Judgment Kanade J.-By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra for admission to the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra for the year 1982–83. These rules are hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”. 2. The petitioner passed 10th Standard Examination from the Sardar Dastur Girls' High School at Pune in the year 1980. Prior to that, the petitioner was studying in the Terna Public School at Osmanabad upto 10th Standard. After completion of her 10th Standard, the petitioner joined the Marathwada University Area by enrolling herself in Saraswati Bhuvan Science College at Aurangabad and completed her 11th and 12th Standard Examin- ations. At 12th Standard Examination, she secured 75.17 per cent, marks in all subjects. In Biology Group, which consisted of Botany and Zoology subjects, the petitioner secured 81.66 per cent, marks. The Biology Group marks are for the purposes of getting admission to the Medical College. After addition of marks to which the petitioner is entitled for consideration for her admission to the Medical College, the total marks come to 86.06 per cent. The petitioner claims to be the resident of village Patoda in Taluka and District of Osmanabad, which is situated within the Marathwada Univdr-sity Area. After the declaration of results of 12th Standard Examination, the petitioner submitted an application to the Government Medical College at Aurangabad. This application was addressed to Respondent No. 2, who is the Dean of the said Government Medical College at Aurangabad. 3. The Petitioner was informed that in view of rule 2 (bb) of the said rules, she was not entitled to get admission in the said Government Medical College as the said rule provided that the students, who have not passed 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area, are not eligible for taking admission to the medical colleges situated within the jurisdiction of the Marathwada University Area. A printed copy of the said rules is annexed to this petition. A printed copy of the said rules is annexed to this petition. It is contended by the petitioner that rule 2 (bb) of the said rules prohibits the petitioner from making an application for admission to the Medical College and the same violates Article 14 of the Constitution and creates a discrimination between the students passing 10th Standard Examination from the Marathwada University Area and the students passing the said examination from outside the Marathwada University Area. The petitioner further contended in the petition that the said rules are violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended by the petitioner that the said rules are in the nature of mere executive guidelines and they have no force of law and that the said rules are framed by the Government in its executive powers. It is contended that the said rules were not prepublished and the same are not placed before the Houses of Legislature and, therefore, they are unconstitutional and can-not be given effect to unless they acquire a status of law. 4. After filing of this writ petition, an amendment was sought to challenge the said rules on various grounds. In the amended petition, it iscontended that the petitioner has been denied right to get admission in the Medical College merely on the ground that she has not passed 10th Standard Examination and the 12th Standard Examination from the same University Area. It is submitted that the students, who have passed 10th Standard Examination either from the Pune or Nagpur Boards of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and the. 12th Standard Examination from other than the Board of Examinations from where they have appeared and passed* their 10th Standard Examination, are not entitled to get admission by virtue of the said rules. It is alleged that the petitioner is entitled to admission to the Medical College on merits. The students, who have passed 11th and 12th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area have been discriminated without any basis an*d there is no rationale behind the said rule*. According to the petitioner the said discrimination between such students is arbitrary and there is no rationale for such classification having regard to the objects to be achieved by the said rules and, therefore, the said rules are ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner the said discrimination between such students is arbitrary and there is no rationale for such classification having regard to the objects to be achieved by the said rules and, therefore, the said rules are ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the said rules, particularly rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc), are also ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petitioner submitted that the children born to the Government Servants are given a preference, while the children born to the non-Government Servants are denied admission to the Medical College by virtue of the said rules. The children or wards of the Maharashtra State Government servants or the Central Government servants, who are on transfer to the State of Mahara-shtra from outside the State of Maharashtra or are on return from deputa-tion to the State of Maharashtra, could apply for admission to the Medical College even if they have passed S. S. C. or equivalent examination from institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra. It is contended that such a consideration is denied to the children, who are similarly situated. It is further contended that the discrimination contained in rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc) of the said rules is based upon the birth of a person to a particular class of the society. The petitioner also contended that the said rules nowhere spell out as to why and what is the object to be achieved by such discrimination and such discrimination is without any basis or the classifica-tion having no object is illegal, arbitrary, capacious and is ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petitioner also contended that the admission to the Medical College is on open merits for the entire State of Maharashtra and for all the University Areas, namely, Bombay, Pune, Marathwada, Nagpur and Shivaji University. Rule 1 of the said rules prohibits the students seeking admission to the Medical College to make an application to any University in the State, to any Medical College affili-ated to any of the aforesaid Universities, although they are eligible for admis-sion to the Medical College having passed the qualifying examination known as 10+2. Rule 1 of the said rules prohibits the students seeking admission to the Medical College to make an application to any University in the State, to any Medical College affili-ated to any of the aforesaid Universities, although they are eligible for admis-sion to the Medical College having passed the qualifying examination known as 10+2. The petitioner further contended that by virtue of the said rules, the petitioner cannot apply nor is the petitioner eligible for admission to the Medical College or Colleges situated in the jurisdiction of the Universities other than the Marathwada University. According to the petitioner, the said rules, in fact, are in the nature of 100 per cent, reservation in favour of the students passing 12th Standard Examination from the area of that University. The petitioner contended that the said rules prohibiting a student to get admission in other Universities on his merit, or in the nature of 100 per cent, reservation in respect of the open merit, are discriminatory and such a reservation is unfair, unjust and unreasonable, having regard to the object of securing or giving admission to the meritorious students, who have passed 12th Standard Examination from the Maharashtra State Boards of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The petitioner contended that such a 100 per cent, reservation is baseless and has no nexus with, the object of the said rules. It denies equal opportunity to all students, which is guaranteed by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Having regard to the various provisions made in the said rules, the peti-tioner contended that, they are irrational and are based upon unreasonable classification. While admitting that even though the Marathwada Univer-sity Area may be a backward region, but, as every citizen or student resid-ing within the jurisdiction of the Marathwada University Area cannot be treated as economically, socially and educationally backward and such a reservation has no nexus with either the equal opportunity or the test of open merit. While challenging the said rules as having been framed in the exercise of the executive power of the State Government, it is contended that the said rules cannot be given retrospective effect. Rules for admission for the year 1981–82 prescribed eligibility for admission to the Medical Colleges for the students who have passed 11th and 12th Standard Examina-tions from the Marathwada University Area. Rules for admission for the year 1981–82 prescribed eligibility for admission to the Medical Colleges for the students who have passed 11th and 12th Standard Examina-tions from the Marathwada University Area. These rules without any notice have been changed and 10th Standard Examination has been added in the said rules for the year 1982–83. According to the petitioner the said rule adding 10th Standard Examination was not in existence at the time of taking higher secondary education or, at any rate, did not commence at the time of the examination or at the time of the result. The petitioner further contended that giving such retrospective effect to the said rules contravenes the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and, accordingly, the said rules, particularly rule 2 (bb), is liable to be struck down as being unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Lastly, it is contended by the petitioner, having regard to the scheme of education in the State of Maharashtra, which consists of (1) Primary Education, (2) Secondary Education, (3) Higher Secondary Education, and (4) College and/or University Education, that the Primary Education starts from 1st to 4th Standards, Secondary Education from 5th to 10th Standards, Higher Secondary Education consists of 11th and 12th Standards and, thereafter, degree courses of three to four years' duration are prescribed and provided for. The pattern of education in the State of Maharashtra is popularly described as 10+2H+3. The petitioner contended that upto 10th Standard, it is a secondary education ami thereafter there are two years of higher secondary education and three or four years of college