The main legal point established is that the provisions of the prospectus regarding the change of discipline and admission process based on merit and preference must be strictly applied, and a vacant seat should be offered to the next candidate, not to a candidate who had already opted for a particular seat.

1. This petition seeks a direction to quash admission of respondent No. 2 in B.E. (Electronics and Communication Engineering) and for a direction to the respondent-University to admit the petitioner to B.E. (Computer Engineering).

2. Case of the petitioner is that after passing 10+2. He applied for Bachelor of Engineering Course for the Session 2007-08. Respondent No.2 was admitted to the discipline of B.E. (Electronics and Communication Engineering) in the first counselling held from June 13 to June 18, 2007. Second counselling was held on 29.7.2007, wherein the petitioner made a claim for Course in Computer Engineering, which was available but was given to respondent Not, contrary to the provision of the prospectus that a candidate who was given admission once, could not change the discipline. The petitioner made a representation. His claim was rejected vide letter dated 2.8.2007 on the ground that the candidate admitted was higher in merit.

3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as per Clause 5.7 of the prospectus, respondent No. 2 could not be given admission, who had already exercised option once.

4. Clauses 5.7 and 5.8 of the prospectus reproduced in para 2 of the petition, are as under

"5.7 The allotment of discipline at the time of admission will be made on the basis of the seats available in a particular discipline and category at that instant of time, the order of preference for various disciplines given by the candidate, and his/her merit according to AIEEE-rank. Option once exercised will not be changed.

5.8 A candidate who either does not seek admission on a particular date as per counselling/Admission Schedule or fails to attend the counselling will also be eligible for admission on the subsequent round of admission as per counselling/Admission Schedule. However, the allotment of discipline to such a candidate will be made subject to the availability of seat(s) in a particular discipline at that instant of tinge, the order of preference for various disciplines given by the candidate and his/her merit according to AIEEE rank."

The petitioner has also filed an application for amendment of the writ petition with a view to implead students who had already been given admission. Reply has been tiled on behalf of the University. We had also issued notice to respondent No. 2 but name of respondent No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 10.9 2007, in view of statement made on behalf of the University that respondent No. 2 had never changed the option. Notice has not yet been issued to the students sought to be made parties in the amended petition.

5 Stand of the University is that in the second counselling, option given by a student in his application form could be taken into account to uphold his merit and his admission to a course which may not be his lust preference, cannot debar hint from getting admission to a course of his choice in presence to a candidate rho was lower in merit and was not given admission in first counselling. It has also been submitted that classes had already started in July itself and midway admission could not be given even if the seat was vacant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that irrespective of merit. the provisions of the prospectus had to be strictly applied and right to give option is to be considered at the time of counselling. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Full Bench of tills Court in Anil Jain v. Controller of Examination, (1997)6 SLR 98, which has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and others, AIR 2001 SC 2800 : [2001(3) SLR 730 (SC] and Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2002 SC 3382 12002(6) SLR 485 (SC].

7. Learned counsel for the University tried to distinguish the above judgments by submitting that the condition in the prospectus in the present case was different.

8. We are of the view that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are fully ap