JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioners who were born and brought up in Orissa and who are permanent residents of Orissa and secured their M.B.B.S. decrees from the universities in Orissa but are serving as doctors in the Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela under the employment of the Steel Authority of India limited have filed these writ applications for a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to admit the Petitioners to the Two Years Postgraduate courses in the Government Medical Colleges upon a declaration that the note appended to paragraph 12 of the prospectus for the year 1988-89 falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is ultravires. 2. Two categories of doctors are admitted to the P.G. Courses. To one category belong those doctors who after passing the final M.S.B.S. Examination have secured full registration with State Medical Council Such doctors if selected are required to undergo one year's house man ship prior to admission to the Post-graduate degree or diploma course. To the other category belong doctors who have rendered service after full Registration in a hospital which is approved for rotating house man ship or in a command hospital etc. This is in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Medical Council of India. There is still a third category as per the prescription with which we are not concerned. Seats have been allotted to the two categories in equal proportion. The second category of doctors has been nomenclature as in service doctors. In the year 1987 -88, the note appended to para 12 of the prospectus, defined an 'in service' doctor as one: who is in the employment of the Government of Orissa, Government of India, Public Sector undertakings and other Organizations under the Orissa Government and Government of India. This includes all categories of employment like adhoc, temporary, contract, reassure or substantive on the date of application. In the prospectus of the year 1388-89, however, the definition was altered as follows: An in service doctor is one who is in the employment of the Government of Orissa, Public Sector Undertakings and other Organizations under the Orissa Government or is an Armed Forces Personnel. This includes at: categories of employment like adhoc, temporary, contract, regular or substantive on the date of application. This includes at: categories of employment like adhoc, temporary, contract, regular or substantive on the date of application. So, in the year 1988-89, doctors serving under Government of India Public Sector Undertakings and other Sector Under standings and other Originations under Government of India, except those serving in the Armed Forces, were taken out of the purview of the definition. That is to say, such doctors were not alliable under the second category to seek admission to seats earmarked for in service doctors. The gravies of the allegation of the Petitioners is that the exclusion of the in service doctors serving under the Central Government, Central Government Undertakings and organization suffered the vice of invidious discrimination and the classification has no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The object being selection of the best and most talented candidate for the Post-graduate course, the exclusion of doctors serving under Central Government, Central Government Undertakings and Organizations as regards seats earmarked for in service doctors is arbitrary and unjust. 3. In the return filed by the opposite parties, they have sought to justify the exclusion on the ground that the State was competent to earmark seats excluding 25 per cent of the total seats for Post-graduate course which have been thrown open for open selection on All India basis for in service doctors serving under State Government and State Government Undertakings and Organizations. The Petitioners belong to a class of doctors who do not serve under the State Government, or State Government Undertakings and Organizations. They are a class by themselves and no discrimination his been made amongst the members of that class. It was open to the Petitioners to seek admission against the 25 per cent of open seats by taking the All India Entrance Examination. 4. There is a minor fallacy in the approach of the opposite parties. All India Entrance Examination is held for selection to the 3-year Post graduate course though, no doubt, the in service doctors are eligible to take the said examination. They were a class by themselves coming under the second category, referred to earlier. They were to undergo 2-year course. Therefore the question is was it open to the State Government to reserve all the 86 seats earmarked for the 2-year P.G. Course for doctors serving under it or its undertakings or organizations and in the Armed Forces? 5. They were a class by themselves coming under the second category, referred to earlier. They were to undergo 2-year course. Therefore the question is was it open to the State Government to reserve all the 86 seats earmarked for the 2-year P.G. Course for doctors serving under it or its undertakings or organizations and in the Armed Forces? 5. Certain general principles were laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and the following passage was approved: It would be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions giving instruction in specialties, less meritorious students when more meritorious student, are available, simply because the former are permanent residents or residents for a certain number of years in the State while the latter are not, though both categories are citizens of India.... It is no blessing to inflict quacks and medical midgets on people by wholesale sacrifice of talent at the threshold. Not can the very best be rejected from admission because that will be a nation loss and the interests of no region can be higher than those of the nation. The primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges, must therefore, be merit. 