JUDGMENT N. Pandey and S.K. Singh, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Patna University. 2. The petitioner has been refused admission in Bachelor of Arts Part I Class with the Patna Women's College for the Session 1993-94 on the ground that as per the provision of Clause 5 (i) (a) of the Ordinance issued by the Patna University, 80% of the total seats in each group has been kept reserved for the students of Patna University, who had passed Intermediate or other equivalent examinations from different Colleges managed and maintained by the University, securing not less than 40% marks in the aggregate. 3. The petitioner appeared at the examination of Intermediate Science, conducted by Bihar Intermediate Council and secured aggregate marks of 641 out of total marks of 900. She applied for admission before the Patna Women's College in B.A. Part I, in the prescribed proforma. But she was refused admission on the ground that most of the seats have been reserved for the students of the Colleges of the Patna University. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a student of Patna University. 4. Mr. Vyas Muni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in admitting those students of Patna University who had lesser marks. Therefore, such action of the authorities is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over different decisions of Supreme Court, namely, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. T.A. Deokumar : A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1194 and P.K. Goel v. U.P. Medical Council : A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1475. 5. He contended that in absence of approval of the Hon'ble Chancellor of the Universities, the Ordinance has no legal sanctity, therefore, the respondents are not justified in keeping 80% of the seats reserved for the students of Patna University on the basis of such Ordinance. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Patna University saying that the Ordinance in question has got due approval of the Chancellor from time to time. Copies of certain documents showing approval of the Chancellor with respect to certain amendments of different provisions of Ordinance are appended as Annexures B, C and D to the counter-affidavit. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Patna University saying that the Ordinance in question has got due approval of the Chancellor from time to time. Copies of certain documents showing approval of the Chancellor with respect to certain amendments of different provisions of Ordinance are appended as Annexures B, C and D to the counter-affidavit. It is stated since last several years on the basis of such Ordinance and Regulations, 80% seats are being kept reserved for the students of colleges of Patna University. 7. In the background of the facts stated above a question arises whether the Patna University is justified in keeping 80% of seats reserved for its students, if so, whether such decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as also whether there is an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from those who are left out of the group. 8. In the case of Dr. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore and others etc. : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1762 the Supreme Court. had occasion to examine a rule framed by the State of Mysore known as Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1970, for regulating admission in Government Medical Colleges and Private Medical Colleges. Rule 9 of the said Rules deals with the distribution of seats amongst the several colleges. In Clause (i) of that Rule a provision was made that the seats made in the General Pool shall be distributed University wise, i.e., seats in Colleges affiliated to Karnataka University was to be allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to Bangalore and Mysore Universities respectively shall be allotted to persons passing from Colleges affiliated to each such University provided not more than 20% of the seats in the Colleges affiliated to any University may, in the discretion of the Selection Committee could be allotted to the students passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. 9. A contention was raised that distribution of seats University-wise, would result in discrimination and therefore the same is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor there is any reasonable nexus with the object of the Rule. The Supreme Court while answering the aforesaid proposition held that there is nothing unreasonable in ensuring those who attached to such University to have their ambition to get the benefit of such University. The Supreme Court while answering the aforesaid proposition held that there is nothing unreasonable in ensuring those who attached to such University to have their ambition to get the benefit of such University. It is well known different Universities have different standards in examination and teaching. A preference to one attached to University in its own institution is not uncommon. Such a system for that reason alone cannot be condemned as discriminatory. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant finding of the Supreme Court hereunder: "The fact that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain admission at the cost of another having higher marks from mother university does not necessarily mean that a less meritorious candidate gets advantage over a more meritorious one. As is well known different universities have different standards in the examinations held by them. A preference to one attached to one university in its own institutions for Postgraduate or technical training is not uncommon. Rules giving such a preference are to be found in various universities. Such a system for that reason along is not to be condemned as discriminatory, particularly when admission to such a university by passing a qualifying examination held by it is not precluded by any restricting qualifications, such as birth or residence, or any other similar restrictions. In our view, it is not possible to equate the present basis for selection with those which were held invalid in the aforesaid two decisions." Similarly subsequent findings of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue is hereunder: "Candidates passing through the qualifying examination held by a University form a class by themselves as distinguished from those passing through such examination from the other two universities. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater to the needs of candidates who would naturally look to their own university to advance their training in technical studies, such as medical studies. In our opinion, the rules cannot justly be attacked on the found of hostile discrimination or as being otherwise in breach of Art. 14." 10. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. T.A. Deokumar : A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1194; the validity of certain provisions of a Rule framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course was under challenge. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. T.A. Deokumar : A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1194; the validity of certain provisions of a Rule framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course was under challenge. By the said rule a provision for College-wise Institutional preference for admission was held to be discriminatory and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. This was a case with respect to four Medical Colleges affiliated to the University of Bombay. In such a situation Rule framed by Bombay Municipal Corporation, providing College-wise preference for admission was held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held that there was no intelligible differentia for which students of those four Colleges could be given a different treatment in order to take them out from one Group. Their Lordships held when the University, the syllabus and the standard of examination was the same for all the Colleges any preference to candidates of anyone College of the same University, except in order of merit, will exclude merit to a great extent affecting the standard of education. Similar view was taken in the case of P.K. Goel v. U.P. Medical Council, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1475. In this case also the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thukral Anjali (Supra) was followed. 11. From a bare reference to the facts stated above, it would be apparent that the facts of the aforesaid two case, relied upon by the petitioner are different. In the case before us admittedly the petitioner was a student of different University. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court reported in 1971 S.C. 1762 (supra) there is nothing wrong if the Patna University has kept certain seats reserved for its students. 12. Before parting with this order we would like to observe that amongst several Universities in this State, the Patna University is one of the best Universities. Although the syllabus etc. of the students of other Colleges of different Universities may be same, the standard of teaching and other aspects, namely, discipline and the manner to conduct examination etc. are undisputedly better than other Universities. 13. Although the syllabus etc. of the students of other Colleges of different Universities may be same, the standard of teaching and other aspects, namely, discipline and the manner to conduct examination etc. are undisputedly better than other Universities. 13. Therefore, if a rule has been framed to reserve certain number of seats for the students of the Colleges of Patna University, it cannot be held unreasonable. 14. Therefore, in our view the petitioner cannot attack the impugned provision on the ground of hostile discrimination or being a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner being a student of another University has no reasonable nexus to equate her claim with the students of Patna University. 15. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this writ application. This is, accordingly, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.