JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---This is a writ petition arising out of the admissions made to the post graduate courses conducted by the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. The petitioner No. 1 who belongs to the category of Scheduled Castes and who has passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the respondent No. 1 Medical College has challenged the admissions made to the Post-Graduate Degree Course in Opthalmology. The petitioner No. 1 was desirous of obtaining admission to the said course in the respondent No. 1 Medical College but at the time the advertisement for admission to the said course was issued on 31-7-1986, there was no reservation made for the seat in the subject of Opthalmology which was in open category and hence, the respondent No. 1 did not make any application to the said seat as it was not reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. However, it is not necessary to examine his case further because subsequently an advertisement for admission to the said course giving reservation for S.C. candidate was issued and the petitioner No. 1 has obtained admission for the said course. 2. As regards the petitioner No. 3, she was an O.B.C. candidate and was desirous of obtaining admission for the post graduate degree course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics, but, at the time the advertisement was issued on 31-7-1986, there we no reservation made in the aforesaid subject for O.B.C. candidates. Subsequently the seat fell vacant in the above subject and was allotted to the O.B.C. candidate and the petitioner No. 3 has obtained admission in the said subject under the category of O.B.C. candidate. No grievance of the petitioners No. 1 and 3, therefore, survives for Consideration in this writ petition. 3. As regards the petitioner No. 2, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate and who was desirous of obtaining admission for the postgraduate degree course in the subject of paediatrics, he could not secure a seat for the said course as it was reserved for O.B.C. candidates and not for S.C. candidates in the advertisement issued on 31-7-1986. The respondent No. 4, who was an O.B.C. candidate was selected for registration in the postgraduate degree course in paediatrics. Being aggrieved, the petitioner No. 2 has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 for the aforesaid course in the subject of paediatrics. 4. The respondent No. 4, who was an O.B.C. candidate was selected for registration in the postgraduate degree course in paediatrics. Being aggrieved, the petitioner No. 2 has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 for the aforesaid course in the subject of paediatrics. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner No. 2 has urged before us that there is no procedure followed by the State in the rotation of seats in various subjects amongst the various categories of the backward classes themselves. According to him, the seat in the subject of paediatrics, which should have been in fact reserved for S.C. candidate in July 1986, was, illegally reserved for an O.B.C. candidate. It is urged that when the seat in paediatrics was reserved for an O.B.C. candidate in January 1986, its reservation again for an O.B.C. candidate in the term in July 1986 was arbitrary and was in violation of the principle of rotation which had to be followed for the distribution of seats in a fair and just manner amongst the reserved categories. The equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is thus invoked as the grievance is that there is discrimination practised in giving admissions by arbitrary reservations of seats for the various categories of the backward classes themselves. 5. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 is that the action of the respondent No. 1 Medical College in reserving the seat for O.B.C candidate in July 1986 is not bona fide because it was reserved solely with a view to give admission to the respondent No. 4 who was an O.B.C. candidate and who was the Secretary of the Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (for short M.A.R.D.). The respondent No. 1 Medical College, by its original return as well as the additional returns filed during the course of hearing, has denied the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 6. It is the submission on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the distribution of seats amongst the reserved categories is made on the basis of two criteria, namely, (1) back log, and (2) availability of the candidates in the subject concerned as judged from the house-jobs which they have done and also the results of the M.B.B.S. Examination of the institutional candidates. The further submission is that the principle of rotation of seats in the reserved categories is not in terms laid down under the rules for admission to the post-graduate courses. It is urged that after taking into consideration the above criteria the seats are allotted in the various categories in a fair and just manner. 7. In examining the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner No. 2, it must be seen that there is no principle of rotation of seats laid down under the rules for admission to the post-graduate courses. The learned Counsel for the petitioner No. 2 has not been able to bring to our, notice any rule in which any such principle of rotation is incorporated. The only rule relevant in this regard is Rule 3 of the rules for admission to the post-graduate courses framed by the State Government under the G.R. dated 18-6-1971. Apart from providing for the reservation of seats in the prescribed percentages in the various categories of the backward classes, Rule 3 provides that "the reservation of seats should be as far as possible subject-wise, the allied specialities being lumped together" where necessary, for reservations to enable students to compete for the reserved posts, indicated in the notifications inviting application and that preference of student, merit and availability of seats would be the criteria for selection." 8. Relying upon the aforesaid provision in Rule 3, it is urged on behalf of the State that the reservation of seats in the reserved categories has to be made subject wise as per the said rule and that the criteria of the availability of candidates in the subject concerned for making reservation in particular reserved category is made applicable looking to the requirement of Rule 3 that a candidate should be able to compete for the said seat in the reserved category. In our view, in the absence of any rule of rotation, what has to be seen is whether the distribution of seats amongst the reserved categories is made by the respondent No. 1 in a fair and just manner or not. In our view, in the absence of any rule of rotation, what has to be seen is whether the distribution of seats amongst the reserved categories is made by the respondent No. 1 in a fair and just manner or not. We may, however, observe that it would be desirable if some uniform principles or rules are evolved by the State for allotment of seats in the reserved categories so that there is no apprehension in the minds of the candidates in the backward classes that any discrimination is practised by the State in the allotment of seats reserved for them by giving undue weightage or preference to any one particular category amongst them. 9. For considering the question whether the seats are distributed in a fair and just manner, or not, it is necessary to see the relevant chart filed by the State before us in regard to the reservations made in the subject of paediatrics. It may be seen that the subject of paediatrics was introduced in the year 1984. In February, 1984, there were two seats in this subject, both of which were reserved for open category. In July 1984, there were two seats, out of which one was reserved for S.C. candidate and the other for in-service personnel. In January 1985, there were three seats, out of which two were reserved for open candidates and one for S.C. Candidate. In August 1985, there was one seat which was reserved for the reserved category of N.T. In January 1986, there were three seats out, of which two were reserved for open category and one for O.B.C. In August 1986, there were two seats, out of which one was reserved for open category and the other for O.B.C. In January 1987, there were three seats, out of which two were reserved for open category and one for S.C. candidate. 10. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 that, even on the basis of this chart, it was the turn of the S.C. candidate in August 1986 for whom the seat should have been reserved on the principle of rotation because in the previous terms it was reserved for S.C. S.T. N.T. and O.B.C. candidates respectively in that order. The submission on behalf of the respondent No. 1 however, is that out of the four seats reserved for the S.C. category in July 86, three seats were already allotted in the clinical subjects, and, therefore, one seat in paediatrics was allotted in the said term to the candidate in the other reserved category, namely, O.B.C. to which in July 1986 two seats were allotted in non-clinical subjects out of the three seats reserved for it. According to the respondent No. 1 since many medical graduates prefer or are desirous of taking admission in the post Graduate course in clinical subjects, it is necessary to distribute the seats in a fair and just manner, in the clinical subjects. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner No. 2 has, however urged before us that there is no such distinction like clinical and non-clinical subjects so far as the reservation of seats in the reserved categories is concerned. In our view, what is relevant is not whether there is such distinction in the rule or not but what is relevant is whether many of the medical graduates prefer to seek admission to the post-graduate courses in clinical subjects or not, because in the absence of any specific rule in this regard it would be open to the State to adopt any rational or relevant criteria for equitable distribution of seats including the above criteria if it would satisfy the test of relevant criteria for allotment of seats in post-graduate courses. It is a matter of common knowledge that the majority of the medical graduates are interested in seeking admission to the post-graduate courses in clinical subjects which are professionally lucerative for them rather than seeking admission in non clinical subject which, are merely academic. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 is aware of this fact from his experience as a Dean as well as from the date of the applications of the medical graduates seeking admissions to the post-graduate courses in his college. It is, therefore, clear that the above criteria would be a relevant criteria in allotment of seats in a fair and just manner. It is, therefore, clear that the above criteria would be a relevant criteria in allotment of seats in a fair and just manner. It may also be seen that there is such distinction as clinical and non-clinical subjects recognised by the University as different criteria for registration in the post-graduate courses are laid down for clinical and non-clinical subjects in the Ordinance 57 as amended by Ordinance 64 issued by the University. In the absence of any specific rule, therefore, no fault can be found if the State has made applicable the test of equitable distribution of seats for the clinical and non-clinical subjects in giving admissions in P.G. Courses. 12. If the criteria of fair and equitable distribution of seats in clinical and non-clinical subjects could be validly adopted, then the submission on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that since out of four seats reserved for the S.C. category, there were three seats allotted in clinical subjects in July 1986, one seat in the subject of paediatrics was allotted in the said term to the candidate of the other reserved category. viz. O.B.C. to which in July 1986 two seats out of the three reserved for it were allotted in the non-clinical subjects has to be accepted. 12-A. As already pointed out, the principle of rotation is not expressly incorporated in the rules for admission and the petitioner No. 2, therefore, cannot insist upon its strict enforcement. It may, however, be seen in this regard that immediately after July 1986, for the term commencing from, January 1987, the seat was, again allotted to the S.C. category. It may further be seen that the Petitioner No. 2 had made an application for the seat in Paediatrics in the present i.e. January 1987 term, but as there was another meritorious candidate available in the S.C category, he was selected and the petitioner No, 2 could not be selected for the said seat. It may further be seen that the Petitioner No. 2 had made an application for the seat in Paediatrics in the present i.e. January 1987 term, but as there was another meritorious candidate available in the S.C category, he was selected and the petitioner No, 2 could not be selected for the said seat. Before parting with the subject of distribution of seats, we may observe that the distribution- of seats in various subjects keeping in mind the prescribed percentage of reservation in various categories of backward classes is a complex and a complicated task and the courts, should therefore, be slow to interfere with the same, particularly in the absence of any adequate data to show how in various subjects the allotment is made so as to judge whether in one particular subject in question the allotment made is fair and just or not. 13. The respondent No. 1 has stated in his additional return that the factor of back-log was also taken into consideration while making distribution of seats in various reserved categories in July 1986. The learned Counsel for the petitioner No. 2 has urged that the rules for admission do not provide for filling in any back-log in giving admissions in the postgraduate courses, and hence, the application of the said factor in the distribution of seats in the various reserved categories was illegal. A perusal of the chart of distribution of seats in July 1986 shows that the percentages prescribed for the various reserved categories under Rule-3 are not exceeded in the said term. No back-log as such is, therefore, filled in the said term in the sense in which the said term is normally understood. However, it transpires from the submission made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that what the respondent No. 1 means by the expression "back-log" is that it no reservation was made in a particular subject for a long time in a particular category, the said factor was kept in mind while making distribution of seats In July 1986. If that is the meaning which is intended by the use of the expression "back-log", it cannot be disputed that, in the absence of any rules, the said criteria could not be legitimately adopted for a fair and just distribution of seats The contention in this regard on behalf of the petitioner No. 2, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 14. If that is the meaning which is intended by the use of the expression "back-log", it cannot be disputed that, in the absence of any rules, the said criteria could not be legitimately adopted for a fair and just distribution of seats The contention in this regard on behalf of the petitioner No. 2, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 14. For all these reasons, it is not possible for us to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 that in July 1986, the seat in the subject of paediatrics should have been reserved for the S.C. candidates and that since it was not so reserved, his case for admission to the said course as a candidate in the said reserved category was prejudiced. 15. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 is that the action of respondent No. 1 in reserving the seat for O.B.C. candidate in July 1986 is not bona fide because it is done solely with a view to give admission to the respondent No. 4 who is the Secretary of the M.A.R.D. The respondent No. 1 by his additional return filed today has denied the allegations of lack of bona fide. Except the fortuitous circumstance that there was one seat reserved for O.B.C. in the subject of paediatrics and that there was only one candidate. viz. the respondent No. 4 available for the said seat no other material is placed on record to show that the authorities In the college were influenced by the respondent No. 4 in this regard. A charge of lack of bona fide which requires high degree of proof cannot be held to be proved in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is necessary to see that as it is shown on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the seat was allotted to the O.B.C. category in order to have a fair and just distribution of seats amongst the reserved categories by the application of rational criteria based upon the relevant data, the charge of lack of bona fide stands negatived and cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances there would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. ------