or university education.' The pattern of education in Maharashtra is thus divided into compartments. This pattern was adopted by the Government of Maharashtra by virtue of recommendations of several Commissions appointed in that behalf by the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India. The pattern of education in the State is carefully thought out and is adopted throughout India. There is a diversification or bifurcation after having passed 10th Standard. The students in the State of Maharashtra may go to higher secondary education or to other vocational and professional education, suchas, polytechnics, industrial training institutes, diploma in education and so on. There is further diversification provided in the said education pattern. There is a diversification or bifurcation after having passed 10th Standard. The students in the State of Maharashtra may go to higher secondary education or to other vocational and professional education, suchas, polytechnics, industrial training institutes, diploma in education and so on. There is further diversification provided in the said education pattern. After 12th Standard Examination, the students may go for technical education, like engineering, medical, or to arts, science and commerce faculties. According to the petitioner, the said rules framed by* the State Government for admission to the Medical Colleges are contrary to the said scheme adopted by the Government. According to the petitioner, adding the 10th Standard as an eligibility class for admission to the Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area is thus discriminatory, illegal and irrational and is also arbitrary. 5. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 by submitting applica- tion within the prescribed time. The petitioner's application was accepted on July 7, 1982. It is, thereafter, the petitioner was informed that she is not eligible for admission to M.B.B.S. Course at the Medical College, ' Aurangabad/Ambejogai as per admission Rules of 1982–83 Rule No. 2 (bb). Her application on her request has been accepted provisionally. It is on the basis of the said letter dated July 7, 1982,: the petitioner challenged the constitutionality and legality of the said rules framed by the State Government. 6. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the said petition by filing two returns, one on behalf of the State of Maharashtra solemnly affirmed by Deputy Secretary, Gopichand Krishnaji Chandramore dated August 23, 1982, and the other by Respondent No. 2, A. M. Vare, Dean, Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad dated August 17, 1982. It is contended by the respondents that the said rules are based upon a reasonable classi-fication and that there is a clear nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The said rules are not violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. We shall refer to the averments in the said affidavits in the course of our judgment as and when required to be referred to. 7. An application has been filed on behalf of the Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad as Interveners. Shri Govinddas Mannulal Shroff, President of the said organisation, has filed his affidavit in reply to the petition, which is sworn on August 13, 1982. 7. An application has been filed on behalf of the Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad as Interveners. Shri Govinddas Mannulal Shroff, President of the said organisation, has filed his affidavit in reply to the petition, which is sworn on August 13, 1982. All these three affidavits referred to above have tried to make out a case that it is a matter of common knowledge that the Marathwada University Area is economically, socially and educationally a backward area and in order to cater the educational needs of the students of this area, a preference has been given to the students, who have passed 10th, 11th and 12th Standard qualifying Examintions within the Marathwada University Area. According to the Respondents, the classification made by the said rules is a reasonable classification and there is intelligible differentia, which distinguishes the persons, who were left out of that classification and there is a rational nexus to the object set out in the said rules. According to the respondents, the said rules are not unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It is denied by the respondents that the said rules had been given retrospective effect or that the educational system of the State of Maharashtra is in any way impaired by following the procedure set out in the said rules. 8. The said rules were published in, the official Gazette on June 24, 1982 by order and in the name of the Governer of Maharashtra and are authenticated by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Shri S. K. Holkar. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it will be useful to refer to and reproduce the relevant impugned rules, which are as under: - “1. A candidate for admission must submit in writing, in the prescribed form (copy of which can be had from the Director of Medical Education and Research, Government Dental College Building, St. George's Hospital Compound, Bombay, or at any of the Government Medical Colleges, viz. Grant Medical College, Bombay; B J. Medical College, Pune; Medical College, Nagpur; Medical College, Aurangabad; Miraj Medical College, Miraj; Dr. V. M.Medical College, Solapur; Swami Ramanand Tirth Rural Medical College, Ambejogai; and Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur) a single application to the authorities mentioned below. George's Hospital Compound, Bombay, or at any of the Government Medical Colleges, viz. Grant Medical College, Bombay; B J. Medical College, Pune; Medical College, Nagpur; Medical College, Aurangabad; Miraj Medical College, Miraj; Dr. V. M.Medical College, Solapur; Swami Ramanand Tirth Rural Medical College, Ambejogai; and Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur) a single application to the authorities mentioned below. This form must be submitted by registered post or handed over personally, together with a stamped and self-addressed envelope for a reply, so as to reach the authority concerned within fifteen days after the declaration of the result of the qualifying examination or within such period as may be notified “by the Deans of the respective Medical Colleges. Applications received after the prescribed date will not be considered.” The said rule further lays down that the students who have passed the 10+2 examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from one of the Schools/Colleges in Maharashtra State will be eligible for admission to the Medical Colleges mentioned and stated therein. A Note is added to rule (1) which lays down : - “Students who have passed (10+2) examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from Schools/ Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of one university are not to apply nor are they eligible for admission to Medical College or Colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another University. The seat at the Govern-ment Medical Colleges in Maharashtra State except those earmarked for nominees of the Government of India and nominees of Miraj Medical Centre and those mentioned in Rules 6 (a), 6 (f), 6 (f) (i), 6 (f) (ii), 6 (f) (iii), and 6 (f) (iv) below are reserved for the students of the respec-tive University area.” In this petition, we are not concerned with other sub-rules mentioned in rule (1). Rule 2(a) deals with the qualifying examination for admission to the Medical College. It reads:- “2. (a) The qualifying examination for admission to Medical College is (10+2) examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education situated in the State of Maharashtra and shall consist of the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology with Higher English or Lower English as the case may be.” In the said rule 2 (a), a further concession is given to the students with the permission of the Medical Council of India. That concession reads as under:- , “(i) The candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the Pune and Shivaji Universities area must have passedan exami- nation in Mathematics at least of the S. S. C. Standard. (ii) For the candidates from Nagpur, Bombay and Marathwada Universities area, Mathematics of the Standard of Matriculation/S. S. C. is not compulsory.” Then there is rule 2 (b), with which we are not concerned in this petition. It is then the hotly debated rule 2 (bb) comes and it is as under : - “Students passing 10th, 1lth aud 12th standard examinations from Marathwada area will alone be eligible for admission into colleges in Marathwada area.” The other two rules, which are also challenged in the petition, are rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc). They read as under.:- “2 (c) The children or wards of Maharashtra State Government servants who are on transfer to Maharashtra from outside the Maha-rashtra State or are on return from deputation to the Maharashtra State may apply for admission to, the Dean of the Medical College affiliated to the University having jurisdiction over the area in which the Govern-ment servant is posted on transfer/return, even if they have passed their S. S. C. and qualifying examinations from institutions outside the Maharashtra State. However, if the father of the student was serving in the Maharashtra State and his ward could have appeared for S. S. C. examination of, Maharashtra and /or qualifying examination from one of the Universities of the Maharashtra State but has not done so, such student shall not be eligible for this concession. (cc) The Central Government servants transferred to Maharashtra State from outside the State shall have concession of exemption from passing of the S. S. C. examination from Maharashtra State in respect of their children subject to the condition that the child has passed at least qualifying examination as defined in Rule 2 (a). The total number of such children of Central Government servants to be admitted with this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical Colleges. Only such students who are in the merit list of (10 +2) at the respective Medical Colleges will be considered for admission against this seat. The total number of such children of Central Government servants to be admitted with this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical Colleges. Only such students who are in the merit list of (10 +2) at the respective Medical Colleges will be considered for admission against this seat. This rule does not confer the right of reservation for the children of Central Government servants.” The rest of the rules are not material for the purpose of deciding this petition. 9. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the case, it is necessary to see as to whether the impugned rules are valid and they have been properly framed in the exercise of the executive powers, of the State of Maharashtra. It is contended by learned counsel appearing in support of the petition that the impugned rules have no force of law, inasmuch as they are not passed by the Houses of the State Legislature or by the State Govern-ment in the nature of a Subordinate Legislation under any of the enactments. It is conceded by the respondents that the impugned rules have no statutory sanction, but they are enforced in the exercise of the executive powers of the State. It is rather conceded by counsel on either side that under Article 162 of the Constitution, the executive, power of the State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. The extent of the executive power has been clearly mention-ed in the said Article. It is not disputed before us that by Entry No. 25 in List III of Schedule VII, the State Legislature will be competent to legislate in respect of education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of. Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. According to this Entry, in the absence of any legislative enactment or rules or regulations, or ordinances and statutes under the Marathwada University Act, 1974, the executive power of the State shall extend to fram-ing of the rules for admission to the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra. Article 154 of the Constitution la>s down that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Article 154 of the Constitution la>s down that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Accordingly, the said rules have been framed by the State Government and are duly authenticated by.the Deputy Secretary to Govern-ment, Shri S. K. Holkar. In view of these two Articles, we do not find any illegality in framing the said rules by the State Government in the exercise of its executive power as provided by Articles 162 and 154 of the Constitu-tion. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that under the Marathwada University Act, the University had autho-rity in law to frame the necessary rules for the purpose* of admission to the Medical Colleges. A vain search was made by learned counsel to find out such rules relating to granting of admission to the students to the Medical Colleges. There is neither any statute nor ordinance or rules or regulations under the Marathwada University Act, which relates to the admission to the Medical Colleges. Ordinances 180 and 181, passed under the Marathwada University Act, are referred to indicate that the said Ordinances prescribed the mode of admission to the Medical College. We are unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel. The said Ordinances 180 and 181 only speak of admission of the students. Ordinance 180 reads as under:- “A student passing the Second Year of the Junior College/Xllth Standard Examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Higher Secondary Education, shall pay an eligibility certificate fee of Rs. 15/-each before he is admitted to the First Year of the Degree course of this University.” Ordinance 181 deals with fees of the students, who have migrated from the jurisdiction of the statutory Universities. There are no specific rules as to the admission to the Medical College by way of statute, ordinance, rule or regulations under the Marathwada University Act. 10. The second question that falls for consideration is as to whether the State Government will be competent to frame the rules relating to the admission to the Medical Colleges. There are no specific rules as to the admission to the Medical College by way of statute, ordinance, rule or regulations under the Marathwada University Act. 10. The second question that falls for consideration is as to whether the State Government will be competent to frame the rules relating to the admission to the Medical Colleges. As stated above, in the absence of any Legislative enactment or the rules thereunder, the State Government in its executive power could frame such rules, which would not be otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution or any law in existence. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this aspect of law in (Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another v. Union of India and others)1. In the said judgment, it is observed that it is the Central Government which bears the financialburden of running the medical college. It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. The Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on teiritorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. 11. In (Arun Narayan v. The State of Karanataka and another)'2, a Division Bench of that High Court has observed that except where Consti- tution has expressly provided that exercise of executive power in any matter should be under a law enacted by legislature, the executive power of the State would, in the absence of legislation, extend to making rules regulating the action of the executive. But, such rules cannot offend the provisions of the Constitution and should not be repugnant to any legislative enactment of the appropriate legislature. 12. But, such rules cannot offend the provisions of the Constitution and should not be repugnant to any legislative enactment of the appropriate legislature. 12. Similarly, in (A. Murlidhar and others v. The Slate of Andhra Pradesh)3, it is observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that indisputably, it is the primary duty of the Executive to take stock of the educational needs of the people in the State, organise educational activities and lay down a policy in regard thereto in furtherance of the educational advancement of its people. Therefore, if the field is not occupied by a statute, the State Government functions in its executive capacity in that regard. It follows that those G. Os. cannot be regarded to be laws in any sense of the term, nor could they be disregarded on the ground that they lack legislative sanction. In paragraph 18 of the said judgment, it is further observed that it is only matters which are legislative in nature that have to be published. It is axiomatic that every statute or rules having the statutory force ought to be brought to the notice of the people by publication as they are expected to obey the laws But the same cannot be posited with regard to executive or administrative directions unless there is any obligation case on the authorities concerned by any statute or the rules made thereunder. The rules framed by the Governor under Art. 166 of the Constitution do not contemplate publication of the G. Os. Rule 11 which bears on the Govern-ment Orders only require that they shall be “expressed to be made or executed in the name of the Governer”. See (Chanchala v. Slate of Mysore)4. 13. In view of this clear position of law, it is futile to argue that the State Government had no power to frame the rules regarding the admission to the Medical Colleges in the State. Accordingly, the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rules framed by the Government relating to the admission to the Medical Colleges are invalid cannot be accepted. The main challenge of the petitioner is to the constitutional vali-dity of rule (bb) and incidentally they are challenging note to Rule 1. 14. The next submission of Mr. Accordingly, the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rules framed by the Government relating to the admission to the Medical Colleges are invalid cannot be accepted. The main challenge of the petitioner is to the constitutional vali-dity of rule (bb) and incidentally they are challenging note to Rule 1. 14. The next submission of Mr. Deshmukh required to be dealt with is that the objects and reasons to introduce the said rules have not been stated in the said rules and, therefore, the rules are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Shri S. S. Choudhari, learned Government pleader, pointed out that it is not necessary to state in the rules themselves the objects and reasons of the rules framed by the Stale Government in the exercise of its executive power. The objects and reasons coula be explained by affidavits or by placing material on record. While submitting this, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in (Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and others v. Shri Justice S. R, Tendolkar and others)5, and to other rulings of (The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others)6, and (State of Haryana and another v. Chanan Mal and others)7. The contention raised by Shri Deshmukh is not well-founded and there is sufficient material on record to show and explain the objects and reasons for framing the said rules for the year 1982–83. 15. Having considered the legality of the rules framed by the State Government, we now proceed to consider the constitutional validity of the said rules, as argued before us by learned counsel on either side. In the first instance, we will deal with rule 1 with Note thereof, as to whether the same suffers from vice of discrimination and is contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Rule 1 prescribes only the mode of filing an application and the procedure to be followed for making such appli-cation. It further prescribes that the students who have passed 10+2 Standard Examinations of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from one of the Schools/Colleges in Maharashtra State shall be eligible for admission to the Medical Colleges. 10+2 Examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educa-tion is the qualifying examination to make an application for admission to the Medical Colleges. 10+2 Examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educa-tion is the qualifying examination to make an application for admission to the Medical Colleges. The Note added to the said Rule 1 further makes it imperative that the students, who have passed 10+2 Examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from Schools/Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of one University are not to apply nor are they eligible for admission to the Medical College or Colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another University. Exceptions have been made, but the Note emphasises that a student, who have passed 10+2 Examination within the jurisdiction of one University is not eligible to admission to Medical College or Colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another University. The said Note makes a clear classification of students having passed 10+2 Examination within the said University Area. They are prohibited from making an application or seeking admission to a College which is beyond the University Area from where they have passed the quali-fying examination. This Rule 1 with Note is seriously challenged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. We need not elaborately discuss and reason out the rejec-tion of such contention as the same has been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. The University-wise classification has been considered to be reasonable and rational classification and further it is held that there is an intelligible differentia to distinguish the class from the class left out of consideration. It is further observed that there is a rational nexus to the object to be achieved by the said Rules. In Kumari Chitra Ghosh's case, Grover, J., speaking for the Court, observed that if the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. 16. The next question that is to be determined is as to whether thedifferentia on which the classification has been made is a rational differentia and has a rational relation with, the object to be achieved. The main purpose of admission *to a Medical College is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine. 16. The next question that is to be determined is as to whether thedifferentia on which the classification has been made is a rational differentia and has a rational relation with, the object to be achieved. The main purpose of admission *to a Medical College is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine. As noticed before the sources from which students have to be drawn are primarily determined by the authorities who maintain and run the institution, e. g., the State Government in the present case. Relying upon its earlier judgment in P. Rajendran v. State of Madras8, the Supreme Court observed that the object of selection for admission is to secure the best possible material. This can surely be achieved by making proper rules in the matter of selection but there can be no doubt that such selection has to be confined to the sources that are intended to supply the material. If the sources have been classified in the manner done in the pre-sent case it is difficult to see how that classification has no rational nexus with the object of imparting medical education and also of selection for the purpose. 17. Then, in D. N. Chanchala, etc. v. The State of Mysore and others, etc.,, it is observed that a candidate may have the minimum qualification so as to make him eligible for entrance in a particular faculty. That does not mean that his being eligible necessarily makes him entitled to admission in that faculty, for admission can only be commensurate with the number of available seats in such faculty. The Medical Colleges in question are not University Colleges but have been set up and are being maintained by the State Government from out of public funds. Since they are affiliated to one or the other of the Universities in the State, the Government cannot frame rules or act inconsistently with the ordinances or the regulations of the Universities laying down standards of eligibility. ... The 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 in the State. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater the needs of candidates who would naturally look to their own University to advance their training in technical studies. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater the needs of candidates who would naturally look to their own University to advance their training in technical studies. 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 Univer-sities irrespective of the place of his birth or residence. Further, the rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit outsiders upto certain small number of the total available seats in any one of 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 further observed that the fact that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain admission at the cost of another having higher marks from 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 diffe-rent standards in the examinations held by them. 18. In State of Kerala v. Kumari T. P. Roshana and others9, speaking for the Court, Krishna Iyer J. in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment, observed that the sole question that survives is of allocation of seats on a University-wise classification. The corner-stone of classification adopted for medical admissions by the Government was University-wise allocation. By itself, this approach had constitutional sanction having regard to the ratio in Chanchala's case. 19. In Dr. Jagdish Saran and others v. Union of India and others10, it is observed that the conclusion that we reach from this ruling which adverts to earlier precedents on the point is that university-wise preferential treatment may still be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and permit equa- lity in the larger sense. 20. Similarly, in M. R. Mini (Minor) represented by her guardian and father (M. P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala and another)11, the Supreme Court further reiterated that university-wise classification is constitutionally valid. It is observed that if it is held that the university-wise allocation of seats is valid the' misfortune of the petitioner is damnum sine injuria. 20. Similarly, in M. R. Mini (Minor) represented by her guardian and father (M. P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala and another)11, the Supreme Court further reiterated that university-wise classification is constitutionally valid. It is observed that if it is held that the university-wise allocation of seats is valid the' misfortune of the petitioner is damnum sine injuria. It is argued that the meritorious students, who have secured more marks, are denied the right of admission. There are students who have passed their 10th Standard Examination within the Marathwada University Area, but have passed 1lth and 12th Standard Examinations within the other University Area and they suffer a hardship only because they had no educational facility within the Marathwada University Area at the material time. To that, the Supreme Court in M. P. Rajappan's case (supra) observed that every adversity is not an injury. Judicial remedy cannot heal every wound or cure every sore since the discipline of the law keeps Courts within its bounds. 21. All these authorities, referred to above, have held that the Univer- sity-wise classification is not only rational and reasonable, but it has a nexus to the object to be achieved. In Chanchala's case, the Supreme Court made it very clear as to why the university-wise classification is reasonable and intelligible. It has observed that the three universities were set up in three different places, presumably, for the purpose of catering to the educational and academic needs of those areas. Obviously one University for whole of the State could neither have been adequate nor feasible to satisfy those needs. Since it would not be possible to admit all candidates in the medical colleges run by the Government, some basis for screening the candidate had to be set up. There can be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well-settled, that the Government, as also other private agencies, who found such centres for medical training, have their right to frame rules for admission so long as those rules are not inconsistent with the University statutes and regulations and do not suffer from infirmities, constitutional or otherwise. There can be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well-settled, that the Government, as also other private agencies, who found such centres for medical training, have their right to frame rules for admission so long as those rules are not inconsistent with the University statutes and regulations and do not suffer from infirmities, constitutional or otherwise. Since the Universities are 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.... The fact that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain admission at the cost of another having higher marks from another University does not necessarily mean that a less meritoriouscandi-date gets advantage over a more meritorious one. As is well known, different universities have different standards in the examinations held by them. A preference to one attached to one University in its own institutions for post-graduate or technical training is not uncommon. It is further observed in Chanchald's case that the Government which bears the financial burden of running the Government colleges is entitled to lay down criteria for admis-sion in its own colleges and to decide the sources from which admission would be made, provided of course, such classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable connection with the object of the rules. So long as there is no discrimination within each of such sources, the validity of the rules laying down such sources cannot be successfully Challenged. 22. So long as there is no discrimination within each of such sources, the validity of the rules laying down such sources cannot be successfully Challenged. 22. In view of these authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is too late to urge that the university-wise classification is not a reasonable classification or that there is no intelligible differentia to distinguish the persons left out of consideration and that there is no rational nexus with the object to be achieved. 