R. K. Manisana, J.— The petitioners, in three writ petitions, namely Civil Rule Nos.1136, 1148 and 1152 of 1992 have challenged the admission of 40 numbers of candidates to MBBS course, 20 in Gauhati Medical College (GMC) and 20 in Assam Medical College (AMC) for the session 1991-92. 2. Under the Medical Colleges of Assam/Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under Graduate Students) Rules, 1989 ('Pules' for short), Admission Test is to be conducted by the Selection Board constituted by the Government of Assam under Rule 4, The notification dated 9.6.91 was issued inviting application for admission to MBBS course for the session 1991-92. After holding Admission Test, the Selection Board sometime in the last part of September 1991 published in various news papers a provisional selection list in order of merit for final selection after interview. The Selection Board also published names of the candidates on-waiting list in order of merit. The petitioner Papari Bharali in Civil Rule No. 1136 of 1992, and the petitioners Arup Kumar Sarma and Nipon Kumar Sarma in Civil Rule No. 1148 of 1992, were candidates on the waiting list their serial Nos being 2, 5 and 15 respectively. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1152 of 1992 is the Guwahati Medical College Students Union. 3. Sometime in March, 1992 the Medical Council of India after necessary inquiry and inspection of three Medical Colleges in Assam granted or sanctioned 40 additional seats in the midst of session 1991-92. Thereafter, the Government of Assam amended the Rules. The result of the amendment of the Rules was that those additional 40 seats shall be reserved seats called Chief Minister's Discretionary Quota, for short 'CM's quota and that those candidates nominated by the Chief Minister shall be exempted from appearing at the Admission Test. Thereafter sometime in June 1992, 40 candidates had been selected and few of them had been ^ admitted to Colleges. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) of the Rules. The petitioners have contended that the criteria adopted in granting admission is discriminatory, unreasonable, and void, and that the 40 seats should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list. 4 The case of the State is as follows. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) of the Rules. The petitioners have contended that the criteria adopted in granting admission is discriminatory, unreasonable, and void, and that the 40 seats should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list. 4 The case of the State is as follows. A large number of meritorious students consistent with brilliant academic record having secured high percentage of marks in the relevant subjects, namely, English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology, could not pass through the Admission Test. There were a large scale resentment against the genuineness of the result of the Admission Test, and therefore, the parents/guardians of the students made representations to the Chief Minister of Assam seeking redress. The representations were also submitted to the Chief Minister by linguistic and religious minorities, and various ethnic groups belonging to backward, other backward and more other backward classes, and also members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, indicating their resentment against the process of selection of candidates and requesting the Chief Minister to look into the matter. Representations were also received from the people of Cachar and Karimganj districts stating that they were kept unrepresented in the 1st year MBBS course of 1991-92. The Chief Minister received the representations after the announcement of the result of the Admission Test; The Chief Minister considered the representations and took up the matter with the Government of India as well as the Indian Medical Council for enhancement of 50 seats in MBBS course for the academic year 1991-92 in three Medical Colleges in Assam. In the process, the Chief Minister could convince the Indian Medical Council and the Union Government and, therefore, the Indian Medical Council allowed/sanctioned 40 seats, 20 seats each in AMC and GMC, after inspecting the three Medical Colleges in Assam, for the academic session 1991-92, considering the special circumstances stated above. In that situation, there was no time to follow usual procedure under the Rules for admission to the first year MBBS course and, therefore, the Rule was to be amended for selecting 40 candidates in a quicker method, so that the 40 seats might not be lost. The additional 40 seats were allocated to remove sense of deprivation and to restore sense of justice amongst different classes of persons who had extensively represented before the Chief Minister. The additional 40 seats were allocated to remove sense of deprivation and to restore sense of justice amongst different classes of persons who had extensively represented before the Chief Minister. The allotment of seats were purely a transitory measure in consideration of the special circumstances and the selection of 40 candidates were made on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination, Therefore, candidates on waiting list cannot claim the vacancy occurred in the midst of academic session and in the circumstances of the case. 5. Respondent 6 Kumari Purnima, respondent 7 Apurba Kumar Sarma, respondent 9 Tanma Das, respondent 10 Rajesh Sarma and respondent 12 Muskura Begum in Civil Rule No. 1136 of 1992 and respaadsat 7 Dhruba Jyoti Saikia in Civil Rule No. 1152 of 1992 filed their respective affidavits, Of the selected candidates, other than respondents mentioned above did not appear. We are of the view that there have been sufficiently and well represented by the State as well as the private respondents whose interests are identical with the contesting respondents. 6. The affidavits of Purnima, Rajesh Sarma and Muskura Begum are that they appeared at the Admission Test but they were not selected even though they obtained very good marks in the qualifying examination. 7. In the counter of Apurba Kumar Sarma respondent 7 in Civil Rule No. 1136 of 1992 it has been stated thus. First notification was issued on 9.6.91 and thereafter another notice dated 17.7.91 was issued relaxing the Rule 3 (b) (iii) of the Rules, which provides that the candidates must have studied for a period of two years in an institution within the State of Assam preceding last date fixed for submission of the application. He submitted his application for the academic session 1991-92. His Roll No. was 7435. The Admit Card issued to him does not indicate the. date of examination. The Admit Card has been annexed to his counter to support his statements that no date of examination was mentioned and further he stated that the Admission Test was a farce. The answer scripts were not fairly, correctly examined and verified. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the result of the Admission Test he and 83 others filed appeals to the Commissioner under Rule 14 of the Rules. No hearing was made and he does not know the fate of the appeals. The answer scripts were not fairly, correctly examined and verified. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the result of the Admission Test he and 83 others filed appeals to the Commissioner under Rule 14 of the Rules. No hearing was made and he does not know the fate of the appeals. Therefore, he submitted representation to the Chief Minister to allot him a seat from his discretionary quota. 8. The case of Ms. Tanma Das, the respondent 9 in Civil Rule No. 1136 of 1992 is that she appeared at the Admission Test and her Roll No. was 6222. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the result of the Admission Test she filed an appeal under Rule 14 of the Rules. The appellate authority allowed her to inspect her answer scripts. On seeing the title page of her answer script of Biology she found that her Code No. was written as V 62. Bat was cancelled later on and rewritten as V59. That Code No. V 62 was put against Roll No. 6225 of a selected candidate. Her answer to question No. 4 (iii) of Biology (Zoology part) was not evaluated. The appellate authority told her that she should have been in the waiting list but by mistake her name was dropped. Thereafter she made a representation to the Chief Minister. 9. The affidavit of Dhruba Jyoti Saikia, respondent 7 in Civil Rule No. 1148 of 1992, indicates that he secured 71.6 % marks in the qualifying examination. He also appeared in the Admission Test. His Roll No. w is 6763. He appeared in all the tests held on 3rd and 4th August 1991. According to him, the selection list published is a product of unreasonable, arbitrary and unprincipled exercise of power of the Selection Board. At present he is studying TDC and appeared at the 2nd year TDC Examination from Cotton College. 10. The affidavit of Dina Raja, respondent 16 in Civil Rule No. 1152 of 1992, is in the following words. She secured 74.5 % marks in the qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. She was refused application form on the ground that she was not qualified to be a candidate under Rule 3 (b) (iii) which was relaxed by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the following submissions. She was refused application form on the ground that she was not qualified to be a candidate under Rule 3 (b) (iii) which was relaxed by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1989. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the following submissions. First Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) of the Rules are violative of Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution for there is no intelligible data for sustaining the classification and there is also no nexus between the basis of classification and object sought to be achieved by the Rules. Secondly, Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) conferring discretionary power upon the executive authority does not lay down guidelines and, therefore, the Rules are arbitrary; hence violative Of Article 14. Thirdly, even if the Rules are valid, the discretion which has been exercised by the executive authority suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination and as such, the selection of 40 candidates is invalid. Lastly the 40 seats should be offered to the candidates on waiting list. The learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the classification does not offend the Constitution, that discretion is conferred on the Government itself or its high authority and not on a minor official and therefore, it will not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and that the candidates on the waiting list have no right to claim any of the 40 seats. 12. After the amendment of the Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules are in the following words : 7. Exemption from Admission Test: The following categories of candidates are exempted from appearing at the Admission Test: (a) Candidates nominated against reserved seats for the other States by their respective Government provided they satisfy other relevant conditions for eligibility for admission. (b) Candidates selected on the basis of the All India Entrance Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. (c) Candidates nominated by the Chief Minister, Assam under the provision of seats reserved under Chief Minister's Discretionary quota for the academic session 1991-92 only under rule 8 (j). "8. Reservation of seats: (1) MBBS Course: Available seats shall be reserved for the following categories of candidates of the State of Assam. (c) Candidates nominated by the Chief Minister, Assam under the provision of seats reserved under Chief Minister's Discretionary quota for the academic session 1991-92 only under rule 8 (j). "8. Reservation of seats: (1) MBBS Course: Available seats shall be reserved for the following categories of candidates of the State of Assam. (a) Scheduled Caste 7% of total available seats (b) Scheduled Tribe (Plains) 10% of total available seats (c) Scheduled Tribes (Hills) 5% of total available seats (d) Sons & Daughter dependent of ExServicemen & Serving brother sister defence Personnel from Assam only 3 Seats in total (e) Sons & Daughter dependent brother/sister and grandson/ grand-daughter of freedom fighters of the