ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 317,318, 321,322, 323, 324,326 of 2000) are directed against order dated October 19,2000 of the learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions have been allowed and Government decision cancelling negative marking for certain categories of candidates quashed. 2. Shortly stated, Pre-Medical Test (PMT) Rules were notified on January 28, 2000. Thereafter, advertisement for PMT was issued on February 8, 2000. The last date for receiving applications from eligible candidates was March 10, 2000, extended with late fee up to March 16, 2000. 3. Total seats for MBBS and allied courses are 720 for the six Medical Colleges of the State. They are divided among General Category (308), Scheduled Tribes (129), Scheduled Castes (93). OBC (83) and All India Quota (102). 3-A. Result of examination was declared on July 1, 2000. Out of 129 Scheduled Tribes seats, only 34 candidates could qualify leaving 94 seats vacant. Rule 2.3.3 of the Brochure for admission provides that the left out seats of this category will be filled up by Scheduled Castes candidates and in case Scheduled Castes candidates are not available in full, then the shortfall will go to OBC and then to General Category. 4. When question arose about filling of 95 seats in the category of Scheduled Tribes, PMT Board picked up 95 candidates from the waiting list of Scheduled Tribe candidates according to the merit and called them for counselling. This was done pursuant to decision of State Government providing that order of negative marking for category of Scheduled Tribe candidates had been withdrawn, therefore their papers be checked afresh and candidates admitted in a course in accordance with the merit so arrived to the extent ol' 95 seats. This action was assailed by the petitioners through writ petitions decided in their favour by the learned single Judge by order impugned in these appeals. 5. Shri V.K. Tankha, learned Advocate General contended that majority of population in the State is from Scheduled Tribes category. To uplift them and to provide medical education 129 seats have been reserved for this category candidates. However, only 34 candidates could qualify the PMT. The result is the 95 seats meant for Scheduled Tribes category candidates remained vacant. 5. Shri V.K. Tankha, learned Advocate General contended that majority of population in the State is from Scheduled Tribes category. To uplift them and to provide medical education 129 seats have been reserved for this category candidates. However, only 34 candidates could qualify the PMT. The result is the 95 seats meant for Scheduled Tribes category candidates remained vacant. With a view to help the candidates of this category, it was decided that negative marking in their cases be dispensed with and their papers examined afresh, merit list prepared and 95 candidates from this category admitted in the graduate courses taking the total to 129 seats. By doing so, quota of candidates from Scheduled Castes category has not been reduced, therefore, this category and other categories following this do not suffer by this decision and the decision ol" Apex court in Preetl Shrivastava's case, followed by this Court in Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 157, 158, 159 of 2000 dated 29-6-2000 providing for eligibility of 40% marks till otherwise decided by the Medical Council of India, has been followed. Learned Advocate General brought to our notice decisions like: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 (Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India); AIR 1993 SC 2178 (Unikrishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradcsh); AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Dr. Preeti Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.); AIR 1981 SC 2045 (Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. Nivedita Jain); (1981) 4SCC 516 (State of M.P. Vs. Indian Medical Council); AIR 1984 SC 1543 (Maharashtra State Board of SHSE); AIR 1995 SC 1421 (Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of M.P.); (1995) 2 SCC 134 (State of M.P. Vs. Rakesh Menon); AIR 1987 SC 400 (Ambesh Kumar Vs. Principal); AIR 1985 Orissa 249 (Deeptimayee Behra Vs. State ofOmsa); AIR 1989 SC 1899 (Asif Hameed Vs. Stale of J& K); AIR 1989 MP 53 (Seema Vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya); (1994) 4 SCC 401 (Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State ofBihar); (1997) 6 SCC 283 (P.O. Institute of Medical Education and Research Vs. Narsimha); AIR 1961 SC 647 (Alembic Chemical Works Vs. Workmen); (1992) 1 SCC 105 (Dr. Umakant Vs. Bhikala Jain); (1999) 1 SCC 126 (Nishant Puri Vs. State of Himachal Pmdesh); AIR 1973 SC 2641 (TV. Ramanath Pillai Vs. State of Kerala); MR 1982 Palna 126 (Deepak Vs. State of Bihar); AIR 2000 SC 1476 (Rajeev Kapoor Vs. Slate of Haryana); and AIR 2000 J & K 61 (University of Jammu Vs. Mohd. Umakant Vs. Bhikala Jain); (1999) 1 SCC 126 (Nishant Puri Vs. State of Himachal Pmdesh); AIR 1973 SC 2641 (TV. Ramanath Pillai Vs. State of Kerala); MR 1982 Palna 126 (Deepak Vs. State of Bihar); AIR 2000 SC 1476 (Rajeev Kapoor Vs. Slate of Haryana); and AIR 2000 J & K 61 (University of Jammu Vs. Mohd. Akram), to bring home the submission. However, these judgments do not apply since the question raised for consideration in these appeals is entirely different. 6. We are not satisfied with the submission advanced by the learned Advocate General. Rules of admission were notified in advance. They provided seats for various categories of candidates and also the method how the left out seals of one category are to be filled. From these rules it is clear that left out seats from category of Scheduled Tribes are to be filled up by candidates from Scheduled Castes and in case of shortfall, the following categories of OBCs and General. The decision to withdraw negative marking could not be taken after Admission Rules had been notified, applications received, candidates subjected to test, results notified and admission process initialed. Further, rules of admission could not be amended to accommodate and benefit one category since this action is hostile to the other categories who are going to benefit by the shortfall in Scheduled Tribes category. 7. Object of appellants may be to benefit candidates of Scheduled Tribes category but it docs not satisfy the test of reasonableness and equal treatment. Further, the appellants are stopped from changing the rules of admission which they represented to eligible candidates, who acted on this representation and sought admission to various courses and had legitimate expectation to seek admission on rules notified by the appellants. 8. Consequently, we find no merit in these appeals and the same arc dismissed in limine. 9. Letters Patent Appeals dismissed.