JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners in these two present writ petitions were candidates seeking admission in B.Ed./Siksha Shastri course. They appeared In a test conducted for assessing their suitability. The test known as PT.E.T. test is conducted by the respondent Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur. The petitioners filled in the form and they were permitted to appear in the examination. In the final result declared after the examination so conducted, it was made out that the petitioners have been held by the respondent University to be not entitled to be admitted in the said course. The reason for not admitting the petitioners was this that successful candidates have been divided Into two categories; one who had the qualification of Shiksha Shastri and others who were not having qualification of Shiksha Shastri but were ordinary graduates with Sanskrit as one subject. The ratio fixed by the respondents was 70:30. Those who had the qualification of Shiksha Shastri were allocated 70% of the seats and those who had academic degrees were allocated 30% of the seats. 2. The case of the petitioners is that this has resulted into admission of less meritorious candidates. There is no reason as to why the students having the degree of Shiksha Shastri be afforded higher percentage than those who were having degree of Bachelor of Arts with Sanskrit as one of the subject. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the scheme by virtue of which separate streams have been provided for classification in the ratio of 70:30 be declared as to be irrational and unjust. 3. The respondents were issued notice. They have put in appearance. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for reservation instructions have been provided under a notification issued by the State Government dated 22.9.2000. In view thereof, the admissions were regulated. The admissions were accorded to the students In the ratio of 70:30. 4. During the course of hearing, the petitioners applied for amendment of the writ petition. 5. In the high level meeting held on 23.8.2001, the implication of the providence of reservation in the ratio of 70:30 was considered and in this meeting, such earlier providence was considered to be un-reasonable and, therefore, order was withdrawn. 4. During the course of hearing, the petitioners applied for amendment of the writ petition. 5. In the high level meeting held on 23.8.2001, the implication of the providence of reservation in the ratio of 70:30 was considered and in this meeting, such earlier providence was considered to be un-reasonable and, therefore, order was withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such provided reservation have been withdrawn only In the month of August governing the admissions but the respondents have submitted that order of withdrawing the effect of reservation provided by the Circular dated 22.9.2000 was undone by the State Government by a notification Issued on 13.9.2001 and, therefore,e the reservation as provided by the earlier Circular dated 22.9.2000 came into effect again. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at the time when the advertisement for admission was issued, the notification dated 22.8.2000 was one in currency and, therefore, any subsequent withdrawal of this notification On 139.2001 cannot govern the admissions pursuant to PT.E.T. examination falling In 2001-2002. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was relied on a series of cases. 7. On the point of fixing of qualification beyond the advertisement, the learned counsel has cited the following decisions: (i) Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of J & K & Ors., reported in AIR 1983 SC 1199 (ii) 1997 SCC (L&S) 913. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Chandrashekhar & Anr. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following decisions on the point that executive orders can be made only prospectively and not retrospectively: (1) 1987 (5) SLR 428, Gopi Krishna v. State of Rajasthan (ii) 1992 (2) SLR 383, Shanker Lal Verma & Ors. v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board . (iii) 2002 (1) WLC 337, Surender Kumar & Ors, v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (iv) (1990) 1 SCC 411 , P. Mahendran & Ors v. State of Kamataka & Ors. (v) AIR 2000 Orissa 85, Dr. Anurag Mishra & ors. v. State of.Orissa & Ors. 9. Learned counsel has also cited following decisions on the point where reservation was held to be irrational: (i) AIR 1980 SC 1975 , Miss Nishi Maghu etc. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (ii) AIR 1981 SC 1009 , Miss Arti Sapru etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (iii) AIR 1984 SC 1534 , Suneel Jatley etc. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (ii) AIR 1981 SC 1009 , Miss Arti Sapru etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (iii) AIR 1984 SC 1534 , Suneel Jatley etc. v. State of Haryana etc. Further, the learned counsel cited following judgments pertaining percentage of reservation: (i) AIR 1987 J & K 30, Rias Ahmad Shah v. State of J&K (ii) 1991 (1) WLC 67, Dr. Vineet Singh & ors. v. State of Raj. 10. The purport of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the extent that administrative and executive orders cannot have retrospective operation. They have to be necessarily prospective. The order dated 13.9.2001 having claimed to have not been circulated and published. The circular dated 24.8.2001 is claimed by the petitioners to be holding the field. Learned counsel for the respondents states that prior to the last date of filling of the forms, the ratio of reservation had been provided. In the writ petition originally filed, the petitioners have not based their cases on notification dated 24.8.2001 and it has been claimed by the counsel for the respondents that it cannot be said that the petitioners had known and believed that their case was to be governed by the notification dated 24.8.2001 and not by the subsequent notification nullifying the aforesaid notification dated 13.9.2001. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the petitioners have illegally assumed that their case will be governed by the notification dated 24.8.2001 is only an afterthought. In the writ petition, originally framed, this was not their stand. Only subsequently, an amendment was sought to Incorporate this argument. 12. By the contentions taken in the original writ petition, it is clear that they had no idea of any decision being taken by the respondents dated 24.8.2001. It is in view of the subsequent developments that these notifications have come to the knowledge of the petitioners and they have sought to rely on them. In view thereof, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the intended amendment issued on 24.8.2001 and the effect of the same being annulled on 13.9.2001. It has been placed on record that the process of admission has been closed after filling the entire seats available with the respondents. In view thereof, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the intended amendment issued on 24.8.2001 and the effect of the same being annulled on 13.9.2001. It has been placed on record that the process of admission has been closed after filling the entire seats available with the respondents. It has been contended that if the petitioners had any grievance regarding fixed ratio of percentage of seats available, then they should have challenged the same before taking examination. 13. The ratio enforced by the respondents was not a new configuration. It was the same which was in currency. Last year, admissions were regulated by the notification dated 22.9.2000. It cannot be agitated by the petitioners that they have no knowledge of providence of reservation. The reservation is on the basis of a policy laid down by the State Government. Thus, no bias can be seen Into it. This policy has been universally applied by the respondents. The petitioners having taken examination will be presumed to have known the policy, which will govern their case and therefore, they are refrained from challenging the same. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners cannot challenge the policy after having participated in the examination and it has also been stated that once there is a policy invoked, it would not be appropriate to substitute the same. 15. I have considered the rival submissions and given my thoughtful consideration. The case as originally framed by the petitioners has not been based on the fact of decision taken in the meeting dated 23.8.2001. Thus, at the time when the petition had filed, he had no knowledge of the proceedings taken in the meeting dated 23.8.2001 and subsequent notification dated 24.8.2001. The said notification had been withdrawn before the last date of filling of the forms. Thus, the process of filling up the forms ended on the day when the notification dated 22.9.2000 was in force. This was the notification which provided for 70:30 percent reservation. This reservation has been enforced. This should be presumed to have been known to the students taking examinations for that year because that was the ratio enforced by the State Government in the earlier examination. The petitioners have not chosen to impugn the said fixation of rations by way of any writ petition prior to the enforcement of same. This reservation has been enforced. This should be presumed to have been known to the students taking examinations for that year because that was the ratio enforced by the State Government in the earlier examination. The petitioners have not chosen to impugn the said fixation of rations by way of any writ petition prior to the enforcement of same. It was on and around finalisation of process of admission that the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners were not even conscious at the time when they took up examination, that they can challenge the policy which has been enforced last year. 16. In admission matters, where currency of the course is for one year, if the litigants are permitted to impugn the same in the manner in which the petitioners have done i.e. almost after the conclusion of the admission process, then it is likely to disturb the whole regulation of the admission to the courses. Therefore, on this count, it is considered not appropriate to permit the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition. Further, it is under a policy that the State Government has regulated the admission in the ratio of 70:30. The courses in which the petitioners are seeking admission is provided to teach such classes which are related to predominantly Shiksha Shastri background. If higher percentage has been allocated to the students with Shiksha Shastri background, then it cannot be said that the classification is unreasonable. The policy so fixed by the State Government has been universally applied and in view thereof, it cannot be said that any discrimination has been perpetuated by the State Government. 17. The case law relied by the petitioners has no application in the background of the aforesaid discussion. 18. The petitions, therefore are held to be meritless, hence dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******