JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J.—The Government of Himachal Pradesh runs a Medical College at Simla. It is called Indira Gandhi Medical College, Simla. The admission to the First year M.B.B.S. Course is in accordance with the Prospectus issued by the State Government. 2. There are sixty-five seats in the College. Of them, ten are filled-in on the basis of All-India Entrance Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Five seats are filled-in by nomination to be made by the Government of India. Twenty-six seats are reserved for various categories. The distribution of these seats includes, two seats for the candidates belonging to backward classes and three seats for those from backward area. The present petitions relate to the seats reserved for the candidates from backward area. 3. The admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University. The question papers are to be objective (MCQ) type. The merit list is to be prepared by the Controller of Examinations on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates. The inter-se ranking of the candidates obtaining equal aggregate marks in the competitive examination in the P.M.T. examination is to be according to the marks obtained by them in Biology, Chemistry and Physics, in that order. 4. The Prospectus mentions (in Part V—Details of Competitive Test/Examination) that "No application for re-evaluation or re-checking of the answer books will be entertained". Part III of the Prospectus dealing with the "Admission" mentions in Group-A (Reserved), the distribution of seats under the various categories, at item No. (8) Backward Area.........3 Seats. There is a Note below it, which reads : "These three seats are reserved for candidates belonging to the backward area as notified by the Government from time to time who have passed at least two or (properly, it should be out of) three examination i.e. Primary, Middle and Matric from the Institution located in the backward areas. In case no candidate becomes available from the backward area for these reserved seats, the same will got to the general category candidates." 5. In the examination held for admission to the Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course 1989-90, one Subhash Chauhan (Roll No. 3906), who had obtained 164 marks in the aggregate, was shown as selected for admission to one of the three seats meant for the candidates from backward area. In the examination held for admission to the Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course 1989-90, one Subhash Chauhan (Roll No. 3906), who had obtained 164 marks in the aggregate, was shown as selected for admission to one of the three seats meant for the candidates from backward area. The other two reats have been passed on to the general category candidates on the view that no candidate, other than Subhash Chauhan, became available from the backward area for these reserved seats. 6. Kumari Chetna Raina approached this Court on July 21, 1989, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 315 of 1989, saying that she came from a backward area and was entitled to admission on one of the reserved seats thereof. Her candidature for admission on a seat reserved for the backward area was erroneously rejected by the Himachal Pradesh University Prem Prakash Chauhan made a similar grievance by approaching this Court for relief by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 347 of 1989 on August 5, 1989. 7. The grievance of Chetna Raina and Prem Prakash Chauhan basically is that though they belonged to a backward area as notified by the State Government, their candidature was rejected on the ground that they had not passed atleast two out of three examinations, i.e., Primary, Middle and Matric, from the Institution located in the backward areas. They say that in the local area of the Panchayat, to which they belong, there did not exist any Middle or High School. As such, it was not possible for them to comply with the second requirement contained in the Note of passing atleast two out of three of the examinations. Chetna Raina belongs to Mashog Panchayat area (Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi) while Prem Parkash Chauhan belongs to Hanstari Panchayat area (Tehsil Rohru, District Simla). They say that the condition of passing atleast two out of the three examinations from the backward area was, thus, unreasonable and arbitrary. It deserved to be struck down and their candidature was liable to be considered for admission against one of the seats reserved for the backward area. 8. Asheesh Sharma and Meera Sood, who are petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 1989, have assailed the reservation of seats for candidates coining from backward area. It deserved to be struck down and their candidature was liable to be considered for admission against one of the seats reserved for the backward area. 8. Asheesh Sharma and Meera Sood, who are petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 1989, have assailed the reservation of seats for candidates coining from backward area. They say that the reservation of seats was not possible on the basis of there being backward areas in the State in respect of a very large number of Panchayats as was done in the present case. In any case, according to them, the reservation was not sustainable in law as it was not possible to hold that the large number of Panchayats, which have been declared to be backward areas, were all both socially and educationally backward so as to sustain the reservation on any ground permissible under the Constitution of India. The challenge is founded upon Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 9. It is also the grievance of these two petitioners that the Entrance examination was held by asking the candidates to answer question papers of a objective (MCQ) type. The marking of the questions was on the basis of some Key answers which were never published. The petitioners have said that in respect of some of the questions, which they were required to answer by making a choice about one of the various alternatives given with the question as the correct answer, the answers were patently erroneous. The action of not disclosing the key answers was arbitrary. Moreso, when there was no provision for moderating the answers chosen as the key answers for determining as to which of the alternatives was to be treated as the correct answer. 