JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) PREAMBLE 1. In this group of petitions, though grievances raised in all petitions are not identical, they all pertain to the procedure for admissions to Medical and Paramedical Professional Courses for the academic year 2009-2010. These admissions are governed by Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2009(here-in-after referred to as the Admission Rules of 2009). Since different facets of the Admission Rules of 2009 are involved in all the petitions and in some of the petitions some of the Rules are also under challenge, we find it convenient to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment. FACTUAL ASPECTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL 2. In Special Civil Application No.5599/2009, the petitioners have questioned the policy of the State Government to permit the students who have passed 12th standard in Science Stream in previous years also to compete for the Medical and Paramedical seats admissions to which is being granted in the current year i.e. academic year 2009-2010. The petitioners have all passed the 12th standard examination in the academic year 2008-2009 in Gujarat Board. They have applied for admissions to various Medical and Paramedical courses on the basis of their performance in the qualifying examination as well as in the Common Entrance Test held by the respondents in the year 2009. They contend that admissions being granted for such courses in the academic year 2009-2010 should be confined exclusively for those students who have passed HSC examination in the academic year 2008-2009. 2.1 Rule 5 of the Admission Rules of 2009 provides for eligibility for admission. Rule 5(1)(B) of the Admission Rules of 2009, in particular, provides that for admission a candidate must have appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test (here-in-after referred to as GUJCET )conducted in the current academic year. Sub-rule(5) of Rule 5 further provides that a candidate who has secured admission under these Rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. Sub-rule(5) of Rule 5 further provides that a candidate who has secured admission under these Rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. In the nutshell, therefore, under the the Admission Rules of 2009, the students who have passed the HSC examination in earlier academic years, can also apply for admissions to Medical and Paramedical courses provided i) they appear in the GUJCET for the current academic year and ii) such candidate if he has already taken admission in any course, he is not eligible to apply again till he completes the course. Apparently similar provisions were also made in Admission Rules of 2008. 2.2 Learned advocate Shri D.C. Dave for the petitioners vehemently contended that this policy of the State Government is illegal and unlawful and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He pointed out that in the Admission Rules of 2009, merit list is prepared by giving 60% weightage to the marks obtained by a student in HSC examination and 40% weightage to the performance in GUJCET examination of the current year. His main contention therefore, was that by preparing a common merit list for students who have passed the HSC examinations in different academic years would amount to treating unequals as equals. In other words, he contended that the procedure evolved by the respondents treated results of HSC examinations of different years equally. Results of different years would vary and thus the respondents failed to provide for a common yardstick for judging the students. He submitted that since year 1984, admission rules for such courses permitted the students only of that particular academic year to apply in medical seats and such a rule was upheld by this Court in case of Jayesh A. Joshipura v. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1984(2)GLR 761, wherein Learned Single Judge was pleased to uphold the said policy of limiting the admission to MBBS course only to students of that particular academic year.. He further relied on following decisions: 1) Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2894, wherein the Apex Court stressed upon the need of Common Entrance Test. He further relied on following decisions: 1) Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2894, wherein the Apex Court stressed upon the need of Common Entrance Test. It was however, case of Post Graduate Medical Courses and it was found that State would have several Universities conducting MBBS courses. Students would thus be drawn from different Universities vying for Post Graduate Degree Courses. 2) Shri Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society and others reported in (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 732, wherein also the Apex Court stressed on requirement of a Common Test. 3) T.M.A. PAI Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481, wherein Apex Court observed as follows : Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school-leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies. 2.3 On the other hand, learned Advocate General Shri Trivedi appearing for the State opposed the petition. He contended that there is no illegality in the Government permitting the students of previous years to apply for Medical and Paramedical seats in the current academic year. The Government as a policy decided to give additional chance to the students of previous years. While doing so, still provided that such students shall also have to appear in GUJCET of the current year. Further to ensure against lapsing of seats already occupied by the students, it was provided that such students at-least till the completion of the course shall not be eligible. He further contended that all such students come from Gujarat Board. It is therefore not the case where unequals are being treated as equals. In any case, they all appear for the same GUJCET examination. Fair degree of uniformity and common yardstick is therefore, evolved for judging the relative merits of all students. He relied on the decision of this Court in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad reported in 1990(2)GLR 1066. He also relied on full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others etc. v. Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay and others etc. He relied on the decision of this Court in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad reported in 1990(2)GLR 1066. He also relied on full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others etc. v. Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay and others etc. reported in AIR 1995 Bombay 1. 3. In Special Civil Application No.5337/2009, petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 10 and 11 of the Admission Rules of 2009. These Rules pertain to distribution of seats between students of Gujarat Board and other Boards and preparation of merit list for admission. The petitioners have passed their HSC examinations from Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations(CISCE for short). In essence, they object to the State policy of preparing two separate merit lists for the students coming from Central Board and those coming from CISCE. Until now, the admissions were being granted on the strength of two separate merit lists, one prepared for Gujarat Board students and another for all other Boards namely Central Board students and CISCE students. In the present academic year however, it is provided under Rule 11(2) of the Admission Rules of 2009 that first merit list shall include candidates who have passed qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board and second merit list shall consist of two separate merit lists of the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from Central Board and CISCE, New Delhi. 3.1 Learned advocate Shri D.C. Dave appearing for the petitioners challenged the the Admission Rules of 2009 mainly on the ground that the respondents changed the prevailing policy at the last minute thereby depriving the petitioners and similarly situated other students from exercising any other option. It was contended that until now a common merit list was being prepared for Central Board and CISCE students. Abruptly without any notice and at the last minute, the State Government changed the policy and has in the present academic year provided for two separate merit lists, one for Central Board and other for CISCE students. Meritorious students belonging to CISCE are therefore left with very few seats. In any case, such a change could not have been effected after the examinations were over. He contended that on the principles of promissory estoppal and legitimate expectation, the State policy should be annulled. Meritorious students belonging to CISCE are therefore left with very few seats. In any case, such a change could not have been effected after the examinations were over. He contended that on the principles of promissory estoppal and legitimate expectation, the State policy should be annulled. He relied on decision in case of Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v. State of Gujarat & ors. reported in (1979) 20 GLR 614, wherein this Court stressed the need for the Government policy being declared well in time. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in 2006 (3) GLH 122 , wherein also similar observations were made. He also relied on the decision in case of Indian Express Newspapers(Bombay) Private Ltd. and others etc. etc. v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 515, in which limitations of subordinate Legislation have been highlighted. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association & ors. v. Union of India & ors. reported in Air 2006 Supreme Court 2945. 3.2 On the other hand, learned Advocate General Shri Trivedi opposed the petition and contended that earlier method of clubbing the Central Board students and CISCE students in one merit list was not entirely satisfactory and it was felt that for better uniformity, it would be appropriate to further bifurcate the quota internally between the students, so that students coming from different Boards are not placed in the same merit list. It was further contended that the principles of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectations would not apply. Each year the Government frames fresh admission rules and provides for appropriate methodology as per the need of the day. 4. In Special Civil Applications No.5289/2009, 5285/2009, 6326/2009 and 6472/2009, the petitioners have questioned the decision of the respondents to give 60% weightage to the HSC examination and 40% weightage to the GUJCET examination for the current academic year. All the petitioners have passed their HSC examinations from Gujarat Board conducted in March-April 2009. They also appeared in the current GUJCET examination conducted by the Board. Briefly stated, their case is that for granting admissions to Medical and Paramedical courses in the previous years, the State Government used to give 79%(approx.) weightage to the HSC examination and 21% (approx.) weightage to the GUJCET examination. They also appeared in the current GUJCET examination conducted by the Board. Briefly stated, their case is that for granting admissions to Medical and Paramedical courses in the previous years, the State Government used to give 79%(approx.) weightage to the HSC examination and 21% (approx.) weightage to the GUJCET examination. In the present year however, this ratio has been changed to 60:40 for HSC marks and GUJCET marks respectively. They insist that previous methodology be continued for current academic year also. They have therefore, challenged relevant Rule 11 of the the Admission Rules of 2009 which provides for said formula. 4.1 Learned advocate Shri D.C. Dave appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 5289/2009 submitted that the Government should not have made such a major policy change at a belated stage. His main contention was that the change of the policy at a highly belated stage results into injustice to the students and was therefore, wholly illegal. He pointed out that right from the inception of GUJCET in the year 2006, the policy of giving 79% weightage to the qualifying examination and 21% weightage to the common test has been prevailing. In the current year also, there was not even a hint that the policy is under review and a greater weightage would be given to GUJCET marks. He submitted that the Admission Rules of 2009 were promulgated long after the students appeared in both Board as well as GUJCET examination. At no earlier point of time, there was any official communication from the Government that for the current year, higher weightage will be given to the GUJCET marks. Information book-lets of the Government also suggested that the previous policy will continue. He contended that the students were thus made to believe that the proportion of marks as taken in the previous years would prevail in the current year also. On this count, the State policy should be struck down. He thus based his arguments on belated change made by the Government, promissory estoppal and denial of legitimate expectation. Decisions in this regard have already been noted earlier. 