JUDGMENT - Mrs. SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---The petitioner is a student belonging to the scheduled caste community of Mahar. The petitioner was born and bought up in Bombay. She passed her 10th Standard examination from a school in Bombay. She passed her 11th standard examination also from a College in Bombay. She appeared for her H.S.C. Examination from Bombay for the academic year 1985-86. She could not pass the examination. For the academic year 1986-87 however the petitioner went to reside at Nasik since her father was transferred to Nasik in April, 1986. She appeared for the H.S.C. Examination from Nasik in the academic year 1986-87. Nasik is under Pune Divisional Board of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The result of this examination was declared in June, 1987. The petitioner passed the examination and obtained 73.6% marks in Science subjects. 2. In July, 1987 the petitioner applied for admission to the Municipal Medical Colleges run by the 1st respondents in Bombay for the M.B.B.S. course for a seat reserved for backward class communities. The 1st respondents run three Medical Colleges in Bombay and there is a common application form for admission to these, Colleges. The petitioner was not given admission on the ground that she had not passed the H.S.C. Examination from an institution located within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay. Under the admission rules, seats which are reserved for backward classes are for those candidates of the reserved category who have passed their H.S.C. Examination from an institution within the academic jurisdiction of Bombay University. 3. The petitioners has challenged the rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to the Municipal Medical Colleges for the M.B.B.S. courses in so far as they relate to candidates belonging to reserved categories. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in July, 1987 admission to Municipal Medical Colleges in Bombay in the reserved category closed at 68% of marks in the science subjects. Hence, but for the admission rules which she has challenged, she would have got admission because her marks in science subjects were 73.6%. 5. The relevant rule relating to admission to the Municipal Medical Colleges in Bombay for the M.B.B.S. course in Rule No. 3(A) which deals with allocation of seats. Hence, but for the admission rules which she has challenged, she would have got admission because her marks in science subjects were 73.6%. 5. The relevant rule relating to admission to the Municipal Medical Colleges in Bombay for the M.B.B.S. course in Rule No. 3(A) which deals with allocation of seats. Of the three Colleges, namely: Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, Topiwala National Medical College and Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College the total seats available for admission at Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College are 200 seats, at Topiwala National Medical College there are 100 seats and seats at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College are also 100. 6. Rule 3(A) provided as follows : Rule No. 3(A): Allocations of seats : (i) 34% seats are reserved for reserved categories as shown under Rule 4(a) and shall be filled in by the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the institutions located within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay, excluding institutions from Goa, with 15 years stay in Maharashtra. (ii) 15% seats shall be filled in on the basis of All India Competitive Entrance Examination for admission to under graduate Medical Course, (MBBS) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, under modified scheme or as may be directed by the Supreme Court of India. (iii) 30% of remaining seats (i.e. 15% of total seats) shall be filled in by the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from any institutions located within the State of Maharashtra and with 15 years stay in Maharashtra from a Common Merit List. (iv) The remaining seats (i.e. 30% of total seats) shall be thereafter filled in by the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from an institution located within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay excluding institutions from Goa, with 15 years stay in Maharashtra. (v) The requirements of 15 years of stay in the State of Maharashtra shall be relaxed upto 10% of seats filled in under Rule No. 3(A)(iii) and 3(A)(iv) above in case of the candidates who otherwise fulfil the prescribed requirements.” 7. The three Medical Colleges are run by the 1st respondent which is a local authority. As a local authority it is primarily interested in providing educational facilities to local inhabitants. The three Medical Colleges are run by the 1st respondent which is a local authority. As a local authority it is primarily interested in providing educational facilities to local inhabitants. Originally under the rules of admission all seats were required to be filled in by candidates who had passed the qualifying examination from an institution located within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay. Out of the total available seats, 34% of seats were for reserved categories and 66% of seats were to be allotted on the basis of open merit. Upto 1985 both those streams were of candidates who has qualified for admission from an institution within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay. After 1985, in view of various decisions of the Supreme Court, the rules relating to admission of candidates on open merit were required to be changed. 8. In the case of (Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and others)1, reported A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1420, the Supreme Court held that wholesale reservation of seats on the basis of institutional preference would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It laid down that of the total number of open seats, reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not exceed 70% of the total number of open seats. 9. In the case of (Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others)2, reported in A.I.R 1985 S.C. 1059, the Supreme Court stated that 30% open seats which were required to be filled in without any institutional preference or residential requirements should not be filled in by comparison of marks obtained at different qualifying examination of different States or Universities. It said that admissions must be based on evaluation of relative merit through an entrance examination which would be open to all qualified candidates throughout the country. It also clarified that its earlier decision in Pradeep Jain's case stating that 30% of open seats which were required to be made available on open merit on all India basis, were not 30% of the total number of seats available for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in a Medical College. It said that in the first place seats which were for the reserved category of candidates such as schedule castes and scheduled tribes were to be carved out. It said that in the first place seats which were for the reserved category of candidates such as schedule castes and scheduled tribes were to be carved out. Of the remaining seats available for non-reserved categories 30% of such seats should be left free for an open all India competition and should not be filled on the basis of residence requirement or institutional preference. 10. In a second Judgment in the case of (Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad)3, reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1415 the Supreme Court clarified that the directions which it had given in the case of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Jain and the earlier case of Dinesh Kumar would also be binding on the Medical Colleges run by the Municipal Corporation. 11. In view of these judgments the rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to M.B.B.S. course were required to be amended. As a result, the Corporation kept open a quota of 15% of total seats to be filled in on open merit on the basis of an All India. Competitive entrance examination for students all over India. This is roughly equivalent to the Supreme Court norm which prescribes around 30% of the open seats. This rule is, therefore, in accordance with the above Supreme Court judgement. 12. Thereafter in the case of (Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra and others)4, reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1362, rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. course framed by the Government of Maharashtra were challenged, inter alia, in respect of those open merit seats which were not allocated to students on an all India basis. These seats, under the rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra, had been allocated to students who had passed the qualifying examinations from institutions on a region wise basis. The Supreme Court held, applying the ratio of Pradeep Jain's case to region-wise reservation, that not more than 70% of the total number of open seats in the Medical College or Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of a particular University after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made, shall be reserved for students who have situated in school or Colleges situated within that region. It said that tat least 30% of open seats shall be available for admission to students who have studied in schools or colleges in other regions within the State. 13. It said that tat least 30% of open seats shall be available for admission to students who have studied in schools or colleges in other regions within the State. 13. As a result, now out of the entire number of open merit seats which are available, 30% of such seats have to be filled by open competition on an all India basis. Of the balance 70% of open merit seats which are available, 30% of those seats should be kept for candidates from any part of the State in which the College is situated. The remaining open merit seats can be reserved for candidates coming from institutions within the jurisdiction of the University where the College is located. This elaborate framework of allocation of open merit seats is clearly reflected in Rules 3(A)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Bombay Municipal Medical Colleges Admission Rules. 14. In all these Supreme Court judgments the Supreme Court has been at pains to make it clear that these judgment do not touch seats which are reserved for candidates of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and similar reserved categories. In fact, in the first Dinesh Kumar's case it expressly stated that the seats in the reserved category do not have to be included while calculating 30% open merit seats to be filled on an all Indian basis. 15. It is, however, the contention of the petitioner that the same principles of allocation should also be applied to seats which are kept for reserved categories of candidates. These seats have also to be filled on merit but from amongst candidates of the reserved categories. The petitioner has submitted that institutional preference for reserved seats in Rule 3(A)(i) is bad in law for the same reasons as in the case of open merit seats. In other words, if her submission is to be accepted, all the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court for allocation of seats to candidates belonging to the open merit category will also have to be applied to candidates who are eligible for reserved seats. 16. In my view the Supreme Court has taken great care to exclude reserved seats from the operation of its decisions. There is no warrant for extending the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases to seats which are reserved for candidates of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the reserved categories. 16. In my view the Supreme Court has taken great care to exclude reserved seats from the operation of its decisions. There is no warrant for extending the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases to seats which are reserved for candidates of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the reserved categories. There are several reasons why the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for open merit candidates cannot be applied to candidates in the reserved category. 17. In the first place each State has its own list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Each State also has various other reserved categories which are not necessarily uniform throughout India. This kind of distinction is inevitable because castes are tribes which may be backward in one State and may not necessarily fall in that category in another State. There have to be, therefore, regional differences in scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward class categories. In these circumstances an all India examination on merit for reserved categories of candidates would not be possible. 18. Secondly, backward class candidates are in need of having easily accessible educational institutions. Because they may not be in a position to travel long distances or stay at different places looking to their socio-economic condition. The Supreme Court has also nowhere stated that any reservation on the basis of institutional preference is unconstitutional, ipso facto. It has only observed that even in the case of open merit a wholesale reservation on the basis of institutional preference would be violative of Article 14, and at least some seats should be reserved for candidates on open merit basis. 19. In the case of candidates belonging to reserved categories in institutional preference has a nexus with the object of promoting socio-economically backward class conditions and giving them an easier access to higher education despite the fact that they may not have as many marks as open merit candidates. Looking to this nexus reservation of seats for candidates belonging to the reserved category on the basis of their passing a qualifying examination from institutions located within the academic jurisdiction of the University of Bombay does not appear to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was throughout a student of Bombay University. 20. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was throughout a student of Bombay University. It was only for the last examination that she compelled to appear from outside Bombay because she was unable to stay in Bombay. She has submitted that she should be considered on the same footing as candidates who have passed the examination from Bombay. This submission cannot be accepted. It is true that she may have had to appear for examination from Nasik because her father was transferred to Nasik. There are bound to be circumstances in which some candidates may have to appear for an examination from other institutions outside academic jurisdiction of the Bombay University. While applying the rules for admission such individual cases of hardship cannot be taken into account, as it would lead to arbitrariness and exercise of unguided discretion in granting admissions. 21. It was lastly urged that under sub-rule (iv) of Rule 3(B) respondent No. 1 has discretion to relax these rules. The rules should be relaxed to the case of the petitioner. Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 3(B) however, deals with residential requirements of 15 years' stay in the State of Maharashtra. This residential requirement can be relaxed upto 10% of the seats filled in under Rule 3(A) sub-rule (iii) and 3(A) sub-rule (iv) in case of candidates who otherwise fulfil the prescribed requirements. The case of the petitioner, does not full under this sub-rule either. There is, therefore, no question of exercising any power under this sub-rule to relax any condition in favour of the petitioner . In the premises the petition fails and the rule is discharged. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Rule discharged. -----