This petition is filed by the Association called the All Manipur Graduate Doctors' Association represented by its President, Vice President and Secretary. 2. The members of the Association are Graduate Doctors graduated from different Medical Colleges outside the State of Manipur. They are aggrieved by a circular/letter issued by the Director, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal dated 19.5.95 (Annexure A/1) for selection of departmental candidates for admission into Post Graduate courses (MD/MS) for the Sessions 1995-96 to different disciplines and the advertisement dated 23.5.95 (Annexure A/2) inviting application from the North Eastern Regional Medical College renamed as Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal products for admission to the Post Graduate seats for the academic sessions 1995-96. 3. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarily recited. The North Eastern Regional Medical College was established in 1972. The said Institute has now been renamed as Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS). The Institution open for both Graduate (MBBS/BDS) and Post Graduate (MS/MD) courses. The Institution, therefore, produced both the Graduate Doctors (MBBS/BDS) and Post Graduate Doctors (MD/MS). The members of the petitioners' Association are Graduate from the different Medical Colleges outside the State of Manipur. 4. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioners' Association are this. For the academic session 1995-96,37 PG seats are available for admission in the RIMS, Imphal. The 37 PG seats are in 14 disciplines. Out of 37 PG seats there is not a single seat for open general competition, but all the 37 PG seats had been reserved for different categories of beneficiary States and RIMS products. The illustration given below would clarify the matter : 37 (thirty seven) PG Seats available for admission for the academic sessions 1995-96 in the RMC (RIMS). 21 PG Seats reserved for the 13 (8+5) PG Seats reserved 3 PG Seats in service candidates sponsored reserved for RMC (RIMS) reserved for by the 6 (six) beneficiary States employed Doctors the RMC (without any written test) (without any written test) RIMS products. (emphasis supplied) 5. At the time of hearing of this petition it is contended by Mr. 21 PG Seats reserved for the 13 (8+5) PG Seats reserved 3 PG Seats in service candidates sponsored reserved for RMC (RIMS) reserved for by the 6 (six) beneficiary States employed Doctors the RMC (without any written test) (without any written test) RIMS products. (emphasis supplied) 5. At the time of hearing of this petition it is contended by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners' Association that the petitioners' Association has no grievance with regard to the 21 PG seats reserved for in service candidates sponsored by the 6 beneficiary States ie Maghalaya, Nagaland, Mahipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Mizoram, however, they are aggrieved for reserving the rest 16 PG seats exclusively for RIMS Doctors and RIMS products. It is contended by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh that the rest 16 PG seats should be open for general competition for the candidates from 6 beneficiary States whose cases were not sponsored by the 6 beneficiary States as in service candidates. 6. The law is now well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, in this connection. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh has placed reliance in the following Supreme Court decisions: (a) In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & others vs. Thukral Anjali Deokumar & others, AIR 1989 SC 1194 , the Supreme Court has held that Rule 4A framed by Bombay Municipal Corporation and Rule 5 framed under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 18.6.71 providing for the college wise institutional preference for admission to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Medical Science is held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14. (b) In PK Goel & others vs. UP Medical Council & others, AIR 1992 SC 1475 , the Supreme Court has struck down Rule (G) (ii) of the guidelines of the Lucknow University for Entrance Examination giving benefit to college wise institutional preference as arbitrary and unreasonable. The Supreme Court, further, held that admission has to be based on common merit list at State level. (c) In State of Rajasthan & another vs. Dr. The Supreme Court, further, held that admission has to be based on common merit list at State level. (c) In State of Rajasthan & another vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & others, AIR 1989 SC 177 , the Supreme Court has quashed the Ordinance No.278E (d) (ii) of the Ordinances of University of Rajasthan which provides for uniform addition of 5% marks to the students applying for admission to the Post Graduate course in any of the five Medical Colleges, provided the students has passed his final MBBS Examination from the college to which admission if Post Graduate course is sought as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14. 7. From the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it clearly appear that: (1) Cent percent reservation in the PG seats available for admission in the' Medical College Institute has been prohibited; (2) College wise preference for admission to the PG courses would be a denial of equal opportunity and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is crystally clear from the illustration as shown above that 16 PG seats out of 3 7 PG seats have been exclusively reserved for the RIMS products i.e. 13 PG seats reserved for RIMS employed doctors and 3 PG seats reserved for RIMS products. In such a situation the candidates from the 6 beneficiary States who obtained MBBS degree from other Medical Colleges in India and whose case has not been sponsored in service candidates by the 6 beneficiary States are being denied of equal opportunity to compete for the admission in PG courses in RIMS and is discriminaory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. It is contended by Mr. N. Surjamani Singh, learned senior counsel for the intervenor and Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the distribution of PG seats and reservation for RIMS products has been done on the basis of the resolution item No.2 of the Management Committee Meeting and approved by 45th Management Committee Meeting of the RIMS on 1st and 2nd March, 1993. It would clearly appear that the resolution of the 2nd item of the Management Committee with regard to the reservation of seats was no experimental basis for 2 years and will be open to review. 2 years have expired on 8.7.94 and there was no review thereafter. It would clearly appear that the resolution of the 2nd item of the Management Committee with regard to the reservation of seats was no experimental basis for 2 years and will be open to review. 