A party who complains of any violation of any rule with reference to the constitution of a committee in the matter of appointments should not be permitted to raise such a grievance after having participated and taken his chance before the said committee.

The matter comes up after notice of motion. Mr.N.R. Chandran, Additional Government Pleader, represents respondents 1 and 2 M/s. Row and Reddy represent respondents 3 and 4. The prayer in the Writ Petition runs as follows :-

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 relating to the Candidates issued for the admission of candidates into B. E. course for the year 1985-86, quash the same which relates to the Diploma holders, in so far as it affects the petitioners right and consequently direct ths Respondents 1 to 3 to frame uniform norms in respect of minimum marks after reserving a quota for the Diploma holders for admission into B.E. course and also to consider the application of the petitioner on such revised norms........"

The prospectus admittedly sets for the instructions to candidates, prescriptions with regard to eligibility for the course, and the methodology for selection. The petitioner does not plead that he was not apprised of the implications of the above aspects. Any candidate who applies for the course applies accepting the prescriptions. If it is a case of not accepting the prescriptions and challenging them on constitutional basis, the candidate ought not to have resorted to the process of applying under the very same prescriptions. The petitioner knew about the prescriptions, and accepting them he applied for admission to the course. But his application has been rejected on the ground of not satisfying the mark rules. The petitioner is stated to have taken the entrance examination on 6-7-1985. Now the petitioner attacks the very system. The relevant allegations in his affidavit run as follows :

"I state that the system evolved by the respondents for selection cannot be supported on any rational basis. It has no nexus with the object of maintaining the standard of education or based upon any intelligible data. ........... The selection is based upon average marks in physics and chemistry in respect of all the students excepting the diploma holders like me. Even for B. E. (Agrl.) course the average marks is alone taken into consideration.

I state that the plus 2 students are able to score very high marks i.e, 90% to 95% in science subjects due to different type of examination. On the other hand in the diploma coarse awarding of marks is strict and the highest marks will not go beyond 80%. Similarly in the Engineering subjects in Semesters V and VI awarding marks is comparatively low and it cannot be equated with the marks awarded to the plus 2 students in Physics and Chemistry. It is a case where unequals are treated as equals for purposes of comparing the respective merits. Even if full marks are obtained in the entrance examination the Diploma students cannot compete with the other students. Therefore the very system is arburary, unjust and violates the principles of equality enshrined under Art.14 of the Constitution of India,

I state that unless a quota is fixed for the diploma holders out of the total seats in B.E. course as in the case of M.B.B.S. course where 10% seats are reserved for graduates the diploma holders in Engineering there is no scope for them to secure admission in the B.E. coarse. The present system successfully prevents the diploma students from competing with others on equal terms. It is impossible to test the merits of all the candidates merely on the basis of the marks obtained in subjects which are totally different both in syllabus and method of valuation." *

2. There is one principle, countenanced by the highest court in the land, which dissuades me from going into the contentions raised by the petitioner. Dealing with the allegations of bais against a member of Bar Council Tribunal, the Supreme Court in M