S. S. CHADHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Cl. 10 of Appendix I in the Bulletin of Information issued by Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. A further relief claimed is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner for the medical courses according to law. ( 2 ) THE University of Delhi runs three medical colleges, namely, Lady Harding Medical College, Maulana Azad Medical College and University College of Medical Sciences having 130, 180 and 100 seats respectively for M. B. B. S. Course. Maulana Azad Medical College has, in addition, 20 seats for B. D. S. Course. Prior to the academic year 1987-88, the Bulletin of Information for the M. B. B. S. /b. D. S. courses provided that candidates appearing for the M. B. B. S. Course may also indicate whether, in the event of their not being selected for the M. B. B. S. Course, they wish to be considered for the B. D. S. Course. The candidates for both courses were being selected according to the number of seats available on the basis of one general and integrated merit list. The seats were being allotted according to the order of preference. In other words, if a candidate was unable to get his first preference, he could be selected for other course as second preference on the basis of integrated merit list of the entrance examination. The candidates from the top of the merit list were selected according to the total number of seats available. ( 3 ) BUT for the session of 1987-88, a new Cl. 10 in Appendix-I in the Bulletin of Information of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi was inserted reading as follows : "10. After the Entrance Test, the admission to the MBBS Course and BDS Course will be made simultaneously on the basis of 1st preference of the candidate in each course in accordance with the merit. The 1st Preference of the candidate means that he is appearing for the 1 st Preference Course. The candidate of the 2nd Preference will be admitted after the list of 1st Preference is exhausted. "3a. The 1st Preference of the candidate means that he is appearing for the 1 st Preference Course. The candidate of the 2nd Preference will be admitted after the list of 1st Preference is exhausted. "3a. The aforesaid clause indicates that a candidate shall be deemed to be appearing in the entrance examination for the course of his first preference. The application form indicated, in addition, that once an option is exercised by a candidate, he shall not be entitled to change the same subsequently. The effect of it is that the selection to the course is according to merits among one group, inter se, and the second preference of the candidate was to be considered only after the candidates having first preference in that category are exhausted. ( 4 ) THE University of Delhi in the affidavit of the Registrar has given the reasons for incorporating the impugned Clause 10. A note on the discussion in an emergent meeting of the Medical Courses Admission Committee of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi held on Dec. 18,1986 is produced at the hearing. The Members discussed the issue of late admissions in the B. D. S. Course every year. It was revealed that the late admissions are due to the fact that the process of admission to the B. D. S. Course starts only after completion of the M. B. B. S. admissions. Those who opt B. D. S. Course are offered the seats only if they do not get M. B. B. S. seat on merit and then their option is offered. It was found that the admissions of 20 seats in B. D. S. Course normally take place in Nov. or Dec. which is not a healthy practice. The Admission Committee considered to hold a separate test for B. D. S. Course as in the case of M. B. B. S. Course during the same period so that their admissions could also be finalised in the beginning of the session. This proposal was dropped on the ground that the full process of screening the candidates at almost the same level as of M. B. B. S. will be highly uneconomical. It was calculated that almost the same financial implications would be involved as in the case of M. B. B. S. entrance test, may be a little less. This proposal was dropped on the ground that the full process of screening the candidates at almost the same level as of M. B. B. S. will be highly uneconomical. It was calculated that almost the same financial implications would be involved as in the case of M. B. B. S. entrance test, may be a little less. It was opined that it will result in the public dealings problem being doubled and they may enhance the criticism for additional test for few seats. A decision was taken that in order to avoid the unnecessary financial burden and additional criticism, it was recommended : " (I) the University will be saved from repeating the same drill as in the case of MBBS Entrance Test right from advertisement to result and re-admission etc. etc. (ii) For conducting the separate Test for BDS Course it is essential to have a close date with the MBBS Test in order to provide chance to the applicants coming from other States of the country. And conducting such a parallel test in a short period will be a difficult task. Since there are only 20 seats in all (10 local quota, 5 SC/st and 5 open quota) the whole exercise will entail additional load of work on the University. (iii) It will be absolutely uneconomical to incur a recurring expenditure every year on