S. N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 30577 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under Rule 14 (3) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 (' rules' for short), on the ground that he has studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Sullia and Alike Villages. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 30478 and 27308 of 2002 are claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that they have studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Mudhol. The petitioner in W. P. No. 28174 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he had studied 1st standard at Humnabad and from 2nd standard to 10th standard at Maniknagar. The petitioner in W. P. No. 32520 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he has studied 1st standard to 4th standard at Koppa and 5th standard to 10th standard at Sringeri. The petitioner in W. P. No. 26816 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he has studied 1st standard to 5th standard at Yenigadala village. As such, all these petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to reservation under the said category. ( 2 ) THE grievance of all these petitioners is that in pursuance of the government Order dated 29-7-1994 students who studied in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000 from 1st to 10th qualifying examination, are entitled to reservation under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules. The said Government Order was in force on the day when all these petitioners completed their SSLC examinations. Therefore, a right has vested in them to claim reservation under these rules while considering their applications for entering into professional courses. However, the Government by its order dated 1-2-2002 has amended the said rules. ( 3 ) IF the aforesaid amended rule is made applicable to the petitioners, they would be ineligible for the said reservations. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners have challenged the validity of this amendment, whereas, others have claimed the benefit under the Government Order prior to this amendment. ( 4 ) THE second respondent-Common Entrance Test Cell has filed a detailed counter. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners have challenged the validity of this amendment, whereas, others have claimed the benefit under the Government Order prior to this amendment. ( 4 ) THE second respondent-Common Entrance Test Cell has filed a detailed counter. They contend that the notification issued is applicable to the ongoing seat selections, the said notification is not arbitrary or discriminatory. The amendment is issued by the Competent Authority based on the relevant census, data, etc. , collected, which is a policy decision of the Government. In view of the amendment declaring the smaller urban areas, the rural category has been separated, for whom the reservation benefits as per the State policy has been prescribed and hence the selection rules have also been amended to be in conformity with the other laws applicable. As the petitioners do not satisfy the requirements of law, they are not entitled to the seats in the reserved category. Therefore, they contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsels for the petitioners contend by the petitioners completing first to tenth standard in rural areas where the population was less than 50,000 a vested right accrued to them to claim reservation of seats under the free seats under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules and such a right cannot be taken away by amendment by the Government. Therefore, they contend the Government Order and the consequent amendment can only be prospective and not retrospective and it cannot apply to the petitioners. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted the right of the petitioners to claim reservation flows from Rule 14 of the rules which clearly provides for the State Government to specify from time to time the criteria for eligibility to the reservation. Initially the government had prescribed 20,000 as the population of the place where the candidates used to study. Subsequently, it was increased to 50,000. After seeing how this policy has worked and as the said benefit was not reaching those students who really studied in rural areas they have amended these rules with the sole object of seeing that the very purpose of reservation is fulfilled by giving the said benefit to the students studying in rural areas. Subsequently, it was increased to 50,000. After seeing how this policy has worked and as the said benefit was not reaching those students who really studied in rural areas they have amended these rules with the sole object of seeing that the very purpose of reservation is fulfilled by giving the said benefit to the students studying in rural areas. Therefore, the said Government Order based on public policy is not arbitrary and therefore it cannot be set aside. ( 7 ) RULE 14 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997, deals with reservation of seats under 'free seats'. Sub-rule (3) reads as under. " (3) Seats shall be reserved in favour of candidates who have studied for not less than ten full academic years between the first standard and the qualifying examination in educational institutions situated in places in Karnataka having a population below "fifty thousand" (According to vide Notification No. ED 189 TGL 94, Bangalore, dated 29-7-1994) as per 1991 Census". The aforesaid rule was amended by Government Order dated 15-7-2002 as under. "seat shall be reserved in favour of candidates who have studied from 1st standard to 10th standard in an educational institution or a school situated in any area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area as specified under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, as the case may be. The