O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Dr. (Smt.) Suneeta Pandey is in the midst of Second Year M. D. Ayurveda course, which is of three years, duration. She is pursuing the course in the subject of Basic principle (Swastha Vritta and Yoga) which was the subject of her fifth choice in the order of preference. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that she had qualified to get admission in the subject of her first choice, i. e. , Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga), it has not been allotted to her and by invoking an unwanted and inapplicable policy of reservation, the said subject has been allotted to Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4. By means of this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks that the order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences, whereby her representation has been rejected and the respondent-University has refused to allocate the subject as opted by her in the M. D. Ayurved course of the Institute for the session 1997-98 be quashed and the respondent. University be commanded to allot the subject of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) to the petitioner as opted by her at the time of her admission in the aforesaid course. ( 2 ) SHORN of all superfluities, the wood-cut profile of the case is that the Faculty of Ayurved, institute of Medical Sciences, B. H. U. , Varanasi, provides study in various courses for which admissions are to be made through entrance examination. The respondent-University issued information Leaflet in July, 1997- 98. The petitioner who had passed her B. A. M. A. from State ayurved College, Lucknow applied for admission through the said entrance examination. In the form prescribed for the purposes options for various course/subjects are to be given in order of preference. The first option of the petitioner was for admission in Prasuti Tantra course (Gynecology) while her second preference was Kaumarbhantya (Paediatrics) (Bal-Roga ). The subject of Basic Principle (Swastha Vritta, and Yoga) was her fifth choice. There are 25 seats for post Graduate admissions. Out of total seats, 15% are reserved for Scheduled Caste and 7-1/2% for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was mentioned in the Information Leaflet that the seats reserved will be on internal roster basis. In paragraph 3. The subject of Basic Principle (Swastha Vritta, and Yoga) was her fifth choice. There are 25 seats for post Graduate admissions. Out of total seats, 15% are reserved for Scheduled Caste and 7-1/2% for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was mentioned in the Information Leaflet that the seats reserved will be on internal roster basis. In paragraph 3. 1 of the Information Leaflet, it has been provided that a candidate can apply for any subject, except Prasuti Tantra, which is admissible for female candidates only. The name of the petitioner in the merit list of the successful candidates finds place at S1. No. 13. There were 3 other female candidates who ranked high in position to the petitioner. They are Dr. Shipra Dhar (SI. No. 3), Dr. N. C. P. Laxmi, (S1. No. 5)and Dr. Arcnana Gupta (S1. No. 8 ). The three seats in the subject of Prasuti Tantra were to be manned by female candidates. Dr N. C. P. Laxmi has given her first option for Kaya Chikitsa and as such, she was not in the fray of candidates seeking admission to Prasuti Tantra. In this manner, Dr Shipra Dhar, Dr Archana Gupta and the present petitioner became entitled for being admitted to the subject of Prasuti Tantra in the light of the first preference for the subject indicated by them. All these three female doctors are of the general category. It is alleged that out of the three seats, which in ordinary course should have gone to the female candidates belonging to the general category, one seat has been given to a reserved candidate, namely, Dr kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4, with the result the petitioner has been denied the benefit of admission in the subject of her first choice in preference. According to the petitioner, the policy of reservation has been wrongly applied as there are no transparent norms adopted by the respondent-University. The petitioner got her case represented in the form of a representation through the President of the Association followed by her own representation dated 19-8-1997. Since the University authorities did not move in the matter the petitioner was forced to file Civil misc. The petitioner got her case represented in the form of a representation through the President of the Association followed by her own representation dated 19-8-1997. Since the University authorities did not move in the matter the petitioner was forced to file Civil misc. Writ No. 5374 of 1998 which was finally decided by this Court on 17-2-1988 with the direction that the Director, Institute of Medical Sciences B. H. U. , Varanasi shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, the petitioner made a fresh representation on 3-3-1998, a copy of which is Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition. Her representation has been rejected by the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences. B. H. U. by the impugned order dated 31-3-1998, Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition on the ground that according to the settled norms for internal rostering for the reservation of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates, which have been uniformly applied, the petitioner has no claim on the said reservation in the department of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as she belongs to the category of general candidates. It is this order which has been challenged in the present Writ Petition primarily on the ground that all the three seats in the Prasuti Tantra were liable to be given to the general category candidates and could not be the subject matter of reservation; that in the department of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga), there are only 3 seats while the norms of reservation have been applied on the basis of five seats by clubbing three seats of Prasuti Tantra and two seats of Kaumarbhritya (Bal Roga); that in the preceding four years reservation has been granted to seven candidates, which is in excess of ouside limit of 22. 5% that there is no definite policy of reservation and the petitioner has been discriminated by adopting the alleged norms of reservation in the discipline of Prasuti Tantra. ( 3 ) TWO separate counter affidavits have been filed-one on behalf of the respondent-University and the other by Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4. 5% that there is no definite policy of reservation and the petitioner has been discriminated by adopting the alleged norms of reservation in the discipline of Prasuti Tantra. ( 3 ) TWO separate counter affidavits have been filed-one on behalf of the respondent-University and the other by Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4. It is maintained that the petitioner is not entitled to admission in Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga); that out of the three seats one seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates as per existing norms of reservation; petitioner being a candidate belonging to the general category, cannot claim preference against the seat reserved for SC/st candidate. In substance the plea of the respondents is that the petitioner was not entitled to the admission to Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) subject. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits. The original record of admission to M. D. course as well as distribution of the reserved seats was called for under the orders of this Court dated 16-9-1998. The respondent-University has produced the entire record in original before the Court. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri A. P. Sahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri D. S. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4. namely, Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari. ( 5 ) IT is an indubitable fact that in discipline of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) only female candidates are entkitled to seek admission to M. D. Ayurved course. A perusal of the merit list of the candidates for admission to M. D. (Ayurved) course for the session 1997-98 reveals that the petitioner-Dr. Suneeta Pandey was placed at SI. No. 13 and there were only three selected female candidates at S1. Nos. 3, 5 and 8. Dr. N. C. Prasanna Lakstimi who is at S1. No. 5 of the merit list had given her first preference to the subject of Kaya Chikitsa. She was, therefore, not entitled for admission to the Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). There were thus, only two female candidates above the petitioner in the merit list who had opted for Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as their first choice. There were admittedly three seats in Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). She was, therefore, not entitled for admission to the Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). There were thus, only two female candidates above the petitioner in the merit list who had opted for Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as their first choice. There were admittedly three seats in Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). If all the three seats were to be allocated to the candidates, belonging to the general category, the petitioner would have certainly been admitted to Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) discipline, which was her first choice, but for the fact that the third seat was given to a candidate of reserved category, namely, Dr Kaushalya khakhalary, who is at S1. No. 1 in the category of Scheduled Tribes. There is no female candidate in the category of Scheduled Caste who has given first preference to the subject of prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). Now the only question for determination in the present Writ Petition is whether the third seat in the department of Prasuti Tantra could be given to a general candidate, meaning thereby, the petitioner, or it was necessarily to be given to a candidate of reserved category. The fate of this Writ Petition would turn around the finding on the above point. ( 6 ) THE decision of the Director of Institute of Medical Science, BHU, dated 31-3-1998, annexure 8 to the writ petition on the representation of the petitioner as of great significance and importance. For the sake of clarity and proper appreciation of the prevailing practice, which impelled the University authorities to allocate third seat Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) to a reserved candidate, I would do better to quote in extenso some extracts of the decision aforesaid" the policy for reservation of SC/st 15% and 7. 