JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---The petitioner Ku. Archana is a minor daughter of Sudhakar, Mendulkar, a domicile in the State of Maharashtra, serving as a Flight Lieutenant in the India Air Force. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Wani, District Yavatmal (M.S.) and we are informed that she was also born there. By the very nature of the service, the father of the petitioner has been posted from time to time at different places all over India. He was posted at Bangalore for several years and the petitioner who lives with her parents passed her XII Standard Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore. These examinations known as Indian School Certificate Examinations are equivalent to the 12th Standard Examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. In the said examination, which is conducted on all India basis, she has secured in Science subjects 260 marks out 300 (88%) in the very first attempt, She applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical College at Nagpur along with the Domicile Certificate of her father in the eight seats reserved for sons and daughters of servicemen and ex-servicemen under Clause B(3) of the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admission (M.B.B.S.) 1986-87 (the 'Rules'), framed under Government Resolution dated 12th June, 1986. She was entitled to the admission on merits (being at Serial No. 4) but had been left out of consideration only on the ground that she was not eligible in view of Clause C(3)(ii) of the Rules, having not passed her qualifying examination of 12th Standard Indian School Certificate Examination "from an institution located in Maharashtra State". Her contention firstly is that Rule C(3)(ii) does not apply to this reserved category in view of Clause B(5) of the Rules, and secondly that if construction put by the respondents on the eligibility clause is held to be correct, that part of the Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being arbitrary and discriminatory having no nexus to the object of the Rule viz. to select meritorious candidate from amongst the sons and daughters of servicemen of Maharashtra domicile. 2. to select meritorious candidate from amongst the sons and daughters of servicemen of Maharashtra domicile. 2. The Rules have been framed, as the Government Resolution itself indicates, against the backdrop of situation arising out of necessity to implement the decision in the case of (Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 1362 by which regulation of admissions on the basis of University jurisdiction in the State has been struck down. Rules also specify that implementation of decision in (Dr. Pradeep Jain's case)2 , A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1420 regarding holding of All India Entrance Test has been deferred till academic year 1987. The ratio of these two decisions is that there cannot be 100% reservation of seats on regional basis. By the Rules, maximum 70% regional reservation preference on University jurisdiction basis (after deducting other kinds of reserved seats has been contemplated. Clause B deals with "Reservations". Sub-clause (1) of Clause (B) refers to Backward Class etc. Sub-clause (2) to Central Government, sub-clause (3) to sons and daughters of servicemen and ex-servicemen, sub-clause (4) to miscellaneous others reservations including son/daughter of Non-resident Indians of Maharashtra origin and sub-clause (5) to Regional Reservation. Clause B(3), with which we are concerned, reads thus : "(3) Reservation for sons and daughters of servicemen and ex-servicemen.---5 per cent seats of the intake capacity of the college limited to five shall be reserved for the children of servicemen as well as ex-servicemen who are domiciles of Maharashtra. The seats so reserved are inclusive of merit." The total number of seats in the Government Medical Collage, Nagpur and Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur is 260(200+60) and the number of reserved seats under the above head is 8(5+3) respectively. 20 per cent of the above reserved seats are allocated to wards of active Defence Personnel transferred to the Maharashtra area, for whom the conditions regarding domicile do not apply. Clause B(5) reads thus: "(5) Regional Reservation.---Subject to the exception mentioned in Rule C(6)(iv) below, 70 per cent of open seats, after excluding validly reserved seats, available in Government Medical Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of any University in Maharashtra, shall be reserved for the candidates who are eligible as per Rule C below and have passed the requisite qualifying examination from the School/ College situated within the jurisdiction of the same University. The remaining 30 per cent open seats shall be filled in by the candidates who are eligible as above and have passed the requisite qualifying examination from Schools/Colleges situated within the area of jurisdiction of other Universities in Maharashtra." 3. Shri Kherdekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that having regard to the object of the Rules, its background, the language used in Clause B(5) and the ratio of various Supreme Court decisions on the validity of various reservation on region/residence basis the requirement of passing Indian School Certificate Examination "from an institution located in Maharashtra State" is not intended to be applied to the candidates covered by Ruled B(3) It seems to us that the contention is well founded. Course and the examination of the Indian School Certificate Examination is common all over India. Servicemen has no control on his posting which can be anywhere including Maharashtra. Rule of denial of admission to a meritorious son / daughter of a serviceman who is domicile of Maharashtra only because of a fortuitous circumstance of his being not posted at the time of his ward studying in 12th Standard within the State of Maharashtra cannot have any nexus to the object of the Rule. Mere chance cannot be the valid disqualifying factor. Such a Rule will not only be arbitrary and unreasonable but will permit discrimination between two classes of servicemen of Maharashtra domicile actually posted at material time (i) in Maharashtra and (ii) outside Maharashtra. This classification will be clearly invidious having no nexus whatsoever to the object sought to be achieved. Supreme Court has repeatedly held against denial of admissions only on the basis of residence and/or region. Cannons of interpretation mandates that interpretation which leads to unconstitutionality has to be avoided, and harmonious construction to be preferred, if possible. Thus the Rule will have to be interpreted keeping the above principles in view. The Rule is not clearly worded and does present some difficulty in construing it. It is not as if that Clause C applies universally and without exception to all admissions under the Rule. Take for example cases covered by Rule B(4)(iii) reservation for son or daughter of non-resident Indians of Maharashtra origin. Even 20 per cent seats out of category B(3) are served for Defence Personnel transferred to the Maharashtra Region. It is not as if that Clause C applies universally and without exception to all admissions under the Rule. Take for example cases covered by Rule B(4)(iii) reservation for son or daughter of non-resident Indians of Maharashtra origin. Even 20 per cent seats out of category B(3) are served for Defence Personnel transferred to the Maharashtra Region. It is in this light and background that Rule B(5) has to be read. The terminology "after excluding validly reserved seats" used in Rule B(5) is significant. It means that all parts of Clause C do not universally apply to validly reserved seats under Clause B. This is not to suggest that no part of Clause C applies to any varieties of reservations mentioned in Clause B. All will depend upon a specie of reservation and its intentment. Construed in that light it seems to us that the last part of Rule C(3)(ii) reading as "from an institution located in Maharashtra State" is not intended to be applied to candidate covered by Clause B(3). 4. It may be mentioned that old Rules of 1984 fell for consideration in the case of (Kumari Suneeta Ramchandra v. State of Maharashtra and another)2, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1552. Doubt was expressed by the Supreme Court about the validity of similarly worded Rule C(5) though the point was not decided. 5. It is thus clear that the petitioner is duly qualified is and eligible for being considered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course under the Rules. In the selected candidates, she comes at Serial No. 4 which means she was entitled to admission on merits. The Course has commenced. Persons below her from that category are duly admitted on the basis of wrong but bona fide interpretation of the Rules. Under the circumstances, disturbing them now will be unfair. 6. To conclude : Petition allowed. The petitioner is directed to be admitted to the First M.B.B.S. Course by the respondents, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----