JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Heard parties. 2.Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith. 3.This is a petition by a girl born in Maharashtra and whose parents are domiciled in Maharashtra. Petitioner's father was serving in the Armed Forces and, therefore, the petitioner had to take and continue her education wherever her father was posted. The petitioner has passed both her S.S.C. and H.S.C. examinations from outside the State of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra framed rules and called for applications for admissions to the Medical and Dental Colleges in Maharashtra for the year 1998-99 and the last date for applying was 20th June 1998. On this day, petitioner's father was in active Defence service. Since he is a domicile of Maharashtra and was in active Defence service, petitioner filed an application with the respondent No. 3 for a seat reserved for the children of Defence personnel. The normal procedure to be adopted by such authorities should have been that the application should have been accepted and after scrutiny, if it is found that the petitioner was not eligible, the application should have been rejected. Here in this case what happened was that the petitioner tried to file an application with respondent No. 3 but on preliminary scrutiny of the form, which was done by the officers of the respondent No. 3, they came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible for admission and hence, the application itself was not accepted. 4.This fact has been accepted by the respondents in their affidavit and it is admitted before us that petitioner's application was received in time but was not accepted. We wish to observe that to avoid further complications as to whether such an application was actually submitted and whether it was accompanying the necessary basic documents, without which the application would not have been valid, it is always better that all applications received are accepted, as acceptance does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, direct that all such applications presented for such professional courses, should be accepted by the competent authority and a receipt thereof should be given for future admissions and the authorities should display a list of invalid and/or incomplete applications within a period of one week from the last date fixed for accepting the applications. We, therefore, direct that all such applications presented for such professional courses, should be accepted by the competent authority and a receipt thereof should be given for future admissions and the authorities should display a list of invalid and/or incomplete applications within a period of one week from the last date fixed for accepting the applications. In addition, some reasonable time of couple of days should also be given to remove the deficiencies in such applications so that the candidates, who are otherwise meritorious and who genuinely satisfy the requirements as set out in the Rules, do not remain unconsidered for admissions due to their ignorance or ignorance on the part of their parents. 5.Petitioner's application is to be considered under Annexure 'C' to the Rules framed by the State Government which deals with the reservations for the children of defence personnel. The sons and daughters of Ex-Defence service personnel are categorised as Defence-1; the sons and daughters of active Defence service personnel are categorised as Defence 2 and the sons and daughters of active Defence service personnel transferred to Maharashtra State from the State outside Maharashtra are categorised as Defence-3, in Annexure "C" to the Admission Rules. Petitioner's application is to be considered under Defence 2 category. Rule 3 of the Rules in this Annexure "C" reads as under : "To be eligible for a seat in defence category, the parent of such an applicant-who was/is a member of the Armed Forces - must be a domicile of Maharashtra State. The applicant will be required to produce a Domicile Certificate in respect of his/her parent, issued by District/Metropolitan Magistrate." There is no dispute that on the date of the application, the father of the applicant was an active member of the Armed Forces and was a domicile of the State of Maharashtra. Her eligibility was doubted by the authorities on the ground that she does not fulfill the requirements of Rules 4.4 and 4.5, of the Admission Rules. They read as under : "Rule 4.4 : An applicant must have passed Higher Secondary Certificate or equivalent examination, in one and the same attempt, from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra with English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botony Zoology). Rule 4.5 : The applicant must have passed the S.C.C. or equivalent examination from Maharashtra. They read as under : "Rule 4.4 : An applicant must have passed Higher Secondary Certificate or equivalent examination, in one and the same attempt, from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra with English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botony Zoology). Rule 4.5 : The applicant must have passed the S.C.C. or equivalent examination from Maharashtra. Provided that for a child of any employee of Central Government or Government of India undertaking transferred to Maharashtra State and joined before the last date prescribed for submission of application and is in the service in jurisdiction of respective region, this condition would stand relaxed. Provided further that a child of an employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who is transferred back to Maharashtra or has returned to Maharashtra from deputation to Central Government/Government of India undertaking and joined before the last date of application, may apply for admission to these courses to the Designated Authority of the concerned Regional area where the parent is now posted on transfer/return, even if the applicant has passed S.C.C. (or equivalent) and/or H.S.C. (or equivalent) examination from an institution situated outside Maharashtra, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria." 6.Shri S.P. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Rules 4.4 and 4.5 are discriminatory since they create a class not based on any intelligent differentia and the students who have passed their 10th and 12th standard examinations from Maharashtra, can in no way be treated differently from the students who have passed these examinations from any institution outside the State of Maharashtra, so long as such students are the domiciles of Maharashtra. We have heard Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel, at length but we do not find that his contentions can be accepted. This issue raised by him is no more res-integra. Reserving the seats in a Medical or any other professional college for the students coming from that University area or prescribing a condition that the applicants must have passed 10th and 12th standard examinations from that area, was held to be valid by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Asmita Chandrahas Patodekar v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 833. In the case of (Vaidehi Subhash Natu v. State of Maharashtra)2, reported in 1998(2) Bom.C.R. 688 another Division Bench of this Court has observed thus : "All that the Government has laid down is that the applicant must have passed, apart from the H.S.C. examination, the S.C.C. examination also from any school in the State of Maharashtra. The said power of the Government to lay down, what is known as institutional preference, is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional purpose." Challenge to the validity of these rules was also rejected by this Court (Principal Bench) in Writ Petition Nos. 870/1997 to 872/1997 and 925/1997 as well as Writ Petition No. 687/1998. More recently, in Writ Petition No. 344/1998 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court by its order dated 22-6-1998, has also rejected the challenge to the validity of the said Rules. In view of this legal position, we do not find any merit in the submission made by Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel, and we hold that Rules 4.4 and 4.5 are valid exercise of the executive powers of the State of Maharashtra. 7.When we come to the provisos to Rule 4.5, we find that the State Government wishes to exempt the children of the employees of the Central Government and the State Government from operation of this Rule taking into consideration that they are forced to reside outside the State of Maharashtra and their children are also consequently forced to take education in institutions outside the State of Maharashtra. Since the professional colleges are maintained and administered out of the State funds, it is quite proper for the State Government to consider the State Government employees as a class by itself and equally grant the similar benefit to the Central Government employees. However, there is no doubt that these Rules will have to be rational and rationally read. Since the professional colleges are maintained and administered out of the State funds, it is quite proper for the State Government to consider the State Government employees as a class by itself and equally grant the similar benefit to the Central Government employees. However, there is no doubt that these Rules will have to be rational and rationally read. 8.Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel, further submits that since for consideration under the Defence category, it is necessary for a student to produce a Domicile Certificate of his parent to prove that he is a domicile of the State of Maharashtra, it is not necessary to impose with a further condition that such candidate must have passed 10th and 12th standard examinations from Maharashtra, as the domicile certificate and this requirement serves one and the same purpose that the applicant must be from the State of Maharashtra. The learned Counsel also contends that the Rules in Annexure "C" and rest part of the Rules are mutually exclusive. We do not find that this submission is well founded. The reservation in favour of the children of Defence personnel is from 70% quota, which is to be operated on the basis of the areawise merit list as has been provided under Rule 3.4.2. Rule 3.5 speaks about distribution of seats at the disposal of the competent authority. Rule 3.4.2 itself prescribes that the 70% seats in Government colleges, private unaided colleges and the colleges of Municipal Corporations will be filled in from amongst the applicants who have passed 12th standard or equivalent examination from a school/college situated in the area of the same Development Board i.e. Vidharbha, Marathwada and rest of the Maharashtra. Therefore, there is a precondition that the students must have passed 12th standard examination from an institution which is situated in the Development Board area, within which he is seeking admission and this Rule is applicable to all students who are to be considered in 70% quota. Therefore, the submission of Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel, that the rules contained in Annexure "C" only are applicable to the students who are applying for Defence service personnel reservation and rest of the rules are not applicable to them, does not find favour with us. Therefore, the submission of Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel, that the rules contained in Annexure "C" only are applicable to the students who are applying for Defence service personnel reservation and rest of the rules are not applicable to them, does not find favour with us. 9.Though we have held that Rule 4.5 prescribing that the S.S.C. or equivalent examination must have been passed from the State of Maharashtra is valid so far as we read the two provisos to the said Rule, we do not find them to be happily worded. If the intention of the Government is to exempt the children of the persons who are in active Defence service, then the concession which is given to the Government servants, both Central and State, will have to be similarly given to the persons in the Defence service. The persons serving in the Defence service are nevertheless the employees of the Government of India. If such a servant, who is in active defence service, is domicile of the State of Maharashtra and was posted outside Maharashtra and, therefore, his children had to take education outside Maharashtra, those children cannot be excluded from consideration to (sic for) admission to the Medical and other professional colleges in the State of Maharashtra. We, therefore, direct the State Government to consider re-writing of the provisos next year so that the Defence personnel are treated on par with other Government servants. 10.The main question that is required to be considered in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is ineligible for being considered for admission to M.B.B.S. course under Defence 2 category, on the ground that she does not fulfill the requirements of Rules 4.4 and 4.5 of the Admission Rules inasmuch as she has passed both the S.S.C. as well as H.S.C. examinations from outside the State of Maharashtra. Rule 5 of the Admission Rules states that an application will be considered to be valid only on fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Rules 5.1 to 5.5. In Rule 5.4, Defence (DEF) is stated to be covered as per rules separately set out in Annexure "C" to the Admission Rules and as per Rule 3 in the said Annexure, the prime requirement for being considered for admission under the children of defence personnel, the parent must be a domicile of State of Maharashtra. In Rule 5.4, Defence (DEF) is stated to be covered as per rules separately set out in Annexure "C" to the Admission Rules and as per Rule 3 in the said Annexure, the prime requirement for being considered for admission under the children of defence personnel, the parent must be a domicile of State of Maharashtra. However, this requirement for the category Defence 3 has been relaxed in the first part of Rule 5(d) of the said Annexure 'C'. We must mention that the second part of the said Rule 5(d) is not happily worded and it in fact, contradicts the earlier part of the rule. We hope, the authorities will take care while framing the rules for the next academic year. 11.By reading the provisions of Annexure 'C' with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Admission Rules, it is clear that the intention of the State has been to treat the Defence personnel as a category by itself and if the cases for admission against the seats reserved for Defence 1 and Defence 2, the condition of fulfilment of Rules 4.4 and 4.5 is held to be mandatory, we are afraid, the said reservation may be rendered to be illusory. Therefore, while considering the cases of children of defence personnel for reserved seats under Defence 1 and Defence 2, it is necessary that the requirement of Rules 4.4 and 4.5 is reasonably read and made applicable. It is well known that the Defence personnel are posted anywhere in India and even some times in foreign countries. Undoubtedly, their children are expected to accompany them and pursue their studies wherever the parent or parents are posted. But if such parent or parents are domiciles of Maharashtra and are in defence service, the cases of their children for admission to the M.B.B.S. courses in the State of Maharashtra against the seats reserved for Defence 1 and Defence 2 will have to be considered in terms of the rules set out in Annexure "C" as well as Rules 5.1 to 5.3 and 5.5 and while so considering, the requirements of Rules 4.4 and 4.5 will have to be excluded. This view of ours is buttressed by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Minakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and others)3, reported in 1989(3) S.C.C. 112 . This view of ours is buttressed by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Minakshi Malik v. University of Delhi and others)3, reported in 1989(3) S.C.C. 112 . In that case, the candidate appearing for the entrance examination for admission to a medical college in Delhi was required to have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi and the petitioner did not fulfill this condition, as her father was posted in Nigeria right from the time she was a minor. When she appeared for common entrance examination, she failed for consideration for the quota of 70% of the seats reserved for candidates who had passed the qualifying examination from the University of Delhi or the Central Board of Secondary Education or the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination from recognised schools conducting regular classes in the Union Territory of Delhi, but she was denied admission because she had not satisfied the further condition that the last two years education should be had in a school at Delhi. The Supreme Court held that the said requirement was unreasonable when applied in the case of those candidates who were compelled to leave India for a foreign country by reason of posting of the parents by the Government to such foreign country. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in the said case are reproduced hereinbelow. "There is no real choice in the matter for such a student and in many cases the circumstances of the student do not permit her to continue schooling in India. It is, of course, theoretically possible for a student to be put in a hostel to continue her schooling in Delhi. But in many cases this may not be feasible and the student must accompany a parent to the foreign country. It appears to us that the rigour of the condition prescribing that the last two years of education should be received in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, and there should be no insistance on the fulfilment of that condition, in the case of students of parents who are transferred to a foreign country by the Government and who are, therefore, required to leave India along with them. Rules are intended to be reasonable and should take into account the variety of circumstances in which those whom the rules seek to govern find themselves. Rules are intended to be reasonable and should take into account the variety of circumstances in which those whom the rules seek to govern find themselves. We are of opinion that the condition in the prescription of qualifications for admission to a medical college in Delhi providing that the last two years of education should be in a school in Delhi should be construed as not applicable to students who have to leave India with their parents on the parent being posted to a foreign country by the Government." 12.In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner is eligible to apply for a seat reserved for the children of Defence personnel (Defence 2) and we direct the competent authority to accept and consider her application for admission to M.B.B.S. course in this category, subject however to inter se merit, along with others. We direct the learned Government Pleader to send a copy of this order to the concerned Secretary for taking suitable corrective measures while drafting the rules for admission to Medical and Dental colleges next year. Rules made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute.