JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—We propose to decide this batch of 36 cases by this judgment since the questions involved in all of them are common in nature and learned Counsel for the parties advanced almost similar submissions in support of these questions However, pointed reference would be made to some of cases wherever it is found necessary 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of eligibility criteria in the prospectus for the Session 1995-96 restricting the eligibility only to those candidates who have passed at least two out of three examinations-Middle, Matric and 10+2 from recognised schools and colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh for admission to the first year MBBS/BDS courses in the Indira Gandhi Medical College (MBBS) and Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital (BDS) and free seats available in private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State. The petitioners have stated that they are permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh and are, therefore, bona fide Himachalis defined in the prospectus. However, due to the posting of their parents outside Himachal Pradesh, they had to study in schools and institutions outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Some of the petitioners are the children of Defence Services who had to be out of Himachal Pradesh on account of the posting of their fathers at various places in the country. 3. Petitioner Moti Lal (C.W. P. No. 825/95) had his education in "Vishesh Kendriya Vidalaya" situated at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh due to selection in competitive examination conducted by the District Education Officer, Kinnaur. Otherwise, be would have studied in the tribal area of Himachal Pradesh throughout. 4. Further contention of the petitioners is that Part-IV of the prospectus provides that ; IV. ELIGIBILITY I. Candidates who have to compete for admission to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (MBBS) and Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital Shimla (BDS), OR Free seats available in various private Dental Colleges and Medical College situate in Himachal Pradesh should have passed atleast two of the following examinations from the recognised Schools and Colleges, situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh : — (a) Middle or Equivalent, (b) Matric or Equivalent. (c) 10+ 2 or Equivalent". 5. The Himachal Pradesh University issued circular dated May 22, 1995 on the basis of this condition in the prospectus for entertaining the applications for the pre-medical test. (c) 10+ 2 or Equivalent". 5. The Himachal Pradesh University issued circular dated May 22, 1995 on the basis of this condition in the prospectus for entertaining the applications for the pre-medical test. Except for a few seats, all the seats are to be filled from children of bona fide Himachalis/Himachal Government employees and employees of autonomous bodies wholly or partially financed by the Himachal Pradesh Government. Seats have also been reserved for candidates from backward area notified as such by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and have passed atleast two examinations—Primary, Middle, Matric, 10 + 2—from the Institutions located in the notified backward areas. Eligibility criteria is liable to be struck down being arbitrary, unjust and having no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Laying down of this kind of criteria is breeding discrimination between two similar categories without any justifiable cause. The petitioners and those who are failing within the eligibility criteria, have had similar opportunities for acquiring educational qualifications, therefore, they cannot be discriminated against simply because they happened to study outside the State on account of the posting of their parents outside Himachal Pradesh, otherwise, they are bona fide Himachalis. The requirement of passing two of three examinations has put a serious curve on their intention to pursue their studies in the Medical College and Dental Colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh In case the respondents intended to impose this kind of condition, it should have been made applicable after four years. Further, the prospectus provides for atleast 85% to 100% reservation for local candidates, hence it is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. 6. Petitioner Vishai Rangta (C.W.P. No 905/95) has stated that he belongs to backward area since Gram Panchayat, Jalta has been declared backward Panchayat through Government Order PL-GF (PF) 3-55/85, dated January 10, 1986. He passed his Middle standard examination from High School, Giltarl Thereafter, Matric and 10+2 Examinations were passed from D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh. He was expecting to appear in the pre-medical examination and on selection, seek admission in the Medical College, but due to the eligibility criteria, he is being disqualified since he has not passed two of the three examinations from recognised Schools/Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was expecting to appear in the pre-medical examination and on selection, seek admission in the Medical College, but due to the eligibility criteria, he is being disqualified since he has not passed two of the three examinations from recognised Schools/Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It has also been pointed out that very good education is available in places like Shimla, Kullu, Mandi, Bilaspur and Dharamshala where there are number of convent schools, Kendriya Vidyalayas and public schools with high teaching standard available in other parts of the country. It cannot be presumed at this stage that after passing their medical degrees, the petitioners would not serve in the State thereby deprive the people of the State from medical facilities, 7. Principal, Medical College, Shimla has filed affidavit on behalf of the State as well. It has been stated that the eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus being perfectly legal and valid, no grievance can be raised by the petitioners. The petitioners may be bonafide Himachalis but they cannot seek admission since they have not passed two of the three examinations from the recognised Schools and Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, there is only one Medical College and another Dental College established and maintained by the State. Private Dental College at Sundernagar has not as yet been recognised by the Dental Council of India, 8. Prospectus Committee comprised of Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Health), Secretary (Law) or his representatives, Registrar Himachal Pradesh University or his representatives, Director of Health Services or his representatives, Principal Dental Medical College, Joint Secretary (Health), Director, Medical Education-cum-Principal Medical College and one senior most Professor of Medical College. This committee discussed the eligibility criteria thoroughly before it was finalised. Various representations had been received which pointed out that the students of Himachal Pradesh were not getting medical education outside the State and when the question of admission to Medical College Shimla arose, the students of other States, Universities and School managed to get admissions in the College thereby preventing the students of Himachal Pradesh from pursuing these Courses. Factors like topography, social atmosphere, financial and economical conditions, educational facilities were also taken into consideration by the Prospectus Committee during its deliberations before the proposal was sent to the State Government for approval. Factors like topography, social atmosphere, financial and economical conditions, educational facilities were also taken into consideration by the Prospectus Committee during its deliberations before the proposal was sent to the State Government for approval. Precisely, it has also been stated that the necessity for prescribing the eligibility criteria contained in Part-IV of the College Prospectus arose due to the circumstances being mentioned hereunder in extenso : "(a) Himachal Pradesh being a hilly State has to provide the medical facilities to the people jiving in the far flung tribal areas, backward and remote areas of the Pradesh. (b) Since the Government of Himachal Pradesh is committed to provide medical facilities to its people, the doctors are trained in the said college for the purpose of serving the people in every nook and corner of the State. A policy decision has been taken since the very beginning that every students while being admitted to the MBBS course would execute a bond that he/she shall complete the said course and serve the State for a period of two years in the rural areas in the State. (c) It is pertinent to point out that so far 1453 doctors have passed the MBBS degree and 277 Post Graduate (Post Graduate Degree 153 Degree 124 Diploma) from this Institution upto 22-12-1994, Although a sufficient number of students have passed out from this college since its inception, yet it has been observed that most of the institutions in rut a! and backward area/tribal areas remain without doctors as doctor are reluctant so join the services in these areas and they do not join the services in these areas and fail to abide by the terms and conditions of the bond which they had agreed to at the time of their joining the course and all efforts of the State Government to train the doctors are rendered futile. Till now about 600 doctors have not joined the State services despite their agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the bond. Thus the people of the State in the far flung areas suffer due to non-availability of the doctors in the health institutions/hospitals opened there. As such the doctors failed to perform their social obligations even when the Government have already spent about 6.85 lacs per doctor on their MBBS degree. Thus the people of the State in the far flung areas suffer due to non-availability of the doctors in the health institutions/hospitals opened there. As such the doctors failed to perform their social obligations even when the Government have already spent about 6.85 lacs per doctor on their MBBS degree. Moreover, the Government is losing its credibility due to the doctors who failed to perform their duties. (d) It may be mentioned here that there are about 2262 health institutions in the State and there are 1175 posts of the doctors sanctioned to man these institutions. A large number of health institutions in the tribal/remote areas are virtually looked up due to shortage of doctors in order to provide health facilities and to ensure smooth functioning of these institutions, the Government has formulated a scheme for restructing/ratio-nalization of Health and Family Welfare Department in the State. (e) The primary object of opening these Medical Colleges is that the students who get their MBBS and Post Graduation degree from these institutions should serve the people of Himachal Pradesh. The students are not trained for their self aggrendisement. (f) Though the doctors in the State are the highest paid in the country yet they are reluctant to serve the rural areas and the State. (g) It is further submitted then in accordance with the Prospectus 5 seats are reserved for Government of India nominees, 15% seats are filled on the basis of entrance test held by the Control Board of School Education of India basis which does not admit any reservations constitutional or institutional or any other kind of reservations. (h) In view of this 80 seats out of 100 seats of the college remain to be filled for which Part IV Eligibility Criteria will apply taking into account the reservations meant for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes etc.". 9. The candidates covered by the Eligibility Criteria form a separate class and they cannot be compared with the petitioners who also form a separate class. So far as wards of defence personnel are concerned, sufficient opportunities are available for them, therefore, no discrimination or hardship is caused to them. 9. The candidates covered by the Eligibility Criteria form a separate class and they cannot be compared with the petitioners who also form a separate class. So far as wards of defence personnel are concerned, sufficient opportunities are available for them, therefore, no discrimination or hardship is caused to them. One seat is available to them from nomination by the Government of India ; they can compete against 15% seats filled on the basis of All India Entrance Test and they can compete for the seats against Entry 5 of Group-A (reserved). Students who have got their education outside the State of H.P, are eligible for admission in the Medical Colleges located there, therefore, they would be availing double benefit but for the eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus for this year. It has been applied for this session and cannot be made applicable after four years. 10. Let the question of percentage of reservation be examined first. We are of the opinion that it does not exceed 80%. In all, there are 100 seats in MBBS and 20 seats in BDS. Out of 100 seats, in Group-A, 37 seats are shown reserved. Out of these 37 seats, 15 seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes, 7 seats for Scheduled Tribes, Two seats for other backward classes, one seat for children—son—daughter of ex-servicemen, one seat for children—son—-daughter of defence personnel who are bona fide residents of Himachal Pradesh, one seat for wards of Freedom Fighters and five seats for backward areas, Five seats for Government of India nominees cannot be called reserved seats: Except for fulfilling the eligibility condition laid down by the Himachal Pradesh University having passed the qualifying examination with 50% marks, such nominees are neither required to compete for the pre-medical test nor they have to apply to the University or the Medical College for seeking nomination nor required to pass the twin test of being bona fide residents of Himachal Pradesh and qualifying atleast two of the three examinations from the recognised Schools and Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, As a matter of fact, applications for these seats are to be addressed to the authorities by the candidates falling under ten categories mentioned at page 20-21 of the prospectus. The respondents have no control over these seats Therefore, unreserved seats are Group B (ii)’ 15 seats plus Group-A (8) 5 seats. The respondents have no control over these seats Therefore, unreserved seats are Group B (ii)’ 15 seats plus Group-A (8) 5 seats. So out of 100 seats, 20 seats are not reserved and, therefore, only 80 seats are such to which the eligibility criteria provided in the prospectus is applicable. There are 20 seats in BDS, 8 are reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other backward classes, children—son—daughter of ex-servicemen/children—son—daughter of defence personnel and backward area. 9 seats are unreserved and three are to be filled in through All India Entrance Test like 15 seats in MBBS course. 11. In Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654, the apex Court held that reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validiy made. Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court, said that (paras 20 and 21): "20. The only question which remains to be considered is as to what should be the extent of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference. There can be no doubt that such reservation cannot completely exclude admission of students from other universities and States on the basis of merit judged in open competition. Krishna Iyer, J. rightly remarked in Jagdish Saran case at pages 845 and 846 of the Report: (SCC p, 778, para 22) “.....reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. You cannot extent the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation; So, a certain percentage, which may be available, must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like. You cannot extent the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation; So, a certain percentage, which may be available, must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like. Complete exclusion of the rest of the country for the sake of a province, wholesale banishment of proven ability to open up, hopefully, some dalit talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the altar of equalisation—when the Constitution mandates for every one equality before and equal protection of the law—may be fatal folly, self-defeating educational technology and antinational if made a routine rule of State policy A fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak with the partial recognition of the presence of competitive merit— such is the dynamics of social justice which animates the three egalitarian articles of the Constitution". We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of domicile’ or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution’. 21. But, then to what extent can reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for students passing the qualifying examination held by the university or the State be regarded as constitutionally permissible? It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question for, as pointed out by the policy statement of the Government of India, the extent of such reservation "would depend on several factors including opportunities for professional education in that particular area, the extent of competition, level of educational development of the area and other relevant factors". It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question for, as pointed out by the policy statement of the Government of India, the extent of such reservation "would depend on several factors including opportunities for professional education in that particular area, the extent of competition, level of educational development of the area and other relevant factors". It may be that in a State where the level of educational development is woefully low, there are comparatively inadequate opportunities for training in the medical speciality and there is large scale social and economic backwardness there may be justification for reservation of a higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State and such higher percentage may not militate against "the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice”. So many variables depending on social and economic facts in the context of educational opportunities would enter into the determination of the question as to what in the case of any particular State, should be the limit of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made. The Medical Education Review Committee has suggested that the outer limit should not exceed 75 per cent but we are of the view that it would be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70 per cent We are laying down this outer limit of reservation in an attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting claims of equality and excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit fixed by us will be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may be made by the Indian Medical Council which is the statutory body of medical practitioners whose functional obligations include setting standards for medical education and providing for its regulation and coordination, We are of the opinion that this outer limit fixed by us must gradually over the years be progressively reduced but that is a task which would have to be performed by the Indian Medical Council. We