ORDER : G.B. Pattanaik, J. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. 2. In a public interest litigation the question that arose for consideration is whether the 15% reservation of seats in the medical colleges on the basis of the all-India entrance examination should also contain the provisions of reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. The High Court by a cryptic order without discussing the matter came to the conclusion that the reservation being a constitutional mandate, it would be for the Government to follow the same in future and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 3. Learned ASG appearing for the Union of India contended before us that the 15% seats on the basis of all-India entrance examination in respect of the medical colleges in the country, excepting the States of Andhra Pradesh and J&K, as has been indicated in Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) case, Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 , in pursuance of a specific direction of this Court. He further contended that this question as to whether the 15% of seats on the basis of all-India entrance examination should also follow the reservation has already been considered by this Court in Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, (2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662 and following the earlier judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 it has been categorically held that the provisions of reservation will have no application to the 15% quota meant for admission on the basis of all-India entrance examination. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended before us that in Preeti Mittal v. Gaganjot Kaur Saira, (1999) 3 SCC 700 in respect of admission to the Government Medical College of Chandigarh, this Court has considered the question of reservation and has applied the reservation even against 15% all-India pool, and therefore there is no error committed by the High Court in issuing the impugned direction. 5. 5. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the judgment of this Court in Preeti Mittal case, Preeti Mittal v. Gaganjot Kaur Saira, (1999) 3 SCC 700 and since that decision has not been noticed in Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, (2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662 we think it appropriate to notice the judgment of this Court in Preeti Mittal, v. Gaganjot Kaur Saira, (1999) 3 SCC 700 . A plain reading of the aforesaid judgment, though certain observations made therein in paras 25 and 26 may lead to an assumption that even there can be a reservation against seats meant for all-India pool, but on scrutiny we find that the question was neither directly in issue nor has been considered or answered. In R. Rajeshwaran case, Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, (2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662 however, the question directly came up for consideration and has been answered by this Court. That apart, in Preeti Mittal case, Preeti Mittal, v. Gaganjot Kaur Saira, (1999) 3 SCC 700 a particular clause of the proceedings, namely, Clause 3, was in fact under consideration. The observation, if any, while interpreting that clause, cannot be held to be a ratio in the matter to hold that even in respect of the seats meant to be filled up on the basis of all-India entrance examination, the provision of reservation should apply. 6. In our considered opinion, the question has been directly considered in the decision of this Court in R. Rajeshwaran, Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, (2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662 referred to supra, and it has been indicated as to how incongruous it would be, if the provisions of reservation be made applicable to the seats meant for being filled up on the basis of all-India entrance examination. Following the judgment of this Court in R. Rajeshwaran, Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, (2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662 as well as in Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 we hold that the High Court was wholly in error in observing that the requirement of reservation should also apply to the seats to be filled up on the basis of all-India entrance examination. 7. Dinesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 we hold that the High Court was wholly in error in observing that the requirement of reservation should also apply to the seats to be filled up on the basis of all-India entrance examination. 7. We, therefore, set aside the said observation/direction of the High Court. 8. This appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.