ORDER 1. Dr. Ram Sharan Srivastava having passed M.B.B.S. examination from Maharani Lakshmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, and thereafter having done internship from a hospital in Varanasi, applied for admission in the year 1981 in M.D. (Physiology) in the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, which is a two years course. He was admitted on 2nd Feb. 1981. On 30th Nov. 1981, the petitioner applied to the Director of the aforesaid Institute for admission in M.D. (Psychiatry). The petitioner met the Director who informed him that the petitioner could not be admitted to M.D. course in Psychiatry because there were only two seats in that course which were to be filled by two internal candidates, viz. Dr. N.K. Dhar and Dr. Pawan Kumar. The petitioner's medicine index was 51.84% whereas the indexes of Dr. N.K. Dhar and Dr. Pawan Kumar were 51.7% and 38% respectively. Being advised that the admission to postgraduate courses was on merits, the petitioner sent a letter to the Director, Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, setting forth his claim for the admission in M.D. (Psychiatry). He pointed out that the Ordinances for the Institute of Medical Sciences did not prescribe any reservation of preference for internal candidates, hence any decision which might be taken contrary to the aforesaid Ordinance by the Post Graduate Medical Board of the Institute framing rules for admission to post-graduate course was illegal. In this letter, the petitioner also pointed out that the reservation made for internal students contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner since was not admitted, he felt aggrieved and has filed the present writ for mandamus directing respondent 2 to admit the petitioner to M.D. course in Psychiatry and also a writ of certiorari has been claimed for quashing the rules framed by Post Graduate Medical Board to the extent that they gave preference to internal candidate. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the writ petition, to which a rejoinder has also been filed. In the counter affidavit, the decision of respondent 2 not to appoint the petitioner has been justified on various grounds, including that the Rule framed by the Post Graduate Medical Board of the Institute was neither against the Ordinances nor was the same against Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. In the counter affidavit, the decision of respondent 2 not to appoint the petitioner has been justified on various grounds, including that the Rule framed by the Post Graduate Medical Board of the Institute was neither against the Ordinances nor was the same against Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Two points were urged before us in support of the writ petition. The first was about the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the petitioner has a fundamental right to get admission in M.D. Course according to the Rules applicable for such a purpose. Counsel urged that Post Graduate Medical Board could not have framed any rule for admission reserving the same exclusively for internal candidates, which denied consideration of the applications made by others to the post graduate course for admission. Counsel submitted that merit alone should be the consideration for admission to post graduate course. Any other consideration was likely to be against the interest of general public as persons of less merits could be taken in preference to those who are more meritorious. 5. University wise reservation consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India ( AIR 1980 SC 820 ). However, it has been further observed in this case that the preferential treatment should be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct imbalance of handicap and permit equality in larger sense. This decision was said to have been departed as urged by Sri Markanday Katju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in Charles K. Sakaria v. C. Mathew ( AIR 1980 SC 1230 ). In this case, the scheme of reservation provided for only 2% of the total seats in the post graduate course in medicine for candidates in the whole University, outside the two universities of the State. The Supreme Court observed that 2% reservations was not sufficient fulfilment of Articles 14 and 15. In that connection, the observations further were that 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. It is, however, not correct to say that Dr. Jagdish Saran's case (supra) has been departed from. In that connection, the observations further were that 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. It is, however, not correct to say that Dr. Jagdish Saran's case (supra) has been departed from. In fact, Charles K. Sakaria's case had been decided by two Judges whereas Jagdish Saran's case was a decision of three learned Judges. 6. There can be no dispute that reservation of seats on arbitrary considerations would be illegal, being against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In making provisions for admission to post graduate classes, some reservation can be made on the Kasis of University, but that should not deprive others altogether who are more meritorious. 7. In the instant case, we feel difficult in accepting the argument for reasons more than one. The Institution of Medical Sciences, Benaras Hindu University, is a Central University. It is a matter of common knowledge that this University attracts students from all over India. It is not a State University. The considerations applicable to a State University for deciding the question of equality would be different from those applicable to the Central University. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner has not brought all the facts and figures before us which could justify striking off the decision of the Post Graduate Medical Board. The burden of showing that classification rests upon an arbitrary and not reasonable basis is upon the persons who impeaches the law as violation of the guarantee of equal protection. We do not since have all the materials and for the reasons which will immediately give in this judgment, we do not conclusively determine this controversy in the present petition. 8. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was about the invalidity of the decision of the Post Graduate Medical Board. The said decision was said to be against the Ordinances. We could not find anything in the decision which is contrary to the Ordinances. In a matter where the field is vacant and the Ordinances do not cover the same, it was open to the Post Graduate Medical Board to evolve its own scheme for making admission. The scheme only lays down the details which do not make it inconsistent with the Ordinances. In a matter where the field is vacant and the Ordinances do not cover the same, it was open to the Post Graduate Medical Board to evolve its own scheme for making admission. The scheme only lays down the details which do not make it inconsistent with the Ordinances. The decision, if read as a whole provides that after deciding the cases of internal candidates, the remaining seats will be advertised. For admitting students, the criterion to determine merits has been laid down in the Rules by the Post Graduate Medical Board. However, this point also is not required to be finally and conclusively decided in this petition. The petitioner, in our opinion, is not entitled to any relief even if we were to accept the ground regarding infringement of the rights to equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner joined the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, in 1981, when he was admitted in M.D. (Physiology). This is two years course. The petitioner has already done one year. M.D. course is not like other courses of post graduate classes. A candidate doing M.D. is considered to be an employee and gets remuneration for the period of two years. The petitioner joined this course in Feb. 1981 and is getting the salary payable on the said course. He had applied for M.D. in Physiology and he got the same. The petitioner now wants to change the subject by leaving Physiology in the middle and without completing it. He has obtained Rs. 16,500/-. The question that is of importance in this background is whether refusal to admit the petitioner in M.D. Psychiatry could be considered to be unjust requiring interference in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In Annexure 4' which is a copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the Director, Institute of Medical Sciences. Banaras Hindu University, two grounds were mentioned for having not admitted him in M.D. (Psychiatry). One of the grounds was that the petitioner had to return the salary to the Institute of Medical Sciences which he got as senior resident in Physiology Department. The claim for the return of the salary is on the ground that it is not considered by the Institute of Medical Sciences in public interest to permit a student to change his subject in the middle. The claim for the return of the salary is on the ground that it is not considered by the Institute of Medical Sciences in public interest to permit a student to change his subject in the middle. Medical education is ultimately for doing service to the public at large. If students are permitted to leave their course in the middle, as the petitioner wanted to do, the position may be chaotic or beyond amends. The petitioner had received payment of Rs. 16,500/- by way of salary. If the petitioner was not serious in joining this Course, he should not have done so as the post was made available to another willing candidate who would have been of use to the Institute of Medical Sciences. The post graduate course is not like that of joining M.A. in History and thereafter joining M.A. in Philosophy in its place. In a country like ours, where opportunities are limited, it would not be in public interest to permit a student of medical science to do so. 11. Counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the petitioner has a fundamental right to join one course and leave it and then to apply for admission in another. According to him, since merit is the test when choosing the best, the petitioner should not have been denied the admission on this artificial ground. To us, the ground on which admission was being denied to the petitioner does not appear to be unreasonable or artificial. What constitutes the test of reasonableness is the object for which the decision is taken. Refusal to admit the petitioner in M.D. (Psychiatry) has a reasonable basis with the object sought to be achieved, which is that public interest requires that a candidate admitted in one course should finish the same. The present case is not comparable with a case in which a candidate applies for admission and despite his merits, he is not considered. The petitioner had already been admitted in one course. He has done one year. He wanted to change the course in the middle. His case is different. The decision of the Institute of Medical Sciences is not unjust or arbitrary that needs our interference. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of writ of mandamus is plainly discretionary which has to be one for attaining justice. He has done one year. He wanted to change the course in the middle. His case is different. The decision of the Institute of Medical Sciences is not unjust or arbitrary that needs our interference. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of writ of mandamus is plainly discretionary which has to be one for attaining justice. In the instant case, we are satisfied that giving of relief to the petitioner would mean, in fact doing injustice to others and may not do any justice to him. Moreover, refusal to admit the petitioner is not so manifest or unjust that requires interference at our hands. 12. For what we have found above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief being granted to him. He was not entitled either to challenge non selection on the basis of Article 14 or on the ground of the policy evolved by the Post Graduate Medical Board being arbitrary or unjust. 13. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.