2 years have expired on 8.7.94 and there was no review thereafter. Therefore, the resolution item No.2 has been lapsed and it is non-est, even if, assuming such resolution did exist it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and deserves to be quashed. 10. Next it is contended by Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the RIMS has been exempted from reserving 25% PG seats for a period of 5 years. In this connection, Mr. BP Sahu has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Apex Court in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 1989 (in Writ Petition Nos.348-52 of 1995) Annexure X/6 of the counter of the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. BP Sahu also drawn my attention to the order passed by the Supreme Court in IA No. 7 of 1995 of show that granting of exemption was extended for further period of 5 years to the institute from 3.8.87 to 25.9.87. 11. The facts necessitating for passing of the aforesaid order by the Supreme Court are this. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College ( AIR 1986 SC 1877 ), the Supreme Court has inter alia laid down 2 (two) guidleines as under : "(1) For the present at least, the All India Entrance Examination shall be held in English medium and not in any regional language. (2) In order to avoid the possibility that a State Government may reduce the number of seats available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination by increasing the number of reserved categories or by increasing the percentage of reservations the directions was given that instead of 30% after taking into account reservation validly made not less than 15% of the total number of seats in each Medical College or Institution, without taking into account any reservation validly made, shall be filled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. The new formula would be fair and just and will bring about real equality of opportunity in admission to the MBBS/BDS courses without placing v the students in one State in an advantageous or disadvantageous position as compared to the students in another State. The same formula must apply also in regard to admissions to the Post Graduate courses and instead of making available for admission on all India of the open seats after taking into account reservations validly made not less than 25% of the total number of seats without taking into account any reservation, shall be made available for beingiilled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination." (emphasis supplied) 12. An application has been filed registered as LA No. 1 of 1989 (arising out of WA No 348-52 of 1985) seeking for exemption from 25% reservation. The Supreme Court by its order dated 11.8.89 disposed of the interlocutory application as under: "This application has been made on the allegation that for the first time in the North Eastern Sector of the country covering six States being Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh a college for post-graduate teaching is being set up and six seats are being provided, two each to General Surgery, Paediatrics and Gynochology. In view of the fact that area is under development compared to other parts of the country and the number of seats are only six and taking into consideration the further fact that students of this area would not be in a position to compete at the all India selection, if 25% seats are reserved, there is force in allegation that candidate from this area would be deprived from getting seats in any other college. In the facts indicated above we are satisfied that for a terms of five years from now this institution may be kept out of the scheme. The CMP is disposed of." (emphasis supplied) 13. The aforesaid order dated 11.8.89 has been further extended by the Supreme Court by another 5 years by its order dated 6.11.95 passed in IA No.7 of 1995. 14. The CMP is disposed of." (emphasis supplied) 13. The aforesaid order dated 11.8.89 has been further extended by the Supreme Court by another 5 years by its order dated 6.11.95 passed in IA No.7 of 1995. 14. From the order dated 11.8.89 of the Supreme Court as quoted above, it would clearly show that 25% of PG seats are de-reserved for the benefit of the students from the 6 (six) beneficiary States because the area is underdeveloped compare to the other parts of the country and the students of the area would not in a position to compete at the all India selection. Therefore, exemption from reserving 25% of PG seats for competing at the all India selection would meant reservation of seats for the students of the 6 beneficiary States i.e. Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh. The exemption is granted to the students of the 6 beneficiary States not to the products of the institute exclusively. Therefore, the argument of Mr. BP Sahu that the exemption is granted exclusively to the RIMS products is no argument at all. It would be discriminatory and denial of equal opportunity if the non-sponsoring students from the 6 beneficiary States who obtained MBBS degree from Medical College in other States are deprived of their rights to compete from the 16 Post Graduate seats reserved for them in various disciplines for admission to the RIMS. There can never be further reservation from the reserved quota, reserving seats for particular categories of students. This would amount to discrimination and denial of equal opportunities of the students who are entitled to compete from the reserved seat and they are eligible otherwise. 15. For the aforestated reasons the impugned circular dated 19.5.95 (Annexure A/1) and the impugned advertisement dated 13.5.95 (Annexure A/2) issued by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and quashed in so far with regard to the 16 Post Graduate seats in various disciplines. The respondents, particularly the respondent No.2 is directed to invite application from the eligible candidates from all 6 beneficiary States for admission into the 16 Post Graduate seat in various disciplines for the academic sessions 1995-96. The admission to PG courses shall be made strictly on the basis of merit. The respondents, particularly the respondent No.2 is directed to invite application from the eligible candidates from all 6 beneficiary States for admission into the 16 Post Graduate seat in various disciplines for the academic sessions 1995-96. The admission to PG courses shall be made strictly on the basis of merit. At the admission is for the academic session 1995-96, the respondent No.2 is directed to advertise the seats inviting application within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order. 16. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.