candidates claiming reservation under this sub-rule shall produce a certificate as specified in G. O. No. DPAR/8/senini/2001, dated 13-2-2001 as amended from time to time". It is now contended that the rule prior to amendment created a vested right in favour of the petitioners for reservation of a free seat in their favour which is now taken away by the amended rule. Therefore, they contend the amended rules could only be prospective and it cannot apply to all those persons who have studied from first standard to tenth standard in rural areas. Therefore, they contend that the denial of a seat to the petitioners on the basis of the amended rule is arbitrary, discriminatory, as such the same is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IT is necessary to know the background under which this reservation to rural students has been made. Therefore, they contend that the denial of a seat to the petitioners on the basis of the amended rule is arbitrary, discriminatory, as such the same is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IT is necessary to know the background under which this reservation to rural students has been made. In fact a similar rule prior to amendment was there in the Karnataka Reservation or Appointment of posts (in the Civil Services of the State) for Rural Candidates Act, 2000. The said provision was questioned in the High Court of Karnataka and a learned Single Judge of this Court declared the said rule providing for weightage of marks to rural Candidates as void and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appeal by the State to the division Bench was dismissed and the special leave petition preferred by the Government to the Supreme Court also came to be dismissed. The division Bench while upholding the order of the learned Single Judge held that. "the State has not placed any material on record to show that they have made any comparative study regarding the schools in the rural areas, their standard of education, teaching methods, etc. It is well-known fact that even in urban areas the education standard of children of hut dwellers and other economically and socially backward classes is not of same standard of rural areas". Thereafter, after the aforesaid provision was struck down the Government constituted a Commission of Inquiry to examine various aspects relating to rural candidates. The said Commission has given its report in which it has observed that both from the point of view of available schooling facilities as well as infrastructural facilities in the schools it is evident that children in rural areas suffer from a serious handicap as compared to the children in urban schools and further it recommended to have a legislation to provide for further reservation of 5% over and above the reservation already provided to the persons belonging to the scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes to the extent of 50%. As the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v union of India and Others, has held that the reservation under Article 16 (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts barring certain extraordinary situations explained therein, the Government after a careful consideration of the above matter has taken a policy decision that there shall be provided horizontal reservation for the rural candidates as defined in the Act to the extent of 10% of the vacancies in all direct recruitments in each of the categories of the General Merit, Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and each of the categories of other Backward classes. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, even in respect of the admission to professional courses, rules were amended deleting the criteria of population below 50,000 and introducing the present criteria. The sole object behind this policy decision is the standard of education available in a place with 50,000 population is in no way inferior to the education facilities in the urban areas. But, same is not the position in respect of institutions which are set up in remote corners of the State and in villages. The students who are studying in such schools suffer from various handicaps. It may be want of proper facilities in the schools, want of proper infrastructure, want of trained teachers, etc. , and therefore they are at a disadvantage when compared to students who are studying in areas where the population is 50,000 or in urban areas. These reservations are meant only to those under-privileged students who are deprived of facilities which has been a major factor in not securing good marks in the examination though they are second to none insofar as intelligence and hard work is concerned, accordingly, reservation policy has been modi- fied. It is pertinent to note at the beginning this reservation policy was extended to schools situated in urban areas having population of 20,000 as per 1981 census and subsequently it was increased to areas or towns with a population of 50,000 as per 1991 census and now it is extended to the schools situated in an area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area as specified under the provisions of, the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964. Therefore, the whole object of this reservation is, this benefit of reservation should reach the proper or rightful or deserving persons to whom it is actually meant. When the Government after carefully examining the working of this reservation policy over the years, having regard to the statistics which was before them, if they in their wisdom thought this reservation should be extended to those schools which fall within the amended rules it cannot be found fault with on the ground of arbitrariness or on the ground of discrimination. The Government is the best judge in this regard. As long as their judgments is based on material collected, statistics available and when the