JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that an order dated the 27th February, 1970 (Annexure 2) passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Health Department be quashed and cancelled, and respondents no. 4 and 5. the Principals of Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai be directed to admit students to the first year of the M. B. B. S. course in their colleges according to the terms and conditions laid down in the instructions for admission of students incorporated in Annexure 1 of this writ application. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner had appeared at the B. Sc. Part I examination of the Three Year Degree Course in Science College, Muzaffarpur, affricated to the Bihar University, in August, 1969 and in the month of December, 1969 he was declared to have passed the said Examination. He had secured 65'4 per cent marks in the aggregate. The petitioner had taken Physics, Chemistry and Biology as his subjects with a view to join medical course, and when his result was published, he wanted to take admission in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, or Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai. He obtained a copy of the instructions for admission of students in these two colleges along with an application form. It is stated that a notice bad been published in two English daily newspapers published from Patna, namely The Indian Nation and The Searchlight, that applications for admission to these two colleges were to be filed on or before the 5th January, 1970. The petitioner accordingly applied for admission to the first year of the M.B.B.S. course and sent the application to the Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi in December, 1969, giving first preference to Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and second preference to Darbhanga Medical College, Laheliasalai. This had been done apparently be cause of Paragraph 5 of Annexure 1, which was to the following effect: "There will be a joint selection of candidates for admissions in the two colleges. Candidates desirous of admission to any of these two colleges may send their applications to the office of the Principal, mentioned in the advertisement. The candidates should indicate in the application form if they would like to be considered for admission to both the colleges or only one. Candidates desirous of admission to any of these two colleges may send their applications to the office of the Principal, mentioned in the advertisement. The candidates should indicate in the application form if they would like to be considered for admission to both the colleges or only one. Where admission is sought to both colleges, the candidate should clearly indicate his preference which will be considered as far as practicable but no guarantee is given. They shall bring with them the original certificates at the time of interview." It is stated that in January, 1970 the petitioner had gone to Ranchi to enquire about the fate of his application and he learnt that a list of candidates in order of merit had been prepared on the basis of the mark-sheets of the students, according to which the petitioner was sure to be admitted either at the Medical College at Ranchi or at Darbhanga Medical College. There were 180 seats in each of the two Colleges and the petitioner had learnt that the number of candidates securing marks higher than the petitioner was less than the total number of seats at the two colleges. In the first week of March, 1970 the petitioner came to know that the Health Department of the State of Bihar had issued certain directions to t he Principals of the two colleges for admission of candidates to the medical course by which the State bas reserved seats in the two colleges for students of different Universities of the State. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know of the order incorporated in Annexure 2 the main part of which has been quoted in the writ application separately as follows : . “(1) Rajendra Medical college, Ranchi (a) For the students of Ranchi University 50% seats (b) For the students of Bhagalpur University 23% seals (c) For the students of Magadh University 23% seats (d) For students of PatnaUniveraity who have passed B. Sc. Part I Examination 4% seats Total 100% seats. (2) Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai (a) For the students of Bihar University 50% seats (b) For the students of Bhagalpur University 23% seats (c): For the students of Magadh University 23 0 seats (d), For the students of Patna University who have passed B. Sc. Part I Examination 4% seats Total 100% seats. (2) Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai (a) For the students of Bihar University 50% seats (b) For the students of Bhagalpur University 23% seats (c): For the students of Magadh University 23 0 seats (d), For the students of Patna University who have passed B. Sc. Part I Examination 4% seats Total 100% seats It is stated that according to the later instruction, the petitioner cannot be admitted in the Ranchi College and he cannot also be admitted in the Darbhanga College, as the total number of candidates who have secured marks higher than the petitioner is more than the seats reserved for students passing from Bihar University. It is stated in the application that this sudden change' in the criteria for admission to these medical colleges has affected the petitioner's career, because if he had known of these reservations earlier, he might have applied for admission to some other medical college for pursuing his medical course. In Paragraph 12 of the writ application on a calculation has been made stating that the effect of the reservations contained in Annexure 2 is that students passing from Ranchi University and obtaining about 60 percent marks may be admitted to the Medical College at Ranchi, whereas students passing from •Bihar University having obtained 69 percents marks and above will have the chance of being admitted to the Darbhaoga College. It is stated that the students passing from Bhagalpur University and securing about 59 percent marks will have the chance of being admitted in the Ranchi College on Darbhanga College and students passing from Magadh University securing even 57 percent marks will have the chance of being similarly admitted in either of these two colleges. It is stated that students passing from Patna University and getting about 62 percent marks will have similar chance in the two medical colleges. On these allegations Annexure 2 is being challenged substantially as being discriminatory violating the fundamental right of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, sworn by an assistant working in the legal section of the Health Department, Bihar. The main allegations made in this counter affidavit are as follows: It is stated that admission in these two colleges had been going on the basis of marks obtained by the students. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, sworn by an assistant working in the legal section of the Health Department, Bihar. The main allegations made in this counter affidavit are as follows: It is stated that admission in these two colleges had been going on the basis of marks obtained by the students. But, this year, when the Health Commis5ioner was at Ranchi on the 13th January, 1970, a delegation of guardians and important citizens had met him and bad given him a memorandum indicating the difficulties of the students of Ranchi University in getting admission in the medical college "due to difference in the system of marking specially when it was compared with the Bihar University." Thereafter, on the 16th January, 1970 Dr. Jacob, Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Governor of Bihar, bringing to his notice the anomaly brought out by different standards applied in the marking by different Universities of the State. It is stated that on the 20th January, 1970 a representation from the students of the Ranchi University had also been received. The Divisional Commissioner of Ranchi Division had also brought the feeling of the residents of the area on this point to the notice of the Government. It is added that the Government had also received reports from many sources that there were differences in the standard of marking among the Universities of the State. It is stated that in November, 1969 a letter had been sent from the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College, enclosing a resolution of the Academic Council of the Bihar University; a copy of which has been appended as Annexure A. It is stated that in the light of these facts and circumstances the matter had been examined by the Government and that the only course left to the State Government was to reserve seats in each medical college for students of each of the Universities for the year 1969-70, only. It is stated that the reservations had been made "with a view to protect the interest of good students of all the Universities of Bihar." On these allegations Annexure 2 of the writ application is being supported. It may be mentioned that a reply to the calculation made in Paragraph 12 of the writ application has been given in the counter-affidavit, but there is no substantial difference. 4. It may be mentioned that a reply to the calculation made in Paragraph 12 of the writ application has been given in the counter-affidavit, but there is no substantial difference. 4. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel, which are that the reservations made by Annexure 2 are 10 patently discriminatory against students passing from the Bihar University that the constitutional guarantee provided by Article 14 of the Constitution stands violated, and that even if Annexure 2 be taken to be an instruction from the Government of Bihar, this could not have affected the students who had applied before the 5th January, 1970, on the basis of the instructions contained in Annexure 1. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Bihar has submitted, in support of Annexure 2, that the students of the Bihar University and those of other Universities, mentioned in the Annexure, were not similarly situated, and for year 1969-70, it would have been a contravention of Article 14 itself to treat the students passing from the Bihar University on a par with the students of the other Universities. (During the course of argument, learned counsel for the State of Bihar mentioned that not only that the reservations contained in Annexure 2 were applicable for the year 1969-70 only, but that lobe State Government has decided that from the year 1970-71, admission to these two colleges will be governed by competitive examinations). The contentions raised by the learned Advocate-General are based on the statements made in the counter-affidavit mentioned above, and the various assertions made in the counter affidavit will have to be considered at a later stage. But, unless it is established beyond doubt that the students of the Universities mentioned in Annexure 2 were not similarly situated, I it must be held that an invidious distinction had been made against the students of Bihar University so far as admission in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi is concerned for the year 1969-70. The effect of the reservation for Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi is that students of Bihar University, however brilliant, will