10. In regard to the evaluation of the answer-sheets, the further grievance of these petitioners has been that they had reasons to believe that some of the answers given by them were not marked at all and there were totalling mistakes as well. Else, the marks obtained by them would have been much more than what they are shown to be. The petitioners claim that they were entitled to re-evaluation or atleast re-checking of their answer sheets to that extent. 11. Some of the candidates who have been shown as selected or in the waiting list, in consequence of the Test, have been impleaded as respondents in these petitions. The petitioners claim that they were entitled to re-evaluation or atleast re-checking of their answer sheets to that extent. 11. Some of the candidates who have been shown as selected or in the waiting list, in consequence of the Test, have been impleaded as respondents in these petitions. Subhash Chauhan, who has been selected for admission as a candidate from backward area in a seat reserved for that area, is one of them. He has filed a reply in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of1989. Replies have also been filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Indira Gandhi Medical College and the Himachal Pradesh University. They have offered justification for the reservation of seats from backward areas and the method of evaluating the answer-sheets. 12. We may first deal with the question of re-evaluation of the answer-sheets. We have noticed earlier that the Prospectus expressly mentions that no application for re-evaluation or re-checking of the answer books will be entertained. The candidates, who appeared at the Test, were alive to this condition. They cannot be heard to say that they could claim re-evaluation of their answer-sheets as a matter of right because there was a provision for re-evaluation in Ordinance 6.70 of the Ordinance of the Himachal Pradesh University, which conducted the P.M.T. examination under Ordinance 14.1. In its clause (f), Ordinance 6.70 itself excludes any right of re-evaluation as far as P.M.T. Test is concerned. 13. On principle too, we are not inclined to hold that the candidates can claim re-evaluation of their answer-sheets in an examination of this kind. A very large number of candidates take these competitive Tests. The question papers are of objective type. There are a very large number of questions in each subject. The statement made on behalf of the University in its return is that "the marking of the answer sheets is done by the evaluators according to the key answers after having received the moderated key answers.................. and the marking of the answer sheets done by the evaluators is further checked/re-checked in order to ensure that there is no totalling mistake and no answer has been left unmarked.........” 14. and the marking of the answer sheets done by the evaluators is further checked/re-checked in order to ensure that there is no totalling mistake and no answer has been left unmarked.........” 14. The provision in Ordinance 6.70 (f) and the Note in the Prospectus that there will be no re-evaluation in the case of P.M.T. examination is, to our mindfully justified as the nature of the examination is such that a re-evaluation of the answer-sheets at the request of the candidates would involve the University in stupendous effort and would lead to considerable delay in the finalisation of the list of the candidates entitled to be admitted to the Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course The delay should be avoided because the delay in the finalisation of the list would, of necessity, delay the commencement of the studies in a professional course. Moreso, when we know of no accepted principle of natural justice which may necessitate the granting of the right to ask for re-evaluation to the examinees, who are dissatisfied with the result of the examination. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543, where it said (in paragraph 12) that :— ".........The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed.....................to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners........." 15. The grievance that the absence of provision for disclosure of the key answers is unreasonable, for, it leaves the examinees in a state of utter helplessness and deprives them of an opportunity of even knowing whether the key answers with reference to which their answers are checked by the evaluators are patently erroneous or not seems to be justified. The grievance that the absence of provision for disclosure of the key answers is unreasonable, for, it leaves the examinees in a state of utter helplessness and deprives them of an opportunity of even knowing whether the key answers with reference to which their answers are checked by the evaluators are patently erroneous or not seems to be justified. True it may be, as asserted by the University in its return, that the key answers, furnished by the paper setters, who are eminent teachers in the subject concerned are further subjected to moderation by three eminent teachers in the subject and a certificate obtained from them that they had checked the key answers furnished by the paper setters and ascertained their correctness, yet, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309, may be read with advantage Speaking, through Chandrachud, C.J., the Supreme Court said (in paragraph 15) that:— "......Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper-setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the paper-setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged............If the University had not published the key answer alongwith the result of the Test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case the remedy would have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs............fairness in publishing the key answer has given......an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations........" 