Candidates seeking admission to MBBS/BDS courses are bound by the options they indicate in the admission form and cannot later change their preferences. This is because the admission process is time-bound and allowing candidates to change their preferences after the declaration of results would lead to uncertainty and disrupt the timely completion of the process.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. This writ petition relates to admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course in one of the Medical Colleges in the State of Haryana. At the time of motion hearing, reliance was placed by Mr. I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner, on two earlier decisions of this Court. The view taken in the unreported decision in C.W.P. No. 15367 of 1991 dated October 30, 1991, was that the lapse in filling up the form on the part of the candidates should be condoned on the ground that they were minors and did not fully realize the implications of writing certain words in the prescribed form. The referring order shows that the above proposition could not be accepted in principle by the Division Bench. In order to settle the question of principle, therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench. That is how this petition has been placed before us.

2. The significant question before us is whether the candidates filing in forms relating to admission to educational institutions are bound by what they actually stated in the form or they can be allowed to turn round and take up a different position at a later stage. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to state the facts of this case.

3. A joint entrance test, called PMT, is held for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses in various Medical Colleges in the State of Haryana. There are two Colleges for MBBS, namely, the Government Medical College, Rohtak and Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha, and there are two Colleges imparting BDS Course, namely the Government Dental College, Rohtak and DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamuna Nagar. In the prescribed form for admission, the candidate is required to give his option whether he wants to be considered for admission to the MBBS Course and well as for Dental Course or for only one of the them. He has also to indicate his preference with regard to the college. The petitioner filled in the form and appeared in the PMT held on July 18, 1993. He was placed at serial No. 85 of the merit list as a result of the said examination in the general category. Having regard to the merit secured by the petitioner, he did not become entitled to be given admission for MBBS Course- He could not also be given admission to the BDS Course, in that in the form itself the petitioner had opted for MBBS Course only. Resultantly, two candidates, who were lower in merit than the petitioner, were given admission in the BDS Course. It is against this background that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to grant to the petitioner admission in the BDS Course.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by reference to Annexures P-1 and P-2 submitted that the petitioner was called for interview, though a formal one, for admission to both the Courses, namely, M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. and that he opted to join either of the two courses before the Admission Committee and this was reiterated by him in his application dated September 3, 1993,Annexure P-2. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that petitioner could not be ignored for admission to the B.D.S. Course as per his merit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on two decisions of this Court in Sonu Balhara v. M.D. University, Rohtak, 1989 (6) S.L.R. 67, and in CWP No. 15367 of 1991 decided by a Division Bench on October 30, 1991 Madhvika Khurana (Minor) v. M.D. University and Ors. to contend that petitioner was entitled to be admitted in B.D.S. Course even though he had not mentioned in the admission form that he be also considered for admission to the said Course, in case he did not merit higher enough to get admission in M.B.B.S.

6. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. In the first instance, reference to the substance of the interview letter, Annexure P-1 would show that the petitioner was not called for interview for the two courses, i.e. M