Per NAIK A.B., J.:---The petitioners in this petition are challenging the action of the respondents for non reserving the seats subjectwise in post-graduate course commencing from the year, 2002-03. The petitioners belong to N.T.-1 category having secured good number of marks at the M.B.B.S. and C.E.T. 2002. In this petition, we are mainly concerned with the reservation that is made in favour of the weaker section's category, namely, S.C., S.T., V.J. and N.T. and Other Backward Classes. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners are eligible for admission to the post-graduate course in medicine etc. on the merit as per C.E.T. 2002, standing. It is also not disputed that the admission to the post-graudate course is governed by the Rules for Admission to Post-Graudate Course in Medicine as published and annexed along with the brochure for P.G.M. and C.E.T., 2002 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Department (hereinafter referred to as Admission Rules). The two petitioners before us, after passing their M.B.B.S. examination, have completed the internship and accordingly, certificates came to be issued in their favour on 14th August, 2001 and 2nd March, 2002. The petitioners appeared for P.G.M. C.E.T. 2002 examination, the result of which was declared on 25th March, 2002. It is also not disputed that the petitioners stand in the merit list and they are eligible for admission to the P.G. course on their own merits. The petitioners belong to Beldar caste which is recognised as Nomadic Tribe. After publication of admission rules, the petitioners applied for the P.G. course in the reserved category. The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that the reservation made for the reserved class categories is not done subjectwise but, it has been done at the whims of the Director allotting different seats in different colleges. The petitioners contended that if the reservation is provided to the reserved class candidate, strictly in accordance with the ratio provided under the admission rules, the petitioners are entitled to the subject in M.S. (General Surgery), M.D. (Paediatrics) and M.D. (Radiology) for which they have special interest. The petitioners' contention in this petition is that the distribution of seats is not strictly in compliance with the mandate of the Rules which are framed by the Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners' contention in this petition is that the distribution of seats is not strictly in compliance with the mandate of the Rules which are framed by the Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that distribution of seats which is provided as per the notification dated 7th February, 2003 being arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 29(2) of the Constitution which may be quashed and by issuing a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to provide subjectwise reservation so far as it relates to 50% of the seats meant for reserved class candidates. 2. The petitioners in fact, had taken part in the first round of interview under protest, they accepted the seats offered to them. At the conclusion of the first round, the petitioners approached this Court, this petition was lodged on 13th February, 2003. The petition was circulated for motion hearing before Division Bench on 18th February, 2003, passed the following order: ""Notice to respondents. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of R. Nos. 1 and 2. S.O. to 21-2-2003."" 3. This writ petition was listed for admission on 24th February, 2003. On hearing the respective Advocates, the Court passed the following order: ""1. Notice in this petition was taken by the learned A.G.P. on 18-2-2003. The matter pertains to the admission to post graudate medical courses, and as such, it was fixed on 21-2-2003. The matter did not reach on 21-2-2003 and as such it was taken up today. Mr. Khandare, learned A.G.P. initially informed the Court that no instructions have been received from respondent No. 2 even though the respondent No. 2 had been informed on Fax. In view of the urgency of the matter, the learned A.G.P. was asked to take instructions on phone from the respondent No. 2 in the matter. Mr. Khandare, learned A.G.P. states that the respondent No. 2 has agreed to accommodate one seat in M.S. (Surgery) and also that there are mistakes in the distribution of seats to post graudate medical courses. (Emphasis supplied). The learned Advocate for the petitioner placed before us the chart and prima facie, we find that the reservations are not in accordance with the percentage as provided. (Emphasis supplied). The second round of admissions is stated to start from tomorrow and will complete by 26th February, 2003. (Emphasis supplied). The learned Advocate for the petitioner placed before us the chart and prima facie, we find that the reservations are not in accordance with the percentage as provided. (Emphasis supplied). The second round of admissions is stated to start from tomorrow and will complete by 26th February, 2003. In view of this, ad interim relief is granted namely that the selection process of the candidates to medical post graduate degree and diploma courses in the subjects of M.S. (General Surgery), M.D. (Ped) and M.D. (Radiology) including counselling pursuant to the notification published in Daily Lokmat issue dated 3-2-2003 is stayed till further orders. S.O. to 3-3-2003."" 4. On 4th March, 2003, the petition was again listed for admission hearing and at the request of the learned A.G.P. the writ petition was adjourned to 11th March, 2003 for filing affidavit-in-reply. Accordingly, the matter was listed before us on 11th March, 2003. On that day, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents and sought time to file affidavit-in-reply. The reason given for adjournment was that the Competent Authority wants to consult special Counsel in the matter. We were reluctant to adjourn the matter on the said request. We have noticed the order passed by us earlier as, no affidavit was filed and time was sought on the ground referred to in the letter dated 6th March, 2003 which was produced before us by the learned A.G.P. On imposing cost of Rs. 2500/-, we adjourned the matter to 20th March, 2003. On 20th March, 2003, we commenced hearing of this writ petition which remained part heard on 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 31st March, 2003. We further continued hearing on 4th April, 2003. The hearing was concluded on the day and we formed, prima facie, view that the allotment of seats for reserve class candidates made by the authority are not in consonance with the true spirit of the Rules. We are of the view that the reservation should necessarily be subjectwise. We further continued hearing on 4th April, 2003. The hearing was concluded on the day and we formed, prima facie, view that the allotment of seats for reserve class candidates made by the authority are not in consonance with the true spirit of the Rules. We are of the view that the reservation should necessarily be subjectwise. As the question arose before us relates only to the 50% seats those are reserved for reserved class categories made under the provisions of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, we thought it fit to issue notice to all the reserved class candidates as the outcome of the writ petition was likely to affect the candidates who have secured admission in the first round and to enable the petitioners to publish a notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we directed the petitioners to publish the said notice in the newspaper and fixed the hearing of the writ petition on 19th April, 2003. As per the order passed by us, the petitioners published the notice in the daily newspaper which is produced before us. The said paper was taken on record. On perusing the notice published in the newspaper, we are satisfied that the notice has been published in the newspaper widely circulated. In response to the said notice, none from reserve class category appeared before us. On 19th April, 2003, Shri V.D. Salunke, H.T. Joshi and Hak from Nagpur, learned Advocates appeared. On making query with them, they informed that they are briefed to appear in the matter by the students who have sought admission from open category. As we are dealing in this petition exclusively with the seats those are reserved for reserved category candidates, we noted their appearance only. As no candidate belonging to reserved category appeared before us, we heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. After publishing the notice, we take it that there is no objection from any one and accordingly, on this backdrop, and as the admissions to P.G. courses are stayed by this Court, with consent of the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State, we decide this petition finally. Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned Advocates appearing in the petition. 5. Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned Advocates appearing in the petition. 5. It is not disputed before us that the rules for admission are framed by Government of Maharashtra under its Executive Powers conferred by Article 154 and 162 of the Constitution of India and those Rules inter alia provides for reservation to the Backward Class candidates as per the directives of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. In this petition, we are mainly concerned with the admission of the candidates belonging to the reserved category. We may refer to some of the relevant rules for the purpose of decision of this petition. ""3. Definitions: Unless the context otherwise requires, e) 'Course' means 3-years degree course leading to M.D./M.S. degree and/or two years diploma courses in various subjects. n) 'Reservation' means the reservation prescribed by the Government for admission to Post-graduate Courses in Medicine which includes both Constitutional Reservation for the Backward Classes Other Reservations if any. 7. Number of Seats: The seats available for admission to post-graduate medical courses through P.G.M.-C.E.T. are exclusive of 25% all India quota, and 25% in-service quota. The institutewise availability of seats will be decided as per post-graduate regulation 2000 published by the M.C.I. 7.1. Post-graduate seat left unfilled in an academic year, shall not be carried forward to the next or subsequent academic years. An academic year being from 1st January to 31st December of any calender year. 7.2 The seats available will be filled in on the basis of State Level Merit in P.G.M.-C.E.T. There will not be any regional reservation, however there will be constitutional reservation in these seats as per Government orders issued from time to time. (Annexure ""C"")."" ""ANNEXURE- ""C"" RESERVATIONS: (i) All candidates from Backward Class categories will be admitted against the available seats. (ii) The candidates who are the domicile of State of Maharashtra are only eligible to be admitted for seats of Backward Class categories. (iii) Inter se amongst the categories of Backward Class will be operated at the end of the round against the unfilled Backward Class seats as per the merit and choice of the Backward Class candidates. (ii) The candidates who are the domicile of State of Maharashtra are only eligible to be admitted for seats of Backward Class categories. (iii) Inter se amongst the categories of Backward Class will be operated at the end of the round against the unfilled Backward Class seats as per the merit and choice of the Backward Class candidates. The seats remaining vacant from various categories will be filled in during inter se round as follows: (a) From among the candidates of their respective group from the inter se State Merit List of that particular group where the vacancies exists. The groups are as follows--- GROUP-I (i) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism (S.C.) 13.0% (ii) Scheduled Tribes including those living out-side specified area (S.T.) 7.0% GROUP-II (i) Vimukta Jati (V.J.) 3.0% (ii) Nomadic Tribes (N.T.-1) 2.5% GROUP-III (i) Nomadic Tribes (N.T.-2) 3.5% (ii) Nomadic Tribes (N.T.-3) 2.0% (iii) Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) 19.0% ---------------- 50.0%"" ""15. METHOD OF SELECTION FOR PROVISIONAL ADMISSION TO POSTGRADUATE COURSES: 15.3. The allotment of seats will be made to the candidates as per their State Merit through personal appearance. For personal appearance, the candidates will be called in batches, in order to merit as per the schedule. The schedule programme will be notified at all Government Medical Colleges in Maharashtra, published in the Newspapers, and on web site of DMER ""www.dmer.org"" by the Competent Authority. The candidate will have the right to choose any one of the available seats at his/her merit position and the same will be allotted to him/her."" 6. It is not disputed before us that total available seats for post-graduate course under the control of the Medical Education Drugs Department are 788 in all the fifteen Government Colleges. Out of 788, 394 seats are meant for open category candidates and balance for the reserved category candidates. The seats are to be filled in on the basis of merit of the students as determined according to the PGM-CET 2002. 7. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply came to be filed on behalf of the respondents by Dr. Abhay Sadashiv Chowdhary, Professor Head of the Department Microbiology, Grant Medical College, Byculla, Mumbai Member, P.G. Committee. The seats are to be filled in on the basis of merit of the students as determined according to the PGM-CET 2002. 7. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply came to be filed on behalf of the respondents by Dr. Abhay Sadashiv Chowdhary, Professor Head of the Department Microbiology, Grant Medical College, Byculla, Mumbai Member, P.G. Committee. The contention that is raised in this affidavit in order to oppose the contention of the petitioners is that 50% of the total seats are earmarked for reserved category as per ""Annexure-C"" demonstrating the reservations provided to the reserved category students with different groups with fixed percentage set out in Annexure-C. It is contended that providing the reservation in courses for various categories is three dimensional exercise---(1) category, (2) college and (3) subject. Treating this as a basis, the distribution of seats in favour of different classes of reserved category are provided. It is accepted by the respondents that the reservation so provided is not subjectwise but, it is on the basis of availability of seats in the particular college and availability of the professors for the concerned subjects in the colleges. It is contended that there are various colleges in the State conducting the various courses in post-graduation. It is contended that in all the colleges, all the courses in post-graudate are not available because of the admission capacity of the college. It is contended that admission capacity of the students in the college, even coursewise, differs from each other and it is very difficult to provide reservation in each college and in each category and also in each of the subjects with exactitude. It is further submitted that the distribution of the seats has become very complicated because of the fractional percentage of reservation for various categories and odd number of the seats available for admission. It is further submitted that the State Government has taken care for providing the reservation for all the reserved categories, as far as possible, to meet the required percentage of reservation category-wise. It is also submitted that in achieving that to the nearest possible extent, the Government has tried to provide as far as possible all the subjects nearer to the percentage to each category as prescribed. It is also submitted that in achieving that to the nearest possible extent, the Government has tried to provide as far as possible all the subjects nearer to the percentage to each category as prescribed. It is stated that the Government has provided reservation firstly, to observe and maintain the fixed percentage of categorywise reservation in each and every college and secondly, by taking the total number of seats to maintain the said percentage. The respondents have provided a chart showing distribution of seats collegewise. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the said chart which will indicate the distribution of seats amongst the reserved category candidates as per the percentage, earmarked as per Annexure ""C"". Admissions to PG Medical Courses, 2002-2003. Details of Available Merit Seats, 50% reservation 394 seats. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. College Total SC ST VJ N1 N2 N3 OBC TotBC No. Seats in each College 1. GMC, Mumbai 75 12 4 2 1 4 1 14 38 2. LTMC, Mumbai 87 12 6 3 1 5 2 16 44 3. GS, Mumbai 142 19 10 6 3 4 3 25 70 4. TNMC, Mumbai 80 9 6 3 2 4 1 15 40 5. BJMC, Pune 82 10 7 1 2 3 2 16 41 6. VMMED, Solapur 35 4 2 1 1 1 0 8 17 7. GMC, Miraj 40 5 3 0 2 1 1 8 20 8. BHMS, Mumbai 16 1 2 1 -- 1 -- 3 8 9. TATA, Mumbai 29 3 1 1 1 1 -- 7 14 10. GMC, Nagpur 70 10 5 2 2 2 2 11 34 11. IGMC, Nagpur 40 3 3 2 1 -- 1 10 20 12. VNMC, Yeotmal 3 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 2 13. GMC, Aurangabad 51 7 3 2 1 1 2 10 26 14. GMC, Nanded 13 2 2 -- 1 -- -- 2 7 15. SRTR, Ambajogai 25 5 1 1 -- -- -- 6 13 TOTAL 788 103 55 25 18 27 15 151 394 8. VNMC, Yeotmal 3 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 2 13. GMC, Aurangabad 51 7 3 2 1 1 2 10 26 14. GMC, Nanded 13 2 2 -- 1 -- -- 2 7 15. SRTR, Ambajogai 25 5 1 1 -- -- -- 6 13 TOTAL 788 103 55 25 18 27 15 151 394 8. It is contended by the respondents that it is not possible practically to provide for reservation to each category in a fixed percantage subjectwise and a fear has been expressed by the deponent that if subjectwise reservation is made, it will not be possible to maintain the requisite balance, for observing fixed percentage of categorywise reservation, in each college, and to maintain overall reservation by taking all the available seats from the college together. It is further contended that the Government has tried to maintain to the maximum possible extent a roster providing reservations categorywise and subjectwise. Such a roster is intended to be followed year after year so that where fractional seats are to be reserved categorywise, a balance is struck so that subject wise and categorywise reservations are satisfied. It is the contention of the petitioners that the rules published must indicate subjectwise reservation, as the brochure does not indicate subjectwise reservation. It is contended that the candidate has a right to select a particular subject and a provision is made to that affect in the rules. It is contended that subjectwise reservation was being followed till last academic year when the seats were filled in by the Maharashtra Health University but this year the healthy practice is given a go bye. To this contention, it is stated in reply that the availability of post-graduate seats in any given college depends upon the availability of teacher for that subject. The past experience shows that several seats though are available when a brochure is to be published, the seats are not available when actual admission process starts as in the meantime the teacher available becomes unavailable for various reasons like resignation, retirement, transfer, death etc. It is stated that having regard to the past experience which has given way to the litigation and consequently, delay in starting post-graduate course, this year that practice is deviated. It is stated that having regard to the past experience which has given way to the litigation and consequently, delay in starting post-graduate course, this year that practice is deviated. It is further stated that in past when the students were selected on the basis of the reservation made subjectwise and sent to the respective colleges, the colleges refused to admit such students on account of non-availability of teachers. In order to avoid such complications, the State Government has not published or provided for the availability of seats in various courses/subjects. 9. It is further stated that by providing the reservation, all possible care has been taken to provide reservation to all the classes. It is, therefore, denied that any special favour is given to V.J. category in allotting subjects and not providing the same subjects to N.T.-1 category. It is further stated that the petitioners have secured admission and they have been already granted admission to the P.G. course and, therefore, they are not entitled to make any complaint and it is submitted that as the petitioners have secured admission, the petition be dismissed. 10. Having noticed, in brief, the contentions of the parties, now we will refer to the submissions made by the respective Advocates. 11. Shri Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the candidate has the right to choose any one of the available 'seat' as per his/her merit position. The exercise of this right will depend on only when the reservation is provided subjectwise, otherwise this right will become illusory if no reservation is made subjectwise. The learned Counsel contended that the term 'seat' used in Rule 15.3 means the 'subject' and not the seat. He submitted that reservation as provided in 'Annexure-C' refers to the specific percentage of reservation to the three groups carved out and each one of the group is entitled as of right to the percentage of seats (subject) referred to in that group. Shri Talekar demonstrated before us that the distribution of the seats, (the percentage as referred to in Annexure-C) cast and tribewise, has not been maintained and in arbitrary manner, the seats are allotted though the final distribution of 50% of the seats which are earmarked for reserved candidates is shown to be completed. Shri Talekar demonstrated before us that the distribution of the seats, (the percentage as referred to in Annexure-C) cast and tribewise, has not been maintained and in arbitrary manner, the seats are allotted though the final distribution of 50% of the seats which are earmarked for reserved candidates is shown to be completed. He further contended that it is always necessary to have reservation subjectwise and subjectwise reservation must be disclosed well in advance so that a candidate seeking admission, can select a particular subject according to his choice and according to his merit and standing in merit list. He made a grievance that at the time of interview, the petitioners were shown the available seats and they were asked to select the seats and there was no time for the candidates such as petitioners to select the subject of their choice in few seconds. He, therefore, contended that the candidates must know which subject is allotted to which caste/tribe and they must also know the position of standing in merit of each candidate. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the distribution of seats amongst the reserved candidates, as made by the authorities is thus, arbitrary and based on non-application of mind and without any valid reasons. Shri Talekar has demonstrated before us as to how the seats are distributed in arbitrary manner by the authorities. He has submitted before us a chart prepared by him showing the distribution of seats subjectwise which is nearer to specific percentage of each caste/tribe. It is contended that subjectwise reservation is possible. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that if the chart prepared by him is perused, it would demonstrate that subjectwise distribution is possible to fullest extent. We will reproduce that chart prepared by the learned Advocate for the petitioners in order to substantiate his contention that subjectwise reservation is possible. It is contended that subjectwise reservation is possible. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that if the chart prepared by him is perused, it would demonstrate that subjectwise distribution is possible to fullest extent. We will reproduce that chart prepared by the learned Advocate for the petitioners in order to substantiate his contention that subjectwise reservation is possible. CHART SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS IN DIFFERENT SUBJECTS TO VARIOUS CATEGORIES (Reservation as provided in Annexure ""C"") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject Total Open SC ST VJ NT1 NT2 NT3 OBC Total 13% 7% 3% 2.5% 3.5% 2% 19% BC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medicine 71 36 9 5 2 2 2 2 13 35 Skin VD 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 03 Chest TB 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 03 Psychiatry 7 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 03 Paediatric 34 17 4 2 1 1 1 1 7 17 Surgery 60 30 8 4 2 2 2 1 11 30 Orthopaedics 28 14 4 2 1 1 1 0 5 14 ENT 20 10 3 1 1 0 1 0 4 10 Ophthalmology 18 9 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 09 Radiology 30 15 4 2 1 1 1 1 5 15 Anaesthesia 60 30 8 4 2 2 2 1 11 30 OBGY 56 28 7 4 2 1 2 1 11 28 Radiotherapy 05 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 02 Anatomy 16 8 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 08 Physiology 15 8 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 07 Pharmacology 17 9 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 08 Microbiology 21 11 3 1 1 0 1 0 4 10 PSM 31 15 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 16 Forensic Medicine 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 02 Pathology 48 24 6 3 2 1 2 1 9 24 Biochemistry 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 02 DVD 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 03 DPM 8 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 04 DCH 25 12 3 2 1 1 1 0 5 13 DMRD 29 14 4 2 1 1 1 1 5 15 DMRT 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 DA 51 25 7 14 1 1 2 1 10 26 DGO 45 22 6 3 1 1 2 1 9 23 DPH 25 12 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 13 DFM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 DTCD 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 D. Ortho. 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 03 DORL 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 03 DOMS 11 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 06 DCP 13 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 07 DD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 788 394 102 55 24 20 27 16 150 394 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHART SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SEATS AMONGST OPEN AND VARIOUS RESERVED CATEGORIES IN VARIOUS MEDICAL COLLEGES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Total Open SC ST VJ NT1 NT2 NT3 OBC Total 50% 13% 7% 3% 2.5% 3.5% 2% 19% BC 50% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GMC 75 38 10 5 2 2 2 2 14 37 Mumbai 2. LTMC 87 44 11 7 3 2 3 1 16 43 Mumbai 3. GS 142 71 18 11 5 4 5 2 26 71 Mumbai 4. TNMC 80 40 10 5 3 2 3 1 16 40 Mumbai 5. BJMC 82 41 10 6 2 2 3 2 16 41 Pune 6. VNMC 35 17 4 3 0 1 2 1 7 18 Solapur 7. GMC Miraj 40 20 6 3 1 1 1 1 7 20 8. BH Mumbai 16 8 3 1 0 1 0 0 3 08 9. TMRC 29 15 4 2 1 1 0 0 6 14 Mumbai 10. GMC 70 35 9 6 2 2 2 2 12 35 Nagpur 11. IGMC 40 20 5 3 1 0 1 1 9 20 Nagpur 12. GMC 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 02 Yeotmal 13. GMC 51 25 7 1 2 1 4 2 9 26 Aurangabad 14. GMC 13 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 06 Nanded 15. SRTR 25 12 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 13 Ambejogai ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 788 394 102 55 24 20 27 16 150 394 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Shri Khandare, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents---State has not seriously disputed this aspect and he stated that the distribution as suggested by the petitioners Advocate is also possible. 13. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his contention that subjectwise reservation is required to be made, has relied on the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. 13. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his contention that subjectwise reservation is required to be made, has relied on the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. He submitted that the candidate seeking admission, must know in advance the position of the seats reserved for the reserved candidates to enable those candidates to select the seats as no reservation is disclosed subjectwise in the brochure. An opportunity is denied to the deserving and meritorious candidate to select the subject of their choice. Shri Talekar has relied on the following judgments: (1) (N.T.R. University of Health Sciences v. G. Babu Rajendra Prasad another)1, 2003(2) Supreme 549 ; (2) (Pramod Madhukarrao Padole and another v. Chancellor, Nagpur University and others)2, 1991 Mh.L.J. 1487; (3) (Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. Chancellor, Nagpur University and others)3, 1990 Mh.L.J. 1286; (4) (Dr. Anil and others v. The Dean, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur and others)4, A.I.R. 1988 Bombay 78; (5) (Dr. Vinay Sheshrao Kalbande v. Dean, Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur and others)5, A.I.R. 1986 Bombay 36; (6) (Anil v. The Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur and two others)6, A.I.R. 1985 Bombay 153; (7) (Prashant Chandrashekar Vekhade v. Dean, Government Ayurvedic College and others)7, 1990 Mh.L.J. 643; (8) (State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another)8, 1997(9) S.C.C. 662 ; 14. Shri Khandare the learned A.G.P. contended, that it is not the requirement of rule that subjectwise reservation be made and published in advance. He contended that till the previous year the admissions to P.G. course were being made through the Health University, and the University used to publish the notice showing reservation subjectwise, as the University has with it the list of teacher etc. He further submitted that in spite of such reservation subjectwise, no purpose was served. The learned A.G.P. contended that by the method that is adopted by the authority in giving collegewise distribution of the seats, it has reached the figure as far as possible. He contended that in rules such type of reservation is not contemplated. As per the permissible limit of 50% reservation as per the mandate of Articles 15(4) and 29 of the Constitution, the mandate is being complied with. He submitted that there cannot be further satisfaction of all the candidates. He contended that in rules such type of reservation is not contemplated. As per the permissible limit of 50% reservation as per the mandate of Articles 15(4) and 29 of the Constitution, the mandate is being complied with. He submitted that there cannot be further satisfaction of all the candidates. There must be some deviation from percentage marginally, but on face of it the reservation made, seats allotted categorywise cannot be faulted. He further submitted that distribution of seats as it is, be maintained. Shri N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents-State has relied on the following authorities: (1) (G.N. Nayak v. Goa University and others)9, 2002(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)216 : A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 790; (2) (University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others)10, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2083; (3) (Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and others)11, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1058; (4) (Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others)12, 1999(7) S.C.C. 120 ; (5) (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India)13, 1992 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 217; (6) (Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra and others)14, 1986(2) S.C.C. 534 ; (7) Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, 1990(IV) S.C.C. 55 ; (8) (M.R. Balaji and others v. The State of Mysore and others)15, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 649; (9) (Asif Hameed and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others)16, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1899. 14-A. Before we deal the contentions and test the allotment of seat, we will note down the statement made by the learned A.G.P. at the initial stage, wherein he admitted that there is mistake in allotment of seat. The learned A.G.P. has not stated any thing or demonstrated as to how the distribution of seats as done is proper. Be it as may, we will only refer the relevant authorities referred by both the learned Advocates. 15. Though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have cited various judgments which are noted above, we will be referring only those relevant or which are nearer to the point in controversy. The points in controversy before us, as we have noted at the beginning of the judgment are, (1) Whether subjectwise reservation is possible; (2) Whether the brochure should disclose the seats reserved for each subject. The learned A.G.P., along with reply, has produced a chart of distribution of seats. The points in controversy before us, as we have noted at the beginning of the judgment are, (1) Whether subjectwise reservation is possible; (2) Whether the brochure should disclose the seats reserved for each subject. The learned A.G.P., along with reply, has produced a chart of distribution of seats. These seats are allotted, according to the learned A.G.P., on the availability of the seats in each college. We will test the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and find out whether these contentions can be accepted. During the course of hearing, we called upon the learned A.G.P. to produce before us the material and data which was collected by the Competent Authority while publishing the Rules. Shri Khandare, learned A.G.P. has produced before us the file in order to substantiate his contention that information was collected before publication of the brochure and availability of seats, professors in each of the colleges. What we find from the record produced before us is that the Director of Medical Education Research has called the information from the Deans of all Colleges by a communication dated 3rd October, 2002 and November, 2002. In response to the said communication, the Deans of all the Government Medical Colleges have submitted the list. It is to our surprise that instead of sending the number of professors and the seats available in each colleges, the deans of all the respective colleges have taken upon themselves to distribute the seats amongst the various reserved categories and the chart sent to the Director of Medical Education Research by the Deans of the respective colleges is produced before us along with the affidavit in reply. We noticed that the distribution of seats is not made by the Director of Medical Education Research independently but, he simply relied upon the information provided by the Deans of the respective colleges. The Director should not have relied on the information submitted by the Deans. We have noticed that a specific contention has been raised in the affidavit that there is always possibility of variation of the available professors and teachers etc. in each college. But, we find ourselves unable to accept this contention when the record which?is produced before us does not disclose this aspect. In fact, there is no data available with the director regarding the availability of professors in each college. in each college. But, we find ourselves unable to accept this contention when the record which?is produced before us does not disclose this aspect. In fact, there is no data available with the director regarding the availability of professors in each college. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention raised by the respondents regarding the change of situation and for that purpose the reservation is not provided and disclosed subjectwise in the brochure published. In our opinion, the stand which is taken by the respondents is not substantiated by producing the relevant record. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention that is raised by the respondents. We reject the same. In our view, the explanation tendered by the respondents in that behalf is not plausible and cannot be accepted. After dealing this aspect and rejecting the contention raised by the respondents, now we will find out whether it is necessary to publish and indicate the seats reserved subjectwise in favour of the reserved candidates and whether it should be indicated in the advertisement itself. To test the correctness of this contention of the learned Counsel, we will first refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in case of Prashant Chandrashekar Vekhade v. Dean, Government Ayurvedic College and others, 1990 Mh.L.J. 643. The case before the Division Bench was in respect of P.G. course in the Government Ayurvedic College at Nagpur. The petitioners in that case had challenged the selection list prepared by the Dean, Government Ayurvedic College for admission to the post-graduate course in the subject of ""Kaya Chikitsa"" and ""Ras Shastra"". An advertisement was given on 31st August, 1989 for filling in 10 seats, 4 in Ras Shastra and 6 in Kaya shastra. Out of these ten seats, five seats were reserved for Backward Classes, 2 seats for S.C., one for S.T. and one for N.T. and one for O.B.C. The petitioners in that petition applied as per the advertisement and after the scrutiny, the Dean, Ayurvedic College prepared the provisional select list showing the allocation of seats and waiting list of the candidates in the subjects concerned. One of petitioners in that petition is shown at serial No. 2 in waiting list in subject of Kaya Chikitsa and the name of the another petitioner was not included in the waiting list. One of petitioners in that petition is shown at serial No. 2 in waiting list in subject of Kaya Chikitsa and the name of the another petitioner was not included in the waiting list. The allocation of seats subjectwise was referred as under: ""Kaya Chiktsa: 3. in-service persons, 1 general seat, 1 O.B.C. and 1 Scheduled Caste. From student category 2 students were admitted one general seats and 1 Scheduled Tribe. Ras Shastra: 2. seats were allotted to in-service persons, 1 general, 1 D.T.N.T., 1 Scheduled Caste seat to other University students and 1 seat for O.B.C."" 16. After the select list was published, the successful candidates approached this Court by filing writ petitions. It is contended by the Dean i.e. the respondent that the reservation of the Backward Class is worked out on the total seats available as per Rule 3(b) which is meant for reserved seats and 3 seats for Backward Classes are to be given by rotation and the reserved seats are worked out by following 100 point roster sanctioned by the Government. It is contended that in fact, out of 10 seats, 6 seats have gone to open category including the O.B.C. The main grievance before this Court was that in the advertisement, no mention was made regarding reservation subjectwise. On considering the facts placed before this Court, the Court has come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the Government to indicate the reservation subjectwise. The Court has observed thus.--- ""9. We have noticed glaring defects in the advertisement. The advertisement is vague and ambiguous. The respondent No. 1 published this advertisement as per Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed on dated 1-8-1989. Rule 3 reads as--- ""3. Notification of Seats: A notification stating the number of seats at the respective Ayurved College available for registration for post-graduate Ayurveda Course in various Ayurvedic subjects will be notified by the Deans, at their respective Ayurveda College in the academic year, sufficiently in advance. The notification will indicate the following particulars--- (a) The subjectwise availability of seats. (b) The reservation of seats for Backward Classes as prescribed by Government mentioning that the category for which the seats are reserved will be given by rotation. (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"" As per Rule 3(a) subjectwise availability of seats should be indicated in the advertisement. Four seats in Ras Shastra and six seats in Kaya Chikitsa are indicated. (b) The reservation of seats for Backward Classes as prescribed by Government mentioning that the category for which the seats are reserved will be given by rotation. (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"" As per Rule 3(a) subjectwise availability of seats should be indicated in the advertisement. Four seats in Ras Shastra and six seats in Kaya Chikitsa are indicated. As per Rule 3(b) the reservation as prescribed by the Government mentioned in the category for which the seats are reserved are to be given by rotation. This rule presupposes that there should be specific indication of reservation of posts with reference to particular subject. The respondent No. 1 has not indicated the reservation in the subject. Specific posts are not mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, from the advertisement the candidates are not aware of the reservation in the specific posts in the subject concerned. In this regard the observations of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 1097, are necessary, to be borne in mind. It is held in this case that, ""the reservation for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contemplated in section 57(4)(a) of the Nagpur University Act means reservation of specific posts, namely, posts with reference to particular subjects. The reservation under the section means reservation of identifiable posts, i.e. reservation of posts subjectwise."" This observation aptly applies in this case also."" (Emphasis supplied) 17. From the ratio of the above said judgment, it is clear that there must be a specific indication of reservation of posts with reference to a particular subject. The Dean has not indicated the reservation in the subject. The specific posts are not mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, this Court struck down the said advertisement and granted relief to the petitioner. We may now refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, 1990 Mh.L.J. 1286. The judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Verma's case (supra) was referred by the Division Bench in Prashant Chandrashekar Vekhade's case (supra) which was a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 1097. The judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Verma's case (supra) was referred by the Division Bench in Prashant Chandrashekar Vekhade's case (supra) which was a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 1097. The said judgment of the Full Bench was before the Apex Court which is reported in 1990 Mh.L.J. 1286. The facts before the Apex Court in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma's case were thus: Nagpur University issued an employment notice inviting applications for total 77 posts which includes 13 posts of Professors, 29 posts of Readers and 35 posts of Lecturers in different subjects. The notice mentioned total number of reservation categorywise but, not subjectwise. The employment notice published by the University specified the categorywise reservation. Professor: S.C. 3 posts, S.T. 2 posts, and V.J./N.T. 1 post. Readers: S.C. 6, S.T. 4 and V.J./N.T. 2. Lecturers: S.C. 7, S.T. 5 and V.J./N.T. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement number of applications were received for the posts from the candidates including the petitioners belonging to both reserved and non-reserved categories for all three cadres of the posts i.e. Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The advertisement was corrected by corrigendum on February 1, 1985. Thereafter, the further employment notice for additional posts in all three categories was issued on 1st August, 1985. After the said notice was published, it revealed from the facts stated by the Apex Court that some social workers and organisations made representation to the Chancellor making grievance against both the employment notices and the procedure followed in making such appointment. Thereafter, the Chancellor appointed one man committee under section 76 of the Nagpur University Act to inquire into the matter. The Committee submitted its report by September 19, 1986 which was accepted by the Chancellor. In the meanwhile, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur challenging the employment notice on various grounds. The Apex Court has posed two questions for its consideration which reads, thus: ""(i) Whether the employment notice issued by the respondent University on July 27, 1984 ought to have indicated reservation post-wise? and (ii) Whether assuming that said notice was invalid, the termination of services of the appellants on April 21, 1987 was valid?"" 18. The Apex Court has posed two questions for its consideration which reads, thus: ""(i) Whether the employment notice issued by the respondent University on July 27, 1984 ought to have indicated reservation post-wise? and (ii) Whether assuming that said notice was invalid, the termination of services of the appellants on April 21, 1987 was valid?"" 18. So far as the issue raised in this petition, we are concerned with the answer by the Apex Court to question No. (i) There was difference of opinion between two Division Benches of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1876/1984 reported in (1985 Lab.I.C. 1481 (Bom.))17. Whereas, the another Bench differed with the said view and the matter was referred to the larger Bench. The issue which was referred to the larger Bench was.--- ""Is non-reserving the posts of university teachers subjectwise in the employment notice a breach of letter and spirit of reservation policy contained in section 77-C read with section 57 of the Act?"" The Apex Court, considering the submissions made before it, and held that the employment notice was bad in law since it has failed to notify the reservation of the post subjectwise. The Apex Court observed thus,--- ""7. The argument based on section 57(4)(a) of the Act to support the procedure adopted by the University is, according to us, not well merited. The contention is that since section 57(4)(a) requires the University to state in the advertisement only the total number of posts and the number of reserved posts and not postwise, i.e., subjectwise, the employment notice in question was not bad in law. According to us, the word ""post"" used in the context has a relation to the faculty, discipline, or the subject for which it is created. When, therefore, reservations are required to be made ""in posts"", the reservations have to be postwise, i.e., subjectwise. The mere announcement of the number of reserved posts is no better than inviting applications for posts without mentioning the subjects for which the posts are advertised. When, therefore, section 57(4)(a) requires that the advertisement or the employment notice would indicate the number of reserved posts, if any, it implies that the employment notice cannot be vague and has to indicate the specific post, i.e., the subject in which the post is vacant and for which the applications are invited from the candidates belonging to the reserved classes. A non-indication of the post in this manner itself defeats the purpose for which the applications are invited from the reserved category candidates and consequently negates the object of the reservation policy. That this is also the intention of the legislature is made clear by section 57(4)(d) which requires the Selection Committees to interview and adjudge the merits of each candidate and recommend him or her for appointment to ""the general posts"" and ""the reserved posts"", if any, advertised. 8. A support was also sought to be derived by the appellants to their contention from the policy of reservation as enunciated in Government Resolution dated March 30, 1981 wherein instructions were issued in the matter in exercise of the power conferred on the Government under section 77(c) of the Act. The contention was that since in para 3(b) of the said resolution it is stated that ""similarly, at any given time of recruitment to the teaching posts, only the total number of reserved vacancies and the sections from which they are to be filled in should be determined. It would be enough if the required percentage is fulfilled as a whole and not with reference to any particular post. If the reserved vacancies cannot be filled, then so many posts as cannot be filled in, may be kept vacant for six months and should be again advertised thrice. If, even after readvertising the posts three times, suitable candidates belonging to the reserved category do not become available, they may be filled in by candidates belonging to the ""open category"". We are afraid that this interpretation placed on the aforesaid contents of the Government Resolution stems from their misreading. Read in the context in which the said contents appear, it is clear that what is sought to be conveyed by them is that although at any given time the total percentage of reservation, viz. 34 is not made up vis a vis particular post or posts, it would be an enough compliance with the resolution if the total number of vacancies filled in all the posts together conform to the said percentage. It is common knowledge that the vacancies in posts in different subjects occur from time to time according to the exigencies of the circumstances and they arise unequally in different posts. It is common knowledge that the vacancies in posts in different subjects occur from time to time according to the exigencies of the circumstances and they arise unequally in different posts. There may not be vacancies in one or some posts whereas there may be a large number of vacancies in other posts. In such circumstances, it is not possible to comply with the minimum reservation percentage of 34 vis a vis each post. It is for this reason that the resolution states that although minimum percentage of reserved posts may not be filled in one or some posts, it will be enough if in that year it is filled in taking into consideration the total number of appointments in all the posts. This however, does not absolve the appointing authority from advertising in advance the vacancies in each post and the number of posts in such vacancies meant for the reserved category, and inviting applications from the candidates belonging to the reserved and unreserved categories with a clear statement in that behalf. In fact, the overall minimum percentage has to be kept in mind, as stated in the resolution, at the time of issuing the employment notice or the advertisement as the case may be. On behalf of the appellants reliance was also sought to be placed on a Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in (Dr. Raj Kumar v. Gulbarga University)18, A.I.R. 1990 Kar. 2125. We do not see how the decision in question helps the appellants, for the Full Bench has observed there that general reservation has to be cadrewise and subjectwise. But an exception could possibly be made in cases like the one of professors in which post available in each of the subjects is only one while grouping all of them together for purposes of reservation so that at least in the subjects in which the candidates belonging to the reserved category are available, they could be accommodated. It is not necessary for us in this case to express our opinion on the correct course to be adopted when only one post is available in a particular subject at a given time. The course to be adopted would depend upon the unit of reservations, the period over which the backlog is to be carried, the number of appointments already made in the said posts, the availability of candidates from the reserved category etc. The course to be adopted would depend upon the unit of reservations, the period over which the backlog is to be carried, the number of appointments already made in the said posts, the availability of candidates from the reserved category etc. What is material from our point of view in this case is to point out that even the Karnataka Full Bench has taken the view that generally reservation had to be cadrewise and subjectwise. It was also a case of the filling in of the vacancies in teaching posts in a University. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench that the employment notice dated July 27, 1984 was bad in law since it had failed to notify the reservation of the posts subjectwise and had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating the particular posts so reserved subjectwise."" (Emphasis supplied) 19. At this stage, we may also refer to another judgment of the Apex Court dealing with similar situation in State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another, reported in 1997(9) S.C.C. 662 . The Apex Court in Dr. Dina Nath Shukla's case has approved the view taken in Suresh Chandra Verma's case (supra). The Apex Court opined in Dr. Dina Nath's case, thus: ""9. Thus, it could be seen that even in the service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State including services and posts in all educational institutions, owned, controlled/maintained by the State or which receive grant-in-aid from the Government including a University established by or under the U.P. Act, the Act is applicable and when advertisement for direct recruitment to any of the posts or services in the University is issued, the rule of reservation should be applied for recruitment in each service, post, grade or cadre as per the percentage prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 3 in compliance with sub-sections (2) to (4) and (6) to (7); so also rule of rotation as per the roster adumbrated in sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act. Thereby, it would be clear that while issuing any advertisement for direct recruitment to fill up any post or service in any grade or cadre in the University/educational institution established under the U.P. Act, the university/educational institution should work out the posts before hand and to make recruitment accordingly. Thereby, it would be clear that while issuing any advertisement for direct recruitment to fill up any post or service in any grade or cadre in the University/educational institution established under the U.P. Act, the university/educational institution should work out the posts before hand and to make recruitment accordingly. It is seen that in the present case the advertisement specified various posts subjectwise and the vacancies were reserved for general candidates, Dalits, Tribes and OBCs. Of course, it is not clear whether it is as per roster. It is true, as contended by the learned Advocate General that if there is only one post in a cadre/faculty, be it a post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer, necessarily, all such single posts carrying the same scale of pay are required to be clubbed and the roster applied to such single post in terms of section 3(5) of the Act. When such a fusion is and in fact should be worked out, and roster is applied, necessarily advertisement should be issued inviting applications for recruitment to the posts. The university is required to ear-mark the posts in the roster meant for general category or Dalits, Tribes or OBCs so that every qualified candidate would apply for and seek selection in accordance with law. In this behalf, sub-section (6) of section 3 amplifies the general law that the candidates who had applied for recruitment for the posts earmarked as per section 3(1), if selected on merit in open competition with general candidates, then they shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. Sub-section (6) of section 3 reads as under: ""3(6) If a persons belonging to any of the categories mentioned in sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section (1)."" 13. Thus, it could be seen that if the subjectwise recruitment is adopted in each service or post in each cadre in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality, it would not only be clear to the candidates who seek recruitment but also there would not be an over-lapping in application of the rule of reservation to the service or posts as specified and made applicable by section 3 of the Act. On the other hand, if the total posts are advertised without subjectwise specifications, in every faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality, it would be difficult for the candidates to know as to which of the posts be available either to the general or reserved candidates or whether or not they fulfil or qualify the requirements so as to apply for a particular post and seek selection. As indicated earlier, if there is any single post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer in each faculty, discipline, speciality or super-speciality which cannot be reserved for reserved candidates, it should be clubbed, roster applied and be made available for the reserved candidates in terms of section 3(5) of the Act. Even if there exists any isolated post, rule of rotation by application of roster should be adopted for appointment. For achieving the said subject, the Vice-Chancellor, who is responsible authority under section 4 to enforce the Act, would ensure that single posts in each category are clubbed since admittedly all the posts in each of the categories of Professors, Readers or Lecturers carry the same scale of pay. Therefore, their fusion is constitutional and permissible. The Vice-Chancellor should apply the rule of rotation and the roster as envisaged under sub-section (5) of section 3. The advertisements are required to be issued so that the reserved and the general candidates would apply for consideration of their claims of recruitment in accordance therewith. This interpretation would subserve and elongate constitutional objective and public policy of socio-economic justice serving adequacy of representation in a service or post, grade or cadre as mandated and envisaged in Articles 335 and 16(4) read with Articles 14 and 16(1). Preamble, Article 38 and Article 46 of the Constitution and all other cognate provisions."" 20. Considering the opinion of the Apex Court in Dr. Dina Nath's case (supra) where the Apex Court was of the opinion that if the total posts are advertised without subjectwise specification in every faculty, discipline, speciality or super speciality, it would be difficult for the candidate to know as to which of the posts will be available either to general or reserved candidate. The observation made by the Apex Court in Dr. Dina Nath's case can be made applicable in the facts of this case where the learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the brochure does not disclose or indicate the reservation subjectwise. The observation made by the Apex Court in Dr. Dina Nath's case can be made applicable in the facts of this case where the learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the brochure does not disclose or indicate the reservation subjectwise. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to above, there is no hesitation for us to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners. 21. We will consider whether the reservation as made in the present case, as indicated by the Government in its affidavit, is proper or not. It is to be noted that for each of the reserved class category ""Annexure C"" dealing with the reservation, gave specific number of percentage to each of the group of Backward Class as referred to in Annexure ""C"" of the brochure. They must get their quota or percentage as indicated in the Rules as selection of subject (seat) is a right given to that candidate. On considering the chart which is submitted by the petitioners and also by the Government, we are of the view that the chart submitted by the petitioner is nearer to the percentage as referred and provided for each of the Backward Classes in the said groups. We will demonstrate by taking distribution of seats in a particular subject, for example say paediatrics. The total 34 seats are available and earmarked for the subject of paediatrics. These seats are to be divided into open category and reserved class candidates 50:50. If these 34 seats are taken for distribution, according to the percentage provided under the Rules, reservation could be worked out as follows: Paediatrics: Out of 34 seats, open category 17, 17 reserved seats, S.C. 13% total seats 4.42', S.T. 7%- total seats 2.38', V.J. 3% total seats 1.2', N.T.-1 '2.5'% total seats 0.85, N.T.-2 '3.5'.% total seats 1.19, 'N.T.-3' 2% total seats 0.64, O.B.C. 19%- total seats 6.46. Another illustration regarding surgery seats which are total 60 seats, out of 60 seats, 30 seats are earmarked for open category and 30 for the reserved class which is deduced as: Surgery: Out of 60 seats, open category 30 seats, S.C. 13% 7.8 seats, S.T. 7% 4.2 seats, V.J. 3% total seats 1.8, N.T.-1 2.5% total seats 1.5, N.T.-2 3.5.% total seats 2.1, N.T.-3 2% total seats 2.1., O.B.C. 19% total seats 11. Radiology: Total seats 30, open category 15 seats, 15 reserved seats, S.C. 13% 0.55 seats, S.T. 7%-0.35 seats, V.J. 3% seats 0.25, N.T.-1 2.5% total seats 0.125, N.T. 2 3.5% total seats 0.175, N.T. 3 2% total seats 0.1, O.B.C. 19% total seats 0.95. In these three subjects, according to the allotment shown by the Government, following seats are allotted; Paediatrics: S.C. 3 seats, S.T. 3 seats, V.J. 2 seats, N.T. 1 nil, N.T. 2 1 seat, N.T. 3, 2 seats, O.B.C. 5 seats. According to us, so for as paediatrics is concerned, one seat less is allotted for S.C. as against this, they are entitled for 4 seats, S.T. 7% 3 seats are allotted as against this 2 seats are allotted, V.J. one seat was to be allotted whereas, two seats are allotted, N.T. 1 no seat is allotted though the percentage exceeds 0.50, one seat should have been allotted, N.T. 2 one seat allotted, according to the percentage one seat was to be allotted and is properly allotted, N.T. 3 2 seats are allotted, but according to the percentage which comes to 0.64, they are entitled to only one seat, whereas one seat was allotted in excess and for O.B.C. 5 seats were allotted as against 6 seats. Then we compare seats of surgery: S.C. 9 seats are allotted, S.T. 4 seats allotted, V.J. 4 seats allotted, N.T. 1 nil, N.T. 2 1 seat, N.T. 3 1 seat, O.B.C. 1 seat. As against the percentage, S.C. are entitled for 8 seats, one excess is allotted, S.T. 4 seats are allotted which is proper, V.J. 4 seats are allotted as against 1.8, i.e. 2 seats in excess are allotted to V.J., N.T. 1 though their percentage is 1.5, no seat is allotted, two seats should have been allotted, N.T. 2 their percentage is 2.1, they are entitled for 2 seats but one seat is allotted, N.T. 3 one seat is allotted which is proper and