S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is aspiring to become an engineer has made a grievance regarding his non-admission to electronic engineering course at the fourth respondent institution. ( 2 ) A few relevant facts leading to the present petition are required to be noted at the outset to highlight the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the higher secondary certificate examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board in April 1986. The petitioner obtained 529 out of 800 marks in the theory papers as well as in practicals. The petitioner secured 80. % in science subjects (theory ). It was his first trial. He stood at Sl. No. 88 out of total number of 25000 students who appeared in science stream in the aforesaid examination. So far as his marks in practical examination were concerned in physics he got 26 out of 50 marks; in chemistry he got 24 out of 50 marks and in biology he got 22 out of 50 marks. Thus out of practicals marks of 150 the petitioner secured 72 marks meaning thereby less than 50% of marks in practicals. There are six engineering colleges in the State of Gujarat. Admissions to medical and engineering faculties in the State of Gujarat are governed by rules of admission published by Govt. of Gujarat. The rules for admission to the engineering colleges have been published by the Technical Education Department of the Govt. of Gujarat. As per the aforesaid rules qualifying examination for being admitted to the engineering colleges is the higher secondary certificate examination (science stream) taking physics chemistry biology mathematics 10+2 education pattern conducted by either the Gujarat High Secondary Education Board or the Central Board of Secondary Education New Delhi from any of the recognised institutions located in the State of Gujarat in the month of March/april of the current month (sic year) or October/november of the preceding year. Rule 3 prescribes standard of minimum qualification for being considered for admission to engineering courses. For students who have passed higher secondary examination (Std. XII) with arithmetic (sic mathematics) physics chemistry and biology minimum qualifying marks for being considered for admission to the engineering courses are provided by Rule 3. 2 as under. Candidate of general category must have obtained in theory papers of science stream in Std. For students who have passed higher secondary examination (Std. XII) with arithmetic (sic mathematics) physics chemistry and biology minimum qualifying marks for being considered for admission to the engineering courses are provided by Rule 3. 2 as under. Candidate of general category must have obtained in theory papers of science stream in Std. XII 247 marks out of 450 i. e. 55% while so far as candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are concerned they should have obtained 202 marks out of 450. As the petitioner belongs to general category of students as per Rule 3 2 he would be considered eligible for being considered for admission to engineering course if he has obtained 55% of marks in theory papers. Now as seen earlier he has obtained 80% in theory. Thus Rule 3 2 is clearly complied with by him. But the difficulty arises in connection with operation of Rule 3. 3. It provides as under when translated in English :-CANDIDATE should have obtained in science subject practicals the following marks: Candidates belonging to scheduled tribes and scheduled castes: 60 out of 150 marks while for candidates in general category 75 out of 150 marks. Thus minimum qualifying marks in practicals of science subjects are prescribed at 50 As seen earlier the petitioner fell short of required minimum of 75 marks by three marks. Thus non-compliance with eligibility criteria prescribed by Rule 3. 3 resulted in rejection of the petitioners case for being admitted to electronic engineering course in any of the colleges run by the State of Gujarat. At this stage it is also necessary to 100k at Rule 4 which deals with preparation of merit list. Rule 4. 1 provides that merit list of eligible candidates will be prepared out of candidates who might have applied for admission and who may satisfy admission qualifications prescribed by Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3. Method and manner of preparation of merit list as per Rule 4. 2 when translated in English reads as under: marks obtained by the candidate in science stream of Subjects in Std. XII examination or its equivalent examination insofar as theory papers of arithmetic (sic mathematics) physics chemistry and biology are concerned will be considered for preparing merit list of eligible candidates and for that purpose marks obtained by the candidate in practicals in science subjects shall not be taken into conside ration. XII examination or its equivalent examination insofar as theory papers of arithmetic (sic mathematics) physics chemistry and biology are concerned will be considered for preparing merit list of eligible candidates and for that purpose marks obtained by the candidate in practicals in science subjects shall not be taken into conside ration. ( 3 ) IT is the stand of the respondents that as the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for admission as he did not score 50% marks provided for practicals in science subjects as per Rule 3. 3 his name could not be included for consideration in the preparation of merit list and that is how he has been left out. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) AT the time when this petition reached final hearing before me Mr. Dave for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition : (1) Rule 3. 3 read with Rule 3. 2 is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution in as much as it prescribes qualifying marks in practical subjects in science stream so far as Gujarat students are concerned at 50% and so far theory papers are concerned Rule 3. 2 has prescribed 55% of marks while so far as outside students are concerned that is students coming from other States and who might have passed equivalent Std. XII examination from the concerned States they are required to obtain an over all qualifying marks of 50% both in theory as well as practicals. Thus so far as Gujarat students are concerned they are discriminated against. Consequently Rule 3. 2 read with Rule 3. 