JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---These are cross-petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution-the prize being registration in M.D. Radiology. 2. The Medical College at Ambejogai (whose Dean is a respondent to the petitions along with the State and the Director of Medical Education Research) is a Government institution. Dr. Chavan-the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1462 of 1988 and respondent No. 5 in the other petition is serving as a Lecturer in the Department of Radiology in the aforementioned College. He and Dr. Sheehgir-the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 223 of 1988 responded to the advertisement dated 25-1-1988 calling for applications for registration for M D. in Radiology in the faculty of Medicine of the Marathwada University for the session commencing in January 1988. That University and the State Government have framed rules to regulate admissions to graduate and post-graduate courses in the Medical Colleges. In regard to reserved seats, the two specifications laid down by the rules is that the reservation be done equitably and by rotation in all subjects and that an ideal roster be prepared in advance for every three years and duly notified. Reservations are prescribed for in-service personnel coming from those serving in Government Hospitals and Medical Colleges. The percentage prescribed for such personnel is 15% for the post-graduate degree and 25% for post-graduate diploma courses. No roster has been prepared and thus not notified till date. A statement showing the likely number of post-graduate registration available for the January 1988 session was drawn up and therein the depiction was that there would be only one seat in Radiology and that would go to an in-service candidate. Merit, reckoned marks wise amongst those applying, was in favour of Dr. Sheshgir. Dr. Chavan was preferred, his being the best entitlement amongst the in-service category. The announcement in his favour was made on 2-2-1988. 3. Dr. Sheshgir's petition was moved on 5-2-1988. It was admitted on 8-2-1988. The Government respondents, having been put to notice, did not allow Dr. Chavan to fill up the seat. At the Bar, an uncontroverted statement has been made by his Counsel about Dr. Chavan having undergone and still undergoing the required practical training associated with the course. 4. Dr. Sheshgir in her petition takes exception to the choice of Dr. Chavan for the seat. Chavan to fill up the seat. At the Bar, an uncontroverted statement has been made by his Counsel about Dr. Chavan having undergone and still undergoing the required practical training associated with the course. 4. Dr. Sheshgir in her petition takes exception to the choice of Dr. Chavan for the seat. First, she points to the small number of M.D. seats available in the Ambajogai College, because of the death of teachers. This brings about a numerical limitation on the aggregate, as also candidates to be selected from different subjects. In Radiology, right from the beginning since July 1984, there has been only one seat available. Twice it has gone to in-service candidates, once to an S.C. and twice thrown open to the general lot. The rotation is on no discernible principle and the absence of a roster makes the allocation wholly dependent on executive absolutism. The allocation of the seat to Dr. Chavan is totally unjustified. The reservation principle whereunder he has come in, has no nexus to the purpose for which post-graduation courses are offered. It is violative of the promise of equality of opportunity. His selection has deprived her of her dues. Government respondents be directed to ignore the rule of in-service reservation and go entirely by a marks wise appraisal for choosing the person entitled to the seat. If Dr. Sheshgir be otherwise entitled, the seat be given to her. 5. Mr. Chavan in his petition defends the reservation for in-service personnel. He blames the Government respondents for total immobility after the finding of her petition by Dr. Sheshgir. If there were difficulties in absorbing him at Ambejogai, they could have taken him in at the Aurangabad College which had a vacant seat upto the second week of April 1988. Even if Dr. Sheshgir succeeds, an additional seat can be created for her. In any event, he should not be deprived of the registration, seeing that he is not at fault. 6. Counsel for the completing doctors and the Government respondents have been heard. The controversy is adequately brought out in the form of syllogisms put forth by Mr. Bajpai, which he summarise thus : Radiology is a super-speciality. In (Pradeep Jain's case)1, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1420, it has been held that reservation in super-specialities in fact, post-graduation courses is undersirable. In service reservation is unknown to the Constitution. The controversy is adequately brought out in the form of syllogisms put forth by Mr. Bajpai, which he summarise thus : Radiology is a super-speciality. In (Pradeep Jain's case)1, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1420, it has been held that reservation in super-specialities in fact, post-graduation courses is undersirable. In service reservation is unknown to the Constitution. The rules which provide therefore do not indicate a nexus between the reservation and the object behind post-graduate education. The finding of a 15% quota is excessive. The actual working of the rule without a roster, renders it liable to indefensible arbitrariness and worse. Right since July 1984, the Radiology seat has only twice been thrown open to the most meritorious category. Reason governs neither the rotation of subjects, nor class amongst the eligibles. The argument does have merit. But, before we go deeper into the matter, let it first be made clear that Radiology is not a speciality, much less a super speciality. In the Government Resolution dated 20th August, 1983, it is categorised as a broad ancillary speciality. The categorisation is not shown to bereft of rationality. 