Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-The petitioners having passed their M.B.B.S. examination and after completing the requisite internship are eligible for admission to various Post-Graduate Courses being conducted in different disciplines of Medical Science for the Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. The Pre-P.G. Entrance Examination is held for admission to such courses by the University of Rajasthan. The petitioners are aggrieved in regard to increase of reservations of in-service candidates from 25% to 50% and also of decreasing the qualifying marks for being selected in P.G. Course from 50% to 33% in the Pre-P.G. Entrance Examination in the year 1998 for admission to M.D./M.S./Diploma Course. 2. TheUniversity of Rajasthan had laid down the eligibility conditions for the said entrance test as mentioned in Ordinance 278-E to 278-G framed by the University. Certain reservations were mentioned therein i.e. (i) 25% of the total seats (irrespective of other reservations made thereunder) were to be filled up as per the allocations made by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, (ii) 50% of the seats after excluding the seats to be filled in as per allocation by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India were reserved for in-service candidates of the Rajasthan State Medical Services in various specialities out of which 8% seats were reserved for in-service natural born SC candidates and 6% seats were reserved for natural born ST candidates as per roster system to be notified by the State Government form time to time and the remaining seats were to be called the general seats and again 8% and 6% seats were to be reserved for the natural born SCs and STs and unfilled seats from those reserved categories as mentioned above, were to be filled up from the general category. The examinations were to be held on 6-9-1998. Minimum pass marks for qualifying the Pre-P.G. test was mentioned as 33% as per Syndicate’s resolution. 3. The examinations were to be held on 6-9-1998. Minimum pass marks for qualifying the Pre-P.G. test was mentioned as 33% as per Syndicate’s resolution. 3. Thepetitioner is aggrieved with the impugned communications dated 18-6-1998 and 10-7-1998 issued by the State Government and consequential resolutions passed by the Syndicate in the meeting held on 11-7-1998 in so far as they bring about a reduction in the minimum merit qualifying marks from 50% to 33% for admission to post-graduate courses in the Medical Science Colleges for Rajasthan and also so far as they prescribed a reservation quota in favour of in-service candidates and also increase it from existing 25% to 50% seats in P.O. Courses and all other orders passed and actions taken in this respect and prays them to be declared ultra vires, with a further prayer not to admit any candidate who has secured less than 50% marks. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Principal and Controller of the S.M.S. Medical College vide its letter Annexure-1 dated 1-4-1997 had informed the Vice-Chancellor that as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for preparation of the merit list for such entrance test it was desired that the candidates securing less than 50% marks in the competitive examination be not included in the merit list. The basis for such direction is said to have been based on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Sadhna Devi vs. State of U.P. decided on 19-2- 1997 : AIR 1997 SC 1120 . The Principal and Controller of SMS Medical College had recommended the University of Rajasthan to follow the guidelines as given in the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi. The petitioner further submits that the University of Rajasthan vide the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 2-6-1998 (Annexure-3) had recommended that the minimum pass marks to qualify the Pre-P.G. Examination to admission to such course for fresh and in-service general candidates should be 50% and that of SCs/STs 40%, but still the University vide Annexure-5, impugned resolution dated 11-7-1998 in regard to admission had not accepted the resolution of the academic council and had resolved the qualifying marks to be 33% as suggested by the State Government. The University in resolution Annexure-5 had passed a resolution by observing as under:-“The Syndicate considered the recommendations of the Academic Council made at its meeting held on 22nd, 23rd and 24th June, 1998. Resolved that the aforesaid recommendations of the Academic Council be accepted with the following observations .(1) Ref Res. No. 23(u) of the Academic Council and further reference to Res, No. 2(iii), dated 28-8-1997 to the Medical Faculty relating to minimum pass marks to qualify the Pre P.G. Test. .(A) Resolution No. 2(iii) of the Faculty of Medicine on the specific point of minimum pass marks was deliberated upon at length and after considering all aspects including D.O. letter No. 14(7)MRH/Gr.II/94/Pt.I, date 10-7-1998 from the Secretary to Government. Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and copies to the Govt. nominees on the Syndicate, the Syndicate resolved that the said resolution of the Faculty as approved by the Academic Council be not accepted. Resolved further that the minimumpass marks for qualifying in the Pre-P.G. Test for admission to Post-graduate Degree/Diploma courses be 33% as suggested by the State Government. .(B) The Maximum age admissible for candidates for various P.G. Degree/Diploma Courses should be restricted to 45 years in place of 35 years.” 5. Previous to that the Government vide Annexure-2 had informed the University that a decision has been taken to raise the reservation so far as the in-service candidates are concerned from existing 25% to 50%. The State Government had reiterated its stand of reducing cut-off marks vide Annexure-4 dated 10-7-1998 which letter is also under challenge. The instructions issued in this regard by the University of Rajasthan are attached as Annexure-7 in regard to entrance examination in the year 1998 about the eligibility and the method of selection which has already been narrated above. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that Section 4(2) and Section 4(7) of Rajasthan University Act empowers the University to take measures to ensure that proper standards of teaching, examinations are maintained in affiliated colleges. Section 17 describes the various authorities of the University including the Syndicate, the Academic Council and the concerned Faculties. Section 22 empowers the Syndicate to maintain proper standards of teaching and examinations in consultation with the Academic Council. Section 17 describes the various authorities of the University including the Syndicate, the Academic Council and the concerned Faculties. Section 22 empowers the Syndicate to maintain proper standards of teaching and examinations in consultation with the Academic Council. Section 23-A provides that the Academic Council shall have control and general regulations of , and shall be responsible for the maintenance of standard of teaching and examinations and empowers the Academic Council to propose Ordinances concerning admission to the University or to its examination, course of studies and curricula. Section 24 provides that the University shall have the faculty of Medicines and Pharmaceutics and in this regard the University had formulated Ordinance 278-E to 278-G laying down statutory criteria. Section 30 of the University of Rajasthan Act prescribes the method of framing the Ordinances. Section 30(2) specifically prohibits the Syndicate to amend any draft proposed by the Academic Council, but has powers to reject or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration either in whole or in part, together with any amendment which the Syndicate may suggest. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Syndicate in Annexure-5 could either accept or reject the resolution, but in no case could have amended the resolution passed by the Academic Council and thus lowering down the cut-off marks by the University from 50% to 33% was not done in accordance with law. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in any case, even if assuming it to have correctly and legally passed the resolution, there could not be any compromise made so far as merits were concerned. If the merits were fixed at 50%, reducing to 33% cut-off marks was against the spirit of number of Judgment s of this Court as well of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Slate Government has not been able to show any reasons, nor any reasons are spelled out as to how such an action of scaling down the minimum percentage of eligibility is conducive to the attainment of the excellence in higher studies in specialised subjects. It is the contention of the petitioner that the matter relates to the admission of the post-graduate courses and, therefore, regulatory powers in such matters necessarily have to be exercised in a manner as would further the cause of academic excellence. It is the contention of the petitioner that the matter relates to the admission of the post-graduate courses and, therefore, regulatory powers in such matters necessarily have to be exercised in a manner as would further the cause of academic excellence. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the twin action of the respondents in cutting down the merit criteria and also increasing the percentage of in-service candidates is nothing but a colourable exercise of powers aimed at granting undue benefits to a class of candidates merely on the basis of their being on the rolls of the State Government and thus, it is a fraud played upon the petitioner. It is further submitted by the petitioner that this type of classification made by the respondent in the matter of disturbing available seats in P.O. Course by reserving a portion thereof , in favour of in-service candidates amounts to an unjustified and unreasonable classification which does not bear any nexus with the primary object i.e. maintenance and up-gradation of academic excellence in specialised subjects and is also opposed to public interest. 7. Reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is admitted that prior to the reduction of cut-off marks, the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed were fixed as 50% as qualifying marks. It is further submitted that the State Government had taken a decision to increase the quota of in-service candidates from 25% to 50% of the seats after full deliberations at different levels. It is stated that it was felt by the State Government that the Doctors after acquiring qualifications of M.B.B.S. and after being selected did not serve in the rural areas and due to this the State Government was facing difficulty in providing minimum medical facilities to the rural people. In-service candidates (doctors) who had served the Government of Rajasthan for five years and out of these five years if they had served rural area for three years, they were eligible and competent to acquire more specialized knowledge and thus the reservation of 50% seats for in-service candidates was with the purpose to make more specialised doctors available to the rural areas and this decision was approved by the Cabinet. It is further submitted by the respondent that the University of Rajasthan has been only authorised to conduct the examination and the State Government is fully competent to lay down the minimum marks for being qualified for the P.G. Course and, therefore, the resolution dated 11-7-1998 passed by the Syndicate is in consonance with the decision of the State Government and cannot be challenged for the reason that it is up to the State Government to lay down the criteria for eligibility and also for fixing the minimum qualifying marks and also the reservation for in-service candidates. .8. In the writ petition certain other applications have also been filed by number of candidates who have been allowed to argue the matter on behalf of individual doctors for and against the writ petition as intervenors. .Their replies have also been placed on record which are almost on the same line as is that of the State Government. .9. From the facts as narrated above, the following events are highlighted. .(1) Vide circular issued by the Director General of Health Services and as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 25% of all the seats in P.G. Courses in Medical Colleges were required to be filled up on the basis of All India Entrance Test and the remaining seats were to be filled up at the State level. .(2) Vide Annexure-1, dated 1-4-1997 basing on the Judgment of Dr. Sadhna Devi vs. State of U.P. the Principal and Controller of SMS Medical College had desired the Vice-Chancellor not to admit the students obtaining less than 50% qualifying marks. .(3) The Division Bench of this Court in Kavita Jain’s case on the challenge being made by the in-service doctors to the effect that 50% marks cannot be laid down as qualifying marks for the in-service candidates, upheld the decision of the Government/University of fixing 50% marks of the in-service candidates as well. .(4) On 18-6-1998, communication was addressed to the authorities by the State Government to increase the existing quota of in-service candidates from 25% to 50%. .(5) Academic Council has taken a decision on 24-6-1998 recommending 50% marks as qualifying marks and 40% marks for SCs/STs. .(6) On 10-7-1998 the Government had suggested 33% cut-off qualifying marks. .(7) On 11-7-1998 the Syndicate had approved the cut-off marks as 33%. .(5) Academic Council has taken a decision on 24-6-1998 recommending 50% marks as qualifying marks and 40% marks for SCs/STs. .(6) On 10-7-1998 the Government had suggested 33% cut-off qualifying marks. .(7) On 11-7-1998 the Syndicate had approved the cut-off marks as 33%. .(8) Advertisement was issued on 29-7-1998 for holding Pre-P.G. Entrance Test and examinations were held on 6-9-1998. 10. With the above said facts the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents by writing a letter to the University, the action was not initiated by a competent authority and it could have only been done by the University and there was no legal sanction behind such action. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent is also violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is excessive reservation up to 50% of the in-service seats which has been enhanced by almost cent per cent and the prescribing 33% minimum qualifying marks is bad and is beyond the University Act. The qualifying marks should not be less than 50%. It is also challenged that the resolution of the Syndicate is against the provisions of the Rajasthan University Act and is totally non-speaking. 11. The points require to be determined in the present petition are summed up as under:-(1) Whether it is the State Government who is competent to fix the qualifying cut-off marks or it is the University to fix up such criteria for the admission to P.G. Courses. .(2) Whether the cut-off marks as fixed by the State Government and recommended to the University to be 33% is within the competency of the authorities or whether the authorities should have continued to adopt 50% qualifying marks for the said courses. .(3) Whether the Syndicate is competent to modify the recommendations as recommended by the academic council or it is bound to return the recommendations under Section 30(2) of the Rajasthan University Act or in alternative can acceptor reject the same; .(4) In thecircumstances of the case, whether it was essential for the Syndicate to have accepted the recommendations of the Government and to incorporate it in the Ordinance. .(5) Whether the authorities were competent to reserve the seats for in-service candidates and if so whether enhancement of the reservation from 25% to 50% was ultra vires of the Constitution of India and whether such reservations could be enhanced for the purpose as narrated in the written statement. Proposition Nos. 1 and 2 namely:- .(1) Whether it is the State Government who is competent to fix the qualifying cut-off marks orit is the University to fix up such criteria for the admission to P.G. Courses. .(2) Whether the cut-off marks as fixed by the State Government and recommended to the University to be 33% is within the competency of the authorities or whether the authorities should have continued to adopt 50% qualifying marks for the said courses. 12. Counsel for both the parties rely on the Judgment in the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi vs. State of U.P., AIR 1997 SC 1120 : AIR 1997 SCW 1146 ; State of MR vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045 ; Aarti Gupta vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 481 ; Dr. Ambesh Kumar vs. Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 ; Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P., 1991 (1) SCC 636: AIR 1991 SC 498 ; Ombir Singh vs. The State of U.P., 1992(5) SLR 529: AIR 1992 SCW 3218); Dr. Indu Kant vs. State of U.P., 1992(5) SLR 674: AIR 1993 SC 1215 ; State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 594; Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1994 (4) SCC 401: AIR 1994 SCW 2515 ; Anant Madan vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 135 : AIR 1995 SC 955 . 