Per Massodi, J.:- 1. This is third round of litigation between two candidates vying for admission to M.B.B.S Course at Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura (SKIIMS). Ms. Alisha Kour, the candidate selected under Sports Category for the aforesaid course and J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) through medium of two separate Letters Patent Appeals registered as LPAOW No. 44/2010 and LPAOW No. 101-S/2010, question the Writ Court Judgment dated 14th July, 2010 in OWP No. 799/2009, whereby the Writ Court has set aside admission of Ms. Alisha Kour------appellant in LPAOW No. 44/2010 to the MBBS Course and directed the respondent to consider the case of petitioner in the writ petition-re­spondent no. 3 in the LPAOWS No. 44/2010 and 101-S/2010 for change of course from BBS to MBBS. 2. Before summarizing the grounds set out in the appeals, it would be appro­priate to have a closer look at the background facts. 3. The appellant-Alisha Kour and the respondent-Umar Jan Mir, having passed 10+2 examination in Science subjects responded to the notification issued by BOPEE on 01.06.2009 inviting applications for admission to various professional under­graduate/medical/non medical courses. Both the candidates claiming to have "outstanding proficiency in Sports" sought admission under Sports category. It is pertinent to mention that out of 249 M.B B.S seats available, 125 were to be filled up in open merit category and 124 from reserved categories and two per cent of the seats i.e. 5, were reserved for the Sports category. The BOPEE after Common Entrance Test was conducted vide Notification No. 45 BOPEE of 2009 dated 27.07.2009 notified the select list of the candidates, wherein the appellant Alisha Kour was shown to have obtained 122 marks in Common Entrance Test and selected for M.B.B.S course under "Sports category". The respondent no. 3-Umar Jan Mir did not find place in the select list and it was only after the respondent approached the BOPEE with a representation that the BOPEE vide Notification NO. 51-BOPEE of 2009 dated 12.8.2009 notified selection of respondent no. 3 for admission to BDS Course in Government Dental College, Srinagar. The respondent no. 3-Umar Jan Mir did not find place in the select list and it was only after the respondent approached the BOPEE with a representation that the BOPEE vide Notification NO. 51-BOPEE of 2009 dated 12.8.2009 notified selection of respondent no. 3 for admission to BDS Course in Government Dental College, Srinagar. The petitioner not satisfied with his admission to BDS course, once again approached the BOPEE with the represen­tations dated 30th July, 2009 and 28 August, 2009 insisting that as he had superior merit as against the appellant Alisha Kour, the select list as it related to "Sports category" be reviewed and corrected in exercise of powers detailed in Information Brochure and the respondent admitted to M.B.B.S course. The efforts made by the respondent having not borne any fruit, the respondent-Umar Jan Mir filed a writ petition registered as OWP No. 799/2009. 4. The petitioner's case before the Writ Court was that the petitioner having obtained 33.57points on the basis of his performance in Common Entrance Test and level of participation in Sports in terms of J&K Certification of outstanding Profi­ciency in Sports Rules, 2008, as against 33.53 points secured by the appellant- Alisha Kour, deserved to be admitted to M.B.B.S course and that the admission of the appellant- Alisha Kour was liable to be set aside. 5. In reply the stand taken by BOPEE and the appellant-Alisha Kour was that though in terms of Information Brochure, the odd seat under the Sports category was to go to the candidate having superior merit irrespective of gender, yet the BOPEE in order to fulfill mandate of Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, requiring 50% of the seats in each category including open category for admission to M.B.B.S and BDS, to be selected from amongst female candidates belonging to such category, allotted the M.B.B.S. seat to the appellant - Alisha Kour. The appellants pleaded that had BOPEE not made a departure from the Information Brochure, as regards allotment of odd seats in Sports category and other categories, it would not have been possible to maintain the 50:50 ratio between male and female candidates as 66 seats would have gone to the male candidates and only 58 seats to the female candidates. The appellants pleaded that had BOPEE not made a departure from the Information Brochure, as regards allotment of odd seats in Sports category and other categories, it would not have been possible to maintain the 50:50 ratio between male and female candidates as 66 seats would have gone to the male candidates and only 58 seats to the female candidates. While BOPEE admitted that the respondent- Umar Jan Mir obtained 33.57 points as against 33.53 points secured by appellant-Alisha Kour, the appellant-Alisha Kour insisted that the formula adopted by BOPEE to compute the merit of the candidates under Sports category was incorrect. The appellant-Alisha Kour also pleaded that the merit obtained in Common Entrance Test cannot be diluted by giving weightage to standing in Sports and that as the appellant-Alisha Kour had better performance in Common Entrance Test as against the respondent-Umar Jan Mir, she was rightly selected for M.B.B.S course. 6. The Writ Court vide Judgment dated 15th October, 2009 found merit in the writ petition and directed the BOPEE to take steps for allocating appropriate discipline to the two candidates on the basis of their merit. 7. The appellant-Alisha Kour and BOPEE filed two Letters Patent Appeals against the Writ Court Judgment dated 15th October, 2009. The LPAs registered as LPA No. 246/2009 and LPA No. 245/2009 were disposed of by the order dated 25th March, 2010, with a request to Writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh, after permitting the parties to supplement their pleadings. The LPA Court was of the opinion that the matter as regards allotment of the odd seats did not fall within powers of BOPEE and the matter ought to have been referred to the Government in terms of Rule 36 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 and that this aspect of the case had gone unnoticed by the Writ Court, while deciding the writ petition. 8. The Writ Court in wake of LPA Court Judgment dated 25th March, 2010, permitted the parties to supplement their pleadings and on hearing learned counsel for the parties afresh, once again allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 14th July, 2010, set aside admission of appellant-Alisha Kour to M.B.B.S course and asked the BOPEE to consider the case of the respondent-Umar Jan Mir for change of course from BDS to M.B.B.S within two weeks, from the date copy of the order is served on the BOPEE. The Writ Court was of the opinion that the matter did not involve question of interpretation of any of the provisions of J&K Reservation Act or the Rules made there under and that resort to Rule 36 was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Writ Court judgment dated 14th July, 2010 is questioned almost on the same grounds as were urged before the Writ Court in opposition to the writ petition. It is averred that the Writ Court did not appreciate overriding effect of Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, over the stipulation contained in the Information Brochure that the odd seat would go to the candidate having higher merit irrespec­tive of gender; that the Rule of odd seat going to the candidate having higher merit in a particular category, was neither traceable to the Reservation Act nor to the Rules made there under and was rightly ignored to give effect to the roaster prepared by the BOPEE with the approval of its Chairman to ensure adherence to the require­ment of 50 % seats in M.B.B.S and BDS course to the female candidate. It is next pleaded that the Writ Court ought not to have set aside admission of the appellant-Alisha Kour to M.B.B.S course after the appellant had undergone the course for one year and disregard the law governing the field and in particular law laid down in Monika Ranka and ors. v. MCI, SLP(C) 17990-91 of 2008. 10. The appellants insist that even where a rightful claimant of admission is to found have been denied admission, such candidate is to be admitted in the year following the academic year in which the admission was granted. 11. The appellant-Alisha Kour in addition to the grounds that find place in both the Letters Patent Appeals, questions the Writ Court judgment on the grounds that the respondent-Umar Jan Mir having secured less than 50% marks in the Common Entrance Test, in terms of Indian Medical Counsel Regulations, was not eligible to be considered for admission to the M.B.B.S course and thus is stripped of any locus to maintain the writ petition and question admission of the appellant-Alisha Kour. The ground, it is urged, has not been appropriately dealt with by the Writ Court. The ground, it is urged, has not been appropriately dealt with by the Writ Court. The appellant-Alisha Kour also finds fault with the methodology adopted by the BOPEE in giving weightage to her performance and that of respon­dent Umar Jan Mir in Common Entrance Test as also to their standing in Sports. The stand taken by the appellant-Alisha Kour is that the BOPEE ought to have worked out percentage of the marks obtained by her and the respondent-Umar Jan Mir in Common Entrance Test and to such percentage added the points obtained on the basis of performance in Sports in accordance with J&K Certification of outstanding proficiency in Sports Rule, 2008; that in case the merit is computed correctly, taking into account 60 % of marks obtained in Common Entrance Test by the appellant-Alisha Kour, her merit would be 73.2 points (122/60 x 100 = 73.2) and that of the respondent-Umar Jan Mir 65.4 points (109/60 x 100 = 65.4) depriving the respondent-Umar Jan Mir of any right to question admission of appellant-Alisha Kour to or insist on his admission to the said course. The Writ Court is said to have erroneously taken the observations of LPA Court in Judgment dated 25th March, 2010 to have settled and closed all the pleas raised in the appeal, oblivious to the fact that both the appeals were allowed and the pleas raised were open to be determined by the Writ Court. 12. We have gone through the memoranda of appeals as also the writ court record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 13. The attention must first go to the ground urged in LPAOW No. 44/2010, that the methodology adopted by BOPEE to compute merit of the appellant-Alisha Kour and the respondent-Umar Jan Mir is not in conformity with Rules and in case correct formula is applied, merit of appellant-Alisha Kour is higher as compared to that of respondent-Umar Jan Mir. In case, the ground that has been rejected by the Writ Court, is accepted, discussion on other grounds set out in the appeals, would be rendered unnecessary. 14. The J&K Certification of Outstanding Proficiency in Sports Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time, govern admission to professional courses including MBBS and BDS under Sports category. In case, the ground that has been rejected by the Writ Court, is accepted, discussion on other grounds set out in the appeals, would be rendered unnecessary. 14. The J&K Certification of Outstanding Proficiency in Sports Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time, govern admission to professional courses including MBBS and BDS under Sports category. The Rules lay down criteria for distribu­tion/determination of weightage on the basis of performance of a candidate, claiming admission under Sports category in National and International events. Rule 3 needs to be noticed. It reads:- "3. Eligibility for claiming benefit under the sports category:- (1) Such candidates alone shall be eligible for consideration or selection to professional institutes in the State under the Sports category who append the certificate issued under these rules with the form submitted by him in pursuance of the advertisement notice issued by the authority competent to invite applications for making selections to the professional institutions in the State. Provided that for purposes of determination of the merit under sports category for selection to professional courses at Post Graduate/Gradu­ate/Diploma level etc. 60% weightage shall be given to the merit obtained by the candidates in the test conducted by the selection agency and 40% weightage shall be given to the level of sports participation. Provided further that if a player has played/participated in more than one event/game at the same level he/she shall only be given credit on the basis of the level and not on the basis of the number of games he/she has played/participated. (2) The 40 % weightage as mentioned in the sub-rule (I) of rule 3 above shall be distributed as per the following criteria: Points allotted for outstanding proficiency in sports at Post Graduate/Graduation/Diploma level etc. (2) The 40 % weightage as mentioned in the sub-rule (I) of rule 3 above shall be distributed as per the following criteria: Points allotted for outstanding proficiency in sports at Post Graduate/Graduation/Diploma level etc. Level of participation International event/games = 20 i)7 ii) 4 + = iii) 3 + = iv) 2 + = Total =20 i) Individual Gold Medal ii) Individual Silver Medal iii) Individual Bronze medal iv) Team Participation (Gold Medal) v) Team Participation (Silver Medal) vi) Team Participation vii) (Bronze Medal/Individual participation) National Events/games = 20 i) 6 ii) 4 + = iii) 3 + = iv) 2 = = Total =20 i) Individual Gold Medal ii) Individual Silver Medal iii) Individual Bronze medal iv) Team Participation (Gold Medal) v) Team Participation (Silver Medal) vi) Team Participation (Bronze Medal) vii) Individual participation/Team participation._ Provided that where a candidate has obtained medals at national as well as international levels he/she shall be given weightage accordingly." In terms of Rule 3, 60 % weightage has to be given to the merit obtained by a candidate, aspiring for admission in professional course under Sports category, in the Common Entrance Test and 40 % weightage has to be given to his performance in Sports. It follows that, the merit of an aspirant for admission in the Sports category is to be assessed on a scale of 100 units and out of 100 units 60 units are to be set apart for merit in Common Entrance Test and 40 units for performance in Sports. The marks obtained by the candidate in Common Entrance Test are to be evaluated on the scale of 60 points and percentage worked out, as if, the marks obtained were out of total of 60 marks. Similarly, the marks/points awarded to a candidate on the basis of his performance in National/International events as individual or team participation are to be assessed on the scale of 40 points. The BOPEE has assessed the merit of appellant-Alisha Kour and respondent-Umar Jan Mir strictly in accor­dance with the above formula and worked out their merit as 33.53 per cent and 53.57 percent in the following manner. The BOPEE has assessed the merit of appellant-Alisha Kour and respondent-Umar Jan Mir strictly in accor­dance with the above formula and worked out their merit as 33.53 per cent and 53.57 percent in the following manner. Merit of the appellant-Alisha Kour GET (60 %) = Marks obtained x 60= 122 x 60 = 32.53% Total Marks 225 SP (40 %) = Points obtained x 40= 1 x 40 = 1 % Total Marks 40 Total Weightage = (GET 60 Units + SP 40 Units - 33.53) Merit of the respondent-Umar Tan Mir GET (60 %) = Marks obtained x 60= 109 x 60 = 29.07% Total Marks 225 SP (40 %) = Points obtained x 40= 4.5 x 40 = 4.5% Total Marks 40 Total Weightage = (GET 60 Units + SP 40 Units = 33.57) 15. The methodology suggested by appellant-Alisha Kour, would not be reflect the mandate of Rule 3 of J&K Certification of Outstanding Proficiency in Sports Rules 2008, and if adopted would not only be impracticable, but not give 40% weightage to level of participation in Sports as intended by Rule 3 to the candidates seeking admission under Sports category. To illustrate, if as suggested by the appellant-Alisha Kour 60% of marks obtained in Common Entrance Test is taken as a baseline, it shall give 73.2 point and 65.4 point weightage to the two candidates respectively and restrict the weightage to be given in terms of Rule 3 of J&K Certification of Outstanding Proficiency in Sports Rule 2008 to the performance in Sports. Again, if 60% of the marks obtained in Common Entrance Test is taken as representing the weightage contemplated by Rule 3, supra, for performance in Common Entrance Test, it shall exceed 100 points in case a candidate obtains higher marks say 170 and above (170/100x60 = 102) disrupting the 100 point scale provided for under the Rule. 16. This apart the methodology has been adopted by BOPEE for assessing merit of not only the appellant-Alisha Kour and respondent-Umar Jan Mir, but all other candidates under the Sports category and is claimed by the BOPEE to be in tune with the. weightage prescribed under Rules for performance in Common Entrance Test and level of participation/performance in Sports. 16. This apart the methodology has been adopted by BOPEE for assessing merit of not only the appellant-Alisha Kour and respondent-Umar Jan Mir, but all other candidates under the Sports category and is claimed by the BOPEE to be in tune with the. weightage prescribed under Rules for performance in Common Entrance Test and level of participation/performance in Sports. The Writ Court, in the circumstances, has rightly rejected the contention of appellant-Alisha Kour that methodology adopted by the BOPEE was not correct and as admitted by the BOPEE held the respondent-Umar Jan Mir to have higher merit as against appellant-Alisha Kour. The plea that 40% weightage to level of performance in sports amounts to tinkering with or diluting the merit in Common Entrance Test and thus not permissible in view of law laid down in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India & ors 2005 (2) SCC 65 , is devoid of any substance. The provision does not dilute the merit in Common Entrance Test on the basis of interview or like exercise but gives recogni­tion to the merit on account of extracurricular activities/sports and that also in an objective, rational and transparent manner. 17. The Information Brochure for Common Entrance Test, 2009 laid down the guidelines for the Common Entrance Test and also provided the procedural details of the test, programmers offered, intake capacity and the mode and method of the selection for the professional under-graduate-medical/non-medical courses. Para 4 page 15 of the Brochure relevant to the present controversy, noticed by the Writ Court may be revisited. It reads:- "In the Government Medical and Dental College, 50% of seats are reserved for female candidates under all categories. In case of odd number of seats in a particular category, the last seat will go to the candidate with higher merit irrespective of sex." 18. In terms of Para 4 page 15 of the Brochure in Sports category out of five seats - two each having gone to male and female candidates, the fifth seat as rightly held by the Writ Court ought to have gone to the respondent-Umar Jan Mir having higher merit. In terms of Para 4 page 15 of the Brochure in Sports category out of five seats - two each having gone to male and female candidates, the fifth seat as rightly held by the Writ Court ought to have gone to the respondent-Umar Jan Mir having higher merit. The BOPEE while admitting that the respondent-Umar Jan Mir had higher merit as against the appellant-Alisha Kour and that the odd seat under Sports category ought to have gone to the respondent-Umar Jan Mir, contends that the odd seat was given to the appellant-Ahsha Kour to maintain 50 % overall ratio of the female candidates. The appellant-Alisha Kour joins BOPEE in contending that to carry out mandate of Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, she was rightfully granted admission to MBBS course. The question is whether the BOPEE was competent to grant admission to the appellant-Alisha Kour in breach of para 4 page 15 of the Information Brochure under which both the candidates sought admission to MBBS course. There is no scope for any disagreement with the preposition that Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 is intended to achieve an important object and is a step towards empowerment of women, admittedly an insular, unrepresented and disempowered section of society. But notwithstanding its object, the provision cannot be pressed into service, to selectively commit breach of a condition that governs admission of the aspirants to a professional course, and has been followed and acted upon in case of other categories or to resort to arbitrariness. Out of total of 249 seats in MBBS course in the year 2009,124 seats set apart for reserved categories stand distributed amongst 11 categories including the Sports category as per percentage prescribed under Reservation Act, 2004/Reservation Rules 2005.10 of the 11 reserved categories have odd number of seats. The contention of BOPEE that in order to maintain the ratio of male and female candidates as mandated by Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, a scheme was framed where under 0.5 seats were clubbed and allotted to female candidates and few odd seats also allotted to the female candidates irrespective of their merit and that the admission of the appellant-Alisha Kour to MBBS course thus is justified under the said scheme to accomplish the object of Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, does not sound convincing. The BOPEE on its own showing has out of ten categories with the odd seats acted upon the Para 4 page 15 of the Information Brochure and allotted odd seats to the candidate having higher merit irrespective of gender/sex in case of six categories. The BOPEE has arbitrarily decided to pick up the Sports category with "Children of Defense Personnel" category for allotment of the odd seat on the basis of gender, irrespective of merit. There is no reason spelt out why the BOPEE has picked up a particular category for allotment of odd seat in breach of the Information Brochure and adhered to the Information Brochure as regards other reserved categories. The BOPEE decision is not sustainable in the name of any scheme that confers wide and unguided powers to the Board to act in an arbitrary and whimsical manner and choose a category where condition/stipulation of the Information Brochure can be violated and pick up it for allotment of odd seat irrespective of merit. This amounts to decision making on flip of a coin a course in gross conflict with rule of law. The Writ Court thus was right in observing that the method adopted by the BOPEE in picking up one or two categories selectively for allotment of odd seat irrespective of merit is totally arbitrary. So viewed, the BOPEE action cannot be justified in the name of carrying out the object of Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. 19. The ground urged in the appeals that the Writ Court did not consider the case set up by the appellant's that respondent-Umar Jan Mir having obtained less than 50 % marks/points in Common Entrance Test, was not eligible to be consid­ered for admission to MBBS course in terms of Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, is bereft of any merit. It may be recalled that the appellants contended that under Section 19(1) read with Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 extended to the State of J&K in 1964, the Medical Council of India is empowered to make regulations for prescribing minimum standards for undergraduate medical courses and that in exercise of such power, the Medical Council of India made Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (amended in 2008); that in terms of Regulation 5 (ii) in case of admission on the basis of Competitive Entrance Examination, candidate must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks in qualifying examination as also in the Competitive Entrance Exami­nation; that in case of candidates belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribes or other backward class, the percentage of marks prescribed is 40 % instead of 50% and that the respondent-Umar Jan Mir, admittedly a general category candidate having secured less than 50% marks in Common Entrance Test was in terms of Regulation 5 (ii), not eligible for admission and thus having no right to question the admission of appellant-Alisha Kour. Writ Court did consider the plea raised but did not find itself persuaded to agree with the contention raised, firstly for the reason that the respondent-Umar Jan Mir had been found eligible by BOPEE as per the guidelines set out in Information Brochure of 2009, admitted to BDS course and had already completed one year of course and that his admission could no longer be objected in the given circumstances. Secondly, the Writ Court opined that as the eligibility of all the candidates under Sports category and for that matter other categories as well, had been determined in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Information Brochure, 2009, which did not include the requirement of 50% merit in Common Entrance Test as required under Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regula­tions on Graduate Medical Education, the respondent-Umar Jan Mir could not be singled out as regards application of the aforesaid regulation. There is no reason to find fault with the justification given by the Writ Court for not agreeing with the contention of the appellant's as regards ineligibility of respondent-Umar Jan Mir under Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. 20. There is another aspect of the case that deserves attention. There is no reason to find fault with the justification given by the Writ Court for not agreeing with the contention of the appellant's as regards ineligibility of respondent-Umar Jan Mir under Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. 20. There is another aspect of the case that deserves attention. The State Legislature under Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 has made provision for reservation of seats in the professional institutions for candidates belonging to reserved categories, as may be notified from time to time. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, has framed J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. Rules 13 and 14 enumerate the reserved categories as also the percentage of available seats in professional institutions reserved against each of such categories. "Candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" is also identified as one of the reserved categories, having two percent reservation in the number of available seats in professional institutions. Whereas reservation in all the categories except "candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" is traceable to the power available to the State under Article 15 Constitution of India, the reservation in respect of "candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" is not traceable to the aforesaid Constitutional provision. The reservation in favour of "candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" nonetheless is sustainable on the basis of reasonable classification. "Candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" constitute a distinct class by themselves and the object of reservation is to promote sports and compensate the candidates for the time resources, they spend on extracurricular activities and gaining proficiency in Sports. There is thus, reasonable nexus between classification and object sought to be achieved. The State Government under Rule 16 has prescribed minimum quali­fying marks in the entrance examination for selection in the courses mentioned in Rules 14 and 15, as 50% for open merit-category and 40% for reserved categories. It follows that a candidate claiming admission under "Sports category" on the ground of "possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" is required to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in the entrance examination. It follows that a candidate claiming admission under "Sports category" on the ground of "possessing outstanding proficiency in Sports" is required to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in the entrance examination. There may, on the first look, appear to be conflict between Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regulation on Graduate Medical Education and Rule 16 of J&K Reservation Rules, but on a closer look Rule 16 of J&K Reservation Rules, is found to supplement and not "impinge on" or contradict Regulation 5 (ii), supra. The Sports category constituting a category distinct and separate from open merit category/general category, the requirement of 50 % marks in Common Entrance Test to be eligible for admission to MDBS course under Regulation 5 (ii) is not attracted in case of sports category. It needs to be emphasized that "Sports category" has been carved out, so as to give it a favourable treatment as against the candidates not falling within any reserved category. In case, the candidates claiming admission in a professional course on the strength of their outstanding proficiency in sports under "sports category" are to satisfy same criteria as is prescribed for the candidates not falling within any reserved category i.e. general category/open merit category, the very purpose of carving out "sports category" as a reserved category would be frustrated. The Rule 16 supra fixes same percentage of marks in Common Entrance Test for the reserved categories i.e. 40% as is fixed for scheduled case, scheduled tribe and other backward classes under Regulation 5 (ii), supra. Had Rule 16 supra fixed less than 40% marks for the reserved categories or less than 50 % marks for general category/open merit category, the Rule could have been lebelled as one "impinging on" the standards prescribed under Regulation 5 (ii) supra. So viewed, Rule 16 does not run contrary to Regulation 5 (ii) made by Competent Authority in exercise of power under an Act on the subject falling within ambit of entry 66 List I Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, but extends the affirmative action measure applicable to other categories that are equally disempowered and marginalized or constitute a class distinct and different from the general category/open merit category. Rule 16 thus survives the test of repugnancy. 21. It is pertinent to point out that Constitution Application Order while making Seventh Schedule applicable to State of J&K, completely deletes List II or State List. Rule 16 thus survives the test of repugnancy. 21. It is pertinent to point out that Constitution Application Order while making Seventh Schedule applicable to State of J&K, completely deletes List II or State List. The State Legislature thus has exclusive power to legislate on all residuary matters including those listed in List II or State List. Furthermore, the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act 1976, omitting entry 11 State List and transferring the subject of the said entry i.e. Education entirely to be combined with entry 25 of List III, is not applicable to the State of J&K. Entry 11 State List thus continues to be intact as regards the State of J&K. It is equally important to point out that entry 11 State List was transferred and combined with entry 25 only to obviate any controversy as regards scope of State jurisdiction under entry 11 List II as against entries 63 to 66, List I. The power of State Legislature to legislate on the subject "Medical Education" is thus wider in scope. Since, entry 11 State List is intact as regards State of J&K, the case law prior to 42nd Constitution Amendment, 1976 continues to be relevant as regards power of the State legislature under said entry and the power of State Government flowing from State legislation on the subject. In R. Chitralckha and anr. v. State of Mysore and ors. 6 SCR 368 referring to scope of powers of Parliament and the State Legislature under entry 66 List I and entry 11 List II Supreme Court observed. "If the impact of the State law providing for such standards on entry 66 of List 1 is so heavy or devastating as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central field, it may be struck down. But that is a question of fact to be ascertained in