Honble PRASAD, J.–The facts and controversy involved in this bunch of petitions is common and therefore, for the sake of arguments, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4694/2003 `Jafer Ahmed vs. J.N.V. University, are taken into consideration. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the tests for Rajasthan Pre Medical and Rajasthan Pre Veterinary, examinations were conceived, for the guidance of the student, an information booklet was published. It has been produced with the petition annexure 1. This booklet was published having information about the modalities of admission process. In this booklet at page 17 mode of admission has been delineated which reads as under: The merit list of the successful and eligible candidate of RPMT/PVT-2003 shall be prepared category-wise. These successful and eligible candidates will be admitted in order of merit in General as well as reserved category up to the seats available in that category except the seats belonging to Category (a) of Rule 2 mentioned above. If the merit of any reserved category remains unexhausted after completing the reservation quota of each category under reservation then the remaining candidates from the list of that category shall be eligible for consideration for admission only on merit basis against the general category if they are eligible to compete with the candidates of General category. Candidates securing equal numbers of marks in the RPMT/PVT- 2003 will be admitted in the following order of preference. i) One who has secured more marks in Science Biology group subject (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) at the Senior Secondary (10+2) Examination or its equivalent recognized examination. ii) Among the candidates securing equal number of marks in the Science Biology group subjects at the Senior secondary (10+2) Examination or its equivalent recognized examination preference in order will be given to the candidate who has passed this qualifying examination in lesser number of attempts. iii) If there is further tie, preference in order will be given to the candidate who has secured more marks in Secondary School Examination or its equivalent recognized examination. iv) Admission of candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the University/Board of the State other than Rajasthan will be provisional till the Eligibility Certificate is issued by the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner after fulfilling the necessary requirement by the candidate". (3). iv) Admission of candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the University/Board of the State other than Rajasthan will be provisional till the Eligibility Certificate is issued by the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner after fulfilling the necessary requirement by the candidate". (3). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the mode of admission there was a sufficient exposition of the intention of the State Govt. The kind of treatment the State Govt. has intended to give to the students, has been held out clearly. Those who were desirous to take examination for the RPMT and RPMT Examinations for the year 2003 this document contained detailed instructions. The examinations were completed, the answer sheets were evaluated. In the form of Annexure/3 RPMT merit list for admission in the year 2003 was published. This list was published after retotaling and rechecking. (4). The petitioner Jaffar Ahmeds name appeared in the column third being roll number 13847 at page 1 of the merit list. If serialised number of petitioner comes at serial Number 213 in merit list. The programme was scheduled for holding the counselling. The programme is delineated in annexure/4 published by the office of the respondent No. 2 on 12.8.03 and the same has been produced with the writ petition as annexure/3. (5). The counselling was to commence from 21.8.03. The counselling was to be made in order of merit as per the marks secured by the candidates. Those who secured 834 marks to 782 marks in the general boys category, were to make themselves available for counselling on 21.8.03 for PMT. The marks secured by the other students have been delineated in annexure/4 in order of merit they were to make themselves available. These are the marks which have been made the basis for preparing annexure/3 merit list. (6). The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the night intervening 20.8.03 and 21.8.03 the mode of admission which was earlier given out in the information booklet produced in the writ petition as annexure/1 was given goodbye. When the counselling started on 21.8.03 in the morning a fresh mode of admission was enforced. A notice issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 and published in the newspaper and produced with the writ petition is annexure/6. When the counselling started on 21.8.03 in the morning a fresh mode of admission was enforced. A notice issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 and published in the newspaper and produced with the writ petition is annexure/6. This corrigendum is dated 22.8.03 and the counselling which was originally scheduled to begun on 21.8.03 was rescheduled vide annexure/6. The respondent No. 2 extended the last date of counselling which was earlier fixed vide annexure/4 as 26.8.03 to 31.8.03. (7). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, change which has been brought about in the mode of admission is delineated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition which reads as under: "That it is pertinent to note here that the counselling has been started w.e.f. 21.8.03 and on that date the candidates of General Boys Category were called for their counselling in order of merit and simultaneously, the OBC Boys as well as ST Boys were also called for their counseling. But at the time of counselling the candidates belonging to reserve category, who competed with the general category, were included in General Boys Category, resulting which the merit list was changed and the candidate like petitioner who was earlier placed in merit at S.No. 213 has now been placed much below in the merit list of the general boys category". (8). The change brought out by the State Govt. is given out with the reply vide letter of the State Govt. dated 16.8.03. In this letter a reference has been made to a D.B. decision of this court. It says that marks of the students of reserved category, falling in the merit of general category, cannot be treated as against the reserved category. Meaning thereby that he would be treated as a general category candidate and such candidates shall not be counted for reserved category. (9). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the proposition of law as contained in the D.B. decision. He has referred to the decision R/2 which is basis of issuing annexure R/3. Annexure R/2 is a decision of the Division Bench of this court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it lays down that the admissions which have been made in the year 99 cannot be disturbed in the year 02. He has referred to the decision R/2 which is basis of issuing annexure R/3. Annexure R/2 is a decision of the Division Bench of this court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it lays down that the admissions which have been made in the year 99 cannot be disturbed in the year 02. However, agreeing with the submission of the learned counsel, the court was of the opinion that the orders which were passed in the year 99 cannot be sustained. The court has further observed that the authorities were required to follow the law as has been laid down by the Honble Apex Court. Candidates of reserved category cannot be considered against the reserved seats only in case they fall in merit in general list. The ratio of the case has been ordered to apply prospectively. (10). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the process having been started, the law could not be applied retrospectively. If this judgment was to be applied for a process which has already been started, it would mean that the judgment is being referred to undo what has been done. It was not directed by the court by judgment annexure R/2. (11). If the State Govt. changes the mode of admission in middle of a process, this frustrates the principles of legitimate expectations, which have been gained by the students who had figured in the merit list. The judgment in question was delivered on 17.10.02 and if the State Govt. was to apply the same then it should have done so before issuing the information booklet which was published and circulated after the decision had come into being. Consciously, the State Govt. had formulated a mode of admission, the policy decision was keeping in view the intentions of the State Govt. May be the State Govt. wanted a different kind of policy. There being no statutory provision for making reservation in the State of Rajasthan for admission, a notification was issued in the form of information booklet which assumes the character of law under Article 15 of the Constitution, which provides for reservation in educational institution. (12). That being the position, the notification having been issued, the policy having been delineated in the information booklet, the State Govt. had bound itself to follow the particular mode. (12). That being the position, the notification having been issued, the policy having been delineated in the information booklet, the State Govt. had bound itself to follow the particular mode. Having done so if a principle laid down by this Court in the month of October, 2003 in enforced against an assurance given to the students who were seeking admission in the medical colleges in terms of the information booklet, then the State is estopped from doing it. The State Govt. is playing with the sentiments of the students and is causing frustration to the younger generation. (13). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that according to paragraph 2 Clause (3) of the Mode of Admission of Information Booklet, it has been provided that the reserved category candidates have to be first considered in their category and after exhausting that category seats, if still meritorious students are available, then they will compete with the general category candidates. But by the impugned order, they have been first made to compete with meritorious students and when they have been admitted in the meritorious general quota, than the remainder have been considered for the reserved category list. To understand the law on the reservation, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the case decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others (1). He has placed reliance on paragraph 16 which reads as under:- ``16. In Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 at 705 : (1995 AIR SCW 4309), it has been held that while determining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation shall not be counted as reserved category candidates.) (14). The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the students of the reserved category has applied for admission against the reserved category. They have not sought to compete with the general category candidates and thus having opted for a particular line, they cannot turn around and say that since they have secured more marks, they should be considered against the general category because they can now after having obtained higher number of marks, can compete with students of general category also. They have not sought to compete with the general category candidates and thus having opted for a particular line, they cannot turn around and say that since they have secured more marks, they should be considered against the general category because they can now after having obtained higher number of marks, can compete with students of general category also. Therefore clubbing of a particular category also. Therefore clubbing of a particular category with general category candidate is unfair and irrational. These students had at the inception opted for taking the benefit of rule of reservation, they cannot thereafter revert back and relegated wherein they can claim benefit of non-reservation category because they have a birth-mark of category of reservation category. In their forms, they have applied for reserved category. The advantage of reservation has been opted by such students. Having applied for reserved category, in the fees to be paid and in respect of minimum qualification for being eligible to appear in the examination in question. The extent of relaxation enjoyed by such students is to the tune that they have even had minimum qualifying marks for passing in a particular subject. Therefore, after enjoying so much relaxation, now it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government to say that the persons applying for reserved category would first compete with the general category candidates and thereafter they are required to be adjusted in the reserved category. (15). Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies on para no. 12 and ground (c) of the writ petition which read as under :- ``12. That the another effect of including the candidates of reserve categories, though they have applied in their respective categories, into the general category is that the remaining candidates of the reserve category having lesser marks, have been placed in the merit list in their respective categories by way of maintaining the prescribed percentage of seats in their reservation, resulting which the adequate representations of the candidates of the reserve category shall be increased more than their prescribed percentage of seats on the cost of general girls category, which is highly undesirable and impermissible in the eye of law. C. Because once candidates belonging to the reserve category have applied in their respective categories by owing the Rules of Reservation, now they are estopped by their own conduct by way of promissory and got estopped to change the category. But by not doing so and got benefited to general category, the action of the respondents is quite illegal, unjustified, unconstitutional and against the principle of promissory estoppel. (16). The State Government in its reply has said as under :- ``12. That apart from the above, in the case of Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (SCC (1995) 6 SCC 684 ) has held that while determining the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the candidates belonging to reserved category but selected/promoted on the rule of merit (and not by virtue of rule of reservation) shall not be counted as reserved category candidates. (17). Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the information booklet in clause 10, it has been provided that : ``Each candidate must clearly mention the category of reservation desired by him/her. A candidate should mention only one category. Category shall be marked by this office on the admission card of the candidate. The candidate should check this category carefully and should write to this office for correction, if it is wrong, immediately after receiving the admission card. No correction fee shall be charged for it. (18). It has further been submitted that in clause 11 the change category has been provided which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not available after declaration of result thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the change in category which has been prayed for by the students falling in the reserved category are prohibited after declaration of result which is obtaining in the instant case as had already been declined vide annexure R/3 and it is subsequent thereto that it has been claimed by the State that the reserved category of the students should be changed to general category. (19). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the rules it has been provided that reservation shall be made according to the rules. In Rule 2. (19). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the rules it has been provided that reservation shall be made according to the rules. In Rule 2. 1B the percentage of certain category has been prescribed: ``B. Seats to be filled up on Rajasthan Basis: After deducting the number of seats mentioned in Clause (A), there will be the following reservations: i) 16 per cent seats are reserved for natural born (not adopted) candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes as notified in the Presidential Order for the State of Rajasthan. ii) 12 per cent seats are reserved for natural born (not adopted) candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes as notified in the Presidential Order for the State of Rajasthan Out of these ST seats, 45% seats are reserved for ST candidates belonging to tribal areas, this reservation, the candidate must submit his ST certificate as well as bonafide resident certificate in support of the fact that he/she belongs to a tribal area. iii) 21 Per cent seats are reserved for natural born (not adopted) candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) as notified by the Presidential Order for the State of Rajasthan. (20). The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State has deemed it proper that adequate representation of the classes which are required to be brought up by providing reservation will be what is delineated in this paragraph. Over and above, this percentage the State could not enhance it. It cannot be enhanced by saying that those students who come in merit, should be first admitted in the merit. (21). Policy for advantage of the reservation is delineated in paragraph B of 2.1 wherein the reservation of the seats in Govt. college has been prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that if the corrigendum issued by the State Govt. on 16.8.2000 is enforced this would violate the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab (2), wherein this has been said by the Honble Supreme Court that as and when the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test is satisfied, therefore, the roster does not survive. on 16.8.2000 is enforced this would violate the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab (2), wherein this has been said by the Honble Supreme Court that as and when the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test is satisfied, therefore, the roster does not survive. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that after the percentage having been adequately filled in, according to the case decided in the matter of R.K. Sabarwals case, there is no question of any reservation being further provided for and if done so that would violate the principles enunciated by Honble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabarwals case (Supra) and thus the corrigendum issued by the State Govt. is violative of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. It will also violate the decision of this Court in Division Bench which has relied on the case of R.K. Sabarwals case and Ritesh Sahs case (Supra). (22). Learned counsel has further submitted that framers of the constitution has not envisaged that the reservations so provided in the Constitution should result into protective discrimination. Once the umbrella of protection is extended the reserved category class gets a proportional representation as provided. Thereafter, there is no scope for extending the same principle by amendments as has been made by the State Govt. He relies in this relation a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Priti Srivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (3). ``Article 16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class which is not adequately represented in the services under the State Reservation is linked with adequate representation in services. Reservation is thus a dynamic and flexible concept. The departure from the principle of equality of opportunity has to be constantly watched. So long as the backward group is not adequately represented in the services under the State, reservation should be made. Clearly, reservations have been considered as a transitory measure that will enable the backward to enter and be adequately represented in the State services against the backdrop of prejudice and social discrimination. but finally, as the social backdrop is one of the constitutional imperatives, as the backward are able to secure