State 2 Seats in total (f) Sons and Daughter, brothers and sisters of the martyers of Assam Movement 2 Seats in total (g) Children of tea Garden and Ex-tea Garden Communities/Tribes 3 Seats in total (h) OBC including MOBC 15%of total available seats (i) Sons and Daughters of all categories employees serving under the Health Department of Assam 3 Seats in total (j) Chief Minister's Discretionary quota (i) for Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh for the academic session for 1991-92 a total of 20 seats, which have become available on obtaining permission from the Medical Council of India for an annual increase of 20 seats. (ii) for Guwahati Medical College, Guwahati for the academic session of 1991-92, a total of 20 seats, which have become available on obtaining permission from the Medical Council of India for an annual increase of 20 seats. Provided that candidates so nominated shall fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in Rules 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (e), 3 (f) and 3 (g) and secure at least 50% marks in the aggregate in the qualifying examination referred to in Rule 2(f). NB—Rules 7(c) and 8 (j) were inserted by the Amending Rules" 13. The question which arises for consideration is whether Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) are violative of Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution. NB—Rules 7(c) and 8 (j) were inserted by the Amending Rules" 13. The question which arises for consideration is whether Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) are violative of Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution. It is well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions*must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. 14. The case of the State is that 40 seats were sanctioned by the Medical Council ot India considering the special circumstances stated above and were allotted to remove the sense of deprivation and to restore the sense of justice among the different classes of persons who had extensively represented before the Chief Minister. The allotment of seats were purely transitory measures in consideration of the special circumstances. On the facts and-in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Government, has acted in its own wisdom, but the classification made to remove the sense of deprivation and to restore the sense of justice among different classes of persons under the special circumstances is vague and, therefore, violative of Article 14. 15. The next question which arises for consideration is whether Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) conferring discretionary power upon the executive authority are violative of Article 14 as no guideline has been laid down. Mr. B. Sen learned counsel for the State of Assam, has submitted that, if the discretion is conferred on the Government or its high authority and not on minor official, it would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 16. The 'high authority' theory is that the discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where discretion is vested in the Government or 'high authority* of the Government and not in a minor official. 16. The 'high authority' theory is that the discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where discretion is vested in the Government or 'high authority* of the Government and not in a minor official. In other words, if the discretion provided in the statute is to be exercised by the 'high authority', be it unguided, unfettered or untrammelled, there is a safeguard against the abuse of power unless it is shown to have been so exercised. 17. The word 'discretion' means the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances (Bouvier's Law Dictionary). 'Discretion' means the liberty or power of acting without other control than one's own judgment (Webster's Dictionary). In Jehn Wilkes's case, (1779) 4 Burr 2528 at page 2539, Lord Mansfield has stated that "discretion" means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful'*. In that view of the matter, if the provision which confers discretionary power on the executive authority, however high he may be, does not lay down guideline for exercise of that power, there is every possibility of causing real and substantive discrimination by arbitrary exercise of power and, therefore, such a provision is violative of-Article 14. 18. At this stage, it will be helpful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Jaisinghaoi vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1437 - In that case, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held : " the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon, which our whole constitutional system is based, in a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision take in accordance with the rule of law. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision take in accordance with the rule of law. The above principle has been reiterated in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdopr Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 : (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600. In that case it has been stated at paragraph 225 of AIR thus : 'The 'high authority' theory so called has already been adverted to earlier. Beyond the self-deluding and self-asserting righteous presumption, there is nothing to support it. This theory undoubtedly weighed with some authorities for some time in the past. But its unrealistic pretensions were soon noticed and it was buried without even so much as an ode to it." (emphasis added) 19. For the reasons stated above, if the provision which confers discretionary powers on the executive authority (however high he may be) does not lay down guidelines for its exercise, it shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and it cannot be defended on the ground that the power conferred by it was exercised by the Chief Minister as the "high authority" theory is now obsolete. However, it is well settled that the guidelines need not be found in the impugned provision itself. The same may be collected from the setting in which provision has been placed, purpose for which the Act is enacted and even the preamble of statute in which the provision is incorporated (see AIR 1983 SC 762 , State of Mysore vs. ML Nagade). 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that proviso to Rule 8 (j) lays down guideline. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. We approach the matter as follows. The proviso itself clearly says that the Rules mentioned in the proviso are the eligibility criteria for nomination of candidates. For our satisfaction we have Persued the Rules mentioned in the proviso. Those Rules relate to canditate's citizenship,age,parent's residence,passing of the qualifying examination and percentage thereof conduct or misconduct. These are conditions for being eligible for a candidate. The proviso itself clearly says that the Rules mentioned in the proviso are the eligibility criteria for nomination of candidates. For our satisfaction we have Persued the Rules mentioned in the proviso. Those Rules relate to canditate's citizenship,age,parent's residence,passing of the qualifying examination and percentage thereof conduct or misconduct. These are conditions for being eligible for a candidate. Therefore the proviso does not lay down guideline for its use it is violative of Article 14 of the constitituion ,and it cannot be defended on the ground that discretion is conferred on the 'high authority that is the chief minister in view of the above discussion. For these reasons Rule 7©shall be of no effect. 20 A The Government has not produced records in order to show how the 40 candidates were selected. For non-production of record an adverse inference is to be drawn against the Government. From the list of the 40 candidates filed by the petitioner it is not known on what basis the selection was made. It is not known whether selection was based on merit. There was every possibility of picking and choosing discriminately from amongst large number of candidates 21 It is now settled that selection of candidates for admission to Medical colleges in the state does not remain in the unlimited discretion and uncontrolled choice of the State Government Selection or nomination is to be made by following procedure of selecting candidates strictly on the basis of the merit. 22 In Dr.Dinesh Kumar vs Motilala Nehru Medical College,(1985) 3SCC 22: AIR 1985 SC 1059 , it has been held: It would be wholly unjust to grant admission to the student by assessing their relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by them, not at the same qualifying examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying examination held by different Governments or universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be blatantly violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”(emphasis added) The corollary of the above principle is that if all the candidates seeking admission passed in the same qualifying examination of the same University council or Board granting admission to the students by assessing their relative merits with reference to marks obtained by them in the same qualifying examination may not be necessary. 23. 23. In the absence of particulars stated above, the mere statements of the Government that allocation of seats was made to remove the sense of deprivation and to restore the sense of justice among different persons would not be sufficient. Accordingly, the impugned selection list communicated by the Director of Medical Education to the Joint Director of Medical Education under letter dated 08.06.92 is liable to be quashed. 24. The question which now arises for consideration is whether the 40 seats should be offered to the candidates on waiting list in order of merit. 25. The case of the petitioner is that the 40 seats were enhanced or increased in academic year 1991-92 and therefore, the forty (40) vacant seats should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list in order of merit. We have been referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Amanjit Singh vs. Directorate General of Health Services, AIR 1989 SC 386 . In that case a. merit list 1600 candidates together with a waiting list of 1000 candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS courses was sent to the Director General of Health Services. The Director General allocated 1428 candidates to MBBS course and 111 candidates to BDS course in various Medical/Dental Colleges. But 632 seats became vacant as some of7 the candidates did not join in all these courses. A meeting of Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Affairs was held The Committee also made suggestions regarding guideline to be followed for the purpose of filling up the vacant seats in the MBBS/BDS 'courses. But 632 seats became vacant as some of7 the candidates did not join in all these courses. A meeting of Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Affairs was held The Committee also made suggestions regarding guideline to be followed for the purpose of filling up the vacant seats in the MBBS/BDS 'courses. In the context of that case, the Supreme Court directed that the following guidelines to be followed for the purpose of filling up 632 seats in the, MBJJS/BDS courses-(l) The candidates, who had been allocated seats to the College not recognised by the Medical Council of India should first be reallocated to the recognised Medical Colleges; (2) Those candidates who had exercised their choice for MBBS course only or to MBBS course by way , of first 'preference and to BDS course by way of second preference and admitted to BDS course for want of seats in the MBBS course would, if they or any of them desired to be admitted to the MBBS course, be absorbed against the available vacant seats in order of merit; and (3) The vacant MBBS or BPS seats thereafter available, should be offered to the candidates on the waiting list in order of merit. We have also been referred to a decision of this Court reported as Abul Hussain vs. State of Assam, (1984) 1 GLR 254. In that case, it has been held : “However, we would like to, observe that the order of admission issued by the Govt in favour of Dr. (Mrs) Rina and Dr (Mrs) Farida were undoubtedly contrary to the relevant rules of