23. It is necessary, at this stage, to consider rule 2 (bb) in a somewhat different and detailed manner, as the main challenge, as observed by us, is to this rule. The policy of the State appears to be that the students, who have passed 10th Standard Examination from the Marathwada University Area, are presumed to be normal residents of that area. The Marathwada University Area seems to have been taken to be educationally and economi- cally backward area by the State Government. It is common knowledge that Kokan and Marathwada Areas are backward areas in the State of Maharashtra. The affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government and by the Dean of the Medical College, i.e., Respondent No. 2, and also by the Intervener, Shri Shroff, make it very clear that the Marathwada University Area is educationally, socially and culturally backward area. Shri Shroff, who is the President of the Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad -the Intervener-in his affidavit has stated that prior to the reorganisation of the States, Marathwada region was a part of erstwhile Hyderabad State and till Police Action of 1948 it was under Nizam's rule. It was then a neglected area and little attempt was made for its socio-economic or educational development under the feudal regime. The affidavit further states that on the eve of the Police Action in 1948, there was only one Intermediate College in the whole of the region, situated at Aurangabad, admitting only very limited number of students. There were only few High Schools at District places, and still less at some of the Taluka places. The literacy percentage as per 1951 Census was 9.00%. It is only after Police Action that some fillip was given to the educational development. There were only few High Schools at District places, and still less at some of the Taluka places. The literacy percentage as per 1951 Census was 9.00%. It is only after Police Action that some fillip was given to the educational development. Attempts were made to establish fullfledged Colleges and demands were made for the establishment of professional colleges of Law, Medicine, Engineer-ing, Agriculture and Education, as also for the establishment of University for the region. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the year 1956 the Medical College at Aurangabad was established. Only 40 students were allowed to be admitted. After the completion of their studies in Anatomy and Physiology, for two years, the first two batches of the years 1956–57 and 1957–58 had to proceed to Nagpur for the completion of their further studies, as by then Marathwada region had already become part of bilingual State of Bombay. During the year 1958, on 23rd August 1958, Marathwada University was established and the Medical College also became fullfledged College and was affiliated to Marathwada University. To begin with, there were 4 Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges and 5 other Colleges, with 3069 students in all. In the year 1961, the number of seats of this college was raised to 60 and thereafter to 100 in the year 1963. But then, students from Marathwada had to face a new problem. At that time, admissions to the Medical Colleges were pooled at the State level and seats were allocated to the students of different Universities in proportion to the students appear-ing for pre-professional examination in the 'B' Group. As such the number of students studying in the colleges with Science faculty being very small (about 3 to 4% of students), the number of seats which could be allotted to the Marathwada University (let alone population proportion) was even far less than the total seats in the Aurangabad Medical College, i. e., 40/60. A representation was, therefore, made in the year 1961–62 to the then Hon'ble Minister for Health Shri Talyarkhan and the Government of Maha-rashtra, and as a result of that, it was decided that all the seats in the Medical Colleges affiliated to Marathwada University will be filled in by the students of that University. A representation was, therefore, made in the year 1961–62 to the then Hon'ble Minister for Health Shri Talyarkhan and the Government of Maha-rashtra, and as a result of that, it was decided that all the seats in the Medical Colleges affiliated to Marathwada University will be filled in by the students of that University. Accordingly, from the year 1962–63, and on-wards, all the seats (except Government of India seats) in Aurangabad Medical College were allotted to the students of the Marathwada University on the basis of merit. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, it is further stated that again with the new method of University-wise allocation of seats, the students of Marathwada had to face another problem. Number of students from adjoining Andhra and Maharashtra area, just came for one year and joined pre-professional classes of Marathwada University Colleges and began to get considerable number of seats in the Aurangabad Medical College and this was about 7.5% and in effect that was further reduced by the admissions of students from outside the region. The Government, there-fore, laid down that the student who could be admitted to the Medical Colleges, should be one passing Matriculation of Maharashtra Board of Secondary Education and should have studied in the University concerned for Pre-University (P. U. C.) and Pre-Professional (P. P. C.) classes. That considerably lessened the number of students from outside the region. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said affidavit, it is further stated that it was stipulated that the student should have passed Xllth Higher Secondary Board Examination from the Schools and Colleges falling within the area under the jurisdiction of University concerned. The stipulation of only one year of XIIth class, threw again wide open the doors for students from outside the region to come and join colleges in Marathwada. Two years ago, in June 1980, when it was found that about 20% seats were going to the students from outside the region, who had studied only for one year for the XIIth class, there was agitation and stir amongst the students of Marathwada. The matter was again taken up with the Government and it was decided to admit only students who have passed 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th from the Schools and Junior Colleges of the University Area be admitted. That was announced on the floor of the Assembly by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The matter was again taken up with the Government and it was decided to admit only students who have passed 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th from the Schools and Junior Colleges of the University Area be admitted. That was announced on the floor of the Assembly by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra. But, that could not be put into effect, without framing necessary rules, and again there was the question of students from outside the region, who had already taken admission and passed the 12th Examina-tion. So the department decided to allot all the regular seats of both the Colleges in Marathwada to the students ofMarathwada while accommodat-ing the eligible students from outside the region by way of creation of additional seats. Accordingly about 27 seats during the year 1980–81 and about 18 seats in 1981–82 were additionally created and outside students were accommodated. It was in May/June, 1982, that the new rules were framed and notified stipulating that the students to be admitted to the Medical Colleges in Marathwada should have passed 10th, 11th and 12th from the Schools and /or Colleges of this University area, in other words, from the Aurangabad Regional Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. In paragraphs 19 and 20, the affidavit further states that total number of medical seats in Maharashtra is 1635 (inclusive of 200 seats of Armed Forces Medical Colleges and 60 Seats of Sevagram Medical College) while the number of seats in both the colleges of Marathwada is 150, i. e., seats available for the students of Marathwada practically comes to only 9% while its population is about 16% of the State. Any further reduction by way of influx of students from outside Marathwada would be seriously jeopardising the interests of the students of Marathwada. The situation, Therefore, clearly calls for serious consideration, greater protection and differential treatment. As to the problem of students who had already taken admission to 11th and 12th classes prior to the framing of these rules, should not be adversely affected inasmuch as they relied on the norms of admission then existing. This may be done by providing for them additional seats as it was done during the years 1980–81 and 1981–82. 24. Similar is the statement made by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, Shri G. K. Chandramore. This may be done by providing for them additional seats as it was done during the years 1980–81 and 1981–82. 24. Similar is the statement made by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development and Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, Shri G. K. Chandramore. In paragraph 3 of this affidavit, it is stated that prior to 1948, the Marathwada area was the part of Hyderabad State which was a Princely State. This Marathwada University area originally comprised of five districts; namely, Aurangabad, Parbhani, Beed, Osmanabad and Nanded. With the formation of Jalna and Latur now, this area comprises of seven districts. During the regime of Nizam, there was hardly any development in this area and the people were backward socially, culturally and economically. No attempts were made towards the develop-ment of the masses of this area during that period. This area was pre-dominantly rural and there was no industrial growth. Prior to 1950, there was only one College in the Marathwada University area that too upto Intermediate at Aurangabad. In or about the year 1950* two more colleges were started one at Aurangabad and the other at Nanded. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Deputy Secretary further stated that as far as the history of the Medical College is concerned, the Medical College at Aurangabad was started in the year 1956 with 40 seats. In the beginning, it was not a fullfledged College and it was confined only to first M.B.B.S., i.e., Anatomy and Physiology subjects. After the completion of first M. B. B. S., the students of this Medical College were required to go to Nagpur for their further studies. A fullfledged Medical College was established at Auranga-bad only in the year 1963. In the Medical College at Aurangabad, there are only 100 seats and 50 seats are at Ambajogai and, therefore, the present position of 150 seats is for the Medical studies in the Marathwada Univer-sity area. While dealing with the impugned rules, the Deputy Secretary has given the whole history as to how the rules time and again changed. It is further stated by the Deputy Secretary that when the corrected marks of the last candidate admitted in the year 1980–81 at Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area compared to those with the Pune University, it is seen that there is a difference of 13 marks between the two. It is further stated by the Deputy Secretary that when the corrected marks of the last candidate admitted in the year 1980–81 at Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area compared to those with the Pune University, it is seen that there is a difference of 13 marks between the two. For the year 1981–82, there is a difference of 12 marks, whereas for the year 1982–83, it is likely to come to 10 marks. This difference of 10 to 13 marks is likely to affect about 70 to 80 students. With regard to rule 2 (bb) of the said' rules, the Deputy Secretary stated that rule2(bb), therefore, Has been framed to protect the interests of the students from the Marathwada Univer-sity Area. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the Deputy Secretary stated that at the time of admission in the year 1980–81, it was pointed out by the students and the public of Marathwada University Area that large number of students are coming from outside Marathwada University Area, with the sole purpose of obtaining admission to the Medical Colleges in this area. These students pass their 10th from outside Marathwada University. Area and come to this area for doing only 11th and 12th or only 12th so that they become eligible for admission into the Medical Colleges in this area, thereby seriously affecting the chances of the students from this area. They demanded that only those students who pass their 10th, 11th and 12th from this area should be admitted to the Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area and those who have passed their 10th from outside should not be considered. It is further stated by the Deputy Secretary that since those students who have passed 10th from outside and 12th from this University area were eligible for admission as per the existing rules, they could not be denied admissions, and hence the Government decided to create 27 extra seats in the year 1980–81 to accommodate those students. Again in the year 1981–82, Government had to create 22 extra seats to accommodate such students. For the year 1982–83, applications from 43 such students have been received. For creating the additional seats, the Government had to obtain the permission from Medical Council of India, New Delhi. Again in the year 1981–82, Government had to create 22 extra seats to accommodate such students. For the year 1982–83, applications from 43 such students have been received. For creating the additional seats, the Government had to obtain the permission from Medical Council of India, New Delhi. Medical Council of India is very reluctant to grant any increase in the number of existing seats unless there is a need and unless the prescrib-ed norms are fulfilled. Therefore, it is difficult for the State Government to obtain permission for additional seats every year. In justifying rule 2(bb) of the said rules, the Deputy Secretary further stated in the affidavit that because of this continuous state of affairs, rule 2 (bb) has been introduced to make only those students eligible for admission to the Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area who pass their 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations from this area only and further there is every likeli-hood that they would establish in this area only. It is possible that they may serve the predominantly rural masses if they enter into practice. There is every possibility that they will establish their practice in this area only. Students coming from other University areas come with a motive to get a Medical degree and in all possibility are likely to return back to their area and seek the means of livelihood there. By a continuous stay for a period of 8 to 9 years, in this area, there is a strong possibility that these students would establish in this area only. 25. Similar is the affidavit given by Respondent No. 2-the Dean of the Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad. 26. From this data and the material placed on record, it can be safely said that there is a reason and rationale to introduce rule 2(bb), so that the interest of the students, who are socially, educationally and culturallybackward, are safeguarded and in the eventuality of their getting qualified, they would serve the people residing in the Marathwada University Area. We do find, on the basis of the material placed on record, that there is a reasonable classification introduced by rule 2 (bb) of the said rules and there is a nexus with the object to be achieved. We do find, on the basis of the material placed on record, that there is a reasonable classification introduced by rule 2 (bb) of the said rules and there is a nexus with the object to be achieved. The Supreme Court in a number of cases, as referred to above, has observed that the classification on territorial, geographical or universitywise basis is a reasonable classification and there is a rational and reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. In our view, the contention raised by the petitioner that rule 2 (bb) of the said rules is violative of Articles f4 and 15 of the Constitution is not well-founded. 27. Then it is argued that by introducing the said rules for the year 1982–83, the State Government had denied the right to get admission not only to the Marathwada University Area, but to any other University in the State of Maharashtra and thereby principle of equality of opportunity has been denied to the petitioner which is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is true that a hardship has been caused to the students, who qualified them- selves for admission to the Medical Colleges while passing 10+2 Standard Examinations within the Marathwada University Area. As per rule 1 and Note added to it, they are not entitled to get admission to any other Univer- sity in the State of Maharashtra. This anomaly has been created by rule 2 (bb). So fas as the Courts are concerned, it has got to see whether the rule is constitutionally valid and the Courts have no right to interfere with the policy of the State while framing the rules for admission to the Medical Colleges. But, it is rather unfortunate that very few students, may be 10 to 15, are affected by the said rules and in the interest of fair play and proper opportunities, it is hoped that the State Government will consider their cases and increase the number of seats at Aurangabad or the students, who are not able to get admission in the Medical Colleges situated in the Marathwada University Area, are pooled together and are divided into five Universities providing two or more seats in each of such Universities. It is earnestly hoped that the Government of Maharashtra will sympathetically consider the cases of those students, who are deprived of admission to the Medical Colleges in the Marathwada University Area. 28. It is then argued that the impugned rules had caused great hard-ship to the students, because the said rules have been given retrospective effect. What is urged before us is that the students, who appeared for 11th and 12th Standard Examinations within the Marathwada University Area, could not know that such a rule would be coming into force in the year 1982–83. Otherwise they would have appeared for these examinations from the University Area from which they passed 10th Standard Examination or they would have appeared for 10th in Marathwada University Area. It is further argued that the students who have qualified themselves for admission to Medical College having passed 10+2 examinations have been denied the admission on the ground that they had not passed their 10th Standard Exa-mination within the Marathwada University Area. In our view, it is a misnomer to call the said rules to be retrospective. It appears from the record that every year or for a group of years, rules have been framed for admission by the State Government. In the year 1957, admissions were granted once a year only at the Medical Colleges mentioned in rule 1. In the beginning of the academic year, all the seats of the Government and non-Government Medical Colleges in Bombay State, except certain reserved seats, were pooled together and we;e distributed University-wise on the basis of number of students that appeared for the Inter-Science ('B' Group) Exam ination of different Universities in the Bombay State. In the year 1959, in allotting seats to different Universities in a particular College, the general principle was that the students of a particular University were first to be accommodated in the Medical College/Colleges attached to that particular University, but if sufficient number of seats required to fulfil the quota of that University were not available in the College /Colleges concerned, then the surplus number of such students were to be admitted to some other Medical College/Colleges. Tin effect, the pooling together of the students was followed in the year 1959. In the year 1960–61, there was change in the rules for admission to the Medical Colleges. Tin effect, the pooling together of the students was followed in the year 1959. In the year 1960–61, there was change in the rules for admission to the Medical Colleges. In rule 2 of the rules for the year 1960–61, the admissions were granted once a year only at the Medical College mentioned in rule 1 in the beginning of the academic year. Except at Aurangabad, where all the seats were earmarked for the students of the Marathwada University, all the seats at the rest of the above Government and non-Government Medical Colleges in Maharashtra State except certain reserved seats were pooled together and distributed between the Bombay, Poona and Nagpur Universities, universitywise on the basis of the number of students that appeared for the qualifying examination of these Universities for the purposes of admission of the students of the respective Universities. Again, in the rules for admission for the years 1963–64 and 1968–69, some changes were made. However, the Marathwada University Area was excluded for the purpose of admission to the students coming from outside the Marathwada University Area. In the rules for admission for the year 1981–82, a universitywise classification was made and the qualifying exa-mination of 10–1-2 of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from one of the Schools/Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of Marathwada University Area was prescribed. It is in the year 1982–83 that 10th standard Examination is added for the first time for the Marathwada University Area. The rules for the year 1982–83 cannot be said to be retrospective, but they are prospective. Eligibility for admission to the Medical College is prescribed by the said rules for admission for the year 1982–83. It has nothing to do with the retrospective operation of the said rules. The distinction between qualifying examination and eligibility for admission to the Medical College has to be appreciated. Eligibility for admission to the Medical College for the year 1981–82 was of 10+2 Examina-tion held by the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, whereas eligibility for making an application for admission to the Medical College for the year 1982–83 is 10th standard and 10+2. It is in this view, it is difficult to say that the said rules have been given retrospective effect. The admissions to the students can be on the basis of eligibility forgetting admission after passing the qualifying examination. It is in this view, it is difficult to say that the said rules have been given retrospective effect. The admissions to the students can be on the basis of eligibility forgetting admission after passing the qualifying examination. What is urged before us by Shri B. N. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that a student has got a vested right to get admission in the Medical College and if such a right is affected by the operation of the impugned rules, then that vested right of the student is nullified by the rules themselves. We are unable to accept this submission. In the first instance, to get admission tothe Medical College is not a vested right. If this submission of Shri Deshmukh is accepted, then, it will have to be accepted that a student of 1st or 5th Standard will have a vested right to get admission to the Medical College. In the matter of admission to educational institutions, nobody can claim vested right. Secondly, the doors are open for admission after passing the qualifying examination and that too on obtaining certain percentage of marks. It is a contingent right to secure admission, other things being equal. As stated above, the right to get admission to the Medical College is a prospective right and not a vested right. Shri Deshmukh relied upon a passage from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th edn., page 216, which reads as under :- “Before the presumption against retrospectivity is applied, a court must be satisfied that the statute is in fact retrospective. In the words of Craies on Statute Law, 6th Ed., p. 386, a statute is retrospective 'which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past.' “Shri Deshmukh emphasised on the words “vested right acquired under exist-ing laws”. On the other hand, Shri N. P. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener, pointed out a passage from Craies on Statute Law, 7th ed., p. 389, which reads as under: - “A statute is to be deemed to be retrospective, which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past. But a statute 'is not pro-perly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing.' “ Now, what is urged by Shri Chapalgaonkar is that the rules can be said to have been retrospective had the students, who sought admission in the year 1981–82, have been dislodged because of the rules framed in the year 1982–83. Nothing of this kind has taken place, since the students, who sought admis-sion in the year 1981–82, could be said to have acquired a vested right to continue their education till the completion of the course. Their rights are not affected by the creation of the rules for the year 1982–83. In support of this contention, Shri Chapalgaonkar relied upon Master Ladies Tailors Organisation and another v. Minister of Labour and National Service12. In the said case, under section 10 of the Wages Councils Act, 1945, the Minister of Labour was empowered to make orders giving effect to proposals submit-ted by a wages council established under the Act for fixing remuneration for work and holiday remuneration of workers in respect of whom the council operated, as from such date as may be specified in the order, which must be a date subsequent to that of the making of the order. On July 25, 1949, the Minister made a holiday remuneration order for workers engaged in whole-sale mantle and costume making, which came into force on August 15, 1949. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the new order provided : “When a worker ceases to be employed after the provisions of this schedule become effective, accrued holiday remuneration shall, immediately on the termination of the employment, be paid to him by his employer in accordance with the next following paragraph. . . .” and by para 9 “holiday remuneration shall accrue to a worker during the period of twelve months commencing on May 1, 1948, and thereafter in each successive period of twelve months commencing on May 1, and such remuneration shall accrue in accordance with the provisions of a table which specified twice the normal wage if an employee had worked for forty-eight weeks and a diminishing proportion of that sum for lesser periods”. It is held that the said provision purported to confer on workers remuneration not merely measured by, but in respect of, employment before the order became effective and thus imposed on the employers liabilities which had accrued in respect of antecedent employment. It is further held that the effect of the provisions relating to accrued remuneration being merely to determine and limit the quantum of payments to be made after the order came into force, the order could not be construed as having a retrospective operation and was held valid.. There is much force in the contention of Shri Chapalgaonkar that the rules for the year 1982–83 cannot be termed as retrospective, but they operate prospectively. Vested right not being impair-ed anyway by the operation of the said rules of 1982–83, it would be misnomer to call the said rules as being operative retrospectively. 29. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari N. Vasundara v. The State of Mysore and another13. The Supreme Court was dealing with a rule promulgated in the year 1970 by the State of Mysore relating to the admission of the students to the Medical Colleges. Rule 3, which was under consideration of the Supreme Court, runs as under :- “No person who is not a citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to the date of the application for a seat, shall be eligible to apply: Provided that this provision shall not apply (a) in the case of persons applying for seats referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, (b) in the case of children of Central Government employees serving on duty in the State on the date of making the appli-cation and (c) in the case of children of Mysore Government employees including children of members of All India Services* borne on the Mysore State Cadre who-...” Now, the said selection rules were promulgated on July 4, 1970, and the eligibility for admission to the Medical College was ten years residence in the State of Mysore. That rule was accepted by the Supreme Court as valid. That rule was accepted by the Supreme Court as valid. As a matter of fact, the rule laid down a condition that the person must be resident of Mysore State for a period of ten years. Such a rule, prima facie, appears to be defeating the right of those students who have passed quali-fying examination within the State of Mysore, as the condition was of domi-cile for ten years in that area. The eligibility for admission was set back to a period of say five to seven years. Had the said rule 3 been retrospectively operative, the Supreme Court would have struck down the same as the same affected the rights of the students who were seeking admission to the Medical College. Shri Deshmukh urged that this point was not raised in the Supreme Court in the said case and, therefore, this authority is not a relevant one for the purpose of deciding as to whether the said rules are operative retrospectively or prospectively. We are unable to accept this submission. Had there been a vested right in the students to get admission to the Medical College, then the Supreme Court would have definitely struck down the said rule without a point being raised to that effect. It is not correct to say that the Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the point raised by Shri Deshmukh in the present case. It must be held that it was very much present in the minds of the Judges while deciding that case, where the eligibility for admission to the Medical College was set back for a period of certain number of years. By virtue of that rule, the students, who had passed their qualifying examination, were denied the right to get admission to the Medical College merely on the ground that they were not domiciled in the State of Mysore. Vasundara's case (supra) further makes it clear that there is no vested right in the students to get an admission to the Medical College and the said rules, therefore, as to the admission to the Medical Colleges cannot be said to be retrospective in operation. 30. Then, we turn to another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said rules amount to a 100 per cent reservation for the students, who have passed their 10th, 11th and T2th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area. 30. Then, we turn to another submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said rules amount to a 100 per cent reservation for the students, who have passed their 10th, 11th and T2th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area. Shri Deshmukh contended that it is a kind of reservation for the Marathwada University Area students and it is 100 per cent. reservation. It is argued by him that reservation can be made under the rules only under sub-clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution and there could not be any reservation in the open merit case, but, in the instant case, 100 per cent. reservation has been made in the open merit case for the students passing 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area. We are unable to agree with the submission that Rule 2(bb) of the said rules makes 100 per cent. reservation. Rule 2(bb) has only extended the eligibility terms for getting admission to the Medical College. It was 10+2 Standard Examinations, which has been extended by one more class, i. e.,10th Standard, as having passed within the Marathwada University Area. We are not concerned in the present case with the reser-vation provided under sub-clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Word 'reservation' has acquired a technical meaning and such a technical reserva-tion is permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Here, we are not concerned with the said kind of reservation. Reservation, meaning thereby, a preference to a section of society to the exclusion of others, who a?e part of the said society. In the instant case, qualifying examination is same for all and there is no exclusion of any one class as such, which can be said to have been reserved. Rule 2(bb) contemplates a reasonable classification to give opportunity to the students who have passed 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations within the Marathwada University Area. It is more or less the same principle as reserving seats on University-wise basis. Eligibility for admission to the Medical College is something different than the qualify-ing examination to be passed for the said course. There is no exclusion of any one from the category of persons falling within the ambit of Rule 2(bb). It is more or less the same principle as reserving seats on University-wise basis. Eligibility for admission to the Medical College is something different than the qualify-ing examination to be passed for the said course. There is no exclusion of any one from the category of persons falling within the ambit of Rule 2(bb). If there is no exclusion and the said rule is applicable to one and all, who are seeking admission to the Medical College, then it cannot be said that 100 per cent. reservation has been carved out under the said rule. We are unable to appreciate the argument that Rule 2(bb) makes 100 per cent. reservation for the students passing their 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations within the Marathwada University Area. We are supported in this view by the Supreme Court in T. P. Roshana's case. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court, in paragraph 27 of the judgment, observed :- “The Calicut Medical College and the Calicut University were creat-ed as the purpose-oriented mechanisms for progressive elimination of educational backwardness in the territory. This objective would be ful-filled if the entire number of seats of the Calicut Medical College were exclusively made the entitlement for eligible students from Colleges affiliat-ed to that University. A further slice knifed out of the cake would spell reversal of policy.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is also the policy of the State of Maharashtra to make provisions for the students, who have passed 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations to become eligible for admission to the Medical. Colleges. That being not unconstitutional, it is not for us to comment on the said policy. It is in this view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept that Rule 2(bb) of the said rules makes 100 per cent. reservation for the students passing 10th, 11th and 12th Standard Examinations from the Marathwada University Area and, therefore, is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The conten-tion raised by Shri Deshmukh, accordingly, cannot be accepted. 31. It is then argued by Shri Deshmukh that the State Government is precluded from enforcing rule 2 (bb) on the ground of promissory or equit-able estoppel. We are unable to appreciate this submission. There was no representation whatsoever made by the State Government that the students will get admission to the Medical Colleges if they qualify themselves for getting admission. It is then argued by Shri Deshmukh that the State Government is precluded from enforcing rule 2 (bb) on the ground of promissory or equit-able estoppel. We are unable to appreciate this submission. There was no representation whatsoever made by the State Government that the students will get admission to the Medical Colleges if they qualify themselves for getting admission. No promise was held out. The students, who sought admission to 11th and 12th Standards, had not come to the Marathwada University Area in order to act upon a promise made by the State Govern-ment. There was no negative promise also. The change in rules is to detriment of the interest of the students is also not pleaded in the petition filed. As a matter of fact, plea of promissory or equitable estoppel is not at all raised in the petition. Such a plea is always to be pleaded in the pleadings. In the absence of such a plea* by the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner now to raise a plea of promissory or equitable estoppel. Shri Deshmukh relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this High Court (consisting of Dharmadhikari and Kurdukar, JJ.) in Chandrashekhar Mahadev Deshpande, etc. v. The State and others etc.14. The said petitions were connected with admission to the Engineering Colleges. The Division Bench held, “ On the contrary we have already pointed out that suchclassification can be termed as reasonable classification and is not wholly arbitrary.” In paragraph 10 of the said judgment, it is further observed, “In the view which we have taken, though it cannot be held that the rules are bad in law or otherwise illegal, nor it can be said that the said rules are violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, still obviously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will have to be held that the Government is estopped from enforcing the said rules for the academic year 1982–83, “ While making the above observations, the Division Bench of this Court found that some promise was made to the students that they will get 15 marks in all subjects in case they joined technical schools or diploma courses. In the present rule, for admission to Engineering College, that concession seems to have been withdrawn and had been made applicable only to certain subjects. The Division Bench held that the State Government had made a representation to the students and a concession was offered and on the basis of such concession, or offer, the students sought, admission to the technical colleges or diploma courses. Such concession or offer was withdrawn in respect of certain subjects. In that respect the Court held that the said rule can be said to have affected detrimentally to the interest of the students. Accordingly, it is ruled that the said rules were not enforceable for a period of one year. The facts are quite different and distinguishable so far as the present case before us is concerned. In the case before us, there was no representation whatsoever made by the State Government and it is not on the basis of the said representation made by the State Government that the students were induced to opt for science subjects in Marathwada University Area and the State Government, therefore, has not done anything detrimental to the interests of the students while introduc-ing rule 2 (bb) of the said rules. In our view, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, it is not helpful to the petitioner to substantiate the submission that the principle of promis-sory or equitable estoppel will operate. 32. Shri V. B. Patil, learned counsel appearing in support of a peti- tion based on similar contentions, vehemently argued that his right to get admission to the medical college is not only ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15, but is also hit by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. We are unable to appreciate this submission. To get admission to an educational institution cannot be said to be a trade, business, profession or occupation and, there- fore, the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) are not attracted to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, this contention requires to be mentioned only to be rejected. 33. Before parting with this judgment, we must also refer to rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc). A concession has been given to the Government employees, who have been posted in the State of Maharashtra, although they do not belong to the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, this contention requires to be mentioned only to be rejected. 33. Before parting with this judgment, we must also refer to rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc). A concession has been given to the Government employees, who have been posted in the State of Maharashtra, although they do not belong to the State of Maharashtra. Either they are on deputation or otherwise transfer- red to the State of Maharashtra. Their children, who have passed 10+2 exa- minations outside the State, have been given a concession to make an applica- tion irrespective of bar of rule 1 with Note and rule 2(bb). In our view, that is also a most reasonable classification and there is intelligible differentia in respect of the class of employees, who have been posted from outside the State of Maharashtra. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not given us sufficient data to know as to how many students, who belong to category men- tioned in rules 2 (c) and 2 (cc), are admitted. If they were admitted to the Medical College under these rules, they ought to have been made parties to the proceedings. In absence of such information and joinder of such parties, if any, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. But one thing must be made clear that, in the present rules, the State Government employees have been totally ignored. It is possible that an employee of the State Government may be transferred every year to three different Univer- sities areas in this State itself. In such a situation, the children of such class will not get admission to any of the Universities in the State of Maharashtra. Apparently, there is injustice to the State Government employees. We may specifically refer to the fact that there are four such writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.363-A of 1982, Writ Petition No. 367-A of 1982, Writ Petition No. 374-A of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 386-A of 1982. These are all cases filed by the children of Maharashtra State Government emplo-yees. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government and the authorities concerned that the cases of such students will be considered, if they are found eligible to get admission to the Medical Colleges on merits. These are all cases filed by the children of Maharashtra State Government emplo-yees. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government and the authorities concerned that the cases of such students will be considered, if they are found eligible to get admission to the Medical Colleges on merits. There is an omission on the part of the State Government in taking into consideration the kind of cases that have arisen, as a result of introduction of rule 2 (bb) of the said rules. Since there is no rule, the Court is not called upon to comment upon that, but, certainly, the Court will be justified in hoping that the entitlement of such student for admission to the Medical College, will not be overlooked and the same will not fall on deaf ears and the authorities concerned shall consider their cases and facility of admission is provided to them either by increasing the seats at Aurangabad or by accommodating them in any other Universities wherever possible. 34. In the result, this Writ petition deserves to. be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. Rule stands discharged. Interim order as to the provi-sional admission given by this Court stands vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs of this petition. Writ petition dismissed. -----