Judgment M.R. Calla, J.-These matters have come up before us on the basis of order dated 28.2002 passed by the Division Bench whereby the following questions law of considerable importance have been referred as also the appeals as a whole: 1. Whether any reserved quota could not be separately specified for in-service candidates; merely because such in- service category is not mentioned in Article 15(4) and/or 16(4) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the prescribing of separate quota for in-service candidates stands, the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether in view of the observations made by the Supreme court in para 10 in the case of State of Punjab vs. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital & Ors. (supra), can it be said that once the Medical Council of India has prescribed 50% qualifying marks through regulation 9, there is no question of making any in-service candidate to be qualified for admission to post-graduate course at any level of marks below 50%? 2. Learned Single Judge by his common judgment and order dated 16.2002 had decided 44 writ petitions. 28 appeals at hand arise out of the aforesaid order dated 16.2002. Briefly stated, these cases involve dispute between doctors and doctors. On one side, there are inservice doctors who are fresh medical graduates but both the categories of doctors are desirous of prosecuting the post graduate courses i.e. M.D./M.S. and Postgraduate Diplomas in various specialities. For the purpose of admission to these PG courses, 25% of the total seats are to be filled in as per the allocation made by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India; 50% of the remaining 75% seats are exclusively reserved for inservice candidates (Doctors) of Rajasthan State Medical Service in the various specialities as may be determined and fixed from time to time by the State Government, out of which 8% seats are to be reserved for in-service natural born scheduled caste candidates and 6% seats are to be reserved for in-service natural born scheduled tribe candidates as per the roster system to be notified by the State of Rajasthan has to communicate such number of seats in the respective specialities to the Principals of the respective Medical Colleges and the Convener, Central P.G. Admission Board, which takes up the exercise for admission on the basis of result of the Pre-P.G. Test. The remaining 50% out of the 75% seats are called general seats, 8% of which are reserved for natural born SC candidates and 6% of which are reserved for natural born ST candidates to be filled by roster system notified by the State Government. It has also been provided that all inservice doctors (Senior Demonstrators) selected by the R.P.S.C. are to be allowed automatic registration for post graduate seats in the same subjects in which they are selected. 3. While the requirements i.e. eligibility for appearing in the Pre-P.G. Medical. Examination for simple medical graduates i.e. who have passed final MBBS examination is that they must be registered with the Rajasthan Medical Council, the same in respect of inservice candidates are as under: For in-service candidates, the candidate should be duly selected medical officer by RPSC for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Services Rules, 1963, should be below the age of 45 years and should have completed at least 3 years of service in Rural areas of the State of Rajasthan or two years of continuous service of Rural areas of Desert, Hilly or Tribal parts of the State the Rural area is defined as a rural area where Rural allowance is admissible to the doctors who should have actually served in the rural areas Application forms for such in-service doctors for Pre-P.G. Medical Examination have to be made only through the Director of Medical and Health Services with the certificate of rural experience, any application received without the certificate of rural experience and/or without the signatures of the Director of Medical and Health Services is not to be entertained and no application of in-service candidates shall be entertained by the University for such examination, if sent directly. 4. Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India in Regulation 9, provides for the selection of post graduate students as under: “9. SELECTION OF POST-GRADUATE STUDENTS .(1) Studentsfor Post-graduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their academic merit. 4. Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India in Regulation 9, provides for the selection of post graduate students as under: “9. SELECTION OF POST-GRADUATE STUDENTS .(1) Studentsfor Post-graduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their academic merit. .(2) For determining the academic merit, the university/institution may adopt any one of the following procedures both for degree and diploma courses: .(i) On thebasis of merit as determined by a competitive test conducted by the State Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State Government or by the university/group of universities in the same state; or (ii) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the national level; or (iii) On the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations, if such examinations have been passed from the same university; or (iv) Combination of (i) and (iii); Provided that wherever entrance test for Post-graduate admission is held by a State Government or a university or any other authorised examining body, the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to eligibility for admission to post-graduate medical courses shall be fifty per cent for all the candidates; Provided further that in non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall be filled by the competent authority and the remaining fifty per cent by the management of the institution on the basis of merit.” 5. Thus, selection is to be made on the basis of the academic merit and the University may adoptt any of the following procedures: .(i) merit as determined by the competitive test; .(ii) merit as determined by the centralised competitive test held at national level; (iii) on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examination if such examinations have been passed from the same University; and (iv) Combination of the merit determined by competitive test and merit as determined by the centralised competitive test. 6. 6. In the Scheme of Regulation 9 of the Regulations wherever entrance test for post graduate admissions is held by the State Government or the University or any other authorised examining body, the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to the post graduate medical courses shall be 50% for all the candidates with the further proviso that in non-governmental institutions, 50% of the total seats shall be filled in by the competent authority and the remaining 50% by the management of the institution on the basis of merit. .7. The inservice doctors filed petitions with the case that a separate quota for inservice doctors had been fixed on the basis of a conscious policy decision taken by the State Government for upgrading the professional skill and knowledge of those doctors who are in the employment of the State Government and who have rendered services in the rural areas, have gained valuable experience and would thus be providing better medical services to the needy people of the State. The State Government also followed the policy of prescribing lower minimum qualifying marks as compared to the minimum marks prescribed at the Pre-P.G. Entrance Examination for simple medical graduates i.e. non service candidates. On behalf of the petitioners, it had been averred in the writ petitions that placing reliance upon this policy decision of the Government, they having been duly selected medical officers by the RPSC, had served in rural areas because of the incentive that as inservice doctors they will get preference and liberalised conditions for the purpose of admission to the postgraduate courses. According to the petitioners, they form a separate source so as to fill up the specified percentage ot seats in the postgraduate courses. It has also been stated that vide communication dated 18.6.98, the State Government had conveyed its policy decision to the University of Rajasthan for increasing the quota of inservice candidates from 25% to 50% of the total seats available and to reduce the .minimum eligibility marks at the Pre-P.G. Entrance Test from 50% to 33%. This policy decision of the State Government was assailed in the case of Dr. Vineet Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan in Writ Petition No. 4546/98 but the same was upheld, even by the Apex Court. This policy decision of the State Government was assailed in the case of Dr. Vineet Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan in Writ Petition No. 4546/98 but the same was upheld, even by the Apex Court. The State Government has justified its action of prescribing lower percentage of minimum qualifying marks for inservice candidates because of their inherent dis-siniilar situation because at the level of 50% of the qualifying examination marks in the entrance examination, a large number of seats reserved for inservice candidates would have remained unfilled and the very object and purpose of providing a separate quota for inservice candidates was being defeated. Likewise, when Pre-P.G. examination was held in the year 2001, 50% marks were prescribed for general medical graduates whereas it was 33% for the inservice candidates. This time again, the challenge to the selections was made by the non service doctors by way of filing Writ Petition No. 2375/200 1 i.e. Dr. Ramji Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petitions and all these petitions were also dismissed on 10.2001. On 19.2001, the Government of India had issued a general circular to the Vice Chancellers of the Universities and other concerned authorities laying down guidelines for admission in under graduate and post graduate medical courses providing therein that with a view to ensure that adequate number of candidates are available for full utilisation of the reserve quota of seats, all concerned authorities should take requisite action to dispense with the system of negative marking being followed by some of the examining bodies in the admission tests for Protessor course which is working against the interest of reserved category candidates. .8. On 20.9.2001, the Medical Council of India, in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 33 read with Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has framed Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2001 wherein the existing first proviso to Regulation 9 of the Regulations has been substituted by the following proviso: .Provided that wherever entrance test for Postgraduate admissions is held by a State Government or a University or any other authorised examining body, the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical courses shall be 50 per cent for general category candidates and 40 per cent for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.” 9. It is this amendment made by the Medical Council of India on 20.9.200 1, in the Regulation that the controversy which stood settled upto the Supreme Court, arose again when the Pre-P.G. Medical Examination for the year 2002 was held by the University of Rajasthan on 2 4.2002 and the University issued instructions for Pre-P.G. Medical Examination, 2002. For the purpose of selections, as aforesaid, in the year 2002, counselling was scheduled to be held on 26.4.2002 for inservice candidates, on 27.4.2002 for physically handicapped inservice candidates and on 28.4.2002 and 29.4.2002 for non service candidates. Total 330 seats were notified for different PG courses, out of which quota of 155 seats was reserved for inservice doctors, and out of quota of 155 seats in general category, 8 percent seats were reserved for SC candidates and 6 per cent were reserved for ST candidates. Similarly, 8 per cent seats were reserved for SC candidates and 6 percent seats were reserved for ST candidates in the category of inservice doctors also and 5 seats were each were further reserved for physically handicapped persons in general category as well as in the category of inservice doctors. The case of the inservice doctors is that because of the high percentage of qualifying marks at the level of 50%, against 155 seats meant for inservice doctors, only 20 inservice candidates could be selected in OBC category and nine inservice doctors under other categories, and against the 10 seats meants for physically handicapped doctors, only 3 could qualify, as against 12 seats reserved for scheduled caste inservice doctors only one candidate could qualify and no candidate from scheduled tribe could be selected out of inservice doctors although nine seats were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The say of the inservice doctors is that high percentage of qualifying marks at the level of 50% has created a highly anomalous and absurd situation defeating the very purpose of setting apart certain number of seats for this category of candidates and it goes without saying that the inservice doctors form a separate class by themselves as compared to the fresh medical graduates. It is also the case of the inservice doctors that Regulation 9 framed by the Medical Council of India is not at all meant for the inservice doctors and in case the Government wants its inservice doctors to acquire post graduate qualification for better patient care and for that purpose, if separate standards are laid down for the category of inservice doctors, no exception could be taken thereto. While fresh medical graduates are holders of simple degree of M.B.B.S. the inservice doctors have faced open selection before the R.P.S.C. for appointment as Civil Assistant SurgeonlMedical Officer; have worked for a longer duration in the rural areas and they could appear in the Pre-PG Entrance Test only in case their applications are forwarded by the Director of Medical & Health Services. They are much more rich in experience as compared to the simple medical graduates and therefore, if the Government wants more experienced hands i.e. inservice doctors, to acquire post graduate qualification and for that purpose, if the provisions are made, which are liberal as compared to the requirements for freshers, it appears to be rational and justified. 10. Thequestions have been hotly contested before us on behalf of both the sides. On the questions and issues involved in these matters, reliance placed on the same set of Supreme Court decisions by both the sides has certainly made out task interesting but more tough. 11. Inthe case of Dr. Ramji Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the petitioners, were non service doctors, the Court clearly observed in Para 17 that they did not fall into the category of inservice candidates for whom a separate source was there, to fill up the seats in post graduate courses so as to upgrade the level of professional skill and knowledge of doctors who had been recruited in the State Medical Services. The court observed as under: “They have rendered services in rural areas, secured valuable experience and after successful completion of PG courses would be providing better medical services to the people of Rajasthan. It is because of the policy decision of the State Government that they took Government employment and spent valuable period of their lives serving in rural areas. In my considered view the inservice doctors would constitute a distinct class by themselves. It is because of the policy decision of the State Government that they took Government employment and spent valuable period of their lives serving in rural areas. In my considered view the inservice doctors would constitute a distinct class by themselves. Having closely scanned ‘2000 Regulations’ I find that they do not at all deal with the issue of setting apart seats in post graduate studies for the benefit of inservice doctors. 12. After quoting Regulation 9, the Court has further observed as under; “A close look at Regulation 9 demonstrates that it is silent in regard to a serving officer of the State Government entitled to be selected against the quota of seats allocated to in service doctors, Regulation 9 applies only to the students in general category and in my opinion it cannot be made applicable to inservice medical officers of the Stale Government. “Students in general category” and “inservice medical officers of the State Government” are two distinct classes and two ‘unequals’ cannot be made as ‘equals’ by misinterpreting Regulation 9. The competence of the State Government to prescribe 33% marks as the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to P.G. Courses has already been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pre P.G. Medical Sangharsh Committee vs. Dr. Bajrang Soni (supra) as already noticed in the foregoing paras of this judgment. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) the issue of’inservice doctors’ was not the one posed before the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In my considered view the ratio indicated in Pre PG Medical Sangharsh Committee vs. Dr. Bajrang Soni is squarely applicable in the instant cases.” 13. Thus, in this case, the court has categorically held that the inservice doctors form a distinct class and Regulation 9 is silent in regard to the serving doctors entitled to be selected against the seats allocated for inservice doctors and further that Regulation 9 applies only to the students in the general category and it could not be made applicable to inservice medical officers. 14. The decision of this Court in Dr. Ramji Sharma’s case (supra) was taken to the Supreme Court and it was given out that S.L.P. is pending but stay has been declined by the Supreme Court. 15. In the case of Dr. Bajrang Soni & Anr. 14. The decision of this Court in Dr. Ramji Sharma’s case (supra) was taken to the Supreme Court and it was given out that S.L.P. is pending but stay has been declined by the Supreme Court. 15. In the case of Dr. Bajrang Soni & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in which increased seats from 25% to 50% for inservice candidates was under challenge, a division bench of this Court held that the increase of reservation of seats for inservice candidates from 25% to 50% did not warrant any interference and that this policy decision of the Government was based on reasons having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It was felt by the Government that after acquiring qualification of MBBS, the doctors had been serving in rural areas; various posts of Junior Specialists were lying vacant in rural areas and persons with PG degrees were not available. When more PG doctors are available in the government service, they will be available for rural areas as well and for like reasons, it was held that the policy decision of the Government to increase the seats of inservice candidates from 25% to 50% was not arbitrary and there was rational basis and accordingly, the increase in seats from 25% to 50% for inservice doctors was upheld. 16. In the case of Dr. Bajrang Soni also, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and in Pre-PG Medical Sangharsh Committee & Anr. 16. In the case of Dr. Bajrang Soni also, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and in Pre-PG Medical Sangharsh Committee & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, while affirming the decision rendered in the case of Dr.Bajrang Soni vs. State ot Rajasthan (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that it was permissible for the Government to fix such source or classification of candidates from which selections for admission to postgraduate colleges in the State had to be made for yet another genuine, relevant and reasonable cause and purpose which has, sufficient nexus with the larger goal of equalisation of educational opportunities and to sufficiently prefer the doctors serving in the various hospitals run and maintained from out of public funds by the Government or Government departments, in the absence of which there would be serious dearth of qualified post graduate doctors and experts to meet the requirements of such hospitals run by the State and State departments, the only avenue open for treatment of the large body of the ordinary common man, all over the State. This larger interest unlike reservation envisaged for SC/ST with different and laudable purpose to assist educationally backward class, is a distinct and vitally important public purpose in itself absolutely necessitated in the best of public interest.” 17. While Dr. Bajrang Soni’s case (supra) was affirmed, with regard to admission of inservice candidates to the post graduate course, reduction of minimum cut off marks from 50% to 33% by the State Government was upheld. In para 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court made weighty observations in favour of inservice candidates as under: “That apart, as rightly pointed out in one of the judgments of this Court noticed above, mere theoretical excellence or merit alone is no sufficient indicia of the qualitative merits of the candidates in the field of actual practice and application. The doctors, who are inservice candidates in various medical institutions run and maintained by the Government or government departments, have wide area and horizon of exposure on the practical side and they may not have the required extra time to keep themselves afresh on the theoretical side like an open candidate who may have sufficient time at his disposal to plod through books. The inservice candidates in contract to the fresh or open candidates have to spend much of their time on attending and treating the patients in the hospitals they service gaining excellence on the practical side and, in our view, they would constitute a distinct class by themselves to be given a special treatment and no grievance can be made out on the ground that the minimum eligibility marks for their selection in respect of seats earmarked for them should also be the same as that of the fresh or open candidates. We could see no discrimination or arbitrariness involved in the special provision made to meet a just and appropriate need in public interest.” 