5% respectively has been adopted for admission to M. D. (Ay.) course during the year 1997-98 at the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras hindu University. The reservation has been given year wise out of the total number of 25 seats available an the faculty of Ayurveda, which are allocated to the different departments in the Faculty. This reservation norms are already provided in the Information Leaflet for admission to M. D. (Ahy.)/m/s (Ay.) (Three years course) under column 1. 3 on page 3 of the Leaflet. This reservation norms are already provided in the Information Leaflet for admission to M. D. (Ahy.)/m/s (Ay.) (Three years course) under column 1. 3 on page 3 of the Leaflet. , The distribution of seats for SC/st candidates is allocated according to the prescribed procedure applicable to all the Departments including Prasuti Tantra of the Faculty of Ayurveda, which is reproduced as under "one seat was given to the department where more than three seats are available in a department and where less than three seats one seat is distributed alternate year. Therefore, this year one seat in S. T. category has gone to the department of Prasuti Tantra. " the following is the chart which shows the allocation of seats department wise-Sl. No. Department Seat Reserved seats 1. Kayachikitsa 6 1 every year + 1 alternate year 2. Shaiya Shalakya 5 1 every year + l fourth Year 3. Prasuti Tantra 5 1 every year + 1 fourth year 4. Basic Principles 4 1 every year 5. Rasa Shashtra 2 1 alternative year 6. Dravyaguna 2 1" ( 7 ) THE above chart shows that there are 5 seats in the Prasuti Tantra. Out of the 5 seats the speciality-wise distribution is as follows-Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). . . 3 prasuti Tantra (kaumarbhritya ). . . 2 ( 8 ) AS per above norms, for internal rostering for SC/st candidates, out of the 3 seats of the speciality of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga), one is reserved for SC/st candidates and for kaumarbhritya one seat is reserved every fourth year for the SC/st candidate on the basis of the rotation in the Department. ( 9 ) THE above norms are the settled norms for internal rostering for the reservation for SC/st candidates. This is uniformly applied to each and every Department of the Faculty of Ayurveda. In view of this fact, Ms. Sunita Pandey has no claim for the seats reserved in the Department of prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as she belongs of the General category candidate. "in view of the above facts and position, the representation of Ms. Sunita Pandey, having no merit, is disposed of accordingly. Sd. /director, BHU, Varanasi. In view of this fact, Ms. Sunita Pandey has no claim for the seats reserved in the Department of prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as she belongs of the General category candidate. "in view of the above facts and position, the representation of Ms. Sunita Pandey, having no merit, is disposed of accordingly. Sd. /director, BHU, Varanasi. " ( 10 ) SRI A. P. Sahi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent University has resorted to jugglery, inasmuch as the two separate subjects/disciplines have been combined together to bring the number of the total seats to five. While Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) is having three seats only, it by itself is an independent department as has been indicated in the information Leaflet. On the other hand, there is a positive assertion in the counter affidavit that prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) and Kaumarbhritya are two specialities of the department of Prasuti tantra and since the policy of reservation is to be applied department-wise, five seats in the two specialities were clubbed together. It was also pointed out that in the representation made on behalf of the petitioner by the Association, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition and the individual representation of the petitioner herself, a copy of which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition Para 10, it has been admitted in unequivocal terms that total number of seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra is five. The petitioner herself has mentioned in paragraph 2 of her representation. Annexure 5 that there are five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra-three seats for prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) and two for a Kaumarbhritya". This fact, therefore, is beyond the pale of controversy that the department of Prasuti Tantra is comprised of two specialities- (a) Stree Roga and (b) Kaumarbhritya. In the Stree Roga and speciality, there are three seats while in Kaumarbhritya, there are two seats, The policy of reservation is applied taking five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra. The original register mentioning the names of SC/st candidates a limited to M. D. (Ay.) course maintained w. e. f. July, 1985 has been brought before the Court. In the Stree Roga and speciality, there are three seats while in Kaumarbhritya, there are two seats, The policy of reservation is applied taking five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra. The original register mentioning the names of SC/st candidates a limited to M. D. (Ay.) course maintained w. e. f. July, 1985 has