JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this court in granting the following reliefs: (a) The provisional Selection List of NEET PG 2023 to the extent of MDS course issued vide notification No. 065-BOPEE of 2023 to extent of allotting of discipline to the private respondents (reserved category) dated 20.08.2023 may be quashed. (b) The respondents be directed to adhere to the mandate of Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 and SRO 49 of 2018 reproduced in Broacher and allot the preferred disciplines/seat to the petitioner respectively in accordance to the merit cum preference. (c) Respondent no. 2 be directed to pay a compensation of Rupees Twenty Lakhs (Rs.20,00,000/-) to petitioner. 2. The background facts under the cover of which the petitioner claims the aforesaid reliefs are as under : The Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination (for short, "BOPEE")-respondent 2 herein invited online applications from the eligible candidates for appearing in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (for short, "NEET") for admission to various MDS courses under Dentists Act, 1948 being conducted by National Board of Examination (for short, "NBE") with the following seat matrix in the Union Territory of J&K: Open Merit 10 seats Reserved Category 10 seats Economically Weaker Section 1 seat Total 21 seats The petitioner claiming to be eligible for undergoing MDS course and a resident of backward area (RBA) states to have qualified the test under RBA category and secured 725th rank on all India basis and 19th rank in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir; The petitioner claims to have submitted her preferences of disciplines/streams while seeking admission for MDS courses by email to the BOPEE in the following sequence as is referred in para 4 of the petition : Preference Discipline College 1. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics GDC-Jammu 2. Paedondontics and Preventive Dentistry GDC-Jammu 3. Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics GDC-Jammu 4. Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge GDC-Srinagar 5. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery GDC-Srinagar 6. Endodontics GDC-Srinagar 7. Periodontics GDC-Jammu 8. Oral Pathology and Microbiology GDC-Srinagar 9. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics GDC-Srinagar 10. Paedondontics and Preventive Denistry GDC-Srinagar 11. Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge GDC-Jammu 12. Oral and Madillofacial Surgery GDC-Jammu 13. Oral Medicine and Radiology GDC-Srinagar 14. Periodontics GDC-Srinagar 15. Oral Medicine and Radiology GDC-Jammu 16. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery GDC-Srinagar 6. Endodontics GDC-Srinagar 7. Periodontics GDC-Jammu 8. Oral Pathology and Microbiology GDC-Srinagar 9. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics GDC-Srinagar 10. Paedondontics and Preventive Denistry GDC-Srinagar 11. Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge GDC-Jammu 12. Oral and Madillofacial Surgery GDC-Jammu 13. Oral Medicine and Radiology GDC-Srinagar 14. Periodontics GDC-Srinagar 15. Oral Medicine and Radiology GDC-Jammu 16. Oral Pathology and Microbiology GDC-Jammu Consequent to the declaration of the result by NBE and submission of preferences by the candidates, the BOPEE issued the provisional merit list on 20.08.2023 of the candidates belonging to the UT of Jammu and Kashmir having been provisionally selected for admission to MDS courses and other PG courses. The petitioner herein came to be allotted the discipline/stream of Pathology and Microbiology being her 16th preference at UT level whereas, the private respondents 5 to 10 herein came to be allotted the disciplines/streams at UT level and details thereof vis-à-vis the preferences given by the petitioner qua the disciplines/streams are provided hereunder in the tabulated form: S. No. Discipline Petitioner’s preference number Person to whom allotted Rank at Union Territory Level 1. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1st MRC 13 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 5th Respondent No. 5 24 3. Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 3rd Respondent No. 6 40 4. Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge 4th Respondent No. 7 45 5. Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 3rd Respondent No. 8 50 6. Pedodontics 14th Respondent No. 9 54 7. Paedondontics and Preventive Dentistry 2nd Respondent No. 10 65 The petitioner states that the official respondents in the process of allotting the disciplines/streams to her and to the private respondents violated Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules of 2005 (for short, "Rules of 2005") amended vide SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 drawn and framed under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act of 2004 (for short, "Act of 2004"). The petitioner states to have submitted a representation before the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein on 22.08.2023 in this regard, highlighting the discrepancies in the manner, the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein had proceeded with the selection and allocation of disciplines/streams and though no decision came to be communicated to the petitioner on the said representation, however, in a complaint filed online on the Grievance Cell, the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein justified the allotment of the discipline/stream to the petitioner which was her 16th preference thus, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court through the medium of the instant petition for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Reply has been filed by the BOPEE-Respondent 2 herein and private respondent 10 herein only whereas, private respondents 7 and 9 have entered appearance through their counsel yet chosen not to file reply. The rest of the private respondents claimed to have been served dasti in terms of the order passed by this court as well have neither chosen to appear nor filed reply to the writ petition. 4. In the reply filed by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein, the allotment of the discipline/stream to the petitioner being her 16th rank has been justified while stating that in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 read with S.O 127 dated 20.04.2020, out of total 21 seats for MDS courses, 57% seats were earmarked for open merit category candidates and 43% for reserved category candidates including EWS candidates and following seat matrix is provided in the reply by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein : Total Seats for MDS 21 (STL/STK) STK/STL (4% of 21) 01 seat EWS Category (10%) 02 seats Other reserved categories 09 seats OM category 10 seats As per S.O 127 dated 20.04.2000 10% is provided reservation for RBA which comes to 02 seats. 5. 5. It is also stated by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein in the objections that the candidate, namely, Younis Bashir, belonging to RBA category candidate was having all India rank of 650 and figuring at rank 05 in the merit list of the UT level and as had secured higher rank was, thus, placed in the open merit (OM) category as Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidate, however, the said candidate did not get the discipline/stream of his choice out of the disciplines/streams earmarked for open merit category candidates as such, by operation of Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005, the said candidate came to be allotted the discipline of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics which was reserved/earmarked for reserved category candidates pool in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 and the left over discipline, which the said candidate did not opt for in the open merit category, came to be first offered to the open merit category candidates and thereafter the left over disciplines/streams came to be offered to the reserved category candidates. 6. It is being also stated by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein that the expression “may be” appearing in Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 vests an ample discretion in the matter and the manner in which Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 would be applied by it and for the session 2023-24, it did not add the left over disciplines/streams to the pool of reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 in respect of PG courses, but instead allotted the disciplines/streams on the basis of merit-cum-preference to the reserved category candidates from the left over disciplines/streams/college which became available after the allotment of the disciplines/streams to the last open merit category candidate. 7. It has been further stated by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein that it deviated from the procedure being followed by it earlier for the reason that the earlier procedure proved to be detrimental to the interests of the candidates belonging to EWS category, which category is a separate category for the application of Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 and thus, on account of the said procedure followed by BOPEE-respondent 2 herein, the petitioner came to be allotted the left over discipline/stream of Oral Pathology and Microbiology. 8. 8. It has been lastly stated by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein in its objections that the admission process had to be completed upto 20th of October, 2023 and that beyond the said date, the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein cannot allot any seat to any candidate. 9. Private respondent 10 herein in her objections has contested the petition of the petitioner mainly on two grounds, firstly that the petitioner is not a Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidate as such, Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 does not apply to her case and, therefore, was not entitled to be selected in the RBA category and secondly, that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after a period of two months from the date of issuance of merit list by BOPEE-respondent 2 herein, thus not entitled to the reliefs claimed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition whereas, on the contrary the counsel for the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein opposed the same on the strength of the reply filed. The counsel for the private respondent 10 herein as well controverted the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the objections filed to the petition and in support thereof, heavily placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in case titled as “Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors.” reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234 and “S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 . 11. Before addressing to the issues involved in the instant petition, it would be appropriate to refer hereunder Rule 15 and Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 being relevant herein : Rule 15 “Distribution of seats: For the post-graduate courses in MD/MS/M.Tech. State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 . 11. Before addressing to the issues involved in the instant petition, it would be appropriate to refer hereunder Rule 15 and Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 being relevant herein : Rule 15 “Distribution of seats: For the post-graduate courses in MD/MS/M.Tech. Engineering and Agricultural Sciences and similar other post-graduate courses, the seats shall be distributed as follows with the condition that the selection from the reserved categories for different streams shall be made strictly on the basis of their inter-se merit, treating them as a single class for the purpose of allotment of streams: (i) Open Merit Category 75% (ii) Reserved Categories: (a) Scheduled Caste 4% (b) Scheduled Tribe 5% (c) Socially and Educationally backed Classes: (i) Residents of Backward Areas 10% (ii) Residents of Areas Adjoining Actual Line of Control 2% (iii) Weak and Under Privileged Classes (Social Castes) 1% (d) Children of Defence Personnel/Para Military forces and State Police Personnel 2% (e) Candidates possession outstanding Proficiency in Sports. 1% As is manifest from the aforesaid rule, the same provides that the selection of candidates from reserved categories for different streams has to be made strictly on the basis of their inter se merit, treating them as a single class for the purpose of allotment of seats. Rule 17 “17. Allotment of Discipline etc. 