State of Maharashtra
& Ors. Vs. Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors. [2008] INSC 1684 (1
October 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6026 OF 2008 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17406 of 2006) State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....
Appellant(s) Versus Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6027 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17832 of 2006)
P. Sathasivam, J.
Leave granted in both
SLPs. C.A. No.6026/2008 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 17406/2006 1) This appeal, by special
leave, is directed against the judgment and final order dated 28.9.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 4515
of 2006, whereby the High Court allowed the said writ petition directing the
State - Directorate of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to
as "DMER") to consider Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal - respondent No.1
herein for giving seat in Indira Gandhi Medical College (hereinafter referred
to as "IGMC"), Nagpur by shifting Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar-respondent
No.2 herein to Government Medical College (hereinafter referred to as
"GMC"), Yavatmal.
2) The facts, in
brief, are as under:
On 31.03.2006,
Information Brochure for medical courses in Government Colleges in Maharashtra
for the academic year 2006-2007 was published and accordingly MHT-CET, 2006 was
conducted on 21.05.2006 throughout Maharashtra. First round for verification of
documents and filling of preference forms took place during 28.6.2006 to
6.7.2006 and accordingly, on the basis of the same, final allotments were made
on 14.7.2006 thereby mentioning 21.7.2006 as the last date for joining. In the
first round, admissions were given as under :
State Name of Student
Name of the College Quota Merit List No. 963 Sneha Satyanarayan Shri Vasantrao
Naik 70% Agrawal - Respondent Govt. Medical College, Regional No.1 Yavatmal 869
Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar - Shri Vasantrao Naik 30% Respondent No.2 Govt. Medical
College, State Yavatmal 844 Deepika Nandkumar Govt. Medical College, 30% Mishra
- Respondent No.3 Miraj State In IGMC, Nagpur, twelve seats for women open category
were vacant, and as per the Rule, 30% seats have to be filled up from State and
70% seats have to be filled up from Region i.e. four seats from State and eight
seats from Region have to be filled up. On 24.8.2006, in the second round of
counseling, considering vacant seats and the preference as given by the
candidates in the Preference Form, two candidates, namely, 1) Purbi Rabindra
Acharya (SML No. 634) - who was admitted in Indira Gandhi Medical College,
Nagpur in 30% State quota, preferred and joined B.J. Medical College, Pune and
2) Anuradha Kamalkishore Rathi (SML No. 703) who was also admitted in India
Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur in 30% State quota preferred and joined
Government Medical College, Nagpur.
Therefore, two seats
in 30% State quota were vacant. Accordingly, Deepika Mishra, SML No. 844 and
Kirti Ruikar, SML No. 869 were given admission against the vacant seats. In
view of the same, seats in their earlier places were vacant and two candidates
were accommodated.
Second round of
admissions was finalized on 24.8.2006 and the list was published on 25.8.2006
mentioning 30.8.2006 as the last date for joining. On 28.8.2006, respondent
No.1 herein submitted a representation to DMER by fax informing that the
admissions of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are in violation of Rules depriving her
to exercise her higher preference and betterment. However, no action was taken.
Being aggrieved by
the conduct of the Government, respondent No.1 approached the Bombay High
Court, Nagpur Bench by filing a writ petition. On 15.9.2006, respondent No.1
herein filed an application impleading Deepika Mishra as a party respondent and
the same was allowed. On 28.9.2006, after hearing the parties, the High Court
disposed of the writ petition, by pronouncing only operative part of the
judgment, thereby directing DMER to consider shifting of Kirti Ruikar from
Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur to GMC, Yavatmal and shifting of Sneha
Agrawal, respondent No.1 herein from GMC, Yavatmal to Indira Gandhi Medical
College, Nagpur. Later on, on 12.10.2006, full judgment was delivered. In the
meantime, the entire admission process was over. Challenging the judgment dated
28.9.2006, the State of Mahrashtra has filed the present appeal by way of
special leave petition before this Court.
Civil Appeal
No.6027/2008 @ S.L.P.(c) No. 17832 of 2006 3) This appeal has been filed by
respondent No.1 in S.L.P. (C) No. 17406 of 2006 against the judgment of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 28.9.2006 in Writ
Petition No. 4515 of 2006 challenging the judgment on the ground that the High
Court has not issued any direction to correct the error committed by the
respondents.
4) Heard Mr. Shekhar
Naphade, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shivaji
M. Jadhav, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.
5) The contention of
the first respondent herein, before the High Court, was that while preparing
merit list of the second round of IGMC Women Category candidates, first four
seats must go to the 30% category and next eight seats must go to the 70%
category i.e., State List and Regional List respectively. It was also her claim
that in terms of Rule 2.3.1 of Information Brochure of Preference System for
admission to Health Science Courses of MHT-CET, 2006 published by the
Directorate of Medical Education and Research, this pattern has to be followed
in each round while filling up seats in any College/Institute. It was her
further claim that every vacant seat is required to be filled in on the basis
of the merit and the preference taken together and no single factor can be
operated at any point of time i.e., at any later round. It was also the claim
of the first respondent that while considering the preference for betterment,
the seats meant for 30% quota and 70% quota cannot either way be altered and
the seats meant for 30% quota must be filled up according to merit depending on
the preference from that category only.
6) On the other hand,
it was the claim of the Competent Authority that the procedure carved out by
the Directorate of Medical Education and Research in the Information Brochure
of Preference System for admission to Health Science Courses MHT-CET, 2006 has
been strictly followed and it was followed from the very beginning. The
Authority also denied the contention of the writ petitioner - first respondent
herein, that there was any deviation from the rules which is part and parcel of
the procedure for admission to MHT-CET, 2006.
7) In order to
appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the Information
Brochure of Preference System for admission to Health Science Courses (MBBS /BDS
/BAMS /BUMS /BPTh/BOTH /BASLP /BP&O /B.Sc. [Nursing]) MHT-CET-2006 issued
by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Government of Mahrashtra.
Among the various Rules, the following rules are relevant in the present case:
"1.4
DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS TO BE ALLOTTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY 1.4.1 After
excluding the seats as provided in Para 1.2 and 1.3; the remaining seats will
be at the disposal at the Competent Authority & available for candidates of
the State for Selection in the following manner.
1.4.2 Out of the
seats at the disposal of the Competent Authority, 30% of such seats in Colleges
will be made available for candidates from the State and these seats will be
filled on the basis of State Merit List. There will be constitutional,
specified and female reservations in these seats as per rules.
1.4.3 The seats for
BUMS, BPTh, BOTh, BASLP, BP&O and B.Sc. (Nursing) courses will be filled by
the candidates from the State Level Merit List only.
1.4.4 Distribution of
Seats in 70% Category After the exclusion of State Level seats mentioned at 6
Para 1.4.2 the remaining 70% seats will be filled from amongst the Candidates
who have passed HSC (or equivalent examination) from the Schools/Colleges
situated in the region of the concerned Development Board i.e. Rest of
Maharashtra, Vidarbha and Marathwada. There will be constitutional, specified
and female reservations for these seats as per rules.
1.6 RESERVATION FOR
FEMALE CANDIDATES:
30% seats at the
disposal of the Competent Authority shall be reserved for female candidates in
all the courses. This reservation shall be for all the categories like SC, ST,
VJ, NT-1, NT-2, NT-3, OBC, Common, HA, PH & DEF. 30% female reservation
shall be provided in 30% State seats & 70% regional seats of that category.
If requisite number
of female candidates are not available then these seats shall be offered to
male candidates of that category.
2. SELECTION PROCESS:
2.1 The selection
will be made on the basis of preferences given by the candidates. Only a
limited number of meritorious candidates will be called for Counselling and
asked to fill the preference form. Counselling sessions are not meant for
instant seat allocation at these offices. During these sessions candidates are
helped in exercising their preferences for various courses, and the
institutions. Seat allocation shall be made centrally at a later date on the
basis of MHT- CET-2006 merit list and preferences exercised by the candidates.