would direct the Indian Medical Council to consider within a period of nine months from today whether the outer limit of 70 per cent fixed by us needs to be reduced and if the Indian Medical Council determines a shorter outer limit, it will be binding on the States and the Union Territories. We would also direct the Indian Medical Council to subject the outer limit so fixed to reconsideration at the end of every three years but in no event should the outer limit exceed 70 per cent fixed by us. The result is that in any event at least 30 per cent of the open seats shall be available for admission of students on all-India basis irrespective of the State or university from which they come and such admissions shall be granted purely on merit on the basis of either all-India entrance examination or entrance examination to be held by the State. Of course, we need not add that even where reservation on the basis of residence requirement or institutional preference is made in accordance with the directions given in this judgment, admissions from the source or sources indicated by such reservation shall be based only on merit because the object must be to select the best and most meritorious students from within such source or sources." 12. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others, AIR 1986 SC 1877, the apex Court further extended this limit to 83 per cent. It is important to quote para 14 of this judgment: "14. Before we part with this judgment we would like to make it clear that this judgment given by us should not be construed as in any manner prejudicing or affecting or detracting from any rule, regulation or other provision entitling students from other States including the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir to be considered for admission to the remaining 85% and 75% seats for the MBBS, BDS Course and Post-graduate Course respectively. We would also like the Government of India to consider whether it would not be desirable to set up Regional Institutes of Medical Sciences where admission would be open to students from all over the country and where a high standard of excellence would be maintained; If such Regional Institutes of Medical Sciences are set up providing opportunity to students from all over the country to compete for admission on the basis of merit, it may become unnecessary to reserve 15% of the total number of seats for admission to the MBBS, BDS course and 25% of the total number of seats for admission to Post-graduate Course in each medical college or institution on the basis of All India Entrance Examination". 13. In the present case, it is, therefore, held that the reservation does not exceed 80% and the contention that it is 100 per cent or in any case 85 per cent, is rejected, 14. Next, it was contended that the eligibility criteria suffers from the vice of discrimination, arbitrariness and unjustness, besides, causing hardship to the petitioners who, for reasons beyond their control, happened to pursue their studies outside the State. In support of this point, it was contended that there is virtually no difference between the candidates like the petitioners and those covered by the eligibility criteria. Both have similar facilities of education. In the State of Himachal Pradesh there are many good schools. Standard of education is also very high. Therefore, (here is no justifiable ground for excluding the petitioners by imposing the criteria of passing .two of the three examinations from Institutions and Colleges situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh. 15. Learned Advocate General defended the eligibility criteria by making reference to the preamble to the Constitution, Article 15 (4) and 46 thereof and contended that the candidates falling under the eligibility criteria, form a separate class distinct from the petitioners They are socially and educationally backward, therefore, laying down of this criteria is a genuine attempt on the part of the State to give (hem chance of seeking admission in the Medical and Dental Colleges of the State. Effort is to bring them at par with others since they cannot possibly compete with those students who have studied in better Institutions outside the State with better facilities and exposure Further, reference was made to the deliberations and decision of the Prospectus Committee, referred to above in justification of the criteria and it was asserted that looking to the past experience and to contain the doctors to serve the people of the State, the eligibility criteria has been laid down. 16. In Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14 as follows: "(5) The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Charanjit Lal v. Union of India’, ATR 1951 SC 41 (A) ; ‘State of Bombay v. F.J. Balsara’, AIR 1951 SC 318 (B) ; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 (C) ; Kathi Raning Rawal v. State of Saurashtra’, AIR 1952 SC 123 (D) ; Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay’, AIR 1952 SC 235 (E) and Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 156 (F) and Habeeb Mohamad v. State of Hyderabad’, AIR 1953 SC 287 (G) It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the Article in question, It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must he founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question, The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure........." (Emphasis supplied). 17. The above passage was approved by the apex Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmis and others v. Shri Justice S R. Tendolkar and others, AIR 1958 SC 538, in para 11 of the judgment and held further that : “........ The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and applied in subsequent cases. 17. The above passage was approved by the apex Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmis and others v. Shri Justice S R. Tendolkar and others, AIR 1958 SC 538, in para 11 of the judgment and held further that : “........ The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and applied in subsequent cases. The decisions of this Court further establish— (a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself; (b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles ; (c) that it must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that the Legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest ; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation ; and (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation The above principles will have to be constantly borne in mind by the Court when it is called upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any particular law attacked as discriminatory aad violativs of the equal protection of the laws". Further, in para 12, the Court held that: "(12) A close perusal of the decisions of this Court in which the above principles have been enunciated and applied by this Court will also show that a statute which may come up for consideration on a question of its validity under Article 14 of the Constitution may be placed in one or other of the following five classes ;— (i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply and the basis of the classification of such persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or brought to the notice of the Court. In determining the validity or otherwise of such a statute the Court has to examine whether such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes such persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute, no matter whether the provisions of the statute are intended to apply only to a particular person or thing or only to a certain class of persons or things. Where the Court finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the Court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did in Chiranjitlal v. Union of India (B) (supra) ; State of Bombay v F.N Balsara (C) (supra); Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, 1954 SCR 30 : AIR 1953 SC 404 (I) ; V.M Syed Mohammad & Company v State of Andhra, 1954 SCR 1117 : AIR 1954 SG 314 (J) and Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, (A) (supra). (ii) A statute may direct its provisions against one individual person or thing or to several individual persons or things but no reasonable basis of classification may appear on the face of it or be deducible from the surrounding circumstances, or matters of common knowledge. In such a case the Court will strike down the law as an instance of naked discrimination, as it did in Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, 1953 SCR 404 : AIR 1953 SC9I (K) and Ramprasad Narain Sahi v State of Bihar, 1953 SCR 1129 ; AIR 1953 SC 215 (L). In such a case the Court will strike down the law as an instance of naked discrimination, as it did in Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, 1953 SCR 404 : AIR 1953 SC9I (K) and Ramprasad Narain Sahi v State of Bihar, 1953 SCR 1129 ; AIR 1953 SC 215 (L). (iii) A statute may not make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of the Government to select and classify persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply. In determining the question of the validity or otherwise of such a statute the Court will not strike down the law out of hand only because no classification appears on its face or because a discretion is given to the Government to make the selection or classification but will go on to examine and ascertain if the statute has laid down any principle or policy for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of the selection or classification. After such scrutiny the Court will strike down the statute if it does not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification, on the ground that the statute provides for the delegation of arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the Government so as to enable it to discriminate between persons or things similarly situate and that, therefore, the discrimination is inherent in the statute itself. In such a case the Court will strike down both the law as well as the executive action taken under such law, as it did in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (D) (supra); Dwarka Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 SCR 803: AIR 1954 SC 224 (M) and Dhirendra Kumar Mandal v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, 1955-1 SCR 224: AIR J954 SC 424 (N). (iv) A statute may not make a classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions and may leave it to the discretion of the Government to select and classify the persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply but may at the same time lay down a policy or principle for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of such selection or classification ; the Court will uphold the law as constitutional, as it did in Kathi Raning Rawat v, the State of Saurashtra (E) (supra). (v) A statute may not make a classification of the persons or things to whom their provisions are intended to apply and leave it to the discretion of the Government to select or classify the persons or things for applying those provisions according to the policy or the principle laid down by the statute itself for guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of such selection or classification. If the Government in making the selection or classification does not proceed on or follow such policy or principle, it has been held by this Court, e.g. in Kathi Raning Rawat v. the State of Saurashtra (E) (supra) that in such a case the executive action but not the statute should be condemned as unconstitutional In the light of the foregoing discussions the question at once arises; In what category does the Act or the notification impugned in these appeals fall ?” 18. Looking to the material placed before us and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that students studying in the Schools, Institutions, Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh form a separate class while the students falling to the category of the petitioners, form a distinct class. Contention that there are many good Schools in Shimla and a few other places with good educational facilities, is hardly convincing. Assuming that there are some such schools, they are far behind the schools outside the State. Moreover, they can be counted on finger tips. Except for bare contention, no material has been placed before us to assess the standard of education and the percentage of appearance and selection to the Medical Courses. Assuming that there are some such schools, they are far behind the schools outside the State. Moreover, they can be counted on finger tips. Except for bare contention, no material has been placed before us to assess the standard of education and the percentage of appearance and selection to the Medical Courses. A few schools cannot be made the basis for assuming that the standard of education in all the Schools, Institutions and Colleges in the State is as high as in Schools, Institutions and Colleges located outside the State, What is the requirement of the State which maintains the Medical Colleges and what should be the sources of recruitment for admission, is primarily for the State to decide. The eligibility criteria has to be the result of the past experience and the requirement of the State Of course, the State action should not transgress the constitutional limit and the Court directives. 