Honble VERMA, J.–The above said D.B. Special Appeal No. 765/94, has been directed against the order dated 24th of August, 1994, passed by Hon. Mr. Justice V.K. Singhal, in C.W. No. 5473/1994. (2). The facts and grounds of challenge in the appeal and connected Writ Petitions are common and, therefore, they are being decided by common judgement. (3). The facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 765/1994, arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 4573/1994 (Nemi Chand Sharma vs. M.D.S. University). The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dated 24th of August, 1994, holding that Rule 5 of the Pre Teacher Education Test (hereinafter called as the `PTET), contained in the guidelines issued by the Mehrishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (for short the `University), was not ultravires as per judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Mahavir Prasad Jangid vs.. State of Rajasthan and another in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345/1987, and as many as 214 other Writ Petitions, decided in the same judgement by Honble Mr. Justice N.K. Kasliwal and Honble Mr. Justice Farooq Hasan. (4). The appellant was aggrieved on account of not giving him admission in B.Ed. Course on the ground that he had passed the Secondary School Examination from the West-Bengal Board of Secondary Education. (5). In Rule 5 of the P.T.E.T. Guidelines, it is provided that for deciding the candidature of a person from a district of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed Secondary School Examination. Because of the reason that the rule had already been held to be valid by a Division Bench, the learned Single Judge did not feel it necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench or to show any dissent from the Division Bench Judgment. Hence the present appeals. (6). Similar is the situation in regard to other appellants, whose Writ Petitions have been dismissed and above Special Appeals (Writs) have been filed. (7). Hence the present appeals. (6). Similar is the situation in regard to other appellants, whose Writ Petitions have been dismissed and above Special Appeals (Writs) have been filed. (7). The facts stated in Nemi Chands case are that the petitioner, even though, is a permanent resident of village Kanchanpur, as per the certificate issued by the S.D.M. in August, 1987, and his name also appears in the voters list of Srimadhopur Constitutency for the year 1988,but because of the reason that his brothers were working in the State of West- Bengal, the petitioner was because of the circumstances forced to get admission in Xth Class in West-Bengal Board of Secondary Examination where he passed his X Class Examination in the year 1985. However, he had shifted to Rajasthan in the year 1987, and passed the XIth Class Examination from the Board of Secondary Education Ajmer, vide Annexure 4. He passed the Graduation in the year 1991, from the University of Rajasthan, vide Annexure 5. (8). It is stated that the State Government had invited applications from eligible candidates for the Examination of PTET in the year 1994. The petitioner had also applied and he was allotted Roll-Number as well. The Examination was held on 19th of June, 1994, at Sikar. Result was declared and the petitioner had obtained 446 marks out of 600. It is stated that the respondents had refused to grant admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. Examination because of the reason that the petitioner had not passed the Xth Class from any of the districts of Rajasthan and he was deprived of such admission for the reason that he was a student in the WestBengal in the Xth Class. It is stated that the petitioner is not being treated as the resident of Sikar District because of the provisions of Rule 5 of the PTET- Guidelines and therefore, a direction was sought to consider the case of the writ petitioner for admission in B.Ed. Course. Vires of the Rules were not challenged. (9). The University had issued certain guidelines for admission to B.Ed./Shiksha Shastri Courses Session 1994-95, known as PTET Course 1994. Course. Vires of the Rules were not challenged. (9). The University had issued certain guidelines for admission to B.Ed./Shiksha Shastri Courses Session 1994-95, known as PTET Course 1994. It is stated in the said guidelines that to qualify the PTET, the candidate shall be required to secure atleast 40% marks in the test and on the basis of the performance in the PTET Course, a list of successful candidates will be drawn in order of merit. (10). Rule 4 prescribes that out of the total number of seats faculty-wise, 20% seats will be filled in on the basis of overall merit irrespective of the district or State to which the candidate belongs. (11). Clause (b) of Rule 4 of the guidelines prescribes that for the remaining 80% seats, faculty-wise, the Govt. of Rajasthan has reserved a fixed number of seats for each district in proportion to the population of the districts. (12). Rule 5 prescribes the percentage of seats reserved in regard to the Reserved Classes. Notes of Rules 4 and 5 prescribe that for deciding the candidature of a person from a district of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed Secondary School Examination. A special provision has been made in regard to certain candidates i.e. married woman, if she is married to bonafide residence of husbands place, defence personnel, Central Government Employees etc. etc. The relevant guidelines are reproduced as under:- ``4(a) Out of the total number of seats faculty-wise, 20% seats will be filled in on the basis of overall merit irrespective of the district or State to which the candidate belongs. (b) For the remaining 80% seats, faculty-wise the Govt. of Rajasthan has reserved a fixed number of seats for each district in proportion to the population of the districts. However, in the event of non-availability of such candidates, these seats will be filled in from the overall general merit list of candidates. 5. For deciding the candidature of a person from a district of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed Secondary School Examination. The candidates of Dausa, Baran and Rajsamand Districts have to enclose a Photocopy of the certificate of Secondary School Examina- tion as well as certificate of the Magistrate that the place where from Secondary Examination has been passed lies in that particular district. The candidates of Dausa, Baran and Rajsamand Districts have to enclose a Photocopy of the certificate of Secondary School Examina- tion as well as certificate of the Magistrate that the place where from Secondary Examination has been passed lies in that particular district. Similarly, candidates who have passed Secondary from Central Board will also have to enclose a copy of Secondary School Certificate showing the name of School with place and district. Further provided that; (a) In case of a married woman, the place of bonafide residence of husband may be the District, provided a bonafide residence certificate of husbands place and marriage certificate obtained from District Magistrate are produced along with examination application form for appearing in the test. The option of district so given will not, in any case be changed after submitting the examination application form. (b) Such wards of defence personnel and Central Govt. Employees, who have passed their Secondary Exam. from outside Rajasthan other than the District to which such defence personnel/Central Govt. employee originally belong within a District of Rajasthan, may be considered from the District to which they originally belong, provided bonafide residence certificate from a District Magistrate and a certificate from the employer are submitted alongwith application form for appearing in PTET. The District so chosen once will not be changed under any circumstance. (13). The Division Bench of this Court in Mahavir Prasad Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345/1987), and other connected 214 writ petitions, decided on November 23, 1987 (1), held that a similar clause which provided reservation of seats for each district and also provided that for deciding the candidature of a person from a district of Rajasthan the only consideration was to be considered the district from where the candidate had passed the Secondary School Examination. The petitioners in those writ petitions had not passed the Secondary School Examination from Rajasthan. It was further stated in the facts of that writ petition that in the district Alwar, the minimum admission marks were 350, at Banswara 316, at Bhilwara 332, at Bundi 358. It is stated that the minimum marks provided in each district for admission were different. The grievance of the petitioner in that writ petition was that even though the petitioner had secured 356 marks, he was not given admission in the B.Ed. It is stated that the minimum marks provided in each district for admission were different. The grievance of the petitioner in that writ petition was that even though the petitioner had secured 356 marks, he was not given admission in the B.Ed. Course, while the candidates who had secured lessor marks in Jalore District, had been admitted in B.Ed. Course. It was stated that such type of allegation was arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and deserves to be quashed. It was also alleged that the Ordinance of the University which prescribes a fixed percentage of seats for each district is also arbitrary and discriminatory. The sole object of holding a competitive examination of PTET for admission to all B.Ed. Colleges of Raj. was to select best meritorious candi- dates, but by making such classification on the basis of district-wise reservation, the very object of merit was defeated. After going through the respective submissions of the parties and after noticing the various pronouncement of the Apex Court and High Courts, the contention of the petitioners in those writ petitions were not accepted. The Division Bench had observed that the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that such district-wise reservation was violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, after noticing the Apex Court judgments in Minor P. Rajendran, Miss Nirmala Devi, Miss Nistarini vs. State of Madras & Ors. (2), Kumari Chitra Ghosh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (3) Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. S.R. Tendolkar (4), Kumari N. Vasundara vs. The State of Mysore & Anr. (5), Minor A. Periakaruppan & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (6), Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. (7), Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (8), & Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors. (9), the Division Bench had observed that the following principles can be deduced from a perusal of the various judgements of the Apex Court: ``(1) The object of any valid scheme of admissions must be to select the best and most meritorious students. If any departure is to be made, it must be justified on the touch stone of Art.14 of the Constitution. If any departure is to be made, it must be justified on the touch stone of Art.14 of the Constitution. (2) There are two considerations which may legitimately weigh with the Court in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other is what may be described as a regions claim of backwardness. (3) The Government has power to decide from what source the admission will be made. The classification of the source must be on a reasonable basis and intelligible differential. (4) Those who are unequal, in fact, cannot be treated by identical standards; that may be equality in law but it would certainly not be equality. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account defecto in equalities which exist in the society and to take affirmative action by way of giving preference to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring about real equality. (5) Reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for admission on a broader basis and to bring real and not formal, actual and not mere legal equality. (6) The whole-sale or 100% reservation cannot be justified and is al- ways bad in law. As regards the extent of such reservation it was held in Nidamartis case (supra) that reservation or preference should not be more than 70% and 30% seats should be made available as open seats on All India Basis. This ratio was further determined to the extent of 85% by way of reservation or preference and 15% in the first case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar reported in (supra). In case of MBBS and BDS Courses 75% and 25% for Post-Graduate Courses as laid down in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar. (14). The Division Bench in Mahavir Prasad Jangids case (supra) had held that there was nothing unconstitutional in determining the sourse for admission to the colleges by the State. The Rule, allotting district to a particular candidate was held to be not strictly based on his place of birth but on the basis of his passing the Secondary School Examination. (14). The Division Bench in Mahavir Prasad Jangids case (supra) had held that there was nothing unconstitutional in determining the sourse for admission to the colleges by the State. The Rule, allotting district to a particular candidate was held to be not strictly based on his place of birth but on the basis of his passing the Secondary School Examination. It was further observed that there was a fundamen- tal difference in the scheme of admission to medical colleges, other higher technical engineering and science courses than the case of B.Ed. Courses and the appointment of Teachers Gr. III and II. It was further observed by the Division Bench that the Govt. had found that there were certain districts in Rajasthan which have no B.Ed. Colleges while some districts had more than one B.Ed. College. Because of the serious problem used to crop up every year it was found that on account of certain candidates selected for certain districts of Rajasthan either did not join or sought transfers soon after joining because of the reason that place of their appointment fell in those areas which were socially and educationally backward. It was further felt that candidates belonging to those particular districts could not get opportunity of being employed as teachers and when candidates belonging to other districts were selected, those candidates had shown dis-inclinition to serve in those areas and wanted to come back near to their places. This had led to large number of seats of teachers remaining vacant for considerable long periods effecting the education of children. The Govt. had taken an exercise to re-consider the the entire situation and the system for admission to B.Ed. Course. This exercise started in the year 1985 and continued till the middle of 1986. By that time, the new National Policy of Education was also formulated by the Government of India and was accepted by the Two Houses of Parliament. This new Education Policy provided that the rural areas with poor infrastructures and social services will not get the share of trained and educated youth, unless rural-urban disparities are reduced and determined measures are taken to promote diversification and dispersal of employment opportunities. This new Education Policy provided that the rural areas with poor infrastructures and social services will not get the share of trained and educated youth, unless rural-urban disparities are reduced and determined measures are taken to promote diversification and dispersal of employment opportunities. On the basis of such comprehensive policy, the Education Department had accepted the recommendations of the said Committee and thereafter, the University after having considered the matter in the faculty of Education framed the Ordinance 91-A, as it stood and reproduced in this judgment which became the subject matter of the writ petition in Mahavir Prasad Jangids case (supra). It was held that principle of merit has been applied in respect of each district after having allotted the seats to that particular district on the basis of population and literacy percentage and therefore, it can not be said that in those cases the principle of section by merit has not been adhered at all. The vires of the aforesaid rules which are identical in the present case were upheld. (15). The connected cases being decided by the Division Bench were based on the challenge that one meritorious candidate may not find a better college and a less meritorious person may find a better college in the district he belonged to. This contention was not accepted by the Division Bench. (16). However, in another writ petition No. 2455/1987, in Ganpats case which was also decided as a connected writ petition as one of the writ petition while deciding the Mahavir Prasad Jangids case (supra), it was observed by the Division Bench that the petitioner in that case was born in Pali District, but he had passed his High School Examination from Bhopal in M.P. Because of the reason that his brother-in-law were residing there, he was compelled by the circumstances to take examination from Bhopal. All subsequent examinations were passed by that petitioner from Rajasthan i.e. Pali. It was observed that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2455/1987, was born at Pali but for a short time, he received his entire education in Pali District. On the contention of the petitioner in that case that he belonged to district Pali, therefore, he should have been granted admission in district-wise reservation for Pali District. It was observed that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2455/1987, was born at Pali but for a