JUDGMENT 1. All these nine writ petitions involve questions as to the validity of the guidelines that were issued by the Government of Rajasthan on November 26, 1981, for the selection and appointment of Resident House Officers/Registrars and Senior Registrars in the five Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan and, a common therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. In the State of Rajasthan there are five Medical Colleges at Jaipur, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur. They are All these Medical of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). All these Medical Colleges impart education for the post graduate courses of M. D. and M.S for the University. The relevant provisions with regard to the eligibility for appointment and selection of candidates for M.D. and M.S. courses for the University are contained in Ordinance No. 278-E of the Ordinances framed by the University. Ordinance No. 278-E lays down that the candidates seeking admission to M.D. and M.S. courses should have obtained full registration i.e. they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the final M.B.B.S. examination and must have full registration with the Rajasthan Medical Council. The said Ordinance further lays down that they must subsequently have done one year's housemanship in the same subject or atleast six months in the same department and the remaining period in an as a full-time post graduate student in the department concerned in a manner equivalent to housemanship requirement or they must have worked in hospitals approved by the Council for intership training for a period of three years or they must have worked in State Medical Services or Armed Forces Medical Service or other equivalent service for a period of five years. With regard to the selection of candidates for appointment to the post graduate courses of M.D. and M.S., the aforesaid ordinance lays down that the selection for post graduate courses of M.D. and M.S. shall be done strictly on merit, judged on the basis of the academic record in the undergraduate courses out of those applicants who fulfil the above-mentioned pre-requisites. In the note appended to the aforesaid Ordinance, it is laid down that academic record in the under-graduate courses means the performance of the candidates at the First, Second and Final M.B.B.S examination taken together. In the note appended to the aforesaid Ordinance, it is laid down that academic record in the under-graduate courses means the performance of the candidates at the First, Second and Final M.B.B.S examination taken together. The said Ordinance further provides that, other conditions being equal, weightage may be given to the persons who have worked in rural areas or the Armed Forces Medical Services for at-least two years. 3. Apart from the aforesaid provisions contained in Ordinance No. 278-E. the State Government also has been issuing guidelines for selection and appointment on the posts of Resident House Officer/Registrars and Senior Registrars. Such guidelines had earlier been issued by the State Government on December 31, 1977, and the said guidelines made provision for giving preference to graduates of parent institutions in the matter of slection for registration for the post graduate courses in the various Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. The constitutional validity of the said guidelines was challenged before this Court in (A) Dr. Vimal Kumar Kalra etc. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 438, 831 and 858 of 1978, decided on March 2, 1979) on the ground that they were violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of ordinance 278-E of the Ordinances of the University. The said guidelines in so far as they provided for giving of preference to graduates of the parent institutions in the matter of admission to post graduate courses were struck down on the ground that they were violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Ordinance 278-E of the Ordinances framed by the University. Even after the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College and Controller of the attached Hospitals, Jaipur, in his notice dated November 27, 1980 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Resident House Officers; Registrars and Senior Registrars at the S.M.S. Medical College and the Hospitals attached thereto in the specialities referred therein, had imposed a condition that the applicant must be a medical graduate of that college. The said condition in the notice, dated November 27, 1980 was challenged before this Court in (B) Dr. The said condition in the notice, dated November 27, 1980 was challenged before this Court in (B) Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Sethi etc v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1814, 1815 of 1980 and 42 and 256 of 1981, decided on November 20, 1981 /January 20, 1982) on the ground that the said condition was violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court held that the aforesaid condition, that was imposed in the notice dated November 27, 1980 whereby it was directed that only medical graduates of S.M.S. Medical College are eligible to apply to the post of Resident House Officer/Registrars or Senior Registrars at S.M S.Medical College and the attached hospitals, was violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Thereafter, the State Government, by its order dated November 26, 1981 issued the impugned guidelines for the selection and appointment of Resident House Officers/Registrars and Senior Registrars in all the five Medical Colleges of Rajasthan for the year 1981. In the said guidelines reference has been made to the order dated November 20, 1981 passed by this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Sethi's case (supra) and it has been stated that all future selections to the residency posts will be done through a Central Selection Board on the basis of common pooling of the applications. In the said guidelines it has been further observed that as the present batch would be completing their one year rotating internship on November 30, 1981, no much time was left to complete the process of Central Selection and that it had been decided that for the year 1981. the selection be made on the basis of existing guidelines with the modifications contained in the impugned guidelines regarding the eligibility of the candidates. In para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines the mode of selection has been prescribed and the said para reads as under: "A. 3. Mode of Selection : The Principal of the Respective medical college will advertise immediately the vacancy of the residents in the various specialities at their College. The selection will be made strictly in order of the merit. Mode of Selection : The Principal of the Respective medical college will advertise immediately the vacancy of the residents in the various specialities at their College. The selection will be made strictly in order of the merit. For this purpose, the merit list shall be prepared as follows: (a) The academic performance in the under-graduate courses at the First, Second and Final M. B. B. S. Examinations shall be taken together with the modifications as follows for the attempters : `In the subject (s), in which the applicant has failed once, the minimum pass marks will be taken into consideration in the subject (s), irrespective of the marks secured by the applicant. For the subsequent failure in the subject, 20 marks per subject per failure will be deducted. (b) The total marks obtained by the applicants shall be converted into the percentage. The percentage so obtained by the applicants shall be increased as follows : (i) by 5% if the applicant belongs to the parent institution, where the selections are being made. (ii) By another 5%, if the applicant has passed the M.B.B.S. Examination from the Rajasthan University. (Note: This benefit is to be given to all the applicants who have passed their final M.B.B.S. examination from a specific college/ University irrespective of the First & Second M. B. B. S. Examination not passed from that College/Rajasthan University). Para A. 4 of the impugned guidelines postulates that the tenure of appointment of residents will be of three years duration, but all these appointments will be made for the first year in the first instance, renewable for the further period of second year and third year provided their work and post graduation studies undertaken by them are found satisfactory at the end of the first year and second year as the case may be. In para A. 5 of the impugned guidelines it is laid down that under the residency scheme, no separate applications will be invited for the residency staff for the post graduate registrations but they would be automatically registered in the specialities available at the College through rotation for six months in that speciality or under co-guide system with other medical colleges as per existing arrangement. In the note appended to the aforesaid guidelines, it has been laid down that for the appointment of Registrars senior Registrars and and also for the selection of post graduates from the present batch doing house jobs will also be done on the basis of above guidelines. 5. After the aforesaid guidelines had been issued, the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College and Controller, Associated Group of Hospitals at Jaipur invited applications for appointment on the posts of Resident House Officers/ Registrars and Senior Registrars at the S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur and attached hospitals at Jaipur. 6. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1981, 1916, 1917, 1918, I914 and 2015 of 1981 are medical graduates from J. L. N. Medical College, Ajmer. After passing the M. B. B. S. (Final) Examination they have completed 12 months' compulsory rotating internship and they are eligible for undertaking post-graduate medical studies of the University in accordance with Ordinance 278-E of the University. They submitted their applications for appointment on the post of Resident House Officers at S.M.S. Medical College. Jaipur and Attached hospitals at Jaipur and in the said applications, they indicated their preferences for the specialities in which they would like to be appointed. They, however, feel aggrieved by sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines dated November 26, 1981, whereby a weightage of 5%, marks has been given to the applicants belonging to the parent institution and, therefore, they have filed these writ petitions before this Court, wherein they have challenged the guidelines dated November 26 1981 in so far as they make provisions for giving a weightage of 5% marks in favour of the students of the parent institution on the ground that such a preference in favour of students of the parent institution is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions No. 107 of 1982 and 108 of 1982 are medical graduates from R. N. T. Medical College, Udaipur and S. P. Medical College, Bikaner respectively. They have completed 12 months compulsory rotating internship and they have also completed one year's housemanship and they have submitted their applications for registration for postgraduate courses at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. They have completed 12 months compulsory rotating internship and they have also completed one year's housemanship and they have submitted their applications for registration for postgraduate courses at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. Since the registration for postgraduate courses is also governed by the guidelines dated November 26, 1981, these petitioners also have challenged the provisions contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines on the ground that same are violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It may be observed that Mrs. (Dr.) Alkha Sethi, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 108 of 1982 had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1980 against the condition imposed by the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College. Jaipur in the notice dated November 27, 1980, whereby medical graduates of that college only were made eligible to apply for the post of Resident House Officer, Registrar and Senior Registrars at S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur. As noticed earlier the said Writ Petition was allowed by the orders of this Court dated November 20. 1981/January 20, 1982. In pursuance of the said orders of this Court, the said petitioner was appointed as Resident House Officer at S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur. 8. The Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 47 of 1982 is a medical graduate from Medical College, Jammu and Kashmir. He secured admission on reciprocal basis as a nominee of the Government of Rajasthan and after completing his 12 months compulsory rotating internship at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur he also completed one year's housemanship at Medical College, Jammu. Thereafter, he applied for registration for the post-graduate course at S.M.S. Medical College. Jaipur. He has also challenged the weightage of 5% marks to be provided to the medical graduates of the parent institution under sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines dated November 26. 1981. 9. Thereafter, he applied for registration for the post-graduate course at S.M.S. Medical College. Jaipur. He has also challenged the weightage of 5% marks to be provided to the medical graduates of the parent institution under sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines dated November 26. 1981. 9. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have submitted that all the students of the various medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan which are affiliated to the University constitute one class in as much as all the students secure admission in the said colleges after passing a common Pre-Medical Test and all the students have to undergo the same course and curriculum for the prescribed period and are required to pass the same examinations which are conducted by the University for all the Medical Colleges. In the writ petitions, it is also submitted that no distinction can be made between the students belonging to one particular college for the purpose of appointment on the post of Resident House Officer or Registrar and that there was no rational justification for making a distinction between the medical graduates of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on the one hand, and the medical graduates belonging to the other medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan on the other hand, in the matter of appointment on the post of Resident House Officers and that the classification that has been made by the impugned guidelines amongst graduates on the basis of the college from which they had graduated was arbitrary and unreasonable. In the writ petitions it has been further submitted that even though in Ordinance 278-E of the University merit is the criterion laid down for selection in the matter of registration of post graduate courses of the University, the impugned guidelines by providing an increase of 5% marks in the marks obtained by the graduate of the college in which he is seeking registration for post graduate courses would result in (i) more meritorious students of other medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan being denied an opportunity of being appointed on the post of Resident House Officers,'Registrars and Senior Registrars or for registration in the post graduate course and (ii) appointment of less meritorious students of the same college and, therefore, the impugned guide lines are arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of' the Constitution of India. The petitioners in these writ petitions have also pointed out that post graduate courses in the certain specialities are not available in the other medical colleges at Jodhpur, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur and as a result of the impugned guidelines, a meritorious student who had graduated from the medical colleges at Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur and Ajmer would be denied an opportunity of studying for post graduation in the specialities, which are available only at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. 10. The writ petitions have been contested by the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1, and the Convener, Selection Board and Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, respondent No. 2. In S.B. Civil Writ petition Nos. 1888 and 1917 of 1981, certain students who did graduation from S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur and had submitted their applications for appointment on the post of Resident House Officers; Registrar and for admission to the post-graduate course at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur have been allowed to be impleaded as respondents. They have also filed their replies to the writ petition in these writ petitions. 