JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - The Respondents published one notice on 19th August, 1997 (annexure-1), with respect to Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1997 (for short P. G. M. A. T. 1997), by which while giving reference of this Court's order passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 2131/97 and 4412/97, informed that the extremely Backward class students and Scheduled Caste/Tribe students, who obtained less than 40% and 30% during the admission test, their admissions have been cancelled. The petitioners, all of whom, belong to such reserved category, being aggrieved, have challenged the aforesaid notice, contained in Annexure-1. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners appeared in P.G.M.A.T. 1997 competitive examination on 9th March, 1997, wherein after result was declared. Earlier to that a writ petition was preferred before this Court by certain persons in C.W.J.C. No.2131/97 for extension of the date of test and interview. The said writ petition was earlier dismissed. Subsequently, on 6th March, 1997, the State of Bihar filed a petition for modification/clarification of the order being I.A. No. 2127/97, for the purpose of extension of period of time of admission on the ground that enough number of suitable candidates were not available. The said petition remained pending before this Court and the examination was conducted on the scheduled date on 9th March, 1997, whereinafter, interview was also conducted on scheduled date. Earlier, a merit list was prepared category-wise, as per number of seats available. A cut-off qualifying marks was fixed for such admission. While 50% narks was the minimum qualifying marks or admission of general category and other Backward category, 40% qualifying narks was fixed for Scheduled Caste/Tribe categories. Subsequently, in absence of eligible candidates, the qualifying narks was brought down by 10% and 40% qualifying marks was fixed for general category and other backward category and 30% marks was fixed for Scheduled Caste/Tribe categories. Even after reduction of such qualifying marks, as it was found that certain more seats reserved for extremely Backward category, Scheduled Caste and Tribe categories remained vacant, the Respondents further brought down the qualifying marks to fill up all the seats on the basis of position in the merit list. In effect, the last candidate belonging to extremely Backward category who obtained 30.4 marks, candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category who obtained 27.4 marks and Scheduled Tribe candidates who obtained 25.6 marks, were admitted and such admission was completed between 17th and 18th May, 1997. In effect, the last candidate belonging to extremely Backward category who obtained 30.4 marks, candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category who obtained 27.4 marks and Scheduled Tribe candidates who obtained 25.6 marks, were admitted and such admission was completed between 17th and 18th May, 1997. These are the petitioners who were so admitted, after reducing the qualifying marks from 40-30% to lower 25 percent. 3. The writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2131 of 1997 (Dr. Neel Kamal Kumar vs. State of Bihar), which was earlier dismissed prior to 6th March, 1997, was taken up to decide the prayer made in the I.A. No. 2127/97 filed on 6th March, 1997, after the aforesaid admission on 22nd May, 1997. On the said date (22nd May, 1997), it was not brought to the notice of this Court that I.A. No. 2127/97 had also become infructuous, all admissions having already taken place. In this circumstances, while the Court by order dated 22nd May, 1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97 extended the period of admission up to 30th June, 1997, made certain observation relating to relaxation of qualifying marks. Subsequently, another Interlocutary application was filed in the said disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97 by candidates like the petitioners for modification of order dated 22nd May, 1997. They brought to the notice of the Court that prior to 22nd May, 1997, admission had been completed and because of observation made on 22nd May, 1997, the authorities were proceeding to cancel their admission to Post Graduate Medical courses. This Court, vide order dated 5th July, 1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97, clarified that this Court never directed the State or the authority concerned to cancel any admission granted by it. It is for the authority concerned to take a decision in the matter, and it is open to the competent authority to cancel the admission granted, if it is satisfied that the admission have not been granted in accordance with law. Subsequently, another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No., 4412/97 was preferred by one Dr. Rajneesh Shekhar and others. In the said case, the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State agreed that the case was similar to C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97. Thereafter, the respondents giving reference of aforesaid two writ petitions, C.W.J.C. Nos. Subsequently, another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No., 4412/97 was preferred by one Dr. Rajneesh Shekhar and others. In the said case, the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State agreed that the case was similar to C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97. Thereafter, the respondents giving reference of aforesaid two writ petitions, C.W.J.C. Nos. 2131/97 and 4412/97, came out with the impugned notice of cancellation of admission of extremely Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories who have obtained less than 40 and 30 per cent respectively. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that this Court never directed nor made any observation relating to admission of petitioners and others who were admitted after relaxing the minimum qualifying marks, giving wrong reference of these cases and on nonest ground, the impugned notice of cancellation has been issued. Further, according to them, the impugned notice is illegal having passed without application of mind, as no infirmities in the matter of admission of the petitioners have been cited and have been so issued in violation of rules of natural justice, without notice to the petitioners. 5. An intervention petition being I.A. No. 4951/97 was filed by one Dr. Uday Nath Shahi and five others by which they have opposed the writ petition. 6. Another intervention petition being I.A. No. 5063/97 has been preferred by one Dr. Uma Shanker Prasad and fifty others, supporting the claim of the petitioners with prayer to implead them as petitioners for similar relief, they being similarly situated to the petitioners. 7. According to the Respondents-State, after preparation of the category-wise merit list, there being less number of candidates having obtained minimum qualifying marks, by memo dated 30th April, 1997 (Annexure-A to their counter affidavit), it was decided to fill up all the seats on the basis of merit list, irrespective of qualifying marks. However, because of direction/guideline given by this Court on 22nd May, 1997 and 5th July, 1997 in C.WJ.C. No. 2131/97, the impugned notice of cancellation of admission has been issued, They have also given reference of a supplementary counter affidavit filed in one S.L.P (Civil) No. 3017 of 1993, without making clear as to how the said case is relevant in this case, as the said S.L.P. related to admission in pursuance of P.G.M.A.T. 1992, wherein qualifying marks was brought down by 10 per cent. 8. 8. The main opposition was made by the counsel appeared on behalf of intervenor Respondents Dr. Uday Nath Shahi and others who belong to general category. According to the intervenor Respondents, the qualifying marks cannot be brought down to such level giving go-bye to the merit, as it will affect the standard of education, Further, according to them, if the eligible reserved category candidates are not available, then the persons belonging to general category who have obtained more than 40% qualifying marks should be admitted against such seats and so intervenor-Respondents are liable to be admitted against such seats. Reference was made of a Supreme Court decision in Dr. Sadhna Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1997)3 S.C.C. 90 . 9. From the pleadings made by the parties, the questions to be determined in this case are : (a) Whether there was any direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97 or C.W.J.C. No. 4412/97 for cancellation of admission already made? If so whether the impugned notification of cancellation is in accordance with such direction or not? (b) Whether the marks obtained by last candidate, out of admission, in question, belonging to one or other reserved category amounts to compromise with the merit giving rise to lowering down the standard of education? 10. So far as the first question is concerned, it will be evident from the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4412/97 (Dr. Rajneesh Shekhar's case) that the same was disposed of in terms with the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97 (Dr. Neel Kamal Kumar's case). 11. So far as Dr. Neel Kamal Kumar's case is concerned, the writ petition was dismissed without any observation relating to admission after relaxation of qualifying marks. It was only after the admission was complete (on 17th-18th May, 1997), in the said disposed of writ petition, when infructuous I.A. No. 2127/97 was taken up, the Court made certain observations by order dated 27th May, 1997, while extending the date of admission. Such order was passed as the Court was not informed that the admission had already taken place and I.A. No. 2127/97 become infructuous. Such order was passed as the Court was not informed that the admission had already taken place and I.A. No. 2127/97 become infructuous. Subsequently, when certain candidates like petitioners filed application for modification of the said order dated 22nd May, 1997 and brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of this Court, this Court vide order dated 5th July, 1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97, made it clear that this Court had not directed the State or the authority concerned to cancel any admission granted by it. Thus, I find that the ground given in the impugned notice (Annexure-1) of cancellation, as reiterated in the counter affidavit of the State, is misconceived in absence of any direction of this Court. 12. So far as the legality of admission of petitioners is concerned, this Court by its order dated 5th July, 1997 in C.WJ.C. No. 2131/97 while observed that the competent authority may cancel the admission granted, it made clear that such cancellation can be made if the authority is satisfied that the admissions have not been granted in accordance with law. In this case, it is not the stand of the Respondents State that the admissions of petitioners and others were granted in violation of any rule or guideline. Thus, the Respondents cannot derive any advantage out of aforesaid observation of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2131/97. Thereby, the first question is declided in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondents. 13. So far as reservation in the matter of medical admission and relaxation of qualifying marks, the same fell for consideration before the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and others, reported in (1981)4 S.C.C. 296 . In the said case, minimum qualifying marks was 50% for general category and 40% for S. C. and S. T. categories. In the said case, minimum qualifying marks was 50% for general category and 40% for S. C. and S. T. categories. The State of Madhya Pradesh by one order dated 9th September, 1980 removed the condition of minimum qualifying marks and filled up the seats from the candidates available in the merit list The Supreme Court while observed that it is open to the Government to impose such condition as would make the reservation effective and would benefit the candidates belonging to those categories for whose benefit and welfare the reservations have been made, it further held that in particular situation taking into consideration the religion and other circumstances prevailing in the State it will be open to the State to vary and to modify the conditions regarding selection for admission, if such modification or variations becomes necessary for achieving the purpose for which reservation has been made and if there be no law to the contrary. In the said case of Nivedita Jain (supra), a Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Amalendu Kumar (A.I.R. 1980 Patna 1), fell for consideration, where in the Full Bench held that Article 15 (1) of the Constitution cannot be meaningful and will become illusory until minimum standards of proficiencies are laid down and followed in the matter of admission to Medical Colleges and if undeserving candidates are admitted into Medical Colleges, the standards of medical education will go down and undeserving candidates admitted to Medical College would not be able to pass-out and qualify as doctors and there may be many drop-outs. However, the Supreme Court on consideration of Full Bench decision aforesaid observed that this Court failed to notice that there is no relaxation in the standard of medical education or curriculum of studies in Medical Colleges for these candidates after their admission to the College and the standard of examination and the curriculum remained the same for all. It further observed that there may be drop-outs and many of these candidates may not qualify but there may be such failure and drop-outs in the case of other candidates those belonging to other categories. It further observed that it was desirable that some kind of minimum standard for selection for admission to Medical Colleges apart from eligibility should be there. 14. It further observed that it was desirable that some kind of minimum standard for selection for admission to Medical Colleges apart from eligibility should be there. 14. The aforesaid decision in the case of Nivedita Jain (supra) again taken into consideration by Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi and others vs. State of U. P. and others, reported in (1997)3 S.C.C.90. This time, the Supreme Court held that eligibility of a candidate for admission in a Medical College, eligible candidates of lesser merit may be admitted to the Post Graduate courses. If they belong to reserved categories, but even in that case, they must obtain an M.B.B.S. Degree and requisite marks in the test to gain admission to Post Graduage courses. 15. Thereby, I hold that there should be some minimum qualifying marks, even for a reserved category candidate for admission in medical courses. 16. Now, the question arises whether the petitioners and others whose admissions are sought to be cancelled by impugned Notice (Annexure-1), do they hold some minimum qualifying marks for admission ? Admittedly, the minimum marks, even after relaxation has gone down to 30.4% in the case of extremely Backward category; 27.4% in the case of Scheduled Caste; and 25.6% in the case of Scheduled Tribe categories. Thus, all the candidates who have obtained more than 25% in the test have been admitted, apart from minimum educational qualification of M.B.B.S. Degree. 17. The case of Aarti Gupta and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1988)1 S.C.C. 258 , is a case somewhat similar. In the said case, the State of Punjab reduced the percentage of pass marks (qualifying marks) for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to 25% for a particular year, as against 40% prescribed by the Regulation. Taking into consideration the aforesaid relaxation of qualifying marks to 25%, the Supreme Court while observed that the standard of medical profession should not be compromised in national interest, held that the reduction of qualifying marks to 25% for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid relaxation of qualifying marks to 25%, the Supreme Court while observed that the standard of medical profession should not be compromised in national interest, held that the reduction of qualifying marks to 25% for Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. As in the present case, all the petitioners belong to Backward class i.e. extremely Backward category, who are somewhat similarly situated like Scheduled Caste Category; some belong to Scheduled Caste; and other belong to Scheduled Tribe categories, and all of them have obtained more than 25% marks, I hold that the Respondents on reduction of qualifying standard have neither compromised with the merit nor their admission will lower down the standard of medical profession against the national interest. Thereby, the second question also stands decided in favour of the petitioners. 19. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice of cancellation of admission dated 19th August, 1997, as contained in Annexure-1. The Respondents are directed to allow the petitioners and other similarly situated persons including the intervenor petitioners to pursue the post Graduate Medical studies on the basis of the admission they have already taken. 20. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.