been brought before the Court. An analysis of the candidates who have been allotted reserved seat in different of the University would indicate that in the year 1992-93, two persons belonging to scheduled Caste were given one seat each in Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) and Kaumarbhritya. In the year 1993-94, Km. V. S. Kumari Reddy was given the benefit of reserved seat in the speciality of Stree Roga. In the year 1994- 95, Km. D. S. Laxmi got the benefit of reservation in stree Roga. Similarly in tile year 1995-96, Mrs. V. S. Mamtaha Bai belonging to Scheduled caste was given admission against one of the seats in the Prasuti Tantra. In 1996-97, two persons belonging to reserved categories were allotted one seat each in Stree Roga and Kaumarbhritya and in the year 1997-98, admittedly Dr Kaushalya Khakhalary- respondent No. 4 has been given admission in Stree Roga. the above details indicate that in the past, at least one seat every year in the department of Prasuti Tantra was reserved for a candidate belonging to the reserved category. A policy decision was taken by the Chairman of the Admission Committee of the Faculty of ayurveda in its meeting dated 10-7-1993 about the norms and system to be followed in distribution of seats to SC/st candidates amongst various departments of the Faculty. It was resolved that in the department of Prasuti Tantra, which has five seats, in total, one seat shall go every year to a candidate belonging to the reserved category and in the fourth year, there will be reservation in two seats. The result of the decision has been that during a period of four years, five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra shall go to the candidates belonging to the reserved category. This practice has been followed in the past as is evident from the entires made in the register aforesaid. The result of the decision has been that during a period of four years, five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra shall go to the candidates belonging to the reserved category. This practice has been followed in the past as is evident from the entires made in the register aforesaid. ( 11 ) THE original record produced by the University contains the orders/letters issued from time to time with regard to the adoption of the policy of reservation for the SC/st candidates in the various courses. The University Grants Commission in its letter dated 15-6-1993 has emphasised the need of policy of reservation in the various course run by the University. It was impressed upon all concerned that the country is committed to ensure rapid educational development of scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe so as to bring them into the main stream of national life. It was impressed that every care needs, therefore, to be taken to provide them due numbers and this object cannot be achieved unless initiative in this regard is taken by Heads of the institutions/colleges and in particular, the Vice Chancellors as Head of the Universities. The policy was to be applied to ensure fulfilment of the quotas reserved for SC/st students in all courses and at all levels and in each of the Faculties/departments of the University. The percentage prescribed for reservation is to the extent of 15% for SC candidates and 7. 5% for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. In another letter dated 18-3-1992 the University grants Commission has communicated the decision about the inter- transferability of the seats. The unfilled seats reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates will be filled by admitting scheduled Tribe candidates and vice-versa. The SC/st Cell of the Central Registry of the b. H. U. has issued instructions for strict observation by all concerned. It is, thus, clear that the policy of reservation is to be applied in all the departments and Faculties of the University to the extent of the percentage prescribed and the policy of reservation has to be applied in admissions to various courses every year. It is, thus, clear that the policy of reservation is to be applied in all the departments and Faculties of the University to the extent of the percentage prescribed and the policy of reservation has to be applied in admissions to various courses every year. Since there are five seats in the department of Prasuti Tantra, a firm policy decision has been taken and which is being regularly followed that at least one seat shall be reserved every year for being filled by a candidate belonging to reserved category and in the fourth year there will be reservation against two seats. If a Scheduled Caste candidate is not available then the seat may be allocated to a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, as has been done in the case of respondent No. 4. ( 12 ) THE submission on behalf of the petitioner that the reservation policy has been applied with a view to deprive her admission in the Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) speciality does not stand the test of scrutiny. Reservation is being applied to this speciality for the last about one decade. It was not for the first time in the year 1997-98 that the seat in the said speciality was reserved in favour of respondent No. 4 who belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No. 4 has been given the seat in pursuance of the firm long standing policy adopted and applied by the respondent-University. If