4.2 The other advocates appearing in other petitions have more or less advanced similar arguments and adopted those made by Shri D.C. Dave. He thus based his arguments on belated change made by the Government, promissory estoppal and denial of legitimate expectation. Decisions in this regard have already been noted earlier. 4.2 The other advocates appearing in other petitions have more or less advanced similar arguments and adopted those made by Shri D.C. Dave. 4.3 Learned Advocate General Shri Trivedi for the State opposed the petitions and submitted that what weightage should be given to the qualifying examination and entrance test is entirely a policy decision. He contended that to judge the aptitude of students for professional courses, it is essential to conduct Common Entrance Test. At the same time, to maintain the importance of the Board examinations, it is necessary that performance of the students in such examinations also be taken into account. With this dual purpose in mind, the State has evolved the policy of combining two results in the proportion of 60:40. He contended that no promise was held out to the students that proportion between the two results will not be changed. The students have not shown any prejudice on account of change in the policy. In any case, there cannot be any estoppal against the statute. 4.4 Learned senior counsel Shri S.N. Shelat for private respondents opposing the petitions contended that Rules are clear and unequivocal. The change in proportion of the previous year was eminent and this Court in case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors.(supra) had highlighted the effect of previous rules. He relied on the decision in case of Dr. Vikram K. Shah & Ors. v. State & Ors. reported in 1983(1) GLR 554 , wherein Learned Single Judge of this Court observed that Rules in stray cases may cause hardship to individuals. However, such rare cases do not vitiate the rules. Constitutionality cannot be decided on touchstone of fortunes of individuals. He also relied on the decision in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad(supra) to contend that a candidate has no vested right to get admission on a seat. He also referred to the decision of Apex Court in case of Rajiv Kapoor and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1476, wherein it was observed that Government can lay down criteria other than one contained in the prospectus. RELEVANT RULES 5. He also referred to the decision of Apex Court in case of Rajiv Kapoor and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1476, wherein it was observed that Government can lay down criteria other than one contained in the prospectus. RELEVANT RULES 5. Before dealing with individual petitions, some of the provisions made in the Admission Rules of 2009 may be noted. The Admission Rules of 2009 have been formulated by the Government in exercise of powers under Sub-section(1) of Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. These are thus statutory rules. 5.1 Rules govern admissions to various Medical and Paramedical courses such as Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Bachelor of Dental Surgery, Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery, Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. etc., as provided in Section 2(1)(g) of the Rules. The Rules govern admissions to the Government seats, Management seats as also Non Resident Indian(NRI )seats. 5.2 Rule 5 pertains to eligibility for admission. Rule 5 insofar as is relevant for our purpose reads as follows : 5. Eligibility for Admission : (1) For the purpose of admission, a candidate shall have - (A) passed the qualifying examination with B-group or AB-group from- (i) the Gujarat Board; or (ii)the Central Board of Secondary Education Board provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, should have been located in the State of Gujarat; or (iii)the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi Board provided that the school in which the candidate has studied should have been located in the State of Gujarat; Provided that the candidate seeking admission in Ayurveda shall have passed either the qualifying examination or the 10th examination with Sanskrit subject, and (B) appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year....... xxxxxx (5). A candidate who has secured admission under these rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. xxxxxx (5). A candidate who has secured admission under these rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. Explanation : Candidates who had taken admission after the implementation of the Act shall not be eligible for fuhrer admission to any course until the period within which he might have completed the course in which he has secured admission i.e. candidates admitted in academic year 2008-09 and onwards 5.3 Rule 10 provides for distribution of seats between students of Gujarat Board and other Boards and reads as follows : 10. Distribution of Seats between Students of Gujarat Board and other Boards- For the purpose of admission, the available seats shall be distributed between students of the Gujarat Board and other Boards on pro-rata basis, taking into consideration the number of students passed from the Gujarat Board, Central Boards and the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi in the relative academic year; Provided that where any seat remain vacant in the category of Central Board or, as the case may be, the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi, the same shall be filled in from the candidates of merit list of Gujarat Board. 5.4 Rule 11 pertains to preparation of merit list for admission and reads as follows : 11. 5.4 Rule 11 pertains to preparation of merit list for admission and reads as follows : 11. Preparation of Merit List for admission.- The merit list of the candidates who have applied for admission in prescribed form, within the prescribed time limit and who are found eligible for admission under these rules shall be prepared in the following manner, namely;- (1)(a) the candidates who have passed qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board, sixty per cent, of total marks obtained in theory of the Physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects after converting it to 100 combined with the forty per cent of total marks obtained form the Physics , biology and Chemistry subjects in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test(GUJCET), after converting it to 100 from the total marks obtained, shall be the merit marks (b)The candidate who have passed qualifying examination from other Boards or as the case may be, the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi, sixty percent of total marks obtained in theory of the physics, biology and Chemistry subjects after converting it to 100 combined with forty percent of total marks obtained from the Physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test(GUJCET) after converting it to 100 from the total marks obtained, shall be the merit marks Explanation : For the purpose of calculation of merit marks: (a) The total obtained in the theory of the physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects in the qualifying examination shall be converted to 100 marks and the sixty percent of such converted marks [i.e.X/Yx100](0.6), where the X is the total marks obtained and Y is the total marks(maximum marks) in the qualifying examination). (b) The total marks obtained in the Physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test (GUJCET) shall be converted to 100 marks and the forty percent of such converted marks [i.e. A/Bx100](0.4), where the A is the total marks obtained and B is the total marks(maximum marks) Gujarat Common Entrance Test(GUJCET) (2) The Admission Committee shall prepare and publish two separate merit lists as follows namely, (a) The first merit list shall include the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board. Merit list of reserved category candidates shall be prepared separately; and (b) The second merit list shall consist of two separate merit list of the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the (i) Central Board; and (ii) Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi. Merit list of reserved category candidates be prepared separately 6. In order to appreciate the change affected in the weightage to be given to the qualifying examination and the entrance test, it would be useful to notice the relevant rules of the previous years. In the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and payment of Fees) Rules, 2008, relevant portion of rule 11 reads as follows: 11. Preparation of Merit List for admission.- The merit list of the candidates who have applied for admission in prescribed form, within the prescribed time limit and who are found eligible for admission under these rules shall be prepared in the following manner, namely;- (1)(a) the candidates who have passed qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board, sixty per cent of total marks obtained in theory of the Physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects combined with the forty per cent of total marks obtained form the total 120 marks in Physics, Biology and Chemistry subjects in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test(GUJCET), shall be the merit marks Similar formula was provided in previous academic years may be with slight different phraseology used. CONCLUSIONS 7. Before adverting to individual petitions, having noticed the relevant provisions contained in the Admission Rules of 2009, it can be seen that the rules are framed under the power of delegated legislation. Rules thus have statutory force. Rules govern all aspects of admissions to Medical and Paramedical courses for the academic year 2009-2010. Provisions have been made for eligibility, for preparation of merit list, for bifurcation of quota between the State Board students, Central Board students and CISCE students. While examining the grievances of the petitioners, we would be acutely conscious of the limited role that this Court would play in judging the correctness or otherwise of the policy decision of the Government, particularly, in the field of education. In case of National Board of Examination v. G. Anand Ramamurty, (2006) 5 SCC 515 , the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the policy matter of academic nature. In case of National Board of Examination v. G. Anand Ramamurty, (2006) 5 SCC 515 , the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the policy matter of academic nature. In case of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini, (2007) 5 SCC 519 , the Apex Court observed that the Court ordinarily would not interfere with the option of the expert committee as regards qualification and eligibility of candidates. It was observed that in the field of education, the Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational institutions particularly when such decision is supported by an expert committee. 8. With this background in mind if we revert back to the individual petitions, we find that in Special Civil Application No.5599/2009 as already noted, the petitioners oppose the State decision to permit the students of previous years also to compete for admissions in the current academic year. The principal ground on which it is sought to be opposed is that by doing so, the State fails to provide a common yardstick for all students since students passing in different years in the qualifying examinations are bunched together for preparation of common merit list. 8.1 It is true that different Courts including the Apex Court have been stressing for common yard stick for admission to such professional courses. However, such observations are made mainly in background of students coming from different Boards and different States. In the present case, we are concerned with comparing students from same Eduction Board of the State. Some students have appeared in the HSC Board for current academic year and some might have appeared in the previous years. As noticed, the Admission Rules permit the students of previous years also to apply in the current academic year subject to two qualifications i.e. firstly they have to appear in the GUJCET examination conducted by the State this year and secondly, that such students should not have secured admission in the previous academic year. Insistence on appearance in the current GUJCET examination provides at-least in the entrance test, a common yardstick between all students. Insistence on appearance in the current GUJCET examination provides at-least in the entrance test, a common yardstick between all students. Further, by not permitting a student of previous year to apply for current year, if he already has secured admission