S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, C. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is aggrieved over his case being not considered for admission to First Year M. B. B. S. Course, 1993-94, hereinafter referred to as "the course". What is coming in his way is Rule-1 of Rules for admission to the First year M. B. B. S. Course. The Said Rule is extracted as follows :"1. QUALIFYING examination for admission shall be higher secondary certificate examination (Science Stream) taking Physics, Chemistry, Biology, mathematics and English under the 10+2 education pattern conducted by the gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board or Central Board of Secondary education, New Delhi or Council for the Indian School Certificate examination, New Delhi from any of the recognised institutions located in the gujarat Slate in the month of March/april of the current year or october/november of the preceding year or in so far as candidate referred to in the rule 1. 1 and 3 are concerned, other equivalent qualifications with Science subjects specified above during the corresponding period. " (Emphasis supplied) the appellant passed the High Secondary Certificate Examination in March 1992. Hence, as per the rule noted above, he is not eligible. The learned Single Judge found that the vires of the very rule has been upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court in jayesh A. Joshipura vs. State of Gujarat and others, XXV (2) : 1984 (2) Gujarat Law reporter, 761, and the learned Single Judge was not inclined to follow the pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in Pareshkumar vs. State AIR 1983 Gujarat, 173, since the pronouncement of the Bench was concerned with the rule governing induction into engineering course. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil application No. 786s of 1993 preferred by the appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 2 ) WE heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, for Mr. RH Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. First learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no warrant to depart form the rule governing induction into Engineering Course and similar rule ought to govern the First Year M. B. B. S. Course and here itself an element of discrimination has crept in which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. First learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no warrant to depart form the rule governing induction into Engineering Course and similar rule ought to govern the First Year M. B. B. S. Course and here itself an element of discrimination has crept in which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Simply because both the Courses are in the educational field, it is not possible to draw a parity between the two courses and treat them as equal for the purpose of assessing as to any element of discrimination within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has crept in regarding standers for admission. The courses being different, the standards for induction into them naturally could be different Hence, we eschew this line of thinking advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant ( 3 ) SECONDLY, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the rule does not satisfy the twin tests, on satisfaction of which alone any classification could be upheld. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the course being of First Year m. B. B. S. and the qualifying examination being Higher Secondary Certificate examination, there ought not to have been a drawing of a line limiting induction into the course only for candidates who passed the qualifying examination in the month of march/april of the current year or October/november of the preceding year, and excluding candidates who passed the qualifying examination in the other past years. We find that this aspect has been adequately dealt with by the learned Single Judge in xxv (2): 1984 (2) Gujarat Law Reporter, 761. As to how the admission would become a lopsided system, if there is no distinction or line drawn between the students who have passed the qualifying examination in the recent past and the student who have passed the qualifying examination in the remote past, has been taken note of by the learned Single judge in the following discussion :"it is apparent that those students who had once got a chance to be considered for admission to F. Y. M. B. B. S. Course and who failed to get admission on merits would again enter the arena year after year till they get admitted. This would certainly adversely affect the chances of fresh students who would get entry in the arena of contest for the first lime in the given year. If, to avoid heart-burning to such fresh students, respondent-State adopts a policy of admission restricting the contest amongst fresh students with a view to seeing that all students who pass the qualifying examination get one chance each to be considered on merits for admission and that if they are weeded out on merits, they should go out of contest and yield place to fresh students, it cannot be said that the said policy is discriminatory or arbitrary from any view point. As per the impugned rule of admission, each of the students passing qualifying examination would get one fair chance to be considered on merits. If he loses on merits, he is elbowed out of contest for the rest of his career. He or she having exhausted the available chance and having been elbowed out by more meritorious students has to turn the sails towards other courses of studies and medical career would get foreclosed for such a student""if what the petitioner contends for is accepted, a lopsided system of admission would emerge, giving number of chances to students who have passed the qualifying examination in distant past and who could not be admitted on merits in past years 1st M. B. B. S. courses while their carried forward back log would adversely affect the chances of fresh students who are to be considered only for the first time. Under these circumstances, impugned sub-classification of eligible students passing qualifying examination during the relevant period must be held to be based on an intelligible differentia. "we do not think that the discussion by the learned Single Judge and his opinion expressed after such discussion require a further improvement at our hands and we respectfully and fully endorse it. ( 4 ) EQUALLY so, on the question of rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, there is ample discussion in the pronouncement of the learned Single Judge, which runs as follows: it is now well settled that the object sought to be achieved by providing classification and sub-classification of students for being considered for admission to medical courses starting year after in medical colleges is to draw best talents so that the country can