Judgement This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Teachers Association, Silchar Medical College, Silchar and Professor Gobinda Chandra Chakravarty, Department of Chest and Tuberculosis diseases of the Silchar Medical College, Silchar praying the following reliefs:- (i) To quash Rule 6(i) of 1994 for the Medical College of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rule, 1994, as ultra vires and further prayed for a direction to insert a clause in the said Rules reserving seats for the sons and daughters of the Teachers of Medical College, Assam. 2. On 3rd of May, 1994, the Health and Family Welfare (B) Department, Government of Assam issued a notification which reads, inter alia, as follows :- "No. HLB.96/83/70 - In superession of the Medical Colleges of Assam/ Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rules, 1992, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Government of Assam is hereby pleased to make the following Rules regulating the admission of students to the MBBS/BDS Course in the Medical Colleges of Assam, and Regional Dental College, Guwahati, namely :- (1) These Rules may be called the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College, (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rules, 1994. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. DEFINITIONS : In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) "Admission Test" means the test conducted by the Selection Board constituted by the Government or by any other examination Board/University authority for the purpose of selecting candidates for admission into First Year of MBBS/BDS Course of the Medical Colleges of Assam and the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. 2. DEFINITIONS : In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) "Admission Test" means the test conducted by the Selection Board constituted by the Government or by any other examination Board/University authority for the purpose of selecting candidates for admission into First Year of MBBS/BDS Course of the Medical Colleges of Assam and the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. (b) "Available Seats" means the seats available for admission after deducting the seats allotted to the Government of India and other State, as the case may be, and the 15% (fifteen percent) of seats to be filled up through the All India Entrance Test; (c) "General Seats" means available seats not reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe (H) Scheduled Tribes (P) Scheduled Castes and other categories of candidates may be decided by the Government from time to time; (d) "Government" means the Government of Assam; (e) "Medical Examination Board" means the Medical Examination Board constituted by the Director of Medical Education, Planning and Reserach Assam, for determination of the Medical fitness of the candidates seeking admission to the MBBS/BDS Course; (f) "Qualifying Examination" means the examination on the result of which a candidate becomes eligible to apply for admission to the MBBS/ BDS Courses; (g) "Selection Board" means the selection Board constituted by the Government under Rule 4; (h) "Scheduled Caste" means Scheduled Caste of Assam as specified by the Constitution (SCs) Order, 1950; (i) "Scheduled Tribes" means Scheduled Tribes of Hills and Plains of Assam, as specified by the Constitution (ST) Order, 1950. EXPLANATION : "Qualifying examination " for admission to the MBBS/ BDS Courses shall mean any of the following examinations, namely :- (i) XII class HSSLC Examination from a Board recongnised by the Universities of Assam. (ii) Any other examination equivalent to 2(two) years Higher Secondary Examination in Science having Physics, Chemistry and Biology as separate papers recognised by the aforesaid Universities . RESERVATION OF SEATS: (i) Sons and daughters of all categories of employees serving under the Health Department of Assam. 6 seats in total (out of this, three will be reserved for sons and daughters of Doctors reserved for sons and daughters of Doctors who have served in rural areas for five years or more)" 3. The aforesaid rules are called here-inafter the Rules, Rule 6 provides for reservation of seats. 6 seats in total (out of this, three will be reserved for sons and daughters of Doctors reserved for sons and daughters of Doctors who have served in rural areas for five years or more)" 3. The aforesaid rules are called here-inafter the Rules, Rule 6 provides for reservation of seats. Rule 6(i)(i) provides as follows :- "(i) Sons and daughters of all categories of employees serving under the Health Department of Assam. 6 seats in total (out of this three will be reserved for sons and daughters of Doctors who have served in rural areas for five years or more. 4. It is the legality and validity of this Rule which is challenged in this Writ Application. 5. I have heard G. Sarma, learned advocate for the petitioner. None-appears for the Respondent, though notice was issued to the learned Advocate General. 6. This matter was heard separately from other similar cases inasmuch as it was submitted by the learned counsel that this case stands on a different footings. The legality and validity of the Rule quoted above have been challenged on the following grounds :- (i) The Rule is arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory. (ii) There is no reason to make a classification as done in the instant case and it amounts to inequality in the matter of admission. (iii) The Rule violates Articles - 13, 14 and 38 (2) of the Constitution of India. 7. In AIR 1975 SC 563 (State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandan) the reservation of seats in Medical College in U.P. for candidates from rural areas was considered. It was argued before the Supreme Court that the rural areas are socially backward because of extreme poverty. The standard of literacy is poor and there is lack of educational facilities. There is dearth of doctors in these rural areas and it is necessary to attract the students from these areas for admission to Medical Colleges. It was argued that the classification may be supported either on historical or geographical exigency/circumstances. The contention was that the State has to promote with special care the educational and economical interest of the weaker section of the people. 