have no opportunity at all of being admitted in the Medical College at Ranchi. The effect of the reservation for Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi is that students of Bihar University, however brilliant, will have no opportunity at all of being admitted in the Medical College at Ranchi. It may be mentioned that so far as the students d Patna University are concerned, there is a reservation of 50 percent seats for students of Patna University for admission into the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna and even then 4 percent seats have been reserved for them in each of there two Medical Colleges (The reservation of 50 per cent seats for students of Patna University in the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, has been approved by this Court in the case of Kumari Ranjana Ram V. The Chancellor of Patna University and others, reported in 1968 B. L. J. R. 932). Now I shall deal with the allegations made in the counter-affidavit as to the reasons given for the reservations made for the year 1969-70 and consider whether the reservations made in Annexure 2 can be supported on these allegations or on any other principle of law. it is significant that although the Director Health Department (who was presumably the writer of Annexure 2), the Principals of Rajendra Medical College and Darbhanga Medical College are party respondents, the counter-affidavit has been sworn by an assistant Working in the legal section of the Health Department. At one place in the counter-affidavit he has stated that he is fully acquitted with the facts and circumstances d the case, whereas the counter-affidavit concludes by an assertion that the contents are true to the deponents knowledge derived from the records of the department. Apart from annexure A, written by the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College to the Director of Health Services, no other record has been produced. The memorandum said to have been submitted to the Health Commissioner mentioned earlier, has not been produced. The letter said to have been written by Dr. Jacob to the Secretary to the Governor of Bihar, mentioned earlier, has not seen the light of day, The reports said to have been received by the Government from many sources, regarding the difference in the standard of the marking among Universities of the State are not forthcoming. In these circumstances, very little weight attached to the assertions made by the deponent of the counter-affidavit. In these circumstances, very little weight attached to the assertions made by the deponent of the counter-affidavit. It is difficult to follow what advantage can be gained by the respondents from Annexure A, written on the 28th November, 1969, The resolution of the Academic Council of Bihar University, dated the 3rd September, 1969, quoted in Annexure A, was to the following effect : "The Academic Council recommends to the State Government in the Departments of Health, Industries and Agriculture to introduce the system of competitive examination. for admission to Medical, Engineering and Agricultural Colleges respectively with immediate effect" The Principal, Darbhanga Medical College had indeed suggested in Annexure A that it would be worthwhile for the Government to consider the feasibility of introducing competitive examination for admission to Medical Colleges on the basis of their spurious merit at the various University examinations", The opinion of the Principal, mentioned in Annexure A, that the Academic Council of Bihar University had passed this resolution because of excessive unfair means adopted by the candidates in different examinations of Bihar University, is unsupported by any other record. In the same Annexure the Principal had also stated as follows : "I may inform you that in the various Medical Colleges in the State of U. P. competitive examination is conducted for admission to the Medical Colleges and so is the case with All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, College of Medical Science, Varanasi, J. N. Medical College, Aligarh and so on. It is learnt that this year the marks at the Degree I Science examination at the various Universities of Bihar have been greatly inflated". Therefore, the complaint was against the method of conducting examinations in all the Universities of Bihar and in natural consequence, recommendation for competitive examination for admission followed, It is difficult to understand how Annexure-A can, by any stretch of imagination, support the reservations made by Annexure 2. Further, the counter-affidavit bas stated that the Academic Counsel of the Bihar University bad reported to the Government that the standard of examination of the Bihar University was much lower than the standard of examination of the other Universities of the State, as a result of which while students of Bihar. University could secure marks between 70 and 90 per cent, in the B. Sc. University could secure marks between 70 and 90 per cent, in the B. Sc. Part I examination this year, those passing out from other Universities could secure marks only between 60 and 70 per cent. Annexure A does not support this statement to the extent to which it has gone. Moreover, after examinations are over and the rests have been published. on the marks secured by the students, it is almost impossible for any person or body of persons to conclude that the standard of examination of any particular university was lower than the standard of examination of any other university, with consequent differences in the percentage of marks obtained by the students, without definite materials for coming to such conclusion. No materials are forthcoming to support such a statement made in