CWP No. 2466 of 2009. 21.7.2009 Present: Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has been declared ineligible for taking opportunity in the counselling conducted by the Central Counselling Board for admission to under-graduate courses in Engineering/ Architecture etc. The Central Counselling Board has laid down detailed admission procedure (Annexure P-4). All the candidates after their registration are required to exercise their choices of their branches and institutions in their order of preferences. The procedure for exercising choices and seeking pertinent information is guided through appropriate message and tabs on the computer screen. The candidate can offer as many numbers of choices in the order of preferences as he wishes. The candidates were advised strongly to register and fill their choices between June 8- 24, 2009. The candidate could also change his choice by deleting earlier choices before 28.6.2009. Thereafter, the candidate was required to lock his/her choices. Without locking, the choices were not to be processed for subject allotment. This was to be done before 28.6.2009 by 11.55 p.m. In case a candidate failed to lock his/her choices on or before 28.6.2009, the choices filled by the candidates were not to be considered for subject allotment and the candidate has to forego his right of consideration for subject allotment. The precise case of the petitioner is that he has locked his choice. However, it is apparent from Annexure P-5 that the petitioner has not locked his choice for Central Counselling. He has failed to place any tangible evidence on record even to remotely suggest that he has locked his choice as per the procedure laid down. The procedure prescribed is mandatory in nature. If the candidate fails to lock his choice or institution or branch, he has to forego his right. The wholesome principle for locking the choice at the earliest is to enable the Board to know exact number of students according to their choices of branches and institutions. In case the candidate does not lock his choice, the candidate below him is to be considered as per merit. In these circumstances, we do not see any infirmity or illegality in the decision of the Board. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 21, 2009. (cr)