13. In the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi AIR 1997 SC 1120 (supra), the State of U.P., by virtue of executive instructions had been making reservations for admission to P.O. Degree Courses and diploma courses to the extent of 21 % for Scheduled Castes, 2% for Scheduled Tribes and 27% for Backward Classes. A circular dated 31-8-1995 was issued by the U.P. Government wherein the requirement of 35% qualifying marks for the written examination had been cancelled for the reserved seats on the contention that the candidates had failed to score any mark in the test, they would be eligible for admission as long as there were vacancies in the special categories. A circular dated 31-8-1995 was issued by the U.P. Government wherein the requirement of 35% qualifying marks for the written examination had been cancelled for the reserved seats on the contention that the candidates had failed to score any mark in the test, they would be eligible for admission as long as there were vacancies in the special categories. It was contended that the ultimate power to fix norms and standards for admission to post-graduate medical courses vests in the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and, therefore, the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India will prevail over any law or executive instructions issued by any State Government. It was observed that the right of the State Government to reserve admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses for SC/ST and members of OBCs was not in dispute. The only dispute in Dr. Sadhna Devi’s case was whether the State Government was entitled to do away altogether with the system of obtaining minimum qualifying marks for getting admission to these courses. It was held by the Supreme Court that it was open to the State Government to say that the selection to the post-graduate medical courses should be made on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the MBBS examination only. But the State Government had chosen to hold a test among the persons who had passed the MBBS examination in order to select candidates for post-graduate course; it had laid down minimum qualifying marks for admission. Candidates belonging to the three special categories who secure the minimum qualifying marks will have to be admitted so long as their quota of seats is not filled up. But it was not open to the Government to say that even the special category of candidates must be selected for the postgraduate courses and in that situation the merit would be sacrificed altogether. The circular dated 31-8-1995 issued by the State Government with a direction that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Others Backward Classes candidates in the written examination for admission to postgraduate and diploma courses was held to be illegal, with a further direction that if there were no SC/OBC candidates available on account of failure of the candidates in the category, the seats be filled up from the general category. 14. 14. In Ombir Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 SCW 3218 (supra), rule fixing 50% marks to be obtained at entrance examination as minimum qualifying marks for admission to P.O. Courses were held to be legal. It was further held that no exception could be taken to the same. It was a case where out of 439 seats available in general category out of which only 300 candidates had secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 50% marks and 139 seats were still lying vacant and similarly 78 vacancies were lying vacant in the reserved categories, it was averred that it was not in the interest of petitioners and also nation to keep the seats vacant and, therefore, lowering of minimum percentage of qualifying marks in the entrance test be allowed. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was for the State Government to have taken note of such situation and to have amended the rules for admission so as to fill all the seats available for P.O. Courses. The contention or the argument raised that the State Government had no power to lay down further eligibility qualification for being considered for admission in the P.G. Courses in addition to eligibility criteria laid down by the Medical Council was negatived in view of the Judgment in Dr. Ambesh Kumar’s case AIR 1987 SC 400 (supra). It was observed as under:- “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission. It may be noted that the aforesaid rule of minimum qualifying marks for admission to post-graduate courses was in vogue for the last many years and large number of seats remained vacant in earlier years also. It was for the State Government to have taken note of such situation and to have amended the rules for admission so as to fill all the seats available for post graduate courses. So far as any mandamus or direction to be given by this Court is concerned, we refrain from doing so because this Court has repeatedly held that the rule laying down minimum qualifying marks for admission to post-graduate medical courses is legal and no exception can be taken to the same. Even in Dr. Ambesh Kumar case, the rule laying down minimum of 55 per cent and 52 per cent marks in MBBS respectively for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses was held to be valid. Even in Dr. Ambesh Kumar case, the rule laying down minimum of 55 per cent and 52 per cent marks in MBBS respectively for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses was held to be valid. An argument was raised in the aforesaid case that the State Government had no power to lay down further eligibility qualification for being considered for admission in the post-graduate courses, in addition to the eligibility criteria laid down by the Medical Council in its regulations but the aforesaid contention was negatived and it was held as under. “The order in question merely specifies a further eligibility qualification for being considered for selection for admission to the postgraduate courses (degree and diploma) in the Medical College’s in the State in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Indian Medical Council. This does not in any way encroach upon the Regulations that have been framed under the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act. On the other hand in order to promote and further the determination of standards in institutions for higher education, the State Government who runs these colleges provide an additional eligibility qualifications.” We can only recommend that the Stale Government may take suitable steps for redressing the long felt grievance of the doctors to fill up all the vacant seats for post graduate courses and which would be a step in the larger public interest also. The State Government may do so for admission to post graduate courses for 1992 and in