short time, he received his entire education in Pali District. On the contention of the petitioner in that case that he belonged to district Pali, therefore, he should have been granted admission in district-wise reservation for Pali District. It was found as a matter of fact that the petitioner Ganpat Singh was bonafide resident of district Pali but had to go to M.P. for passing the Secondary Examination and lateron he continued studies in Pali and under these these circumstances the writ petition of Ganpat Singh was allowed and direction was given to admit the petitioner reserved for Pali District. The learned Division Bench observed as under :``The facts alleged by the petitioner are not denied by the respondents and remained un-controverted. From a perusal of the allegations made by the petitioner it is proved that he is a bonafide resident of Pali and had to go to Madhya Pradesh for passing Secondary-Examination on account of illness of his sister. The petitioner continued his studies at the college level in Pali and he was also born in village Basni in Pali District. In view of these circumstances we allow this writ petition on the above ground alone and direct the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in the reserved quota for Pali district. (17). Apart from the authorities already mentioned above and discussed and noticed by the Division Bench in Mahavir Prasads case (supra), the learned counsel had challenged the provisions of the guidelines issued by the University as reproduced above by relying on Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. vs. U.O.I. (supra) State of Maha- rashtra vs. Raj Kumar (10), Suneel Jately etc. vs. State of Haryana etc. (11), Prakash Chandra Agarwal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (12) Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors. (13) State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. (14) Secretary R.P.S.C. Ajmer vs. Om Dutt Sharma & Anr. (15), Shankarsan Das vs. U.O.I. (16), Om Prakash Sharma and 829 Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (17) and Ms. Swati Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (18). (18). vs. C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors. (13) State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. (14) Secretary R.P.S.C. Ajmer vs. Om Dutt Sharma & Anr. (15), Shankarsan Das vs. U.O.I. (16), Om Prakash Sharma and 829 Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (17) and Ms. Swati Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (18). (18). Out of the aforesaid cases, the cases reported in Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer (supra) and Om Prakash Sharma (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present cases. Those cases related to the appoint ments to be made under the rules violating Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (19). In Secretary, RPSC Ajmer (supra), the matter related to the selection of less meritorious persons on merits. (20). In Om Prakash Sharmas case (supra), the preparation of the merit list district-wise was not held to be ultravires. However, the cases related to the recruitment in services under the rules and therefore, have no bearing to the facts of the present cases. (21). In Dr. Jagadish Sarans case (supra), it was observed by the Hon. Supreme Court that equal opportunity in higher education is to be provided and the region where the institution is situated is a relevant consideration. Considerations would definitely differ if the course is for higher level of speciality. It was held by the Supreme Court that because of the material made available before the Court was so scanty, fragmentary and unsatisfactory and therefore, the Court was prevented from expressing any definite decision on the point, whether reservation of 70% was excessive or not. The said case is of no help to the petitioners. (22). In State of Maharashtra vs. Raj Kumar (supra), bonus/weightage to be given to certain candidates coming from rural area, having passed the S.S.C. Examination at villages or places with `C type Municipality was held to be ultravires. No such point is involved in the present cases. (23). In Suneel Jatleys case (supra), the matter related to the admission to MBBS/BDS Course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, and reservation of seats for rural candidates, held to be arbitrary and irrational violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. (24). Prakash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case has also no bearing to the facts of the present case. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. (24). Prakash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case has also no bearing to the facts of the present case. In this case the matter related to the fixation of qualifying marks at 38 per cent for unreserved candidates by Public Service Commission. There was no alteration of such fixation of marks but still inclusion of candidates securing less than 38% marks and non-inclusion of candidates securing more than 38% marks in the merit list was held to be violative of the instructions. (25). The case of Reserve Bank of India (supra) related to the recruitment and promotion policy of Class III employees of Reserve Bank. The provisions for consideration of centre-wise seniority of employees was held to be violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the ground that seniority of employees on all India basis was not considered. It was held by the Apex Court that in service jurisprudence there can not be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. However, the principle laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court in this case is also distinguishable. (26). The case reported in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. (supra) is also of no help to the parties for the reason that in that case the Ordinance No. 