M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was an applicant seeking selection for admission to the Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B. V. Sc. , in short) degree course in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, has presented this writ petition questioning the Constitutional validity of the Rules of Selection and also sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the University to give admission to him to the said course during the current academic year. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : the petitioner passed the Pre-University Examination held by the Board of Pre-University Education of this State securing 63% of marks in the optional subjects. During the current academic year he submitted his application to the first respondent-University seeking selection for admission to the B. V. Sc. , course. In the application the petitioner also claimed to be selected against one of the seats reserved for Defence Personnel, as the father of the petitioner is a Subedar Major in the Indian Army. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was entitled to be selected against one of the seats reserved for the children of Defence Personnel on the basis of the marks secured by him, he has not been selected in view of the Note incorporated below the definition of the word 'defence Personnel' under the Rules framed by the University. The relevant portion of the Rules reads as follows :" (II) Defence Personnel means Commissioned Officers, Junior Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers, other ranks and non-combatants (enrolled) in the Indian Army and Officers holding corresponding ranks in the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force. Note : Children of serving Defence Personnel will be considered against the seats reserved for children of Defence Personnel only if their parents are serving in Defence in Karnataka at the time of making the application". (Underlined by me) there is no dispute that certain number of seats have been reserved in favour of children of Defence Personnel and further it is also not disputed that on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner, he was entitled to be selected against one of such seats but for the condition imposed under the Note extracted above. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has questioned the Constitutional validity of the Note on the following grounds : Defence Personnel constitute a well defined class of persons. Once the object of the special provision is to reserve a few seats in favour of children of Defence Personnel there is no justification or rational basis for incorporating the condition contained in the Note which is to the effect that son or daughter of a Defence Personnel would be entitled to secure a seat if only the parent is serving in the State of Karnataka at the time of making the application. Therefore, the Note is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections, the University in support of its plea that the Note is not violative of Art. 14 has stated as follows : It is open to the University to make a concession in favour of the persons in defence service and who are serving in this State. The plea of the petitioner that there is no rational basis to the objects sought to be achieved is not correct. In fact, the object of the regulation itself is to provide reservations in favour of children of Defence Personnel serving in Karnataka and the said object could be achieved only by incorporating the Note. Therefore, the Note is not violative of Art. 14. ( 5 ) IT is now well settled that in order to sustain the attack against a Law made by the State on the ground of violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution the following two conditions must be satisfied. (I) The classification must be reasonable. (ii) Even if the classification is reasonable, it must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. ( 6 ) THE question for consideration in this case is whether the two tests are satisfied. There can be no doubt that persons serving in the defence services of the country certainly form a well defined class. In view of the nature of the service the defence personnel would have to remain far away from their homes and they would not be in a position to give the same extent of care in respect of the education of their children as other citizens could do. In view of the nature of the service the defence personnel would have to remain far away from their homes and they would not be in a position to give the same extent of care in respect of the education of their children as other citizens could do. Having regard to the great importance of the Defence services charged with the responsibility of defending the borders of the country, the personnel in the defence service form a well defined class. It is a matter of common knowledge in almost all the Rules regulating selection for admission to Professional Courses special provisions have been made in favour of the children of the defence personnel. The validity of such a provision is beyond doubt. But the question which arises for consideration in this case is whether there is any justification for making the further classification among the Defence Personnel on the ground that they must actually be serving in this State at the time of making the application. Having regard to the nature of service the Defence Personnel, cannot be expected to work at any place permanently and they are liable to transfer at any time and at short notice. I am not impressed by the plea of the University that the fact that a defence personnel was working in the State of Karnataka on the date on which his application was made constitutes a rational basis. In my opinion, it can hardly constitute a rational basis for the purpose of reservation of seats in the colleges under the University. ( 7 ) THE plea of the University is, the object of the Rule itself is to provide reservation in favour of children of defence personnel serving in this State as on the date on which the application is made by the children of the defence personnel. I am unable to agree. The wording of the rule, clearly indicates that the object of the rule is to provide reservation in favour of children of defence personnel. That object is virtually defeated by the Note, which provides that for the children of the defence personnel to be eligible for selection against the reserved seats the defence personnel should be working in the State of Karnataka as on the date of making the application. That object is virtually defeated by the Note, which provides that for the children of the defence personnel to be eligible for selection against the reserved seats the defence personnel should be working in the State of Karnataka as on the date of making the application. I am of the opinion that this further classification which is dependent upon the concerned defence official serving in this State on the date of application has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, it is violative of Art. 14. ( 8 ) IF the object of the rule itself were to be regarded as providing reservation for children of defence personnel serving in this State on the date of the application as pleaded by the University, then the rule does not satisfy the first test itself, i. e. , the classification itself has no rational basis and would therefore be violative of Art. 14. But in my opinion, as held above, it is not the object. ( 9 ) SRI P. Vishwanatha Shetty learned counsel for the University submitted that the Note had been incorporated for the reason that the University could provide only limited number of seats for children of defence personnel. There is no substance in the submission. There is no compulsion on the part of the University to reserve any number of seats in favour of children of defence personnel. It is entirely for the University to fix it. Once the number is fixed, it should go in favour of the children of defence personnel according to merit. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the University next submitted that the reserved seats were meant to help the residents of this State and the University had the right to confine the benefit of reservation to the bona fide residents of this State. The rule does not achieve that purpose either. It may be that if the Rule was to the effect that children of defence personnel whose domicile or domicile of origin is in this State would be eligible for selection against such seats, irrespective of the part of the country in which their parents are serving, it might constitute rational basis and might not be violative of Art. 14. It may be that if the Rule was to the effect that children of defence personnel whose domicile or domicile of origin is in this State would be eligible for selection against such seats, irrespective of the part of the country in which their parents are serving, it might constitute rational basis and might not be violative of Art. 14. If such a test was prescribed in the Note, then also the petitioner would have been entitled to the benefit of reservation as admittedly the petitioner and his father hail from Coorg District of this State. But according to the Note the eligibility of the children of defence personnel depends upon the chance of posting of personnel in any part of this State at the time of making application or if already serving here, of not being transferred before the date of making application. For instance, if immediately after the date when the application is made the parent is transferred to some other part of the country the eligibility continues. If on the other hand the person serving in this State were to be transferred a day prior to the making of application to some other State he loses the eligibility. A test based upon such indefinite and variable event cannot but be regarded as irrational. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, I hold that the Note is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 12 ) IN the result, I make the following order - (I) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Note below the reservation provided for defence personnel restricting the reservation in favour of the children of defence personnel to those who are serving in the defence services in the State of Karnataka at the time of making the application is declared void as offending Art. 14. (iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the University to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the B. V. Sc. , course during the current academic year subject to other regulations of the University. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .