusion by virtue of Notification No. BOPEE/Exam-01/2015 dated 05.04.2015 despite having qualified the entrance test under this category, filed OWP No. 448/2015 on the ground that as per Information Brochure 32 seats were earmarked for Rural Service Reserved Category candidates, i.e., in the ratio of 10% of total seats in Open Merit other than Open Merit (General Category). Their contention was that the Board of Professional Entrance Examination selected only 7 candidates out of a total 32 candidates under Rural Service Category. It was contended that these 7 selected candidates were said to have secured 50% or more than 50% marks, which was the criteria prescribed for Open Merit (General Category), whereas rest of the candidates including the petitioners therein, who had secured more than 40% marks under this category and were also entitled to be called for counseling, had been excluded from the purview of counseling for the reasons known to the respondents. 2. This Court vide order dated 13.04.2015 stayed the counseling notified vide Notification dated 05.04.2015, which was scheduled for 13.04.2015. 3. It appears that the Board of Professional Entrance Examination meanwhile realizing its mistake of excluding 25 more candidates under Rural Service Category from the purview of counseling, issued another Notification No. 12-BOPEE of 2015 dated 10.04.2015, whereby in partial modification of earlier Notification dated 05.04.2015 (supra), re-scheduled the seats to 216 instead of 241 for the purposes of counseling for Open Merit Category. 4. Now the dispute in the present petition is that the interest of reserved category candidates in terms of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 17 thereof, are not being protected by the respondents. 5. 4. Now the dispute in the present petition is that the interest of reserved category candidates in terms of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 17 thereof, are not being protected by the respondents. 5. The facts, as gathered from the writ record, are that the J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (hereinafter, for short, BOPEE) issued Notification No. 01-BOPEE of 2015 dated 08.01.2015 for admission to MD/MS & PG Diploma Courses. Condition (b) of Other conditions to the Notification provided that "the candidates of reserved categories shall be treated as one unit in terms of Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 for the purposes of allotment of Streams/Institutions." Whereas, condition (c) provided that "the candidates of the reserved categories, who figure in open merit by virtue of their higher merit, shall be allotted Streams/Institutions in accordance with Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules, 2005." Condition (b) (supra) refers to Rule 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (hereinafter, for short, Reservation Rules of 2005), whereas condition (c) refers to Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules of 2005 which deals with allotment of disciplines etc. Therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 17 hereunder: "A reserved category candidate, if selected against the Open Merit seat, may be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college allocable to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. The resultant discipline/stream/college in the Open Merit Category shall be allotted to the reserved category candidate who gets selected consequent upon the reserved category candidate getting selected in the Open Merit Category." 6. The petitioners being fully eligible applied for appearing in the selection process for MD/MS & PG Diploma Courses in Government Colleges under various reserved categories, i.e., SC, ST, RBA and ALC. It is averred that as per Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules, 65% seats were reserved for open merit candidates, whereas 35% seats were meant for reserved category candidates, which was further bifurcated into different reserved categories. It is averred that as per Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules, 65% seats were reserved for open merit candidates, whereas 35% seats were meant for reserved category candidates, which was further bifurcated into different reserved categories. Paragraph-16 of the Information Brochure provides that the successful candidates in the selection process shall be called for counseling for allotment of disciplines/streams on the basis of the marks in the entrance tests and that the candidates to exercise their option of streams as per annexure --XII, which gives a choice to the successful candidates to opt for as many as 20 disciplines/streams as per their preference. 7. It is contended that after issuance of merit list, a total of 330 candidates were called for counseling, i.e., 241 candidates from Open Category and 89 candidates from Reserved Categories, which was against the intent of Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules. As per Rule 15, out of a total 330 candidates, 215 from Open Merit Category and 115 from Reserved Categories, i.e. in the ratio of 65:35, were required to be called for counseling. Similarly, in terms of Rule 17 of Reservation Rules, those reserved category candidates who had secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Open Category were first required to be considered under Open Category and, only thereafter, 35% candidates from reserved categories were required to be exhausted in terms of Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules. Further, in terms of Rule 17, a reserved category candidate, selected against the Open Merit seat, was required to be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college, which was to be allotted to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. And, the resultant discipline/stream/college in the Open Merit Category was to be allotted to the reserved category candidate, who would have been selected consequent upon the reserved category candidate getting selected in the Open Merit Category. Thus, it is contended, that since the respondents, particularly BOPEE, has failed to apply these rules in their right perspective, thereby ignoring the claim of petitioners including the reserved category candidates of Rural Service; the petitioners have been left with no option but to approach this Court for seeking redressal of their grievances. 8. Thus, it is contended, that since the respondents, particularly BOPEE, has failed to apply these rules in their right perspective, thereby ignoring the claim of petitioners including the reserved category candidates of Rural Service; the petitioners have been left with no option but to approach this Court for seeking redressal of their grievances. 