11. In the replies filed on behalf of respondent Nos. They have also filed their replies to the writ petition in these writ petitions. 11. In the replies filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been asserted that the State Government has introduced the weightage system of marks for the students of parent institution and the University, which is being uniformly applied to all the five State Medical Colleges of Rajasthan without any discrimination, after taking into consideration the various administrative aspects, administrative control, pressure on a particular medical college and to maintain greater convenience, stability and familiarity within educational environment of an institution, and psychological pressure. It has been submitted that the students of a particular medical college are having special attributes which by themselves form a different category as the same attributes of place, are not found in other students of different medical colleges and that carving out of sub-groups from the main group to make different categories does not involve discrimination. In this regard, it has been stated that sub- clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines has been introduced by the State Government with an object to attain better administration, better education and better co-ordination in the larger public interest and that classification on institutional basis is valid and reasonable classification having a good nexus with the object. As regards the specialities for which the post- graduate facilities are only available at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, it has been submitted that those institutions where the departments have not been approved/recognised by the Medical Council of India/University for post graduate course in a particular subject,'speciality under direct guide system, the approved guides of those institutions work as co-guides with an approved guide of an institution recognised for the post-graduate courses by the University and that the students registered under the co-guide system get almost similar facilities as are being given under the main guides. 12. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 12. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1981, it has also been asserted that the grant of weightage of 5% to the students of parent institution is justified and reasonable on the ground that while pursuing their M. B. B. S. course at a particular institution, the students become acquainted with the functioning of a particular hospital and became familiar with the teaching techniques and standards of scholarship and adjust their responses and reactions accordingly and that over the undergraduate years the teachers cone to understand the particular needs of the student, where he excels and where he reeds a special encouragement in the removal of deficiencies and that students discharge their duties as post graduate student more efficiently and effectively at the place where they have pursued their M. B. B. S. course. It has also been pointed that the system of giving weightage of marks to the students of local institutions has been universally recognised and is also based on rational thinking because the students coming from a particular institution know the environment of that institution besides that they are familiar with the nursing' staff, the method and manner of working of that particular institution and are conversant with all other day to day working facilities and the teaching staff is also there to guide them for their better future prospects and the specialised assistance is also made available to the patients at an early hour. 13. In the reply to the writ petition that has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 1888, of 1981, it has been submitted that each affiliated college is a separate entity and a separate institution and that merely because the colleges are affiliated to the University, does not mean that all the colleges are one and that on the contrary, except common examination in theory everything is separate and distinct. In this regard, it has further been submitted that 60% of the total marks in the entire M.B.B.S. course are given by internal examiners and that each institution has got its internal examiners. 14. The petitioners have controverted the aforesaid averments contained in the aforesaid replies filed on behalf of the respondents. In this regard, it has further been submitted that 60% of the total marks in the entire M.B.B.S. course are given by internal examiners and that each institution has got its internal examiners. 14. The petitioners have controverted the aforesaid averments contained in the aforesaid replies filed on behalf of the respondents. In the rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioners have stated that no special attributes are possessed by the candidates of any particular college and that the respondents have failed to specify the nature of the special attributes possessed by the candidate of any particular institution and its nexus with the object of selection. The submission of the petitioners is that there is no nexus between the classification introduced on the ground of alleged difference in the attributes possessed by students of different institutions and the object of selection which is to secure the most meritorious amongst the available candidates. With regard to the registration under the co-guide system, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under the co-guide system, a student has to regularly visit the institution, wherein his co-guide is working, for the purpose of assessment supervision and guidance, and a candidate working under the co-guide system has to spend at least 25% of his time in the institution wherein the co-guide is working. With regard to the internal system of marking, it has been pointed out that the internal marking system is confined only 22% of the total marks because the exclusive internal assessment exists only in the matter of marks awarded for the periodical assessment and the assessment that relates to the remaining marks is done jointly by the internal and the external examiners. As regards the marks that are awarded for periodical assessment it has been stated that the assessment has to be done on the basis of the students performance in the period for which assessment is being made and the specified work clone in the class with regard to which the relevant record is also maintained. As regards the marks that are awarded for periodical assessment it has been stated that the assessment has to be done on the basis of the students performance in the period for which assessment is being made and the specified work clone in the class with regard to which the relevant record is also maintained. It has also been pointed out that internal assessment is not always done by the teachers of the same medical college and that many times, the internal assessment is made by teaching staff from other colleges and further that the norms for assessment are prescribed by the University and all the examiners have to act in accordance with the same even in the matter of internal assessment. It has also been submitted that the teaching staff of the five Medical Colleges are members of the me service i. e. Rajasthan Medical Collegiate Branch Service and being the members of the same service, they are amenable to transfer to any of the five medical colleges and thus, it cannot be said that the candidates of a particular institution are examined only by a particular set of examiners. 15. I have heard Shri G.S. Singhvi. Shri M. R. Calla, Shri G. L. Pareck and Shri N. D. Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned Government Advocate. Shri G.S. Bapna and Shri A.K. Sharma. the learned counsel for the respondents. 16. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners it would be necessary to deal with the preliminary objections that have been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions. 17. The first objection which has been raised is that since after the filing of the writ petitions, selections have been made in accordance with the impugned guidelines and on the basis of the aforesaid selections, appointments: on the posts of Resident House Officers/Registrars and Senior Registrars have also been made and since the aforesaid persons who have been selected and appointed in pursuance of the impugned guide lines have not been impleaded as parties in these writ petitions, their selection and appointment cannot be challenged and no relief can be given to the petitioners in these writ petitions. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliant: has been placed on the decision of the Full Bench of Patna High Court in (1) Padmraj Samarendra and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another AIR 1 979 Pat. 266 , and the decision of the Supreme Court in (2) A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others AIR 1971 SC 2303 . In reply to the aforesaid submission it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the present cases the petitioners are seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of the guidelines dated November 26, 1981 which are in the nature of administrative rules of general application and that the persons getting benefit of the said guidelines are not necessary parties in the writ petitions and their non-joinder will not come in the way of maintainablity of the writ petitions. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in (3) The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and others AIR 1974 SC 1755 . In my opinion the aforesaid preliminary objection cannot be accepted and the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts of the present cases. In the present cases I find that on December 9, 1981, while issuing notices requiring the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petitions be not admitted, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1881 of 1981, this Court had restrained the respondents from making selections for the post of Resident House Officers on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government on November 26, 1981. Thereafter the matter came up for orders before this Court on December 23, 1981 and after hearing the counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate and the counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in that writ petition as well as the counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in civil writ petition No. 1917 of 1981, the Court passed the following order on the stay petition : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents would be free to make appointments of Resident House Officers. Registrars and Senior Registrars on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government on November 26, 1981. The respondents would be free to make appointments of Resident House Officers. Registrars and Senior Registrars on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government on November 26, 1981. However, such appointments shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. In is further made clear that none of the Resident House Officers or Registrars or Senior Registrars appointed in pursuance to the guidelines dated November 26, 1981, shall be entitled to put forth a plea of estoppel or any equity in their favour and would be bound by any direction given by this Court at the time of final decision of the writ petition." From the aforesaid order passed by this Court on December 23, 1981 it is clear that the appointments which were permitted to be made during the pendency of the writ petitions on the basis of the impugned guidelines have been expressly made subject to the final decision of the writ petition and it has also been made clear that none of the Resident House Officers, Registrars/Senior Registrars who were to be appointed in pursuance of the guidelines would be entitled to put forth a plea of estoppel or any equity in their favour and would be bound by any direction given by this Court at the time of final decision of the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on December 23, 1981, the selection and appointments that have been made on the posts of Resident House Officers; Registrars and Senior Registrars on the basis of the impugned guidelines during the pendency of these writ petitions are subject to the final decision of these writ petitions and the persons so appointed cannot claim to have acquired any right on the basis of the aforesaid selection and appointment. The nonjoinder of the said selected candidates can have, therefore, no bearing on the maintainability of these writ petitions and the objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on that ground must be rejected. 18. Another preliminary objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that even if the increase of 5% marks as laid down in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines is excluded from consideration, the petitioners in Civil Writ petition Nos. 18. Another preliminary objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that even if the increase of 5% marks as laid down in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines is excluded from consideration, the petitioners in Civil Writ petition Nos. 1 888, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1914 and 2015 of 1981 would not have been selected for appointment as Resident House Officers at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur because the persons who have been selected in the specialities for which the said petitioners had indicated their first preferences had secured higher percentage of marks than the said petitioners. In my opinion, the aforesaid objection cannot be sustained because even if the persons who have been selected in the specialities for which the petitioners in the writ petitions referred to above, had indicated their first preference, had secured higher percentage of marks than the petitioners, it cannot be said that if the weightage of 5% marks was not available, the petitioners would not have been selected, in the other preferences indicated by them in their applications. 19. The third objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the petitioners in Civil Writ petition Nos. 1888, 1914 and 1917 of 1981 had applied in other medical Colleges also and that the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. I888 of 1981 has been selected for the speciality of Surgery at the Medical College, Ajmer and the speciality of Physiology and Biochemistry at the Medical College, Udaipur, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1914 of 1981 has been selected for the speciality in Radio Diagnosis at the Medical College, Ajmer and the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1981 has been selected in the speciality of Oprthalmology at the Medical College, Ajmer and the speciality of Surgery at the Medical College, Udaipur. In my view, the fact that the aforesaid petitioners have been selected in the specialities referred to above at the Medical Colleges other than the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur would not stand in the way of the said petitioners maintaining their writ petitions in as much as the said petitioners' preference was to do their post graduation at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur in the specialities for which they had indicated their preferences in their applications and their selection in other medical colleges would not deprive them of their right to seek appointment on the post of Resident House Officer at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur if they are so entitled. The third preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is, therefore, rejected. 20. I may now come to the merits. Since the impugned guidelines seek to make provision for giving a preference to the medical graduates of the parent institution in the matter of selection for post graduate training, it would be necessary to take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court wherein similar problems relating to reservation and preference in the matter of admission to educational institutions have been considered. 