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 left over disciplines/stream/college in the open merit category shall be allotted to the reserved category candidates who get selected consequent upon the reserved category candidates getting selected in the open merit category. Explanation: The left over discipline shall mean such number of disciplines/stream/college becoming available after allotment of seat to the last open merit candidate as allocable under rules. Such seats shall be added to the pool of reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 15 and allotted on the basis of merit-cum-preference. Provided that in respect of under graduate courses the left over seats/colleges shall be added to such categories where shortfall has taken place due to application of Rule 17 and allotment shall be made in terms of Rule 13 on the basis of merit cum preference from the respective categories. Provided that in respect of under graduate courses the left over seats/colleges shall be added to such categories where shortfall has taken place due to application of Rule 17 and allotment shall be made in terms of Rule 13 on the basis of merit cum preference from the respective categories. Provided further that in respect of PG Course the leftover discipline/stream/colleges shall be added to the pool of reserved category candidates in terms of Rule-15 and allotted on the basis of merit cum preference. Provided also that Rule-17 shall be applicable only during the first round of counselling both in respect of UG and PG courses, Unfilled seats due to non-joining, resignation etc. during the first round of counselling shall be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates from the respective categories where a seat has become available i.e. seat left by the SC candidate in the first round shall be allotted to the candidates from the SC category during the second round of counselling only etc. so that the quota allocable to different categories is maintained. The unfilled category seats, if any, shall be filled up from OM candidates in accordance with Section 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004. Note:1: In case the last OM candidate belongs to any reserved category, but Rule 17 cannot be applied in his case, he shall be considered first in OM and allotted a discipline/stream/college of his choice/preference, if available. However, in case discipline/stream/college of his choice/preference is not available in the OM, he may be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college in his respective category on the basis of merit cum preference in accordance with Rule 13 or 15 as may be applicable in his case. Note 2: The prescribed Counselling Authority may, for the reasons to be recorded, address any other unforeseen situation arising during application of Rule 17 in such a manner that it does not put any meritorious category candidate to hardship viz-a-viz preference for allotment of discipline/stream/college as the case may be”. Note 2: The prescribed Counselling Authority may, for the reasons to be recorded, address any other unforeseen situation arising during application of Rule 17 in such a manner that it does not put any meritorious category candidate to hardship viz-a-viz preference for allotment of discipline/stream/college as the case may be”. What emanates from Rule 17 (supra) as amended by SRO 165 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 is that a reserved category candidate, if selected against the open merit category, may be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college allocable to him/her in his/her respective category on the basis of his/her merit and preference and the left over discipline/stream/college in the open merit category has to be allotted to the reserved category candidate who gets selected consequent upon the said reserved category candidates getting selected in the open merit category. The Explanation appended to Rule 17 (supra) provides that the left over disciplines/stream/college shall mean such number of disciplines/streams/colleges becoming available after allotment of seats to the last Open Merit category candidate as allocable under rules. Second proviso appended to the Rule 17 (supra) provides that in respect of PG Course, the left over discipline/stream/college shall be added to the pool of reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 and allotted on the basis of merit-cum-preference. 12. Thus, the only situation wherein the BOPEE may, for the reasons recorded, address any other unforeseen situation arising during application of Rule 17 (supra) in such a manner that it does not put any meritorious category candidate to hardship vis-a-vis preference for allotment of discipline/stream/course/college as the case may be. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid position of Rules and reverting back to the case in hand, the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein has admitted to have deviated from the procedure envisaged under Rule 17 (supra), however, has not given any instance, even a single, of a meritorious category candidate, who would have been put to hardship vis-à-vis preference for allotment of discipline which compelled it to deviate from the procedure envisaged by Rule 17 (supra). Where, however, a candidate belonging to a particular reserved category secures higher merit (MRC) vis-a-vis reserved category candidates and as a result of such high merit is placed in Open Merit category as MRC candidate, there may be a situation where a discipline/stream available in open merit category and offered to such MRC candidate is not to his liking, however, the discipline/stream of his choice would be reserved for reserved category candidate/s and would be offered to a candidate lower in merit than the said MRC candidate, same indisputably would cause injustice to said MRC candidate and in such a situation, Rule 17 (supra) comes to his rescue and provides that such MRC candidate can opt for the discipline/stream of his choice from the disciplines/streams earmarked for the reserved category candidates and by plain reading of Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005, the discipline/stream left by him in the open merit category would go to the candidate who would get selected in place of such MRC candidate in the category to which such MRC