19. Second facet of this question is whether laying down of this kind of criteria is constitutionally permissible; whether it is arbitrary and unjust causing hardship to the petitioners ? We answer all these questions against the petitioners. By now, such kind of reservations have been held constitutionally permissible in series of decisions by the apex Court and this Court. Similarly, question of hardship or that the State could have extended this kind of benefit to the candidates passing these examinations from the Institutions and Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh in a different and better way, do not make the provision unconstitutional, unjust or harsh. 20. Constitution Bench of Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Article 15 (4) in M.R Balaji and others v. The State of Mysore and others, AIR 1963 SC 649. It said (in paragraph 21) that: “………….The backwardness under Article 15 (4) must be social and educational It is not either social or educational, but it is both social and educational ; and that takes us to the question as to how social and educational backwardness has to be determined". Dealing with the question of social backwardness, it said (in paragraphs 23 and 24) that: “......... ...Social backwardness is on the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a very large extent. The classes of citizens who are deplorably poor automatically become socially backward. They do not enjoy a status in society and have, therefore, to be content to take a backward seat........... .... ...Social backwardness is on the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a very large extent. The classes of citizens who are deplorably poor automatically become socially backward. They do not enjoy a status in society and have, therefore, to be content to take a backward seat........... .... The occupations of citizens may also contribute to make classes of citizens socially backward. There are some occupations which are treated as inferior according to conventional beliefs and classes of citizens who follow these occupations are apt to become socially backward. The place of habitation also plays not a minor part in determining the backwardness of a community of persons………….” Dealing with the question of educationally backward areas, it said (in paragraph 26) that: "..... It is only communities which are well below the State average that can properly be regarded as educationally backward classes of citizens. Classes of citizens whose average of student population works below 50% of the State average are obviously educationally backward classes of citizens......". 21. In D. N Chanchala etc. v. The State of Mysore and others, AIR 1971 SC 1762, it has been observed that (para 22): “........... There can be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well settled, that the Government, as also other private agencies, who found such centres for medical training, have the right to frame rules for admission so long as those rules are not inconsistent with the university statutes and regulations and do not suffer from infirmities, constitutional or otherwise................... Further, the Government which bears the financial burden of running the Government Colleges is entitled to lay down criteria for admission in its own colleges and to decide the sources from which admission would be made, provided of course, such classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable connection with the object of the rules................ ...........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 trailing in technical studies, such as medical studies...... . ". 22. 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 trailing in technical studies, such as medical studies...... . ". 22. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pradip Tandon and others, AIR 1975 SC 563, the Supreme Court said in paragraphs 18 and 19 that : "18. The traits of social backwardness are these. There is no social structure. There is no social hierarchy. There are no means of controlling the environment through technology. There is organization of the society to create inducement for uplift of the people and improvement of economy. Building of towns and industries, growth of cash economy which are responsible for greater social wealth are absent among such classes ....." "19 The hill and Uttrakhaud areas in Uttar Pradesh are instances of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for these reasons Backwardness is judged by economic basis that each region has its own measurable possibilities for the maintenance of human numbers, standard of living and fixed property. From an economic point of view the classes of citizens are backward when they do not make effective use of resources. When large areas of land maintain a sparse, disorderly and illiterate population whose property is small and negligible the element of social backwardness is observed. When effective territorial specialisation is not possible in the absence of means of communication and technical processes as in the hill and Uttrakhand areas the people are socially backward classes of citizens. Neglected opportunities and people in remote places raise walls of social backwardness of people". About educational backwardness it said (in paragraph 20) that: "Educational backwardness is ascertained with reference to these factors. Where people have traditional apathy for education on account of social and environmental conditions or occupational handicaps, it is an illustration of educational backwardness. The hill and Uttrakhand areas are inaccessible. There is lack of educational institutions and educational aids, People in the hill and Uttrakhand areas illustrate the educationally backward classes of citizens because lack of educational facilities keep them stagnant and they have neither meaning and values nor awareness for education". Later, it said (in paragraph 30) that: "The onus of proof is on the State to establish that the reservation are for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Later, it said (in paragraph 30) that: "The onus of proof is on the State to establish that the reservation are for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The State has established that the people in hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens". 23. In Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC l«20, the principle has been reiterated in the following terms : "18. The second consideration which has legitimately weighed with the courts iij diluting the principle of selection based on merits is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any particular region. There have been cases where students residing in a backward region have been given preferential treatment in admissions to medical colleges and such preferential treatment has been upheld on the ground that though apparently discriminatory against others, it is intended to correct the imbalance or handicap from which the students from the backward region are suffering and thus bring about real equality in the larger sense Such preferential treatment for those residing in the backward region is designed to produce equal opportunity on a broader basis by providing to neglect geographical or human areas an opportunity to rise which they would not have if do preferential treatment is given to them and they are treated on the same basis as others for admissions to medical colleges, because then they would never be able to compete with others more advantageously placed. If creatively and imaginatively applied, preferential treatment based on residence in a backward region can play a significant role in reducing uneven levels of development and such preferential treatment would presumably satisfy the test of Article 14, because it would be calculated to redress the existing imbalance between different regions in the State. There may be a case where a region is educationally backward or woefully deficient in medical services and in such a case there would be serious educational and health service disparity for that backward region which must be redressed by an equality and service minded welfare State, The purpose of such a policy would be to remove the existing inequality and to promote welfare based equality for the residence of the backward region. If the State in such a case seeks to remove the absence of opportunity for medical education and to provide competent and adequate medical services in such backward region by starting a medical college in the heart of such backward region and reserved a high percentage of seats there to students from .that region, it may not possible to castigate such reservation or preferential treatment as discriminatory. What is directly intended to abolish existing disparity cannot be accused of discrimination Krishna Iyer, J said to the same effect when he observed in Jagdish Sarans case at page 856 (of 1980 (2) SCR, 831): (at p. 834 of AIR 1980 SC 820) of the Report: We have no doubt that where the human region from which the alumni of an institution are largely drawn is backward, either from the angle of opportunities for technical education or availability of medical services for the people, the provision of a high ratio of reservation hardly militate against the equality mandate viewed in the perpective of social justice. This was precisely the ground on which in the State of U.P. v.P. Tandon, (1975) 2 SCR 761 : (AIR 1975 SC 563) this Court allowed reservation in medical admissions for people of the hill and Uttarakhand areas of the State of U.P. on the ground that those areas were socially and educationally backward. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N. Kanakadurga Devi v. Kakatiya Medical College, AIR 1972 AP 83, at p. 93 held that preferential treatment of Telengana students in medical admissions was justified since : Kakatiya Medical College was started for the spread of medical education mainly for Telengana region, which is educationally backward in the State. It in view of this object, provision is made to cater to the educational needs mainly of that particular region, as it badly requires such assistance, it cannot be said that the object to be achieved has no relation to the classification made by giving larger representation to the Andhra region The increase in the Telengana quota is consistent with and promotes and advances the object underlying the establishment of the institution. We are however not concerned here with a case of reservation or preference of persons from a backward, region within a State and we need not therefore dwell any longer upon it". 24. We are however not concerned here with a case of reservation or preference of persons from a backward, region within a State and we need not therefore dwell any longer upon it". 24. The decision in Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) has been explained by the apex Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others, AIR 1985 SC 1059, holding that: "... They (reference being to State Government and Universities)" have misinterpreted our judgment to mean that 30% of the total number of seats available for admission to MDBS course in a medical college should be kept free from reservation on the basis of residence requirement or institutional preference That is a total misreading of our judgment. What we have said in our judgment is that after providing for reservation validly made, whatever seats remain available for non-reserved categories, 30% of such seats at the least, should be left free for open competition and admission, to such 30% open seats should not be based on residence requirement or institutional preference but students from all over the country should be able to compete for admissions to such 30% open seats.....”. 25. Therefore, institutional preference as a source of selection for admission to educational institutions can be legitimately provided but the extent thereof has been conditioned by the Supreme Court to the extent of 85 per cent for MBBS Course and no assistance can be drawn by the petitioners from two decisions, namely, Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and another, AIR 1989 SC 903 ; and Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and others, AIR 1989 SC 1568 having been decided in the context of the facts of these cases. 26. It is, therefore, clear that there can be reservation in favour of the candidates who are socially and educationally backward. 27. The third facet for sustaining the eligibility is equally efficacious when it is pointed out by the respondents that although quite a large number of persons have qualified medical degree from the State Medical College, yet people are deprived of medical facilities in rural and far flung areas of the State since the doctors do not want to go to such areas and they flee the State to avoid postings in such areas. Although bond amount has been increased, yet that has not given the desired results. Although bond amount has been increased, yet that has not given the desired results. State Government is spending lacs of rupees on a student for doing the medical course but the amount is going into the drawins since they are not prepared to remain in the State and serve the people. 