the separate list for 20 seats of BDS Course which will be at par with the expenditure on the MBBS Course Entrance Test. " ( 5 ) THE recommendations of the Admission Committee were accepted by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. The existing Bulletin of Information was modified and impugned Cl. 10 was inserted. The admission forms were suitably amended. Each candidate is now required to indicate his first preference, namely, whether he is appearing for the M. B. B. S. Course or B. D. S. Course. In the event of the seats not being filled up from among the candidates who had opted for the B. D. S. Course as their first preference, candidates who had opted for the B. D. S. Course as second preference are now considered and they can get admissions only after exhausting the list of candidates of first preference for B. D. S. Course. Mr. Mr. G. L. Sanghi, the learned counsel for the University of Delhi contends that the above provision was introduced after mature deliberations by responsible Academicians and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 6 ) THE main submission of Mr. Anil Dev Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Cl. 10 newly introduced in Appendix-I in the Bulletin of Information is unreasonable and has inherent illegality. The purpose of entrance examination is to take out best possible, good and suitable candidates out of the whole lot, but the condition that the candidate of the second preference will be admitted after the list of first preference is exhausted, totally frustrates the purpose of entrance examination. It has no nexus with the aim and object of the entrance examination for the selection of meritorious and most suitable and able candidates for M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses purely on the basis of merit and as rather debarring or preventing the most suitable candidates by putting artificial unreasonable and fanciful water-tight preference. The net result of this is that the candidates with higher rank in the common examination do not get admission either in the M. B. B. S. Course or in the B. D. S. Course whereas the candidates of the lower merit having given first preference of B. D. S. Course get admission in B. D. S. Course. The counsel further urges that there is no justifiable reason to pin down a candidate for first preference with the rider that he is appearing for the first preference course only. This rider is urged as bad in law as the effect of it is that the merit is liquidated and not advanced. The submission is that sacrifising merit would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on "p. Rajendran v. State of Madras", AIR 1968 SC 1012 , "dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India", AIR 1984 SC 1420 , "nidamarti v. State of Maharashtra", AIR 1986 SC 1362 and "dr. Y. Shantha v. Selection Committee for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Govt. Medical College", AIR 1978 Kar 66 . Reliance is placed on "p. Rajendran v. State of Madras", AIR 1968 SC 1012 , "dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India", AIR 1984 SC 1420 , "nidamarti v. State of Maharashtra", AIR 1986 SC 1362 and "dr. Y. Shantha v. Selection Committee for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Govt. Medical College", AIR 1978 Kar 66 . ( 7 ) THE law is well settled that the primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges must be merit and the object of any rules which may be made for regulating admission to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students. In Nidamarti s case (supra), the previous decisions of the Supreme Court were noticed in para 3 reading as follows : "the question as to what principles for selection of students for admission to the medical colleges would be permissible under Art. 14 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in the leading case of Dr. Pradeep Jain, AIR 1984 SC 1420 (supra ). The judgment in this case reviewed all the previous decisions given by this Court starting from D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, (1955) 1 SCR 1215 : AIR 1955 SC334 and ending with Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCR 831 : AIR 1980 SC 820 , and after analysing these decisions the Court laid down the principles which should govern selection of students for admission to the medical colleges consistently with the requirement of Art. 14. The Court pointed out that the primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges must be merit and the object of any rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students. The Court pointed out that the primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges must be merit and the object of any rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students. This was in fact the consideration which weighed with the Court in P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, (1968) 2 SCR786: AIR 1968 SC 1012 in striking down a Rule made by the State of Madras allocating seats in medical colleges on districtwise basis and so also in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 2 SCR 430 : AIR 1971 SC 2303 the same consideration prevailed with the Court in striking down a unitwise scheme of selection of candidates for appointment to medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, which provided for constituting the medical colleges in the city of Madras as one unit and each of the other medical colleges in the mofussil as a separate unit and selection being made unitwise. The Court in both these cases clearly and categorically proceeded on the basis of the principle that the object of any valid scheme of admissions must be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to medical colleges" and that if any departure is to be made" from the principle of selection on the basis of merit", it must be justified on the touchstone of Art. 14. This principle was affirmed by the Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain s case (supra ). " ( 8 ) IN Dr. Pradeep Jain s case ( AIR 1984 SC 1420 ) (supra), the Supreme Court considered as to what are the circumstances in which departure may justifiably be made from the principle of selection based on merit. The principles were reiterated in Nidamarti s case, ( AIR 1986 SC 1362 ) (supra) in these words: ". . . . . IT was pointed out by the Court that there are two considerations which may legitimately weigh with the Court in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other is what may be described as a region s claim of backwardness. . . . . IT was pointed out by the Court that there are two considerations which may legitimately weigh with the Court in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other is what may be described as a region s claim of backwardness. The legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised explicitly in D. P. Joshi s case, AIR 1955 SC 334 (supra) and P. Rajendran s case, AIR 1968 SC 1012 (supra ). These two cases show that the claim of State interest in providing adequate medical services to the people of the State by imparting medical education to students who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as Doctors, was regarded by the Court as a legitimate ground for departing from the strict principle of selection based on merit. The decision of this Court in D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, (1971) Suppl SCR 608: AIR 1971 SC 1762 also upheld universitywise distribution of seats, though it was not in conformity with the principle of selection based on merit and marked a departure from it, and the justification for taking this view was that institutional preference was not constitutionally impermissible "firstly", because it would be quite legitimate for students who are attached to a university to entertain a desire to have training in specialised subjects, like medicine, satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own university since that would promote institutional continuity which has its own value and secondly, because any student from any part of the country can pass the qualifying examination of that university, irrespective of the place of his birth or residence. "the second consideration which can legitimately weigh with the Court in diluting the principle of selection based on merit is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any particular region. We may, in this connection, usefully quote the following passage from the judgment of this Court Dr. Pradeep Jain s case, AIR 1984 SC 1420 (supra ). . . . . . . . . "( 9 ) IN the case before us, there is no claim of the State interest or any regionwise classification for admission to medical colleges. Only two reasons have been advanced for the insertion of impugned CL 10. Pradeep Jain s case, AIR 1984 SC 1420 (supra ). . . . . . . . . "( 9 ) IN the case before us, there is no claim of the State interest or any regionwise classification for admission to medical colleges. Only two reasons have been advanced for the insertion of impugned CL 10. One is of avoiding the unnecessary financial burden and the second is the delay in the process of admission to the B. D. S. Course which starts after the completion of the M. B. B. S. admission. The question is whether Cl 10 is arbitrary having no nexus between the classification made and the object sought. it does adversely affect the fundamental right of the petitioner appearing in the entrance examination and for consideration of his case or admission on merit for both the courses. By virtue of the impugned clause, a rider is but and his right is curtailed to stick to only first preference. ( 10 ) THE equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 14, however, does not take away from the State the power to classify on a reasonable basis the admission to educational institutions having regard to peculiar situations, characteristics or circumstances. The State is competent to adopt its own policy in making selection of candidates to M. B. B. S. /b. D. S. Courses or making reservations of seats on valid and reasonable basis. Reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia for purposes of special treatment is not prohibited. However, the permissible classification has to satisfy two tests. Firstly, it must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. As the number of candidates seeking admissions to medical colleges far exceeds the number of seats available, a method of selection has to be adopted. The purpose of admission to a medical college is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine with a view to equip the person with the knowledge and expertise to practise medicine. As the number of candidates seeking admissions to medical colleges far exceeds the number of seats available, a method