object sought to be achieved by the proposed amendment would serve the public interest, in particular that section of the people who are underprivileged, who are deprived of basic facilities, the same cannot be found fault by this Court. ( 10 ) INSOFAR as the argument that a vested right accrued to the petitioners under the earlier Government Order when they completed tenth standard examination is concerned, the so-called vested right which they are claiming is under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules. These rules come into operation only when a candidate makes an application for a seat in professional colleges. Therefore, a right accrues to the candidate when such an application is made. Admittedly, on the day the petitioners made an application for a seat in the professional colleges this rule had come into operation. As is clear from the amended provisions of Rule 14 (3) only those candidates who satisfy the criteria prescribed under the government Order referred to therein are eligible for this reservation. If the petitioners want to claim the benefit of reservation under Rule 14 (3) they must satisfy the criteria prescribed under Rule 14 (3) and the Government order. The right to the said reservation did not accrue to these petitioners the moment they completed their studies from first to tenth standard in a rural area. In fact when they were studying this reservation policy was not in force at all. They did not study in rural area keeping in mind any such benefit. It is for the first time the Government with the intention of extending these benefits prescribed the said criteria. In fact when they were studying this reservation policy was not in force at all. They did not study in rural area keeping in mind any such benefit. It is for the first time the Government with the intention of extending these benefits prescribed the said criteria. Therefore, a person is said to have acquired a right for the aforesaid benefit when he made the application for allotment of a seat in the professional course. That would be the crucial date in deciding whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit or not. Seen from that angle on the day the petitioners made an application for a seat in the professional course the earlier rule was not in force, amended rule has come into force and therefore their right if at all is only under the amended rule. If that criteria is not fulfilled they are not eligible for the benefit available under the amended rules. Therefore, the contention that a vested right had accrued to them under the earlier Government Order and the same cannot be taken away by a subsequent Government Order has no substance. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner in W. P. No. 30577 of 2002 contended though the certificate issued and produced by him to claim this benefit stated that the petitioner has studied from first standard to seventh standard in Sullia Taluk, the said certificate do not reflect correct state of affairs. According to the petitioner he studied from first standard to seventh standard in a school situated at Mithadka Village of Sullia taluk and as the registered office of the said school is at Sullia Taluk while giving the certificate it is mentioned as Sullia. The rules and the government Order provide the format in which this rural study certificate has to be issued and the persons who are authorised to issue certificates. Once such a certificate is produced to claim the said benefit it is not open to them to contend before this Court that the said certificate do not reflect the correct state of affairs. At any rate this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate. If that certificate which is produced is taken note of petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. At any rate this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the said certificate. If that certificate which is produced is taken note of petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities and point out to them the mistake they have committed in issuing the said certificate and also request them to issue a certificate showing where exactly the school where he studied is situated and if such a certificate is given by the Competent Authority, it is still open to the petitioner to produce the same before the CET and claim reservation if he is entitled to in law. The dismissal of this writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioner producing a corrected rural study certificate or to the respondents taking note of the said certificate and give him the reservation if he is entitled to in law against the available seat. ( 13 ) INSOFAR as W. P. No. 32520 of 2002 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits though the petitioner is not entitled to reservation under rural quota as the petitioner has studied from first to tenth standard in kannada medium, as 5% of the seats are reserved in favour of candidates who have studied ten full academic years in kannada medium from first to tenth standard in educational institutions located in Karnataka as per the Government "notification dated 27-6-2001 his case is to be considered under the said category. If the petitioner is able to demonstrate by acceptable evidence that he is entitled to the said reservation under Rule 14-A, the authorities are bound to consider the said request notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to reservation under rural quota. Parties to bear their own costs. ( 14 ) BEFORE parting with this case I would like to impress upon the respondents the necessity of educating the authorities who are authorised to issue the certificates under Rule 14 (3) so that the certificates are issued by them keeping in mind the amended provisions so that the question of approaching this Court on the basis of the incorrect certificates would be considerably reduced. --- *** ---