16. The Kanpur University, which conducted the combined Pre-Medical Test for admission to the seven Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, had published the key answers alongwith the result of the Test. Some of these answers were found to be patently erroneous by the High Court before which they were challenged. 17. After making the above observations, the Supreme Court defined the ambit of enquiry in the matter. Some of these answers were found to be patently erroneous by the High Court before which they were challenged. 17. After making the above observations, the Supreme Court defined the ambit of enquiry in the matter. It said (in paragraph 16) that:— "Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not" be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect." 18. We feel that fairness demands that the key answers should also be published alongwith the result of the Test. If any answer is clearly demonstrated to be wrong in the sense that no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct, appropriate measures in that respect should be taken by the University. If the attention of the University is drawn to a defect of this nature in a key answer or to any ambiguity to the question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspected question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it, as was said by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University s case. 19. A request for re-checking is not excluded, in the case of Pre-Medical Test, by any Ordinance framed by the University. 19. A request for re-checking is not excluded, in the case of Pre-Medical Test, by any Ordinance framed by the University. Re-checking, in the sense of finding out in a particular case, whether all the answers given by a candidate have been assigned marks or for discovering whether there has been any error in totalling of the marks is not a process which may consume lot of time or result in unusual delay in the declaration of the final result. The University can think about setting a time limit within which a request for re-checking in this sense may be prayed for by a candidate. We may observe that the error of this nature can crept-in inspite of all reasonable efforts on the part of the University to avoid its occurrence. After all, the process is in human hands, which may sometimes falter. The University may consider this aspect in its future P.M.T. Tests. In the present petitions, there is only general assertion about the likelihood of such a mistake having crept-in. The University has, therefore, given a general reply saving that the marking of the answer-sheets done by the evaluators is further checked/re-checked to ensure that there is no totalling mistake and no answer has been left unmarked We are not inclined, therefore, to direct that an opportunity of this nature be permitted to the candidates now. 20. By a Finance Department Notification dated January 10, 1986 (Published in the Himachal Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated February 15, 1986) a consolidated list of backward Panchayats of different districts mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Notification "for specific purposes of development in accordance with the policy of the Government in terms of earmarking resources for their development............"was notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The areas of the various Panchayats mentioned in paragraph 5 of this Notification have been treated to be backward areas for which reservation of three seats was contemplated in the Prospectus for Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course1989-90. The submission on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of1989is that a very large area of the State has been notified as backward area through this Notification, without any regard to the relevant considerations for making the declaration. The submission on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of1989is that a very large area of the State has been notified as backward area through this Notification, without any regard to the relevant considerations for making the declaration. The precise submission is that no proper study, having regard to the relevant considerations, was made by the State Government for finding out whether and, if so, which of the Panchayat should be treated to be socially and educationally backward areas for the purpose of reservation for admission to a professional College, like the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Simla. The Government has assumed, without any proper basis, that the area of these Panchayats was backward area for that purpose. 21. We have on the record a copy of letter No. PLG. FC (F) 3-35/82, dated August 22, 1988, of the Government of Himachal Pradesh Planning Department, addressed to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is Annexure R-4/A to the reply of the fourth respondent in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 1989. It contains the comments of the planning Department regard to a writ petition (Sanjeev Kumar and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh) in this Court. It says that certain areas in Himachal Pradesh were being declared as backward from time to time with the basic objective of ensuring their accelerated development. The first list was notified in June 1974. The last list was the one notified by the Government through Notification dated January 10, 1986, published in the Gazette (Extraordinary) dated February 15, 1986. The letter gives out the indicators on the basis whereof the backward areas were identified. The letter also mentions the considerations for prescribing that atleast two out of three examinations, i.e., Primary, Middle and Matric be passed from the Institution located in the backward areas for becoming eligible for consideration for admission to the Medical College against one of the seats reserved for candidates coming from backward areas. We will have occasion to deal with the contents of this letter in greater detail a little later. The State Government has placed reliance upon the contents of this letter to justify its selection of the areas of the various Panchayats mentioned in the Notification of January 10, 1986 as constituting backward area for the purposes of P.M.T. Test. 22. We will have occasion to deal with the contents of this letter in greater detail a little later. The State Government has placed reliance upon the contents of this letter to justify its selection of the areas of the various Panchayats mentioned in the Notification of January 10, 1986 as constituting backward area for the purposes of P.M.T. Test. 22. Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15 (1) says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen, inter alia, on the ground only of place of his birth. Sub-article (4) of Article15, however, says that "Nothing in this article..............shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes". 23. A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the provisions of Article 15 (4) in M. R. Balaji and others v. The State of Mysore and others, AIR 1963 SC 649.It said (in Paragraph 21) that :— ".........The backwardness under Article 15 (4) must be social and educational. It is not either social or educational, but it is both social and educational ; and that takes us to the question as to how social and educational backwardness has to be determined." Dealing with the question of social backwardness, it said (in paragraphs 23 and 24) that :— ".........Social backwardness is on the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a very large extent. The classes of citizens who are deplorably poor automatically become socially backward. They do not enjoy a status in society and have, therefore, to be content to take a backward seat............... The occupations of citizens may also contribute to make classes of citizens socially backward. There are some occupations which are treated as inferior according to conventional beliefs and classes of citizens who follow these occupations are apt to become socially backward. The place of habitation also plays not a minor part in determining the backwardness of a community of persons............". (Emphasis supplied) 24. Dealing with the question pf educationally backward areas, it said (in paragraph 26) that :— "......It is only communities which are well below the State average that can properly be regarded as educationally backward classes of citizens. The place of habitation also plays not a minor part in determining the backwardness of a community of persons............". (Emphasis supplied) 24. Dealing with the question pf educationally backward areas, it said (in paragraph 26) that :— "......It is only communities which are well below the State average that can properly be regarded as educationally backward classes of citizens. Classes of citizens whose average of student population works below 50% of the State average are obviously educationally backward classes of citizens.,........." 25. Earlier in the judgment (in paragraph 9) it referred to the report of the Backward Classes Commission dated March 30, 1955. It noticed that according to the Commission, the causes of educational backwardness amongst the educationally and socially backward communities were :— 1. Traditional apathy for education on account of social and environmental conditions or occupational handicaps. 2. Poverty and lack of educational institutions in rural areas. 3. Living in inaccessible areas. 4. Lack of adequate educational aids, such as free studentships, scholarships and monetary grants. 5. Lack of residential hostel facilities. 6. Unemployment among the educated which acts as a damper on the desire of the members to educate their children ; and 7. Defective educational system which does not train students for appropriate occupations and professions. 26. And, in paragraph 15 it referred to the report made by the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in1959 and said that :- ".........A preliminary analysis of the data collected indicated that it would be possible to draw up a list of socially and educationally backward occupations on the basis of— (a) any non-agricultural occupations in any State in India in which 50% or more of the persons belong to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes ; or (b) any non-agricultural occupations in which literacy percentage of the persons depending thereon is less than 50% of the general literacy in the State." 27. In a later judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pradip Tandon and others, AIR 1975 SC 563,the Supreme Court was examining the question of constitutional validity of reservation in favour of the candidates from rural areas, the hill and Uttrakhand areas (in the State of Uttar Pradesh) for admission of students to Medical Colleges in the State. It referred to several of its earlier decisions. Speaking about social backwardness it said (in paragraphs 18 and 19) that :— "18. It referred to several of its earlier decisions. Speaking about social backwardness it said (in paragraphs 18 and 19) that :— "18. The traits of social backwardness are these. There is no social structure. There is no social hierarchy. There are no means of controlling the environment through technology. There is no organization of the society to create inducements for uplift of the people and improvement of economy. Building of towns and industries, growth of cash economy which are responsible for greater social wealth are absent among such classes......... 