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 aforesaid guided the Supreme Court in Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, to strike down a rule allocating seats in medical college on district wise basis. It was held that allocation of seats district wise had no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the same consideration prevailed with the Court in striking down the scheme of selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges in State of Tamil Nadu on unit-wise scheme. But certain considerations weighed with the Court justifying departure and it was observed: The scheme of admission to medical colleges may, therefore, depart from the principle of selection based on merit, where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of bringing about real equality of opportunity between these who are unequal. In D.P. Joshi Vs. The State of Madhya Bharat and Another the Supreme Court upheld the discrimination based on residence. In D.P. Joshi Vs. The State of Madhya Bharat and Another the Supreme Court upheld the discrimination based on residence. In N. Vasundara Vs. State of Mysore and Another, residence requirement far a period of not less than ten years for admission to medical colleges in the then State of Mysore was upheld and it was observed: The State has therefore to formulate with reasonable foresight a just scheme of classification for imparting medical education to the available candidates which would serve the object and purpose of providing broad-based medical aid to the people of the State and to provide medical education to those who are best suited for such education. The Court was of the view that the object of the State Government in making reservation based on residence requirement was to input medical education to the best talent available out of the classes of persons who were likely, so far as it could reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doctors, the inhabitants of the State. In D.N. Chanchala Ors. Vs. The State of Mysore and Others, university wise reservation was upheld. It was observed: ...Further the Government which bears the financial burden of running the Government Colleges is entitled to lay down criteria for admission in its own colleges and to decide the sources from which admission would be made, provided of course, such classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable connection with the object of the rules. Reservation of State seats in a college started in a backward region has been upheld. See State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pradip Tandon and Others. High ratio reservation for candidates coming from backward region was also held not to militace against the equality mandate. (See Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), and reviewing the decisions, the Supreme Court Pradeep Jain's case (supra) held in paragraph-19: ...We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalize opportunities for medical admission an a broader basis and to bring about real and, not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. but drew attention and followed the observation of Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Suan's case (supra), which runs thus: Reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. but drew attention and followed the observation of Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Suan's case (supra), which runs thus: Reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarity, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation. So, a certain percentage which may be available, must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like and condemned the wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile residence and on the basis of institutional preference regulates of merit (See paragraph-20). 6. After considering the pleas urged by the various States where facilities are not adequate and which have lagged behind that national main-stream in development the Supreme Court permitted reservation of certain percentage of seats and directed throwing open 25 per cent of seats for selection of candidates through All-India Entrance Examination. The opposite parties rely on this aspect as their trump-card. They have averred that 56 out of total 226 seats having been thrown open for selection on All-India basis, it was open to the State Government to reserve the balance sets for the permanent residents of the State and doctors serving under it or under State Government Undertakings and Organizations. 7. Selection of candidates through All-India Entrance Examination was for the 3-year course. The total number of seats for the 3 years course is 141. We are not at this stage addressing ourselves whether that allowed from the Supreme Court direction. We are concerned here with a case where there is a total reservation of seats in the 2-year P.G. Course in favour of in service doctors serving under the State Government and its undertakings and organizations and Armed Forces Personnel to the exclusion of others. There is no reasonable basis for the classification. The Petitioners are residents of Orissa taken their degrees from the universities in the State, served in the hospitals located in and rendered service to the people of the State. The further classification in the category of in service doctors by preserving seats only for in service doctors serving under the State and under State Government Undertakings and Organization goes beyond the permissible classification mandated by the Supreme Court. The further classification in the category of in service doctors by preserving seats only for in service doctors serving under the State and under State Government Undertakings and Organization goes beyond the permissible classification mandated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was averse to reservation of any seat in P.G. Course but having regard to the various circumstances prevailing in States, permitted reservation on grounds of residence, backwardness and institutional preference. There is no rational nexus between the exclusion of doctors serving in approved hospitals run by local bodies and private organizations in the State, if there be any, and the object sought to be achieved. The reason for reservation applies equally to them if it that such doctors after Post-graduation would render service to the people of the State. There can be no justification to exclude them when under the guidelines of the Medical Council of India, they are entitled to take the 2-year P.G. Course if they qualify the other requirements prescribed by the Medical Council of India. We, therefore, hold that the exclusion of doctors of the category as the Petitioners cannot be justified as a justifiable classification. We, therefore, decree the note appended to paragraph 12 of the prospectus in so far as that excluded the category of doctors as the Petitioners is invalid. 8. By order dated 1986-1988, the Petitioners were allowed to take the entrance examination. By order dated 19-7-1988, results of the examination were directed to be published but seats were directed to be kept reserved till disposal of the writ applications. It was brought to our notice that the Petitioners in O.J.C. Nos. 1850, 1851, 1853 and 1884 of 1988 are entitled to admission on the basis of their performance and they have been allotted seats in respect of respective specialties in order of preference. We direct that they be admitted to the Post-graduate course. Since the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 1852 of 1988 has not qualified in the entrance examination for admission, her writ application would stand dismissed. 9. In the result, O.J.C. Nos. 1850, 1851, 1853 and 1854 of 1988 are allowed and O.J.C. No. 1852 of 1988 is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. A.K. Padhi, J. I agree. O.J.C. Nos. 1850. 1851,1853 and 1854 of 1988 allowed and OJC No. 1852 of 1988 dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed