S. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy in this writ petition centres round the counselling held for admission to first year M. B. B. S. course for the session 2000-2001 in the three Government Medical Colleges in the State of Orissa. ( 2 ) FOR the academic session 2000-2001, a Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical) was held in the month of May, 2001. The petitioner appeared in the said examination. It's result was published on 27-6-2000. The petitioner's position in the merit list (Medical) was at Sl. No. 203 (general ). The date of counselling was fixed to 24-7-2001 for him. He only appeared at the counselling centre. His allegation is that in the M. B. B. S. course there were 193 seats available for general category in the three medical colleges in the State. There were 14 seats reserved for children of Green Card-holders (Green Card-holder means a person who has accepted the terminal method of contraception after two or less living children), 6 seats for children of military personnel, 22 seats for Scheduled Caste, 33 seats for Scheduled Tribe and 3 for physically handicapped children. While he was awaiting a call for the counselling, it was informed that the general seats had been filled up at serial No. 202 and there would be no other counselling. According to him, he was illegally deprived of admission and was discriminated because of wrong procedure of counselling adopted by the selecting authority in admitting 11 candidates (9 Green Card-holders plus 2 Ex-servicemen ). Once a candidate exercises the option under a reserved category, his case should be considered against the seats reserved for that category in respect of a college but the selecting authority considered and treated those 11 candidates as general category in consequence of which 11 candidates belonging to the general category in the merit list from serial Nos. 202 to 213 were deprived of their admission. ( 3 ) THE selecting authority has filed its counter-affidavit. It's case is that the counselling was held strictly as per the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. The candidates from the general merit list were called to exercise their option in one of the medical colleges of the State including the Dental Wing of the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack. It's case is that the counselling was held strictly as per the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court. The candidates from the general merit list were called to exercise their option in one of the medical colleges of the State including the Dental Wing of the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack. While counselling was in progress, 64 General category seats in S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack were filled up by general candidates ranking 87 position. The general merit rank came out to 87 because 14 candidates exercised their option to take admission in M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur under general category and 4 candidates exercised their option to take admission in General category in V. S. S. Medical College, Burla, 4 candidates were absent and one candidate's application was rejected on account of non-fulfilment of the requirements. None of the reserved seats in any of the three medical colleges was filled up by that time. Within the general merit rank 87, there were 9 candidates who had also ranks under the reserved (Green Card-holder category at rank Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (absent) and 9) corresponding to their General merit rank Nos. 6, 11, 27, 35, 39, 51, 59, 71 (absent) and 87 exercised their option to take admission under the General category and their admissions were treated under the said category. The counselling continued in order to fill up the remaining general seats in other two colleges, i. e. , M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur and v. V. S. S. Medical College, Burla and general seats in S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack in BDS stream and reserved seats in three medical colleges including the Dental wing. While counselling was in progress, the candidates from general merit rank Nos. 88 to 91 exercised their option to take admission in M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur under the general category as they belonged to it. Candidate appearing at general merit rank No. 92 corresponding to green card merit rank No. 10 did not exercise option for taking admission under general category in M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur or V. S. S. Medical College, Burla but insisted to take admission in S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack under green card category. Candidate appearing at general merit rank No. 92 corresponding to green card merit rank No. 10 did not exercise option for taking admission under general category in M. K. C. G. Medical College, Berhampur or V. S. S. Medical College, Burla but insisted to take admission in S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack under green card category. Being higher in rank in the merit list of reserved category for green card-holders and also higher in rank in general category, he was allowed to exercise his choice to take admission in S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack against the reserved seat of the aforesaid green card category. But his admission was computed as under the general (open) category in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul, AIR 1996 SC 1378 . ( 4 ) SHRI Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the protection under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution is available only to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and 11 candidates (9 Green card-holders plus two Ex-servicemen) who have been selected at the cost of the petitioner do not belong to any of the above categories protected under Article 15 (4 ). Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh (supra) is not applicable to the fact-situation and selection of these candidates is arbitrary and discriminatory. Shri Mohapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the selecting authority, on the other hand submitted that the procedure adopted by it in the matter of selection of candidates is as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah (supra) and a writ Court cannot devise any criterion for selection of candidates as that power or jurisdiction is solely with the selecting authority. ( 5 ) THE question that arose for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ritesh (supra) was whether a candidate belonging to reserved category can be selected for admission in the open competition on the basis of his own merit. After considering the earlier decisions, it has been held that "the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. After considering the earlier decisions, it has been held that "the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. The point which has now arisen for our consideration came up before this Court in Sayantan Patra v. State of Orissa, (2000) 1 Orissa LR 271. A Bench of this Court following the ratio of the Supreme Court in Ritesh granted necessary relief to the petitioner. ( 6 ) AT this stage, we may refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in Rajiv Mittal v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (1998) 2 SCC 402 cited at the Bar. In that case, out of 60 M. B. B. S. seats, 49 seats were to be filled up from the open category candidates and the remaining 11 seats were reserved for backward classes candidates. One Sunil Yadav on the basis of his merit secured position at serial No. 1 in the category of backward classes quota while in the general category, his merit position was at 62. In the first day of the counselling for 49 seats in the general category, he could not secure any seat because of his low merit position, but in the counselling held for reserved seats on a subsequent day, he got selected in view of his position at serial No. 1 in the reserved category. One candidate belonging to reserved category whose merit position was at serial No. 12, filed a writ petition contending that Sunil Yadav ought to have been adjusted against general category seat and had it been done, one seat in the reserved category would have fallen vacant which would have naturally come to him. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court. While setting aside the order of the High Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed that in Note 2 of the information brochure it was provided that a candidate who applies either for reserved category or for both reserved and open categories will be considered first in open category. In case he/she is not selected in open category, he/she will be considered for reserved category. It has been held by their Lordships that the High Court erred in construing the aforesaid Note 2. In case he/she is not selected in open category, he/she will be considered for reserved category. It has been held by their Lordships that the High Court erred in construing the aforesaid Note 2. The said Note will have application only when a reserved category candidate is in a position to secure, and secures admission to a seat in the general in the same counselling in which the seat is available to him in the reserved category. It is for this reason that the first counselling for the general category candidates was held on 9-9-1996 while the first counselling for the reserved category candidates was held on 10-9-1986. Had Sunil Yadav secured admission to any one of the 49 seats in the first counselling held on 9-9-1996, then he could not have been called or considered for admission against any of the 11 reserved seats in the counselling which was held for the Backward Class candidates. As Sunil Yadav's position in the open category was at serial No. 62 and the last candidate who had secured admission at the first counselling against the 49th seat was at serial No. 53, therefore, having failed to secure admission on 9-9-1996, Sunil Yadav was rightly allowed to take part on the second day of the first counselling for Backward Class candidates. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in K. Duraisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 1 Scale 345 , it has been held as follows (Para 8) :"that the Government possess the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled, too. . . . . . Reservations, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged under Article 15 (4) or 16 (4) and extended a special mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations. " 7. " 7. The mere use of the word 'reservation' per se does not have the consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the constitutional concept of a protective reservation, specially designed for the advancement of any specially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to enter and adequately represented in various fields. The meaning, content and purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used. Since reservation has diverse natures and may be brought about in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects, the peculiar principles of interpretation laid down by the Courts for implementing reservations envisaged under the Constitution in order to ensure adequate and effective representation to the backward classes as a whole cannot be readily applied, out of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of candidates, who were already in service to enable such inservice candidates to acquire higher and advanced education in specalised fields to improve their professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be treated in such Medical Institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve. That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simplicitor will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Fixation of quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as a mere reservation and whenever a quota is filed or provided for one or more of the classified group or category, the candidates falling in or answering the description of different classified groups in whose favour a respective quota is fixed have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each of such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IF one looks at the information brochure, it would be evident that the reservation of seats under the State category has not been made strictly in accordance with communal reservation as understood in Article 15 (4) or 16 (4 ). Clause 2. 3 deals with the reservation of seats. The said clause has further been divided indicating different classifications for reservation. Clause 2. 3. 1 lays down that 8 per cent and 12 per cent of seats is reserved respectively for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe by birth. Clause 2. 3. 2 provides reservation of 5 per cent of the total seats for children of green card-holders. Clause 2. 3. 3 provides for reservation of 2 seats for handicapped candidates in the medical colleges. Clause 2. 3. 4 provides for reservation of 2 seats for children/spouses of armed forces personnel/ex-servicemen etc. Clause 2. 3. 5 provides for reservation of 30 per cent of seats for woman candidates in all Government Engineering Colleges. Clause 2. 3. 6 lays down reservation of 12. 5 per cent of seats in B. Arch Courses (Engineering ). Reservation of seats as per clause 2. 3 of the information brochure has not been done in terms of clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. The word 'reservation' has apparently been used loosely to mean certain classified groups. Clause 2. 3. 6 lays down reservation of 12. 5 per cent of seats in B. Arch Courses (Engineering ). Reservation of seats as per clause 2. 3 of the information brochure has not been done in terms of clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. The word 'reservation' has apparently been used loosely to mean certain classified groups. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Mohanty that the impugned reservation for green card-holders and Ex-servicemen is hit by Article 15 (4) of the Constitution. ( 8 ) ON careful consideration of the submission of the counsel for parties and in view of the decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the principle adopted in the matter of selection cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Ch. P. K. BIARA, J. :- ( 9 ) I agree. Petition dismissed.