Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1154 (GUJ)

Dhwani Mahendrakumar Amin v. State Of Gujarat

2022-09-30

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sujay J.Adeshra for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.1-State and learned Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. K.M.Antani for respondent No.2. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Antani and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No.2-Admission Committee for Professional Undergraduate Medical Courses [For short ‘ACPUGMEC’] for not granting the allotment of seats and admission to the Medical College as per the choice ranking of the petitioner for the second round of counseling for the academic year 2022-23 onwards. 4. The petitioner appeared for National Examination of Eligible Test [NEET] for admission in Medical Colleges and secured General Merit No. 5048 and Category Merit No.222. The petitioner participated in the counseling and offered her choice of institution as required under Rule 1(iv) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 [For short ‘the Rules, 2017’]. 5. The first round of counseling was notified to be held on 27.01.2022. The petitioner in the first round of counseling indicated 16 institutions/colleges in the order of reference for getting the admission though there were more colleges available for admission. 6. The petitioner is a girl student and was entitled for admission to the Medical College in Gujarat. 7. The petitioner filed online application for admission wherein the petitioner had given only 16 choices of reference of medical colleges. In the first round of admission process, no seat was available to the petitioner in any of the 16 colleges of her choice and there was no possibility for the petitioner to get the seat. 8. The petitioner therefore, applied for second round of admission process and submitted 35 choices of colleges. In the second round also, the petitioner was not allotted a seat and according to the petitioner, student with lower merits were allotted seats. The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Sujay A. Adesara for the petitioner submitted that Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017 provides for admission process in undergraduate medical courses. In the second round also, the petitioner was not allotted a seat and according to the petitioner, student with lower merits were allotted seats. The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Sujay A. Adesara for the petitioner submitted that Rule 11 of the Rules, 2017 provides for admission process in undergraduate medical courses. It was submitted that combined reading of the clause (iv) and clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) of the Rule 2017 provides that the allotment of seat is based on merit, category of candidate and availability of seats and where considerable number of seats fall vacant and it appears to the Admission Committee to fulfill the vacant seats, it may conduct the admission process for re-adjustment [reshuffling]. It was submitted that as readjustment [reshuffling] is only qua vacant seats, the admission process cannot become endless if a meritorious candidate files its new choice according to Rule 11(1)(viii) and is considered for admission qua vacant seats. As soon as there are no vacant seats, there would be no reason to conduct subsequent rounds of admission process. 10. It was submitted that the candidate may either give options for up-gradation of choices or submit new choices and definition of “new” as defined in Merriam Webster Dictionary is “being other than the former or old”. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra pointed out that when the petitioner filled preferences for second round of allotment process, she was allowed to submit new choices over and above her previous choices by the computer system. It was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to get the admission on the seats available in the previous allotment process meaning thereby the seats offered and available to him/her in previous allotment and if a candidate who is offered and allotted a seat in the first round does not available of that seat, then such candidate loses his right over the said seat but if the seat was not available to a candidate in first round, as in case of the petitioner she has not filled in the choice of the seats available in other colleges, then it cannot be said that that the petitioner would have been offered and seat would have been available to her in the first round provided the petitioner had given the choice of such seats. 12. 12. It was submitted that section 6 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions [Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees] Act, 2007 [for short ‘Act of 2007’] provides that all the government seats shall be filled on the basis of merit list prepared by the Admission Committee and the Rules therefore cannot be interpreted in a manner that is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2007 under which, the Rules 2017 are framed. It was therefore submitted that the admission to medical college is a merit based admission process and no useful purpose would be served by denying the admission to meritorious candidate and allotting such seat to a less meritorious candidate. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra submitted that according to the Blackstone, the most fair and rational method for interpreting a statute is by exploring the intention of the legislature through texts the subject-matter, the effect and the consequences or the spirit and reason of law. It was therefore submitted that the interpretation of the Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules,2017 in a manner that prevents candidates from adding ‘new choice” when the possibility of any new choice is envisaged by the Rule in a manner that results in denial of admission to a meritorious candidate in a merit based admission process cannot be the intention of the legislature. 14. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Adeshra referred to Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ] which was relied upon by the respondent-authorities similar to the Information Prospectus of 2020-21 wherein, in the bottom of FAQ pages, it is mentioned “information provided here only for easy understanding and not for legal purpose”. It was therefore, submitted that in the information booklet there is clear disclaimer to the effect that such information cannot be used for any legal purpose and in case, if any dispute/confusion arises out of such booklet, provision of notification would be final. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra submitted that when the petition was heard on 24.03.2022, a list of seats that are unreported and would be available to the petitioner in the third round of counseling was furnished before the Court and to the advocate of the petitioner on behalf of the respondents and therefore, time was sought to take instructions. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra submitted that when the petition was heard on 24.03.2022, a list of seats that are unreported and would be available to the petitioner in the third round of counseling was furnished before the Court and to the advocate of the petitioner on behalf of the respondents and therefore, time was sought to take instructions. The petitioner thereafter participated in the third round of admission process and the petitioner was led to believe that if she holds the merits, she would get the admission in third round of admission. It was pointed out that when the list of colleges was given, the preferences filled by the petitioner in first and second rounds and also the merit rank as well as the category rank were known to the respondent-authority as the same are annexed to the petition and therefore there was no reason to provide list of colleges where the seats were available in third round. 16. It was submitted that in the third round of allotment process, candidates having lower merits than the petitioner have been given admission the colleges in which the petitioner was entitled to get admission including the colleges mentioned in the list of seats that are unreported and would be available to the petitioner in the third round of counseling was furnished before this Court. The petitioner has therefore filed Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 seeking urgent directions and praying for early hearing of the petition. 17. It was submitted that accordingly, the petition was heard on 26.04.2022 finally and in such circumstances, when the petitioner is more meritorious than the students to whom admission is granted in colleges and the petitioner is denied admission only on the ground that the petitioner could not have submitted new choice in the second round of counseling than what she had submitted in the first round of admission, such stand is contrary to the provisions of the Act 2007 and the Rules, 2017. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Adeshra submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the admission process of rounds 3 and 4 are over wherein the petitioner participated but students having lower merits are given admission and in facts of the case as the petitioner was denied her legitimate right to get the admission, a supernumerary seat may be created and admission may be given to the petitioner. In support of his submission reliance is placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India and others [Civil Appeal No. 6983 of 2021] wherein the Apex Court directed the respondent-authorities to create the supernumerary seat in the facts of the said case for the students who could not pay the allotment fees on time because of financial reasons and because of technical error in server. It was submitted that in the facts of the case also the petitioner is denied the admission by the respondent No.2 by misinterpreting the Rule 11(1)(iv) and (viii) of Rules 2017 and section read with section 6 of the Act, 2007 though the petitioner is a meritorious student. 19. On the other hand, learned senior advocate Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah with learned advocate Mr. K.M.Antani for the respondent No.2 submitted that as the petitioner has given choices for only 16 colleges at the time of filing of application the petitioner cannot be permitted to add other choices for the subsequent round of admission as per the provisions of the Rules 2017. 