Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The issues brought in these two appeals are virtually a hang over on the division of Bihar into two States Bihar and Jharkhand. An Act of Parliament may have taken care of the modalities of dividing a State and other consequential issues which were to arrive. This is the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000. But, as experience shows every problem cannot be solved within the logic of administration and the law. 2. This matter is about admission to medical colleges as a consequence of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2002 for admissions to courses scheduled for 2002-2003. An advertisement was issued in February, 2002 (Annexure 1). This advertisement mentioned at item 5 that the brochure and application forms would be made available for sale with effect from 26 February, 2002. The last date of submitting the application forms was 6 March, 2002 (Annexure 2) This date was also mentioned at item no.8 of the advertisement. The examinations were to take place in two stages, the preliminary on 24 April, 2002 and the main examination on 9 June, 2002. These dates are mentioned in the application form. Subsequently, the main examination was shifted to 11 July, 2002. The result of the examination was published on 10 August, 2002 (Annexure 4). 3. The petitioners and similarly situate persons had qualified on merit in their category so as to be invited for counselling. The first set of counselling was held between 21 August, 2002 and 26 August,2002. These are facts and circumstances on which there is no issue. 4. As a consequence of this counselling the petitioners had succeeded, implying thereby that on the conclusion of counselling they were indicated the medical colleges which had been allocated to them and were required to deposit their fees. The allotment of the medical colleges as a result of their success in counselling was certified by the Controller of Examinations of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board on 24 August, 2002 (Annexure 5 series). The candidates Messrs Bijay Kumar Suman, Sikandar Tuddu, Marynila Handak and Kanchan Prabha received their allotments indicating the medical colleges/institutions allotted to them on 24 August, 2002 and two candidates Messrs Abhishek Kumar Singh and Helen Sunita Baski received such allotments on 25 August, 2002. The candidates Messrs Bijay Kumar Suman, Sikandar Tuddu, Marynila Handak and Kanchan Prabha received their allotments indicating the medical colleges/institutions allotted to them on 24 August, 2002 and two candidates Messrs Abhishek Kumar Singh and Helen Sunita Baski received such allotments on 25 August, 2002. It is accepted that similarly situate candidates had received similar allotment orders for medical colleges or institutions indicated in their allotment orders. These are facts and circumstances on which there is no issue. 5. Later on, whatever may be the reason the result of counselling was cancelled, a situation totally involuntary to the petitioners and candidates similar to them. The cancellation was announced by a public advertisement (Annexure 7). This advertisement is dated 2 October, 2002. The reason mentioned in this is "Aparihar Karno se". Clearly, it means that the earlier counselling was cancelled for certain reasons. It is explained to the Court that there was an error in not including all who could be taken into account but were not considered under the Regulation of Graduate Medical Education, 1997. It is explained that there were certain candidates who had not acquired proficiency in English but the Controller of examinations had committed an error in not including them. These circumstances had come to the notice of the High Court and the reliefs granted on the petitions were that they be considered for being included for counselling afresh. 6. One aspect is clear that, that candidates who did not possess proficiency in English and were eliminated initially and were to be considered subsequently, is a factor which had nothing to do with the petitioners and similarly situated petitioners. 7. Today, the petitioners are being indicated that they cannot be considered for the reason that the demographic content of the reservation of the class to which they belong stands changed from 10 percent to 1 percent. But the result of counselling was cancelled for the reason that the earlier counselling was in error because a factor has not been taken into account under the 1997 regulation and a fresh exercise for counselling was scheduled for other candidates who had been ignored. These were those candidates who were not proficient in English but were to be included. 8. Now, the petitioners were being told that they cannot be taken as there will be a fresh counselling for yet en independent reason, the change in the reservation ratio. 9. These were those candidates who were not proficient in English but were to be included. 8. Now, the petitioners were being told that they cannot be taken as there will be a fresh counselling for yet en independent reason, the change in the reservation ratio. 9. On 30 September, 2002 (Annexure-6) the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Tribes was reduced from 10 percent to 1 per cent. This notification was taken out as a consequence of an enactment known as The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2001. The amendment was made by Bihar Act No. 17 of 2002. The date of the notification is 27 August. 2002 (Annexure 8). 10. Whether it was the Act (the amending Act) which changed the percentage of reservation or the subsequent notification which was being made applicable to the present set of circumstances (the notification of 30 September, 2002), the matter will have to be seen objectively and dialectically. Fresh counselling was a situation which was involuntary to the petitioners. Reason there was an error in not taking into account certain candidates who did not have proficiency in English. Unsuiting the petitioners on the ground that the percentage of reservation ratio re. Scheduled Tribes may have altered after fresh counselling had been scheduled, is a doubtful factor which can be resorted to. 11. The admission form mentioned the percentage of reservation as 10 percent (the prospectus, Paragraph 14.5 Kha) The prospectus was available to candidates of 38 districts of Bihar and in addition to candidates outside Bihar. There is a special reference to Jharkhand apart from other places. This can be seen in Paragraph 18.13 of the prospectus. The prospectus contained a clause that if prior to the process of admission there is a change in the content of reservation then that would prevail. This is mentioned in Paragraph 14.5 Ga. The wordings are "Namankan Prakriya"(admission process). If the technicalities were to be looked into then in so far as the petitioners, and candidates like them, are concerned they had been intimated formally in the allotment orders of the admissions along with the institutions indicated and allocated to them. Technically the petitioners had crossed the stage of the admission process, the so called Namankan Prakriya. Any situation which happened subsequently, it is repeated, was invoiuntary to the petitioners. Technically the petitioners had crossed the stage of the admission process, the so called Namankan Prakriya. Any situation which happened subsequently, it is repeated, was invoiuntary to the petitioners. The fact that the candidates who did not meet proficiency in English had to be reconsidered for admission had nothing to do with the petitioners. The fact is that the government gazette announced the amendment to reservation ratio on 26 August, 2002. This cannot and should not affect candidates whose admission process was over with an allotment to the institutions admitted in their hand. The subsequent notification in any case is much later (30 September, 2002). 12. The issue plainly: are the petitioners to be unsuited? The prospectus invited them to apply. The petitioners had applied and went through the process of counselling as a prelude to being given admission, Thereafter, they were granted allotment of institutions indicated in the allotment order itself. There is nothing more the petitioners had to do. Even the contingency spelled out in the prospectus did not apply to them. The admission process was over before the notification of 30 September, 2002. 13. The Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 may have created two States, gave modalities,for resolving issues, but even beyond the law problems remain. The matters which embroil the two States are the division of cadres in the services, assets to be shared between the parent and the succeeding State, division of assets of public corporations between the two States. 14. The problems which the petitioners have been made to face have been created unnecessarily. The only aspect is that the petitioners do not have any power behind them to project their problems else where as there are no takers for them. Issues like the one faced by the medico students before this Court need not have arisen and are totally remedial. 15. If on the mid night of 15 November, 2000 the reservation category could foresee change then such stipulation may be taken as very harsh on any affirmative action which reservation is. By the logic of law on the date when an enactment created, the State of Jharkhand out of the parent State of Bihar, theoretically, the content of reservation as a specific figure was not known as the census of 2001 had yet to take place. By the logic of law on the date when an enactment created, the State of Jharkhand out of the parent State of Bihar, theoretically, the content of reservation as a specific figure was not known as the census of 2001 had yet to take place. The arithmetic of census on reservation was not known even when the prospectus of admissions was issued in February, 2002, nor at the time of receiving admission forms nor at the time of conclusion of counselling and the process of admission went through and was over. In case the Amending Act The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Act, 2002) or notification (30 September, 2002) announcing demographic change in the content of reservation, it would be applicable but not to those whose admissions were processed, finalised and over. 16. Besides, the Court has reservations whether the Act known as the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 or any amendment made to it, subsequently as the Bihar Act 17 of 2002 or any consequential notification (30 September, 2002) in its applicability will apply to students seeking admission to State institutions. In so far as the Act is concerned, it makes it very clear that it has been enacted "to provide for Bihar Representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in posts and services under the State". The students who have been admitted to institutions in context are not holding posts and services under the State. The Act mentions that appointment to services and posts in an establishment shall be filled by direct recruitment and be regulated in the manner prescribed. The expression "Establishment" in the definition clause when it refers to State Universities and Colleges, and like, is in the context of making appointments to posts and services. The scheme of the Act clearly reflects that it applies to posts and services, in effect, of the State. Any change which may take place in the ratio of reservation, the power to remove difficulties is contained in the Act, in Section 14. But, the subject of the Act is about the content of reservations of vacancies in posts and services. The amending Act, Bihar Act 17 of 2002 can not provide for more than the main enactment of 1991. But, the subject of the Act is about the content of reservations of vacancies in posts and services. The amending Act, Bihar Act 17 of 2002 can not provide for more than the main enactment of 1991. The notification of 30 September, 2002 can at best only be applicable to posts and services, in context, in State educational institutions. The notification cannot cater to a subject not taken up in the Act. Admissions to State educational institutions for academics is not subject of the Act. 17. In so far as the petitioners are concerned and others like them, it will not solve a problem of life but create one. For them admission granted to medical institutions is a matter of life and liberty. It can mar and break the petitioners and damage their careers when they had received admission bona fide and on merit. 18. Clearly, these problems have to be sorted out between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand in a statesman like manner between their administrators with an element of equity and justice. 19. If a reservation has been made then the promise of that affirmation by the State must be carried through. The petitioners cannot be told cryptically that whereas on a certain day they had a demographic advantage of a reservation of 10 percent the next day in this State it will stand at 1 percent and they will go else where. Where will the petitioners go? This question is in politics and running of the two governments and the two governments between them will need to resolve the problem. This is human problem and has to be resolved with a human approach. 