of selection has to be adopted. The purpose of admission to a medical college is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine with a view to equip the person with the knowledge and expertise to practise medicine. It is for this reason that the requirement is to secure the best possible available material for fabricating ho a highly efficient professional doctor. The process of selection is to secure the best possible talent for both M. B. B. S. /b. D. S. Courses for shaping into best possible doctors practising and protecting the lives of human beings and giving relief to their ailments. ( 11 ) THE University of Delhi has inserted the impugned Clause 10 and the only justification for it is, firstly, avoiding enormous expenditure that would be incurred in holding a separate entrance examination for the B. D. S. Course and secondly, the alleged waste of educational time as a result of delay in commencing the admissions to B. D. S. Course after the selections of M. B. B. S. Course are complete. The cost of a separate examination can have no rational relation to the object to be achieved, namely, the securing of the best possible talent. The cost of examination can be borne or met by the candidates through a separate or additional examination fee. If two examinations are not feasible one after the other, then there is no bar in holding one joint examination. The candidates can be allowed to apply for M. B. B. S. Course or B. D. S. Course or both M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses through separate application with separate examination fee. The merit list can be prepared on the basis of option given by the candidates. In the result, the names may appear in the order of merit in more than one list. ( 12 ) THE Bulletin of Information as well as the application form contains the restriction that a candidate shall be deemed to be appearing for the course of his first preference. These also contain a stipulation that once an option is exercised, the candidate shall not be entitled to change the same. ( 12 ) THE Bulletin of Information as well as the application form contains the restriction that a candidate shall be deemed to be appearing for the course of his first preference. These also contain a stipulation that once an option is exercised, the candidate shall not be entitled to change the same. On facts it is not disputed that the petitioner and all others similarly situated are eligible for a seat both in M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses. They have a fundamental right of equality for being considered on merit for both M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses. The earlier system of providing seats for M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses on the basis of an integrated merit list is given a go-by on the alleged ground of delay of admissions in B. D. S. Course by putting the impugned restriction of restricting the candidature to first preference. The concept of merit which is an essential ingredient in any competitive examination is destroyed by this restriction. As would be seen in this case, the petitioner who was pinned down to first preference for M. B. B. S. Course with 348 merit position securing 709 marks (59%) has been denied admission in B. D. S. Course as against another candidate who gave first preference of B. D. S. Course with 1908 ranking securing 478 marks (less than 40%) is selected and granted admission in B. D. S. Course. If anything, this restriction of appearing in the entrance examination for the course of first preference has resulted in the object of securing the best possible talent being completely. defeated. It is not just and fair. The restriction imposed has resulted |into a denial of opportunity to the petitioner for admission to B. D. S. Course. He is a better qualified candidate and has been rejected in favour of a less qualified candidate because of the unfair impugned restriction. Article 14 ensures fairness in the State action and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality. There is no reasonableness in the impugned restriction on the alleged ground of loss of education time. The admissions to B. D. S. Course commenced earlier after the completion of admissions in M. B. B. S. Course. Article 14 ensures fairness in the State action and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality. There is no reasonableness in the impugned restriction on the alleged ground of loss of education time. The admissions to B. D. S. Course commenced earlier after the completion of admissions in M. B. B. S. Course. There may be a delay of two or three months but it is insignificant when compared to the total period of B. D. S. Course of five years including internship. The net effect of the impugned clause resulted in diluting the merit for admission and denial of opportunity of admission to more meritorious candidates. The object to be achieved was the securing of the best possible talent which has been defeated by the impugned restriction. ( 13 ) THE earlier system of providing seats for M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. Courses on the basis of an integrated merit list or separate merit lists irrespective of the preference is well recognised. The rules for the competitive examination Civil Service Examination for the purpose of filling vacancies in Indian Administrative Service. , Indian Foreign Service. , Indian Police Service and allied services is an illustration. A candidate is admitted to the examination for competing in respect of one or more of the services or post. He can indicate in his application the service or posts for which he wishes to be considered in the order of preference. The names are arranged in the order of merit and not restricted by preference. It provides : "after the interview, the candidates will be arranged by the Commission in the order of merits as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination (Written examination as well as interview) and in that order so many candidates as are found by the Commission to be qualified by the examination shall be recommended for appointment up to the number of unreserved vacancies decided to be filled on the results of the examination. . . . . . . . "there is no State policy involved in restricting the entrance examination for one course only by pinning down to preference. The restriction imposed in the impugned Cl. . . . . . . . "there is no State policy involved in restricting the entrance examination for one course only by pinning down to preference. The restriction imposed in the impugned Cl. 10, namely, the 1st preference of the candidate means that he is appearing for the 1st preference course is a denial of the equal opportunity admission to the second preference course and, in our view, unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) IN all fairness to Shri Anil Dev Singh the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may notice another argument that the admission list dated July 24,1987 is bad in law in so far as the minimum eligibility condition as to 50% marks in the entrance examination prescribed by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India has not be observed in selecting the candidates. contention is that the eligibility condition prescribed by the regulations notified the previous consent of the Central Government under the statutory provisions is binding on the University and cannot be ignored. Reference is made to "krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow" AIR 1989 SC 186. We are not deciding this question in this case as the students who have been admitted by the admission list dated July 24 1987 are not before us. The petitioner be also not sought the relief of quashing their admissions. ( 15 ) THE question is as to what relief car be granted to the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by Mr. G. L. Sanghi is that there are a large number of candidates in the order of merit above the petitioner and if this Court holds Cl. 10 as bad in law, even the the petitioner would not be entitled to be admitted to one of the seats in the B. D. S Course. Shri Madan Mohan, Registrar of the University of Delhi has filed an additions affidavit dated Oct. 30,1987. There are all 410 seats in M. B. B. S. Course. The candidate from the merit gradation up to326 have been offered admissions. The last date for joining was Oct. 26, 1987. There are thus 5 vacance seats in the general category. Out of the seats reserved for Armed Forces quota 5 seats have been filled up and 13 seats were diverted to the general category and offered to the candidates. The candidate from the merit gradation up to326 have been offered admissions. The last date for joining was Oct. 26, 1987. There are thus 5 vacance seats in the general category. Out of the seats reserved for Armed Forces quota 5 seats have been filled up and 13 seats were diverted to the general category and offered to the candidates. Two additional seats are still unfilled, but the candidates are under consideration. ( 16 ) SO far as the B. D. S. Course is concerned, there are in all 20 seats. On July 24, 1987, 12 seats in the. general category were offered to 12 candidates and out of them, one candidate did not join. Three seats have been filled up on All India basis and five are reserved for Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates. One seat which was vacant is one of the candidates did not join out of the list announced on July 24, 1987, was offered to Pushkar Mehra under the orders this Court. He has since left the course and the said seat is vacant. This Court had directed by way of an interim relief that if any one seat becomes available because of the candidates who have been offered seats not joining or vacate, the same shall not be filled up. That seat is lying vacant. No other candidate has come forward to claim admission in B. D. S. Course. The persons who are above the petitioner in the merit list may be offered 7 seats vacant in the M. B. B. S. Course or other seats that may fall vacant because of the candidates not joining. At least 10 candidates who have been offered admission in the B. D. S. course in the admission list dated July 24, 1987 are of lower merit. We are not quashing their admissions as no relief is claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. ( 17 ) THE result of the above discussion is that Clause 10 of Appendix-1 in the Bulletin of Information issued by Faculty of Medical Sciences, Univesity of Delhi is struck down as discriminatory being ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We direct respondent No, 1 to admit the petitioner for B. D. S. Course against the seat lying vacant under the orders of the Court. On the facts and circumstances, we make no order as to costs.