2.2 Selection Process
shall be as follows:
The preference form
shall be available at the office of the Regional Centre as per notified
schedule. The duly filled preference form should be submitted at the same
office.
Xxx xxx xxxx 2.2.3
The candidates may kindly note while filling the preference form that
MHT-CET-2006 merit list will be operated from SML number 1 onwards in each
round of 7 selection. The candidate getting selected in previous round will be
considered for betterment in the subsequent round. The betterment herein means
the higher preference exercised by the candidate. The Shift in such betterment
shall be compulsory and mandatory except for those who have filled `Status
Retention Form.' Such a candidate who has filled Status Retention form will not
be considered for any subsequent rounds of selection process for the year
2006-2007. The last date for filing Status Retention Form will be notified
along with the selection list.
2.3.1 While filling
the seats for any college/Institution state seats (30%) shall be filled first
followed by regional seats (70%). The seats for the MKB shall be available as
per state merit list only. The seats for Defence category shall be allotted
regionwise.
2.6 Seats that have arisen
or fallen vacant after the first round shall be made available at the second
round of selection on the basis of preference form already submitted. No new
preference form will be required for any subsequent round(s). The vacancy
position will be made available on website of DMER i.e. www.dmer.gov.in before
commencement of the next round."
In the counter
affidavit as well as written notes, the Competent Authority - the Director of
Medical Education and Research, Mumbai asserted before the High Court that it
has strictly carried out the entire admission process in accordance with the
above-mentioned Rules and also placed before the High Court the first and the
second list of selection as well as the list of vacancies arising in various
colleges after the first round and those who are filled up in the second round
and also placed on record the preference forms of the writ petitioner,
respondent No.3 as well as candidate at Serial Nos. 9 & 10 in the list of
IGMC, Nagpur. We have carefully scrutinized the relevant documents in the light
of the Rules applicable to issue in question. It is clear that the seats as per
Rule 1.4 are to be distributed by the Competent Authority except the seat
relating to nominees of the Government of India and of AIEE quota. As per the
said Rule, the Competent Authority, out of the seats at its disposal, is
required to make available 30% seats in the colleges for the candidates from
the State and these seats are to be filled up on the basis of State Merit List.
The Competent Authority is also expected to fill up 70% seats from the
candidates who have passed HSSC or equivalent examination from Schools/Colleges
situated in (A) rest of Maharashtra (R),(B) Vidarbha (V) and (C) Marathwada(M).
It is pertinent to mention that any candidate in the State of Maharashtra is
entitled to compete in the MHT-CET-2006 and claim the seat from 30% quota. 70%
quota is meant for candidates coming from the respective regions and the
objective of this distribution is to see that regional candidates get their
share in the admission process in their respective regions. As explained by
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, a candidate is not
categorized either in 30% or 70% but the seats are categorized as 30% meant for
all the candidates and 70% meant for regional candidates only. The concept of
30% and 70% is followed as provided in Rule 2.3.1 wherein while starting
filling up of seats in any institution/college 30% seats belonging to State
quota should be filled in first followed by 70% regional seats which should be
done on the basis of the State Merit List. A candidate with the higher number
of marks is placed at Serial No.1 and the merit list goes in a descending
fashion. Information Brochure shows that the candidates, at the time of their
application, are required to fill in the Preference Form and may give as much
as 52 preferences in the allotted colleges. While giving preference, the
candidate selects colleges on the basis of its status and reputation and the
choices are irrespective of the area or region where the college is situated.
As per Rule 2.2.2, the selection will be on the basis of merit and the
preferences submitted by the candidates in their Preference Form. It also
contemplates that there shall be two or more rounds of selection process,
depending on the availability of vacant seats. It is demonstrated before us
that by keeping this method in mind, the Competent Authority published first
list of students selected for Health Science Course through MHT-CET-2006. The
information furnished by the Competent Authority shows that it had 2060 seats
available for MBBS Course, out of which 307 and 15 seats are for All India
quota and Government of India nominee respectively. The Competent Authority,
therefore, has 1738 seats at its disposal for MBBS Course. It further shows
that this number will increase if out of All India quota the seats are
surrendered to be calculated in 30% State quota and if any seats from
Government of India nominee are surrendered to be calculated in 70% Regional
quota. The Competent Authority published its first list on 13.7.2006 and
according to it, the said list goes strictly on the basis of State Merit List
and mentions the criteria as to whether the candidate is from rest of
Maharashtra, Marathwada or Vidarbha. It mentions the marks obtained by the
candidates and the category from which they are considered and also specify the
State or Regional quota where the candidate belong. The first list published on
14.7.2006 reads as under:
ADMISSION TO HEALTH
SCIENCE COURSE - 2006-07 (1ST ROUND) INDIRA GANDHI GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE,
NAGPUR (Annexure-P2) Sr. State Name of Student Sex CET Regio Catego Quota No.
Merit Mark n ry No. s
1. 634 Acharya Purabi
F 186 R Open 30% W Open Rabindra
2. 703 Rathi Anuradha
F 186 V Open 30% W Kamalkishor Open
3. 706 Malpani
Priyamvada F 186 V Open 30% W Praveen Open
4. 718 Kothari Megha
F 186 V Open 30% W Open
5. 732 Deshmukh
Snehal F 185 V Open 70% W Subhash Open
6. 748 Sharma Pragya
Sudhir F 185 V Open 70% W Open 7 761 Yadav Suman Dhanpat F 185 V Open 70% W
Open
8. 770 Rathi Bharti
Mohanlal F 185 V Open 70% W Open
9. 792 Bagga Chandni
Baldev F 185 V Open 70% W Open
10. 802 Pratapan
Priya P.G. F 185 V Open 70% W Pratapan Open 1
11. 904 Pahlajani
Neemal F 184 V Open 70% W Open Haresh
12. 940 Ruhatiya
Shradha F 184 V Open 70% W Omprakash Open As rightly pointed out by learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants, a perusal of the list clearly
shows that the Competent Authority, in accordance with Rule 2.3.1, has first
filled up the 30% State seats and then filled up 70% Regional seats. It was
explained to us that this was done while making allotment of seats in each and
every college.
8) After the first
round of selection, the candidates go for second round of selection for filling
up the seats which have become vacant due to non-joining of a candidate,
cancellation of admission and All India surrendered seats (15%).
Above-mentioned seats are to be filled up as per Rule 2.6 and are to be
operated on the basis of State Merit List and the Preference Form filled in at
the very beginning. It is pointed out that a candidate is eligible for the
vacant seats to be filled in the second round if (a) have joined and not
cancelled the admission (Rule 2.5), (b) have joined and not retained the
admission (Rule 2.2.3), (c) are getting admission to a higher preference (Rule
2.2.3) and (d) did not get a college of his choice in the previous round.
Considering the above-said Rules and procedures for filling up of the seats in
second round, the Competent Authority published a list of candidates selected
to Health Science Courses in second round on 25.8.2006 which reads as under:
1 ADMISSION TO
HEALTH SCIENCE COURSE - 2006-07 (IInd ROUND) INDIRA GANDHI GOVT. MEDICAL
COLLEGE, NAGPUR (Annexure-P3) Sr. State Name of Student Sex CET Regio Catego
Quota No. Merit Mark n ry No. s
1. 706 Malpani
Priyamvada F 186 V Open 30% W Open Praveen
2. 718 Kothari Megha
F 186 V Open 30% W Open
3. 732 Deshmukh
Snehal F 185 V Open 70% W Subhash Open
4. 748 Sharma Pragya
Sudhir F 185 V Open 70% W Open
5. 761 Yadav Suman
Dhanpat F 185 V Open 70% W Open
6. 770 Rathi Bharti
Mohanlal F 185 V Open 70% W Open
7. 792 Bagga Chandni
Baldev F 185 V Open 70% W Open
8. 802 Pratapan Priya
P.G. F 185 V Open 70% W Pratapan Open 9 844 Mishra Deepika F 185 R Open 30% W
Nandkumar Open
10. 869 Ruikar Kirti
Shivajirao F 184 M Open 30% W Open
11. 904 Pahlajani
Neemal F 184 V Open 70% W Open Haresh 1
12. 940 Ruhatiya
Shradha F 184 V Open 70% W Omprakash Open The details furnished above relating
to second round admission clearly show that it is operated on the basis of
merit with State Merit List No.1 at the top and so on. In the last column, the
status of the candidates has been furnished. The above mentioned second
selection list shows shifting of the candidates on the basis of their merit
list and their preferences given for a college, which would amount to
betterment in terms of Rule 2.2.3. It is relevant to mention that in IGMC,
Nagpur there are twelve seats available for women candidates and out of which
four seats go to 30% State quota whereas eight seats goes to 70% Regional quota
as per Rule 1.4.2, 1.4.4 and 1.6. In the list pertaining to first round, the
candidate at the first serial is Acharya Purabi Rabindra who was admitted in
IGMC, Nagpur on the basis of her State Merit List and preference number in the
first round. She is from rest of Maharashtra and, therefore, while admitting
her in Nagpur she was treated as 30% women. In the second round, she secured a
seat at BJMC, Pune as it was for her betterment and higher choice of
preference. Therefore, she was shifted to BJMC, Pune from 30% women open for
Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur falling vacant. The second candidate in
the same first round with State Merit List 708 Rathi Anuradha belong to
Vidarbha region who was admitted in IGMC, Nagpur in 30% women open seats for
betterment and on a seat at IGMC, Nagpur falling vacant as she was shifted to
GMC, Nagpur. By her shifting second seat of 30% women seat fall vacant at IGMC,
Nagpur. It was highlighted that the candidates from State Merit List 706 to 802
who secured admission in IGMC, Nagpur did not get an opportunity to shift
according to their preference and since shifting is permissible only if the
candidates go for betterment and this being not available, the candidates with
State Merit List 706 to 802 were placed as it is in second round admission
list. After 802, the first candidate with State Merit List 844 who was at GMC,
Miraj admitted in first round on the basis of her merit and on the basis of her
preference being at IGMC, Nagpur and the seat at IGMC, Nagpur falling vacant
due to shifting of Acharya Purabi Rabindra, was shifted to IGMC, Nagpur. It was
explained since Deepika Mishra was from the rest of Maharashtra, when she came
to Nagpur her status changes from 70% to 30%, hence she was placed in the
vacant seat created due to shifting of Acharya Purabi.
Another seat, which
had fallen vacant due to shifting of Rathi Anuradha, which had fallen vacant,
accommodated as the next woman candidate K.
Rulkar with State
Merit List 869 who is from Marathwada but admitted to Yavatmal Medical College
along with the first respondent herein/writ petitioner on the basis of her
preference is shifted to IGMC, Nagpur as the seat which had fallen vacant.
Thereafter, the candidates with State Merit List 904 and 940 were already
admitted in IGMC, Nagpur in the first round who did not have any option to
shift as there was no seat available in the College/quota of their higher
preferences were retained in the same College. The above details demonstrate
the operation of list of first round and second round (Annexure P2 and P3).
9) The scrutiny of
the above details, particularly, admission list in the first round and second
round clearly show that the Competent Authority has strictly followed the rules
relating to admission and the procedure of admitting the students on the basis
of the State Merit List and the preferences. As rightly pointed out by the
State counsel, the more meritorious candidate is entitled to exercise
preference first depending on the creation of vacancy in a particular college
after the first round and at the end of the final selection, the Competent
Authority has to ensure that they have filled in 30% seats from the State quota
and 70% seats from the Regional quota. We are satisfied with the writ
petitioner/first respondent herein being less meritorious than respondent Nos.
2 and 3 herein cannot be given seat at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur as
claimed by her. A perusal of the list of candidates (first and second round -
Annexure P2 and P3) admitted in women reservation category and their SML
numbers show that not a single student has been admitted in this category that
is lower in merit than the first respondent herein. It is relevant to mention
that in the State Merit List the first respondent, namely, Sneha Satyanarayan
Agrawal is 963 and the last candidate admitted in this category is that SML 940
(Ruhatiya Shradha Omprakash - vide second round list - Annexure-P3) 10) For the
sake of brevity, we point out that, Rule 1 prescribes for distribution of
seats. Rule 1.4 provides for distribution of seats to be allotted by the
competent authority which includes 30% seats to be made available for the
candidates from the State to be filled on the basis of State Merit List and 70%
seats to be filled from the candidates situated in the region i.e. Regional
list. Rule 1.6 deals with reservation for female candidates and Rule 2
prescribes selection process post and preference given by the candidates. Apart
from the above rules other relevant rules are 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 which
relate to selection process on the basis of preference by the candidates. In
accordance with the rules, 30% of the seats available to be filled from State
Merit List and remaining 70% to be filled from Regional quota, therefore, the
mandates of Rules, 1.4.2, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 which clarifies that allotment of
seat is required to be done strictly on the basis of merit and preferences
submitted by the candidates in their respective forms. Rule 2.2.3 also requires
the competent authority to follow the said procedure of allotment of seats not
only in the first round of admission but also in each round of admission, in
such circumstances firstly merit of the candidates is to be considered and
then, preferences exercised by him or her while allotting seat to such
candidate in the concerned college. In the case on hand, in IGMC, Nagpur twelve
seats were available for allocation in 30% State quota and 70% Regional quota
in the second round of admission. Out of these twelve seats, four seats were
reserved for 30% State Quota which are to be filled on the basis of State Merit
List and rest on the basis of 70% Regional quota and that too on the basis of
merit out of four seats meant for 30% State Quota and in IGMC, Nagpur two seats
fell vacant and accordingly these seats required to be filled by the Competent
Authority on the basis of State Merit List. As pointed out earlier, respondent
No.1 herein was given merit position 963 in the State Merit List and respondent
No.2 Kirti Shivajirao Ruikar was at 869 in the State Merit List. Therefore,
respondent No.1 is much below in the merit position from respondent No.2 and
also from the other candidates. Respondent No.3 Deepika Nandkumar Mishra who
stood at position No. 844 in the State Merit List and, therefore, respondent
No.1 herein was rightly allotted admission in GMC at Yavatmal as she ranks
below in merit position in comparison to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. As
stated earlier, the Competent Authority has strictly followed the rules
relating to admission and the more meritorious candidates are entitled to
exercise the preference first depending on the creation of vacancy in
particular college after first round. In addition, the Competent Authority has
to ensure that the quota system of 30% and 70% is maintained. Therefore,
respondent No.1 being less meritorious than respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be
given seat at IGMC, Nagpur. In our view, the High Court failed to take note of
the above relevant aspects and as such the impugned direction of the High Court
cannot be implemented as the same will have far-reaching consequences on the
entire admission process of Health Science Course in Maharashtra State.
Further, it will run counter to the law laid down in Medical Council of India
vs. Madhu Singh and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 258, as the cut-off date-30.09.2006
was already over and no shifting at this belated stage was permissible as per
Medical Council of India's regulations which were held to be mandatory. In our
considered opinion, the High Court has misinterpreted the Rules particularly
with reference to Preference System of MHT/CET, 2006.
11) In the light of
what has been stated above, the impugned judgment and final order dated
28.09.2006 in Writ Petition No. 4515 of 2006 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur is set aside. Consequently, the said writ
petition filed by Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal before the High Court is dismissed.
12) In the result,
Civil Appeal No.6026/2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17406/2006) filed by
the State of Maharashtra and Ors. stands allowed. In view of the above
conclusion, the other Civil Appeal No.6027/2008 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.
17832 of 2006) filed by Sneha Satyanarayan Agrawal for issuance of certain
directions is dismissed. No order as to costs in both the appeals.
...................CJI
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
..............................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
NEW
DELHI;
October
01, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2