Judgment Arun Madan, J.-The case of the petitioner in short is that he is belonging to Other Back-ward class Category (OBC) had appeared in the Rajasthan Pre Engineering Test, 1999 (RPET) examination held on 1St to 3rd June, 1999 conducted by the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for admission to Technical colleges in Jaipur to be given after evaluating comparative merits of the respective candidates who had appeared in the said combined entrance examination within the State of Rajasthan as well as outside State. 2. In this regard the Co-ordinator of RPET issued an advertisement that as per the decision of the State Government, reservations shall be given at admission stage to the S.C., S.T. and O.B.Cs. in the ratio of 16.12 and 21% respectively for various Engineering Colleges in the State except Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur and other Regional Engineering Colleges with the State of Rajasthan for the current session 1999-2000. It was also provided that in the above mentioned reservations, 25 seats shall be kept for girl candidates. 3. Thereafter a Circular was issued to the effect that candidates belonging to OBCs may submit their certificates/Testimonials while the candidates of SC/ST Category need not send the same afresh. Accordingly, petitioner submitted certificate of OBC on 22-5-1999 by registered post much before the last date i.e. 14-6-1999. Thereafter on 9th July 1999, the respondent No. 2 declared the result and the same, was notified on the notice board of MREC (respondent No. 2) on the same day. Simultaneously the results were published in the newspapers on 10th July, 1999. .4. From the perusal of the result, the comparative seats to be given to the candidates are classified as under: .(1) General and other backward Classes; .(2) General female candidates; .(3) Other backward classes; .(4) Other Backward Classes women candidates .(5) Scheduled Castes; .(6) Scheduled Castes female candidates; .(7) Scheduled Tribes; .(8) Scheduled Tribes female candidates; .(9) Ex-Servicemen; .(10) Dependants of deceased defence personnel who died in action. 5. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that his name appeared in the list prepared for OBC’s at serial No. 356, yet not withstanding he having competed in the open competition with other candidates belonging to different Backward Classes as aforesaid, who had competed as general candidates, the candidates of the category who stood lower in merit were given the option to join either of the specialities as per their standing in order of merit in general category or take benefit of reservation. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that providing this option in the manner as aforesaid is not permissible under the rules, it has further been contended that the candidates who had appeared in open competition belonging to OBC category with general candidates, should be given specifically as per their merit and they should not have been given the option for choosing the speciality as OBC candidates. 7. Learned counsel’s another contention is that the above act tantamounts to denial observations to OBC candidates, who could not compete with general candidates. 8. Thenext contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that number of candidates who were not found eligible in order of merit in the result declared on 10-7-1999 have been given admission on the basis of the certificates submitted by them while the petitioner has been discriminated. 9. Another contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the entire number of seats will be filled through the merit list as prepared by the respondent No. 2 from amongst the candidates who had appeared in the RPET examination, half of them will be filled as free seats while rest of the seats will be filled on payment of higher fees and that the petitioner should have been extended the benefit of reservation even on the payment seats in private engineering colleges as has been done by the respondents in case of free seats. 10. 1 have examined the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the relevant documents on record including the Notification dated 28th Sept. 1993 issued by the Government of Rajasthan (Annexure 4). Prima facie, I am of the considered view that the benefit of reservation should not be extended to any of the categories in OBC or SCs/STs in professional courses like Engineering. Medicine etc. 1993 issued by the Government of Rajasthan (Annexure 4). Prima facie, I am of the considered view that the benefit of reservation should not be extended to any of the categories in OBC or SCs/STs in professional courses like Engineering. Medicine etc. and where the merit alone should be the sole criterion in adjudging the suitability of a candidate in the matter of admission to any of the specialities. 11. A candidate, irrespective of any class, if he holds his position in order of merit, on competing with other general candidates, should be considered as qualified. Hence once the competition is open for all, then the question of whether the candidate is OBC/ SC/ST for the purpose of consideration for selection should not arise. The merit of the candidate has to be adjudged and on the basis of which he/she should be given admission in the concerned speciality opted for and that merit alone should be the guideline factor in the matter of giving admission to professional course where these society expects its dream to Join. 12. The contention of the petitioner regarding provision for reservation to OBC candidates for admission to Malviya Regional Engineering College (MREC), Jaipur (respondent No. 2), wherein he has sought admission on the basis of the entrance test of Rajasthan Pre-Engineering Test (RPET) 1999, no direction can be given by this Court to respondent No. 2 for admitting the petitioner contrary to the merit list prepared from among the candidates who are found suitable for selection in order of merit on the basis of the result declared on 10-7-1999 and to whom admissions have already given on the basis of certificate as submitted by them after the declaration of results. It is again the contention of the petitioner that number of OBC candidates, who were covered under the creamy layer have been given admission, this contention is wholly devoid of merit, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material on record from which it can be inferred that the admissions have been made contrary to the scheme notified by the State Government in this regard. 10.13. 10.13. I am of the view that since even in the Private Engineering Colleges imparting education in the State of Rajasthan at various places i.e. Slkar, Alwar, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur etc., since admissions have been made only on the basis of the Pre Entrance Test pursuant to the policy of the State Government, for admissions to professional courses, no fault can be found with this policy since the admissions have been made only on the basis of merit-list as prepared by the respondent No. 2 from among the suitable candidates after evaluating their comparative merit and also from suitability. .14. I am further fortified in my view that there should not be any compromise with the merit as directed by the .Apex Court in its latest decision on the question of extending the benefit of reservation decided on 10th August, 1999 in the matter of Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1999) 5 JT (SC) 498 : AIR 1999 SC 2894 . 