equal to their percentage and for O.B.C. 1.14 as against this 11 seats are allotted. In case of Radiology, S.C. 4 seats, S.T. 1 seat, V.J. 2 seats, N.T. 1 seat, N.T. 2 NIL N.T. 3 NIL, O.B.C. 7 seats. In case of Radiology, S.C. 4 seats, S.T. 1 seat, V.J. 2 seats, N.T. 1 seat, N.T. 2 NIL N.T. 3 NIL, O.B.C. 7 seats. As against their 0.65 percentage S.C. are entitled for one seat, S.T. 0.35-one seat, V.J. 0.15 percentage 2 seats are allotted and N.T. 1 one seat is allotted which is proper and O.B.C. 7 seats are allotted which is excess than their percentage. This will show that while distributing the seats, some excess seats are allotted to V.J. category. This has happened because the authorities have taken into consideration the collegewise availability of seats and this was stated to be a mistake committed which is noted by this Court in the order dated 24-2-2003. We are of the view that taking into consideration the law declared by the Apex Court stated above, if the reservation is made subjectwise, each and every reserved class candidate can get subject of his choice. We find that allotting the seats collegewise, as done by the respondents, is improper and cannot sustain. In our view as the allotment is made, there is some scope for favouring particular class. We are of the view that as the rules which provide specific percentage, each and every Backward Class candidate must get the subject equal to their fixed percentage. The learned A.G.P. Shri Khandare has submitted that by allotting the seat collegewise, considering the availability of the professors, the outer limit of 50% of reservation is achieved and as such, the petitioners cannot insist that the reservation should be subjectwise. It is not possible for us to appreciate this contention of the learned A.G.P. and if it is accepted, it will go contrary to the law declared by the Court Apex in the cases of Suresh Chandra and Dr. Dina Nath Shukla (supra). Therefore, we find that there is no justification for the Government to make a reservation collegewise. 23. In the above paragraphs, we have demonstrated how the reservation is not followed subjectwise and it appears that the allotment which has been done, is without application of mind. 24. We also cannot accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. that reservation in the subject, will be achieved by following roster system. We have perused the entire rules of admission governing P.G. courses but, there is no provision for carry forward rule which is commonly understood under the service jurisprudence. 24. We also cannot accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. that reservation in the subject, will be achieved by following roster system. We have perused the entire rules of admission governing P.G. courses but, there is no provision for carry forward rule which is commonly understood under the service jurisprudence. On the contrary, Rule 7.1 prohibits the competent authority to carry forward the seats to next or subsequent year. This rule in specific term spells out the term academic year i.e. the year beginning from 1st January, to 31st December. In view of this specific provision contained in the rule, the contention cannot be accepted, as the same being fallacious one and is based ignoring the rule itself. We cannot forget the facet that the rules of admission are followed for a particular academic year only as, under Rule 7.1 in which the admissions are made and there is no scope in the rule to carry forward the seats. We, therefore, cannot accept the submission of the learned A.G.P. that by adopting carry forward rule, the reservation will be provided. 25. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of this Court in Dr. Anil and others v. The Dean, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur and others, reported in A.I.R. 1988 Bom. 78. The Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the admission of the postgraduate courses. Dr. Anil, the petitioner who belong to the category of Scheduled Caste, had passed his M.B.B.S. examination from Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, challenged the admission made to the post-graduation degree course in Ophthalmology. It is the contention of the petitioner in that case that the petitioner was desirous to obtain admission to the said course of Ophthalmology in respondent No. 1 college but, at the time of advertisement for admission to the said course, there was no reservation made for the seat in subject of Ophthalmology which was in open category. Hence, he did not make application. The petitioner No. 3 in that case was an OBC candidate and was desirous to obtain admission for postgraduate course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics but, at the time of advertisement, there was no reservation made in the aforesaid subject for OBC candidate. The petitioner No. 2 in that case who was S.C. candidate, was desirous to obtain admission for post-graduate course in Paediatrics. The petitioner No. 2 in that case who was S.C. candidate, was desirous to obtain admission for post-graduate course in Paediatrics. He could not secure the said seat as it was reserved for OBC and not for SC in the advertisement. A specific contention was raised by the petitioners in that case that no procedure was followed by the State in rotation of the seats in various subjects amongst the various categories of Backward Class themselves. According to the petitioners in that case, the seat in the subject of Paediatrics which should have been reserved for SC candidate in July, 1986, was illegally reserved for OBC. As the seat in Paediatrics was reserved for OBC in January, 1986, its reservation again for an OBC candidate in the term in July, 1986 was arbitrary and was in violation of the principle of rotation which had to be followed for the distribution of seats in a fair and just manner amongst the reserved categories. The submissions which were made by the respondents before the Division Bench in Dr. Anil's case were that the distribution of the seats amongst reserved category is made on the basis of two criteria, namely,---(1) back log and (2) availability of the candidates in the subject concerned as judged from the house-jobs which they have done and also the results of the M.B.B.S. examination of the institution. Further submission was made that the principle of rotation of seats in the reserved categories is not in terms laid down under the rules for admission to the post-graduate courses. After taking into consideration the above criteria the seats were allotted in the various categories in a fair and just manner. Therefore, the question fall before this Court as to whether the principle of rotation can be made applicable. It was submitted that there was no provision under the rules of rotation. With this backdrop, the Division Bench of this Court has ruled thus,--- ""12-A. As already pointed out, the principle of rotation is not expressly incorporated in the rules for admission and the petitioner No. 2, therefore, cannot insist upon its strict enforcement. It may, however, be seen in this regard that immediately after July, 1986 for the term commencing from January, 1987, the seat was again allotted to the S.C. category. It may, however, be seen in this regard that immediately after July, 1986 for the term commencing from January, 1987, the seat was again allotted to the S.C. category. It may further be seen that the petitioner No. 2 had made an application for the seat in paediatrics in the present i.e. January, 1987 term, but as there was another meritorious candidate available in the S.C. category, he was selected and the petitioner No. 2 could not be selected for the said seat. Before parting with the subject of distribution of seats, we may observe that the distribution of seats in various subjects keeping in mind the prescribed percentages of reservations in various categories of Backward Classes is a complex and a complicated task and the courts, should therefore, be slow to interfere with the same, particularly in the absence of any adequate data to show how in various subjects the allotment is made so as to judge whether in one particular subject in question the allotment made is fair and just or not."" 26. In the case before us with respect, we endorse the view of the Division Bench that there is no procedure of rotation provided in the rules. Though, the Division Bench has observed in para No. 12-A that reservation in various categories of Backward Class is a complex and complicated task, the Court should be slow in interfering in the same. Keeping in mind the above said observation of the Division Bench, we have before us the stand taken by the Government that the reservation subjectwise was not made as at the time of advertisement, the Government was not aware about the exact number of seats and availability of the professors in particular subject. But, as we observed above, no record is produced before us, no data is shown to us about the availability of the professors and lecturers in the particular college. For the sake of repetition, we say that the Director of Medical Education Research has called information from the Deans of all the Government colleges and the Deans have furnished the details. While doing so, they have also distributed the seats to various reserved candidates, thus, in our view this, being illegal, though the Division Bench in Dr. For the sake of repetition, we say that the Director of Medical Education Research has called information from the Deans of all the Government colleges and the Deans have furnished the details. While doing so, they have also distributed the seats to various reserved candidates, thus, in our view this, being illegal, though the Division Bench in Dr. Anil's case has observed that allotment of seat is complex issue, but considering the record before us and as we have demonstrated above, there is some scope for deviation from the fixed percentage meant for the reserved caste candidates and in doing so, actually, some extra favour is shown to V.J. category. In our view, therefore, the contention of the learned A.G.P. cannot be accepted. 27. We will now refer the judgments that are relied on by Shri N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P. for the respondents---State for his proposition opposing the petitioners locus on the ground that the petitioners have participated in the selection process and in fact, they are admitted to the post-graduate courses in different subjects hence, they cannot now challenge the admission process. The learned A.G.P. brought to our notice he judgment of the Apex Court in the case of University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2083. The learned A.G.P. relied on paragraph No. 4 of the judgment to substantiate his contention, which reads thus:- ""It is not in dispute that Rules 14 to 17-A having specifically been adopted by the aforesaid Resolutions of the syndicate and approved by the university the power of the university to adopt the rules has not been challenged. The aforesaid resolutions of indicate that the university has properly made of Rules 14 to 17-a applicable in relation to the recruitment of non-teaching staff to the university in certain posts viz., class I class III and class IV. In furtherance thereof the Vice-Chancellor was authorised by the syndicate to advertise the posts and constitute a selection committee for recruitment of the candidates. In furtherance thereof, a committee was constituted. Advertisement came to be made, it is seen that when the general rules have been made applicable there is no necessity by the university to make a special; recruitment. Therefore, the non-mention of the special recruitment in the resolution is of little consequence. In furtherance thereof, a committee was constituted. Advertisement came to be made, it is seen that when the general rules have been made applicable there is no necessity by the university to make a special; recruitment. Therefore, the non-mention of the special recruitment in the resolution is of little consequence. As seen the syndicate adopted the Rules in relation to the non teaching staff of the university as a consequence the advertisement came to be made for special recruitment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the posts reserved for them. In fact the first respondent also had applied for and sought selection but remained unsuccessful. Having participated in the selection she is estopped to challenge the correctness of the procedure. That apart we have already held that procedure was correctly followed and therefore the omission to mention in the advertisement that it was a special recruitment is of no consequence, the further finding of the High Court relates to proviso 1 to Rule 4 which provides that when duly qualified candidates are available the appointment shall be made to them. In other words if duly qualified candidates are available the appointment shall be made to them. In other words if duly qualified candidates are not available then advertisement could be made for selection. That rule is applicable to the general recruitment. But with reference to the special recruitment of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rules 14 to 17-A stand attracted. In addition as seen earlier the advertisement came to be made as early as on April 22, 1982 by which time the resolution of the syndicate was not adopted the same having been adopted on March 7, 1982. So Rule 4 is inapplicable to the special recruitment advertised on October 1, 1981. Therefore, the later resolution applying Rule 4 has no retrospective effect. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, that respondents 3 and 4 have left the jobs and so there is no need to disturb the appointment of the first respondent. As they are said to be on foreign service they are entitled to join back on their posts, thus considered the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petition."" 28. As they are said to be on foreign service they are entitled to join back on their posts, thus considered the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petition."" 28. Having noticed the facts stated in the said case before the Apex Court though the advertisement was published but, there was no mention in the advertisement that the recruitment is as a special drive. On the basis of these facts, the observation made by the Apex Court in para No. 4 cannot be made applicable in the facts of the case. The grievance of the petitioners here in this petition is that the seats were not reserved for the reserved caste candidates according to their percentage and they have been denied opportunity to select the subject of their choice which is, in fact, a right created in them by the Rules. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, in answer to the contention of the learned A.G.P., replied that on the ground that there was no specification of subjects to a particular reserved caste in the advertisement and at the time of interview some list was shown and the petitioners were asked to select the subject within fraction of seconds. As the petitioners had appeared for the interview, they had no choice but to accept the subject but, immediately after the interview, they have lodged protest and obtained the admission under protest. Therefore, the petitioners have objected the process of admission at that stage itself and they have taken admission under protest. We will judge this aspect from another angle. From the provision of Rules quoted above, it is apparent that (i) the candidate has a right to select the subject of his choice; (ii) there is no specification in the notification (brochure) that reservation is made in each subject; (iii) it is admitted before this Court that there was a mistake in allotting the subject and a concession is made before this Court that the petitioners will be provided a seat in subject of 'Medicine', (See order dated 24-2-2003 quoted in para 3 of this judgment). In view of these facts, the contention that is raised by the respondents that petitioners have participated in admission process, hence they cannot now challenge the admission process being meritless, has to be rejected. In view of these facts, the contention that is raised by the respondents that petitioners have participated in admission process, hence they cannot now challenge the admission process being meritless, has to be rejected. In view of this aspect, which is not denied by the learned A.G.P., in our view, the judgment relied on by the learned A.G.P. cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. We accept the contention of the learned A.G.P. that there is reservation upto 50%. No one is challenging this position in this petition that reservation made for reserved candidates under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India is in excess but, the challenge is that after reservation is provided, the distribution of the seats/subject must be done strictly in accordance with rules and as per the percentage provided for each and every reserved class candidate and, therefore, we are of the view that the action of the Government in non-providing the reservation subjectwise cannot be accepted and in our view, it was necessary for the Government to disclose in the brochure the distribution of seats subjectwise. In not doing so, the prejudice is caused to the petitioners and a valuable right created by the Rules is denied, merely because the petitioners have participated in the interview process by itself cannot be a ground to reject the petition. We are of the view that it is the mandate of the Constitution to provide reservation which is followed in this case but, the further provision of providing seats/subject equal to the percentage of the respective Backward Classes is not done and in that way, is violative of the principles of Article 15(4) of the Constitution itself. Each and every reserved class referred to in the group must get the seats equal to their percentage. The State authority cannot deny that benefit to each of the candidates belonging to the four groups as referred to in ""Annexure C"" of the brochure. 29. We are of the firm view that distribution of seats as done by the authority seems contrary to ""Annexure-C"" itself. We need not burden our judgment by referring all the authorities referred to by both the sides as we are satisfied that in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases Suresh Chandra and Dr. 29. We are of the firm view that distribution of seats as done by the authority seems contrary to ""Annexure-C"" itself. We need not burden our judgment by referring all the authorities referred to by both the sides as we are satisfied that in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the cases Suresh Chandra and Dr. Dina Nath (supra), it is the obligation of the authorities to make reservation subjectwise and publish it in advance which is not done in this case. The respondents could not satisfy us about the availability of the teachers in the various colleges. There was no material produced before us and it is not demonstrated that while publishing the brochure the entire material data for availability of seats in difference colleges was available. 30. Therefore, in our view, the allotment of seats as it is done, cannot be upheld and accordingly, we set aside the allotment of seats made to the reserved category by the respondents which is produced before us. We are of the view that the said distribution is not in conformity with the ""Annexure C"" of the brochure. It is to be noted that we cannot grant any relief to the petitioners that they should be admitted to a particular subject as prayed by them in prayer Clauses (A) and (B). It is for the Director, Medical Education Research to allot the seats after the seats are advertised subjectwise and selected by each meritorious candidates by exercising their choice as per Rule 15.3 of the admission Rules and the said allotment and admission shall be made strictly according to the merit list which is prepared when the admission process started. 31. We, therefore, direct the competent authority and the Director of Medical Education and Research, MS. Mumbai respondent No. 2 to publish the notice distributing the seats to the reserved candidates as per the percentage prescribed in ""Annexure C"" strictly subjectwise. We direct the respondent No. 2 to publish fresh distribution of seats subjectwise within two weeks from today and call for fresh applications from the reserved class candidates only and then the admission process should be proceeded further strictly in accordance with law. The entire admission process should be completed on or before 10th June, 2003. Admissions made for 50% open seats shall not be disturbed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The entire admission process should be completed on or before 10th June, 2003. Admissions made for 50% open seats shall not be disturbed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. -----"