JUDGMENT 1. :- The present writ petition is tagged with SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1239/2000, [reported in 2000(1) RLR 671] which is decided today, by a separate detailed order. Since it is a connected matter, Shri R.A. Katta is hereby directed to represent the respondent No.2. 2. It is true that the petitioner is also a disabled person and his entitlement for admission to PG Medical Course, under Ordinance 278-E of the Ordinances of University of Rajasthan and under Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act No.1 of 1996) hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1996") upto three per cent reservation, is not disputed before me therefore, the legal discussion made in the said writ petition, is extendable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the ratio decidendi of the aforementioned decision, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is to be remembered by all of us that only ratio of a decision is extendable to other cases provided the facts of those cases are identical otherwise each case is to be decided on its facts. The Courts of law can not afford to extend the ratio of one decision with dose mind without examining the facts of each case thread bare treating law and justice as a living organism. 3. With the aforesaid introspection, I would like to decide the case on hand on its peculiar facts and circumstances, treating law and justice as a living organism. 4. Indisputably, it is averred in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that the petitioner appeared in the Pre-PG (MD/MS/Diploma) Entrance Examination, 1999, and on the basis of his merit and preference, he was given admission to MD (General Medicine), at Udaipur and he is about to complete two years in MD (General Medicine), but now, he intends to change his speciality of MD (General Medicine) to Radio Diagnosis. In support of his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to Ordinance 278-E and 278-E(IV)(iv) of the University Ordinances, wherein, it is provided that in case, a candidate acquires eligibility after passing Pre-PG Examination in the subsequent year, for admission in other speciality, he/she will have to produce (i) Cancellation of Registration from the University of Rajasthan (ii) Certificate of Acceptance of his/her resignation from the Head of the Institution, with the application of choice of subject and place before admission. 5. The aforesaid argument, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and respondent No.2 Shri Narendra Jain and Shri R.A. Katta invited my attention to Ordinance 278-E(III), wherein, it is provided that vacancies due to not joining within the stipulated time, shall be filled by re-shuffling on the basis of merit-cum-preference list and the resultant vacancies of such vacancies which cannot be filled by reshuffling, shall be filled by taking candidates from the waiting list, on merit-cum-preference basis, earliest, but not later than six months from the date of initial appointment. No admission shall be made after six months from the date of initial appointment, even if any vacancy is left unfilled or any vacancy occurs subsequently. 6. After taking into account the provisions of Ordinance 278E(IV)(iv) and 278E (III), two courses are open to the court either to take idealistic view or pragmatic view. To my mind, the disputes relating to universities which are recognised seats of learning and where future citizens are under preparation, are to be decided by courts of law not by taking idealistic view but by taking pragmatic view. After taking pragmatic view in the present case I have no hesitation to hold that, since the petitioner is prosecuting his studies in MD (General Medicine), for the last two years, therefore, at this stage, he cannot be allowed to change his speciality from MD (General Medicine) to Radio Diagnosis. I am of the view that if the aforesaid practice is allowed, then, it would open a flood-gate for back-door entries by changing one speciality to another speciality in PG and Diploma Courses. Not only this, it would also cause colossal financial loss to the public exchequer as well as grotesque result, which I propose to discuss hereinbelow. 7. I am of the view that if the aforesaid practice is allowed, then, it would open a flood-gate for back-door entries by changing one speciality to another speciality in PG and Diploma Courses. Not only this, it would also cause colossal financial loss to the public exchequer as well as grotesque result, which I propose to discuss hereinbelow. 7. It is to be imbibed that medical college, where the petitioner is undergoing training for PG Medical Course, is receiving aid from State Government and such aid is coming from public exchequer. Public exchequer is to be spent in a reasonable manner avoiding its colossal loss. For prosecuting studies in PG Medical and Diploma Courses, guides are appointed. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar that one guide used to assist three students, and the present petitioner, who has completed two years in his speciality, it is not difficult for this Court, to imagine, what amount must have already been spent after him, out of public exchequer in paying salary to his guide/guides. 8. Coming to the point of grotesque result, it is held that if the petitioner would not have joined the speciality of MD (General Medicine), at the Medical College at Udaipur, on his own preference, then, at least, one another student would have been given admission in M.D. on his place and after completion of his training, his services would have been placed on the disposal of public at large. If, after two years, the petitioner is allowed to change his speciality from MD (General Medicine) to Radio Diagnosis, then, it would cause not only a national financial loss but also it will not be possible to replace on his place an other candidate for three-year PG Medical Course, according to the Ordinance, from the waiting list. 9. As regards the provisions, brought to my notice, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, it is provided that in case the candidate acquires eligibility after passing Pre-PG Examination in the subsequent year, for admission to some other speciality, he is entitled to change his speciality, provided, the conditions, enumerated therein, are satisfied. A dose scrutiny of the aforesaid rule, does not make entitle the petitioner to change his speciality and seek admission to some other speciality, after expiry of two years. 10. A dose scrutiny of the aforesaid rule, does not make entitle the petitioner to change his speciality and seek admission to some other speciality, after expiry of two years. 10. It goes without saying that the University of Rajasthan is an instrumentality of the State and it falls within the definition of "State", under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Decisions, taken by the University, are amenable to writ jurisdiction, hence, the rules for checking arbitrary actions of the State Government, are also extendable to the University of Rajasthan, which has framed the ordinances. While dealing with public, either by way of giving jobs, or entering into contracts, or giving any other largesse to anyone, as the State Government is prohibited to act arbitrarily, similarly, the University is also prohibited to act arbitrarily. The University is expected to act with all fairness and reasonableness. Here, in the present case, if the University is allowed to change the speciality of a student, after expiry of two years, it would not only cause colossal financial loss to public exchequer, but also would lead to grotesque result, therefore, framing of such ordinance by the University, cannot be said either to be reasonable or relevant. 11. An identical question came up for consideration, before the Supreme Court, in case of Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1628 , wherein, in paragraph-21, Hon'ble P.N. Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Court, ruled, which reads thus: "The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is projected by Article 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law." 12. Thus, State is debarred from acting arbitrarily, either by making a law or without making a law in exercise of its executive power. As the act of the State is to be tested on the anvil of Article i4, the action of the University is also to be tested on the principle of reasonableness. Thus, State is debarred from acting arbitrarily, either by making a law or without making a law in exercise of its executive power. As the act of the State is to be tested on the anvil of Article i4, the action of the University is also to be tested on the principle of reasonableness. The provision, brought to my notice, to admit a student after one year, is arbitrary, per se illegal, and prompts unfairness, giving back-door entries, which cannot be said either to be reasonable or fair, being ultra vires to provisions, envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was continuously receiving handsome stipend during two year training in P.G. Medical Course of M.D. speciality from the public exchequer. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an offer on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to refund the stipend, which is received by him for two years. The aforesaid offer of the petitioner is not acceptable to me for the reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to bring to my notice any provision relating to refund of the stipend received by a P.G. student. It is observed that University is a autonomous body and it is expected to manage its affair with vision. After expiry of two years, it is not equitable to allow the petitioner to refund stipend received by him in absence of any provision in this regard.As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.Cost is made easy.Petition dismissed *******