115. Asper the provisions of Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution read with U.P. Post Graduate Medical Education (Reservation for Scheduled Caste SC/ST and OBC) Act. 1927 for admission to Post Graduate Courses in medical education, whether the lowering of minimum qualifying marks is permissible and whether it would be constitutionally imperative to do so for the educational institutions imparting medical education? 116. Another aspect to be examined was as to whether the benefit of reservation can be extended to the candidates belonging to the aforesaid categories by lowering the minimum qualifying marks or whether the merit alone should form the basis for selection? It was held by the Apex Court per majority that the programmes and policies of compensatory discrimination under Article 1 5(4) have to be designed and pursued to achieve this ultimate national interest. All public policies, therefore, have to be tested on the anvil of reasonableness and ultimate public good. in the case of Art. 16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spell out in Art. 333 one such public good which cannot be sacrificed, namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency in administration. 117. It was further observed that reservation is a dynamic and flexible concept. The departure from the principle of equality of opportunity has to be constantly watched. in the case of Art. 16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spell out in Art. 333 one such public good which cannot be sacrificed, namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency in administration. 117. It was further observed that reservation is a dynamic and flexible concept. The departure from the principle of equality of opportunity has to be constantly watched. So long as the backward group is not adequately represented in the services under the State, reservations should be made. A change in the social backdrop is one of the constitutional imperatives, as the backward are able to secure adequate representation in the services, the reservations will not be required. Article 335 enters a further cavast. While considering the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointment, the maintenance of efficiency of administration shall be kept in sight. 118. Applying the ratio of the above discussions to the instant case. I am of the view that it is essential in national Interest that in order to maintain professional standards as well as efficiency and competence, which is expected of the professionals like Doctors and Engineers, there can and should not be any compromise with merit and quality which alone should be the guiding factor in the matter of admission to professional course more particularly, the specialities afforded by the educational institutions. I am further of the view that it is in the interest of selecting suitable candidatures joining the institutions imparting specialised education whether engineering or medical, it is imperative that the common entrance examination which is introduced for selecting candidates after evaluating their comparative merit for the purpose of admission on the basis of combined entrance examination to which it is necessary that the standard and the quality should be maintained and the meritorious among them should be selected. This alone should be the guiding factor in order to balance the competing equities of having competent students for specialised education. This aspect in view, the Apex Court had rejected the contentions advanced by the counsels, who were advocating the cause of the students belonging to SCs/STs and OBC categories. However, on the question of wide disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for reserved categories as well as for the general category candidates it was observed by the Apex Court in Dr. However, on the question of wide disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for reserved categories as well as for the general category candidates it was observed by the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava’s case ( AIR 1999 SC 2894 (supra) that there cannot be any dilution of minimum qualifying marks for such reserved category candidates upto almost official level which could be permitted only upto a reasonable extent since such dilution would not be permissible and the maximum dilution can be upto 50% of minimum qualifying marks prescribed for general categories. On the question as to whether the benefit of reservation should be extended to SC/ST and OBC candidates on the basis of entrance test in the professional course, it has been observed by the Apex Court in the above Judgment that it is open to the educational institutions affording professional course to adopt the procedure of short listing in the matter of admissions where the number of seats is limited. Even this procedure is followed, it cannot be said that the State in exercise of its Constitutional rights under Article 15(4) give additional facilities to reserved category candidates vis-a-vis their requirement of getting minimum qualifying marks at such entrance tests. 119. From the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court it is very clear that, whether it is in Government colleges or in private colleges affording admission to professional courses, there should not and cannot be any compromise as regards the minimum qualifying marks which are required to be obtained at the combined entrance test for admission. 120. As regards admission on the ‘paid seats’ for admission to professional course, whether medical or engineering, I am of the firm view that it is not open to the educational institutions to exploit the merit and such students and qualified candidates should be selected to such course as per the guideline laid down by the State Government. .21. It is not the case of the petitioner that a candidate who was lower in merit than the petitioner either in the OBC or SC/ST category has been given preference and the petitioner has been discriminated in the manner as .alleged. Since no violation of rules in the matter of reservation for OBCs pursuant, to the Notification dated 28th Sept. It is not the case of the petitioner that a candidate who was lower in merit than the petitioner either in the OBC or SC/ST category has been given preference and the petitioner has been discriminated in the manner as .alleged. Since no violation of rules in the matter of reservation for OBCs pursuant, to the Notification dated 28th Sept. 93 (Annexure 4) issued by the Government has been committed, the petitioner is consequently not entitled to the relief sought for. 122. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.