have best doctors in future. Keeping this object in view, if the executive bona fides takes a policy decision to remove from contest those students who have passed the qualifying examination in remote past and who has already their opportunity to be considered for admission to the medical courses started in past years and who were elbowed out of contest because of their low merits and more meritorious students got admitted in the past year courses, if such students are not again given second or third opportunity or even more and if fresh students who had recently passed their qualifying examination and who had not been elbowed out on merits by any one, are only considered for the purpose of admission to the relevant medical courses, starting in the given year it cannot be said that adoptions of this yardstick has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Those students who have tried and failed on merits to get admission on the basis of having passed the qualifying examination in the past can equally be treated to be less meritorious as compared to those students who are freshes and who have not been weeded out of contest on account of their low merits. Consequently, the policy of limiting the area of choice to only those students who had passed the qualifying examination in the current year or one qualifying examination immediately preceding the current year can be said to have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz. to attract best talents for medical courses. It is trite to say that those who have tried and failed on merit necessarily cannot be treated on par with those who had no chance of trial even once and who have never failed on merits. Consequently, it cannot be said that those who have been weeded out of contest should be permitted to try their luck again and again and to compete with the fresh students on the criterion of merits, and that if they are not permitted to do so, the object underlying the classification would suffer and that best talents would be excluded. It is impossible to agree with the submission of Mr. It is impossible to agree with the submission of Mr. Tanna that if students who had passed the qualifying examination in distant past and who had stood no chance on merits to get admission in the medical course in the past years on account of their low ranks on merit list due to less number of mark, are not permitted to appear again and again in succeeding years, may be number of times till they ultimately get admission to the medical courses at any distant future point of lime, the object of drafting best talents to the medical courses would get frustrated. To say the least, to allow such students to go on trying for admissions in perpetuity for any number of years till they ultimately get admitted, would frustrate the very object of drafting best talents to medical courses so that the country can have best doctors. It must, therefore, be held that the sub-classification of students passing the qualifying examination within the given period and excluding those students who have passed the same qualifying examination beyond this limit in distant past is reasonable and has also a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby viz. to get best talents attracted to medical courses with the ultimate object of making available best doctors for the service of ailing humanity. " here again we fully endorse the view of the learned Single Judge. ( 5 ) IT must be noticed that even the pronouncement of the Bench in Pareshkumar vs. State, AIR 1983 Gujarat, 173, has by its following observations leaned towards upholding the present rule and it appears that the Bench has not taken exception to the present rule. "it is indeed true that this rule clearly states that admission will be confined to those students who have passed the Higher secondary certificate examination in March/april of the current year or October/november of the preceding year and the examination of the Central Board of Secondary education, New Delhi or any of the recognised institutions from Gujarat Stale. If the rule making authority, namely, the Government, intended to make a similar provision in the rules pertaining to admission to the First semester of the B. E. course, there was nothing to stop it from doing so in express terms. If the rule making authority, namely, the Government, intended to make a similar provision in the rules pertaining to admission to the First semester of the B. E. course, there was nothing to stop it from doing so in express terms. If the same rule making body restricts the admission to the students passing the higher secondary certificate examination in March/april of the current year or October/november of the preceding year and the examination of the Central Board of Secondary education insofar as admission to the first M. B. B. S. course and allied courses are concerned, there was nothing to slop it from making a similar provision if that was the intendment insofar as admission to the engineering course is concerned. The fact that it has not done so clearly shows that it did not intend to do so. it must also be remembered that this change was brought about in the rules for admission to the first M. B. B. S. course after the decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 965 of 1972 decided on 5th July 1972 by a division Bench consisting of BJ. Divan and M. U. Shah, JJ. (as they then were ). It was in this decision that on interpreting similar rules this court came to the conclusion that admission could not be denied to students of the class belonging to the second batch. It was after this decision that the Government decided that in the case of M. B. B. S. course and certain other allied courses, admissions should be restricted to students who have passed the examination in march/april Of the current year or October/november of the preceding year, as the case may be. The Government was aware of the decision of this court in the aforesaid petition and the interpretation put on similar rules and yet it decided to limit the eligibility criterion in the case of M. B. B. S. and allied courses but did not do so, so far as engineering course is concerned. That clearly brings out the intention of the Government that it did not desire to deny admission to students belonging to the second batch so far as the engineering course is concerned. " ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, we arc not able to countenance the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. That clearly brings out the intention of the Government that it did not desire to deny admission to students belonging to the second batch so far as the engineering course is concerned. " ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, we arc not able to countenance the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Repelling the same, we dismiss this Letters Patent appeal. .