adequate representation in the services, the reservations will not be required. Art. 335 enters a further caveat. but finally, as the social backdrop is one of the constitutional imperatives, as the backward are able to secure adequate representation in the services, the reservations will not be required. Art. 335 enters a further caveat. While considering the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for appointments, the maintenance of efficiency of administration shall be kept in sight. ``Article 15(4) enable the State to make special provisions for the advancement, inter alia, of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Protective discrimination which was available to women and children under Article 15(3) was extended by Art. 15(4) to (among others) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. As a result of the combined operation of these Articles, an array of programmes of compensatory or protective discrimination have been pursued by the various States and the Union Government. Since, every such policy makes a departure from the equality norm, of the backward, it has to be designed and worked in a manner conducive to the ultimate building up of an egalitarian non- discriminating society. That is its final constitutional justification. Therefore, programmes and policies of compensatory discrimination under Art. 15(4) have to be designed and pursued to achieve this ultimate national interest. At the same time, the programmes and policies cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor can they be executed in a manner which undermines other vital public interests or the general good of all. All public policies, therefore, in this area have to be tested in the anvil of reasonableness and ultimate public good. Therefore, consideration of national interest and the interests of the community or society as a whole cannot be ignored in determining the reasonableness of a special provision under Art 15(4). (23). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred the second paragraph from the booklet delineating the mode of admission wherein reserved category students after getting admitted in their category if remains thereafter unadmitted then they will be considered at par with the general category students. Thus, the ratio of the division Bench decision that they are pushed to at a level where they get a inferior position from the general category students is not there. Thus, whatever has been conceived by the State Govt. vide its corrigendum notification, taking shelter of the court decisions, is unreasonable exercise of jurisdiction. The court decision was available to them prior to issuance of the letter dated 16.8.03. Thus, whatever has been conceived by the State Govt. vide its corrigendum notification, taking shelter of the court decisions, is unreasonable exercise of jurisdiction. The court decision was available to them prior to issuance of the letter dated 16.8.03. They have consciously prepared the rules as delineated in the information booklet and, therefore, this is a interference in the rules made by itself, thus cannot be permitted to stand. The test of scrutiny as has been held in the case of Priti Srivastava (supra) adequate representation is the mode which was required to be achieved through reservation to the socially and educationally backward society. Once the quota prescribed for them is filled then, the objective is fulfilled. That being the position, the adequate representation cannot be judged separately. By providing floating reservation first, an undue advantage is conferred. Such exercise of jurisdiction defeats the very objective of the idea of reservation enshrined in the Constitution. (24). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mayank Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. wherein it has been held as mentioned under: The difficulty arises because the Rule confers the privilege on the candidate to be entitled to share either of the categories, meaning thereby, even if he is qualified and selected in respect of the general category. Thus runs counter to the decision rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney (Supra). The second part of the Rule creates further impediment to preserve the harmony. On a first flush it may look to be quite innocuous but it has innate potentiality to disturb the basic concept of reservation and accelerate the chaos in the said filed. To elaborate, if a candidate belonging to the reserved category opts for allotment of seat reserved for his category in that event the seat meant for the reserved category of the candidate shall be made available out of the remaining seats of unreserved categories. In our considered opinion, if this recourse is taken to there will be more seats available for the reserved category. The Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (Supra) has categorically held as under: ``It needs no emphasis to say that the principle aim of Articles 14 & 16 is equality (4) of Article 16 is but a means of achieving the very same objective. The Apex Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (Supra) has categorically held as under: ``It needs no emphasis to say that the principle aim of Articles 14 & 16 is equality (4) of Article 16 is but a means of achieving the very same objective. Clause (4) is a special provision-though not an exception to clause (1). Both the provisions have to be harmonised keeping in mind the fact that both are but the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 16(4)-conceived in the interest of certain sections of society-should be balanced against the guarantee of quality enshrined in clause (1) of Article 16 which is a guarantee held out to every citizen and to the entire society. It is relevant to pint out that Dr. Ambedkar himself contemplated reservation being ``confined to a minority of seats" (see his speech in Constituent Assembly, set out in para 28). No other member of the Constituent Assembly suggested otherwise. It is, thus, clear that reservation of a majority of seats was never envisaged by the founding fathers. Nor are we satisfied that the present context requires us to depart from that concept. From the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the reservation contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 54% While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in farflung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the main stream of national life and in view ok conditions peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out. It has been further held that : "We are conscious that the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Various professional faculties but we have referred to the aforesaid paragraph to indicate what is the view of the Apex Court in relation to weaker Sections and what their Lordships have stated therein. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that the cause put forth by the State for advancement of the weaker section cannot distort the dictum of the Apex Court. It was contended before us that in certain exceptional cases extra reservation is permissible. But, in our considered opinion, the present one does not fit into the said prism. When the students are appearing in the examination harbouring hope that when they would qualify they would be selected their hopes cannot be marred or smothered by ushering in a rule of this type. The said Rule does not subserve the constitutional philosophy and as we have noted earlier it runs contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. If we allow ourselves to say so, an innovative attempt has been made to frame a rule to enhance the conception of reservation which the law prescribes. By no stretch of rationalization or ratiocination it can be conceived that this/the filed where this innovative approach is warranted. On the contrary, it is absolutely unthinkable. It has been further held that ``in view of our preceding analysis, we irresistibly come to the conclusion that Rule 9.3 is constitutionally invalid and the same cannot be allowed to have any play. We declare it to be ultra vires. The Counselling which is to take place shall be strictly in accordance with the Rule 5.0 (25). Learned counsel has further placed before me a copy of the resolution of Railway Board which is prescribed as under: Copy of Railway Board No. 99E (SCT)1/25/13, New Delhi Dt. 7.8.2002. Sub: Reservation in promotion-Treatment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their merit. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training vide their O.M. No. 36028/17/2001-Est. (Res.) Dated 11.7.2002 have considered the reference from various Ministries regarding adjustment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit in post based reservation rosters and clarified as under: (i) The SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will not adjusted against the reserved points of the reservation roster. They will be adjusted against unreserved points. (ii) If an unreserved vacancy arisen in a cadre and there is any SC/ST candidate within the normal zone of consideration in the feeder grade, such SC/ST candidate cannot be denied promotion on the plea that the post is not reserved. They will be adjusted against unreserved points. (ii) If an unreserved vacancy arisen in a cadre and there is any SC/ST candidate within the normal zone of consideration in the feeder grade, such SC/ST candidate cannot be denied promotion on the plea that the post is not reserved. Such a candidate will be considered for promotion alongwith other candidates treating him as if he belongs to general category. In case he is selected he will be appointed to the post and will be adjusted against the unreserved point. (iii) SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit (by direct recruitment of promotion) and adjusted against unreserved points will retain their status of SC/ST and will be eligible to get benefit of reservation in future/further promotions, if any. (iv) 50% limit on reservation will be computed by excluding such reserved category candidates who are appointed/ promoted on their own merit. All the Zonal Railways/Production Units may bring the contents of DOP&Ts O.M. dated 11.7.2002 to the notice of all concerned for information and strict compliance. please acknowledge receipt. (R.B.S. Negi) Jt. Director, Estt. (Res) II (26). Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that what has been provided in the information booklet is in perfect line of Constitution and policy of the State Govt. to ameliorate the status of the weaker section of the society. (27). The notification of 16.8.03 shows over jealousness of the State Officials to push through the exercise beyond a point permissible in law. The law relied in Division Bench decision has been referred by the learned counsel and on the strength of the cases of R.K. Sabarval (supra) and Ritesh Sah (supra) he has demonstrated that none of these cases have said what has been understood by the State Govt. The Division Bench has only said law laid down by these cases should be followed. If the law has been misunderstood, such misconceived thought cannot be put forward to defeat the legitimate claim of those who have acquired a right by the notification of the State Govt. itself. (28). If the state authorities were not conscious of their duties and obligations they would not have published the information booklet in the form in which it has been published. The contents of the information booklet establishes the proportion in which the socially and educationally backward members have been provided representation. itself. (28). If the state authorities were not conscious of their duties and obligations they would not have published the information booklet in the form in which it has been published. The contents of the information booklet establishes the proportion in which the socially and educationally backward members have been provided representation. The representation provided is sufficient to fulfill the objective. Anything beyond that would defeat the very purpose for which such representation has been provided for. It is prayed that the State Govt. Notification dated 16.8.03 be quashed and counselling should be re-regulated in the manner in which it was notified and provided for by annexure/R/1 information booklet, which was frustrated by intervening circumstances which were not required to be imported. (29). Lastly, it has been urged by the learned counsel that it was not open for State to have implemented any policy which was not incorporated in information booklet. This should have been thought designed and implemented before the examinations were scheduled and delineated. Doing so after the examination and at the stage of counselling has affected, a large number of students of the State. When nobody thought that this is going to be the mode of admission, they have played with the sentiments of the students. (30). Learned counsel for the petitioner in his written statement submitted that in the scheme of examinations, there were indication given that one who is applying for reserved category will have to be limited to the category for which he is applying and thereby, the reservations have been provided for each category and reservation quotas have been fixed. These quotas were not required to be violated and in this background, at the time when the examination results were declared, meritlist, 2003 were prepared category wise and published. It has been emphasised by the learned counsel that in Clause 11, it has been provided that ``After submitting the form, if any candidate wants to get the category changed, he/she must apply with correction fee, mentioned below. No category shall be changed after the declaration of result. Thus, there was a clear notice given to the incumbents that after declaration of the result, it would not be possible to change the category. No category shall be changed after the declaration of result. Thus, there was a clear notice given to the incumbents that after declaration of the result, it would not be possible to change the category. Thus, the category selected by the students at the time of filling the form or before the declaration of the result when a change was permissible, was the birth mark of the students. This birth mark clarified that one has to remain confined to the category, he has opted for. Once, such compartmentalisation is provided by the State itself with the prohibitory clause, it is not possible to change the category and what was done by the State in pursuance of the Government order dated 16.08.03 was without jurisdiction because this amounted to change in meritlist on the basis of the change in categories which is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. (31). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a case decided by Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Naigi vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (4) and not perpetual. They have to be reviewed periodically. The review of reservations is contemplated in the situation itself. Every time an examination is scheduled by the State Government for admissions, a new information booklet is published with a set of rules, then the Executive Fiat could not have been used to destabilise the conscious position of the State itself. (32). The salutary provision contained in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India allow for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizen. In this regard, the State was required to produce a policy decision/notification in this regard. It was required to show that it has considered this aspect before promulgation of order dated 16.08.03. The Government has only placed reliance on a decision of this Honble Court rendered on 17.10.2002. The information booklet was published on or around 15/03/03. Thus, it can be said that this judgment was before the State Government at the time when the information booklet was published. After that, there was an independent exercise of determination or the review of the policy as provided in the judgment of Jagdish Naigi (Supra) has not been canvassed. There is not a whisper in the pleadings or the arguments submitted by the State Government that ever any policy decision was taken to change the criteria. After that, there was an independent exercise of determination or the review of the policy as provided in the judgment of Jagdish Naigi (Supra) has not been canvassed. There is not a whisper in the pleadings or the arguments submitted by the State Government that ever any policy decision was taken to change the criteria. The only stand taken by the State Government is to the extent of saying that it has followed a decision of this Court. The State has failed to discharge its constitutional obligation by not having produced any policy decision in this regard. By merely saying that it is following a decision of this Court, a major change in policy is canvassed. This case related to the matter of admissions for the year 1999. For the admissions of 2003, the same was relevant or not has not even been addressed by the State Government. Thus, the decision of the State Government is arbitrary and without application of mind. (33). Supreme Court in Minor A. Periakaruppan vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (5), has held that there must be a periodical review by the Government in taking policy decision in the matter in the light of then prevailing facts, situation which require reservation. In the instant case, in the name of following a Court decision, the State has ignored the other Court decisions rendered by the Apex Court. By Executive fiat, the State could not have changed Rule 11 of the instructions for applying for RPMT/RPVT as published in information booklet and referred to hereinabove. It was required to take a conscious policy decision. (34). Learned counsel has further emphasised that the decision in the case of Anita vs. State of Raj., the Division Bench has relied upon the three judgments passed by the Apex Court namely, Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Y.L. Yamul. In Ritesh Sah, the Court was considering the case of such admissions where, no instructions as information booklet, was in vogue. The admissions were directly on the basis of the merit of the students on the basis of the their qualifying examinations. There was no intervening examinations involved as RPMT. Therefore, Ritesh Sahs case cannot be considered to be law on the point. R.K. Sabharwal is a case of service jurisprudence where also, provisions were not applicable. The admissions were directly on the basis of the merit of the students on the basis of the their qualifying examinations. There was no intervening examinations involved as RPMT. Therefore, Ritesh Sahs case cannot be considered to be law on the point. R.K. Sabharwal is a case of service jurisprudence where also, provisions were not applicable. Indira Sawhney has laid down the law on the point of reservation. Specific instances having not been considered, it cannot be stated that Indira Sawhneys ruling has been violated when information booklet was published. In fact, information booklet provided reservation upto the extent of 50%. It can be said to be the guiding factor in issuing the booklet. Therefore, the action of the State Government was without considering the law laid down by the Courts. This may also be considered relevant that the Court decisions are not to be considered as statutes as has been held in `Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills (6). (35). In the instant case, the petitioners have suffered a serious prejudice wherein, the moment their result was declared in RPMT, they waived their chance to get their admission outside the State, where they were qualified. Thus, the principles of promissory estoppel would come in play and bind the State because the petitioners have changed their position after the declaration of the results and having figured in the meritlist. Thus also, the action of the answering respondent is not sustainable. (36). Petitioner has further relied upon a Division bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mayank Jain (Supra) wherein, the rule of Madhya Pradesh Government providing opportunity to the reserved candidates participate in both the list have been struck down. List of the category was to be prepared thus, in accordance with guidelines issued. If the followed the earlier declared result, then the petitioners are entitled to be admitted in the light of the reservation as has been conceived in the instruction booklet published for RPMT/RPVT, 2000 examinations. (37). Learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Bora representing few of the petitioners in similar cases has submitted that concept of reservation first occurred in cases of services. In services adequate representation was not available and the roster point remained unfilled. Certain notions were evaluated in various Supreme Courts decision, treatment to such unfilled quotas have been provided even in Sabarwals case. (37). Learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Bora representing few of the petitioners in similar cases has submitted that concept of reservation first occurred in cases of services. In services adequate representation was not available and the roster point remained unfilled. Certain notions were evaluated in various Supreme Courts decision, treatment to such unfilled quotas have been provided even in Sabarwals case. What has been discussed is that after filling the roster point, filling of the posts in service with reserved category student is not provided. It has been observed that after the roster point occupied by the reserved category students, there is no scope for further pursuing the reservation policy. According to the learned counsel, this was the law delineated by the State Govt. in information booklet. Reversing the process defeats the very purpose of reservation provided for the reserved category. This could even be seen as to be the intention of the State Govt. To give more reservation to the reserved category students was never conceived. Since the PMT examinations have started the same has been the law. (38). The law laid down by the Division Bench of this court is misunderstood by the State Govt. and Sabarvals case (supra) is the perfect guidance which says that the reserved category has to be filled in and thereafter the reservation seized to be operated. (39). If the subsequently enforced notification is read in between the lines then this would tantamount that more reserved category percentage come in the general category and thereafter if the reserved category is enforced there will be a flood of reserved category in the entire lot. If this is constituted, then the very purpose of providing reserved quotas defeats because reservation was provided for adequate representation and not for over protection of a particular segment of society. (40). The learned counsel further urged that there are few cases decided by the Honble Court which relates to the service jurisprudence. When the service quotas were not filled by reserved category candidates. then who were meritorious were accommodated in merit also. In those matters a candidate belonging reserved category but was accommodated in general category. Such was the law laid down when generally the reservation was not available for other backward classes. Because at that time OBCs were competing with the general category. The law has to be understood carefully in the changed circumstances. In those matters a candidate belonging reserved category but was accommodated in general category. Such was the law laid down when generally the reservation was not available for other backward classes. Because at that time OBCs were competing with the general category. The law has to be understood carefully in the changed circumstances. A wrong application has been made by the letter dated 16.8.03 otherwise. If this was the intention of law, then why executive was not conscious to give effect to it when examinations were conceived. The information booklet was admittedly was prepared after the judgment of the Division Bench. (41). Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of filling up of the form an option was available to the reserved class to either opt for general category line or reserved category line, Once student has opted with eyes open for reserved category then, he has to go in the line of reserved category. He has burned his boat now he cannot come to the general category. A person who has burned his boat he will have to wait on the bank. (42). Per contra learned counsel for the State Mr. R.P. Vyas, Addl. Adv. Gen submitted that the case has to be understood in the correct perspective. It has two phases one procedural and other legal wherein interpretation of the force of law laid down under Article 15(4) of the Constitution to be understood. The procedural aspect is governed by the information booklet which is circulated among the students and produced with the reply as annexure R/1. A change in the method of policy even during the course of admission is provided in it. Such change is delineated in clause 12 of the information booklet of the RPMT wherein, it has been delineated: Any candidate, once allowed to appear at RPMT/PVT 2003 and how has secured marks so as to get his/her name included in merit list, does not become directly eligible for admission to medical courses, the eligibility of successful candidates for admission in any category (General or Reserved) shall be finally ascertained at the time of counselling for admission. The Decision of the Admission Board for the eligibility at the time of counselling shall be final. (43). In clause 8 of instructions for admission to MBBS degree for the session 2002-03 a right has been reserved with the State Govt. The Decision of the Admission Board for the eligibility at the time of counselling shall be final. (43). In clause 8 of instructions for admission to MBBS degree for the session 2002-03 a right has been reserved with the State Govt. to admit or reject the candidate without assigning any reason. Thus special power has been reserved by the State Govt. to decide the priority of any admission. Procedural aspect can operate in field of filling up of the form, receiving of the form, issuance of permission letters, conduct of the examinations and declaration of result. After declaration of result, counselling is a part of procedure. At the stage of counselling the State Govt. considered it prudent to follow the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, letter annexure R/3 dated 16.8.03 was issued which is more relevant in the present controversy. (44). According to the learned counsel for State, it was clearly given out in Clause 12 that merely by inclusion of the name in the merit list a candidate do not become eligible for admission in the medical college. The eligibility of the candidate in any category was to be finally ascertained at the time of counselling for admission and finality was attached to the decision of the Admission Board at the time of counselling and fulfilling the procedural aspect as provided in the information booklet. (45). In clause 12 and clause 20 of the information booklet sufficient notice was available to the students that it is possible to change the mode of admission. Declared list only gave provisional eligibility for the admission. No absolute right was conferred on any of the competitor wherein any justiciable cause arose in his favour. No cause of action was available to the petitioner to come to this court to get interference through a writ being issued under Article 226. There was no indefeasible right vested in the candidates to claim a right of admission in the college merely because the roll number of the candidates appeared in the RPMT merit list. The State has done so while issuing letter dated 16.08.03 and if the mandate of Division Bench decision of this court and of the Honble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (7), is followed then it cannot be said that any right survives in the petitioner to come to this court. (46). The State has done so while issuing letter dated 16.08.03 and if the mandate of Division Bench decision of this court and of the Honble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (7), is followed then it cannot be said that any right survives in the petitioner to come to this court. (46). The learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on para 94 A of the said decision which reads as under: ``We must, however, point out that clause (4) speaks of adequate representation and not proportionate representation. Adequate representation cannot be read as proportionate representation. Principle of proportionate representation is accepted only in Article 330 and 332 of the Constitution and that too for a limited period. These articles speaks of reservation of seats in Lok Sabha and the State legislature in favour of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes proportionate to their population, but they are only temporary and special provisions. It is therefore not possible to accept the theory of proportion of population of backward classes to the total population would certainly be relevant. Just as every power must be exercised reasonably and fairly, the power conferred by clause (4) of Article 16 should also be exercised in a fair manner and within reasonable limits-and what is more reasonable than to say that reservation under clause (4) shall not exceed 50% of the appointments or posts, barring certain extra-ordinary situations as explained hereinafter. From this point of view, the 27% reservation provided by the impugned Memorandums in favour of backward classes is well within the reasonable limits. Together with reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it comes to a total of 49.5%. In this connection, reference may be had to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narayana Rao vs. State (AIR 1987 Andh Pra 53), striking down the enhancement of reservation from 25% to 44% O.B.Cs. The said enhancement had the effect of taking the total reservation under Article 16(4) to 65%. It needs no emphasis to say that the principle aim of Article 14 & 16 is equality and equality of opportunity and that clause (4) of Article 16 is but a means of achieving the very same objective. Clause (4) is a special provision-though not an exception to clause (1). It needs no emphasis to say that the principle aim of Article 14 & 16 is equality and equality of opportunity and that clause (4) of Article 16 is but a means of achieving the very same objective. Clause (4) is a special provision-though not an exception to clause (1). Both the provisions have to be harmonised keeping in mind the fact that both are but the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. The provision under Article 16(4)-conceived in the interest of certain sections of society-should be balanced against the guarantee of equality enshrined in clause (1) of Article 16 which is a guarantee held out to every citizen and to the entire society. It is relevant to point out that Dr. Ambedkar himself contemplated reservation being "confined to a minority of seats" (see his speech in Constituent Assembly, set out in para 28). No other member of the Constituent Assembly suggested otherwise. It is, thus, clear that reservation of a majority of seats was never envisaged by the founding fathers. Nor are we satisfied that the present context requires us to depart from that concept. From the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extra ordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in farflung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the main stream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out. In this connection it is will to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates. (47). It may well happen that some members belonging to say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates. (47). Thus those who came in the open merit have to be excluded from consideration of being in the reserved category. Whatever has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner gets defeated by this proposition laid down by larger Constitutional Bench of the Honble Supreme Court deciding the question of reservation in principle. (48). Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that is not always necessary and to say possible to enact a law for providing protection under Article 15(4). As and when it is considered expedient, the State may promulgate a legislation and may also bring in executive orders. In the instant case, there is no legislation at all either at the initial stage or at the subsequent stage. Thus, the order passed on 16.8.03 is well within the permissible domain of the State Govt. as has been delineated by the Honble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhneys case (supra) in para no. 294 & 295 has held as under: ``The next submission that the provision for reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) can be made only by a legislation and not by an executive order is unsustainable. This contention as a matter of fact has already been answered in (1) Balaji ( AIR 1963 SC 649 ) (Supra) and (2), Comptroller & Auditor General vs. Mohan Lal Mehrotra 1992 (1) SCC 20 : ( AIR 1991 SC 2288 ). ``In passing, it may be stated that this court while reversing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of the appellant (State) in State of Punjab vs. Hiralal, 1971 (3) SCR 267 : ( AIR 1971 SC 1777 ) upheld the reservation which was made not by a legislation but by an executive order. See also Mangal Singh vs. Punjab State Police, AIR 1968 Punjab 306. (49). See also Mangal Singh vs. Punjab State Police, AIR 1968 Punjab 306. (49). Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that keeping in view of the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney case and having noticed the Division Bench decision of this court, the State has judged its action and carefully looking to the law laid down in the judicial decision, the State has prepared a fresh merit list. That list satisfies the law laid down in Indra Sawhneys case (supra) and Division Bench decision in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1427/99 also. Therefore, no grievance can be raised against such a list. A policy has been evolved and if the counselling as the rights were reserved, some changes were made to fulfill the constitutional obligations of the State. This was to give adequate representation to socially and educationally backward classes. It was further argued that the list was prepared after following the aforesaid principles. First the students in the common merit list have been afforded admission and then reserved category students have been considered in reserved category separately, thus, no discrimination has been perpetrated with any category of the student. (50). Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this court in Kamla Godaras case (8), wherein it has been held that number of seats can be increased for reserved category even during the counselling. It is submitted that cases relied upon by the petitioners as decided by the Honble Supreme Court in Sabarwals case or Rupal Narayans case are the cases wherein service jurisprudence is discussed and Article 16 (4) was not interpreted. Since it has been conceived by the founding fathers of the Constitution that those who are socially and educationally backward, adequate representation should be provided to them to give respect to their sentiments. (51). The State has made provision for the reserved categories but than the right of the meritorious students cannot be defeated if they are meritorious. They will first be considered in merit and rest will go to the reserved category as has been done in the instant case. This has been done on the basis of the interpretations available of the Constitutional provisions in various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and High Court. A reference was made by the learned Addl. Adv. Gen. to the case decided in the matter of Ritesh Sah vs. Dr. This has been done on the basis of the interpretations available of the Constitutional provisions in various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and High Court. A reference was made by the learned Addl. Adv. Gen. to the case decided in the matter of Ritesh Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others (supra) which is mentioned as under: In a case Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) 6 Suppl (3) SCC210 (217): (1992 AIR SCW 3682), commonly known as Mandals case, this Court in paragraph 811 held thus:- ``In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition filed on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates: (52). Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that R.K. Sabarwals case deal with the proposition which related to the service jurisprudence. In Ritesh Sahs case question dealt. with were to decide the question of admission in medical college. In service jurisprudence this had been seen that when the reserved category candidates were not always available to fulfill even the roster points. Therefore, law developed in a particular direction as regards reservation. The law has taken different shape in relation to educational institution. The meritorious candidates have been included in general category and reserved category candidates have been admitted in the reserved quota. Learned counsel for the State has further relied upon the Ritesh Sahs case (Supra), wherein it has been held :- ``There is sufficient force in the connection of the petitioner. A student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but in computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. (53). The learned counsel has also submitted that the corrigendum has not been challenged therefore, that cannot be touched. (54). Learned counsel for State was asked a question as to why such measures were not earlier considered by the State? When the arguments of the State are based on Indira Sawhneys case which was decided in 1993, no steps were taken so far to give a correct implementation to the same which was considered to be necessary for ten years? This is for the first time that the State has woken form slumber and has thought of laying down the law as understood by the State. Implementation is not being made by any legislative mode provided by the constitution. Such exercise may par take the character of colourable exercise of jurisdiction? There was no explanation coming forward by the learned Addl. Adv. Gen. even after being put on notice right on the first day when the arguments were advanced and until when the arguments are concluded. He stated that investigation made by him said that only inadvertently this was not done. No deliberate attempt was made to defeat the ratio of Indra Swahney case. (55). Adv. Gen. even after being put on notice right on the first day when the arguments were advanced and until when the arguments are concluded. He stated that investigation made by him said that only inadvertently this was not done. No deliberate attempt was made to defeat the ratio of Indra Swahney case. (55). Learned counsel for the State has placed much reliance on the question that those who have independent merit cannot be relegated to reserved category because if they get selected in general merit, then they have to be given their rightful due and in this background. If in the opinion of the State Government, it has been decided that reserved category people have not been able to get sufficient representation, then the reservations can be made. (56). Learned Counsel for the State has relied on Ritesh Sahs case (Supra) wherein, Honble Supreme Court has considered the case of admission on the basis of open merit and it was held that such student cannot be confined to the reserved category only. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the State is that if the reserved category candidate is selected as per his own merit then he shall to be given place in general category and not reserved category. (57). It has been claimed by the respondent State Government that respondents only sought to follow the directives of the Supreme Court in various judgments and judgment of this Court and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the State. The only object of providing such admission was saved in favour of the State in terms of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The weak people have to be uplifted and brought in the mainstream. Such reservation is provided for bringing in equality between un-equals and this is for abolishing un-equality. (58). The provisions for reservation were required to give a push to the educationally backward and weaker section and therefore, any person falling to the reserved category, if was in merit could be shifted to general category and such student was not to be counted to determine reservation percentage. The answering respondents have submitted that their merit should not be ignored. This was the guiding factor in giving change to the reserved category candidates. (59). I have considered the rival submissions and given my thoughtful consideration. (60). The answering respondents have submitted that their merit should not be ignored. This was the guiding factor in giving change to the reserved category candidates. (59). I have considered the rival submissions and given my thoughtful consideration. (60). The petitioners case is based on the contents of the information booklet which had held out that the examinations will be conducted and results will be dealt with according to the provisions contained in the information booklet. (61). The scheme of the examinations as contained in the booklet is clearly in terms of a policy which gives out that examinations were to be conducted, according to the categories, namely, reserved and un-reserved category. In Clause 10, it was clearly given out that each candidate must clearly mention the category of reservation desired by candidate. This option was circumscribed by limitation that a candidate should mention only one category. A caution was also put in this clause that the candidate should check category carefully. If any correction is sought, the student was advised to write to the office for correction. Thus, every caution was given to the students that selection of category is a very important factor of filling of the form. This was further delineated that no change in category will be available after declaration of the result. The change was provided only before the declaration of the result. Thus, it can be conceived that the State has given a clear and unambiguous thought that the examinations for RPMT/RPVT are categorywise. It was also delineated in the information booklet that seats for every category are reserved. Thus, no ambiguity was left. It was provided in the instructions at Page 10 in Clause 2 that reserved quotas to various categories shall be as given below. Seats were required to be filled in according to the rules. (62). As things went on, the examinations were held and results were declared. Until the declaration of the result, there was no confusion whatsoever as far as the method of admissions was concerned. Every step was taken by the respondents being guided by information booklet. The same was published in February/March, 2003. What can be seen from this is that up to the time when the booklet was prepared, the State policy was, what it had given out in the information booklet. (63). Then came the day of counselling. Every step was taken by the respondents being guided by information booklet. The same was published in February/March, 2003. What can be seen from this is that up to the time when the booklet was prepared, the State policy was, what it had given out in the information booklet. (63). Then came the day of counselling. The counselling was to be done as per the provisions contained in the information booklet. But a change was introduced by the State Government. The admissions were sought to be regulated in terms of State Governments order which was issued on 16.08.03. This letter made a reference to a decision of Division Bench of this Court. It said that the Division Bench of this Court has passed the decision that meritorious student of reserved category falling in the merit of general category cannot be treated as against the reserved category. Meaning thereby, they will be treated as general category candidates. Thus, the State understood this judgment to mean that when they have taken the examinations category wise then, they are required to change the category of meritorious students from the reserved category to general category. This judgment was delivered in the month of October, 2002. State had atleast 4-5 months for considering the implication of this judgment. When State published the information booklet for examinations of 2003, ordinary prudence would tell us that the State had considered the decision of this court before formalising its policy for 2003 examinations. (64). The order dated 16.08.2003, if considered to mean that State had not considered the decision of this Court prior to the publication of the information booklet for 2003, then it shows that how slack is the State machinery in giving weightage to the decisions rendered by this Court. In either of these two contingencies that the State had either considered this judgment or not considered this judgment, there smacks a design that either they wanted to implement this decision in the way they have interpreted and not in the way the judgment laid down law. The language of the order speaks of no application of mind as far as the State policy makers are concerned. It only speaks of implementation of the decision. Thus, there is a total inaction on the part of the State administration machinery, thinktanks. They were to carefully consider the decision of this Court. The language of the order speaks of no application of mind as far as the State policy makers are concerned. It only speaks of implementation of the decision. Thus, there is a total inaction on the part of the State administration machinery, thinktanks. They were to carefully consider the decision of this Court. The decision was rendered by this Court in the month of October, 2002. If the State machinery says that it is now implementing this decision after giving out a definite policy in the information booklet, then its action is subject to scrutiny. As per its earlier policy, no change of category was possible. Why has such change been conceived only after the declaration of the result? To answer this question, impact of action of the State is required to be studied. The action of State results in inclusion of some and exclusion of others. It does not appear that the action of the State was as innocuous and innocent as it has been putforward. It has a taint of colourable exercise of jurisdiction. (65). The decision of the Division Bench was passed on the basis of three Supreme Court decisions. One of them is Indira Sawhney (Supra). The decision came somewhere in the year 1993, 2003 is a decade away from the date and it shows that whatever the State has understood from the Indira Sawhneys case it had come out in the information booklet. No other explanation can be construed to be legitimate. A question was asked to the learned counsel for the State and no explanation came forward as to if the Indira Sawhneys case was considered by the State only now, then why ten years time was permitted to lapse? (66). The second decision is in the matter of R.K. Sabharwal (Supra). That judgment cannot be of any consequence because that related to service jurisprudence and no rules as are available in the present context were there for consideration. The third decision considered was in the matter of Ritesh Sah (Supra). Ritesh Sahs case was a case where admissions were not regulated by categorywise compartmentalisation. It was a case where Honble Supreme Court considered the merit in general on the basis of the qualifying examinations. The third decision considered was in the matter of Ritesh Sah (Supra). Ritesh Sahs case was a case where admissions were not regulated by categorywise compartmentalisation. It was a case where Honble Supreme Court considered the merit in general on the basis of the qualifying examinations. In the instant case, the examinations were held categorywise and it was given out that the students will have to compete for their category and the change of category was prohibited after the declaration of the result. Thus, the reserved category candidates were given out an option that they had a chance of opting for general category but they were given option to change category into general category if anyone considered himself to be meritorious enough to compete in general merit. But when once they have opted for a safe pasture, it was not possible according to the provisions of the information booklet to ask for a change. (67). In the aforesaid circumstances, no change was possible, yet the State Government issued the order dated 16.08.2003 holding out that the students of reserved category falling in merit has to be shifted to general category. This change in category was not conceived in the information booklet. The guiding factor as canvassed by the State Government is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court based on the same decision of the Honble Supreme Court. (68). The law laid down by the Courts is that if reserved category candidates come in open merit, then they cannot be considered to be of reserved category. There cannot be any denial as far as this position of law is concerned. But can this mean that the reserved category students who specifically opt for reserved category only, would be given the advantage to be shifted to general category? This does not appear to be legitimate inference of the provisions of the Constitution. Framers of the Constitution conceived that there should be a proper representation of the reserved category students. This has never been intended that any undue dis-advantage has to be conferred for the reserved category candidates. When the rules clearly indicate that the examinations are held categorywise and due reservation is provided, it fulfills the constitutional obligation. The reserved category students had the option of opting for open competition. This has never been intended that any undue dis-advantage has to be conferred for the reserved category candidates. When the rules clearly indicate that the examinations are held categorywise and due reservation is provided, it fulfills the constitutional obligation. The reserved category students had the option of opting for open competition. There should not be any misgiving in the mind of those students that they will have to remain confined to the reserved category only. If they consider that they are meritorious, then they could opt for general category and ask for change of category. But once they have selected a path, then it is needless to say that they will have to arrive at a destination where that path takes. (69). The situation can be considered from another point of view. The decision relied upon by the State Government refers to the selections of 1999. 2003 is five years away from 1999. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Naigi (Supra) has clearly delineated that provisions making reservations have to be periodical reviewed. Five years time is good enough to give a second thought to the reservations existed in 1999. Even the Constitution framers clearly made out that reservation is not perpetual. It has not be considered as a factor which shall stay for ever. Only periodical providance has been made. Such providance has been extended by the Parliament from time to time. The letter dated 16.08.2003 makes no reference as to whether any thought was given to review the obtaining circumstances and then a provision was made. No such explanation came forward from the State Government. A definite question was asked to the counsel for the State. No application of mind was canvassed or pleaded. If Annexure-R/3 is read, it gives no hint as to whether any exercise was undertaken by the State Government to review the policy. (70). The Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in A. Periakaruppans case (Supra) has clearly stated that provisions of reservation has to be periodical reviewed. Thus, there having been no application of mind by the State, merely by stating that it is relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court, it cannot be said that State had been able to discharge its obligation as has been required in the Constitution. It has simply putforward by a decision of this Court as its defence. Thus, there having been no application of mind by the State, merely by stating that it is relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court, it cannot be said that State had been able to discharge its obligation as has been required in the Constitution. It has simply putforward by a decision of this Court as its defence. This has come at a stage when the merit of the successful students had already been declared. May be someone in the State Government was not happy with the outcome? This action therefore, smacks of legal malafides. (71). Similar situation came for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein, a rule made by the Madhya Pradesh Government giving option to the reserved category students to have the benefit of the categories. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down such rule in Mayank Jain (Supra). Logically also, no one can be permitted to have best of both the words. Whatever has been offered to the reserved category student is for the amelioration of their situation. They cannot be made to have the best at every level, only because they belong to a category which was handicapped. Enough room had already been created for them and until that room is considered to be insufficient by the State Government by a conscious application of mind, it cannot be said that those students were required to be given yet another avenue. The scheme of information booklet provided reservation upto 50% level and in the instant case, if the letter of the State Government dated 16.08.2003 is permitted to have its implications, the reservation goes beyond 50% and that speaks of a situation which is not saved or protected under the provisions of the Constitution. (72). The letter of the State Government dated 16.08.2003 is legislative in character because it intends to change the consciously framed rules. By this administrative order, a change has been brought about in a thoughtfully conceived policy. The same has been changed without giving thoughtful consideration as held by Supreme Court in Naigis case (Supra). It can be considered to be an arbitrary order of the State Government. The judgment relied upon by the State Government was available to the State Government when the process of admission was conceived. The information booklet was published in the month of March/April. It can be considered to be an arbitrary order of the State Government. The judgment relied upon by the State Government was available to the State Government when the process of admission was conceived. The information booklet was published in the month of March/April. After the examinations were held, the result had already been declared. The student has gained legitimate expectation. Admissions were denied on the basis of administrative order. It shows that there was some design which may not be possible to pass the test of legitimacy. The students have claimed that they were successful in other examinations where they could get admissions in better avenue. They have changed their position by not going to those colleges. Having changed their position now, they are told that they will not be admitted to the courses because the State had change its policy. This is at a level when they could not turn around and get admission where they could go. It goes to show that the principles of promissory estoppel would come in their favour. Their legitimate expectation cannot be permitted to be defeated and they cannot be denied admission. If at all State construes that they are to give extra to the reserved category students then, this should be spelt out at a time when the same would not be available for being defined as an act of rashness. Hardness involved in the act of the State Government is that those who were held to be meritorious has been held to be helpless in getting admissions. (73). It has been canvassed on behalf of the State that by having figured in the meritlist, no indefeasible right is conferred on the candidate. A right has been reserved by the State Government in Clause 8 & 12. I have gone through these clauses. These clauses only mean any conceivable change and not such change which has a effect of changing the policy wholehog. The change conceived in such manner only means a functional space to the authorities to adjust the students and not disturb the entire philosophy of admissions in its letter and content. The law of the State Government has the effect of destabilising the entire aspect of admission. Therefore this aspect of the argument is not considered valid to support the change introduced by the State Government. (74). The law of the State Government has the effect of destabilising the entire aspect of admission. Therefore this aspect of the argument is not considered valid to support the change introduced by the State Government. (74). Periodical review has been provided even in the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. The State Government has tried to implement Division Bench decision of this Court at a very belated stage. This has been tried to be used as a statutory enactment. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation (Supra) has clearly said that the court decisions are not be considered as Statutes and interpreted as such. That being the position, the reliance of the State Government on the decision as a Statute has defeated the very purpose for which the judgment was given. If at all, the State was serious about the judgment, it had enough time to consider its implications after five months of its delivery. Having not considered it at right time, it cannot be now permitted to say that it has implemented at a right time. May be that this could be right for someone in the State Government who had some oblique intention to fulfill by introducing such change but then this aspect is not required to be gone into in this respect. It would be sufficient to hold that any change could be brought in terms of the judgment, if at all considered to be brought in, then it was to be done before publication of the information booklet. Because the decision was available to the State Government prior to it. Introduction of this kind of change after the declaration of the results, smacks of colourable exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, it cannot be saved. (75). The examinations will have to be construed and understood to be held pursuant to the information booklet and the admissions to be regulated only according to the provisions of information booklet. Any change introduced by the State Government cannot be held to be valid in terms of the provisions of Constitution. Fundamentals of providing reservations has a definite method. Providence of reservation itself was required to be periodically reviewed. A decision which was relevant for 1999 was required to be considered in review to frame out a policy. Any change introduced by the State Government cannot be held to be valid in terms of the provisions of Constitution. Fundamentals of providing reservations has a definite method. Providence of reservation itself was required to be periodically reviewed. A decision which was relevant for 1999 was required to be considered in review to frame out a policy. A policy statement having already been held out, the students cannot be permitted to be told that now they will have to face another kind of policy for their admission. That being the position, such uncertainties which occur at such ultimate level disturb the very fibre of the administration of the State. It shakes the faith of public at large in the administration. In the interest of keeping faith in administration, it would be justified if the change brought about is quashed and State is directed to hold admissions only in accordance with information booklet and any change introduced in persuance to the letter dated 16.08.2003 will therefore, have no applicability in the present set of circumstances and thus, the action of the State is not saved and therefore quashed. (76). State is directed to complete with the admissions in the light of the information booklet and the rules delineated therein. (77). Due to Court procedure, delay has occurred in decision of the case, some period has elapsed. In affording admissions, this period will be considered, to be zero period for being considered and counted and this would not prejudice either the petitioners or the State.