Judgment :- The petitioner has applied for admission to MDS Course for the year 2002-03 and she has been allotted a payment seat. In W.P.No.14101 of 2002, she has prayed for quashing clause 29 of the Prospectus and for a further direction to the respondents to deny admission to the candidates who have secured less than 50% marks. In W.P.No.15645 of 2002, she has prayed for quashing clause 62 of the prospectus reserving 50% of the seats for service candidates. In W.P.No.15646 of 2002, she has prayed for a direction to transfer the surplus service seats and to consider the application of the candidates belonging to non-service candidates against such seats. 2. The prospectus for the admission to M.D.S. Course for the year 2002-2003 was issued by the Directorate of Medical Education. One of the conditions in clause 29 of the prospectus is to the following effect :- “ Candidates securing less than 40% of aggregate marks shall not be called for Counselling.” 3. Clause 62 of the prospectus prescribes: “50% of the seats made available for Service Candidates under Service Quota shall be filled exclusively by Service Candidates.” 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2001(1) SCC 664 (STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DAYANAND MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND OTHERS), there cannot be any reservation in the Post Graduate level and the entire selection should be based on merits. It has been further contended that prescription of 40% marks as minimum qualifying marks is also contrary to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision and the policy decision of the Dental Council of India. Accordingly in the first two writ petitions the petitioner has prayed for quashing the clauses 29 and 62 of the Prospectus. In the other writ petition it has been contended that the respondents are trying to give admission to service candidates who have secured less than 40% marks in the qualifying examination and such seats should be filled up by the candidates belonging to non-service category on the basis of merits and no further relaxation should be permitted. 5. In the other writ petition it has been contended that the respondents are trying to give admission to service candidates who have secured less than 40% marks in the qualifying examination and such seats should be filled up by the candidates belonging to non-service category on the basis of merits and no further relaxation should be permitted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that there is no discrimination in providing 50% of seats for in service candidates and prescription of minimum qualification marks of 40% is justified and it has been submitted that the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable as no such guideline has been fixed by the Dental Council of India and the minimum qualifying marks fixed cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(1) SCC 664 relates to question of admission to Post Graduate Medical courses. Said decision is based on the Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India. The Regulation prescribed by the Medical Council of India is not ipso facto applicable to Dental Council of India or to the Dental Courses available in various colleges. The Dental Colleges are to be governed by the relevant Regulations issued from time to time by the Dental Council of India. It is no doubt true that the Dental Council of India has recommended certain guidelines to be adopted and one of the guidelines is to the effect that a candidate should secure minimum 50% marks in the examination. However, it is not disputed that such recommendation is yet to be accepted by the Central Government and as such it cannot be said that the recommendation has become final or a part of the Regulations. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the decision reported in 1999(7) SCC 120 (Dr. PREETI SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER)where the Supreme Court has held that relaxing marks to a reasonable extent in favour of reserved category candidate is permissable, but it should not be done arbitrarily. In another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. 694 (PRE-PG MEDICAL SANGHARSH COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. BAJRANG SONI AND OTHERS) it was held that fixing minimum qualifying marks to 33% for in service candidates by the State Government was not arbitrary. 8. In another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. 694 (PRE-PG MEDICAL SANGHARSH COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. BAJRANG SONI AND OTHERS) it was held that fixing minimum qualifying marks to 33% for in service candidates by the State Government was not arbitrary. 8. In the absence of any provision in Regulations of Dental Council of India, it cannot be said that the State Government has acted arbitrarily by fixing 40% marks as qualifying marks instead of 50% marks as indicated in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. 664 . The subsequent decision reported in 2001(8) S.C.C.694 also makes it clear that by confining 50% of the seats to in service candidates, it cannot be said that any arbitrary discrimination is being affected and since in service candidates are also to be encouraged for post graduate studies, the method adopted cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In such view of the matter, the contention raised in W.P.Nos.14101 and 15645 of 2002 cannot be accepted and those writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. The prayer made in W.P.No.15646 of 2002 is to the effect that no further relaxation should be made and if sufficient in service candidates securing 40% marks are not available, such seats should be allowed to be filled up by the candidates belonging to other categories. In this connection it has to be noticed that while considering the question of selection to non-service category, the students belonging to service categories have also been considered on merits and given admission on the basis of higher marks. In other words, the service candidates have been considered for selection against non-service seats on the basis of merits along with non-service candidates. The intention of the Government is to fulfil 50% of service candidates by following the aforesaid method. Even though the Dental Council of India has not prescribed any minimum qualifying marks, it has to be kept in view that a minimum standard is to be maintained in the interest of the Society. In the prospectus, the Government has fixed 40% as minimum qualifying marks. To consider the candidates who are not eligible according to such prospectus may smack of the arbitrariness based on individual consideration. In the prospectus, the Government has fixed 40% as minimum qualifying marks. To consider the candidates who are not eligible according to such prospectus may smack of the arbitrariness based on individual consideration. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the Government should consider, within a period of six weeks, the question of filling up the vacant seats from non-service candidates on the basis of merits, provided those candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the W.P.No.15646 of 2002 is disposed of. 10. In the result, W.P.Nos.14101 and 15645 of 2002 are dismissed and W.P.No.15646 of 2002 is disposed of subject to observations. There is no order as to costs in all the writ petitions. Consequently, the WPMP.Nos.19024 & 20931 of 2002 are closed.