7. Classifications not having the imprimatur of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are not per se condemned. Article 14 permits classification, though not hostile or unthinking discrimination. To paraphrase Desai, J. in (Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana)2, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1534, a classification not founded on intelligent differentia or not having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved is irrational and arbitrary, thus rendering it constitutionally invalid. 8. Pradeep Jain (supra) is replete with citations from various authorities, and Mr. Bajpai first submits for our acceptance. Krishna lyer, J.'s words in (Jagdish Saran)3, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 820. "The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scale of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be hand-picked by selecting according to capability. At the level of Ph.D. M.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here, equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk. At the level of Ph.D. M.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here, equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk. The thrust of the passage is in relation to subjects, where an international measure of talent is made. Radiology is not such a discipline. 9. In Pradeep Jains case itself, it has been held that even though merit should be the only criterion for post-graduate courses, there were broader considerations of equality of opportunity and Institutional continuity in education, which had their own importance and could not be totally ignored. What was completely demolished was reservation of any category in super-specialities such as, neuro-surgery or cardiology, whether on the basis of institutional preference or otherwise. There, admission had to be regulated purely on merit and that, on a countrywide basis. The decision does not deal with in service reservation. 10. Mr. Bajpai next relies upon (Salil Kumar Nayak v. State of Orissa and another)4, A.I.R. 1988 Orissa 146. The issue arising in that case was, whether a rule permitting grant of weightage to aspirants for post-graduate medical course, by virtue of rendition of rural service, or, for having reached the set target under family planning, was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The same goes for Suneel Jatley's case (supra), where again, reservation of seats for rural candidates was struck down. An attempt to bring back weightage on account of rendition of service in rural areas was rejected in (Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others)5, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877. In service reservation is not be equated with the nature of weightage or basis of classification arising in Nayak's case. 11. Mr. Bajpai wanted us to accept the guidelines formulated by Division Bench of this Court in (Dr. Hariprasad Sanat Trivedi, Bombay v. The Dean, Topiwala National Medical College Bombay and others)6, 1988 Mh.L.J. 475. In service reservation is not be equated with the nature of weightage or basis of classification arising in Nayak's case. 11. Mr. Bajpai wanted us to accept the guidelines formulated by Division Bench of this Court in (Dr. Hariprasad Sanat Trivedi, Bombay v. The Dean, Topiwala National Medical College Bombay and others)6, 1988 Mh.L.J. 475. The guidelines are set out in paragraph 11 of the judgment (page 479 of the Report) and are thus : (1) All the seats in the Super-Specialities whenever they are available (except those which are subject to constitutional reservations) shall be filled in by holding an entrance examination of all the qualified applicant students from the State. (2) The examination should be held by the Board of Examination constituted for the purpose by the State Government in consultation with the University or Universities to which the Colleges in which the seats are available are affiliated; (3) For such examination, the marks reserved for the practicals and viva voce should not exceed 18% of the total marks as suggested by this Court earlier. 12. Having held that Radiology is not a superspeciality, we do not see how we can apply those guidelines to the present case. It, therefore, becomes necessary to consider the reservation made for in-service personnel sui generis. 13. In service candidates are those in the employment of State Colleges and Hospitals, teaching the students going in for medical education and treating the sick and the infirm. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the majority of the sick and the infirm come form the poorer sections of society and that they cannot afford treatment by private practitioners or fancy clinics. They have no alternative but to avail themselves of the facilities that are to be found in Government Hospitals. The same goes for students Barring a handful of institutions in this country, the rest of the Medical Colleges are run by the State and Union Governments. The majority of the students, aspiring for medical education, cannot afford the fancy fees and charges expected to be paid in what known as 'donation colleges'. These students have to content themselves with being taught in a (sic) Government managed medical college. The medical practitioners treating patients or teaching students in those hospitals and colleges required to be properly equipped. The majority of the students, aspiring for medical education, cannot afford the fancy fees and charges expected to be paid in what known as 'donation colleges'. These students have to content themselves with being taught in a (sic) Government managed medical college. The medical practitioners treating patients or teaching students in those hospitals and colleges required to be properly equipped. In fact, the field of medicine is advancing so rapidly that it is difficult to keep abreast of all new discoveries in diverse fields. The in-service personnel come in at a comparatively young age and, for various reasons, cannot pursue post-graduation courses. They are attached to hospitals and colleges which are not fully equipped, whether in the matter of books or equipments. The skills of these practitioners and teachers have to be improved. It becomes necessary to provide them avenues for bettering themselves. Their betterment is required, so that the deprived or less affluent sections of society are not made to be content with the services of those less qualified than their more fortunate brethren, whether in private hospitals or other privileged institutions. Improving the skills of these practitioners and teachers is thus a social imperative. If they are left to compete with fresh graduates coming out from medical colleges, they would be at a disadvantage. Preoccupied as they are with the requirements of their service, they hardly have the time and the facilities available to compet on terms of equality with freshers from medical colleges, and, yet, it is in the interests of society that their skills are improved. Therefore, a reservation for in-service personnel serves a social need. It is not enough to say that the most meritorious deserve a place in post-graduation courses. The deserts of different groups cannot be lost sight of. The needs of the common man, or the ordinary people, cannot be overlooked. To serve this disadvantaged class better, in service reservation becomes mandatory. Any unthinning relaxation of just classification would wreak havoc and the sufferers would those whose needs the framers of the Constitution have placed far above their more fortunate brethren. 14. Holding that in-service reservation is not per se irrational, we now proceed to consider the contention that 15% reservation for this category is excessive. Any unthinning relaxation of just classification would wreak havoc and the sufferers would those whose needs the framers of the Constitution have placed far above their more fortunate brethren. 14. Holding that in-service reservation is not per se irrational, we now proceed to consider the contention that 15% reservation for this category is excessive. 15 out of 100 can never said to be excessive, having regard to the fact that the fifteen have to cater to the large majority of the populace. Mr. Bajpai argues that in practice the reservation in Radiology comes to 100% and such a reservation is indefensible, vide (Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and others)6, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 959. In that case, the question was whether a cadre having only one post could be the subject of reservation. The Court held that no reservation could be made, so as to create a monopoly. Such a reservation would render meaningless the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Article 16(1) and 16(2). Dr. Sheshgir refers to the Ambejogai College getting only one seat in M.D. Radiology, year after year, in support of the submission that whatever be the theory, the practice is within the vice of the principle mentioned above. Superficially looked at, there would appear to be substance in the contention . But it would be an error to consider the matter in isolation. The Ambejogai College is one of the colleges in the Marathwada region. There is another medical college in the region and certainly many more in the State as a whole. The Government has to make an allocation of the registered candidates, having regard to the facilities available at the different teaching institutions. That one teaching institution should be on par with another is, of course, desirable, but not something to be found in reality. The facilities differ and, therefore, the numerical difference in the allocation of candidates to the different institutions. Asking the Government to bring all the institutions on per would be to give too tall an order, and one which cannot be complied with in the near future. 15. Dr. Sheshgir is, however, on good ground when taking exception to the absence of a roster, regulating the rotation and the classification. Rule 4 itself provides that the reservation shall be done equitably and by rotation in all subjects. 15. Dr. Sheshgir is, however, on good ground when taking exception to the absence of a roster, regulating the rotation and the classification. Rule 4 itself provides that the reservation shall be done equitably and by rotation in all subjects. For giving teeth to this requirement, the rule recommends the preparation and notifying of an ideal roster, which will be in force for three years. This has not been done, with the result that the whole thing is left to the absolute and uncontrolled discretion of the powers that be. In July 1984, the seat went to the open category, as it did in January 1987. In January 1985, it went to an in-service candidate, who was a locum. It is said that this was an unintended allocation. In January 1986, the seat was served for S.C. candidates. It is thus evident that the seat goes by no fixed principles. The group selected is, more or less, by chance and by no known criterion. In the process, the equitableness contemplated is a casualty. 16. Now comes the question as to what should be done. Dr. Sheshgir would have the result in favour of Dr. Chavan annulled. Dr. Chavan wants to protect his selection, his Counsel arguing that he was not at all a fault and that in any case, he has acquired the necessary practical training. Counsel also points out that Dr. Chavan is from the S.C. category and that this category, as it is , is at a disadvantage, even in the in-service personnel. The equities are not so evenly balanced as to enable a complete reversal of the selection of Dr. Chavan. He has undergone the practical training and it would be wastage of national resources to debar him from occupying the seat that was given to him. However, Dr. Sheshgir should not suffer. The solution we evolve is that a fresh selection be made for the July 1, 88 January 1989 course, after formulation of a proper roster to comply with Rule 4(e) of the rules governing admission to post graduate course, as at Exhibits 'A' in Writ Petition No. 223 of 1988. Dr. Sheshgir will be entitled to apply therefor, and if found to be more meritorious than the persons selected for the July 1988 January 1989 seat in M.D. Radiology, absorbed therein by the creation of an additional seat. Dr. Sheshgir will be entitled to apply therefor, and if found to be more meritorious than the persons selected for the July 1988 January 1989 seat in M.D. Radiology, absorbed therein by the creation of an additional seat. This is, of course, upon her being found otherwise eligible and acceptable by the operation of the rules. 17. The two petitions are disposed of accordingly, with the rule in Dr. Chavan's petition being made absolute, and that in Dr. Sheshgir's petition being made partially absolute. Parties shall bear own costs in both the petitions. Order accordingly. -----