- (1.) By this application the first and second respondents pray for clarification on the following two points : (1) Whether the Government should adopt the merit list which was prepared pursuant to the competitive examination held for the applications invited for 1982-83 for the purpose of making nominations to colleges outside the State. (2) In the event the appellants are found not to be within the zone of consideration viz., the first 13 places (since 13 nominations have been made for 1982-83) whether the Government should in any event nominate them for the academic year 1983-84.
(2.) Having regard to the judgment dated September 19, 1983 in this case and the order dated September 22, 1983 clarifying the judgment it is apparent that the merit list prepared on the basis of the application invited for 1982-83 for making nominations to Colleges outside the State cannot be acted upon at all for further nominations, and that the nominations must be made on the basis of the merit list prepared pursuant to the competitive examination held for the academic session. The nominations must be made in the order indicated in the judgment, that is to say, the nominations shall be made by selecting candidates strictly in order of merit, from those candidates immediately below those selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of the Home State. The merit list valid for the purpose of making such nominations will be the merit list last prepared, and it will be a valid list for that purpose until the merit list is prepared, pursuant to the next competitive examination. In this particular case, the relevant merit list is the merit list prepared pursuant to the competitive examination held for the academic session 1982-83. It was the merit list in force on the date when judgment was delivered by this Court in these cases. But the appellants are not entitled to be considered for nomination on the basis of the 1982-83 list as they hold a place for too low in order of merit in that list. It is not disputed that a few hundred other candidates rank above them. As regards the 1983-84 list which, we are told, is now in force, the appellants do not figure in that list at all. Accordingly, we hold that the first and second respondents are not bound to nominate the appellants either pursuant to the 1982-83 list or the 1983-84 list. The points referred are answered accordingly.;