18. In the case of Dr. Vineet Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., prescribing of qualifying marks at 33% from 50% in Pre-P.G. Entrance Test was under challenge and the court held that prescribing of qualifying marks for inservice doctors is the prerogative of the State and it was function of the State Government to determine and prescribe the qualifying marks in the circumstances as may be applicable in the particular State. In the State of Rajasthan, there was no qualifying marks for any category and the admissions were being held simply in accordance with the merit list. Lateron, the qualifying marks were fixed at 50%; in 1997, thereafter, the Government in its own wisdom had taken a decision to reduce the qualifying marks from 50% to 33%. 19. In the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi vs. State of UP, the medical graduates desirous of admission to P.G. Courses challenged the notification providing for reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates in Post Graduate speciality and super speciality courses such as MD/MS. 20. 19. In the case of Dr. Sadhna Devi vs. State of UP, the medical graduates desirous of admission to P.G. Courses challenged the notification providing for reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates in Post Graduate speciality and super speciality courses such as MD/MS. 20. In AJIMS Students’ Union vs. AJIMS & Ors., a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while considering the question with regard to institutional reservation based on rationale of continuity, admissions to post graduate courses in medical colleges and the question of reservation in the context of Article 15(4), Article 16(4) and Article 14, while holding that institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principles, certain degree of preference for students of the same institution intending to prescribe further studies therein is permissible on the ground of convenience, suitability, familiarity with educational environment; such preference has to be reasonable and not excessive; the preference has to be prescribed without making excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality but has to be kept within limits; minimum standards cannot be so diluted as to become practically non-existent; such marginal institutional preference is tolerable at post graduate level but is rendered intolerable at still higher levels such as that of super speciality. 21. In para 31 of this judgment the Supreme Court also considered as to whether it was case of reservation or only a source of entry and considering the contention based on the case of J. Duraisamy vs. State of T.N., as to whether the reservation of 33% post graduate seats in favour of students of AJIMS was not a reservation and use of the expression “reservation” in this context was mis-placed. In this context, in para 31, the Supreme Court further noted that in fact there are two sources of entry to PG courses of study in AJIMS which are (i) inhouse candidates of AJIMS and (ii) open category candidates i.e. students other than from AJIMs. Ratio of entry between the two sources was 33:67. Supreme Court further observed in this very para 31 that K. Duraisamy vs. State of T.N. was one where limited seats available for post graduation were equally divided between inservice candidates i.e. doctors already in employment (of government or semi government bodies) and open category candidates which included, all candidates other than those falling within definition of inservice candidates. Supreme Court further observed in this very para 31 that K. Duraisamy vs. State of T.N. was one where limited seats available for post graduation were equally divided between inservice candidates i.e. doctors already in employment (of government or semi government bodies) and open category candidates which included, all candidates other than those falling within definition of inservice candidates. The Supreme Court further held that the State Government had undoubtedly power, as a matter of policy in so far as admissions to super speciality and PG Diploma/degree/MD/MS courses are concerned, to device scheme for pattern of two sources of entry based upon a broad classification into two categories i.e. inservice candidates and non service or private candidates with each one of them allocated exclusively for their own category of candidates 50% of the seats; the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. A candidate belonging to one category could not move across to the other category and seek entry therefrom. Such scheme envisaged no reservation but classification of the sources from which admissions had to be accorded. It was also opined by the Supreme Court that the meaning contained purport of the expression ‘reservation’ will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used and it is to be noted that in the case o