278E(d)(ii) of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan applied for admission to Post Graduate Course in any of the five Medical Colleges provided that the student has passed his final year M.B.B.S. Examination to which admission in P.G. Course was sought was held to be unconstitutional. (27). The case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. This case related to the fact as to whether inclusion of the name to be selected/to be appointed because of any justifiable right to such a selectee or not. (28). Ms. Swati Guptas case (supra) related to a case where earlier notification was amended by the later notification by reducing the reservation of the general category to 35% was held to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. (28). Ms. Swati Guptas case (supra) related to a case where earlier notification was amended by the later notification by reducing the reservation of the general category to 35% was held to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Lateron the reservations were made on 50% basis in the general category and 50% for reserved categories. This case has no relevancy to the facts of the present case. (29). It is necessary to give certain details of passing the examinations of the petitioners in the present writ petitions. (30). In S.A.W. 765/1994, the appellant had passed Xth Class from West Bengal, XI Class from Ajmer, Graduation from University of Rajasthan. He had gone to Calcutta only for a short period. (31). All other writ petitioners connected with the above Special Appeal (Writ) No.765/1994, have only challenged the vires of guidelines/instructions under Rule 4 by stating that they are Graduates from Rajasthan and also resident of Rajasthan. It is not clear in any of the case whether they had passed the Secondary School Examination from Rajasthan or from out side Rajasthan. From reading of guide lines of PTET Test, 1994 it is very clear that 20% of the seats have been left open for admission in the B.Ed. Course on the basis of merit, irrespective of the district or State to which the candidate belongs and remaining seats faculty-wise have been reserved for each district in proportion to the population of the districts and for deciding the candidature of a person from a district of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed Secondary School Examination, as is clear from the combined reading of Rule 4(b) read with Note 5 of the said Rule 4. From reading of the above said clause (b) of Rule 4 and Note 5, it is very clear that for the remaining 80% of seats, the determination is to be made on the basis of being resident of Rajasthan, which residence is to be taken on the basis of district from where a candidate passes Secondary School Examination. (32). Rule 4(b) has already been held to be intravires for the reasons mentiotioned in the Division Bench Judgement of Mahavir Prasad Jangids case and, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief (Except S.A.W. No. 765/1994). (32). Rule 4(b) has already been held to be intravires for the reasons mentiotioned in the Division Bench Judgement of Mahavir Prasad Jangids case and, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief (Except S.A.W. No. 765/1994). Even otherwise, the matter related to 1994, and there was hardly any necessity to interfere at this stage. (33). In regard to S.A.W. 765 of 1994, on the same analogy as in Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/1987, Ganpat Singh vs. State of Raj., which was decided alongwith connected matters in Mahavir Prasads case (supra), it was held that the candidates who are residents of Rajasthan and also qualified the remaining examination subsequent to Xth Class from Rajasthan, are entitled to be considered for admission in B.Ed. Classes and in their cases for the purposes of reservation in the particular institution, their place of residence shall be taken as the district of resident meaning thereby that even if has, because of the compelling circumstances, passed his Xth Class or XIth Class etc. from out side Rajasthan, but is otherwise a permanent resident of Rajasthan has passed the qualifying examination from Rajasthan, his place of resident shall be taken as a resident for the purposes of district as contemplated under Note 5 of the Notes of Rules 4 and 5 as reproduced above. For removing the anomalous position, for example that if a candidate who is otherwise a resident of Rajasthan but passes only one Examination of Xth Class from outside Raj. and qualifies other examination in Rajasthan, shall feel the disqualification of being not the resident of Rajasthan for the purposes of Note 5 under Rule 4 and 5 but if a non-resident of Rajasthan, who passes only one examination in the State of Rajasthan i.e. Xth Class or Secondary School in Rajasthan but all other examinations are passed by him outside Rajasthan shall be entitled to admission on the basis of Secondary School Examination which he had passed from Rajasthan. This result is to be avoided and, therefore, agreeing with the observations in Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/1987, Ganpat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan that even if a candidate who is otherwise a permanent resident of Rajasthan has passed the Secondary School Examination under compelling circumstances from outside Rajasthan but has passed other qualifying examination in Rajasthan is entitled to be considered for belonging to the district of which place he gives certificate of his residence. (34). S.A.W. 765/1994 is disposed of with the above said observations but because of the reason that admission to the Session 1994-95 is over long-back, no effective relief can be granted to the appellants in S.A.W. No. 765/1994. (35). In view of the above said discussions, we totally agree with the principle and interpretation laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Mahavir Prasads case. (36). The writ petitions are dismissed.