28. The fourth facet is about the arbitrariness, unjustness and hardship being caused to the petitioners by the eligibility criteria. Having up-held the institutional preference and accepting the submission of the learned Advocate General that the candidates studying in Schools, Colleges and Institutions situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh form a separate category and are entitled to protection to enable them to secure admissions in the medical institutions as compared to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates falling in different group with better facilities and chances to appear in the institutions located in the States they are studying, nothing much remains for examination of (his question, more particularly, in view, of the latest decision of the apex Court reported in Anant Madaan v State of Haryana and others, (1995)2 SCC 135 upholding reservation of 85 per cent seats to MBBS/BDS Courses on the basis of candidates education for preceding three years in the State and rejecting the contention of the reservation being arbitrary, discriminatory and causing hardship. It is necessary to quote paras 8 and 9 of this judgment; "8. In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+ 1 and 10 + 2 classes in a recognised institution in the State of Haryana, can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is by now well settled that preference in admissions on the basis of residence, as well as institutional preference is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional preference. As far back as in 1955, in the case of D. P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, this Court making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence in aducational institutions". "9. As far back as in 1955, in the case of D. P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, this Court making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence in aducational institutions". "9. In the case of Jagdish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting admission to medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons why such preference may be required. For example, the residents of a particular region may have very limited opportunities for technical education while the region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who were residents of that region were more likely to remain in the region and serve their region if they were preferred for admission to technical institutions in the State, particularly medical colleges. A State which was short of medical personnel would be justified in giving preference to its own residents in medical colleges as these residents, after qualifying as doctors, were more likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. The Court also observed that in the case of women students, regional or residential preference may be justified as their patents may not be willing to send them outside the State for medical education. We, however, need not examine the various reasons which have impelled this Court to uphold residential or institutional preference for admission to medical colleges. The question is settled by the decision of this Court in Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India. This Court has observed in that judgment: (SCR p. 981: SCC p. 687, para 19): We are, therefore, of the view that certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State............’ This Court held in that case that reservation to the extent of 70% on this basis would be permissible. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr) v Motilal Nehru Medical College. This Court in that case directed an entrance examination on an all-India basis for the remaining 15% of seats". Consequently, all the submissions raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the case are rejected. 29. Next, it was contended that children of defence personnel have been severely affected by this eligibility criteria since they have to serve outside the State in the exigency of their service. As a matter of fact, this contention is similar to the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for other petitioners who also studied outside the State due to the service of their parents or some other reasons, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Apart from that, it was pointed out to us by the learned Advocate General that children of Army personnel seek admission in the Army Medical College, Pune. They get one seat by nomination against Group-A (8) Reserved; in all 19 seats in 12 Medical Colleges in the country and BDS too as per office Memorandum No. U-14014/8/95 ME (UG), dated July 28, 1995 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health), New Delhi and the statement annexed therewith. They can also compete for seats against Group-A (5) as well as 15 seats to be filled on the basis of all-India Entrance Test, In the State of Haryana there is no nomination for Government of India. The petitioners can seek admission in the States they have studied (see the prospectus for admission furnished by Miss Neetika Ahuja and others, C M P. No. 2197 of 1995). In any case, they cannot be extended benefit here as well as there Argument of hardship has no force. The petitioners can seek admission in the States they have studied (see the prospectus for admission furnished by Miss Neetika Ahuja and others, C M P. No. 2197 of 1995). In any case, they cannot be extended benefit here as well as there Argument of hardship has no force. It is well settled that mere hardship caused to one or more persons due to operation of a rule or policy decision cannot be a ground for invalidating the rule or policy which is otherwise constitutionally valid 30 No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties 31. Having considered all the relevant and important aspects of the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. The eligibility criteria laid down by the respondents in the prospectus for Session 1995-96 is neither unconstitutional, nor arbitrary or unjust or harsh and the same is upheld. All the writ petitions are dismissed. Parties, however, are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.