the counter affidavit, on which the learned Advocate General bas argued that the students of Bihar University and the students of other universities Were not "similarly situated", so that the drastic discrimination made in Annexure 2 was necessary. It has been repeated in the Counter affidavit that the reservations bad been made 'with a view to protect the interest of good students of all the Universities of Bihar" and "with a view to accommodate proportionately good students of all the Universities of the State" the State Government bad issued the instructions contained in Annexure 2 for admission in 1969-70 only. In one' breath the students passing out of Bihar University were condemned as products of a lower standard of examination and in the next breath it is said that the reservations made in Annexure 2 were for the protection of all good students of all the Universities of Bihar. If students of the Bihar University were undesirable in Rajendra Medical College, for the reason that the marks obtained by them did not reflect their true merit why were 50 percent seats reserved for them in Darbhanga Medical College? In my opinion, the discrimination made in Annexure 2 can hardly be supported by the allegations made in the counter affidavit. The argument of the learned Advocate-General, that, the students of Bihar University who are seeking admission for the academic year 1969-70 must be discriminated against because i hey are inferior students is an a posteriori argument, to support Annexure 2. The argument of the learned Advocate-General, that, the students of Bihar University who are seeking admission for the academic year 1969-70 must be discriminated against because i hey are inferior students is an a posteriori argument, to support Annexure 2. If in a particular year the State Government can be permitted to say that the students passing out from any par1icnlar university are inferior to the students passing out from other universities) without reference to the marks obtained by the students and without any other material to support the conclusion, where can a line be drawn to prohibit unfair and arbitrary discrimination? In my opinion, such a view on ad hoc basis can hardly be sustainable. The contention of the learned Advocate General that if for the year 1969-70 reservations in Rajendra Medical College in favour of students of Ranchi University (Sic) had not been made, there would have been contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution, is an interesting argument, but hardly valid on the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As a matter of fact, on coming across reference to a letter dated the 30th January, 1970, in Annexure 2, we had asked for the production of that letter and a copy of this letter has been supplied to the Court. That letter had been written by Sri V. P. Kashyap, the Health Commissioner to Dr. Jacob, Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University and it is clear that Annexure 2 bad come into existence on the allegations made in that letter and not on the allegations which have now been incorporated in the counter-affidavit. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below : "Representations have been submitted to the State Government by citizens of Ranchi and other places that on the basis of the existing criteria of admission in the Medical Colleges, the students who have passed B. Sc. Part I or equivalent examination from the Colleges under the Ranchi University are not likely to get their admission in the Ranchi Medical College, because of the fact that the students who have passed from the Colleges under the Ranchi University have comparatively secured less highest marks than the students passing the said examination from some of the of her Universities in Bihar. In order, therefore, to preserve the interest of the students passing from the Ranchi University it has been decided by Government to reserve 50% of seats in the 1st Year M.B. B. S. course of Ranchi Medical College for students of the Ranchi University on the pattern of the reservation of seats by the Patna University. A copy of the ordinance issued by the Patna University is enclosed. I am, therefore, desired by Government to reql1est you to kindly get a similar ordinance passed by the Ranchi University in the interest of the indigenous students at an early date. Pending passing of such an ordinance, the Principals of the Ranchi and Darbhanga Medical Colleges have been requested to stay, temporarily, the admission of students in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course of their respective Medical Colleges." It is clear from this letter that the reservation made in Rajendra Medical College for students of Ranchi University had been made for the purpose of giving some benefit to these students, on the allegation that the students who had passed from Colleges under the Ranchi University had uncured comparatively lesser marks than students passing in equivalent examination from some of the other Universities in Bihar. There was no specific allegation against the students who had passed B.Sc. Part - I examination from Bihar University. As a matter of fact, this letter suggested 50 per cent reservation of seats in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. course of Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi for students of Ranchi University on the pattern of reservation of seats made by the Patna University and the• pattern of reservation of seats in the Patna University was that 50 per cent of the total seats were to be filled up from those who had passed the Pre-University Examination of the Patna University and had secured 45 per cent marks or above in the aggregate