20. It was submitted that though the petitioner was eligible for offering the choices of colleges, in her application for admission in the first round, the petitioner consciously restrained her choices to six institutions/colleges whereas she was eligible to opt for even more number of institutions as per her merit number and as per the choice filled in by the petitioner in the first round, the petitioner could not secure a seat in any of the institution of her choice and accordingly, the petitioner was not allotted any seat. It was submitted that the second round of counseling was notified on 28.02.2022 wherein the petitioner offered her choice of 35 institutions/colleges which were already available to her in the first round as per merit but were not opted by her for the reasons best known to her. Therefore, as per the Rule 11 (1)(viii) of the Rules 2017, only upgradation of choice or submission of new choice is permissible but with a caveat that the candidate shall not be offered admission on the seats available in the previous allotment. Therefore, as per the Rule 11 (1)(viii) of the Rules 2017, only upgradation of choice or submission of new choice is permissible but with a caveat that the candidate shall not be offered admission on the seats available in the previous allotment. It was therefore submitted that Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules, 2017 is required to be interpreted in the context of the facts of the present case failing which, the entire admission process as per the said Rule would be turned to topsy-turvy and there would not be any chaos because every candidate who has not offered choice in the first round would opt for choice of the colleges in which seats were available in the first round. During the second round of counseling it was submitted that as per the interpretation made by respondent No.2 with regard to Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules, the candidate can opt for upgradation to the colleges of the choice already given or offer new choices from the choice which was already provided in the colleges in which seats were not available in the first round of counseling but the same are available due to some reason in the second round of counseling on account of reshuffling by the students who are offered such seats in the first round of counseling. 21. It was submitted that legal position with regard to interpretation of Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules 2017 is already settled to the effect that non-availability of seats to the petitioner is due to her own doing as the petitioner was already made to known of such facts during the first round of counseling and even in the FAQs and videos uploaded on the website by respondent No.2-Committee whereby all the students are informed to make their choices keeping in mind the Rule of Closure and despite such information made available well in advance, the petitioner took a calculated risk of confining her choices in the first round only to 16 institutions where no seats were made available to the petitioner due to operation of the Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules, 2017. 22. 22. It was submitted that the non-availability of the seats to the petitioner is owing to the operation of law and there is no challenge to Rule 11(1)(viii) of the Rules, 2017 in this petition and therefore, the submissions of the petitioner with regard to the impugned action which is in conformity with the law cannot be faulted with and as such there is no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. It was submitted that now the admission process is over and all four rounds of admissions are completed and the petitioner has not been successfully getting the admission in view of her limited choices offered in the first round of litigation, therefore the petition along with the Civil Application deserves to be dismissed. 24. In support her submissions learned Senior Advocate Ms. Shah relied upon the decision in case of Parmar Priyank Chandrasinh Minor Through Father vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2004 GLH 209095 to submit that Division Bench of this Court has held that S.C./S.T./S.E.B.C. candidates coming on open merit are necessarily to be counted against the unreserved seats for admission and cannot be shifted by the Admission Committee even on their choice to reserved category which must contain the respective category candidates on their merit order but other than those who come on merit in the open merit list. It was therefore submitted that in the facts of the case as the petitioner has given choice of only 16 institutions while making an application for admission then the petitioner cannot be permitted to give another choice of other than 16 colleges in further round of reshuffling because such permission would affect the other candidates who have opted for the different choices while making an application. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to improve her choice which was not given earlier in the first round of admission. 25. It was submitted that in the subsequent round of admission, the petitioner can get the admission if there is any vacancy in any of the 16 institutions for which the choice was given by the petitioner. 26. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Shah further referred to and relied upon the information prospectus for admission and FAQs which are provided to all candidates to explain the procedure for admission. 26. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Shah further referred to and relied upon the information prospectus for admission and FAQs which are provided to all candidates to explain the procedure for admission. The attention of the Court was invited to para 14.1(c) of the prospectus to point out that any student once withdraws his or her claim for admission to medical college which has been offered or does not opt for whatever is available according to merit-cum-preference at the time of the turn of the candidate during interview then claim for the available branch/college is deemed to have been forfeited for all time to come. It was further pointed out that Question No. 63 of FAQs also clearly explains Rule of Closure in detail which reads as under: “63. Explain the rule of closure in detail ? You are allotted one UG seat in the previous round as per your choice and merit number of ACPUGMEC. In the next round you will be granted admission on choices of college and branches, which are allotted to merit number higher than the merit number of candidates filled choices numerically above to number on which your got admission in previous round. You will not be provided admission to numerically lower choices. ? E.g. A student’s merit number is 120 and he fills choice for the first as follows: (1) B.J.Medical College, Ahmedabad (2) Smt. H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad (3) GMERS Medical College, Sola, Ahmedabad (4) GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar (5) Government Medical College, Vadodara. The student was given the admission on the second-choice number in the first round i.e. at N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad. But in the second round he wants to get admission at Government Medical College, Vadodara. But the merit number of the student who got the last admission at Government Medical College, Vadodara in the first round was 140. This means that the student could get admission in Government Medical College, Vadodara according to his merit number in the first round. Now in the second round or the next round, the student can take admission in B.J.Medical College, Ahmedabad but student will not get admission as per the closure rule, Government Medical College, Vadodara.” 27. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner was supposed to be aware of the rule of closure as the same was explained in detail. 28. Now in the second round or the next round, the student can take admission in B.J.Medical College, Ahmedabad but student will not get admission as per the closure rule, Government Medical College, Vadodara.” 27. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner was supposed to be aware of the rule of closure as the same was explained in detail. 28. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has rightly been denied the admission by the respondent No.2. It was therefore submitted that in view of the settled legal position with regard to granting of admission by interpretation of Rule 11(1)(iv) and 11(viii) of the Rules, 2017, the petition is not required to be entertained. 29. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the documents produced on record it appears that the petitioner, after passing NEET Examination and securing the General Merit No. 5048 and Category Merit No. 222, applied for admission in medical course for the academic year 2021-22 pursuant to the advertisement for online registration issued by the respondent No.2-ACPUGMES. The petitioner is supposed to know about the admission procedure while filling in the online application form. The admission procedure is stipulated in Rule 11(1) of the Rules, 2017 which reads as under: “11. Admission Procedure (1) Admission shall be given online in the following manner: (i) The admission committee shall prepare merit lists under rule 10 for the eligible candidates who have applied under rule 8. (ii) The merit lists shall be displayed on the web-site of the Admission Committee and by such other means, as the committee may consider convenient. (iii) The Admission Committee shall publish the schedule of online counseling programme on its web-site, by advertisement in the prominent newspapers widely circulated in the State, and by such other means, as it may consider necessary. (iv) The candidate shall be required to indicate his order of choices of courses and colleges or institutions, online. Allotment of scats shall be made on the basis of merit, category of the candidate and availability of seats. The allotment of seats shall be published on the web-site of the committees. The candidates are required to obtain the print out of the information letter and bank fee receipt copies from the web-site, (v) The candidate shall be required to pay such fee as determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee. The allotment of seats shall be published on the web-site of the committees. The candidates are required to obtain the print out of the information letter and bank fee receipt copies from the web-site, (v) The candidate shall be required to pay such fee as determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee. The admission allotted to the candidate shall be confirmed on payment of tuition fees of the concerned college. In case, the candidate fails to pay the tuition fees within the prescribed time limit, the admission offered to him shall be treated as cancelled. Such candidate shall not be eligible to get admission in the same course in the same institute in the successive rounds of counseling. (vi) The candidate belonging to reserved category may be allowed to get admission on unreserved seat as per his merit number in the unreserved category. The admission shall be granted to such candidate in unreserved category, only if he is eligible to get admission, in the higher order of preference of courses than that in the reserved category. (vii) The candidate seeking admission to professional medical educational course shall require to produce a Certificate of Physical Fitness to undergo such course in the prescribed form obtained from a registered medical practitioner along with the undertaking. The candidate shall submit the certificate to the Dean/Principal of the respective college or institution, at the time of joining where he has been offered admission. The admission of a candidate shall be confirmed subject to the production of certificate of his physical fitness. (viii) In case, where considerable number of seats fall vacant, and it appears to the Admission Committee to