candidate originally belonged, however, when read with the Explanation appended to the Rule 17 (supra) and Second Proviso (supra), it becomes manifest that the disciplines/streams not opted by the MRC candidate has to be first offered to the candidates in Open Merit category and the left over disciplines/streams, after remaining unchosen by the candidates in the Open Merit category, are to be added to the pool of reserved category candidates in terms of Rule 15 (supra) and then allotted to reserved category candidates irrespective of their category they belong to without any differentiation on the basis of their inter se merit-cum-preference. By such an exercise and application of the Rules (supra), the MRC candidate does not get reverted back to his reserved category but only takes the discipline/stream earmarked for reserved category candidates and as such, the said MRC candidate thus, continues to remain as an Open Merit category candidate. 14. By such an exercise and application of the Rules (supra), the MRC candidate does not get reverted back to his reserved category but only takes the discipline/stream earmarked for reserved category candidates and as such, the said MRC candidate thus, continues to remain as an Open Merit category candidate. 14. In the instant case, once the MRC candidate, namely, Younis Bashir got selected in open merit category and he chose a discipline/stream available in the RBA category to which he belonged to after he did not opt for the discipline/stream offered to him in the open merit category, said discipline/stream having remained unfilled got added to the pool of the disciplines/streams in the open merit category and thereafter remained unfilled got added to the pool of disciplines/streams earmarked for the reserved category candidate. The BOPEE-respondent 2 herein under these circumstances was required to make allotment of the earmarked disciplines/streams including the one having got added from the open merit category on account of the option of the MRC candidate, Younis Bashir to the reserved category candidates as per their merit-cum-preference which indisputably has not been done by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein and the said left over discipline/stream has been straightway allotted to the petitioner in breach and violation of Rules 15 and 17 of the Rules of 2005, thus, in the process having rendered the merit of the petitioner into de-merit which needs to be undone as the method, mode and manner adopted by the BOPEE-respondent 2 herein has resulted into allocation of preferred disciplines/streams of the petitioner to less meritorious candidates i.e., the private respondents herein including private respondent 10 herein being admittedly inferior in rank than the petitioner, depriving the petitioner of the preferred discipline/stream and instead having allotted her the 16th preference discipline/stream. Therefore, the plea of the private respondent 10 herein that the petitioner herein has been selected without any right is not tenable in law mainly urged by the private respondent 10 herein on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Union of India Vs. Therefore, the plea of the private respondent 10 herein that the petitioner herein has been selected without any right is not tenable in law mainly urged by the private respondent 10 herein on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors.” reported in (2010) 7 SC 234 (supra), a deeper perusal of which judgment tends to show that the same is misplaced and quite distinguishable, as in the said judgment Rule 16(2) of Civil Services Examination Rules were the subject matter, talking about shifting of MRC candidate back to his category and the resultant post going to an open merit category candidate. 15. For further clarity, Rule 16(2) is reproduced hereunder : “While making service allocation, the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the other backward classes recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Government if by this process, they get a service of higher choice in the order of their preference.” 16. As appears from a plain reading of the Rule (supra), same is quite distinct and different from Rule 17 of the Rules of 2005 as it only talks about shifting of MRC candidate back to his category whereas, the Explanation and the Second Proviso appended to Rule 17 (supra) is not part of Rules 16(2) (supra). 17. The common plea and contention of the contesting respondents herein that at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs as have been prayed in the petition in the light of the decision of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “S. Krishna Sradha Vs. 17. The common plea and contention of the contesting respondents herein that at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs as have been prayed in the petition in the light of the decision of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh” reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 (supra) as well is not applicable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in that, this Court is not oblivious to the position of law laid down in the judgment (supra) by the Apex Court and is of the considered opinion that the said judgment is not applicable to the case in hand for the simple reason that this Court is not dealing with a situation where a candidate/petitioner herein has been denied admission/selection, but in fact, a situation where the high ranking petitioner herein as well as the inferior ranking private respondents herein stand selected and admitted to the course in question, but for the unfair allocation of the discipline/stream which ought to have been allotted to the petitioner according to her merit stands denied to her and allotted to the private respondent 10 herein in breach of the Rules of 2005 (supra). 18. In view of what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, same is allowed and by issuance of a writ of mandamus, the official respondents are commanded to swap the discipline/stream allotted to the petitioner being Oral Pathology and Microbiology and of private respondent 10 herein being Paedondontics and Preventive Dentistry immediately so as to avoid any further loss of time to the parties. 19. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with connected application(s).