the petitioner on account of her being placed at S1. No. 13 in the merit list has not been allocated the subject of her first choice, she cannot be alloweed to allege that she has been discriminated in the matter of allotment of speciality. The third seat in the Prasuti tantra (Stree Roga) has been rightly allocated to the respondent No. 4 in the larger interest of society and to fulfil the commitment to ensure rapid educational development of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe so as to bring them into the main stream of national life. If the various pleas taken by the petitioner are accepted, in that event perhaps no candidate belonging to the SC/st would ever get admission in the speciality Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). Such a situation cannot be conceived. If the various pleas taken by the petitioner are accepted, in that event perhaps no candidate belonging to the SC/st would ever get admission in the speciality Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga ). Such a situation cannot be conceived. Moreover, the Courts fear to tread the path which is covered by the policy decision of the educational authorities who are concerned with the excellence in the course of higher studies. To sum up, it may be mentioned that the petitioner has not established any innate or indefeasible right to compel the respondent-University to admit her in a particular speciality. ( 13 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter, which perhaps clinches the issue. The petitioner had taken admission in the subject of Basic Principle (Swastha, Vritta and Yoga) of M. D. (Ay.)course with eyes wide open. A letter dated 18-7- 1997. Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition was issued by the Institute of Medical Sciences to the petitioner giving her provisional admission to m. D. (Ay.) course in the subject of Basic Principle (Swastha, Vritta and Yoga), subject to certain conditions. It was specifically mentioned in the last paragrpah of the aforesaid letter that if the terms and conditions from S1. Nos. I to XIII mentioned in the letter are acceptable to her, she may collect admit card after completion of all the formalities failing which provisional admission was to stand automatically cancelled. In her stride, the petitioner took the aforesaid letter and complied with all the necessary formalities to seek the admission in the subject for which an offer was made. Not only that, she accepted all the conditions and complied with the requisite formalities, the petitioner had executed a bond purporting to be an agreement that she shall serve as a Junior Resident upto 31st July, 2000 and in lieu of her services as Junior Resident, is to receive a sum of Rs. 2630/- per month in the Ist year Residency. She also commenced to join classes as a candidate who has been allocated the subject of Basic Principle (Swastha, Vritta and yoga ). The submission of Sri V. K. Upadhayaya, learned Counsel for the respondent- University that if the petitioner was not happy with the allotment of the subject/speciality, she should have very well refused to take admission and to complete formalities, does not appear to be without any substance. The submission of Sri V. K. Upadhayaya, learned Counsel for the respondent- University that if the petitioner was not happy with the allotment of the subject/speciality, she should have very well refused to take admission and to complete formalities, does not appear to be without any substance. On the other hand, it is well-merited submission which in the ultimate analysis estops the petitioner from raising the controversy. ( 14 ) SRI D. S. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 urged that even if it be taken that the respondent No. 4 has been wrongly admitted in the speciality for which the petitioner was hankering her desire cannot be translated into action at this late stage when the course of Ist year is already over and the concerned candidates have joined IInd year classes. To fortify his submission, Sri Tripathi placed reliance Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India and Ors. , (1991) 2 SCC 179 , in which though the stand taken by the petitioner of that case was found to be correct, he was denied admission on the ground that since the academic session was almost complete, it would not be proper to disturb, who have already been admitted and have been undergoing the course. On the analogy adopted in Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshis case (supra), the petitioner cannot belatedly be allowed admission to the Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) speciality as it would have serious repercussions on the studies of respondent No. 4 without any corresponding advantage to the petitioner, who has already completed Ist year and is studying in the IInd year course of the speciality allocated to her. ( 15 ) IN conclusion, I find--firstly, that the petitioner has not been able to establish that she was, as a matter of right, entitled to be admitted to the course of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga): secondly, that one of the seats in the said speciality has rightly, been given to the respondent No. 4 and thirdly, in any case, at this belated stage, it would not be proper to disturb respondent No. 4 in her studies. The writ petition, therefore, fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.