fill the vacant seats, it may conduct the admission process for readjustment (reshuffling). The candidate can reshuffle seats/choice options during process of readjustment (reshuffling). In such readjustment (reshuffling) of seats, the candidate who opts to participate in reshuffling process, shall be considered for such admission. The candidate may either give option for upgradation of choices already given or submit new choices. The candidates shall not be offered admission on the seats available to him in previous allotment process. If the candidate gets admission on the basis of upgradation or new choice, then his earlier admission shall be treated as cancelled. (ix) In case of contingency, the committee may decide such mode of admission as it may deem fit.” 30. The candidates shall not be offered admission on the seats available to him in previous allotment process. If the candidate gets admission on the basis of upgradation or new choice, then his earlier admission shall be treated as cancelled. (ix) In case of contingency, the committee may decide such mode of admission as it may deem fit.” 30. On perusal of the above Rule 11(1) of the Rules, 2017, it appears that the admission procedure for medical course has been stated to be followed after preparation of the merit list under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2017 for the eligible candidates who have applied under clause (viii) of the Rules, 2017. 31. The petitioner submitted that 16 choices of courses and colleges/institutions as per clause (iv) of the Rule 11(1). The petitioner was not allotted any seat in any of the 16 colleges because of the less merits as allotment of the seat is required to be made on the basis of the merit, category of the candidate and availability of the seats. Therefore the petitioner applied again in the second round of readjustment/reshuffling as provided in clause (viii) of the Rule 11(1) and submitted further choice of total 35 colleges/institutions instead of choice of 16 colleges/institutions submitted while applying online as per clause (iv) of Rule 11(1). 32. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to give new choices in any addition to what the petitioner offered while applying online as per clause (iv) of the Rule 11(1) whereas the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner cannot offer new choices than any addition to what is already stated while applying online as per clause (iv) of Rule 11(1). Therefore, the interpretation of clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) is required to be made. 33. Clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) is applicable in case, where considerable number of seats fall vacant and it appears to the Admission Committee to fill the vacant seats. In such circumstances, the Admission Committee may conduct the admission process for readjustment or reshuffling. Meaning thereby that, whatever choices were offered by the candidate while applying online is to be considered in case of readjustment or reshuffling. In such circumstances, the Admission Committee may conduct the admission process for readjustment or reshuffling. Meaning thereby that, whatever choices were offered by the candidate while applying online is to be considered in case of readjustment or reshuffling. If the candidate is permitted to offer further choices which the candidate did not opt while applying online as per clause (iv) of Rule 11(1), it is likely to create a situation where the candidates who have already offered their choices while applying online would be deprived to get the admission as per the merits during the course of readjustment or reshuffling. Clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) further provides that for the procedure to be adopted in readjustment/reshuffling of the seats by prescribing that the candidate who opts to participate in reshuffling process, may either give option for upgradation of choices already given or submit new choices. The petitioner has therefore heavily relied upon the word “new choices” without considering further stipulation made in sub-clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) to the effect that the candidates shall not be offered admission on the seats available to him in previous allotment process. 34. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.2-Admission Committee that if the candidate is permitted to give the choices, in addition to what is already given by the candidate while applying online as per clause (iv) of Rule 11(1), then the candidate would be required to be considered above the candidates who have already offered such choices and in such circumstances, there would not be any finality to the allotment to be made by the Admission Committee. In such circumstances, the words “new choices” has to be considered in light of the offer already given by the candidate while applying online. Therefore, for example, out of 16 choices which the petitioner offered while applying online if seats are vacant in any of the institution out of 16 colleges, then the petitioner can give choice again as a new choice or the petitioner can offer for upgradation of choice if in the list of preference if any seat is available to the petitioner in the better choice than what is offered to the petitioner. However, in the facts of the case the petitioner is not allotted any seat out of 16 choices offered by her while applying online for admission and as such, the petitioner cannot opt for readjustment/reshuffling later on as the petitioner has not given any choice for any of the colleges or institutions where vacant seats are available. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to participate in second round of admission process of readjustment/reshuffling only if the vacant seats are available out of 16 choices given by the petitioner while applying online for admission in MBBS Course. Clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) is required to be interpreted to the effect that once a choice is filled by the candidates that would remain unaltered for clause (viii) also and the candidate either can upgrade her choice already given or can offer for new choices for the college or institutions from within the choices already given where the seats are available so as to get the admission. Therefore, in the facts of the case, if the seats are falling vacant in the second round or subsequent rounds in any of the 16 colleges, then the petitioner is required to give new choices from such vacant seats of the colleges or institutions and as per the merits, the petitioner would be allotted the seats by the Admission Committee. However, unfortunately, in case of the petitioner even in subsequent three rounds, a seat was not available from the choices offered by the petitioner out of 16 colleges which were selected by the petitioner while applying online. 35. The petitioner was already in knowledge about the Rule of Closure as explained in FAQs in detail which is reproduced here-inabove. As per the said Rule, if a candidate is allotted one seat in the first round as per the choice of the candidate and merit number then in the next round of readjustment/reshuffling, the candidate would be granted admission on choices of colleges and branches which are allotted to merit number higher than the merit number of the candidates filled choices numerically above to number on which the candidate have got admission in the previous round. The candidate is not entitled to get the admission to numerically lower choices. The candidate is not entitled to get the admission to numerically lower choices. The example given in the FAQ is clear to explain this Rule of Closure to the effect that if a students merit number is 120 and he fills his choice for the for the first round between (1) B.J.Medical College, Ahmedabad (2) Smt. N.H.L.Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad (3) GMERS Medical College, Sola, AHmedabad and (4) GMERS medical College, Gandhinagar etc. and if the student is given admission on the second choice number in the first round i.e. in N.H.L.Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad but in the second round if the students wants to get admission at Government Medical College, Vadodara, and Merit Number of the student who got the last admission in the said college in the first round was 140, then the student could get the admission in Government Medical College, Vadodara, according to his merit number in the first round but in the second round or the next round, the student can get the admission in B.J.Medical College, Ahmedabad, but student would not get admission as per Rule of Closure in Government Medical College, Vadodara. Thus, the entire admission process is required to be implemented for considering the merits of all the candidates/students in line with the Rule of Closure. It is apparent that the petitioner could not have given further choice of the colleges while interpreting the word “new choices” appearing in clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) of the Rules, 2017. The choices given by the petitioner while applying online pertains only to 16 colleges or institutions instead of all the colleges and institutions which were open when the petitioner made application online. Thus, petitioner voluntarily restricted the choices to 16 colleges/institutions only and therefore, the petitioner cannot thereafter add further choices in the second round which is for readjustment/reshuffling only. The readjustment and reshuffling is required to be understood along with Rule of Closure to the effect that the readjustment/reshuffling can be made within the choices given by the candidate while applying online in the first round. The readjustment and reshuffling is required to be understood along with Rule of Closure to the effect that the readjustment/reshuffling can be made within the choices given by the candidate while applying online in the first round. Clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) therefore provides that if a candidate is applying for readjustment/reshuffling of the seats in the subsequent rounds and if the seats fall vacant within the choices given by the candidate then such candidate would be entitled to the upgradation of the choices already given or from the new choices which may be given by the candidate for the seats which were not available to him in the previous allotment process. Thus, a candidate cannot give further choices as new choices as per clause (viii) of Rule 11(1) and a candidate either opts for up-gradation of the choices already given or to give new choices from the seats not offered to the said candidate in previous allotment process. 36. Therefore, the interpretation made on behalf of the petitioner of the words “New choices” on the basis of the dictionary meaning has to be understood and interpreted while reading clause (viii) as a whole and the petitioner could not have picked up words “new choices” to offer further choice than what is offered by the petitioner while applying online. 37. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly not entertained. 38. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 39. In view of the disposal of the main matter, Civil Application also stands disposed of.