previously is aimed at not permitting the students to change their courses and to ensure against certain professional seats lapsing on account of such changes. Government policy cannot be faulted. If a student in the previous year for some reason of illness, adverse family circumstances or some other unfortunate cause, could not perform according to his potential in the entrance test, his fate need not be sealed for ever. Giving an additional opportunity to such a student, cannot be stated to be a policy which is unreasonable or arbitrary. In any case, by debarring students of the previous year who had secured admission, from applying in the current year, State has ensured that seats earlier occupied by them would not go waste and further that impact of change of this policy is minimized. We had inquired with the learned advocate General as to the total number of such students, who have applied for the current year and were told that a total of 412 students of the previous batches had applied for admission in the current year. Out of which 151 were found not eligible as they were already admitted in previous years, thus leaving a total of 261 qualified candidates. When we find that total of more than 10,800/- students of Gujarat Board of B and A-B group are in contention for different Medical and Paramedical seats, number of repeater students would appear to be minuscule. 8.2 Only question therefore, is whether putting all such students i.e. students of current academic year, and those who might have passed earlier would breach the requirement of common yardstick. As already noted, all students come from common Board. It is expected that same Board would maintain reasonably similar standards for examinations and assessments. It is not even the case of the petitioners that curriculum has changed drastically in a span of couple of years. In Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad (supra), the petitioners had challenged rules for admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Medical Courses. Under the concerned Rules the authorities had decided to take into account performance of the candidates in various examinations including the Board examination in certain proportion. In Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad (supra), the petitioners had challenged rules for admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Medical Courses. Under the concerned Rules the authorities had decided to take into account performance of the candidates in various examinations including the Board examination in certain proportion. These rules were challenged on various grounds including that change would adversely affect existing batches of students, that it violates principles of Promissory Estoppal and failed to provide common yardstick for students of different batches. All these contentions were negatived by the Division Bench observing that it has always been approach of the Courts in such academic mattes not to substitute their own opinion or view with the opinion or view expressed by the expert bodies consisting of experienced teachers and academicians. In Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others (supra), Bombay High Court was considering set of rules for admission to Medical and Dental course which permitted everyone passing qualifying examination irrespective of the year in which such examination was cleared as eligible. The contention was that students passing qualifying examination in different years constitute different class and they therefore, cannot be clubbed together. Full Bench repelled the challenge by making following observations : 22. The conclusion reached by the learned Judges that each years constitutes a different source and different class of candidates and if this class is sought to be clubbed with other classes of students, the same would be deemed to be unreasonable, unjust, inasmuch as the students who were qualified in the later years would be deprived of admission to the medical courses under the pretext that the candidates for the previous years are eligible cannot be upheld. xxxxx 23. As a matter of fact, the particular examination of a particular Board or University, irrespective of the fact as to in which year the candidate has passed the same; is always treated on part for all purposes. We find it impossible to subscribe to the view that the students passing the same examination in different years constitute different classes merely by virtue of the fact that they have given the same examination in in different years. Even marginal difference in the curriculum or method of assessment or such other factors in respect of different years for the same examination would not be sufficient to categorise the students into different classes. Even marginal difference in the curriculum or method of assessment or such other factors in respect of different years for the same examination would not be sufficient to categorise the students into different classes. As a matte of fact, the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 765 , State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana and the passage quoted by the learned Judge of the Aurangabad Bench in the judgment is a clear authority against the submission that the same examination held in different years cannot be treated alike. Th apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 17 has observed as under : The vagarious element in marking and moderation of marks may be a fact of life, but too marginal to qualify for substantial difference unless otherwise made out. Indeed, there may be difference amount the colleges under the same University, among the examiners in the same University. Such fleeting factors or ephemeral differences cannot be the solid foundation for a substantial differentiation; which is the necessary precondition for quashing an executive or legislative at as too discriminatory to satisfy the egalitarian essence of Art.14. The functional validation of the writ jurisdiction is an appropriate examination of the substantiability of the alleged disparity. 8.3 Considering all these aspects of the matter, and taking into consideration view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad (supra) as well as full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in case of Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others(supra), we do not find that Government policy suffers from any illegality. It is significant to note that the Rules are sufficiently clear in this respect. It permits a student of previous year to be selected provided he appears in GUJCET of the current year and has not secured admission in any professional courses previously. Significantly, the Rules are not under challenge. Even otherwise we have examined the Government policy keeping in mind reasonableness as also Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no reason to interfere. Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Significantly, the Rules are not under challenge. Even otherwise we have examined the Government policy keeping in mind reasonableness as also Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no reason to interfere. Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Coming to the challenge in Special Civil Application No.5337/2009, it may be recalled that the petitioners therein challenge the validity of Rules 10 and 11 of the Admission Rules 2009 to the extent these Rules provide for two separate merit lists to be prepared for Central Board students and CISCE students. In case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors.(supra), this Court had noticed perils of preparing a common merit list for students coming from different Boards. Admittedly, the Central Boards and CISCE form two different sources. Their curriculum, examination and assessment are vastly different. This Court therefore, made following observations : 36. It is true that the merit list of the Central Board students includes students not only from CBSE but a small number of students passing out also from CISCE. During the course of discussion, there was some debate about the modality of preparing a common list for both these streams. However, for want of sufficient particulars and for want of proper material on record, it is not possible for this Court to examine this question any further in these petitions. It is not clear whether the Board had provided for some form of moderation for equation of marks obtained from respective Boards. It would appear that perhaps without any further moderation, if marks obtained by these students from their respective Boards were given equal weightage, the same may be susceptible to legal challenge. However, in view of the factors mentioned hereinabove, it is not possible for this Court to conclude this issue in this petition. It will be for the State Government to examine this aspect at least for the future years. 9.1 The decision of the Government to provide for two separate lists for students from Central Board and CISCE respectively would thus be in consonance with the observations noted here-in-above, and would be more in tune with the requirement of fair and common yard stick for admission. To that extent even the Counsel for the petitioners did not join issue. 9.1 The decision of the Government to provide for two separate lists for students from Central Board and CISCE respectively would thus be in consonance with the observations noted here-in-above, and would be more in tune with the requirement of fair and common yard stick for admission. To that extent even the Counsel for the petitioners did not join issue. His main contention however, as noted earlier was that such a policy change was made at a highly belated stage, thus jeopardizing the prospects of students of CISCE. It is true that this change was made by the Government in the present admission process. It is equally true that such a change was made fairly late. However, only on that count, rules cannot be held to be ultra vires. In fact, the rules bring the procedure in tune with the requirement of common yardstick for students coming from common stream. Clubbing Central Board student with CISCE students, did not strictly fulfill this requirement. The rules thus are in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also fulfill the requirement of not equating the students from different background without any modulation. The Government has in its reply highlighted the requirement for preparing separate list. They pointed out that past experience has shown that CISCE students were cornering larger share of the seats compared to their total strength out of the seats earmarked for other Boards . When we find that these rules are valid and further the principle of equality and fairness in admission process, it would not be appropriate on our part to strike down the same, simply because previously somewhat different procedure was being followed and that the present change is affected at a late stage. 9.2 Nowhere, have the petitioners pointed out that Government publicized that there will be no change insofar as this particular aspect is concerned or any assurance was given that previous policy of preparing select list of the Central Board students and CISCE students would continue. Therefore, quite apart from the principle of no estoppal against statute, we find that arguments of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation cannot stand. The petitioners have also not demonstrated how they had varied their position to their disadvantage on the basis of any such promise held out by the Government. Therefore, quite apart from the principle of no estoppal against statute, we find that arguments of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation cannot stand. The petitioners have also not demonstrated how they had varied their position to their disadvantage on the basis of any such promise held out by the Government. It is too far fetched to expect that if the Government had published such a policy few months earlier, the petitioners and other students of CISCE would have shifted to some other Board or State where they would have had better prospects. This petition therefore, must fail. 10. Coming to the challenge in Special Civil Application No.5289/2009 and connected matters, we may recall that the petitioners therein have questioned the Government's decision to allot 60% weightage to the qualifying examination i.e. HSC Board Examination and 40% weightage to the GUJCET Entrance Test. Examination of Gujarat Secondary Education Board carries 300 marks of theory, GUJCET carries 120 marks. Earlier when rules provided for 60% of the marks scored in the HSC examination and 40% of the marks scored in GUJCET examination, for preparation of select list, on account of higher proportion of marks for Board examination, the ratio between the Board examination and GUJCET examination did not work out to 60:40 but worked out to be approximately 79:21. This was noticed by this Court in the case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors.(supra) and following observations were made: 44. Before parting, I would like to advert to two important aspects of the matter. Firstly, though at the first sight, it may appear that the State Government has given 60 per cent weightage to the marks obtained by the respective Board examinations and 40 per cent weightage to the performance of the students in the common entrance test, in reality the projection of qualifying examination marks is much higher than the ratio of 60 : 40. In reality, what is done by the respondents for preparation of the merit list is that 60 per cent of the marks scored by a student in the Board examination is added by 40 per cent marks scored by the students in the common entrance test for preparation of the total marks for the purpose of preparation of merit list. The language used in the Medicine Rules and Engineering Rules in this regard is somewhat different. The language used in the Medicine Rules and Engineering Rules in this regard is somewhat different. This methodology has been clearly laid down in the Engineering Rules and as per the said rules, it may not be strictly impermissible for the State Government to adopt this methodology. However, the actual result of this methodology is that weightage of the marks obtained by the students in his Board examination is approximately 79 per cent as compared to 21 percent weightage given to the marks obtained by the students in the common entrance test. This is so because the total tally of marks in the Board examination in the Gujarat Board was 300 whereas the total marks assigned for the common entrance test was 120 (eventually, the maximum marks became 119 since one question was inaccurate). Therefore, while preparing the merit list, when the State adopted the formula of taking 60 per cent of the marks of the students in the Board examination along with 40 percent of the marks scored in the common entrance test, in reality, since the grand total in the Board examination was much higher than the grand total in the common entrance test, the Board examination projection went further up. In the 100 per cent of marks for the merit list,therefore, weightage of the Board result is as high as 79 per cent compared to only 21 per cent weightage to the common entrance test. Thereafter, the Court discussing the purpose of conducting entrance test at some length went on to observe as follows : ...If this be the angle and if this be the philosophy for holding the common entrance test, would it not be diluting the purpose to a large extent by providing only 20 per cent weightage for such results. I find that this issue requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the Government for future examination. What exactly should be the weightage is for the State Government to judge. In the current year, however, no directions can be given for modifying the lists already published for the following reasons... ...4. In substitution of the present methodology, there is no other ready-made alternative available and it is for the State Government to undertake an exercise of reconsideration in consultation with the experts in the field. 5. In the current year, however, no directions can be given for modifying the lists already published for the following reasons... ...4. In substitution of the present methodology, there is no other ready-made alternative available and it is for the State Government to undertake an exercise of reconsideration in consultation with the experts in the field. 5. For such a purpose, it would not be proper for this Court to stall the admission procedure; which would have a chain reaction; especially when the admission process is rigidly time bound. This Court cannot send the entire selection process in a tailspin only on the perception that higher weightage should be considered for common entrance test. A concrete decision has to be taken by the State Government which can be applied only for future admission process... 10.1 Perhaps Government also realized that though phraseology used earlier was to take 60% of the Board examination marks and 40% of GUJCET examination marks, in effect GUJCET examination projection got reduced to only 21%. Therefore, in order to give more weightage to the entrance test, the language of the relevant rules has been materially altered in the Admission Rules of 2009. The rules are clear in their implications. They provide for projecting the Board marks over a scale of 100 and thereafter to take 60% thereof for preparing a select list. This is to be added by 40% of the GUJCET marks after projecting the same similarly on the scale of 100. Explanation to the rule 11(1) further clarifies this position. To this aspect there is no doubt at all even in the minds of the petitioners. They do not seriously doubt the wisdom behind making such a change. They only contend that after examinations were conducted and results declared that the present change was made which was not permissible. 10.2 It is true that the decision of the Government in this regard came rather late. It is equally true that to such belated changes, this Court has frowned upon. However, it is a different thing to say that only on account of timing of the change, the same should be rendered illegal. We are afraid such a contention cannot be accepted. The argument of the petitioners that they did not get sufficient opportunity to focus sufficiently on the entrance test on account of late change also cannot be accepted. However, it is a different thing to say that only on account of timing of the change, the same should be rendered illegal. We are afraid such a contention cannot be accepted. The argument of the petitioners that they did not get sufficient opportunity to focus sufficiently on the entrance test on account of late change also cannot be accepted. In this day of fierce competition where admissions are decided on fraction of a mark, it is expected that all meritorious students would bestow sufficient and equal attention to all sections of all examinations without favoring or disfavoring one or the other. Therefore, to contend that had Government declared its policy of increasing the weightage of entrance test in time, petitioners would have focused more on that examination is an argument which needs to be rejected out of hand. 10.3 All the petitioners are students who have performed better in Board examinations as compared to the common entrance test. They therefore, press for retention of the previous policy where GUJCET results had lessor weightage. However, such desire cannot take legal shape nor such a request can be legally accepted. It may be that by adopting earlier formula, their percentage in the combined result would go up. It is however, not clear whether their percentile i.e. eventual ranking would go up or not. These are however, purely hypothetical questions. 10.4 No case is made out also on the ground of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation. It is not stated as to how any promise was held out by the Government or on the basis of such a promise how the petitioners changed their positions to their disadvantage. 10.5 In Special Civil Application No.6326/2009, rules are sought to be challenged on one additional ground. The petitioner belongs to a reserved category. In the Rules of Medical and Dental Courses for General category candidates minimum qualifying standard is 70% marks in the theory subject and in case of Reserved categories, minimum standard required is that of 40% in the theory subject. Further the Rules also provide that open category candidate must score a minimum of 50% marks in GUJCET examination and a reserved category candidate must have 40% in the said test. Further the Rules also provide that open category candidate must score a minimum of 50% marks in GUJCET examination and a reserved category candidate must have 40% in the said test. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the theory subject when the gap of qualifying standard between General category and Reserved category is as much as 30%(70% and 40% required for the said category respectively) providing for only 10% reduction in GUJCET (50% minimum qualifying standard for General category and 40% for Reserved category) is arbitrary. We are afraid contention cannot be accepted. What should be the minimum qualifying standard in the field of education, particularly, for granting admission to professional courses should be left open to be judged by the competent authority with the aid of experts in the field. In any case, accepting the contention of the petitioners would require that qualifying standard of passing in GUJCET for Reserved category candidate should be pushed below 40% level. No case is made out for giving such a direction. In the decision in case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and others reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Apex Court observed that no citizen can claim reservation as a matter of right and lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the Reserved category is not a Constitutional mandate. Of-course these observations were being made in the context of recruitment to State service, the same would apply in the present case also. 1. Concluding that all the petitions deserve to be dismissed, we cannot however help noticing that last minute changes in such important aspects leave much to be desired. In Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v. State of Gujarat & ors(supra), this Court observed that : ...The State Government would be well-advised, therefore, to consider all the relevant questions relating to its policy in the matter of admission to Government colleges well in advance of the start of the academic year and to formulate rules based on such policy and make such rules known to the intending applicants by giving to it suitable publicity. No departure should ordinarily be made once such rules are published unless for compelling reasons it is necessary to do so in order to meet exigencies of the situation. No departure should ordinarily be made once such rules are published unless for compelling reasons it is necessary to do so in order to meet exigencies of the situation. Experience has shown that the rules are not framed after taking into account all possible contingencies, with the result that, on the one hand, the aggrieved students have to resort to the Court of law for seeking redress and, on the other, the State Government itself is faced with many administrative and other problems arising on account of such litigation. .... Relying on the above observations of Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v. State of Gujarat & ors(supra), in case of Bhavya S. Desai v. State of Gujarat and ors.(supra) also observed as follows : ....However, the sum total of these circumstances, clearly demonstrate that there was a great degree of confusion in the public mind about the exact policy of the Government. This should be avoided at all costs. Spare a thought for the poor student. He is already reeling under the parental expectations, peer pressure and fierce competition. When he should be focusing entirely on preparation of the examination, if he is not clear as to which examination is going to be relevant and which irrelevant, marks of which examination may carry certain weightage and which may not carry any weightage, how is it possible for the student to prepare himself with a degree of piece of mind and focus on his subjects. As far back in the year 1978, in the case of Kumari Jayshree v. State (supra) this Court had perceived the need for a clear and well publicised Government policy in this regard. In the concluding portion of the said decision, it was further observed as follows : It is expected that the Government will ensure that its policy in this regard is clear, unambiguous, well publicized and in time. This would ensure that the students and their parents are not left in confusion about the Government policy till the last minute. Leaving them in the dark would be putting unnecessary pressure which could be easily avoided. 12. Unfortunately, nothing much seems to have changed since then. The Government continues to make last minute changes. This puts enormous pressure on parents and students which with little more effort and inclination and a little touch of sensitivity, can be avoided. Leaving them in the dark would be putting unnecessary pressure which could be easily avoided. 12. Unfortunately, nothing much seems to have changed since then. The Government continues to make last minute changes. This puts enormous pressure on parents and students which with little more effort and inclination and a little touch of sensitivity, can be avoided. This should be taken seriously by the Government and it is expected that admission rules for future years would be promulgated well in time so that all aspects of the admission process are at large before the students and parents and leave no room for doubt or debate at the last minute. Petitions stand dismissed accordingly.