each case. It is not possible to hold that if a State legislation made a law prescribing a higher percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the matter of admission to colleges, it would be directly encroaching on the field covered by entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is not possible to hold that if a State legislation made a law prescribing a higher percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the matter of admission to colleges, it would be directly encroaching on the field covered by entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If so, it is not disputed that the state Govern­ment would be within its rights to prescribe qualifications for admission to colleges so long as its action does not contravene any other law." Even after omission of entry 11 List II and transfer and combination of the subject of the entry with entry 25 of List III, the law continues to permit the State Governments to lay down extra qualification for admission to the professional course to lead to selection of better candidates as long as the qualification so laid down does not adversely impinge on the standards prescribed by the appropriate authority. A reference in this regard may be made to Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. 1999(7) SCC 120 . 22. From the above discussion, what emerges is that the State is competent to lay down minimum percentage of marks in Common Entrance Test for the reserved categories identified under J&K Reservation Act, 2004 read with J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, so long as such percentage is not below the percentage prescribed under Regulation 5 (ii) MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, for reserved categories i.e. scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and other backward classes. 23. This takes us to the last and final ground urged in the appeals, relating to propriety of directing the respondents to change courses of the two candidates midstream when they have completed one academic year in their respective courses. The appellant's are aggrieved that the Writ Court did not accord consideration to the plea as regards inadvisability of passing a direction requiring the respondents to shift the respondent-Umar Jan Mir to MBBS course after the cut off dates for completing admission process in two courses, stood already crossed and the two candidates had completed one full academic year in their respective courses. It is contended that even if the respondent-Umar Jan Mir is held to have higher merit as against appellant-Alisha Kour and thus eligible to be given admission to the MBBS course still, it is not permissible to pass a direction, as has been passed by the Writ Court, for change of courses from BDS to MBBS of the respondent-Umar Jan Mir. It is argued that even in such an eventuality, the respondent is to be granted admission against the sanctioned intake of next first MBT5S course. Learned counsel for the appellants to buttress their arguments seek to draw support from Vijay Jaimni v. MCI & Ors: 2005 (13) SCC 461 , Harshali v. State of Maharashtra: 2005 (13) SCC 464 , MCI v. Naina Verma: 2005 (12) SCC 626 , Muskan Dogra v. State of Punjab: 2005 (9) SCC 186 , Mridul Dhar v. U.O.I: 2005 (2) SCC 65 , MCI v. Madhu Singh: 2002 (7) SCC 258 , State of Maharashtra v. Sneha Satya Narayan Aggrawal: 2008 (7) Supreme 499 , Adil Ashraf v. BOPEE: 2007 (3) JKJ IIC 523. The LPA Court while deciding LPA No. 246/2009 took notice of the afore stated ground and after referring to the submissions made, including law laid down in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India and others (2005 Vol. 2 SCC 65) observed:- "This contention in the background of the peculiar facts and features of the instant case has no bearing at this stage because after all when the time schedule is not strictly adhered to, in case a candidate has a genuine grouse of having been excluded on flimsy grounds, then his case has to be consid­ered appropriately." 24. There is no reason to make any departure from the view taken by the Writ Court as also LPA Court in LPA No. 246/2009, more so, when, as observed, on the basis of information provided, in State of J&K v. Akhil Kumar Gupta and ors., C.A NO. 1600 of 2006 arising out of SCP (C) No. 22944 of 2005 dated 20.03.2006, the course of studies for BDS and MBBS are similar in 1st Year, making it not difficult for a candidate who has completed a year in BDS to join in the MBBS course. On the same analogy it would be less difficult, for a candidate who has completed one year in MBBS to join in BDS course. On the same analogy it would be less difficult, for a candidate who has completed one year in MBBS to join in BDS course. The object of insisting on adherence to admission schedule is to ensure that the candidates must not be made to change courses in the middle, as it may become difficult for them to continue with the course without having an opportunity to study the basic or introductory subjects on which the professional course, is based. In the present case because of similarity of subject areas of the two courses i.e. MBBs and BDS in 1st Year of course, no such difficulty is to be confronted by either of the candidates. 25. We, for the reasons discussed above, do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals, LPA (OW) No.44/2010 and LPA (OW) 101-S/2010 with all connected CMPs are accordingly dismissed.