8. It was argued that the classification may be supported either on historical or geographical exigency/circumstances. The contention was that the State has to promote with special care the educational and economical interest of the weaker section of the people. 8. On behalf of the petitioner an argument was advanced that this rule is violative of Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it states that no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State Funds on grounds only on religion, race, caste, language or any of them. It was contended on behalf of the State that inasmuch as the place of birth is not mentioned in Article 29(2) the reservation made for the students of Rural Areas would not offend Article 29(2) of the Constitution. 9. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 laid down the law as follows:- Paragraph 37 :- In the present case reservation for the rural area cannot be upheld because there is no classification based on residence between students coming from within the State and others coming from without. The object of providing medical education to students in Uttar Pradesh is to secure the best possible students for admission to these colleges. It is in the context that district-wise allocation was held by this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras, (1968) 2 SCR 786 : AIR 1968 SC 1012 to violate Article 14. The University-wise distribution of seats which was found to be valid in Chanchalas case (1971) Supp SCR 608 : AIR 1971 SC 1762 (supra) does not have any application in the present case. Paragraph 38:- The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illustration of different sources of categories of students in Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 413 : AIR 1970 SC 35 . Paragraph 38:- The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illustration of different sources of categories of students in Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 413 : AIR 1970 SC 35 . There the categories of students were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters of Central Government Servants posted in Delhi; candidates whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government servant posted in Delhi; sons/daughters of residents of Union Territories including displaced persons registered therein; sons/ daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad; cultural scholars; Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars, Rural area in Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be a source for reservation of the type in Chitra Ghoshs case (1970) 1 SCR 413 : AIR 1970 SC 35 (supra). Paragraph 39:-- The Attorney General relied on Beryl F. Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co. of New York (1905) Law Ed. 246; Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Co.(1925) 70 Law Ed. 654; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,(1936) 81 Law Ed. 703 in support of the proposition that if an evil is especially experienced in a particular branch of business, the Constitution embodies no prohibition of laws confined to the evil or doctrine requirement that they should be couched in all embracing terms. It was said that if the law was intended to remove the evil where it was most felt it was not to be everthrow because there were other instances to which it might have been applied. This rule really means that there is no doctrinaire requirement that the legislation should be couched in all embracing terms. A case of under classification would be an instance of this rule. The present case of classification of rural areas is not one of under classification. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural populations to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. This classification is unconstitutional." 10. The next case is AIR 1984 SC 1534 Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana. There it was a case of admission of MBBS/BDS Course in Maharshy Dayanand University, Rohtak. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural populations to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. This classification is unconstitutional." 10. The next case is AIR 1984 SC 1534 Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana. There it was a case of admission of MBBS/BDS Course in Maharshy Dayanand University, Rohtak. There also 25 seats were reserved for the candidates, who have received education from Class-I to Class-VIII and passed VIIIth Class Examination from a common rural School situated in a Village not having any Municipality or notified area or Town area Committee and the Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 pointed out as follows :- "Paragraph 6 :- It is well settled that Art. 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification in the matter of legislation. In order to sustain the classification permissible under Art. 14, it has to satisfy the twin tests: (1) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (2) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provisions." 