and the remaining seats were thrown open to students who had passed the Pre-University) Examination of any of the Universities of Bihar (including Patna University or the Higher Secondary Examination of the Bihar School Examination Board or Senior Cambridge Examination from a school in Bihar and had secured 45 per cent marks or above in the aggregate. Annexure 2 has gone further when 100 per cent seats in Rajendra Medical College have been made reserved seats in the proportion mentioned therein, apart from the fact that students of Bihar University have been debarred from admission into Rajendra Medical College. Learned counsel for petitioner bas referred to a decision of Supreme Court in the case of (I) P. Rajendran V. State of Madras, reported in A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1012, for striking down the reservations made under Annexure 2. I think, this decision can be brought in aid of the argument of the learned counsel. In P. Rajendran's case the State of Madras had made a rule providing for district-wise distribution of seats according to the population in the districts for admission to the Medical Colleges of the State of Madras. In that context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated thus :- "It is true that Article 14 does not forbid classification. but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of this kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats district-wise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either of the two sources." (The reference to "two sources" was made by their Lordships because it had been mentioned in the judgment earlier that the object of selection could only be to secure the best possible material. subject to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes, as against selection from the general poll). It seems that in the instant case, the observations made by their Lordships against discrimination are pertinently applicable. The learned Advocate-General and Sri Singh have both referred. subject to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes, as against selection from the general poll). It seems that in the instant case, the observations made by their Lordships against discrimination are pertinently applicable. The learned Advocate-General and Sri Singh have both referred. to the case of (2) Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another V. Union of .India and others, of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1970 Supreme Court 35, in aid of the propositions relied upon by them. But, I do not think that this decision advances the argument of the learned Advocate-General to any extent. On the other hand, in Paragraph 8 of this judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have referred to an earlier decision, in the case of (3) Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia V. S. R. Tendulkar, reported in A. I. R. 1958 Supreme Court 538. reiterating that for the best of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things that are grouped together from other left out of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In Chitta Ghosh's case, their Lordships have referred to their own decision in P. Rajendran's case, stating that classification made district-wise was considered to have no reasonable relation with the object sought to be achieved. In my opinion, in the instant case also, the reservation made in Rajendra Medical College can hardly be said to be permissible classification based on intelligible differentia having rational relation to the object to be achieved, for the year 1969-70. If the students who have passed B. Sc. Part I examination from Bihar University in 1969-70 were not considered to be as meritorious as they appear to be from 'their mark-sheets, the State Government could not logically have reserved for them 50 per cent seats in Darbhanga Medical College. What the State Government has done for the year 1969-70 is to convert Darbhanga Medical College into a dumping ground for the allegedly inferior students of this State, who had the misfortune to obtain good marks from Bihar University. What the State Government has done for the year 1969-70 is to convert Darbhanga Medical College into a dumping ground for the allegedly inferior students of this State, who had the misfortune to obtain good marks from Bihar University. On both the points raised by Sri Singh, he has relied upon the case of (4) Abodha Kumar Mohapatra and others V. State of Orissa and others, a Bench decision of the Orissa High Court, reported in A. I. R. 1969 Orissa 80. In Abodha Kumar's case an altered decision of the Government making a region wise classification was challenged in the Orissa High Court on the ground of unconstitutional discrimination and it bad also been urged that once the students for admission into the Medical College had filed their applications on certain existing representation for selection of candidates, the rules for admission could not have been altered by the Government, changing the mode of admission. Both these points had succeeded in the Orissa High Court and on the first point reliance had been placed on P. Rajendran's case of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, I have given my own reasons for holding that Annexure 2 ought not to be allowed to stand and it is not necessary to deal with Abodha Kumar's case on that point any further. On the second point, namely, whether the rules for admission can be altered or not after applications have been made on certain existing rules, I am not sure that I can go so far as to follow all that has been said in Abodha Kumar's case. The Orissa High Court held that by the existing rules mentioned in certain representations certain students were led into the belief that they had good chance- of being selected, upon which they had applied for admission into certain colleges, and in those circumstances, the principle of legal or equitable estoppel applied and the authorities could not have changed the rules (or admission in any way. I cannot go so far as to bold that if certain impugned rules do not infringe any fundamental right of the students, they can be struck down only m the ground that the students had applied under some different existing rules for selection. It is difficult to bold chat when students apply under certain existing rules, they act to their prejudice". It is difficult to bold chat when students apply under certain existing rules, they act to their prejudice". It has been held in Abodha Kumar's case, so that no subsequent alternation is possible. However, for the reasons given earlier, on the first contention raised by Sri Singh, it is not necessary for me to give any concluded opinion on the second point raised by him. The case of (5) D. P. Joshi V. State of Madhya Bharat and another, of the Supreme Court of India, reported in (1955) 1 Supreme Court Reports 1215, was cited in support of the reservations contained in Annexure 2. But, in my opinion, definite reasons have been given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for upholding the order of the Government of the State of Madhya Bharat levying capitation fee in that case. It was held that the imposition of capitation fee on some students and not on others was not discriminatory, because the classification was based on a ground which has reasonable relation to the subject matter of the legislation, as the object of the classification underlying the impugned rule was meant to help to some extent students who were residents of Madhya Bharat in the prosecution of their studies. Their Lordships stated that it was quite a laudable object for a State to encourage education within its borders. That principle cannot possibly be applied in support of Annexure 2, as the discrimination made against the students of Bihar University prohibiting their admission into the 1st Year of the M. B. B. S. Course in Rajendra. Medical College, Ranchi has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved, namely, imparting education in Medical College. 5. A question had arisen during the course of argument, raised by Sri Singh as to whether Annexure 2 was really an order of the State of Bihar or not. But, I have proceeded on the footing that Annexure 2 was binding on the College authorities just as much as the Rules incorporated in Annexure 1 were. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has based his writ application on the footing that Annexure 2 contained directions of the State Government (vide Paragraph 8 of the writ application). 6. But, I have proceeded on the footing that Annexure 2 was binding on the College authorities just as much as the Rules incorporated in Annexure 1 were. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has based his writ application on the footing that Annexure 2 contained directions of the State Government (vide Paragraph 8 of the writ application). 6. In this writ application an application has been filed by five persons under Chapter XXI-C Rule 5 of the Patna High Court Rules for recalling the order of stay passed at the time of the admission of the writ application. The order of stay was in the following terms ; "Daring the pendency of this writ application, the respondents are restrained from recording formal admission of student. in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Darbhanga Medical College, Laberiasarai on the basis of Annexure 2." Shri B. C. Ghose appearing for these five persons, who are said to be applicants for admission into 1st Year M.B.B.S. course in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi for the year 1969-70, has contended that neither these five students nor those who have got letters for admission have been made parties to this writ application and, therefore, the writ application is not maintainable. I do not think that the contention raised is valid. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure 2, and if that order is held to be invalid, the authorities of the two Colleges must proceed. without being bound by the directions contained therein. It is not possible to hold that the writ petitioner should have made all the students who had applied for admission to the 1st Year M.B.B.S. course in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi party-respondents or even those who would be entitled to admission in this College under Annexure 2. I would like to add here that at one stage, the Court had suggested, if it would be possible to admit the students in the concerned colleges for the Year 1969-70 on the basis of competitive examination and it was stated that the State Government is not prepared to change the instructions for this year. 7. I would like to add here that at one stage, the Court had suggested, if it would be possible to admit the students in the concerned colleges for the Year 1969-70 on the basis of competitive examination and it was stated that the State Government is not prepared to change the instructions for this year. 7. For the reasons given above, the order contained in Annexure 2 is quashed by a writ of certiorari and the authorities must now proceed to admit students in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. course in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai for the year 1969-70 in accordance with law. The writ application is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs. C. P. SINHA, J. I agree. Application allowed.