8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that though reserved category candidates on account of their higher merit have been considered under open category, but have not been allotted the disciplines of their choice as per their placement in the open category, as were available to them had they been selected under reserved categories and opted for disciplines available to them under reserved categories. He, thus, argued that it is nothing but clear defiance to Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules. He further argued that in the previous selection processes the BOPEE had been maintaining the ratio of 35% MD/MS Degree Courses for reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 15, and at every step of counseling had been following the mandate of Rule 17, which fact is even evident from the seat matrix maintained by the BOPEE in the year 2014. However, in the present selection, the BOPEE, contrary to Rules 15 & 17 and contrary to past practice, did not maintain the ratio of 35%; neither it reserved MD/MS Degree Courses in each discipline in favour of reserved category candidates nor blocked the disciplines/streams left by reserved category candidates, who have been selected under open category because of their higher merit. 9. To further buttress the case of petitioners, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel while citing one example argued that out of 93 MD/MS Degree seats available in Government Medical College, Jammu, the BOPEE was under an obligation to reserve 33 seats in MD/MS Degree Courses for reserved category candidates at the beginning of their counseling. The BOPEE, however, has reserved only 24 MD/MS Degree Streams for reserved category candidates. It has so happened because the BOPEE has failed to block the MD/MS Degree seats, vacated by those reserved category candidates who have been considered in open category because of their higher merit, and allotting the same to the candidates of open category; thus denying the reserved category candidates their share of 35% in MD/MS Degree Courses. It has so happened because the BOPEE has failed to block the MD/MS Degree seats, vacated by those reserved category candidates who have been considered in open category because of their higher merit, and allotting the same to the candidates of open category; thus denying the reserved category candidates their share of 35% in MD/MS Degree Courses. The petitioners are, therefore, aggrieved of Notification No. 15-BOPEE of 2015 dated 23.04.2015 and Notification No. 12-BOPEE of 2015 dated 10.04.2015 issued by the BOPEE notifying the dates for counseling of aforementioned professional courses. 10. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 2 & 3 stating therein that Rules 15 and 17 are being followed in their true spirit. Further, it has been stated that Rural Service Category (10%) has been held to be not a reserved category by the Supreme Court in its latest judgment and also by the Srinagar Wing of this Court. Therefore, the only benefit available to rural service candidate is that he has the privilege of competing inter-se candidates of his class, i.e., Rural Service Category. 11. Controller of Examinations, BOPEE has also filed an affidavit deposing that proportionate division of seats for each discipline has already been made in the ratio of 65:35; meaning thereby that out of 50 seats available in Medicines, 32.5 seats have been earmarked for open merit in the ratio of 65%, and rest of the seats in the ratio of 35% have been earmarked for the candidates of reserved categories. It has specifically been deposed by the Controller of Examinations in the affidavit that in case any of the reserved category candidates overshoots his category and starts figuring in open merit, he is given an option of selecting disciplines/streams/colleges of his choice either from the open category or from his own reserved category. In case the said candidate opts for a discipline/stream/college from his reserved category, the resultant seat (by resultant seat, it is meant that the seat/s which becomes available after exhaustion of the entire open merit list, i.e., the seats available at the tail of the open merit list) is then made available to the candidates belonging to the different categories as per their rank and choice. Lastly, it has been deposed that the resultant seats which become available after exercise of option under Rule 17 are being kept untouched/intact until the counseling for the reserved category candidates takes place. 12. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the pleadings in the writ record. 13. The specific case of petitioners is that the respondents are not maintaining the ratio of 65:35 in terms of Rule 15 of the Reservation Rules while initiating the selection process for provisional admission to various MD/MS & PD Diploma Courses. Their further stand is that the respondents are also not adhering to Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules and the interest of reserved category candidates is not being protected by them while notifying the dates for counseling of afore-mentioned professional courses. 14. Whereas, the specific stand of BOPEE is that there was no defiance to Rules 15 & 17 of the Reservation Rules, the same are being followed in their true spirit, as proportionate division of seats for each discipline has already been made in the ratio of 65:35. They have also took a specific stand that in case any of the reserved category candidates overshoots his category and starts figuring in open merit, he is given an option of selecting disciplines/streams/colleges of his choice either from the open category or from his own reserved category in terms of Rule 17, and the resultant seats is being kept untouched/intact until the counseling for the reserved category candidates takes place. It has also been pleaded by them that in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court, the Rural Service Category has been held to be not a reserved category. 15. Along with the objections, the respondents in order to rely the claim of petitioners, have also annexed the list of 61 candidates who have availed the benefit of Rule 17 and who have been allotted different MD and PG Diploma Courses. They have also stated that they would be providing 9 more candidates in the order of merit. 16. 15. Along with the objections, the respondents in order to rely the claim of petitioners, have also annexed the list of 61 candidates who have availed the benefit of Rule 17 and who have been allotted different MD and PG Diploma Courses. They have also stated that they would be providing 9 more candidates in the order of merit. 16. It is to be seen that allotment of MD/MS & PG Diploma Seats in Government Colleges in terms of counseling is yet to be done, therefore, it would be premature to allege that BOPEE is not following the mandate of Rules 15 & 17 of the Reservation Rules, that too when Controller of Examinations, BOPEE has specifically deposed that there would be no defiance to Rules 15 & 17 of the Reservation Rules while allotting seats to reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 17 and maintaining the ratio of 35% in terms of Rule 15. 17. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents, particularly respondents 2 & 3, to strictly comply with the mandate of Rules 15 & 17 of the Reservation Rules in maintaining the ratio of 65:35 and allotting the seats to reserved category candidates as per the past practice/precedent. While doing so, the respondents would also take into consideration the latest judgment of the Apex Court. Disposed of along with connected CMAs.