JUDGEMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.---These four writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in these writ petitions, claim admissions to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic session 1992-93 against the seats reserved for V.J.N.T. It is not in dispute that there are 11 seats reserved for the V.J.N.T. category for admission to the Government Medical Colleges. It may be seen that the relevant rules for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Colleges were framed as per the Government Resolution dated 26.5.1992 and according to the said rules, the last date for submission of application forms in accordance with the said rules was 30.6.1992. On 13.7.1992, the provisional merit list of the candidates applying for the First Year M.B.B.S Course was prepared and as regards the reserved category of V.J.N.T., the date for scrutiny of the original certificates fixed as per the said notification dated 30.6.1992 was 22.7.1992 from 2.30 P.M. onwards . 1A. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the State Government, the said admissions were finalised on that date viz. 22.7.1992. However, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, they were not finalised. The learned Counsel appearing for the State Government has however, clarified that it was as regards the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates only that the said admissions were not finalised since the question whether some of the candidates who had filed writ petitions in this Court belonged to the Scheduled Tribe of Halba or not, was pending consideration before this Court. 2. Perusal of the provisional merit list would show that the name of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1589 of 1992 i.e. V.V. Giri is at Sr. No. 10 of the said provisional merit list and the name of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992 i.e. Nitin Sapkal is at Sr. No. 11. As regards the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1758 of 1992 (Rajusingh Wasram Pawar) and Writ Petition No. 1746 of 1992 (V.H. Kurwale) are concerned, their names are at Sr. Nos. 12 and 13 respectively in the said provisional merit list. Normally, since there were 11 seats to be filled in this reserved category of V.J.N.T., the petitioner N.P. Sapkal and V.V. Giri who are at Sr. Nos. 10 and 11, would have been entitled to admission in this reserved category. Nos. 12 and 13 respectively in the said provisional merit list. Normally, since there were 11 seats to be filled in this reserved category of V.J.N.T., the petitioner N.P. Sapkal and V.V. Giri who are at Sr. Nos. 10 and 11, would have been entitled to admission in this reserved category. But they were not given admission because of our judgment rendered on 31.7.1992 in Writ Petition No. 1508 of 1992 and Writ Petition No. 1510 of 1992, in which we had directed admission of the petitioners in the said writ petitions in this reserved category of V.J.N.T. because in view of our previous judgment in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Ganpat)1, 1991 Mah.L.J. 1075:1992(1) Bom. C.R. 409, the caste Wanjari till then treated as O.B.C. was to be treated as synonym of Banjara which is included as a category in Denotified tribes. The petitioners in the said writ petitions admittedly had higher marks than the petitioners N.P. Sapkal and V.V. Giri who were at Sr. No. 10 and 11 and therefore, since the respondents were bound to comply with our judgment cited supra, the petitioners in the said writ petitions were given admissions in the reserved category of V.J.N.T., for which reason the admissions could not be given to the petitioners N.P. Sapkal and V.V. Giri, the petitioners before us. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that if the percentage is raised from 4 to 6, all the petitioners can get admission in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic session 1992-93 as per the provisional merit list referred to above. They have therefore preferred the instant writ petitions in this Court. An additional challenge is raised in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992. His case is that the respondents are estopped from denying admission to the petitioner in the said writ petition because he had given up his admission in the Engineering College since his name was at Sr. No. 11 in the provisional merit list for admission to the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course and therefore, he thought that he was bound to get admission to the said course in the Government Medical College. 4. We shall first deal with the plea of estoppel raised in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992. No. 11 in the provisional merit list for admission to the 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course and therefore, he thought that he was bound to get admission to the said course in the Government Medical College. 4. We shall first deal with the plea of estoppel raised in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992. As we have pointed out above, the last date for admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in this reserved category of V.J.N.T. was 22.7.1992 on which date the interviews of the candidates were also to be taken. According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992, he had secured admission in the Government Engineering College, Amaravati on 13.7.1992. However, he had given up the said admission on 18.7.1992 as is clear from the letter addressed to the Principal, V.R.C.E., Nagpur by the Principal of the Government Engineering College, Amaravati dated 18.7.1992. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992 that he had given up the admission in the Government Engineering College, because according to the provisional merit list for the reserved category of V.J.N.T. published on 13.7.1992, he was sure that he would get admission in the said Course since his name was at Sr. No. 11 in the said list. However, it is his case that the objections were to be received till 16.7.1992 and since till that date, no objections were received, according to him, there was no reason for not getting the admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that as per Para D of rule 4 relating to the selection, no objections could be entertained if not raised within three days from 13.7.1992 i.e. the date of publication of the provisional merit list on the Notice Board and thereafter the admissions were to be finalised as per the provisional merit list. He has also urged before us that the petitioner was required to give up admission because he had to produce the original documents at the time of interview for the First Year M.B.B.S. Course on 22.7.1992. It is thus contended that because the petitioner has changed his position to his disadvantage by reason of his being at Sr. No. 11 of the provisional merit list, the respondents are estopped from denying him admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. 6. It is thus contended that because the petitioner has changed his position to his disadvantage by reason of his being at Sr. No. 11 of the provisional merit list, the respondents are estopped from denying him admission to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. 6. In our view, the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked in the instant case because the respondents were required to give admission to the two candidates belonging to Wanjari Community held to be synonym of Banjara as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1508 of 1992 and Writ Petition No. 1510 of 1992. That apart, it may be seen that the place in the provisional merit list does not confer any right upon the petitioner for admission and there is no rule brought to our notice that it will become the final list after the period of objections is over. In fact, the learned Counsel for the State (G.P) has brought to our notice that an interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petitions on 16.7.1992 directing provisional admission of the petitioners in the said writ petitions, but through mistake, it was in O.B.C. category which mistake was corrected on 21.7.1992. Even if the date 16.7.1992 was to be taken as the date before which the objections were to be entertained, in the instant case, this Court had directed admissions on the same date. It is not therefore correct to say that the directions for admissions by this Court in the said category cannot be taken into consideration because the last date for receiving the objections was over. There is thus no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1992. In fact, the petitioner has taken the risk in giving up his admission in the Engineering College before a seat was ensured to him in the Government Medical College. 6A. As regards the submission that he was to submit the original documents at the time of interview on 22.7.1992 which could not be done without giving up the admission in the Engineering College, there is no merit in the said submission because the notice dated 13.7.1992 upon which reliance is placed, itself shows that it is after the candidates are selected that they are required to submit the original documents and pay their prescribed fees. It is thus clear that it is only after the interview held on 22.7.1992 that the petitioner, if selected, would be required to submit the original documents. Thus, on facts also, the principle of estoppel is not attracted in the instant case. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1562/92 therefore deserves to be rejected. It has also to be seen that even if we were to accept the plea of estoppel raised on behalf of the petitioner, he would not get admission straightway unless admission was also given to the petitioner at Sr. No. 10 i.e. V.V. Giri in Writ Petition No. 1589 of 1992 who is thus above him in the provisional merit list. 7. Turning to the point of challenge to the G.R. dt. 4.8.1992 on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory because it leaves out of ambit one category viz. of students seeking admission to Government College, the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that until now, the Government was having some prescribed percentages for reservations in all the reserved categories applicable to the Government servants as well as for admission to the Government Colleges. The submission thus is that there was no reason for the Government to depart from the same under the G.R. dt. 4.8.1992 particularly when there was increase in the quota for reserved category of V.J.N.T by admission of the members of Dhangar Community w.e.f. 25.5.90 and of the members of the Wanjari Community in view of our judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ganpat, 1991 Mah.L.J. 1075 8. In appreciating the above submission made on behalf of the petitioners, it has first to be seen that the said Government Resolution is issued and is operative w.e.f. 4th August, 1992 and is not retrospective in operation. We have hereinbefore given the dates about the process or schedule of admissions to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course to the Government Medical Colleges which would show that the normal admissions were over on 22-7-1992 i.e. much earlier to the date of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 4th August, 1992. We have hereinbefore given the dates about the process or schedule of admissions to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course to the Government Medical Colleges which would show that the normal admissions were over on 22-7-1992 i.e. much earlier to the date of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 4th August, 1992. If the said Government Resolution was not applicable to the Government servants for direct recruitment or promotions prior to 4-8-1992, it cannot be said that there is any discrimination practised by the Government by increasing the percentage for the Reserved category of V.J.N.T. in respect of Government servants and not in respect of students seeking admission to the Government Medical Colleges. 8A. It is a different thing whether the challenge is valid in respect of admission made subsequent to 4-8-1992 in the sense that the whole process for admission started on the date thereafter. In our view, however, when the process for admission starts and is normally complete prior to 4-8-1992 as referred to above, if the stray or casual admissions are made thereafter for certain particular reasons which is a part of the process of admissions which have commenced for 1992-93 academic session, the challenge of discrimination cannot be successfully laid to such stray or casual admissions made for certain reasons after 4-8-1992. Therefore, even assuming that some admissions of 1992-93 were made after 4.8.1992, the said challenge of discrimination is not available in the instant case. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has tried to show on merits by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (B.Prabhakarrao v. State of Andhra Pradesh)2, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 210, that the discrimination made by the State by non-inclusion of the admissions to the Medical Colleges in Government Resolution dated 4.8.1992 has no rationale and amounts to hostile discrimination and even if the question of difficulty, hardship etc. arises, that would not be ground to repel the challenge of hostile discrimination. In our view, the principle laid down in the said case has no application to the facts of the instant case. arises, that would not be ground to repel the challenge of hostile discrimination. In our view, the principle laid down in the said case has no application to the facts of the instant case. It may be seen that although the State Government is following some prescribed percentages for its recruitment in Government service as well as for admission to the Government Colleges, there is no rule that the prescribed percentage for reserved categories should be the same in Government Service as well as in admissions to the Government Colleges. 10. In fact, "the Government service" and " the Admissions to the professional Colleges run by the Government", from separate classes from the object of or from the point of view of making reservations and prescribing percentages for various reserved categories. It may be seen that the question as to what percentages or reservation should be prescribed would depend upon the data available and other relevant factors pertaining to the said separate classes and therefore, merely because the percentage of V.J.N.T. is varied only in regard to the Government Service as per the G.R. dated 4-8-1992 it would not mean that the G.R. dated 4-8-1992 is arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it does not vary and apply the said percentage of V.J.N.T. in making admissions to the Government Colleges. Even otherwise, a classification is not discriminatory because it is under-inclusive. (See : Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Girish Kumar Navalakha and Others 1975(4) S.C.C. 754 ). 11. Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 4-8-1992 would show that the matter which was considered by the Government and which was before the Government was in respect of recruitment and promotion to the posts in Government service and not the question of reservation of percentages in Government Colleges for this category. We have pointedly asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether any representation was made by the existing members of V.J.N.T. to increase the percentage of reservation for them in the Government Colleges. He has not been able to show to us that any such representation was made to the Government which was under its consideration. We have pointedly asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether any representation was made by the existing members of V.J.N.T. to increase the percentage of reservation for them in the Government Colleges. He has not been able to show to us that any such representation was made to the Government which was under its consideration. It is thus open to the Government to consider the question of increase in percentage of reservation for this reserved category of V.J.N.T. in admission to its colleges and if it decides to do so, issue a separate G.R. in that regard. 12. However, obviously, if the test of classification were to be applied, the question of admission to the Government Colleges cannot be said to be in the same class as recruitment and promotion in the Government service although uptil now, it is true that the same percentages of reservation in the reserved categories were prescribed and made applicable uniformly by the Government in both these categories. The challenge of discrimination by the Government under its Resolution dated 4-8-1992 must therefore fail and cannot thus be accepted on merits also, apart from the fact that the said Government Resolution dated 4-8-1992 is prospective in nature and would not have been applicable to the Government servants prior to the said date in regard to their recruitment and promotion prior to the said date. 13. In the result, all these Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, however, there would be no order as to cost. Petitions dismissed.