JUDGMENT 1. - A common question of law has been raised in all these three petitions, hence they are decided by one order. 2. It has been prayed that each of the petitioners may be given admission in M.Sc. Previous (Chemistry Department, Rajasthan University) and 68% reserva-tion may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. All the three petitioners, after passing B.Sc. Final Year Examination, applied for admission in M.Sc. (Previous) in the University of Rajasthan, respondent No.1. There are fifty seats in M.Sc. (Previous), Chemistry Department. It is submitted that an entrance examination for admission is conducted as per Prospectus, 1990-91, published by the University of Rajasthan. According to the Prospectus, 68% seats are reserved/ear-marked and only 32% seats are available for candidates of general category. A formula for preparing merit list has also been mentioned therein. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 282/91, secured 47 marks; the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 477/91, secured 116 marks; and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 478/91, secured 93 marks, out of 300 in the Entrance Examination for admission to Master of Science Degree in Chemistry, 1990-91. In para No. 10 of Writ Petition No. 477/91, names of some of the students, who were less meritorious than the petitioners and were given admission, ,have been mentioned. 4. It is submitted by Mr. J.P. Goyal and Mr. B.B. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioners, that, out of 50 seats, 34 seats have been reserved, which is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the mandate given by the Apex Court. It is further submitted that at page 5 of the Prospectus, reservation of seats has been mentioned. Their main objection is regarding category (c), in which, 12 seats are reserved for candidates not belonging to the Rajasthan University (provided they have secured 60% marks in B.Sc. and find place in the merit list). It is contended that, in this way, reservation has been created for the students, who come from out-side Rajasthan, which has resulted in arbitrary discrimination to the students belonging to Rajasthan. In Writ Petition No.477/91, return has been filed on behalf of the University. It is pointed out by Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, that this is mere classification/categorisation and not reservation, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In Writ Petition No.477/91, return has been filed on behalf of the University. It is pointed out by Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, that this is mere classification/categorisation and not reservation, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also submitted that this University is one of few such Universities, which has been selected by the University Grants Commission for COSIST Programme. It is pointed out that the Department of Chemistry is one of the 7 Chemistry Departments from all the Universities of India identified under the COSIST Programme throughout the country. Therefore, 12 seats were kept as per the COSIST Programme not only in this University, in the Department of Chemistry, but also in other selected Chemistry Departments of the various Universities all over India. This has been done with a view to give fill-up to the Outstanding talents throughout the country and also to give fill up National Integration as per direction of the UGC. It is further submitted that the admission is given to even outside students, on merit basis, as is evident from the details of reservation mentioned in the Prospectus itself. It is evident that 12 seats have been reserved for students of outside Rajasthan as per directions of the UGC in consonance with the COSIST Programme. Therefore, this cannot be termed as reservation, but it is, in fact, only a classification/categorisation, which enables the students from outside Rajasthan to seek admission in Rajasthan and that too, on the basis of merit. As per this Programme, even students of Rajasthan are entitled to be admitted in other Universities on the basis of merit, which is formulated in accordance with the directions of the UGC. These students have also to appear in the Entrance Test. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 , This was a matter under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which lays down that nothing in this Article 15 or clause (2) of Article 29 prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The Apex Court, in this matter, observed that while making special provisions for reservations for advancement of weaker section of the Society as specified in Article 15(4), the approach should be objective and rational and there-fore, generally speaking in a broad way, a special provision regarding reservation should be less than 50%. This authority incidently, is of no help to the petitioners, since the matter under consideration, does not involve advancement/ reservation of the weaker sections of the society. In the matter of Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India 1980(2) SCC 768 , the Apex Court observed that reservation of seats or quota for local candidates in professional courses denies the equal opportunity in higher education. The University, in this case, was directed to formulate a nation-wide scheme for admission. This authority is also of no help to the petitioners, as, in this case, the outside students are given admission in the various selected Universities by the UGC on the basi' of merit for admission in M.Sc. (Chemistry). Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, 1984(2) SCC 296 , was a case, in which, it was held by the Apex Court for reservation of seats for admission to MBBS/BDS course of students, who received education from Classes I to VIII in common rural schools, that it was violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 29(2) of the Constitution. Evidently, no such matter is involved in this petition. As is evident from the Prospectus for the year, 1990-91, published by the University of Rajasthan, the admissions for Master of Science Courses are made on All India Basis in order of merit as per the formula publish-ed therein. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that more than 50% reservation has been provided, since 12 seats reserved for candidates not belonging to the Rajasthan University, who can be considered only when they secure 60% marks in B.Sc. and find place in the merit list, do not come under the category or reservations made for advancement of weaker sections of the Society. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the last date for finalising the admission was December 18, 1990. The candidates of waiting list were never informed, regarding any vacancies, which still exitsted but, admissions were given to the students, who were less meritorious. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the last date for finalising the admission was December 18, 1990. The candidates of waiting list were never informed, regarding any vacancies, which still exitsted but, admissions were given to the students, who were less meritorious. Miss Indu Sharma (219 marks) D/o Dr. P.D. Sharma, who is an Associate Professor in the Chemistry Department and Miss Rama Sharma (214 marks), D/o Shri Govind ji, who is closely related to Dr. Sharma were transferred from other Department and one Sanjeev Agrawal, who was not even in the waiting list, were given admission, Sanjeev Agarwal is a son of the University employee. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in terms of the Prospectus for the year, 1990-91, students can seek a transfer from one teaching department to the another, till the expiry of the 15 days from the date of expiry prescribed by the University for admission. Fresh admissions were closed on December 18, 1990. Upto January 2, 1991, i.e. 15 days from the last date of admission, only two applications were received by the Department of Chemistry of students who had already been admitted to other teaching departments in the University of Rajasthan. The contention of the learned counsel is that subsequent to the closure of regular admissions, the waiting list stood discharged and only students admitted to other teaching departments could he considered for admission on the basis of the rules providing for their transfer. It is' further submitted that none of the petitioners made any application for transfer to the Department of Chemistry through proper channel, within time. It may be pointed out that there is Pre-Entrance Test, so far as Department of Chemistry is concerned. At page 15 of the Prospectus for the year, 1990-91, under Heading For new admission", it is mentioned in clause (iv) that subject to availability of seats, transfer from one Teaching Department of the University to another is permissible till the expiry of 15 days from the date prescribed by the University for admissions on the following conditions : (a) He must have applied for admission in the Department while he seeks his transfer by the last date fixed for the purpose. (b) he must have obtained more marks than the first candidate on the waiting list. (b) he must have obtained more marks than the first candidate on the waiting list. Thus, it is evident from the above clause, regarding transfer that no student can be transferred, unless he has more marks than the first candidate on the waiting list. In the Department of Chemistry, unlike some other Departments, Entrance Test is held and the admission is given on the basis of merit adjudged in accordance with the formula published in the said Prospectus. Evidently, all the three candidates, who have been given admission after December 18, 1990, the date on which fresh admissions closed, are less meritorious than many students in the waiting list, including the petitioners. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide Anx. R/3 dated October 25, 1990, students were ad-vised to see the Notice Board of the Chemistry Department from time to time to know the latest development. This was necessary because seats became available from time to time. Anx. R/4 dated November 19, 1990, mentions the approximate vacancies available in the Department. Anx. R/5 dated December 14, 1990, mentions that there may be few vacancies in the Department of Chemistry and those interested in seeking admissions were informed that they should be present for personal interview on December 18, 1990, at 12.30 p.m. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that none of the petitioners appeared for interview on the appointed date, hence the waiting list was discharged and admission was given to the candidates who were transferred from other Departments. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objections and stated that none of the petitioners have any right of admission and therefore, no writ petition could be filed, on this ground. I do not find any merit in this contention, since what the petitioners claim is that they should be admitted on the basis of merit, since less meritorious students have been given admission. It is further submitted that those candidates, against whom objections have been raised, have not been impleaded as parties, therefore, no order against these candidates can be claimed by the petitioners to be passed in these petitions. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Anx. R/4 and R/5 were never affixed on the Notice Board. Moreover, Anx. R/4 given out that admissions of M.Sc. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Anx. R/4 and R/5 were never affixed on the Notice Board. Moreover, Anx. R/4 given out that admissions of M.Sc. (Previous) will be finalised on 21st November, 1990, at 11 a.m. and Anx. R/5 even does not mention that how many permanent vacancies were available. Even though, this court will not enter into the controversy whether Anx. R/4 and R/5 were affixed on the Notice Board, but it cannot be said that students, who go to the extent of knocking at the doors of the Court, will be very keen to see the Notice Board, since they are evidently interested in getting admission in the Department of Chemistry. The petitioner in writ Petition No. 477/90, has secured 333.3 marks; petitioner in Writ Petition No.478/91, has secured 310 marks and petitioner in Writ Petition No.282/91, has secured 235 marks, who are all more meritorious than the candidates, who have been given entry either by way of transfer or on account of being ward of an employee of the University of Rajasthan. There is no doubt that the rule extracted above, regarding admission of students on transfer from other Department, clearly lays down that only such candidates will be given admission, on transfer, from the other Department, who have obtained more marks than the first candidate on the waiting list. By giving admission to the two students mentioned above, on transfer from another Department, this rule has been evidently violated by the concerned authorities, which is not expected, since the Department of Chemistry as given out by the learned counsel for the respondents, is one of the few Departments selected by the UGC and is also given grant for running the same. This, evidently, is done to maintain the highest standard of education in the Department of Chemistry. Apart from this, since in the Department of Chemistry, the merit is not counted on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate in B.Sc. examination, but by special entrance test, this rule is evidently not applicable for admission to such Departments where entrance test is taken and will not be applicable to such candidates, who have never appeared in this entrance test. The admissions of these two students are, therefore, in violation of the Rules mentioned above and also principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The admissions of these two students are, therefore, in violation of the Rules mentioned above and also principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Vice-Chancellor vide Anx. R/7 dated November 10, 1990, has issued a Notification that there shall be a reservation of seats for wards of the University employees (i.e., Non-teaching officers, Ministerial staff, Technical staff and Class IV) for admission to the post-graduate Departments only where the number of students admitted is 40 or more the number of reserved seats should be one, but in the Department with two sections the number of reservation of seats would be two. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to show under what provision of law, the Vice-Chancellor issued this Notification, by which, reservation of seats has been made, merely on the ground because a particular student, even though less meritorious, is given admission, ignoring the merit of other students, merely on the ground that he is a ward of an employee of the Universty of Rajasthan. This Notification is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and violative of, the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, quashed and struck down. 6. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, none of the three students mentioned above, who have been given admission, after closure of the admissions, on December 18,1990, have been made party to the writ petition and therefore, have not been afforded an opportunity of replying to the challenge made to their admission. Therefore, it will not be proper to quash their admissions. However, evidently, they are less meritorious than several others on the waiting list, including the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that three seats be created to compensate/accommodate three meritorious students from the waiting list, who may desire to join the Department of Chemistry. This seems to be the most reasonable way to resolve the controversy and to see that the meritorious students are not ignored for the sake of accommodating from back door certain chosen/favoured candidates, on whatsoever considerations, it may be. 7. The writ petitions are allowed and it is, therefore, directed that the University of Rajasthan shall create three more seats in the Department of Chemistry, to be given to the meritorious students on the waiting list, in order of their merit. 7. The writ petitions are allowed and it is, therefore, directed that the University of Rajasthan shall create three more seats in the Department of Chemistry, to be given to the meritorious students on the waiting list, in order of their merit. Apart from putting Notice on the Notice Board, for information of all students, an advertisement shall also be published in the daily newspapers, i.e., Rajasthan Patrika, Navbharat Times, Dainik Navjyoti, Rastradoot and Times of India, published from Jaipur, in which, at least one week's time shall be given from the day of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers, for making an application for admission in the Department of Chemistry. If the petitioners are found meritorious, they shall automatically get advantage of the same. 8. The petitions are partly allowed, as mentioned above, with no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******