11. In Paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 the Supreme Court pointed out as follows:- "Paragraph 11 :- Assuming that the decision in Pradip Tandons case AIR 1975 SC 563 does not conclude the point as herein raised, the differentia on which the classification is founded appears to us arbitrary and irrational. How arbitrary and irrational it is, can be demonstrably established. In order to take advantage of the reservation students from nearby urban areas can join common rural schools on the periphery of urban aglomeration. And all rural schools without an exception cannot be condemned as ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-equipped. Agriculture in Haryana has been a very profitable pursuit and standard of life of average farmer in rural area has gone up compared to middle class and industrial workers and the slum dwellers whose children will attend as a necessity urban schools. And yet the better placed will enjoy reservation. Further the basis of clasification based on education up to 8th standard is wholly irrational. And it has no nexus to the object to be achieved of providing extra facility to students coming from rural schools to enter medical college. Paragraph 12:- What was the object sought to be achieved by the classification? Further the basis of clasification based on education up to 8th standard is wholly irrational. And it has no nexus to the object to be achieved of providing extra facility to students coming from rural schools to enter medical college. Paragraph 12:- What was the object sought to be achieved by the classification? It was said that students taking education in common rural schools from lst to 8th standard are at a comparative disadvantage to those taking education in urban schools in the same standards. The comparison in our opinion is fallacious for the reason that the same Government prescribes standard of education, equipment grants and facilities including the qualification of the staff for being employed in urban and rural schools imparting instructions from lst to 8th standard. However, as pointed out earlier, the knowledge acquired by the students while taking instruction in Classes I to VIII has hardly any relevance, to his being equipped for taking the test for entrance to the medical college. The real challenge would come in standards XI and XII. In this behalf all students those coming from common rural schools and urban schools are similarly placed and similarly situated and yet by a reference to a past event wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved, they are artificially divided. Paragraph 14 :- We are, therefore, satisfied that the classification is not founded on intelligible differentia and at any rate it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The classification is irrational and arbitrary. The reservation based on such classification is constitutionally invalid." 11. The next case is 1992 (3) SCC 543 (Chairman / Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das). There 5% seats were reserved for admission to B.Tech. Course in favour of the sons and daughters of the employees of the University. The Supreme Court in Paragraph 5 pointed out as follows :- Paragraph 5 :- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in issuing the interim orders. There is no dispute that the G. B. Pant University is aided and financed by the State Government and the University is an instrumentality of the State. There is no dispute that the G. B. Pant University is aided and financed by the State Government and the University is an instrumentality of the State. Any instrumentality of the State cannot give preferential treatment to a class of persons without there being any justification for the same. The reservation of seats for admission to the B. Tech. Course in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University is violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined under Art.14 of the Constitution. There is no rationale for the reservation of the seats in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University nor any such reservation has reasonable nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the University. The State Government in our opinion, rightly insisted on the University to do away with the reservations in favour of the sons and wards of its employees. It is apparent that the University authorities accepted the suggestions made by the Government and they rightly decided not to give any preferential treatment to the sons and wards of the employees of the University in the matter of admissions to the technical institution. Once the State Government and University both decided not to have any reserved quota for the sons and wards of the employees of the University, no legal right could be claimed by the respondent-students for being given preferential treatment in the matter of admission to the B.Tech. Courses of the University. The learned single Judge of the High Court failed to appreciate these aspects and granted the interim orders directing the University to admit the respondent-students. Once admission to an institution or a course of study is determined on merit on the basis of evaluation of marks at the entrance examination, no students securing lower marks has any legal right for admission much less a right enforceable in a Court of Law. Since the reservation of seats in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University was apparently violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, no court could issue directions for the enforcement of any such reservation. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in issuing the impugned interim orders." 12. Since the reservation of seats in favour of the sons and wards of the employees of the University was apparently violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, no court could issue directions for the enforcement of any such reservation. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in issuing the impugned interim orders." 12. In exercise of judicial review the Court has always exercised the power to annul or declare as ultra vires laws or Rules which are arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. The Court is to uphold the standards of value which are expressed or implied by the Constitution. The Court has a duty to uphold the equality clause in the Constitution if, that is not done, the whole edifice of our constitutional system shall collapse and laws or rules enacted to give undue benefit to some persons shall be allowed to hold the field. In the case in hand no affidavit in opposition has been filed, no record has been produced to show, establish the reasons and purpose for reservation of 6 seats for sons and daughters of all categories of employees serving under the Health Department of Assam. It is not understood as to why it is necessary to reserve seats for them in a highly competitive field. The whole approach appears to be arbitrary and it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Further it is found that this reservation is arbitrary and irrational and therefore, constitutionally invalid. The two tests as laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 1534 have not been established in the instant case. There is no material whatsoever to support that the classification is founded on an unintelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. There is also no material to show that the differentia has a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provisions. It is not understood as to why the sons and daughters of all categories of employees serving under the Health Department of Assam should be treated as a favoured class. Why other such employees have been left out. 13. It is not understood as to why the sons and daughters of all categories of employees serving under the Health Department of Assam should be treated as a favoured class. Why other such employees have been left out. 13. In that view of the matter Rule 6(i)(i) of the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College (Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students) Rules, is struck down holding it to be ultra vires of the Constitution. After quashing that order the question which comes is whether I am entitled to give the relief with regard to the second prayer. If that relief is given the same inequality shall hold the field. I cannot grant the second relief also. 14. Before I part with the record as some argument was advanced regarding the power of this Court to grant interim relief, regarding the admission of students in Medical Institution, I consider that aspect of the matter also and the law on this point has been settled by two recent decisions of the Apex Court: (i) AIR 1995 SC 241 wherein in paragraph 4, the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows:- " This Court has emphasised in several decisions that passing of interim orders more particularly of a mandatory nature like the present one - is neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity. The power to grant interim orders is coupled with the duty to consider all the relevant facts and legal principles relevant in that behalf. Admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders - at any rule, not without fully hearing the respondents." (ii) AIR 1995 SC 350 (State of Maharashtra v. Admane Anita Moti), wherein the Supreme Court even interfered with a consent order which was passed by the High Court as it was found that the consent order was against law. The Supreme Court pointed out as follows :- "A minority educational institution admitted l12 students (all girls) to D.Ed. Course against the sanctioned strength of 80. The High Court by way of interim order granted admission to 112 students. This was because the department agreeed for it. In fact it was a consent order. The Education Department did not bring this vital fact to the notice of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Govt. Course against the sanctioned strength of 80. The High Court by way of interim order granted admission to 112 students. This was because the department agreeed for it. In fact it was a consent order. The Education Department did not bring this vital fact to the notice of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Govt. not only concealed important information from Supreme Court but it played with the career of students who even after the order passed by the High Court have lost nearly two years. The High Court in the circumstances thought it proper while passing the interim order that since such students will be nowhere and if the Government in earlier years had accommodated similar students who were admitted by colleges which were not recognised then it would be in fitness of things that the students who were admitted by an institution which was recognised at the time of admission were entitled to indulgence by directing the students to be accommodated in other colleges. This was not proper. One illegality cannot justify the other. The utmost that the High Court could have done to record the consent and to ask the Government to consider the matter and raise the strength in the special circumstances for one year. Such misplaced equities encourage indiscipline and the managements of those educational institutions which are gradually degenerating and converting such institution into commercial houses, flout the orders of educational authorities and the Government, fleece the students and their parents and then leave the students to invoke sympathy of the Court to protect them from the exploitation suffered by them and save their career from being ruined." 15. Regarding the power of the interim order the Supreme Court pointed out as follows:- "Interim orders are granted by the court as they are necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner till the rights are finally adjudicated upon. Even where it is not provided in the statute this Court has held that the Courts have inherent power to grant it. In admission matters, however, such orders once obtained create vested interest of avoiding final adjudication to enable the student to complete the course and then invoke sympathy of the Court." 16. In that view of the matter the Court by way of interim order cannot order for admission of students in a college. In admission matters, however, such orders once obtained create vested interest of avoiding final adjudication to enable the student to complete the course and then invoke sympathy of the Court." 16. In that view of the matter the Court by way of interim order cannot order for admission of students in a college. Accordingly this writ application is allowed in part striking down R.6(i) of the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College, i.e., R.6(i)(i) of the Regulation of Admission of Under-Graduate Students. Rules, 1994. Application allowed.