JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. These appeals witness yet, another litigious tussle over the admission to the Undergraduate Medical course. Though avoidance of such litigations had been underlined time and again in a plethora of judicial decisions of various courts, regretfully, a lingering controversy seems to accompany most of the admission process to such course(s) which of late has surfaced as a national feature. It is high time that the authorities concerned focus their attention to this aspect of the matter so that the budding talents of the country are not compelled to wastefully engage in court cases pursing their claim for admission to their desired courses of study. 2. Nominations by the State of Manipur of its candidates for admission to seats allotted to it for MBBS/BDS courses for the session 2003-2004 is presently in question. The private Respondents in the present appeals had filed two writ petitions namely W.P.(c) No. 1007/2003 and W.P.(c) No. 1091/2003 in two groups assailing the legality and validity of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Rules') as violative of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 framed by the Indian Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation') and further praying for quashing the subsidiary select list and the waiting list dated 5.7.2003 for admission to 1st year MBBS/ BDS course of 2003-2004. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order passed in common, upheld the challenge and consequently quashed the 2003 Rules as well as the impugned subsidiary lists and vacated the admission of the candidates with a direction that the seats consequently falling vacant be filled up by nominations of candidates from the original merit list/waiting list. The direction vacating the impugned admissions and for re-nomination, however, was kept in abeyance for a period of Six weeks granting liberty to the State Government to approach the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council') for relaxation of the qualifying marks of the nominated Scheduled Tribe candidates in the fray. It was submitted at the Bar in course of the arguments before us that the Council on being approached had declined to grant such relaxation. 3. Writ Appeal No. 422/2003, 425/2003 and 426/2003 are by the affected candidates and Writ Appeal Nos. 456/2003 and 47/2004 are by the State of Manipur. It was submitted at the Bar in course of the arguments before us that the Council on being approached had declined to grant such relaxation. 3. Writ Appeal No. 422/2003, 425/2003 and 426/2003 are by the affected candidates and Writ Appeal Nos. 456/2003 and 47/2004 are by the State of Manipur. These appeals were heard together and as common facts and questions of law are involved, these are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. We have heard Mr. D.K. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H. Rahman, Mr. G. Uddin, A. Mustafa, Ms. S. Jahan, Advocates for the State Appellant, Mr. H. Roy for the Appellants in Writ Appeal No. 422/2003, Mr. S. Jayanta, Advocate for the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 425/2003 and 426/2003. Mr. A. Postsangbam, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. 3. Nepolian Singh, Advocate conducted the arguments on behalf of the private Respondents and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the Council. 5. First, the prefatory facts. For the Session 2003-2004 for the State of Manipur, the Central Government allotted 21 seats for the MBBS course in various colleges in India The North Eastern Council similarly allotted 34 seats in the course in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal (hereinafter referred to as the 'RIMS') for the BDS course. Two seats were also allotted from the Central pool and 3 seats in the same discipline in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Out of these total seats in two courses, according to State reservation policy, 39 seats were for general candidates, 18 for the Scheduled Tribes candidates, one each of Scheduled Caste, meritorious sports person and ward of Armed Forces Personnel and Ex-Service men was earmarked. Two pieces of legislation deserve a passing reference at this stage, i.e. the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Regulations 4 and 5 inter alia deal with the admission and selection to the Medical courses in the country. The Rules framed by the State of Manipur provide inter-alia for nomination of candidates for such admission in different medical colleges against the seats available as State quota. Regulations 4 and 5 inter alia deal with the admission and selection to the Medical courses in the country. The Rules framed by the State of Manipur provide inter-alia for nomination of candidates for such admission in different medical colleges against the seats available as State quota. By Rule 18, the Government has conferred to it the right to reserve seats for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidates and also one seat for the children of Armed force personnel and Ex-Servicemen for nomination under the Regulation. By an amendment in 1996, right to reserve one seat for meritorious sports person under the Rules was also kept with the Government. In the list of general sports relevant for the purpose, the Item "Fencing" was included by amendment of the Rules in 1997. 6. Pursuant to the Rules in force at the relevant time, the Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 10.6.2003 inviting applications from the intending candidates for selection as Government nominees for admission to the MBBS/BDS courses against the reserved seats of Manipur in various Medical and Dental Colleges for the year 2003-2004. The notification amongst others set out the educational qualifications and other eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 29.6.2003. In between, however, Clause (viii) of Rule 6, Rule 16 and Rule 17 along with other provisions thereof were amended and the notification relating thereto was published in the Manipur Gazette on 25.6.2003. After the competitive examination on 29.6.2003, results were declared on 1.7.2003 and the select list of successful candidates was published. It contained nomination of 39 candidates of the general category, one from the Scheduled Tribe and one from the Scheduled Caste. To be precise, out of the 18 seats reserved for the scheduled tribe candidates, only one had qualified in the selection test. No candidate from the category of meritorious sportsman or ward of Armed force personnel/Ex-service man had also qualified. In the waiting list that was prepared, 6 candidates from the general category and one from the Scheduled caste category were included. 7. It was at that stage that a further amendment was introduced to the Rules and the notification dated 5.7.2003 to the said effect was published in the Manipur Gazette on the same date. In the waiting list that was prepared, 6 candidates from the general category and one from the Scheduled caste category were included. 7. It was at that stage that a further amendment was introduced to the Rules and the notification dated 5.7.2003 to the said effect was published in the Manipur Gazette on the same date. By this amendment, Clause (iii) of Rule 17 was deleted and Rule 20 thereof was substituted arrogating to the Government power to relax any of the provisions of the Rules in public interest. After this amendment followed the impugned subsidiary select lists on the same date i.e. 5.7.2003 containing 17 candidates from the Scheduled Tribe community, one from the quota of meritorious sportsmen and one from that of Armed Force personnel/Ex-Servicemen. Along therewith, a waiting list was also drawn up containing 3 names of Scheduled tribe candidates and one each in the other two categories, namely, meritorious sports person and ward of Armed Force personnel/Ex-Servicemen. 8. The other general category as well as Scheduled caste candidates competing for nomination have thus taken up the cudgel against the amendment of the Rules and the subsidiary lists dubbing the same as illegal and unconstitutional. The private Respondents are the beneficiaries of the impugned amendment and the subsidiary lists. 9. The pleaded contentions of the writ Petitioners reduced essentially to their core is that the 2003 Rules are vitiated by want of legislative competence in the face of the Regulations and that further, the subsidiary select lists being ex-facie opposed to the Regulations are nonest in law. The State Respondents have sought to justify the impugned action by pleading that the prescribed minimum qualifying percentage of marks i.e. 40% for the SC and ST candidates in the entrance test examination had to be relaxed for the Scheduled Tribe candidates for protecting the quota meant for them as a step to aid social justice. As the concerned candidates were otherwise eligible in terms of their performance in the qualifying examination, relaxation was granted as the same did not adversely affect the candidates of the other categories selected against their respective quotas. The private Respondents have additionally contended that the Rules in force at the time of issuance of the notification dated 10.6.2003 did not prescribe any minimum qualifying percentage of marks in the entrance examination for inclusion in the select list. The private Respondents have additionally contended that the Rules in force at the time of issuance of the notification dated 10.6.2003 did not prescribe any minimum qualifying percentage of marks in the entrance examination for inclusion in the select list. The amendments to the Rules after notification and prior to the holding of competitive examination in Clause (viii) of Rule 6 as well as Rule 16 therefore were not applicable to the process which had already commenced. In absence of any Rules guidelines or instructions laid down by the Council for conducting the entrance examination/selection test for nomination, their selection could not be faulted with, more particularly when admittedly, they were eligible in terms of their results in the qualifying examination referred to in the notification as well in the Rules. 10. The learned Single Judge to be precise, quashed the impugned 2003 Rules holding it to be in conflict with the Regulations framed in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It further held that Regulations 4 and 5 were mandatory in nature and therefore it was beyond the legislative competence of the State to introduce the impugned amendments opposed to requirements of the Regulations. In this connection, the division of legislative powers on the subjects in Entry 66 of List 1 and Entry 25 of List III was also referred to in the background of several decisions of the Apex Court. It was concluded that the subsidiary select lists were in contravention of Regulation 5 and therefore unsustainable. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order disclose, proceeded on the premises that admittedly, Regulations 5(2) and Rule 5(5)(ii) were applicable in the facts of the case. 11. Exhaustive competitive arguments have been advanced. Appropriate, it would be, as we feel to set out at this juncture, the relevant extracts of the Act, the Regulations, the Rules and the 2003 Rules as the same have been profusely referred to in support of their respective contentions. 12. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956- 19. A(1) The council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other than post Graduate Medical qualifications) by Universities or Medical Institution in India. 12. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956- 19. A(1) The council may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications (other than post Graduate Medical qualifications) by Universities or Medical Institution in India. (2) Copies of the draft regulations of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to all State Governments and the Council shall before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (3) The committee shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Council such amendments thereof, as it may think fit. 33. The Council may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. And without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provides for (J) The courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in Universities or Medical institution for grant of recognized Medical qualifications. 13. Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. 5. 13. Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. 5. Selection of Students: The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination of the merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformly throughout the country: (1) In States, having only one Medical College and one University/Board/Examination Body conducted the qualifying examination, the marks obtained at such qualifying examination maybe taken into consideration; (2) In States, having more than one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination (or where there is more than one Medical College under the administrative control of one authority) a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there maybe variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies; (3) Where there are more than one college in a State and only one University/Board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joint selection board be constituted for all the colleges: (4) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the case of Institutions of All India character; (5) The procedure for selection to MBBS course which reads as follows: (i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination under Clause (1) based on merit, candidate for admission to MBBS course must have passed in the subject of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in Clause (2) of regulation 4. In respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, the Marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination be 40% instead of 50% as above; (ii) In case of admission of the basis of competitive entrance examination under Clause (2) to (4) of this regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in Clause (2) of regulation 4 and in addition must have come in the merit list prepared as a result of such competitive entrance examination by securing not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the competitive examination. In respect of candidates belonging to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes or other Backward Classes the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination and competitive entrance examination be 40% instead of 50% as stated above. Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria under regulation 4. 14. Manipur MBBS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rues, 1993. Rule 6. "In order to be eligible for appearing in the Competitive Test, a candidate must have -(viii) obtained not less than 50% of the total marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together at the qualifying examination (or at the higher examination) whereas in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST the minimum marks required for admission shall be 40%". Rule 16. The Selection Board shall prepare a select list, in order of merit, based on the competitive test separately for General and ST/SC candidates proportionate to the expected number of seats available and declare the results immediately. The Board shall submit the select list to the Government for nomination and further necessary action. Rule 18.(v) The Government may reserve seats for ST & SC as per rules for the time being in force. 15. The Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) (Amendment) Rules, 1993. 3. Amendment of Rule 6: Clause (viii) of Rule 6 of the Principal Rules shall be substituted by the following: (viii) passed individually in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and obtained not less than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the qualifying examinations (or at the higher examination) whereas in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST the minimum marks shall be 40% in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together. Substitution of Rule 16: For Rule 16 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely; 16 (i) The minimum qualifying percentage of aggregate narks in the Entrance Examination for inclusion in the select list or waiting list shall be 50% for general candidates and 40% for ST and SC candidates. Substitution of Rule 16: For Rule 16 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely; 16 (i) The minimum qualifying percentage of aggregate narks in the Entrance Examination for inclusion in the select list or waiting list shall be 50% for general candidates and 40% for ST and SC candidates. (ii) The Selection Board shall prepare Select Lists in order of merit based on the Entrance Examination separately for candidates belonging to General category, SC, ST, Meritorious Sportsperson and Children of Armed Forces Personnel/Ex-servicemen equal to the expected number of seats for each category and a waiting list of candidates equal to 20% of the expected number of seats. The Select Lists and Waiting Lists shall be declared by the Selection Board and shall be submitted to the Government. Amendment of Rule 17: For Rule 17 of the Principal Rules, the following shall be substituted, namely; (iii) In the event of sufficient number of candidates of a particular category not being available to fill up the available seats, the vacant seats may be transferred to candidates of the other categories as below: (a) Vacant seats of ST may be filled up by SC candidates and vice-versa; (b) Vacant seats of Meritorious Sportsperson or children of Armed Forces Personnel/Ex-servicemen may be filled by General candidates; (c) Vacant seats of General candidates may be filled by SC/ST candidates and vice-versa. 16. The Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Amendment Rules, 2003. (Impugned) 2. Amendment of Rule 17: Clause(iii) of Rule 17 of the Manipur MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Rules) shall be deleted. 3. Amendment of Rule 20 - For Rule 20 of the Principal Rules, The following shall be substituted, namely- Notwithstanding everything contained in these Rules, the Government may relax any of the provisions of these Rules in public interest. 17. Mr. Misra has argued with vehemence that the Regulations more particularly Regulation 5 is applicable only for the purpose of admission of students to the Medical courses in Colleges in India and has no applicability in making nominations by a State to colleges against its quota from the Central pool and other sources. Rules having been framed for the purpose of selecting candidates for nomination against the State quota seats, these are no way in conflict with the Regulations as they operate in distinctly different fields. Rules having been framed for the purpose of selecting candidates for nomination against the State quota seats, these are no way in conflict with the Regulations as they operate in distinctly different fields. No question of repugnancy therefore arises, according to him. Referring to Regulations 4 and 5 in details, the learned Senior counsel urged that as the same relate to admission to the medical colleges and not to nominations for State quota seats, the Regulations have no application at all to the facts of the instant case and have thus been erroneously drawn into the scene. He contended that assuming that the Regulations were applicable to the process in question, Regulation 5(1) and for that matter Regulation 5(5)(i) would be attracted as the State of Manipur has no medical college of its own. In that eventuality, the yardstick has to be, according to him, the performance in the qualifying examination alone and holding of any entrance test is not necessary. He argued that the State Government since 1993 had been holding the entrance test for the purpose of nomination without stipulating any cut off marks, but in the year 2003 in order to ensure competitiveness, Rule 16 was amended and the minimum qualifying marks in the entrance test was prescribed. However, the selection disclosed that though 18 seats were reserved for ST candidates, only one was qualified though the unsuccessful candidates had secured more than 40 percent marks in their qualifying examination. The State Government therefore noticing the above, decided to relax the requirement of cut off marks in the entrance test to provide representation to the Scheduled Tribe as well as the other two category candidates against their respective quotas. According to Mr. Misra, the requirement of the entrance test in the Rules, even if Regulation 5(i) and 5(5)(i) are attracted, is in addition thereto and therefore it was well within the authority of the State to relax the requirement pertaining to the entrance test under the Rules, more particularly when the same was effected in the discharge of its Constitutional obligation to secure adequate representation of the backward Scheduled Tribe Community in the medical colleges at the national level. In any view of the matter, the learned Senior counsel contended that the amendment of the Rules or the process of selection has not been challenged by any other Scheduled Tribe candidate expressing grievance that the selection was not based on merit and as the relaxation of the cut off marks in the entrance test prescribed by the amended Rule 16 did not signify a compromise with the mandate of Regulation 5(1) and Regulation 5(5)(i), the contentions raised on behalf of the writ Petitioners did not merit acceptance. Referring to the decision of the Apex court in Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 on which, the learned Single Judge had placed considerable reliance, Mr. Misra argued that the ratio of the decision was not relevant for the instant case as the same relates to admission to super speciality disciplines and not to the undergraduate courses. In absence of any procedure prescribed by the Council for selection for nomination by a State for admission against its quota seats, it was fully justified for the State Government to select the Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination as was indicated vide Govt. of India's Memo No. U.14014/4/2003-ME.IJI dated 8.8.2003 providing the above guideline on the subject. The learned Senior Counsel also drew our attention to the prospectus of Regional Institute of Medical Science (hereinafter referred to as the 'RIMS') to reinforce his argument that the Regulation 5(5)(ii) was not applicable to the present case and as the said provision of the Regulation is related to the admission process to be conducted by the respective colleges to fill up their seats, insistence to hold such entrance test by the allottee States for selecting their candidates for nomination would give rise to an anomalous situation. The North Eastern Council which in fact, controls the RIMS not having prescribed any competitive examination for nomination to the seats allotted by it to the North Eastern States, the requirement of an entrance test in terms of regulation 5(5)(ii) was thus not called for, he argued. Mr. Misra contended that the applicability or otherwise of Regulation 5(5)(ii) being a question of law, the purported concession about its applicability as recorded in the impugned judgment is of no consequence. Mr. Misra contended that the applicability or otherwise of Regulation 5(5)(ii) being a question of law, the purported concession about its applicability as recorded in the impugned judgment is of no consequence. He argued that as in the meantime the selected candidates had taken admission in their respective colleges and are pursuing their courses their admission ought not to be disturbed. In support of his submissions the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) (1981) 4 SCC 296 , State of M.P, Appellant v. Nivedita Jain, Respondent. (ii) (1983) 4 SCC 339 , Sumon Gupta and Ors., Appellants v. State of J.K., respondent. (iii) (1995) 2 SCC 129 , Rajesh Kumar Verma, Appellant v. State of M.P. (iv) 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 217, Indra Sawhney, Appellant v. Union of India, Respondent (v) (1999) 7 SCC 120 , Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr., Petitiners v. State of M.P. and Ors., Respondents. (vi) (1997) 3 SCC 90 , Sadhana Devi (Dr.), Appellant v. State of U.P. Respondent. (vii) (2001) 8 SCC 664 , Dayanand Medical College and Hospitals and Ors, Appellants (viii) 2000(3) GLT 32: (2001) 1 GLJ 294, Mayuori Sharma, Petitioner v. State of Assam and Ors. Respondents. (ix) (1998) 2 GLT 112, State of Nagaland, Appellant v. M.S. Neilatuon Suo Khrie, Respondent. 18. Mr. Roy, while endorsing the arguments of Mr. Misra contended that pursuant to the impugned selection(sic), the candidates have already taken their admission on 1.8.2003 and having regard to the last date of such admissions fixed by the Central Govt./Council as 30.9.2003, the writ Petitioners in any view of the matter, cannot be accommodated against the seats presently occupied by the Scheduled Tribes candidates. He further submitted that in the meantime, the Scheduled Tribes candidates so admitted have completed the first semester and have appeared in the related examination held in the month of February, 2004. Referring to the letter of nomination issued by the State Govt. in favour of the Scheduled Tribes candidates, the learned Counsel pointed out that it is clear therefrom that the concerned colleges were free to refuse admission if the nominated candidates did not fulfil the criteria prescribed by them. However, as all the nominated candidates have been admitted it is a clear indicator of the fact that they had duly satisfied the norms laid down by the colleges for their admission. Reiterating the submission of Mr. However, as all the nominated candidates have been admitted it is a clear indicator of the fact that they had duly satisfied the norms laid down by the colleges for their admission. Reiterating the submission of Mr. Misra that the departure from the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the entrance test as prescribed by Rules besides being on objective considerations was also justifiable on the touchstone of the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure adequate representation of the reserved category candidates in the field of education at the higher levels, Mr. Roy sought to impress upon us that in the case in hand the State Govt, by resorting to the impugned action has permitted a relaxation of the minimum qualifying marks of 40% to 29% as would be evident from the marks obtained by the candidates in the subsidiary select list and thus could not be equated to a situation as if the entrance test had been totally done away with. Mr. Roy sought to sustain his arguments by placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in (2002) 7 SCC 258 and (1997) 7 SCC 120. He also pressed into service the communication No. MCI-6(3)/2002-MED/36343 dated 11.2.2003 and No. NCI-23(1)2003-MED/ 22582 dated 31.10.2003/1.11.2003 issued by the Council with regard to the last date of admission in the medical courses. 19. Mr. S. Jayanta, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 425/2003 and Writ Appeal No. 426/2003, selected against the quota for meritorious sports person in the field of 'Fencing' has argued that as the Regulations are not applicable to the facts of the present case, the 2003 Rules as well as the Subsidiary lists are unassailable. According to him, as the selection of the appellant had not been questioned by any other candidate eligible to be nominated against the said quota, the writ Petitioners have no locus standi to challenge his selection. 20. Per contra, Mr. Potsongbam has argued that in the State of Manipur, there are two Boards conducting the qualifying examination relevant for admission to medical course namely, Manipur Secondary Board and the Central Board of Secondary Education. Essentially, therefore, holding of an entrance test in terms of Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) is a must for nomination of candidates for the admission to the State quota seats. Essentially, therefore, holding of an entrance test in terms of Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) is a must for nomination of candidates for the admission to the State quota seats. Referring to the scheme of the Rules, the learned senior counsel underlined that it was clear therefrom that the selection of candidates for nomination has to be only on the basis of performance in the competitive/entrance test envisaged thereunder. According to him, the State Government being aware of the mandate of the Regulations brought in the amendments to Rule 6 and 16 of the Rules to bring those in tune with Regulation 5(5)(ii). The purpose of introducing Clause (iii) to Rule 17 by the amendment in 2003 was to ensure that no seat goes waste for non availability of adequate number of candidates in one category. Drawing our attention to Section 19A(2) of the Act, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the Regulations have been framed after taking into consideration the comments of all State Governments including the Government of Manipur which clearly postulates that the State Government in the instant case, had agreed to conduct the selection test for nomination of its candidates. 21. The next turned to the aspect of legislative competence in occasioning the impugned amendments. Mr. Potsangbam argued that the Regulations having been framed in exercise of power under the Act relatable to Entry 66 of the Union list, it was beyond the authority and competence of the State Government to frame the 2003 Rules thereby setting at naught the relevant provisions of the Regulations. The field being already occupied by the Regulations, the power of the State Government to legislate on Entry 25 of the concurrent list stood excluded. The 2003 Rules therefore could not in any way override the Regulations, he argued and to the extent of repugnancy was nonest. 22. To bolster up his arguments on the aspect of the requirement of an entrance test also for nomination, Mr. Potsangbam, referring to regulation 4 of the Manipur University Regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 pointed out that as under the said Regulations as well, holding of an entrance test was mandatory, such a requirement was binding on the State Government, the Manipur University being the only authority to confer the medical degree to be eventually recognized by the Council. Mr. Mr. Potsangbam in this connection also referred to the stand of the State Respondents in their counter, which according to him reflected an admission on their part that holding of an entrance test was necessary as required by the Regulations even for nomination of its candidates. He also led us through the affidavit filed by the Council in a connected proceeding before this Court being W.P.(c) No. 1371/2002 where it had been categorically asserted that the provisions of the Regulations were mandatory and any State enactment, Rules or Regulation in relation to a Medical course if inconsistent with the Act or the Regulation of the Council would be repugnant by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and that in such matters the Act and the Regulation of the Council would prevail. With reference to the candidates selected against the meritorious sports person quota and the quota of Armed force Personnel/Ex-service men, Mr. Potsongbam contended that in any view of the matter, these candidates were general category candidates and having secured much less than the prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 50% could not have been selected even assuming that the plea of the constitutional obligation of the State to advance the case of the reserved category candidates was acceptable. 23. The learned senior counsel next argued that as the selection of the Scheduled Tribe candidate as per the impugned subsidiary list and the waiting list was ex-facie in contravention of the Regulations, the nominations are liable to be cancelled and their admission cannot be saved on the specious excuse of efflux of time. Pointing out that the admission of the Scheduled Tribes candidates as per the subsidiary list and waiting list had been made subject to the outcome of the writ petition by order dated 26.8.2003 passed by a Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 368/2003 (Gau)/67/2003 (Imp), Mr. Potsongbam strenuously urged that the writ Petitioners having diligently pursued the court proceedings all throughout and being eligible to be accommodated against the seats wrongfully occupied by subsidiary list/waiting list candidates, they ought not to be denied the said relief. Potsongbam strenuously urged that the writ Petitioners having diligently pursued the court proceedings all throughout and being eligible to be accommodated against the seats wrongfully occupied by subsidiary list/waiting list candidates, they ought not to be denied the said relief. According to him, the letters/ communications issued by the Council with regard to the last date for admission being not an integral part of the Regulations framed by it, those do not have any statutory flavour and are therefore neither binding nor admissible in a court of law. In any view of the matter, the learned senior counsel aired a serious grievance that such illegalities in the admission process have become a regular feature and therefore, this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction would step in and pass appropriate orders ensuring that such illegalities do not recur so that the student community is spared of the agony and harassment of pursuing legal battles in pursuit of their legitimate claim to prosecute studies in the disciplines of their choice. Following decisions were relied upon by Mr. Potsangbam. (i) (1998) 3 SCC 183 , Ravindra Kumar Rai, Petitioner v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Respondents; (ii) (2000) 2 GLT 27, Surmila Khoirom and Ors., Appellants v. Sujata Devi Gurumayum and Ors., Respondents; (iii) (1998) 6 SCC 131 , MCI, Appellant v. State of Karnataka, Respondents; (iv) (1999) 7 SCC 120 , Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. Petitioners v. State of M.P. and Ors., Respondents. (v) (1997) 3 SCC 90 , Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors., Petitioners v. State of U.P and Ors.; (vi) (2001) 8 SCC 664 , Dayananda Medical College and Hospitals and Ors., Appellants v. (vii) (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 188, Gurdeep Singh, Appellant v. State of J and K and Ors., Respondents; (viii) (1993) 4 SCC 401 , Guru Nanak Dev University, Appellant, v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Ors., Respondents. (ix) (2003) 8 SCC 69 , Harish Verma and Ors., Appellants v. Ajay Srivastava and Anr., Respondents; (x) (2003) 4 SCC 276 , Paramjeet Gambhirand Ors., Appellants v. State of M.P. and Ors., Respondents. 24. Mr. Sahewalla, representing the Council submitted that the requirement of holding the entrance test was conditioned on the number of Boards offering the course of qualifying examination relevant for admission to the Medical courses. 24. Mr. Sahewalla, representing the Council submitted that the requirement of holding the entrance test was conditioned on the number of Boards offering the course of qualifying examination relevant for admission to the Medical courses. In the present state of facts, as more than one Board has been conducting the qualifying examination in the State of Manipur, holding of common entrance test for the purpose of nomination was a must in terms of precepts of the Regulations. While asserting that the Regulations did not provide for any departure from the prescriptions made thereunder, the learned senior counsel, however, admitted that there is no provision therein to provide for a situation where admissions made in contravention thereof on being challenged in a court of law are cancelled. Mr. Sahewalla sought to draw substance from the decisions of the Apex Court in (2003) 7SCC 83 : (2003) 5 SCC 366. 25. In his short reply, Mr. Misra contended that the Regulations framed by the Manipur University were not germane for the issue inasmuch as it only provides affiliation to RMS, but does not in any way control the affairs thereof. The N.E. Council in which the control of RIMS is vested not having prescribed any competitive examination for nomination of the seats allotted by it to its beneficiary States, reliance on, the Regulations framed by the Manipur University is wholly misplaced. On the aspect of more than one Board conducting the qualifying examination in the State of Manipur, Mr. Misra sought to have the situation by urging that Regulation 5(2) would apply only to the States having Medical colleges and the Board referred to in the Regulations connotes a State Board or Board(s) established in the same State and not Board(s) established out side, but granting affiliation to the schools/Institutions situated in the concerned State. According to him, any other interpretation would render Regulation 5(i) wholly redundant as there would be no State in the country where the Central Board of Secondary Education had not granted affiliation to a School established within its territory. He, therefore, reiterated that as the State of Manipur had no Medical College of its own and the qualifying examination was conducted by one State Board, Regulation 5 had no application in the matter of nomination of candidates. Even assuming that the same was application, Regulation 5(i) alone was relevant. 26. He, therefore, reiterated that as the State of Manipur had no Medical College of its own and the qualifying examination was conducted by one State Board, Regulation 5 had no application in the matter of nomination of candidates. Even assuming that the same was application, Regulation 5(i) alone was relevant. 26. It would be appropriate in order to focus the attention to the salient features of the controversy, to formulate the points for determination. We para-phase the questions as hereunder: (1) Is the 2003 Rules invalid being vitiated by lack of legislative competence of the State of Manipur and is nonest and inoperative being repugnant to the Regulations in view of Article 254 of the Constitution of India? (2) Are the subsidiary lists and the waiting lists unsustainable being in derogation of Regulation 5 of the Regulations? (3) Whether the admission of the candidates in the subsidiary list and the waiting list are liable to be cancelled? If yes, whether the candidates from the original merit list and the waiting list are entitled to be admitted against the seats that would resultantly fall vacant? POINT No. 1 The Rules and for that matter, 2003 Rules have been framed by the Governor of Manipur in exercise of powers as available under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The legislative powers of the Parliament and the State Legislatures have been delineated under the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. The parliament has been conferred the exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in List-I of the said Schedule, whereas the State Legislature has the competence to legislate on subjects in List-II. Subject to the conditions contained in Article 246(2), the Legislature of any State also has the power to make laws on any subject covered by entries in List-III of the said Schedule. Entry 66 in List-I and Entry 25 of the List-III relevant for the instant case are set out herein below: List-I Entry 66-Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. List-III Entry 25- Education, including technical education, Medical Education and Universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64,65 and 66 of List-I; vocational and technical training of labour. Availing the constitutional empowerment as above, the Parliament has enacted the Act and the Regulations have been framed under Section 33 thereof. List-III Entry 25- Education, including technical education, Medical Education and Universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64,65 and 66 of List-I; vocational and technical training of labour. Availing the constitutional empowerment as above, the Parliament has enacted the Act and the Regulations have been framed under Section 33 thereof. The Rules have been framed on the subject of medical education covered by Entry 25 of List-III. Regulations 4 and 5 with which we are concerned deal with the admission and selection of students to the Medical Colleges for the MBBS Course. The Rules also envisage the scheme for selection for nomination for admission to the said course in different colleges against the seats allotted to the State of Manipur. Having regard to the dichotomy in the legislative powers under the Constitution and the edicts contained in Article 246 and254 thereof, a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to any matter enumerated in the concurrent list if is repugnant to any earlier parliament enacted legislation or an existing law on the same subject, the law made by the parliament would prevail and consequently the law made by the legislature of the State to extent of repugnancy would be void. 27. The relevant provisions contained in the Rules following the first amendment in 2003 and the extent of the impugned amendments has been noticed herein above. The provisions of the Rules before the impugned amendment were in tune with Regulations 4 and 5 of the Regulations. By the said amendment, Rule 17(iii) dealing with the adjustment of seats in case of non availability of sufficient number of candidates of the particular category was done away with. The power of relaxation of the Government was also made more comprehensive. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Regulations to suggest that the amendments are contrary thereto. Indeed, no argument has been advanced before us that the impugned amendments per se are violative of the Regulations. Exception has been taken of the notification dated 5.7.2003 whereby in exercise of the power of relaxation following the amendments, the Government has relaxed the cut off marks provided under Clause 16(i) of the Rules in respect of candidates belonging to the following categories in the last entrance examination held in 2003: (i) Scheduled Tribe (ii) Children of Armed Forces Personnel/Ex-servicemen (iii) Meritorious Sportsperson. 28. 28. Rule 6 as well as Rule 16(i) which are in consonance with the Regulations 4 and 5 have not been touched by the impugned amendments. It is axiomatic that the Act being a Central Legislation and the Regulations having been framed in exercise of Power conferred thereby, the Rules if in conflict with the Regulations in view of the Constitutional scheme referred to above, has to be declared as void to the extent of repugnancy. On a reading of the Rules as well as the impugned amendments vis-a-vis the Act and the Regulations, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the amendments ex-facie are repugnant to the Regulations. In these premises, we answer the question in the negative. POINT No. 2 29. It would be apt in order to feel all relevant aspects encompassed in the question, to frame the following sub issues: (a) Are the Regulations applicable to the State of Manipur for nominations of its candidates against its allotted seats? (b) If yes, whether Rule 5(i) read with Rule 5(1)(i) or Regulation 5(2) read with Regulation 5(5)(ii) would be attracted in the facts of the present case? (c) Is the relaxation of the requirement of minimum qualifying marks for the aforementioned three categories of candidates sustainable in view of Article15(4)? A host of decisions has been cited by the parties, of which a brief reference may be made before embarking on the above trail. 30. In Nivedita Jain (supra) the relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was assailed being violative of the Regulations of Council. The Apex Court while upholding the contention, however, held that Regulation II dealing with the procedure for selection were recommendary and directory in nature not binding on the State Government and that the process of selection of candidates for admission had no real bearing on the question of eligibility or qualifications for admission or standard of medical education. This decision was overruled by the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) holding that the criteria for selection of candidates have an important bearing on the standard of education which can be effectively imparted in the Medical Colleges. This decision was overruled by the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) holding that the criteria for selection of candidates have an important bearing on the standard of education which can be effectively imparted in the Medical Colleges. In its reasonings in support of the above view, the Apex Court also dealt with the aspect of legislative competence of the parliament and the legislature of the States under Entry 66 of List-I and the entry 25 of List-III and held as follows: Both the Union and the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also comedical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for education to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List-I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including, inter-alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Ofcourse, there can have a direct admission which are consistent with or do no affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List-I. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical course, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education. Standards of education in an institution or college depend on various factors. While considering the standards of education in any college or institution, the caliber of students who are admitted to that institution of college cannot be ignored. If the students are of a high caliber, training programmes can be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit out of a high level of teaching. If the caliber of the students is poor or they are unable to follow the instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand the course which they have undertaken; and it may not be possible to reach the levels of education and training which can be attained with a bright group. Education involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and the students. The pace of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately received, depend as much on the caliber of the students as on the caliber of the teachers and the availability of adequate infrastructural facilities. That is why a lower student-teacher ratio has also considered essential at the levels of higher university education, particularly when the training to be imparted is a highly professional training requiring individual attention and on hand training to the pupils who are already doctors and who are expected to treat patients in the course of doing their postgraduate courses. Admissions must be made on the basis which is consistent with the standards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Entry 66 List-I. In every case the minimum standards as laid down by the Central statute or under it, have to be complied with by the State while making admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down. On the issue of common entrance test, the Apex Court held: This argument ignores the reasons underlying the need for a common entrance examination for postgraduate Medical Courses in a State. There may be several universities in a State which conduct MBBS course. The courses of study may not be uniform. The qualify of teaching may not be uniform. That standard of assessment at the MBBS Examination also may not be uniform in the different universities. A common entrance examination, therefore, provides a uniform criterion for judging the merit of all candidates who come from different universities. The purpose is also to evaluate all candidates by a common yardstick. One must, therefore, also take into account the possibility that some of the candidates who may have passed the MBBS Examination from more "generous" universities, may not qualify at the entrance examination where a better and uniform standard for judging all the candidates from different universities is applied. In the interest of selecting suitable candidates for specialized education, it is necessary that the common entrance examination is of a certain standard and qualifying marks are prescribed for passing that examination. The power of the State Government to relax the minimum qualifying marks to ensure admission of SC/ST and OBC candidates to Medical courses was upheld in Rajesh Kumar Verma (supra) relying on the finding in Nivedita Jain (supra). This decision, however, is of no assistance to the Appellants in view of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) to the contrary. A State notification in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital (supra) prescribing the minimum qualifying marks in the competitive examination lower than that prescribed by the related Regulations framed by the Council was held to be unsustainable on the reasoning that the prescription made by the council in the Regulations under the Act in terms of Entry 66 of List-I cannot be diluted by the Universities or the Government. The contention that the selection for nominations must perforce be left to the absolute and unfettered choice of the Government was negatived by Apex Court in Suman Gupta (supra) observing that till a policy was formulated by the Council to that effect such selection should be made strictly on merit. The question that arose for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. Sadhana Devi (supra) involving admission to the postgraduate course was whether the Government, having decided to hold a test for selection, it could depart from the norms of merit by doing away with the minimum qualifying marks for the purpose. The answer was in the negative holding that it, would then amount to sacrificing merit altogether. This Court in Surmila Khoirom and Ors. (supra) held that the Rules were statutory in nature and that the nominations made dehors the merit list prepared in terms thereof woud be illegal. In Rabindra Kr. Rai (supra), admissions to medical colleges were to be made on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination conducted by more than one Boards. The contention that Regulations 5(2) was attracted and that a combined entrance examination was a must, was upheld by the Apex Court. The requirement of holding a common entrance test and of prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was underlined by the Apex Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. holding that an entrance test serves two purposes namely, (i) assessment of knowledge and intelligence of the candidates/to prosecute the course and (ii) assessment of merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital significance when seats are allotted. It was held that the concept of minimum qualifying percentage cannot be given a go by and in case the State was desirous of making a departure from the requirement of a common entrance test, it was to represent before the Central Government or the Council. The challenge to the reservation of seats for some categories of medical students for admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College was laid on the ground that such reservation resulted in compromise on merit. The Apex Court held that as the Central Government bore the financial burden of the college, it could lay down the criteria for eligibility and could not be denied the right to decide from what source the admission would be made. The Apex Court held that as the Central Government bore the financial burden of the college, it could lay down the criteria for eligibility and could not be denied the right to decide from what source the admission would be made. Admission of some candidates securing marks less than the minimum prescribed by the Regulations for the post graduate admission framed by the council was held to be invalid in Harish Verma (supra). The fact situation in which the Apex Court in Gurdeep Singh (supra) and Guru Nanak Dev University (supra) after adjudging the admission of the students as invalid directed cancellation thereof being different from the those in the case in hand are of no assistance to the private Respondents. In Paramjeet Gambhir, the Apex Court permitted participation of the Appellants in the counseling for admission against the surrendered seats. This, as well is of no relevance. The pith of the principles which emerge from the authorities noticed hereinabove is that admission to the course has to be based on merit and the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Regulations cannot be reduced by the State Govt. In fact situations where Regulation 5(2) was attracted, holding of a combined entrance test is imperative. In this background of the above judicial pronouncements, we proceed to adjudicate the sub issues. POINT 2(a) A distinction has been sought to be introduced on behalf of the State between nomination and admission to the Medical courses and therefore, the contention is that the Regulations which deal exclusively with the admission to the Medical colleges has no application to the process for selection for nomination. This, differentiation, we are of the view is more imaginary than real. Be it the Regulations or the Rules, the emphasis for the purpose of admission or nomination has been on merit of the candidates and rightly so. In the Act, the Council has been conferred with the power of prescribing the minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualifications by universities or medical Institutions in India. Under Section 19A Draft regulations to that effect are required to be furnished by the council to all the State Governments and after taking into account the comments of all the State Governments, it has to submit the same before the Central Govt, for sanction. Under Section 19A Draft regulations to that effect are required to be furnished by the council to all the State Governments and after taking into account the comments of all the State Governments, it has to submit the same before the Central Govt, for sanction. The Council also has a duty to monitor the efficacy of the Regulations qua the objects to be achieved. The Act confers power on the Council to take appropriate steps in case, the course of study and examination to be undertaken or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or by medical Institutions or if the staff, equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities for instructions and training provided in such a University or medical institution do not conform to the standards prescribed by it. The Regulations have been framed in exercise of power under Section 33 to carry out the purposes of the Act and a solemn obligation lies with the Council to ensure that the process of admission to the medical courses and standard of education imparted are in compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed by it. While Regulation 4 lays down the conditions of eligibility like age, passing of qualifying examination etc. of a candidate seeking admission to the MBBS Course, Regulation 5 prescribes the criteria for selection of such candidates for admission. Merit, in categorical terms, is prescribed to be the basis for selection and the benchmark for assessment of such merit to be uniformly applicable throughout the country has been provided in Regulation 5. In substance for State having one medical college and one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination, the merit has to be judged on the basis of the marks obtained at such qualifying examination. However, for States having more than one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination, a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation of merit. Regulation 5(5)(i) further mandates that in case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination alone, a candidate must pass out in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must obtain a minimum of 50% of marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination. For the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward Classes, a reduced minimum qualifying marks of 40% has been prescribed. For the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward Classes, a reduced minimum qualifying marks of 40% has been prescribed. In case of candidates seeking admission on the basis of competitive entrance examination they are required to pass the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and further secure 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination and additionally not less than 50% marks in the said subjects in the competitive examination. The minimum qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to Scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other backward classes in the aforementioned three subjects, both in qualifying examination as well as in competitive entrance examination, however, is 40%. As has been noticed in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), the Regulations have been granted the status of a legislation and being mandatory in nature are binding on the States. 31. Turning to the Rules, it is easily observable that the scheme for nomination acknowledges merit to be the sole criteria therefor. Rule 4 provides that nomination has to be by selection in accordance with the Rules and for such selection, a written competitive test is required to be conducted by the Selection Board in terms of Rule 5. The conditions of eligibility as laid down under Rule 6 are in para material with Regulation 4. Rule 6(iii) prescribes that a candidate satisfying the other conditions of eligibility has to obtain minimum 50% marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together at the qualifying examination. The minimum marks, however, for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe have been fixed at 40%. There is no wrangle at the bar about the qualifying examinations prescribed by the Rules as well as Regulations. Rule 16 as it stood before the amendment though required preparation of a select list in order of merit based on the competitive test, no minimum qualifying marks was prescribed. Whereas, Rule 18 permitted the Government to reserve seats for Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates as well as one seat for children of Armed forces personnel/ Ex-serviceman, Rule 20 conferred the power of relaxation. By an amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules in 1996, the Government bestowed on itself the power to reserve one seat for meritorious sports person for nomination in accordance with the Rules. By an amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules in 1996, the Government bestowed on itself the power to reserve one seat for meritorious sports person for nomination in accordance with the Rules. By a further amendment in 1997 the discipline of "Fencing" was added to list of games/sports for consideration for selection of meritorious sports person. This is relevant as the Appellant Sri R.K. Arvind Singh in Writ Appeal Nos. 425/ 2004 and 426/2004 finds place in the impugned subsidiary list in the category of meritorious sports person. 32. By an amendment of the Rules vide notification dated 23.6.2003, Rule 6(viii), Rule 16 which are necessary for our purpose underwent further changes. In Rule 6(viii), the requirement of passing English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology individually and of securing 50% of total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination was mandated. The qualifying minimum marks of 40% in the said subjects was prescribed in respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. This is noticeably in tune with Regulation 5(5)(i) and the first part of Regulation 5(5)(ii). Amended Rule 16(i) prescribed the minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the aggregate in the entrance examination for the general candidates and 40% for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. This accords with the prescription of second part of Regulation 5(5)(ii) dealing with the candidates who are required to appear in the competitive entrance examination. By the impugned amendments, Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(i) as above remained untouched, meaning thereby that even after the said amendments, the relevant provisions of the Rules relating to the selection for nomination conformed to the edicts of the Regulation for admission. 33. A survey of the above provisions of the Regulations and the Rules leave no manner of doubt that merit and merit alone has been recognized to be the measure for nomination and/or admission to the medical colleges, uniformly throughout the country. The exercise undertaken for the purpose of selecting the candidates for nomination is with the ultimate object of facilitating admission of the selected candidates to the respective Medical Colleges. The argument in support of the so called distinction between nomination and admission, on a plain reading of Regulation 5 appears to be attractive. On a closer scrutiny of the said provision vis-a-vis, the purpose thereof, however, exposes the fallacy of the contention. The argument in support of the so called distinction between nomination and admission, on a plain reading of Regulation 5 appears to be attractive. On a closer scrutiny of the said provision vis-a-vis, the purpose thereof, however, exposes the fallacy of the contention. Indubitably, if the selection for nomination is for admission, it must be informed with the same criteria or considerations. As the marks obtained by the candidates is the sole criteria for selecting a candidate for nomination or for admission, there invariably has to be a common yardstick for both the process. Two varying guidelines cannot be adopted for the two purposes namely, nomination and admission as the same would thus lead to an anomalous situation. The aspect of nomination would not be relevant for the States having Medical Colleges of their own and for admission of students thereto, they would be guided by the Regulations alone. The States who are to select candidates to be admitted against the seats in the Medical Institutions of other States will have to adhere to the common criteria so that their nominated candidates may secure admission against the allotted seats. In terms of the mandate of the Regulations, admission to a Medical College would be subject to the satisfaction of the criteria of merit as envisaged under Regulation 5(1) read with Regulation 5(5)(i) or Regulation 5(2) read with Regulation 5(5)(ii) as the case maybe. There is no provision in the Regulations to the effect that the admission criteria prescribed by Regulation 5 would not be applicable to the State nominated candidates. As a corollary, therefore the purpose of nomination being with an eye to admission, we are of the considered view that the criteria prescribed for admission has to be for nomination as well. Any other approach may reduce the process for selection for nomination to an exercise in futility. If the requirements for selection for nomination is prescribed to be different from those for admission, there is the inherent risk of the nominated candidates being refused admission by a College whose admission criteria the nominated candidates, may not satisfy. Any other approach may reduce the process for selection for nomination to an exercise in futility. If the requirements for selection for nomination is prescribed to be different from those for admission, there is the inherent risk of the nominated candidates being refused admission by a College whose admission criteria the nominated candidates, may not satisfy. For instance, if a State having one Medical College and one University/Board/one Examination Body conducting the qualifying examination nominates candidates on the basis of his performance in the qualifying examination alone for a seat in a college, governed by Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 5(5)(ii), he would be refused admission as his merit had not been adjudged in a competitive entrance examination and he not having secured the minimum qualifying marks thereunder. There is no provision in the Regulations or in the Rules and no material whatsoever has also been brought to our notice that on such an eventuality, a Medical college governed by Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) can still permit admission of such candidates. This assumes importance in view of the unequivocal mandate of Regulation 5 where selection of candidates for admission has to be mandatorily in terms of the provisions contained therein. 34. It has been submitted before us that the State of Manipur had been conducting the competitive entrance examination for selection for nomination from before the framing of the Rules in the year 1993, but before the amendment thereof on 23.6.2003, no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for such examination. The Regulations were framed in the year 1997 and thereafter in 2003 as above, Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) were amended to the tune of the Regulations presumably realizing the above difficulties. Consequently, in order to maintain consistency with regard to the criteria uniformly applicable for the purpose of nomination as well as admission which is the end objective of the whole exercise, the inescapable conclusion is that the Regulations are applicable to the State of Manipur for nomination of its candidates against the seats allotted to it for different Medical colleges of the country. The attempted differentiation between the nomination and the admission does not commend for our acceptance. The attempted differentiation between the nomination and the admission does not commend for our acceptance. Sub Issue 2(b) It has not been disputed before us that the qualifying examinations referred to in the Rule or Regulations for the State of Manipur are conducted by two Boards, namely Manipur Secondary Board and the Central Board of Secondary Education. From the particulars of the candidates in the impugned subsidiary list and waiting list produced in course of the arguments, it appears that some of them have also passed out from Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu Boards as well. Evidently, therefore, the selection for nomination involved candidates passing the qualifying examinations conducted by various Boards. Keeping in view the purpose of nomination as has been exhaustively dealt with as above, we have no hesitation to hold that in the present conspectus of facts, Regulation 5(2) read with Regulation 5(5)(ii) would be attracted. The interpretation of "Board" comprehended in Regulation 5 as sought to be offered by Mr Mishra is not convincing. To construe that such a Board would only be a State Board and not the Central Board of Secondary Education would be to defeat the very purpose of uniform evaluation of merit for admission as enjoined by the Regulations. According to us, if the qualifying examinations are conducted by more than one University/ Board/Examining Body, for a consistent and coherent appraisal of merit by the same touchtone, holding of a competitive entrance examination is a must. The provisions of the Rules contained in Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) are not requirements in addition to those in Regulation 5, but have been incorporated to bring the Rules in conformity with the Regulations. Any lacuna in the Rules in that regard at the time of initiation of the process for selection cannot ensure to the benefit of the candidates who had not fully qualified in terms of prescription to the Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) in the entrance test. The contention that the amendments to the Rule 6(viii) and Rule 16(1) were occasioned on 23.6.2003, i.e. after the notification on 10.6.2003 setting the nomination process in motion does not advance their case in terms of the existing requirement of Regulation 5. The communication No. U. 14014/4/2003- M.E.III dated 8.8.03 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare relied upon by Mr. The communication No. U. 14014/4/2003- M.E.III dated 8.8.03 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare relied upon by Mr. Misra indicates the broad guidelines for selection of candidates to the central pool seats permitting the State Governments to nominate their candidates on the basis of merit system devised by them. The communication dated 9.12.86 referred to therein lays down 50% marks (40% in respect of SC and ST candidates) in aggregate in English, Physics and Chemistry in the qualifying examination or as amended by the Council to be the eligibility criteria. Apart from the fact that the Regulations were framed in 1997, in face of the clear prescriptions of the Regulations governing the issue, the above communication cannot be sanctioned any primacy over the mandate of Regulation 5. We, therefore, hold that Regulation 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) are applicable in the present case for selection for nomination and any departure therefrom cannot be sustained in law. Point No. 2(c) The Council having been statutorily entrusted with the duty to prescribe the standards of medical education in the country has undertaken the exercise of framing the Regulations to effectuate the purposes of the Act. A bare look into the Regulations as a whole reveals that it provides for detailed guidelines with regard to the teaching approach and objectives of the medical graduate training programme apart from outlining the criteria for admission, selection and migration of students etc. The Regulations contain provisions dealing with curriculum subject-wise, examination, results and internship. It highlights that the graduate medical curriculum is oriented towards training students to undertake the responsibility of a physician and to provide educational experience of the essentials required for health care in the country. It is aimed at training the candidates to undertake the responsibilities of service situations so as to become an effective instrument of implementation of the related requirements. The objectives of the training are to recognize "health for all" as a national goal and health right of all citizens and to fulfill one's social obligations towards realisation of this goal. It is also to acquaint the students with every aspect of national policies of health and devote himself/herself to its practical implementation. The purpose is also to achieve competence in practice of holistic medicine, encompassing promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative aspects of common diseases. It is also to acquaint the students with every aspect of national policies of health and devote himself/herself to its practical implementation. The purpose is also to achieve competence in practice of holistic medicine, encompassing promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative aspects of common diseases. The aim of the training programme in the ultimate analysis is to groom the students to become exemplary citizens by observation of medical ethics and to fulfil the social and professional obligations so as to respond to national aspirations. The considerations which therefore inform the teaching approach and the objectives of the training are to rear up the students to be the responsible citizens equipped with the desired standards of medical education and experience well acquainted as well, with the dictates of medical ethics and demands of professional conduct. To achieve such an avowed object, the Council logically has to ensure that the standards of medical education prescribed by it are maintained and nurtured. For this, induction of students of the desired caliber, knowledge and aptitude is unavoidably essential. Unless the students admitted to the course are of the required level of academic brilliance, the intention of prescribing the curriculum and the course of study would be defeated. It is thus, well conceivable that the duty of prescribing the admission criteria to the medical course would squarely be within the realm of the functions of the council, a creature of the Act. Hence, the prescriptions in Regulation 4 and 5. 35. Having regard to the objectives of the framing as enumerated in the Regulations, it is indispensable that a student has to possess an intellectual bent of mind so that he can gain-fully pursue and complete the course. It is essential that he has the desired outlook, aptitude and discipline for the training to prepare himself for the future responsibilities. His mental faculty must permit the prescribed training to groom and guide him to the goal set by the Regulations. The students should possess the capacity to grasp and assimilate the subtle nuances of the subjects of medical science. Understandably, therefore, the prescription is merit as the criteria for selection. In these premises, any compromise with merit would seriously impair the objects of the Act and the Regulations, rendering those nugatory. The students should possess the capacity to grasp and assimilate the subtle nuances of the subjects of medical science. Understandably, therefore, the prescription is merit as the criteria for selection. In these premises, any compromise with merit would seriously impair the objects of the Act and the Regulations, rendering those nugatory. As the same medical course would be pursued in all Medical Institutions of the country, insistence on an uniform assessment of merit for admission is to ensure induction of best available merit. Application of different yardsticks not only would lead to an anomalous situation, but would result in serious set back to the objects of the Act and the Regulations having an ultimate adverse bearing on public health. It is, therefore, pre-eminently necessary that the selection of students to the medical course has to be on the basis of merit to be judged by a realistic rational and uniform criteria so that best meritorious candidates are selected for maintaining the standard of medical education. It is only then, that one could reasonably expect that the students of medical science would eventually grow up to be the proper guardians of medical health of the country. It is in this background that the justification under Article 15(4) has to be judged. 36. Dwelling on this aspect, pertaining to an issue relation to the admission to the post graduate medical course, the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) observed that programmes and policies of compensatory discrimination under Article 15(4) have to be designed and pursued to achieve the goal of building up an egalitarian non discriminating society. Such programmes and policies, however, cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor they can be executed in a manner which undermine other vital public interest or the general good of all. All public policies therefore in those area have to be judged on the anvil of reasonableness and ultimate public good. It recalled its observations in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 that Article 15(4) is not a provision which is exclusive in character, so that in looking after the advancement of those classes, State should be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of the rest of the society. It recalled its observations in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 that Article 15(4) is not a provision which is exclusive in character, so that in looking after the advancement of those classes, State should be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of the rest of the society. The observations of the Apex Court mJagadish Saran (Dr) v. Union of India in (1980) 2 SCC 768 to the effect that reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence and that shelter 9f reservation cannot be extended when the minimum qualifications are absent, were quoted with approval. In the same vein, the reasoning in Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 , that excellence cannot be compromised by any other considerations as that would be detrimental to the interest of the nation, was noticed as well. The caution sounded in Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Punjab University (1997) 2 SCC 171 that to depreciate merit and expertise at the higher levels of education would be dangerous was underscored. In the ultimate analysis, the Apex Court concluded that while the object of Article 15(4) is to advance the equality principle by approving protective discrimination in favour of sections so that they be able to compete equally with others more fortunate, one cannot ignore the wider interests of the society like promoting excellence in higher levels while devising such special provisions. Such provisions therefore must strike a reasonable balance between diverse national interests involved, it observed. The observations in India Sawhney v. Union of India (supra) that certain services and positions where on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level at which they obtain, merit alone counts and that in such a situation, it may not be advisable to provide for reservations, was endorsed. 37. The emphatic pronouncements in the aforementioned judgment though scripted in the context of admission to post graduate course, in our view apply with equal force for undergraduate course as well. The principle enunciated is general in nature and must inform all actions sought to be justified under the cover of Article 15(4). Undergraduate course in the medical discipline is essentially in the domain of higher education where after a reasonable limit, no impairment of merit can be contemplated or agreed to. The principle enunciated is general in nature and must inform all actions sought to be justified under the cover of Article 15(4). Undergraduate course in the medical discipline is essentially in the domain of higher education where after a reasonable limit, no impairment of merit can be contemplated or agreed to. The students admitted to the said course are introduced to the medical science to be accounted with necessary knowledge, expertise and ethics of the profession. On completion of the said course, they take on still higher studies in the related specialities and super-specialities. The concern to equip the students of the undergraduate course for their pursuits in health science is manifested in the Regulations. Further relaxation in the minimum qualifying standards for admission to the undergraduate course which has been prescribed by the Council on an objective consideration of all relevant aspects and to attenuate the same would tantamount to rendering the very live purpose of the Act and the Regulations otiose. This is bound to create a chain effect having adverse bearing on the standard of excellence at the speciality and super-speciality level as well. Public health and public interest do not in our view countenance this concession. 38. Noticeably, the Regulations provide a relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks while judging the merit of the reserved category candidates be it so, on the basis of qualifying examination or the competitive entrance test. While for the general category candidates the qualifying marks is 50%, for the reserved category candidates it is 40%. Reserved category candidates are therefore advantaged by a relaxation of 10% marks. Some compromise on merit is already made. The relaxation is agreeable on the touchstone of protective discrimination in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, as the Constitution permits. Further relaxation in the above states of things, in our mind cannot be protected under the cover of Article 15(4), lest the balance accentuated in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) is effected. Compensatory/protective discrimination cannot be raised to such a level that it totally obliterates the minimum qualifying level for admission to an academic course. By the impugned action, no minimum qualifying marks in effect had been fixed for the exempted candidates. It therefore, is in sharp contrast to the law propounded by the Apex Court as above in the context of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. By the impugned action, no minimum qualifying marks in effect had been fixed for the exempted candidates. It therefore, is in sharp contrast to the law propounded by the Apex Court as above in the context of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. In any view of the matter, however, the candidates belonging to the meritorious sportsperson and children of the armed forces personnel/Ex-servicemen categories cannot claim cover under Article 15(4). No argument in support thereof has been advanced before us and rightly so. The impugned subsidiary list and the waiting list therefore, according to our considered opinion cannot stand protected under Article 15(4) as well. In the wake of the above discussion and deductions, the admission of the candidates in the subsidiary list and the waiting list are liable to be cancelled, they having admittedly failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed under Regulation 5(5)(ii) of the Regulations. POINT No. 3 The question that arose in MCI v. State of Karnataka (supra) was whether the authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges there vested in the State by virtue of two statutory enactments. Answering in the negative, the Apex Court held that the Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Act were statutory in nature and for the purposes covered by it, the same had a mandatory force. It held that it was the Council which would prescribe the particulars of MBBS students to be admitted in the medical course and the Central Government alone could direct an increase in the number, but only on the recommendations of the Council. 39. The Apex Court while examining the aspect of the desirability of belated admission to medical colleges in pre-graduate as well as post graduate courses held in Madhu Singh (supra) that admission of students after the commencement of the course would be against the intended object of fixing a time schedule and result in increase in the number of seats for the next session to accommodate such a student. It was of the view that such admissions would be against the spirit of the governing statute and laid down the following guidelines: (i) There is no scope for admitting student midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; (ii) Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions; (iii) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year; (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission; (v) Different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have to be completed within the specified time; (vi) No variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed. (vii) In case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI. 40. The prayer for an additional round of counseling to fill up the vacant seats in medical colleges was declined by the Apex Court in Supreet Batra and Ors. (supra) and Neetu Arora and Anr. (supra) by taking note of the above guidelines observing further that the same would lead to an endless exercise defeating the scheme formulated by the Court in this regard. The Council in view of the above guidelines in Madhu Singh (supra), by its communication dated 11.2.2003 intimated the States and Universities having medical faculty about the schedule for admission to the 1st MBBS course whether the academic session of the admitted students was to commence in all the teaching institutions on 1st August of the concerned year and the resultant/consequential admission were to be complete by 30September of the concerned year. The communication further disclosed that no admission should be made beyond the afore mentioned cut off date and that any admission made after 30lh September would be invalid being contrary to the decision in Madhu Singh (supra). The communication further disclosed that no admission should be made beyond the afore mentioned cut off date and that any admission made after 30lh September would be invalid being contrary to the decision in Madhu Singh (supra). Steps taken to ensure that the schedule is adhered to were also detailed in the communication wherefrom it appears that a separate monitoring cell was to be set up for the purpose which would examine the cases of the admissions made and in case any admission was found to have been provided beyond the prescribed date, the same would be treated as cancelled. Penal actions against the defaulting medical college(s) as proposed were also recorded in the communication. 41. A later communication dated 31.10.2003/1.11.2003 of the Council addressed to the States as well as Universities and Medical Colleges of the country disclose that a draft regulation had been framed laying down inter alia, the schedule for the admission process for MBBS, Post graduate and super-speciality medical courses and forwarded to the Central Government for approval under the Act. It transpires from the said communications that, in the meantime, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, had also framed a policy/guideline dated 14.5.2003 whereunder in terms of the directions issued in Madhu Singh (supra), a schedule has been drawn up wherein the last date of admission to the medical course has been fixed on 30 September of the concerned year. It appears from the said communications that the Council thereafter by its letter dated 20.5.2003 had called upon the concerned colleges/medical institutions to ensure that the schedule is strictly adhered to and the compliance report be submitted to it. It was followed up by a subsequent communication dated 27.8.2003 to the same effect. The above developments as the communications divulge have also been taken note of by the Apex Court in its subsequent decisions approving the schedule. Requests made before the Council by various State Governments for extension of the dead line beyond 30.9.2003 had been rejected. The Apex Court as well had declined in a number of cases, such prayer made before it by the State of Andhra Pradesh, Uttranchal and a number of medical colleges, the copies whereof have been produced before us, in course of the arguments. 42. The Apex Court as well had declined in a number of cases, such prayer made before it by the State of Andhra Pradesh, Uttranchal and a number of medical colleges, the copies whereof have been produced before us, in course of the arguments. 42. The communications referred to above alongwith the Central Government policy dated 14.5.2003, authenticity whereof had not been questioned, have been taken note of by us to decide appropriately the directions to be finally issued in the instant case. In course of the arguments, the programme of the 1st semester examination of the RIMS where the candidates in the impugned subsidiary lists had been admitted was also placed before us to show that the students had appeared in the said examination held in the month of February, 2004. The guidelines provided by the Apex Court in Madhu Singh (supra) and consequential steps taken by the Council and the Central Government in compliance thereof clearly demonstrate that no admission to medical courses is permissible beyond 30th September of the concerned year which, in our case would be 30.9.2003. We are therefore, of the view that in the above premises, it would not be permissible to issue a direction for admission of the students from the original list and waiting list against the seats that would fall vacant if, we order cancellation of the admission of the candidates in the impugned subsidiary list and the waiting list. This apparently is not the intention of the Apex Court as the same would involve mid stream admission in the MBBS course much beyond 30.9.2003. 43. It has been brought to our notice that all the candidates in the impugned subsidiary lists have been permitted admission in the respective colleges. They have been pursuing their course and have in the meantime appeared in the 1st semester examination held in the month of February, 2004. It may be so, cancellation of their admissions at this stage would result in prejudice to them as well. But all these in our view do not out-weigh the persuasive illegality which vitiates their nominations. Having held that the selection for nomination of the candidates in the impugned subsidiary lists to be in contravention of Regulation 5, the said lists cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 44. In the result, the point No. 1 is answered in the negative. Having held that the selection for nomination of the candidates in the impugned subsidiary lists to be in contravention of Regulation 5, the said lists cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 44. In the result, the point No. 1 is answered in the negative. Point No. 2 in the affirmative and Point No. 3 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The impugned subsidiary lists and the waiting lists though quashed in view of the emphatic and imperative guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Singh (supra) and the string of orders passed by it consistently thereafter together with the consequential steps taken by the Council and the Central Government insisting on strictly adherence of the calendar in compliance of the said guidelines, we decline to issue any directions for admission of the candidates from the original lists against the seats resultantly falling vacant. 45. It has been contended before us that such illegalities have been continuing in almost all academic years though no tangible material have been produced before us in support thereof. We, therefore, cannot take note of such complaint, but wish to place on record and quite assertively that the State of Manipur like any other State in the Country is legally bound by the Act and the Regulations as well as dictates of the Apex Court and the High Court on the issue and is expected to act with probity and reasonability in these matters lest this Court noticing any such lapse in future be constrained to take appropriate stringent measures to enforce such compliance in addition to the penal actions prescribed under the Regulations. 46. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the findings recorded hereinabove. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein stand modified accordingly. No costs.