JUDGMENT : P.C. Naik, J. - This petition involves an interesting question, namely, whether district wise reservation of seats in the B. Ed. course in the State is valid ? The circumstances giving rise to this petition are hereinafter stated. 2. The petitioner who is a resident of the undivided Koraput district holds a post-graduate. degree in Oriya. Being interested in prosecuting the course leading to the B. Ed. degree, the submitted her application to the opp. party No. 2, the principal of the college of Teacher Education, Koraput on 22-6-1994. An Index card bearing No. KHUM-07 was issued to her. The eligibility criteria is laid down in the prospectus and rules published by the opp. party No. 1, the Director. opp. party No. 1, the Director, T. E. and SCERT, Orissa and Chairman, B. Ed. Central Selection Board. The eligibility criteria is contained in Rule 2 which provides as under : "(a) A candidate must have passed the Bachelor of Degree Examination in Arts or Science. (b) The candidate should have passed Oriya as a subject of study at least up to HSC standard. (c) The candidate other than in service teachers must not be below 21 years and above 30 years of age as on 1-7-1994. (d) The candidates must be a permanent resident of the revenue district concerned and should obtain a certificate from the Tahasildar of the area where the candidate is a permanent resident. (e) Candidates of a particular district shall apply for seeking admission to B. Ed. course to the Principal of the college specifically earmarked for the district. (f) The sons and daughters and spouse of Government Servants working in Government Offices in the district other than their home districts can also apply to the principal of the college of the district where the parents/spouse of the candidates are serving by enclosing a certificate issued by Head of Office concerned indicating the permanent home address and service particulars of parents/spouse." 3. The case of the petitioner is that she resides in the undivided district of Koraput. She is the daughter of a Government Servant and her mother is also a Government Servant and is working as an Asst. Teacher in the Government High School, Koraput. The petitioner alleges that she obtained the +3 Degree in Arts with Education as one of her. subjects. In the career marking, she admittedly obtained 7.5 marks. She is the daughter of a Government Servant and her mother is also a Government Servant and is working as an Asst. Teacher in the Government High School, Koraput. The petitioner alleges that she obtained the +3 Degree in Arts with Education as one of her. subjects. In the career marking, she admittedly obtained 7.5 marks. It is her case that she fulfils the eligibility criteria and is entitled to be selected against one of the Seats kept apart for fresh candidates in the B. Ed. College, Koraput. Her grievance in the ignoring her claim. Candidates who do not possess nativity certificate and who secured less/lower mark than her have been admitted. This according to the petitioner, is an arbitrary action of the opposite parties who have prepared separate list of candidates by dividing vailable seats amongst the revenue district of Koraput, Malkanagiri, Nawarangpur and Rayagada. It is specifically alleged that some candidates who have been selected have secured marks ranging from 4 to 7 which are lower than the marks secured by her. It is also alleged that some candidates who did not submit nativity certificate along with their application forms as required by the Rules have been selected. The further contention is that allocation/reservation of seats district-wise is not proper, as such a provision is not contemplated by Rule 3 of the prospectus which relates to reservation of seats and reads thus : "3. Seats reserved for the following categories of candidates : (i) Untrained Graduate inservice teachers of Government/ Recognised and Aided M. E. Schools are High Schools having experience of at least one completed year. (ii) Physically handicapped candidates. . (iii) Sons and Daughters of Ex-servicemen end defence personnel. (iv) Inservice and fresh candidates of outlying Oriya speaking tracts of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. (v) Fresh S. T./S. C. candidates." Aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for an appropriate direction/order directing the authorities to allot her a seat in the B. Ed. course in the Training College of Education, Koraput. 4. On notice being issued, the opposite parties entered appearance and have filed ther counter affidavit opposing the prayer of the petitioner. course in the Training College of Education, Koraput. 4. On notice being issued, the opposite parties entered appearance and have filed ther counter affidavit opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The opposite parties support their action on the ground that admissions have been made on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government whereby a specified number of Seats availble in the B. Ed. course have been allotted to different colleges district-wise in proportion to the population of the district It is further averred that as seats have been ear-mrked for different districts, selection is made on the basis of a merit list prepared district-wise and admissions are made from out of the each list to the extent of the seats reserved for that district. The allegation of the petitioner that she obtained 7.5 marks where as some others, though of other districts, who have been selected, have lesser/lower mark than her has neither been denied nor disputed. It is contended that in the newly created Koraput district where the petitioner resides, the candidates who are selected have marks ranging between 10 to 15 i. e. more than the petitioner, but as the seats allotted to this district were exhausted the petitioner could not be selected. It is contended that the lists for other districts were also prepared in the same manner and seats were allotted on the basis of marks. The further contention is that marks obtained by a candidate of one district cannot be compared with the marks obtained by a candidate of another district and though the candidates selected for other districts have lower marks the action cannot be challenged because it is strictly in accordance with the guidelines which provide for a fixed unmber of seats for each district. It is also the case of the opposite parties that district-wise reservation has been introduced so as to enable candidates from all districts to get an opportunity to be selected for B. Ed. training as in the absence of such a reservation, candidates from some districts may not have a chance of being selected to undergo the B. Ed. training. 5. After filing the main counter an additional affidavit was also filed by the opposite parties on 22-11-1994 along with a document. training as in the absence of such a reservation, candidates from some districts may not have a chance of being selected to undergo the B. Ed. training. 5. After filing the main counter an additional affidavit was also filed by the opposite parties on 22-11-1994 along with a document. This short additional affidavit cantains the following averments : "......It has been decided that the allotment of seats among different districts shall be made on the basis of population. This has been made keeping in view the right and interest of all sections of people on equal footing. If such allotments are not there the candidate of certain districts will have no chance to be selected for the B. Ed. course. The petitioner being a native of new Koraput district is to be considered with other candidates of the same district and not with other districts like Malkangiri, Nowarangpur and Raigarh." It is in the background of these acts that the question involved is required to be considered. 6. We may point out that in paragraph-5 of the petition it is specifically averred that "there is no provision in any of the rules of Annexure-1 for reservation of seats in B. Ed. colleges in Orissa district-wise as against the names of revenue districts and the institutions as shown in para-9 of Annexure." In the counter affidavit filed by opp. party No. 1, this averments has neither been admitted nor denied paragraph-5 of the counter which deals with these averments reads thus: "That this deponent had nothing to submit with regard to the submission made in paras-2 to 5 of the writ application." Therefore, it may be taken as an admitted position that the rules do not contain any provision for district-wise reservation of seats for the B. Ed. colleges. 7. In paragraph-6 of the counter it is averred that selection of candidates is made on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government which have been annexed as Annexure-VI. Reference to district-wise reservation can be gathered from Clauses-4 and 5 of the guidelines. But the annexure to the guidelines gives a split up of various seats district-wise. So, let us consider whether this district-wise distribution of seats is justified. 8. Reference to district-wise reservation can be gathered from Clauses-4 and 5 of the guidelines. But the annexure to the guidelines gives a split up of various seats district-wise. So, let us consider whether this district-wise distribution of seats is justified. 8. The question whether district-wise allocation of seats in a medical college is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, wherein the Rule made by the State of Madras allocating seats in medical colleges on district-wise basis was the subject matter of challenge. Wanchoo, C.J. Speaking on behalf of the Court observed thus : "The question whether district-wise allocation is violative of Article 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the fact that there is a large number of candidates that seats available, selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to the provision for social and educationally backward classes. Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally backward classes or from the generally poor, the object of selection must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If that is the object, it must necessarily follow that the object would be defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has not been denied that the object of selection is to secure the best possible talent from the two sources so that the country may have the best possible doctors. If that is the object, the argument on behalf of the petitioners/appellant is that the object cannot possibly be served by allocating seats district-wise. It is true that Article 14 does not forbid classification but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved even assuming that territorial classification may be n a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between - the classification and the object to be achieved. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between - the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats district-wise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such alloction will result in many cases in the object being destroyed and if that is so the classification, even of reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other district may be admitted from either of the two sources." 9. Then again in the case of Minor A. Peeriakaruppan and Sobha Joseph Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others the same consideration prevailed with the Apex Court in striking down the scheme of selection of candidates for admission to medical college in the State of Tamil Nadu. This was a case where the subject-matter of challenge was Unit-wise distribution of seats. Under the scheme, the medical colleges in the city of Madras were constituted as one unit and each of the other medical colleges in the Mofussil was constituted as a unit; six units were constituted in the State. Under the Scheme the intending candidates are asked to apply to the committee nearest to their places of residence. They were told that if the applied to more than one committee their applications will be forwarded by the Government to only one of the committees. The petitioners in that case are all having failed to secure admission challenged the validity of the selectors made and contended that Unit-wise selection contravened Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution inasmuch as the same places the applicants of some of the units in a better position that those Who applied to other units. They further contended that several applicants who secured less marks than them were selected merely because their applications came to be considered in other units. Hedge. J. Specking on behalf of the Court observed thus : "We shall first take up the plea regarding the division of medical seats on unit-wise basis. They further contended that several applicants who secured less marks than them were selected merely because their applications came to be considered in other units. Hedge. J. Specking on behalf of the Court observed thus : "We shall first take up the plea regarding the division of medical seats on unit-wise basis. It is admitted that the minimum marks required for being selected in some unit is less than in the other units. Hence prima facie the scheme is in question. Results indiscriminate against some of the applicants. In Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, this Court ruled that the district-wise distribution of available seats is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. But it was contended on behalf of the State that the unit-wise distribution of seats was adopted for administrative convenience. It was said that it was not possible for one selection committee to interview all the applicants. Therefore, several committees had to be constituted. In the past when applicants were interviewed by several committees there were complaints that the standard adopted by one committee differed from that adopted by others and therefore the applicants' ability was not tested by a uniform standard. Further it-was said that when selections were made by several committees there was delay in preparing a consolidated list. We are unable to accept these grounds as being real grounds for classification. The is grievance when selections were made by several committees in a state-wise selection. Whether the selection is made by selection committees on state-wise basis or unit-wise basis, the standard adopted by various committees is bound to vary. Hence in principle it makes no difference." In this case, it was further observed thus : ".........Before a classification can be justified, it must be based on an objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. The objective intended to be achieved in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted......Suffice it to say that the unit-wise distribution of seats is violative of Article 14 and 15. It may be remembered that the students were advised, as far as possible to apply to the Unit nearest to their place of residence." 10. In the instant case also, the policy proposal for admission to the B. Ed. It may be remembered that the students were advised, as far as possible to apply to the Unit nearest to their place of residence." 10. In the instant case also, the policy proposal for admission to the B. Ed. course for the year 1994-95 (Annexure-1) to the petition clearly provides that candidates of different districts are to apply for admission to the institutions which are earmarked for a particular revenue district/districts and that applications received at wrong destinations are liable to be rejected. It further provided that the respective institutions will have a selection committee consisting of a Chairman and 2 senior teaching "member. This position is not disputed by the opp. parties. 11. It is the petitioner's case and it is not disputed or denied by the opp. parties that as a result of the district-wise reservation, some candidates securing less/lower marks than her have acquired admission and she, though having higher marks, has been deprived of a seat. Considering the facts of this case in the light of the acts and law laid down in the case of Minor P. Rajendran and A Periakaruppan (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that district-wise reservation cannot be sustained. As has been observed by the Supreme Court and reiterated time and again, effort must always be to select the best and more meritorious students for admission to technical institutions by providing equal opportunity to all citizens, subject however, to the permissible reservation as contemplated by the Constitution. In the instant case, the petitioner does not challenge the reservation provided in Clause-Ill of the prospectus which is for (i) Untrained Graduate inservice teachers of Govt./Recognised and Aided M. E. Schools and High Schools having experience of at least one completed year. (ii) Physically handicapped candidates. (iii) Sons and daughters of