21. In (4) P. Rajendran v. State of Madras AIR 1968 SC 1012 , the validity of Rule 8 of the Madras Educational Rules, which provided for allocation of seats in the various medical colleges in the State of Madras amongst various districts on the basis of the ratio of the population of each district to the total population of the State was under challenge. The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid rule, which provided for district-wise allocation of seats, was violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the object of selection was to secure the best possible talent for admission to professional colleges and the allocation of seats district wise basis, had no reasonable relation with the said object and that in many cases the said allocation would result in the object being destroyed inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted. 22. In A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2) the Supreme Court was dealing with the questions as to the validity of a scheme for selection and admission to the medical colleges in the State of Madras. 22. In A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2) the Supreme Court was dealing with the questions as to the validity of a scheme for selection and admission to the medical colleges in the State of Madras. Under the said scheme the medical colleges in the city of Madras were constituted as one unit and each one of the other medical colleges in the mofussil was constituted as a separate unit and thus six units were created in the State and in respect of each one of the units a separate selection committee was constituted and the intending applicants were asked to apply to any one of the committees but they were advised to apply to the committee nearest to their place of residence as far as possible and they were told that if they applied to more than one committee their applications would be forwarded by the Government to only one of the committees. The aforesaid scheme for unit-wise distribution of seats was justified by the State Government on the ground of administrative convenience. The Supreme Court held that before a classification can be justified and it must be based on an objective criterion and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. According to the Supreme Court the object intended to be achieved in that case was to select the best candidates for being admitted to the medical colleges and that the said object could not be satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the unit wise distribution of seats was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 23. In (5) D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1762 , the constitutional validity of Rule 9 (2) of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1970 was under challenge. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the unit wise distribution of seats was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 23. In (5) D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1762 , the constitutional validity of Rule 9 (2) of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1970 was under challenge. The said rule provided for university-wise distribution of seats in the Government Colleges in the State of Mysore and laid down that the seats in colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University shall be allotted to the persons passing from colleges affiliated to that University and the seats in colleges affiliated to Banglaore and Mysore Universities shall respectively be allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to each such University provided that not more than 20% of the seats in the colleges affiliated to any university may in the discretion of the selection committee to be allotted to students from colleges affiliated to any other university in the State or elsewhere in India. The validity of the aforesaid rule was challenged on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court negatived the said challenge and observed : "Since the universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas where they are set up and medical colleges are established in those areas, it can safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy the needs for medical training of those attached to those universities. In our view, there is nothing undesirable in ensuring that those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have training in specialised subjects, like medicine satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own universities. Such a basis for selection has not the disadvantage of district wise or unit wise selection as any student from any part of the state can pass the qualifying examination in any of the three universities irrespective of the place of his birth or residence. Further the rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent of the total available seats in any one of these colleges, i.e., those who have passed the equivalent examination held by any other university not only in the State but also elsewhere in India. Further the rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent of the total available seats in any one of these colleges, i.e., those who have passed the equivalent examination held by any other university not only in the State but also elsewhere in India. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the basis of selection adopted in those rules would defeat the object of the rules as was said in Rajendran's case 1968 (2) SCR 786 ; AIR 1968 SC 1012 ) or make possible less meritorious students obtaining admission at the cost of the better candidates. The fact that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain admission at the cost of another university does not necessarily mean that a less meritorious candidate gets advantage over a more meritorious one. As is well known, different universities have different standards in the examinations held by them." "In our view, the rules lay down a valid classification. Candidates passing through the qualifying examination held by a university form a class by themselves as distinguished from those passing through such examination from the other two universities. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater to the needs of candidates who would naturally look to their own university to advance their training in technical studies, such as medical studies. In our opinion, the rules cannot justly be attacked on the ground of hostile discrimination or as being otherwise in breach of Article 14." 24. In (6) The State of Andhra Pradesh v. U. S. V. Balaram AIR 1972 SC 1375 , the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where candidates who had passed qualifying examination for the Pre-University Course (PUC) as well as candidates who had passed Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) (HSC) were eligible for admission to the integrated M.B.B.S. Course, and for the purpose of selection, they were required to appear in an entrance test and selection was to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the said test, but 40% seats were reserved for HSC candidates. The aforesaid reservation of 40% seats in favour of the HSC candidates was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid reservation of 40% seats in favour of the HSC candidates was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that having due regard to the scheme of the rules and the object sought to be achieved, namely, of getting best students for the medical colleges, the provision for allotment of 40% quota to HSC candidates was discriminatory and it had no reasonable relations to the object sought to be achieved. In taking the aforesaid view, the supreme Court laid emphasis on the fact, that the basis of selection for the first year integrated M.B.B.S. course was the result of the entrance test. After referring to their earlier decision in D. N. Chanchala's case (5) the Supreme Court have observed as follows: "It will be seen that the above decision has emphasised that the selection which was made on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination held by each of the universities was valid and the distribution of seats in the medical colleges universities was also valid in view of the different standards adopted by each university. Again it is to be noted in the said decision, there was no question of all the students of the three universities taking a common Entrance Test on the basis of which a selection was made." In the said case it has further been observed as under : "It is no doubt open to the State to prescribe the sources from which the candidates are declared eligible for applying for admission to the Medical College; but when once a common Entrance Test has been prescribed for all the candidates on the basis of which selection is to be made, the rule providing further that 40% of the seats will have to be reserved for the H.S.C. Candidates is arbitrary. In the first place, after a common test has been prescribed, there cannot be a valid classification of the P.U.C. and H.S.C. candidates. Even assuming that such a classification is valid, the said classification has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved, namely, selecting the best candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges. In the first place, after a common test has been prescribed, there cannot be a valid classification of the P.U.C. and H.S.C. candidates. Even assuming that such a classification is valid, the said classification has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved, namely, selecting the best candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges. The reservation of 40% to the H.S.C. candidates has no reasonable relation or nexus to the said object. Hence we agree with the High Court when it struck down this reservation under rule 9 contained in C. No. 1648 of 1970 as violative of Article 14." 25. In (6) Jagdish Saran v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 820 , the Supreme Court was dealing with admission to the post graduate courses of the Delhi University. In Delhi University, there was a rule whereby 70% of the seats at the post graduate level were reserved for the applicants who had taken their M.B.B.S. degree from the Delhi University and the remaining 30% of the seats were open to all including graduates of Delhi. The constitutional validity of the aforesaid reservation was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. In the said case Krishna lyer J. speaking for himself and Chinnappa Reddy J., has taken note of the fact that post independence India has many universities with facilities for higher learning and most of them give institutional preferences in the allocation of seats for technical courses and this tendency sometimes reaches the morbid point of total cornering of seats at post-graduate level, especially in the coveted and competitive branches like medicine, and has observed that "prima facie, equal marks must have equal chance for medical admissions," and that "neither university-based favoured treatment nor satyagraha induced quota policy can survive the egalitarian attack." The learned Judge has, however, pointed out that it would be permissible for the State to evolve a policy of preference or reservation with a view to remove the existing inequality and to promote welfare based on equality for the denizens of the backward regions but has struck the following notes of warnings: "The first caution is that reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by whole-sale reservation. So, a certain percentage, which may be available, must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like." "Flowing from the same stream of equalism is another limitation. The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to capability. At the level of Ph. D., M.D. or levels of higher proficiency where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk." In the said case the impugned reservation in favour of graduates of the Delhi University was upheld for the reason that the graduates of the Delhi University were under a heavy handicap inasmuch as "all the country round every university bangs, bars and bolts the doors of medical admission to outsiders and if Delhi alone were to keep its doors hospitably ajar where are the Delhi, graduates to go for higher studies if squeezed out by All India competition ?" Another consideration which weighed with the learned Judges in upholding the reservation was "the desire of students for institutional continuity in education." The learned Judges have, however, recognised "that institution wise reservation is constitutionally circumscribed and may become ultravires if recklessly resorted to" and, in that context, they have observed as under:- "Even so, 'reservation" must be administered in moderation, if it is to be constitutional. Some central technical institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi and Chandigarh and the Pondicherry Medical College have a much smaller fraction. Their circumstances may be different and we do not have the full facts, neither side having furnished more than fragments. Judicial surmise is too weak to be of decisional certainy. Some central technical institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Science, Delhi and Chandigarh and the Pondicherry Medical College have a much smaller fraction. Their circumstances may be different and we do not have the full facts, neither side having furnished more than fragments. Judicial surmise is too weak to be of decisional certainy. For reasons we have assigned 70% plus is too high at the post-graduate level in the half-proved circumstances." The learned Judge directed the Delhi University to appoint a committee to investigate in depth justification for and the quantum of reservation at the post graduate level from the angle of equality of opportunity for every Indian but taking into consideration the other constitutionally relevant criteria which have been indicated in that judgment. 26. Pathak J. in his concurring judgment, has justified the reservation of seats for the post-graduate classes by the Delhi University in favour of their medical students on the ground of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an educational environment, and has observed as under:- "It is not beyond reason that a student who enters a medical college for his graduate studies and pursues them for the requisite period of years should prefer on graduation to continue in the same institution for his post graduate studies. There is the strong argument of convenience, of stability and familiarity with an educational environment which in different parts of the country is subject to varying economic and psychological pressures. But much more than convenience is involved. There are all the advantages of a continuing frame of educational experience in the same educational institution. It must be remembered that it is not an entirely different course of studies which is contemplated; it is a specialised and deeper experience in what has gone before. The student has become familiar with the teaching techniques and standards of scholarship, and has adjusted his responses and reactions accordingly. The continuity of studies ensures a higher degree of competence in the assimilation of knowledge and experience. Not infrequently some of the same staff of Professors and Readers may lecture to the post-graduate classes also. Over the under-graduate years the teacher has come to understand the particular needs of the student, where he excels and where he needs an especial encouragement in the removal of deficiencies. Not infrequently some of the same staff of Professors and Readers may lecture to the post-graduate classes also. Over the under-graduate years the teacher has come to understand the particular needs of the student, where he excels and where he needs an especial encouragement in the removal of deficiencies. In my judgment, there is good reason in an educational institution extending a certain degree of preference to its graduates for admission to its post-graduate classes. The preference is bassed on a reasonable classification and bears a just relationship to the object of the education provided in the post- graduate classes. The concept of equality codified in our consitutional system is not violated." Pathak J. has also observed that "too excessive a reservation could result in preference to graduate candidates of severely limited aptitude and competence over meritorious candidates from other institutions whose exclusion could result in aborting a part of our national talent," and that the determining factor should be the measure of reciprocity prevailing between the different educational institutions in India regarding the availability of admission to graduates of other institutions. 27. In (8) Charles K. Skeria v. C. Mathew the State of Kerala had issued a scheme for admission to the post graduate courses in medicine in the colleges of the State of Kerala and in the said scheme a quota of 2% of the total seats in the post graduate course in Medicine had been set apart for candidates in the whole country outside the two universities of the State. The Kerala High Court had held that the aforesaid reservation of 2% seats for outsiders was too low and was violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court affirmed the said view and observed as under:- "The scheme of reservation of a paltry 2% for candidates in the whole country outside the two universities of the State has not been substantiated as a sufficient fulfilment of Articles 14 and 15. Fundamental rights of candidates do not depend on the grace of Governments and Indians are not aliens in their own motherland when asking for seats on the score of equal opportunity." 28. Fundamental rights of candidates do not depend on the grace of Governments and Indians are not aliens in their own motherland when asking for seats on the score of equal opportunity." 28. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it can be said that in order to meet the requirements of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a provision with regard to reservation of seats or giving of preference in the matter of admission to educational institutions must satisfy two tests, namely, (I) the persons in whose favour reservation/preference is provided must be such as can reasonably be classified into a separate group or category on the basis of an intelligible differentia which distinguishes then from the rest; and (ii) the said differentia which distinguishes them from the rest must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the provisions regulating admissions. The object of the rules for admission can obviously be to select the most meritorious amongst those seeking admission. The object of such rules can also be to secure a fair and equitable distribution of seats amongst those seeking admission and to secure admission in a just proportion, to those who are handicapped and who, but for the preferential treatment given to them, would not stand a chance against those who are not so handicapped and are, therefore, in a superior position. The object of such rules can also be to remove the existing inequality in regions which are educationally backward and to promote welfare based on equality for the citizens of the backward regions. While admission to educational institutions on district wise or unit wise basis based on sheer residence would be impermissible, it would be permissible to make reservation of certain percentage of seats in educational institutions for the students of a particular university or universities for the reason that universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas and there is nothing undesirable in ensuring that those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have training in specialised subjects satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own universities. University wise preferential treatment would be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap or permit equality in the larger sense. University wise preferential treatment would be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap or permit equality in the larger sense. In the matter of reservation or giving of preference a distinction has to be made between reservation or giving of preference in the matter of admission at the under-graduate level and reservation preference at the post-graduate level. The considerations which may justify reservation/preference, viz., needs of a particular handicapped group or a backward region, cannot prevail in the same measure in the matter of post- graduate education where equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning. 29. The impugned guidelines may now be examined in the light of the principles referred to above. On a perusal of para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines it would be noticed that two types of preferences have been provided for in the said paragraph. Under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of para A. 3 provision for weightage to the extent of 5% of the marks has been made to the applicants who have passed the M. B. B. S. examination from the university. Under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of para A. 3 a further weightage of 5% marks has been given to the applicants who belong to the parent institution where the selections are made. It is not disputed that the aforesaid weightage of 5% under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (b) has to be computed on the basis of the total number of marks prescribed for the M. B.B.S. examinations of the University. The total number of such marks prescribed by the University for the M. B. B. S. examinations is 3200. This would mean that every applicant who fales within the category of applicants referred to in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) would be entitled to be advantage of 160 marks. In other words, the applicant who belong to the university would be entitled to an addition of 160 marks over the total number of marks obtained by him in the M. B.B.S. examinations and if the said applicant seeks admissionr in the same medical college from which he has graduated he would be entitled to a further addition of 160 marks over the marks obtained by him at the M.B.B.S. examinations. Such an applicant would have an advantage of 320 marks over applicants who have graduated from other universities and he would have an advantage of 160 marks over applicants who have graduated from the same university but have graduated from colleges other than the college in which they are seeking appointment as Resident House Officers, Registrars and Senior Registrars. 30. In the present cases, I am not required to examine the validity of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines which makes provision for weightage of 5% marks in favour of the applicants who have passed M. B. B. S. examination from the Rajasthan University and I am only required to consider the validity of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) which makes provision for weightage of 5% marks in case the applicants who belong to the parent college where selection is being made. 31. It is not disputed that all the five medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan are affiliated to the University and admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the said colleges is made on the basis of a common P.M.T. examination conducted by the University and after admission to the M. B. B. S. course the students at the said medical colleges undergo the same course of study as prescribed by the University and are required to pass the same set of examinations which are conducted by the University. It can, therefore, be said that graduates of all the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan constitute one class. I am unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the standard of examination for the various medical colleges is not the same because certain percentage of marks are to be given by the internal examiners who are different in each college. In the first place, the percentage of marks which are to be awarded by the internal examiners is not very high and secondly the internal examiners are also required to follow the standard prescribed by the University in the matter of award of marks. In the first place, the percentage of marks which are to be awarded by the internal examiners is not very high and secondly the internal examiners are also required to follow the standard prescribed by the University in the matter of award of marks. In my view, therefore, merely because certain percentage of marks are to be awarded at the discretion of the internal examiners would not mean that the standard for examination for all the medical colleges in the Rajasthan is not the same so as to justify the students of each college being treated as the separate category. I have not been able to discern any intelligible differentia which may distinguish the graduates of one particular medical college in Rajasthan from the graduates of the other medical college in Rajasthan so as to justify them being classified into a separate category. The only other ground which has been urged by the respondents to justify the classification of graduates of each medical college into a separate category are the considerations to which the reference has been made by Pathak J. in his concurring judgment in Dr. Jagdish Saran v. University of Delhi (7), viz. the institutional relationship in the matter of post graduate studies. In my opinion, the aforesaid observations of Pathak J. in Dr. Jagdish Saran's cask: (7) have to be read in the light of the facts of that case. that case, reservation had been made in favour of the medical graduates of the Delhi University and the dispute was between the graduates of Delhi University on one side and the medical graduates of the other Universities on the other and the reservation in favour of the medical graduates of the Delhi University was held to be justified on the ground of institutional relationship. In that case, the institutional relationship which was under consideration was the relationship with the Delhi University as an institution. The aforesaid observations of Pathak J. cannot, therefore , be invoked to justify the classification of the graduates of the same University into a separate class on the basis of the colleges from which they have graduated. In that case, the institutional relationship which was under consideration was the relationship with the Delhi University as an institution. The aforesaid observations of Pathak J. cannot, therefore , be invoked to justify the classification of the graduates of the same University into a separate class on the basis of the colleges from which they have graduated. Such a classification of the medical graduates of the same University who have passed the same set of examinations conducted by the same University only on the basis of the college in which they had studied would be impermissible in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore (5) and the State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.S.V. Balram (6). Even it be assumed that graduates of each medical college within the same university can be classified separately. I am of the opinion that the said classification would be invalid because it would have no nexus with the object of the selection viz., selecting the best and most meritorious candidates for post graduate training. The giving of a weightage of 5%, marks to the applicants belonging to the institution in which they are seeking to undergo the post graduate training would result in more meritorious graduates from the other medical colleges in Rajasthan being excluded from consideration and less meritorious students from the same college being selected because as a result of the 5% weightage given under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the impugned guidelines, the applicants belonging to the same college get an advantage of 160 marks over the graduates of the medical colleges in Rajasthan. 32. In Dr. Jagdish Saran's case (7) reference has been made to the recommendations of the Medical Council of India that students for post graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. To the same effect are the provisions contained in Ordinance 278-E of the University which also prescribes that selection for post graduate courses of M.D. and M.S. shall be done strictly on merit judged on the basis of the academic record in the undergraduate courses and further prescribes that academic record in the undergraduate courses means the performance of the candidates at the First. Second and Final M.B.B.S. Examinations taken together. Second and Final M.B.B.S. Examinations taken together. Since all the graduates from all the five medical colleges in Rajasthan appear at the same examinations conducted by the University their comparative merit must be assessed on the basis of the result of the aforesaid examinations only and the addition of 160 marks in favour of the applicants who graduated from the college in which they have applied for post graduate training would only mean that less meritorious graduates of the parent institution would be selected and more meritorious graduates of the other medical college in Rajasthan would be excluded from consideration and thereby the medical graduates of the other medical colleges in Rajasthan would be denied equality of opportunity in the matter of selection for training for post graduate course. Sub clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines dated November 26, 1981 cannot, therefore, be upheld and must be struck down as violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution on India. Since the selections for appointment on the post of Resident House Officers Registrars in the specialities for which the petitioners have submitted their applications, were made on the basis of the guidelines contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines dated November 26, 1981 the said selections and appointments would be liable to be set aside if medical graduates from other medical college in Rajasthan having better academic record than the persons who have been selected and appointed, have been denied selection and appointment in view of the weightage of 5% marks prescribed by sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of para A. 3 of the guidelines, dated November 26, 1981. 33. In the present cases all the petitioners except Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 47 of 1982) are medical graduates from college other than the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan and they can be said to be persons who have been denied the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by virtue of the guidelines contained in sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines, dated November 26, 1981. They are, therefore, entitled to claim that the comparative merit of the petitioners and the persons who have been selected and appointed on the post of Resident House Officers/Registrars should be re-considered after excluding from consideration the impugned guidelines referred to above. Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma is a medical graduate of Medical College, Jammu and Kashmir. He secured admission in the said medical college as a nominee of the Government of Rajasthan under a reciprocal arrangement. In the letter, dated December 16/26, 1980 sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Medical and Health Department Group I to the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, it has been stated that Dr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma should be treated at par with graduates of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, for the purpose of post-graduation (House Job). He has applied for registration in the post-graduate course of M.D. (General Medicine) and for appointment on the post of Registrar at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, but he was not selected. His case is that persons with lesser marks have been selected on account of the weightage of 5% marks given under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the Guidelines dated November 26, 1981. In my opinion if he could he treated at par with the graduates of S M.S. Medical College for the purpose of house job, there is no reason why he should not be treated at par with the graduates of S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur and other Medical Colleges in Rajasthan for the purpose of registration for the post graduate course and for appointment on the post of Registrar. 34. In the result the writ petitions are allowed and Sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines, dated November 26, 1981 is declared as unconstitutional and void for the reason that it is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 34. In the result the writ petitions are allowed and Sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines, dated November 26, 1981 is declared as unconstitutional and void for the reason that it is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is directed that the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur should convene the selection Board for the purpose of reconsidering the applications of the petitioners and that the selection Board should reconsider the said applications of the petitioners after excluding from consideration the guidelines contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Para A. 3 of the guidelines, dated November 26, 1981 and if, on such reconsideration, any of the petitioners is or are found more meritorious than any person or persons who has or have been selected and appointed on the post of Resident House Officer Registrar then the said petitioner or petitioners shall be appointed on the post of Resident House Officer,'Registrar for which he is so selected by revoking the appointment of the person or persons who is or are found to be less meritorious than the aforesaid petitioner or petitioners. The Principal S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, should convene the Selection Board for the purpose of reconsidering the applications of the petitioners within a period of 15 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions. *******