20. In three matters the Supreme Court considered somewhat similar situations. These cases are in the matter of Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 711, Voice (Consumer Care) Council V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 740 and State of Tamil Nadu V/s. A. M. Vedachalam (2001)9 Supreme Court Cases 744. 21. The contention before the Court is that of the percentage which was reduced for the Scheduled Tribes category, becoming 1 percent from 10 percent, the advantage was given to other reserved classes. This is an aspect noticed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Voice (Consumer Care) Council (supra). 21. The contention before the Court is that of the percentage which was reduced for the Scheduled Tribes category, becoming 1 percent from 10 percent, the advantage was given to other reserved classes. This is an aspect noticed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Voice (Consumer Care) Council (supra). The Court here is not spelling out what ought to have been done as this will be going into the mechanics of the solution. In so far as the petitioners, and like candidates are concerned, they were delivered allotment orders with indicated institutions to which admissions had been assigned. With no irregularity attributed to them had happened which could act to their disadvantage even if the conditions of the prospectus were to be taken at its face value. The State respondents were guarding themselves against any eventuality as a measure of caution. But this cannot defeat the right and the legitimate expectation of the petitioners who had succeeded in counselling and received allotments to institutions. The admissions granted to them was valid, free from defect and had become their vested. 22. It is indicated to the Court by counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board that prior to bifurcation of the State and if the two States were taken together the medical institutions in Bihar are about twenty one (21) and in Jharkhand about four (4) in the context of which the pre admission examinations were taken. It is indicated that, in context, amongst those who applied and were selected their numbers are about sixty four (64). Counsel for the respondents states that the number of the medical institutions in Bihar and Jharkhand and the students affected, in context, may be taken to be as a class. It is explained that when the applications were invited it was understood that candidates from both States will apply and the reservation content was assumed and reckoned as it stood before bifurcation of the State of Bihar. The institutions to which admissions are to be made between the two States are about 25 medical institutions. The students teacher ratio on average may alter by 2.5 percent. 23. Regard being had to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the situation is totally remediable. The institutions to which admissions are to be made between the two States are about 25 medical institutions. The students teacher ratio on average may alter by 2.5 percent. 23. Regard being had to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the situation is totally remediable. All that this means is that to resolve the problem the Secretaries, Medical Education of the two governments, the two Controllers of examinations that is of Bihar and Jharkhand and the Medical Council of India need to sit down to resolve the issue not of the making of the petitioners. It is submitted by the respondents counsel that it is unlikely that within the State of Jharkhand their suggestion would be accepted. Let no situation be assumed or polarised today. Let the respondents keep an open mind. Worse come to worse if Bihar has to take care of the situation let it do so in a statesman like manner. The situation is not of the making of the students who had applied and at that time they did not know the content of percentage of reservation should it be altered. Leaving the students to the vagaries of unimaginative government notifications by announcing the shift in the ratio of reservation may be made prospective for the next academic year. Otherwise, the very purpose of reservation will be negated. But in so far as the present admission exercise is concerned, the uncertainty and the vagaries of politics should not embroil the petitioners and persons of their category. 24. The Court expects that the respondents will sit down and also consider the guidelines available from the three Supreme Court decisions in like situations for resolving this issue. For the next year academic the indication on reservation be made specific. The present is a midway case. The facts and circumstances do not and ought not to affect the petitioners and others in their category. If necessary, the admissions of others, those who were not proficient in English and yet should not have been eliminated could be spread out amongst all the institutions. The petitioners and others like them should not be affected by the allotment made to others, unless it is unavoidable, as their admissions were final and complete. 25. In so far as the decision challenged, is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in saying that in judicial decision making two views are possible. The petitioners and others like them should not be affected by the allotment made to others, unless it is unavoidable, as their admissions were final and complete. 25. In so far as the decision challenged, is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in saying that in judicial decision making two views are possible. In the strict logic of the law perhaps what the learned Judge has expressed in his order dated 16 September, 2002 may be one view. But the Court has taken a broader prospect to solve the problem. The sooner it is resolved the better it would be. Otherwise, this situation can get complicated if the candidates who had matured their right into an admission, alloted already, after due deliberations, regularly and validly, are put on the road. This should not happen. 26. Learned counsel for the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board Mr. P. K. Shahi and Mr. S. K.Ghose, Additional Advocate General for the State assured the Court that between today and second week of January, 2003 this issue will be resolved. 27. Consigned. 28. Let a copy of this order be delivered to counsel for the parties.