admission. A number of eligible candidates were deprived of and two of them have come up before us, namely, Dr. Md, Abul Hussain and Sri Shyamalendu Pas. Undoubtedly, they have stronger claim. Dr. Hussain was second in the waiting list of the MD Course and he should have been given a seat in consequence of the increase in the number of the seat for admission in Gauhati Medical College" 26. Md, Abul Hussain and Sri Shyamalendu Pas. Undoubtedly, they have stronger claim. Dr. Hussain was second in the waiting list of the MD Course and he should have been given a seat in consequence of the increase in the number of the seat for admission in Gauhati Medical College" 26. In the context, 'waiting list* means |ist of candidates who cannot be selected for admission to MBBS course now but would be selected later, If possible, and the candidates on waiting list shall have the right to claim if there is any vacant seat as a result of drop-outs, or falling off, in the number of the candidates in the merit list of the year. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Pradhan vs. State of MP, AIR 1988 SC 1875 , suggests that the question of a vacant seat being filled up must arise at the commencement of the academic year or soon thereafter, and that there is no question of a right of admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of, or towards the end of the academic year. In the above view of the matter, the candidates on the waiting list have no right to claim that the vacant seats must be filled up by candidates from the list in order of merit. In the corollary, the authority is not obliged or compelled to fill up any vacant seat available in the midst of academic year. Therefore, the 40 seats available in the midst of session may not be filled up at all. 27. As stated earlier, the case of the Government is that 40 additional seats were sanctioned by the Medical Council of India for allocation to the candidates under the special circumstances to remove sense of deprivation and to restore sense of justice among the different classes of persons. The affidavits of Apurba Kumar Sarma, Tanma Das, Dhrubajyoti and Dina Raja indicate that there was irregularities in the conduct of the Admission Test and support the plea of the Government. If that be the position, the 40 additional seats were not for affording more seats or to add more seats earmarked for the candidates selected on the basis of merit in the Admission Test. Therefore, the candidates on waiting list shall have no right to the 40 additional seats. 28. If that be the position, the 40 additional seats were not for affording more seats or to add more seats earmarked for the candidates selected on the basis of merit in the Admission Test. Therefore, the candidates on waiting list shall have no right to the 40 additional seats. 28. In view of the above discussions, the decision in Amanjit Singh (supra) is inapplicable to the present case because those vacancies arose at the time of the admission, and the order was also made on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as after considering the suggestion by the Selection Committee. That apart, facts of that case differs from those in the present case. The decision of this Court in Abul Hussain (supra) is also of no assistance as the increase of seats was not in the midst of the session, and the facts in that case also differ from those in the present case. 29. The question then is - What principle is to be followed if the Government decides to fill up those 40 seats ? 30. In Mridnla Avasthi vs. Delhi University, AIR 1988 SC 1485 , the Supreme Court observed : "While we reiterate the view expressed by this Court on more than one occasion that selection in the higher courses should be on the basis of merit, in the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in this case purely confined to a transitory measure; the situation has to be handled not only by first principles but by a somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism. This has to be so because the situation would not recur." 31. In Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487 , the State Government, the College, and the Secretary, which was running the College, agreed before the Court that the best fifty students out of those who had applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80 and who had failed to secure admission would be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and that the seats allocated to them would be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College. 32. We have held that the classification made to remove sense of I deprivation and to restore sense of justice among the different persons is bad. 32. We have held that the classification made to remove sense of I deprivation and to restore sense of justice among the different persons is bad. However, we cannot ignore that the 40 seats were sanctioned in addition to the normal intake of students in the Colleges to remove the imbalance in the admission though the procedure adopted for selection was not justified and _ proper. If there is delay there is possibility of loosing the seats by lapse of time. The situation purely confines to transitory measure and it would not recur. We have to consider unjustly excluded candidates and also the academic excellence. Therefore, borrowing principles in the above cited cases of the Supreme Court, the present case has to be handled not by fixed principle but by applying the principles in an individual case. 33. For the foregoing reasons, we quash the Rules 7 (c) and 8 (j) of the Rules and set aside the impugned selection or nomination made by the State Government of Assam or by the Chief Minister of Assam and direct the State Government of Assam to nominate best 40 students out of those who had applied for admission for academic year 1991-92 and who had failed to secure admission and of those who were refused the applications forms for Admission Test with due regard to reservation and eligibility criteria under the Rules. The selection shall be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. 34. With the above observations and direction the petitions are disposed of. No costs.