19. The hill and Uttrakhand areas in Uttar Pradesh are instances of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for these reasons. Backwardness is judged by economic basis that each region has its own measurable possibilities for the maintenance of human numbers, standard of living and fixed property. From an economic point of view the classes of citizens are backward when they do not make effective use of resources. When large areas of land maintain a sparse, disorderly and illiterate population whose property is small and negligible the element of social backwardness is observed. When effective territorial specialisation is not possible in the absence of means of communication and technical processes as in the hill and Uttrakhand areas the people are socially backward classes of citizens. Neglected opportunities and people in remote places raise walls of social backwardness of people." About educational backwardness it said (in paragraph 20) that : "Educational backwardness is ascertained with reference to these factors. Where people have traditional apathy for education on account of social and environmental conditions or occupational handicaps, it is an illustration of educational backwardness. The hill and Uttrakhand areas are inaccessible. There is lack of educational institutions and educational aids People in the hill and Uttrakhand areas illustrate the educationally backward classes of citizens because lack of educational facilities keep them stagnant and they have neither meaning and values nor awareness for education." Later, it said (in paragraph 30) that : "The onus of proof is on the State to establish that the reservation are for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The State has established that the people in hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens." Concluding (in paragraph 42) it said that the reservations for the hill and Uttrakhand areas were valid. 28. The State has established that the people in hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens." Concluding (in paragraph 42) it said that the reservations for the hill and Uttrakhand areas were valid. 28. These decisions unmistakably show that the reservation for admission for candidates coming from socially and educationally backward areas in a State is constitutionally permissible. The inquiry is to be confined, now, to the question whether the acceptance by the State of the very large number of Panchayats areas mentioned in the Notification of January 10, 1986, were identified with reference to constitutionally permissible indicia or not. For it, we turn our attention again to the indicators and factors which were taken into account by the respondent State in making that identification. These are contained in the letter of the Planning Department (Annexure R-4/A aforesaid) and are these :— “1. The indicators/norms which are to be adopted for identification of new backward areas as also to review the status of already notified backward areas alongwith their relative weightage. INDICATORS Remoteness and inaccessibility : Weightage (a) The geographical centre of the area under consideration should be atleast 15 Kms. away from the main motorable road. 25 Demographic Indicators : (b) The percentage of SCs/STs population in the area under consideration should be 25 per cent more. 15 (c) Average density of population per Sq. Km. should be 25 persons or less. 5 (d) 90% of the total workers population in the area under consideration should be workers engaged in the primary occupation like Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, etc. 5 (e) The percentage of school going children in 6-14 years age group in the area under consideration should not exceed 20%. 10 Infrastructural Indicators : (f) The percentage of scarcity villages with reference to drinking water should be 60 or more. 10 (g) The percentage of electrified villages to total should be 25% or less. 8 (h) The number of health institutions in the area should not exceed one. 8 (i) The area under consideration should not be served by a bank branch as R.B.I, norms. 5 (j) There should be no veterinary institution in the area. 5 Agriculture Indicators : (k) The average holding size in the area under consideration should be one hectare or below. 8 (i) The area under consideration should not be served by a bank branch as R.B.I, norms. 5 (j) There should be no veterinary institution in the area. 5 Agriculture Indicators : (k) The average holding size in the area under consideration should be one hectare or below. 3 (l) The percentage of cropped area under major cereals (wheat, maize and rice) or remunerative cash crops like potato, apple, tea, etc. to the gross cropped area should not exceed 50. 1 TOTAL 100 In any area to be eligible to be declared as backward, the qualifying score has been kept at 60%." 29. In addition, the Note in the Prospectus relating to backward areas says that three seats are reserved for candidates belonging to the backward area as notified by the Government from time to time who have passed atleast two or three examination i. e Primary; Middle and Matric from the Institution located in the backward area, which is an additional factor which ensures that the object for which the reservation has been made is achieved. 30. The letter (Annexure R-4/A)refers to this requirement and says that :— ".........In our understanding, this condition was prescribed by the Government with a view to safeguarding the interest of such people who hailed from backward areas and for children who receive a large part of their schooling in the backward areas itself.........The general level of comprehension of the children studying in the educational institutions located in the backward areas is bound to be automatically much lower than their counterparts elsewhere in view of the locational disadvantage, lack of educational and communication facilities...............The indicators adopted for identification of backward areas include only one indicator on educational backwardness and it relates to the low levels of enrolment in such areas..............the prescription of the condition by the Government that the candidates claiming reservation in admission on account of belonging to backward areas should pass at least 2 out of the 3 examinations, ............ensure(s) that whatever low levels of enrolment prevail in the identified backward areas, are given the inherent advantage as compared to their counter-parts in the advanced or other areas." 31. The requirement that the area should be both socially and educationally backward pre-supposes that a candidate who claims the benefit of coming from such an area for being considered for admission against one of the seats reserved therefor should be shown to have been associated with that area to such an extent that he may be treated to be handicapped in some measure on that account. The fact that a candidate has passed at least two out of the three examinations from schools located in some backward area can legitimately give rise to an assumption that he has been associated with a backward area for a reasonable time so as to have suffered some inherent deficiency on that account. 