JUDGMENT (1.) The petitioner has assailed in this writ petition the validity of the Rules framed by the Calcutta University Council for selection of candidates for admission to the different disciplines in the M. D. courses of study as well as in the Diploma courses of study of the Calcutta University for the session commencing in 1980. The petitioner who is a medical graduate having secured high marks and obtained college scholarships in 3rd year and 4th year classes while reading in Nilratan Sircar Medical College in M.B.B.S Course applied for admission to M.D. Course of study (Medical Paediatrics) for which 6 seats have been allotted by the University. There was a written test and there was also provision for special weightage of 5 marks for applicants belonging to Scheduled castes Scheduled Tribes Army or with experience of rural services for more than 3 years as provided in paragraph 12 01 the Rules and Regulations incorporated in the prospectus. It has also been provided in Rule 20 of the said rules that marks will be awarded an assessment of academic merits in the manner specified therein. There is also a provision in the Rules that a few seats in the same of the courses may be kept reserved for the candidates sponsored by the Government of West Bengal. (2.) ON July 23, 1980, a notice was issued by the Secretary of the University College of Medicine and the same was hung up on the notice board at the University College of Medicine (Goenka Hospital) showing the number of seats reserved for candidates sponsored by the West Bengal Health Services for different, courses. It is evident, from the notice that out of six seats in m. D. Courses (Medical Paediatrics) 3. seats have been reserved for the Government sponsored candidates, It has; also been stated that no definite standard or criterion has been followed in the matter of determining the number of seats to be reserved in different disciplines of M. D. course. It has also been stated that in most of the subjects; 20% of the total seats and 33. 13% of the total seats have been reserved in other disciplines of M. D. Course while in Medical Paediatrics 50% of the total number of seats have reserved for the government sponsored candidates. It has also been stated that in most of the subjects; 20% of the total seats and 33. 13% of the total seats have been reserved in other disciplines of M. D. Course while in Medical Paediatrics 50% of the total number of seats have reserved for the government sponsored candidates. This has been done without conforming to an uniform policy or any definite principle in the matter or reservation of seats for government sponsored candidates. This notice has been annexed as annexure 'b' to the writ petition. It has also been stated that out of the said 3 seats available for admission in the M. D. course of Medical Paediatrics two candidates, namely, Sm. Mala Saha and sri Badal Ch. Mondal, respondent Nos. 7 and 9 who secured 2nd and 3rd position after the special weightage of 5 marks was given to them were selected and Gadadhar Pan who admittedly secured the highest marks and stood first in order or merit was selected for admission. It has also been alleged that though the petitioner secured the second highest marks in order of merit and after conferment of the weightage of 5 marks on the Scheduled Castes and other candidates as provided in the said Rule and occupied 4th position in order of merit yet she was shown as the first candidate in the waiting list whereas the respondents Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Sunil baran Saha, Renuka Biswas and Swapan Kumar Mukherjee who secured lesser marks and placed below the petitioner in order of merit were selected for admission in respect of 3 seats reserved for Government sponsored candidates. This, according to the petitioner, is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution as it is patently discriminatory inasmuch as such sort of reservation of practically 5 out of 6 seats available for admission in the said discipline is ex facie discriminatory and is also without any reasonable basis as it has, in fact, the effect of excluding meritorious students from being selected in the higher courses of study on the basis of their merits. It has also been submitted that reservation of seats may be made to facilitate students belonging to the socially and educationally backward classes as well as candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes in accordance with the provisions of article 15 (4) of the Constitution but, nevertheless, such a reservation cannot be made in such a manner that there will be practically no room left for selection of meritorious students for admission in the higher course of medical study and this according to Mr. Mukherjee is patently bad being violative of the equality clause envisaged in Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In other words, the substance of Mr. Mukherjee's contention is that in the instant case about 80% of the total seats allotted for selection for admission in this discipline has been reserved for candidates belonging to the weaker sections of community/army and members of the West Bengal Health services who have experience for more than 3 years in the rural services. It has therefore been urged by Mr. Mukherjee that it is a fit case for the issuance of the mandate on the University to provide one extra seat for admission of the petitioner who stood second in order of merit and has been placed in the 4th place even after weightage of 5 marks was given to the candidates falling within category specified in Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations for admission to the different M. D,/m. S. diploma course of Calcutta University of the session, 1980. Some decisions have been cited by Mr. Mukherjee in support of the above submission. Mr. Sudhendu Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, that is, the University of Calcutta as well as the University college of Medicine and the Council of Calcutta University, has referred to the affidavit in counter filed on behalf of the above respondents and sworn by Sri Pratip Mukherjee, Register of the University of Calcutta. In support of his submission that the reservation of seats in this discipline for government sponsored candidates who served in the rural areas is not arbitrary or discriminatory. In support of his submission that the reservation of seats in this discipline for government sponsored candidates who served in the rural areas is not arbitrary or discriminatory. In paragraph 8 it has been stated that the Government of West Bengal has been sponsoring soma candidates for admission in M.D. and other post graduate courses, who are in service and who are the members of the W.B. Health Services with the end of having more competent services foam such employees who may do so by increasing their knowledge and skill in specialised field. It has also been stated that due consideration of all aspects as to postgraduate course in 1980 session the post Graduate Admission Board at its meeting held on 15 March, 1980 passed appropriate resolution to the following effect : resolved that the selected Government sponsored candidates must be placed or posted in the relevant departments of the institution in which the particular candidates deputed for teaching, training and themselves working within a period of 6 weeks from the date. Selection, filling up the admission is liable to be cancelled subject to she decision of the Council, Syndicate or vice Chancellor. That the number of seats in the following course reserved for the candidates sponsored by the authority of the Government of west Bengal Health Services in the following order out of total seats in each subject has been reviewed by the post graduate medical admission board in medicine in its meeting held on 5th March, 1980 provided such candidates obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the admission test examination, 1980 fixed for the purposes. (j) M. D. (paediatrics) number of seats 3. (3.) IT has been also stated that 3 seats were allotted to the Government sponsored candidates who have rendered services under the Government for the period of 5 years and rendered Rural services for a period of not less than 3 years and who have, obtained. qualifying marks in the admission test. Such reservation has been made reasonably and for public purpose and also for the purpose of enabling the poor people of the country to have good medical aid from competent persons in medical profession employed in Government hospital and in other Government agencies. qualifying marks in the admission test. Such reservation has been made reasonably and for public purpose and also for the purpose of enabling the poor people of the country to have good medical aid from competent persons in medical profession employed in Government hospital and in other Government agencies. It has been further averred that the ratio of 50% as allotted for admission in in-service candidates in the list of selected candidates for admission in the M. D. (Paediatrics) course is quite reasonable and justified in consideration of the strength of the population in the State of West Bengal which is higher than any other States of the country. It has also been stated that weightage of 5 marks to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who suffer from severe handicap while competing with others when the Constitution itself recognises that they need special treatment is justified and the same is necessary for the advancement of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so it is justified under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution. Similarly provision for grant of marks has been made on academic merit assessment being part of the general information to encourage persons who serve in public Central or government hospital in rural areas and to persons who have served in the army and to backward classes for the advancement of such classes is not unjustifiable or discriminatory and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has also been stated that the general candidates appearing at the admission test and the in-service candidates and candidates coming from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be said to be equals as such of the groups of such candidates belongs to a separate class. (4.) MR. Sudhendu Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent University contended that there was no reservation for candidates belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates or Army. Only a weightage of 5 marks was provided for such candidates. According to Mr. Mukherjee if these candidates after the weightage is given falls to come within the 6 seats allotted for the M.D. Course (Paediatrics) by securing the required marks such candidates are not entitled to be selected for admission in this discipline. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that reservation of 50% of the seats for the Government sponsored candidates is not excessive and so not bad. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that reservation of 50% of the seats for the Government sponsored candidates is not excessive and so not bad. He has further submitted relying on a decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 1762 that such reservation of seats of Government sponsored candidates is in substance, laying down sources from which selection for admission would be made and as such this provision cannot be strictly termed as a provision for reservation of seats as meant by Article 18 of the Constitution. It has further been submitted that the rule laying down the sources for the selection for admission cannot be held to be bad being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of India. The only question that falls for decision in this case is whether the rule made by the admission board and approved by the Calcutta University Council laying down the method of selection of candidates for admission to the M. D. Course (Paediatrics) is arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the constitution of India. Admittedly there are 6 seats for admission in the said discipline and out of the 6 seats 3 seats have been reserved for Government sponsored candidate who has also been conferred the benefit of weightage of 5 marks as provided in rule 12 of the Rules for admission. It is also evident from Rule 12 of the Rules that provision has been made for giving special weightage of 5 marks on candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled tribes and/or Army persons and persons who rendered more than 3 years service in the rural area. It is also not disputed that on the basis of the weightage of marks accorded to candidates belonging to the candidates of weaker communities, that is respondents 7 and 9 who secured second and third position were selected for admission. It is also not disputed that the 3 government sponsored candidates namely respondents Nos. 10, 11 and 12 who admittedly secured lesser marks even after grant of weightage of marks and were placed. below the petitioner who even after weightage occupied the 4th position were selected for admission while the petitioner's name was included as the first candidate in the waiting list. 10, 11 and 12 who admittedly secured lesser marks even after grant of weightage of marks and were placed. below the petitioner who even after weightage occupied the 4th position were selected for admission while the petitioner's name was included as the first candidate in the waiting list. There is therefore, no dispute that the petitioner who stood second in order of merit and also occupied the 4th place after giving weightage marks has not been selected for admission in view of the reservation of 3 seats for the Government sponsored candidates. Undoubtedly the grant of weightage of 5 marks for students belonging to a particular category is, in substance, akin to some sort of reservation for these candidates to be selected for admission in the said course. If this fact Is taken into consideration along with the reservation of 3 seats made for the Government sponsored candidates undoubtedly 80% of the seats remains reserved which cannot be held to be reasonable under any circumstances and judged by any principle whatsoever. In AIR 1971 sc 1762 D. N. Chanchala vs State of mysore, the reservation of 48/. of seats were made for candidates belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and socially and educationally backward classes. It was held that such a reservation was not arbitrary, bad and excessive. In the above case also 60 out of 765 seats were reserved for Government sponsored candidates. It has been held : (5.) "The Government is entitled to lay down sources from which selection of admission would be made. A provision laying down such sources is strictly speaking not reservation. It is not a reservation as understood by Article 25 (4) against which objection cannot be taken on the ground that it is excessive. The reservation as contemplated by Article 15 is the one which is made under Rule 5. Under that Rule 115-/. reservation is for persons belonging to scheduled Castes and 3% for Scheduled tribes and 30/. for socially and educationally backward classes, that is say, 48% in all. It has also been held that laying down The sources for selection necessitated by certain overriding consideration, such as obligations towards that is who served The interest of The country's security certain reciprocal obligation and The like". for socially and educationally backward classes, that is say, 48% in all. It has also been held that laying down The sources for selection necessitated by certain overriding consideration, such as obligations towards that is who served The interest of The country's security certain reciprocal obligation and The like". (6.) IN the instant case I have pointed out hereinbefore that by reservation and by weightage about 80% of seats allotted for these disciplines has been filled up leaving practically no scope for selection of meritorious candidates. This being the position in my opinion without going into the question as to the validity of the Rules and regulations made by the Calcutta University for admission in this discipline it is fit and proper and also to promote justice that the university shall provide one seat for admission of the petitioner in the M. D. course (paediatrics) in the session, 1980, I am fortified in my view by the decision of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 S. C. 820 Jagadish Saran -vs- Union of India, where it has been observed by the Supreme court that merit must be the test when choosing the best according to the rule of equal chance for equal marks. The quantum of reservation of seats for admission in medical education may be made for members belonging to the backward communities and for other purposes but such reservation must not be made in such a manner as to exclude best talents completely. In other words, there cannot be wholesale reservation of seats leaving little or no scope for meritorious candidates to get selected for admission in higher courses of study in different branches of medical science. For the reasons aforesaid in my opinion the petitioner having secured the second highest marks in order of merits and also being placed 4th after giving weightage of 5 marks according to Rule 12 of the rules for admission to the candidates belonging to a particular category mentioned therein deserves admission to the post graduate course even though she has been admitted in the diploma course. I, therefore, direct the respondent University to admit the petitioner to the M. D. course this year. The application is thus allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let plain copies of this order be given' to the learned Advocates en both sides.