JUDGMENT
Permod Kohli, J.
1. Petitioners were the candidates in the selection/admission to the MD/MS/PG Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of the State, SKIMS Medical College, Srinagar and Acharya Shri Chander College, Jammu, they having applied pursuant to Notification No. 50-BPEE of 2003. They participated in the Entrance Test conducted by the Board of Professional Entrance Examination and were amongst the successful candidates for which a Notification No. 11-BPEE of 2004 dated 9-3-2004 has been issued. Petitioners had applied under the Category of candidates, who have served for five years in rural areas for which 10% reservation out of Open Merit category is provided. Their names figured in the select list. Respondent No. 1 has issued Notification No. 15-BPEE dated 2-4-2004 inviting the candidates for counselling for allotment of streams in the Post Graduation Courses. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not entitled to allot the streams through counselling as the allocation of discipline is to be made on the basis of roster notified vide SRO 282 dated 8-8-2000. A copy of this Notification on record shows that the allocation of discipline is to be made on the basis of the roster which shall be maintained by respondent No. 1 for 100 vacancies, which is to be repeated in the event there are more vacancies. Under this roster the slots 4,14,24,31,44 and other slots indicated therein are reserved for the rural service candidates. Petitioners accordingly seek enforcement of this roster for the purpose of allocation of stream and are seeking quashment of Notification dated 2-4-2004.
2. In response to the afore-said writ petition, respondents have filed their reply stating therein that SRO 282 of 2000 dated 8-8-2000 and SRO 255 of 2000 dated 18-7-2002 have been rescinded vide SRO No. 107 dated 8-4-2004.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the process for admission had commenced on 22-10-2003 when SRO 282 was in operation and its revocation on 8-4-2004 will not effect the right pf the petitioners to seek allocation of discipline in accordance with SRO 282 as the allocation will be governed by said SRO alone. It is further submitted that SRO 107 whereby SRO 282 was revoked is prospective in nature and thus will not apply to the selection for which the process had already commenced.
5. Vide Notification dated 22-10-2003 process for selection/admission was commenced both for open and reserved categories. As far the reservation of 10% for rural service is concerned, the same is provided under SRO 390 of 2001 dated 27-10-2001. The reservation has remained intact. As far as SRO 282 is concerned, it provides that the competent/selection authority shall maintain a roster of 100 seats in the form given in the said SRO. In the roster slots of different categories have been fixed. However, no roster has ever been prepared to indicate as to which slot will be for a particular discipline. It appears that said SRO though issued was not implemented and respondent No. 1 in its wisdom decided to rescind the same and rescinded vide SRO 107 dated 8-4-2004. This only has done away with the roster. After the revocation of SRO 282 the streams are allocated on the basis of counseling. As far Notification dated 2-4-2004 the counseling was to commence on 10-4-2004. SRO 282 does not confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioners. There was a reservation of 10% for them which remained intact, otherwise also they already stand selected and none of their rights have been taken away for the simple reason that despite issuance of SRO 282 and providing the slots for various categories the discipline were never indicated. The relief claimed by the petitioner to implement SRO 282 cannot be granted as the said SRO cease to exist on the statute book. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.