JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. - The petitioner has challenged the validity of the decision of the Faculty Development Committee of the Rajendra Agricultural University as contained in its minutes of the proceedings held on 24.12.93 restricting the number of Technical Supervisors for admission to the Masters' Courses to 5% of the strength (of Technical Supervisor). He also seeks mandamus to apply the reservation policy in the matter of admission of in-service candidates and to admit him to the Masters' Course for the Sessions 1995-96. The relevant part of the decision is contained in paragraph 5 of the proceedings which has been marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, made detailed submissions regarding the scheme of legislation entitled The Bihar Agriculture University Act, 1987 (Act No. 8 of 1988) and the Statutes and Regulations of the Rajendra Agricultural University. But, in my opinion, having regard to the scope of controversy, which lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to go into all that. 3. The controversy, as indicated above, relates to admission to Masters (M.Sc.) Courses in Rajendra Agricultural University. It is not in dispute that under Section 15 of the Act, the Academic Council is competent, subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, to regulate and prescribe all Courses of Study, determine curricula and exercise general control over other educational programme so as to maintain their standard. The Academic Council has also the power to make regulations consistent with the Act and Statutes relating to all academic matters falling within its purview, including admission of students, determination of their number, vide Section 15(3)(iv) of the Act. The impugned decision of the Faculty Development Committee has since been approved by the Academic Council vide notification dated 25.5.95. 4. The petitioner contends that in terms of Regulation 8 (b) of the Regulations, 10% seats in the Masters' Courses are reserved for in-service candidates of the University (besides 10% reserved for the nominees of the State Government) but the impugned decision restricts the number of candidates to 5% which is therefore not only arbitrary but also violative of the provisions of the Regulations. 5. 5. The stand of the University in this regard is that the impugned decision has in no way brought about any change or alteration in the provisions regarding reservation for in-service candidates; all that it intends to do is to restrict the number of Technical Supervisors to 5% of their strength. Technical Supervisors are one category of the University employees. They are not teachers under Section 2 (XXVIII) of the Act nor they do the job of teaching. They are supporting staffs. Their job is only to help and assist the teachers. The benefit of admission to the Masters' (M.Sc.) Courses as in-service candidates like other in-service teachers of the University has, however, been extended to them under the Professional Development Programme in order to give them opportunity to improve their academic qualifications. 6. The University in its counter affidavit has taken a specific stand that the reservation of 10% seats in the Masters' Courses for in-service candidates has not been altered or changed in any manner. The ceiling of 5% of the total strength of the posts of Technical Supervisors, however, has been imposed keeping in view the need of the personnel and situation. If a large number of Technical Supervisors are allowed study leave and, thus, to remain absent from duty for the purpose of higher education, the general work in the University will suffer. Such a ceiling has been put not only in the case of Technical Supervisors but also in the case of other supporting staffs. In fact, while the decision permits upto 5% of the strength of the Technical Supervisors to avail the benefits of admission against reserved seats, for other supporting staff only 2% of the strength have been allowed the benefit. 7. The argument of the petitioner proceeds on a serious misconception. It assumes the fact that 10% reserved seats, or a major portion thereof, for in-service candidates are necessarily to go to share of the Technical Supervisors. The fallacy in the plea is that it does not take into account the fact that there are other categories of in-service candidates including teachers who are also eligible for admission against reserved seats. I, therefore, do not at all think that the impugned decision is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 8 (b). 8. The fallacy in the plea is that it does not take into account the fact that there are other categories of in-service candidates including teachers who are also eligible for admission against reserved seats. I, therefore, do not at all think that the impugned decision is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 8 (b). 8. While clause 8 (b) of the Regulation provides for 10% reservation in favour of the in-service University candidates (and further 10% for government nominees), clause 12 (vi) contains the particulars regarding the total number of seats in different Post Graduate Courses and the number of seats reserved for in-service candidates. From the particulars shown in the relevant column of the Table it would appear that 20% seats, that is, 10% for the in-service candidates of the University and 10% for the Government nominees, depending on the number of seats allotted to a particular faculty, have been separately shown as reserved seats. These seats cannot be filled from general candidates. They can be filled only from amongst the in-service candidates of the University/Government nominees. In its second counter affidavit the University has enclosed a statement, vide Annexure-B, giving particulars of the in-service seats in different disciplines under the Masters' Course which shows that 27 seats in all were reserved for in-service University candidates. It is not the case of the petitioner that this was less than or short of 10% of the total seats allotted to different faculties. The statement further shows that six Technical Supervisors forming 5% of their cadre strength of 125 have been selected against the aforesaid 27 seats. The remaining 21 seats have gone to the share of other categories of in-service candidates. On these facts I do not think there has been any contravention or deviation from the regulations. 9. The only point for consideration is whether fixing ceiling of 5% of the total cadre strength of Technical Supervisors for being given the benefit of reservation is arbitrary. As indicated above, similar ceiling has been put in the case of other supporting staffs also. I have already stated about the nature of duties of the Technical Supervisors which is to help and assist the teachers. If a large number of them are granted study leave and allowed to remain absent from duty, it may hamper the general working of the University. I have already stated about the nature of duties of the Technical Supervisors which is to help and assist the teachers. If a large number of them are granted study leave and allowed to remain absent from duty, it may hamper the general working of the University. It is for this reason that the decision has been taken to restrict the number to 5% of total strength at a particular point of time. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the ceiling of 5% cannot (sic) be said to be arbitrary. 10. The other point argued by Mr. A.B. Ojha was that the reservation policy of the State Government reserving 50% seats for the different categories of candidates having been made applicable to professional colleges, the University should have followed the reservation rules in the matter of admission of in-service candidates as well and admitted in-service candidates belonging to different categories on the basis of the reservation roster. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and it is contended that had the admission of in-service candidates against 10% seats been taken on the basis of the reservation roster, he would have secured admission against one of the reserved seats. 11. Firstly, it is not known as to whether any other scheduled caste Technical Supervisor has been admitted as in-service candidate or not. Even if it is not so I do not think it will be possible to apply the rules of reservation in the matter of admission against 'reserved' seats. That will amount to making circle within circle. In Indra Sawhney's case (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477), one of the points which arose for consideration was whether a candidate who qualified for appointment under two different categories of reservation is to be appointed beyond 50% ceiling of posts or within that ceiling. Their Lordships observed that in such a case of 'interlocking reservation', if a candidate belongs to reserve category, he will be placed in the quota of posts meant for that category and if he belongs to the merit category he will be placed in that category, by making necessary adjustment but percentage of the reservation in favour of the backward classes of candidates should not exceed 50%. 12. The position in the instant case is slightly different. 'Open' seats and 'in-service' seats constitute two separate categories. 12. The position in the instant case is slightly different. 'Open' seats and 'in-service' seats constitute two separate categories. But it would appear that there is already reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes/Secheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes candidates in the rest of 80% seats. Having regard to the limited number of seats (most of the disciplines have only one or two seats reserved for the in-service candidates and in all, as seen above, there are only 27 such seats), in the in-service category, I do not think it would be possible to work out the reservation roster. Applying 50% rule of reservation amongst in-service candidates will make the whole scheme unworkable, impracticable and unpragmatic. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument. 13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner having thus been rejected, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.