32. If the condition requiring passing of two out of three examinations was not there, the mere fact of the birth of a person in a backward area would remain the basis for enabling him to claim consideration of his case for admission as belonging to a backward area. This would not have provided a valid basis for reservation. In Pradip Tandon the Supreme Court clearly said (in paragraph 29) that: “......The incident of birth in rural areas is made the basic qualification. No reservation can be made on the basis of place of birth, as this would offend Article 15." 33. This leads to another consequence as a corollary. It has been urged with some emphasis by the learned Counsel appearing for Chetna Raina and Prem Parkash that, inasmuch as, the condition requiring these petitioners to pass two out of three examinations was not capable of being fulfilled by them on the ground that there were no schools, from which they could pass the Middle and Matric examinations, in the Panchayats from which they came, the condition should be treated as in valid, but a severable one. The plea cannot be accepted. The absence of a condition of this nature from the Prospectus may have affected adversely the reservation for candidates from backward areas itself. 34. A close look at the Note in the Prospectus (extracted earlier), shows that it requires that the candidate should have passed at least two out of three examinations from an Institution located m the backward areas. The absence of a condition of this nature from the Prospectus may have affected adversely the reservation for candidates from backward areas itself. 34. A close look at the Note in the Prospectus (extracted earlier), shows that it requires that the candidate should have passed at least two out of three examinations from an Institution located m the backward areas. It does not say that the examination should be passed from the same backward area to which the candidate belongs He can pass the examinations from any of the backward areas. It is not the case of the petitioners that even in the adjoining are as of the Panchayats to which they belong, or within the reasonable distance thereof, there is absence of the facility of passing two out of the three examinations due to non-existence of appropriate Institution therein If, as canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, there are such Institutions, within a reasonable distance of the Panchayat to which the candidate belongs, it is not possible to accept the submission that the requirement of Passing at least two, out of three examinations from Institutions located in backward areas was incapable of being complied with. 35. The fact that reservation, founded upon backwardness of an area, is permissible under the Constitution, makes the insistence upon the fact of a candidate belonging to a backward area having spent reason a be time therein rational. That condition can reasonably be said to be fulfilled by laying down the requirement for a candidate of having passed two out of three examinations from Institutions situate in backward areas. The condition cannot be treated to be arbitrary or unreasonable. We find it difficult to accent the submission that, in the circumstances of the present cases, the requirement that a candidate should have passed two out of three examinations from Institutions situate in backward areas was impossible of being fulfilled or arbitrary on that account. 36. The candidate who is claiming to be considered for admission against seats reserved for backward areas must fulfil both the conditions envisaged by the Note. The consideration of a candidate for a reserved seat is like a concession. If it is made subject to certain preconditions, the candidate must fulfil those conditions unless, the conditions are arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The consideration of a candidate for a reserved seat is like a concession. If it is made subject to certain preconditions, the candidate must fulfil those conditions unless, the conditions are arbitrary and unsustainable in law. In the present case we have found the condition for passing two out of three examinations from Institutions located in backward areas to be reasonable and sub serving the object of the reservation. If a Candidate does not fulfil it, he cannot chum consideration of his candidature for one of the seats so reserved. The plea of the petitioners in the writ petitions of Chetna Raina and another and Prem Parkash does not merit acceptance. 37. In conclusion, we hold that the reservation of seats for candidates coming from backward areas and the conditions of legibility for their consideration are valid in law. The grievance that the candidature was erroneously excluded on account of failure of the candidates in passing two out of three examinations, that is, Primary, Middle and Matric from Institution located in the backward areas is not sustainable. We further hold that no grievance can legitimately be made by the candidates on account of absence of a provision for re-evaluation of their answer-sheets. 38. We are, however, of opinion that the respondent-University is liable to be directed to disclose the key-answers on the basis whereof the answer sheets of the candidates have been evaluated in different subjects. We direct the Himachal Pradesh University to do so within a period of one week from today. It will be open to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, by approaching the University, within a week of the publication of the key answers. We also observe that the State would make suitable alteration in the Prospectus, about the P.M.T. Test to be held in future, in regard to re-checking of the answer sheets for any mistakes in totalling and non-marking of any answer given by a candidate, bringing it in line with Ordinance 6.69, of the University. 39. The petitions shall stand disposed of finally, in the terms aforesaid. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.