3 are liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (2) It was alternatively contended that even if these rules are valid their requirements should be read as laying down merely directory conditions and not mandatory conditions and therefore the respondents should be considered to be entitled to relax the requirements of these rules. (3) In any case Rule 3. 3 is arbitrary unreasonable and totally irrelevant when read in juxtaposition with Rule 4. 2 and therefore also it should be quashed and set aside. (3) In any case Rule 3. 3 is arbitrary unreasonable and totally irrelevant when read in juxtaposition with Rule 4. 2 and therefore also it should be quashed and set aside. (4) In the alternative the petitioners case for being admitted to any of the engineering colleges outside the Gujarat State should be favourably considered by the respondents and while doing so respondents should be called upon to consider the petitioners case in the light of qualifying marks which are required to be obtained by students of outside State who might be admitted in the concerned outside college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned it becomes at once clear that for all Gujarat students who pass Std. XII examination (in higher secondary examination) conducted by the third respondent uniform yard-stick laying down eligibility criteria for being considered for admission to engineering courses has been laid down Rule 3 provides for minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for admission and Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 are part and parcel of Rule 3; while Rule 4 provides for the procedure for preparing merit list from out of available eligible candidates. Thus Rule 3 tries to restrict admission at the outset by providing minimum qualifications for being considered for admission in engineering courses. It is not as if that different eligibility criteria laying down diverse minimum qualifications are provided for different students passing in State of Gujarat from science stream examination conducted by the third respondent. All of them are treated equally and alike by Rule 3. 3 whether they appear from one centre or another in Gujarat State at higher secondary examination of Std. XII in science stream. However the alleged discrimination underlying Rules 3. 2 and 3. All of them are treated equally and alike by Rule 3. 3 whether they appear from one centre or another in Gujarat State at higher secondary examination of Std. XII in science stream. However the alleged discrimination underlying Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 is based on the ground that Regional College of Engineering Surat respondent No. 4 is one of the 15 engineering colleges which are set up by the Union Government in consultation and co-operation with different State Governments. There are 300 seats out of which 50% i. e. 150 seats are reserved for students of Gujarat State. Similarly at other regional college in different States 50 of the total seats are reserved for students of concerned states. At Surat regional college for the students of Gujarat State minimum requirements of marks is 55% in theory subjects and 50% in practical while for students coming from other States minimum qualifying standard is 50% aggregate marks i. e. aggregate of theory and practical marks. These two standards for students of Gujarat and of other States have resulted into discrimination inter se the Gujarat students and outside students for the following reasons: (1) All the students after having passed the higher secondary examination science stream are not being treated alike for the purpose of considering their eligibility for engineering courses; (2) All the students will of course study the same subjects; (3) All the students will study for the same number of years before they get their B. E. degree; (4) All the students will be taught the same syllabus; and (5) All the students will appear at the same examination conducted by any of the engineering colleges and will be awarded the same degree. It is therefore submitted that the difference in minimum marks prescribed for the aforesaid two classes of students is not legal but the same is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Mr. It is therefore submitted that the difference in minimum marks prescribed for the aforesaid two classes of students is not legal but the same is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Dave for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of State v. Rafia Rahim AIR 1973 Kerala 176 and in the case of Twyford Tea Co v. State AIR 1970 SC 1133 vehemently contended that if unequals are treated equally and vice versa the action underlying such treatment would be violative of Art. 14 of she Constitution; while on the other hand it was vehemently contended by the respondents that there is no discrimination underlying the policy of Rule 3. 2 and 3. 3 as these rules uniformly apply to all the Gujarat students who might have passed Std. XII examination in science stream conducted by the third respondent-Board. Those students who come from outside the State of Gujarat do not necessarily appear in the same type of examination. Their syllabus will be different nature of practical tests conducted by them would be different the nature of examination and standard of papers would be different and consequently outside students formed a separate class and can never be compared with the Gujarat students who have appeared at an entirely different type of examination. Even though outside students might have passed Std. XII examination of respective States and even though they would be joining the same engineering course of the fourth respondent college even then they cannot be treated to be on par with the students who have passed science stream examination of Std. XII conducted by the 3rd respondent-Board so far as the Gujarat students are concerned. Consequently both these groups of students viz. Gujarat State students and outside students are distinct and separate class of students they are unequal In nature ant can never be treated alike and any attempt to judge diem by common standard on the contrary would falter on the touchstone of Art. 14. ( 6 ) IT is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 3. 2 or Rule 3. 3 violated guarantee of Art; 14 of the Constitution. Reasons are obvious. Firstly Rules 3. 2 and 3. ( 6 ) IT is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 3. 2 or Rule 3. 3 violated guarantee of Art; 14 of the Constitution. Reasons are obvious. Firstly Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 are meant to apply uniformly to all the Gujarat students who might have passed Std. XII higher standard examination science stream conducted by respondent No. 3 Board from time to time. All these students are uniformly treated for the purpose of judging their eligibility for being admitted to engineering course. So far as their comparison with outside students is concerned it must be kept in view that out of six engineering colleges in the State of Gujarat in five engineering colleges only Gujarat students are admitted. These students who are seeking admissions in these five colleges will have uniformly to satisfy the requirements if Rules 3. 2 and 3 3. No one who does not satisfy these requirements will be entitled to be considered for admission as the minimum eligibility criterion for admission would be wanting in his case. Only in Surat college respondent No. 4 herein 50 of seats are reserved for outside students. So far as other 50% of seats are concerned they are for Gujarat students whose eligibility for admission to these 50% seats in Surat college will have to be governed uniformly as per Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3. Only rest of 50% seats in Surat college are meant for outside students. Thus so far as these 50% seats reserved for outside students are concerned they form entirely a separate claims. They are meant to be filled in by outside students. Those outside students may have passed Std. XII examination conducted by their respective State Boards in science stream of subjects. May be the subjects at which they appear in science stream in Std. XII conducted by the respective Boards may be having a parallel syllabus. However these students cannot be said to have appeared at the same examination of Std. XII as conducted by the third respondent Board for Gujarat students. It does not require much imagination to appreciate that even though in outside States the students might have appeared in science stream examination at their respective Std. However these students cannot be said to have appeared at the same examination of Std. XII as conducted by the third respondent Board for Gujarat students. It does not require much imagination to appreciate that even though in outside States the students might have appeared in science stream examination at their respective Std. XII examinations the mode and manner of conducting these examinations pattern of assessment of marks for them in theory as well as practical subjects would naturally be different. However it cannot b: said that Gujarat students and outside students are being examined by the same set of examiners who can assess them uniformly by adopting the same yard-stick of assessment. Therefore Gujarat students who are examined by same set of examiners at Std. XII-science stream-examination conducted by the third respondent-Board would form a separate class while outside students who might have appeared in parallel or equivalent examinations and who might have studied the same subjects of science stream would naturally not be treated to be forming the same class as they would be examined by diverse sets of examiners having different standards of assessment and marking both at theory as well as practical papers. Consequently those outside students cannot be said to be at par with Gujarat students who pass Std. XII examination-science stream-conducted by the third respondent. In fact those students have formed entirely a distinct class and for those outside students if their eligibility criterion for considering them to be fit to be admitted to engineering courses either in their own colleges or in outside colleges is 50% of aggregate marks both in theory as well as practical subjects it cannot be said that the same yardstick should also be applied to Gujarat students who form a distinct class. It is true that after these outside students are admitted to 50% of their reserved seats in Surat engineering college all of them will take the same course of study at Surat college and will follow the same pattern of education till they get their degree. But that is the solution which arises after admission and not prior to admission. Prior to admission outside students and Gujarat students form distinct classes. But that is the solution which arises after admission and not prior to admission. Prior to admission outside students and Gujarat students form distinct classes. After admission in future examinations for B. E. degree course they may form the same class and therefore after admission they have to be treated alike and if after their admission they are differently treated for the purpose of other examination in engineering courses then perhaps a case for discrimination may arise. But prior to admission as Gujarat students who have passed Std. XII examination form a separate class as compared to outside students who may have passed equivalent science stream examination from their respective states they cannot be treated at par class. On the contrary if uniform treatment is prescribed for governing admission of those two distinct categories of students by a common yard-stick of eligibility it can be said that such common eligibility yard-stick would treat unequals as equals and in that eventuality such award-stick may become vulnerable on the touch-stone of Art. ( 7 ) OF the Constitution. Consequently It the admission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is accepted it would amount to treating unequals as equals which cannot be permitted in the light of Art. 14. It must therefore be held that outside students who may have passed Std. XII examination from science stream from outside states cannot be subjected to same standard of eligibility for regulating their admission to B. E. degree course. Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 therefore instead of being arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 are within their permissible limits. That would become vulnerable if they are extended to outside students. The first contention canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner has therefore to be repelled. 10 Now before parting with this contention it is worthwhile to note one aspect of the matter. May be admission criteria fixed by the outside States for judging eligibility of their students for being admitted to engineering courses may be a better policy. It may be that the policy underlying Rules 3. 2 and 3 3 may not be that ideal but merely because one policy is better than the other policy it cannot be said that the latter is necessarily arbitrary and discriminatory. Both these policies may stand the test of Art. 14 but one may be better than the other. It may be that the policy underlying Rules 3. 2 and 3 3 may not be that ideal but merely because one policy is better than the other policy it cannot be said that the latter is necessarily arbitrary and discriminatory. Both these policies may stand the test of Art. 14 but one may be better than the other. Which of the two should be selected for judging eligibility of concerned students for admission to B. E. engineering course is a matter entirely within the domain of the policy maker. It is the the State of Gujarat to consider that question on its own merits. But it has nothing to do with the present challenge mounted by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the legality of Rules 3 2 and 3. 3. That challenge must necessarily fail. ( 8 ) THAT takes me to the consideration of the second contention canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. So far as this contention is concerned it need not detain me further. Once Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 are held to be valid they have got to be uniformly applied to all the Gujarat students. When these rules have laid down in clearest terms that the concerned students must have obtained 55% marks in theory papers and 50% in practicals so far as science subjects are concerned it is difficult to appreciate how any departure from these rules can be permitted. There is no question of any substantial compliance in the present case. If a student has got even half a per cent less marks as compared to marks prescribed for obtaining minimum eligibility for admission to engineering course he has necessarily to be weeded out. These are minimum eligibility criteria for obtaining eligibility for the purpose of entering the contest. They have to be complied with in letter and spirit both. There can be no half-way house or tinkering with these rules. If tinkering is permitted it would open up a pandoras box and would result in a charter or handle to authorities to pick and choose students and to apply rules either vigorously or liberally. It can never be permitted in the context in which these rules are framed. Consequently it must be held that Rules 3. If tinkering is permitted it would open up a pandoras box and would result in a charter or handle to authorities to pick and choose students and to apply rules either vigorously or liberally. It can never be permitted in the context in which these rules are framed. Consequently it must be held that Rules 3. 2 and 3 3 are mandatory in nature and have got to be complied with fully by the concerned engineering courses in any of the colleges in the State of Gujarat. The second contention therefore stands rejected. 12 So far as the third contention is concerned it also has to meet the same fate as met by the first contention. Rule 3. 3 cannot be considered to be arbitrary or discriminatory from any angle. It is true that Rule 3. 3 provides for minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for admission to engineering courses. It is equally true that as per Rule 4. 2 out of eligible students a merit list is to be prepared for deciding their inter se merits and at that stage theory marks are only to be considered. But that has to be done for the simple reason that students satisfying minimum eligibility criteria as per Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 may be larger in number as compared to the number of vacancies available in engineering courses in various colleges run in the State of Gujarat. Consequently rationing has to be made of seats vis-a-vis the number of eligible students who satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria laid down by Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3. As seats are less and number of claimants is more merit list has to be prepared and those who are less meritorious have to be weeded out. At this stage Rule 4. 2 comes into operation. Mandate of this rule is that for preparing merit list and for weeding out less meritorious students out of existing batch of students who might have satisfied minimum eligibility criteria theory marks only are to be seen and in the light of number of marks obtained in theory subjects merit list of the eligible students is to be prepared. This is a second filtering process which uniformly applies to all similarly situated eligible students who have all satisfied minimum eligibility criteria. This is a second filtering process which uniformly applies to all similarly situated eligible students who have all satisfied minimum eligibility criteria. But as seats are less some of them will have to be pushed out in the merit list and while preparing such merit lists only theory marks are found to be sufficient for consideration. This is also a policy decision and so far as that policy is concerned it is made uniformly applicable to all the students similarly situated who may have passed the filtering process of Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 and who may have entered the arena of minimum eligibility mark holders. Thus policy underlying Rule 4. 2 cannot be said to be any way arbitrary nor can it be said that Rule 4. 2 cannot be harmoniously reconciled with Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3. In fact all the three rules can harmoniously coexist in the scheme of selection of candidates in filling up seats in engineering courses offered by various colleges in the State of Gujarat. Such double eligibility criteria which may co-exist and may apply at dififferent stages in the selection process cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. If any decision were needed to support this reasoning it is supplied by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambesh Kumar v. Principal LLRM Medical College AIR 1987 SC 400 . In that case the question before the Supreme Court arose in a different context. Under the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 the Medical Council had framed regulations laying down the standards for proficiency to be obtained and the practical training to be undertaken in medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualification. It had been laid down therein that students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities. Thus as per the aforesaid regulation academic record of the concerned student in undergraduate course was to be taken into consideration. It had been laid down therein that students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities. Thus as per the aforesaid regulation academic record of the concerned student in undergraduate course was to be taken into consideration. When that regulation applied uniformly to all such students the State of Uttar Pradesh laid down a further eligibility qualification for admission to such courses and as per the order of the State Government further eligibility qualifications i. e. obtaining of 55% marks or 52% marks for being eligible for consideration for admission to the post-graduate degree in M. D. M. S. and diploma course in M. D. M. S etc. respectively on the basis of merit in accordance with the regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act were laid down. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the order of the State Government was in any way contrary to the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council and whether it was within the competence of the State authorities to lay down such eligibility qualifications. The Supreme Court speaking through B. C. Ray J. while upholding the power of the State Government to issue such order in terms observed that the order of the State Government merely provided an additional eligibility qualification. Since the number of seats For admission to various positgraduate courses both degree and diploma in medical colleges is limited and a large number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admission to these courses of study the impugned order laying down the qualification for a candidate to be eligible for being considered for selection for admission to the said courses on the basis of the merit as specified by regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act cannot be said to be in conflict with the said regulations or in any way repugnant to the said regulations. It does not in any way encroach upon the standards prescribed by the said regulations. On the other hand by laying down a further qualification of eligibility it promotes and furthers the standards in an institution. Thus as laid down by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court diverse types of eligibility criteria can be imposed on the same set of students. On the other hand by laying down a further qualification of eligibility it promotes and furthers the standards in an institution. Thus as laid down by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court diverse types of eligibility criteria can be imposed on the same set of students. In the case before the Supreme Court the separate eligibility criteria were laid down for the same set of students by the Indian Medical Council as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both of them were to be reconciled and were found to be necessary in the light of the limited number of seats available for the above group of medical studies. On the same reasoning therefore it can easily be seen that Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 lay down one set of qualifications prescribed for judging minimum eligibility qualifications of the concerned students. Having satisfied these requirements the concerned students can be treated to be having minimum eligibility qualifications for joining B. E. course. However as the seats available for being offered to the students desirous of joining B E. course conducted by different colleges in the State are limited in number and number of aspirants seeking admission is more by further rationing out of eligible lot of students some have to be weeded out. At this stage second filtering process is adopted as per the mandate of Rule 4. 2 and in preparing that list if another yard-stick is adopted viz. marks obtained in theory papers only it cannot be said that Rule 3. 3 which also takes into consideration the practical test marks for judging initial eligibility of such students is rendered in any way arbitrary or in conflict with Rule 4. 2. In fact both Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 on the one hand and Rule 4 2 on the other can harmoniously co-exist and can well operate in their respective fields. Rules 3 2 and 3. 3 will weed out those candidates who are not eligible at all for being considered and will permit only those students who are having minimum eligibility qualifications to enter the arena of contest. Once that stage is over the purpose of Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 is exhausted. Rules 3 2 and 3. 3 will weed out those candidates who are not eligible at all for being considered and will permit only those students who are having minimum eligibility qualifications to enter the arena of contest. Once that stage is over the purpose of Rules 3. 2 and 3. 3 is exhausted. Now out of the aforesaid available and eligible candidates in the arena of contest for a limited number of seats further filtering process has to be initiated with a view to weeding out less meritorious but equally eligible students. At that stage Rule 4. 2 starts operating and uniformly applies to all such equally eligible candidates with a view to elbowing out less meritorious students. It allows only more meritorious students to get admitted to limited number of vacancies available in the concerned colleges. For that process if another yard-stick was adopted for preparing merit list and if at that stage theory marks only are considered it cannot be said that the same policy must be adopted for judging initial eligibility of students at the stage of Rule 3. 2 and 3. 3 In fact that stage is already over and Rule 4. 2 operated of its own and separately of course uniformly for all similarly situated students who have been brought in the same field after having satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria. At this stage if for the operation of Rule 4. 2 a separate policy is laid down it cannot be said that such policy must also ipso facto be made available even for judging initial eligibility of the students. Both these sets of rules operate in their separate fields and they can peacefully co-exist without impinging on each other. Therefore this third submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner also has to be rejected. (The rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports ). Rule discharged. .