The preparation of separate merit lists for general category candidates and reserved category candidates, as provided in the Information Brochure of Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical), 1996, Orissa, is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

S. C. DATTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the procedure adopted by the opposite parties for selection to the Medical Course under category-wise counselling instead of merit-wise counselling on the ground that is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, such category-wise counselling runs contrary to the clauses 3. 5 and 3. 16 of the Information Brochure of Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical), 1996, Orissa.

( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared at the Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical), 1996, Orissa, under reserved category'g'. This reserved category 'g' covers children of Green-card holders. Result of the above mentioned examination was published on 12th July, 1996 and, in the merit list for medical stream, the name of the petitioner has been shown against Sl. No. 253. According to the petitioner, the above noted Joint Entrance Examination (for short, 'jee - E and M 1996') was conducted by opposite parties, as per the provisions contained in the Information Brochure for admission to lst year Degree Courses in Medical/ Dental Courses at the three medical colleges in the State of Orissa for the academic year 1996-97.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as per clause 3. 1 of the Information Brochure, four merit lists are required to be drawn up, viz. , one for candidates seeking admission to Engineering/architecture/technology, one for candidates seeking admission to Medical and Dental Courses; one for candidates seeking admission to Nursing Course; and one for candidates seeking admission to Pharmacy. As per clause 3. 3. 2 of the Information Brochure, five per cent of the total seats are reserved in three medical colleges of the State for children of Green-card holders.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is no provision in the Information Brochure for drawing a separate list for 'g' category candidates. The petitioner states that clause 3. 5 of the Information Brochure clearly provides that selection for admission will be strictly on the basis of rank in the merit list subject to availability of seats in colleges and disciplines which will be decided at the time of counselling. Further, clause 3. 16 of the Information Brochure deals with allotment of colleges and disciplines. The same makes it clear that counselling would be held according to the position of the candidates in the merit list. The petitioner alleges that the opposite parties have published the merit list for medical stream on 12th July, 1996. Simultaneously, they have also published a separate merit list for 'g' category candidates. Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to learn that such separate merit list for 'g' category candidates has been published with intention to hold counselling of such 'g' category candidates first instead of holding counselling serially as per merit positions. The petitioner represented to the authorities for adopting serial-wise counselling in order or rank in the merit list for medical stream, but the authorities having not responded to his request he has moved this Court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to follow the procedure of serial-wise counselling according to the position of candidates in the merit list of the medical stream.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in case of category-wise counselling, the very purpose of reservation for 'g' category will be defeated as it would arbitrarily force the candidate to exercise the option in a blind manner when such an exercise is not at all needed and not warranted by the provisions contained in the Information Brochure.

( 6 ) OPPOSITE parties Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter wherein they denied that they have adopted a procedure in the matter of counselling different from that enjoined in the Information Brochure. They challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has exercised his option as provided un