that case, the State Government would take immediate steps without any loss of time so that the candidates may also join the 1992 academic session for post-graduate studies without any disadvantages. It is further made clear that in doing so such candidates who having secured more that 50% marks and having already been allotted the specialities would not be disturbed in any manner. The vacant seats would however be filled strictly in accordance with merit in the entrance examination and according to the combined merit list of the whole State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Government would be free to issue fresh order relaxing the requirements of minimum marks to such extent which may meet the necessity of maintaining academic standards for admission to post graduate courses as well as the regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India in this regard. The State Government would be free to issue fresh order relaxing the requirements of minimum marks to such extent which may meet the necessity of maintaining academic standards for admission to post graduate courses as well as the regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India in this regard. This, in our view, would be perfectly within the powers of the State Government and would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 15. In Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SCW 2515 (supra), it was held that the regulation of admission of students subject to post-graduate medical courses falls outside the purview of Entry 66, List I, which means that it continues to inhere in Entry 25 of List III. The State which has established and is maintaining these institutions out of public funds must be held to possess the power to regulate the admission policy consistent with Article 14 except to the extent provided for by Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Such power is an integral component of the power to maintain and administer these institutions. The State will regulate the admission policy and at the same time adhere to the standards determined by the India Medical Council. The Supreme Court had observed as under at page 2532 (of AIR SCW):- “Even if one relates the Indian Medical Council Act to Entry 25 of List III in addition to Entry 66 of List I, even then the position is no different --for the Indian Medical Act does not purport to regulate the admissions or admission policy to post-graduate medical courses. The field is thus left free to be regulated by the State. The State can make a law or an executive rule; in this case it was chose to make an executive rule.” 16. In State of U.P. vs. Anupam Gupta 1993 Supp (1) SCC 594 (supra), vide Government instructions a circular was issued that the merit shall be determined for admission to the P.G. Courses on the basis of 50% marks obtained in the competitive examination and 50% marks for general candidates, 40% marks for Scheduled Tribes with weightage of 1.65% of the minimum marks i.e. 50 marks in total. The only contention was that so far as the prescription of 50% minimum marks within eligibility criteria to seek admission in P.G. Courses was not arbitrary, however, it was contended that initial press-note inviting applications for entrance test did not say that 50% minimum marks in the entrance test was as a condition for admission to the P.G. Examination and, therefore, denial of admission for not securing 50% cut off marks in entrance examination was sought to be held illegal. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was also pressed into services. The Supreme Court held that securing 50% marks at the entrance test is one of the condition precedent to become eligible for admission into the post graduate degree and diploma courses and is consistent within the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwars case. 17. In Dr. Ambesh Kumar vs. Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meerut, AIR 1987 SC 400 (supra), the State Government vide notification had laid down the eligibility qualifications i.e. obtaining for 50% marks or 52% marks for being eligible for consideration for admission to the post graduate degree/diploma courses respectively on the basis of merit in accordance with the regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act. The order modifying to certain extent the earlier notification dated 15-12-1982 wherein the criteria for admission to post-graduate courses was on the basis of merit only. Two questions arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; whether the State Government was competent to make the aforesaid order in question exercising of executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. It was observed that the State Government can exercise its executive powers and make order referred in Entry 25 of current list in the absence of any law made by the State Legislature, it was observed as under:- “Two questions arise for our consideration which are firstly whether the State Government is competent to make the aforesaid order in question in exercise to its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. This Article specifically provides that the executive powers of the State shall extend to matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. This Article specifically provides that the executive powers of the State shall extend to matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List i.e. List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution provides as follows:--“Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I: vocational and technical training of labour.” “The State Government can in exercise of its executive power make an order relating to matters referred to in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List in the absence of any law made by the State Legislature. The impugned order made by the State Government pursuant to its executive powers laying down the eligibility qualification for the candidates to be considered on merits for admission to the post graduate courses i