Ex-Servicemen and defence personnel. (iv) Inservice and fresh candidates of outlying Oriya-speaking tracts of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal (v) Fresh S.T./S.C. candidates. The subject-matter of challenge is the selection/reservation on district-wise basis or in other words, the challenge is to the mode of selection. Therefore the challenge can be sad to be limited. The action as shown above is sought to be supported on the ground that the allotment of seats amongst different districts is on the basis of population, keeping in view the right and interest of all sections of people on equal footing. Therefore the challenge can be sad to be limited. The action as shown above is sought to be supported on the ground that the allotment of seats amongst different districts is on the basis of population, keeping in view the right and interest of all sections of people on equal footing. According to the opp. parties, if allotment of seats is not made on this basis, candidates from certain districts will not have a chance of being selected for the B. Ed. course. Let us therefore, consider whether this mode of selection is proper. 12. It has to be accepted that B. Ed. course is one which is undertaken primarily by those who are in the teaching professon and/or those who are desirous of joining the teaching profession. The object therefore, is to have trained teachers. It cannot be denied that a teacher plays an important role in the society and as such, must himself be qualified and meritorious. The object of the rule which deals with selection of candidates for the course of this type would naturally be to select the best out of whose who are available to that there are good trained teachers. This will not normally be possible if the selection is either district-wise or unit-wise, because if this method is adopted, it "would result in a position like that in the present case where the petitioner who has secured higher marks is not selected whereas some others with less/lower marks than her have been selected. Therefore, " it cannot be said that there is any nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved which is to secure the best possible condidates. 13. It is no doubt true that in the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others reservation for residents of Delhi, sons/daughters of Central Government Servants posted in Delhi at the time of admission, sons/daughters of residents of some Union Territories, sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad. Cultural Schoars, Colombo Plan Scholars, Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State scholars was upheld. But in the case of P. Rajendran (supra) was considered and distinguished and the Court held thus : "The case of Minor P. Rajendran Vs. Cultural Schoars, Colombo Plan Scholars, Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State scholars was upheld. But in the case of P. Rajendran (supra) was considered and distinguished and the Court held thus : "The case of Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, is clearly distinguishable because there the classification had been made district-wise which was considered to have no reasonable relation with the object sought to be achieved......The mere fact that the Central Government has to make the nominations with regards to the reserved seats cannot be considered to be preferential treatment of any kind......." 14. Also, University-wise distribution of seats in the Government College was held not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of D. N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1972. After taking note of case of P. Rajendran (supra), the Court Observed thus : "It will be easily seen that the university-wise distribution of seats in the Government medical colleges has nothing in common with the district-wise onunitwise selection struck down in Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, and Periakaruppan's case, W. Ps. Nos. 285 and 314 of 1970 Dt. 23-9-1970=AIR 1971 NSC 171. In both the cases what was mainly objected to was that the selection would have to be made on the basis either of the place of birth or residence and the candidate was confined to the medical college at or nearest to such a place. Such a basis for selection was held to have to reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to select the most meritorious amongst the candidates to have the advantage of such education. In Periakaruppan's case, there was a further infirmity in that, there were several committees for selection resulting in varying standards, thus defeating the object of screening the candidates with a view to give change to the best of them. Both these decisions are distinguishable as the basis on which the selection of candidates is sought to be made under the present rules is quite different in that it is neither district-wise nor unit-wise, but is university-wise. Both these decisions are distinguishable as the basis on which the selection of candidates is sought to be made under the present rules is quite different in that it is neither district-wise nor unit-wise, but is university-wise. Therefore, the infirmities found in the selection rules in those two cases and for which they were struck down can not be relevant in any scrutiny of the present rules, much less can they be relied upon for an attack on them." 15. We may also refer to the case of Nidamarti Mahesh-mar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1362, there the validity of Rule 8(2) of the Rules for admissions to M.B.B S. courses (1984) which proded for region-wise scheme were under Challenge. The rules provided inter alia, that students who had passed H.S.C. (10+2) 12th standard examination of the Maharashtra state Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from Schools/Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of one University are not eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another university. In other words, the admissions to medicel colleges ware to be made subject to region-wise classification inasmuch as a student from a school or college situate within the jurisdiction of a particular university could seek admission only in the medical college or colleges situated within the jurisdiction of that university and he could not be eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situate in the jurisdiction of another university. This region-wise classification was assailed on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Bhagwati, C. J. speaking for the Court observed : "Here, in the present case, region-wise classification for admission to medical colleges was sought to be defended on the ground that Vidarva and Marathwada regions are backward . as compared to Pune and Bombay regions which are far more advanced.........was intended to give protection to students in Vidarbha, Marathwada and other pre-dominantly rural areas the population of which is socially, economically and educationally backward for otherwise they would have no opportunity for medical education since they would not be able to compete with students from Pune and Bombay regions and consequently the classification made by this provision was constitutionally permissible. We are afraid this contention is not well-founded and must be rejected..................We do not think it possible to categorise the regions within the jurisdiction of the various universal as backward or advanced as if they were exclusive categories and on any event there is no material placed before us which would persuade us to reach that conculusion. But even if the regions within the jurisdiction of the universities in Vidarbha and Marathwada can be said to be backward regions within the jurisdiction of the universities in Bombay and Pune can be said to be advanced, we do not think that region-wise classification for admission to medical colleges can be sustained. There is no reason why a brilliant student from a region which is within the jurisdiction of a university in Vidarbha or Marathwada area should be denied the opportunity of medical education in Bombay or Pune......... Why should mobility for educational advancement be impeded by geographical limitations within the State ? Would this clearly not be denial of equal opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ? The answer must clearly be in the affirmative. It would plainly be violative of the mandate of the equality clause to compartment allies the State into different regions and provide that a student from one region should not be allowed to migrate to another region for medical education and thus be denied equal opportunity with others in the State for medical education. This is precisely the reason why this Court struck down unit-wise scheme for admission to medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu in A. Periakaruppan's case (supra)........." 16. The case in hand is one where the selection is purely on a district-wise basis which means that the main criteria is of "residence" in a particular district and not one of pure merit. To select the best and more meritorious candidate, therefore. seems to be merely a secondary consideration. The selection on residential basis, in our opinion, cannot be a valid criteria for selection, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Rajendran, A. Periakaruppan and Nidamarti Maheshkumar (supra) .the challenge of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be upheld. 17. However, though we are upholding the challenges to the district-wise selection of candidates for admission to B. Ed. courses, we cannot issue a direction to the opp. 17. However, though we are upholding the challenges to the district-wise selection of candidates for admission to B. Ed. courses, we cannot issue a direction to the opp. parties to admit the petitioner as there is no materials to ascertain what would be her place in the event of a merit list being drawn up. Further there may be many other similarly placed candidates who obtained higher marks than the petitioners and yet may not have got admission because the seats of that particular district stood exhausted. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner has come to the Court cannot be a reason to order her admission, This would not be fair to similarly placed candidates. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. It is declared that the district-wise reservation for selection of candidates for admission to the B. Ed. courses is invalid and the guidelines issued by the State in so far as they provide for district-wise reservation is daclared unconstitutional, and void. However, we make it clear that admissions already made on the basis of the guidelines shall not be disturbed. - We are of the opinion that the State Government would do well to immediately frame appropriate rules for selection of candidates on the basis of merit, so that the meritorious candidates are not derived of admission to this course. We may also observe that the observations made above will in no way stand in the way and it is always permissible for the State Government to make suitable provision for permissible reservation as per the constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Apex Court. No order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree.