Judgment : 1. These appeals assail the order dated 23/09/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. Writ Appeal Nos. 17280-17281/2011 are filed against the order passed in W.P. No.27146/2011 and W.P. No. 27260/2011 which have been allowed. While W. A. No 16804/2011 is filed against W.P. No. 30638/2011 which is dismissed. 2. The petitioners in the writ petitions had assailed the selection of ion-service candidates to study M.Ch Surgical Oncology course, which is a super specialty course for Academic year 2011-12. Pursuant to publication of calendar of events for the purpose admission to super specialty course, the petitioners as well as the private respondents who are all in-service candidates had applied for and appeared in the entrance examination for M.Ch Surgical Oncology course on 19/06/2011. Thereafter, the State Government published the seat matrix by issuance of notification dated 04/07/2011. Interms of the said notification, out of 8 seats in the Government quota, M.Ch Surgical Oncology at Kidwai Institute of Oncology, Bangalore, 4 seats were notified as in-service quota and the remaining 4 seats as entrance quota. Out of the 4 seats, set apart for in-service quota, one Surgical Oncology seat was reserved for the candidates, who had M.S-Ortho/M.S.-ENT/M.D.-OBG Degrees. On the basis of merit-cum-seniority, determined by the marks secured in the entrance test and viva-voce as well as weightage of one mark being given for each year of completed service subject to a maximum of 10 marks, the total marks secured by the in-service candidates in respect of Surgical Oncology Course as follows:- 3. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.No. 27416/2011 was that Dr.Kulkarni Manik Rao and Dr.Venkatesh.N., were eligible to get one seat each, as they had secured the highest marks including the service weightage marks and the remaining two seats had to be allotted as per over all merit-cum-seniority basis. It was the further contention that the Dr. Prasad H.L had served only two years and was rightly allotted two marks for the said service and therefore could not have been allotted a seat. Similarly, Dr. Ravi Prakash A., had also scored only 68 marks including service weightage marks and he could not have been allotted a seat by ignoring th3 merit of the petitioner. Therefore, the selection supposedly based on merit-cum-seniority was the bone of contention between the parties. Similarly, Dr. Ravi Prakash A., had also scored only 68 marks including service weightage marks and he could not have been allotted a seat by ignoring th3 merit of the petitioner. Therefore, the selection supposedly based on merit-cum-seniority was the bone of contention between the parties. Before the learned Single Judge, all parties were in agreement that Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao and Dr. Venkatesh N., who had secured 71 and 72 marks respectively, were entitled to admission to the Super Specialty Course in Surgical Oncology being the highest marks scored by all the candidates. Therefore, out of 4 in-service seats, two seats had to be allotted to them. The controversy however, was with regard to the admission to be made to two other seats out of 4 in-service seats. 4. In this context, the petitioner in W.P. 27260/2011 contended that the admission of Dr. Prasad Sl.No. Registrar No. Name of the Marks Marks Total Candidate Secured in Awarded in Marks Entrance test viva-voce 1. S5143 Shiv Kumar.H.C. 63 2.50 65.50 2. S5198 Kulkarni Manik Rao 63 4.00 67.00 3. S5179 Prasad.H.L. 62 3.00 65.00 4. S5182 Prasanth.S 61 5.00 66.00 5. S5169 Manjunath.K.V 60 4.00 64.00 6. S5167 Rajashekar.P. 59 3.00 62.00 7. S5204 Venkatesh.N. 58 4.00 62.00 8. S5138 Raviprakasha.A 57 3.00 60.00 9. S5164 Ramaraju.H.E 56 4.50 60.50 10 S5194 Santhosha Kumar.B. 54 2.5 56.50 11. S5140 Poornima.R. 52 2.50 54.50 12. S5104 Shashidhar.K. 51 4.00 55.00 13. S5163 Suresh.T.L. 51 2.50 53.50 14. S5172 Jawad Ahmed.N.A. 49 2.50 51.50 H.N. was incorrect since, he had worked only for a period of two years and not four years, continuously as an in-service candidate and therefore, could not have been selected. Even if four marks had been allotted to him, his score would have been only 67 marks, which is less than the marks secured by the petitioner in W.P.No.27260/11 which is 70 marks. To counter the said contention, it was argued on behalf of Dr. Prasad H.L. that out of four seats, set apart for in service quota, one seat is reserved for a candidate who has obtained M.S. General Surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S Orthopedics/M.S.OBG Degree and the three other seats would have been to be allotted to those candidates who have secured a degree in General Surgery and having regard to the merit of the candidates in M.s General Surgery. Dr. H.L. Prasad and Dr. Ravi Prakasha.,A., were preferred. 5. Dr. H.L. Prasad and Dr. Ravi Prakasha.,A., were preferred. 5. It was also contended that Dr.Prasad H.L. was serving in Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences from 3/06/2006 to 17/08/2008d and thereafter, he was serving in Assistant Professor in Mysore Medical College and Research institute from 12/08/2009 onwards. Therefore, he had worked for more than four years and was therefore, entitled to 4 marks as an in-service candidate. Hence, the selection of Dr. Prasad H.L., was just and proper. 6. The State Govt. defended the selection of the candidates belonging to General Surgery in respect of the three in service quota seats. 7. The learned Single Judge held that out of four seats earmarked for in-service candidates in M.Ch Surgical Oncology course, one seat was reserved for candidates, who had secured M.S General Surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S.Orthopedics/M.S.OBG Degree. The Notification dated 04/07/2011 no where stated that the other three seats were earmarked only for those candidates who had secured degrees in General Surgery, therefore, the State Govt. Was not right in admitting candidates who had secured M.S General Surgery Degrees for the remaining three seats by ignoring the over all merit of all the candidates. As far as Dr.Prasad H.L. is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that he was rightly allotted two marks since he did not have the requisite minimum period of service of three years, which according to the learned Single Judge had to be continuous service. Since there was a break in service, Dr. Prasad H.L. was entitled to weightage of only two marks. On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by Dr. Manjunath.K.V. and Dr. Prashanth S. and dismissed the writ petition of Dr.Poornima. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “(a) Writ petition No.27416 and 27260/2011 are allowed. The petitioners herein are ordered to be admitted to the super specialty course (M.Ch.Surgical Oncology course). In addition to them, the other two meritorious candidates viz., Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao and Dr. Venkatesh N. shall also be admitted to the said course. Thus, it is made clear that Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao, Dr. Venkatesh N., Dr, Manjunath K.V and Dr. Prashanth S. are ordered to be allotted the seats in question. The notification shall be issued forthwith, inasmuch as, 30th of September 2011 is the last date for admission. Venkatesh N. shall also be admitted to the said course. Thus, it is made clear that Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao, Dr. Venkatesh N., Dr, Manjunath K.V and Dr. Prashanth S. are ordered to be allotted the seats in question. The notification shall be issued forthwith, inasmuch as, 30th of September 2011 is the last date for admission. Ait is needless to observe that the aforementioned four candidates shall be relieved for the purpose of higher studies. (b) Writ Petition No.30638/2011 stands dismissed.” Dr. H.L. Prasad, the respondent in the writ petitions, who was initially selected and Dr. Poornima, whose name finds a place in the waitlist are appellants before us. 8. While defending the initial selection made by the STAte Government, a two-fold contention has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for Dr. Prasad H.L. the appellant. It was firstly contended that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the appellant did not possess the requisite minimum period of service that is, three years and therefore, was entitled to weightage of only two marks. It was stated that though he worked at two Institutions, there was no break in service inasmuch he was working as a Senior Resident In Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences from 23/06/2006 to 17/08/2008 and on 18/08/2008 he resigned from the said post, as he was appointed as Asst,. Professor in Mysore Medical College and Research Institute on 12/08/2009 and he joined the said post. Thus there is continuity of service and he was entitled to weightage of 4 marks, in which event his total score would be 69 marks. The second contention is with regard to there being ‘horzontal reservation’ of one seat for candidates po0ssessing M.S General Surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S. Orthopedics/M.S. OBG Degree and therefore, the three other seats had to be allotted by merit, taking into consideration only those candidates who had secured Post-Graduate Degree in General Surgery and therefore, the appellant was rightly selected. 9. In this context, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Duraiswamy and another v. State of T.N. others [ (2001) 2 SCC 538 ]. 10. 9. In this context, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Duraiswamy and another v. State of T.N. others [ (2001) 2 SCC 538 ]. 10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents have in unison supported the order of the learned Single Judge by contending that despite earmarking one seat for a candidate who has obtained a post graduate degree in M.S. General Surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S. Orthopedics/M.S.OBG Degree the other three seats had to be allotted on the basis of the over all merit of all the candidates irrespective of the discipline/branch of Medicine in which they have secured a post Graduate Degree. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference in these appeals. 11. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme court, in case of Mridul dhar (minor) and another vs. Union of India [ AIR 2005 SC 666 ] and Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera and other [(2010) 1 SCC173], to contend that the admissions have been made in terms of the order of the learned Judge and at this point of time, they cannot be disturbed. 12. The case of Dr. Poornima, who is the other appellant before us is that she has been placed in the waitlist and if Dr.H.L.Prasad become ineligible then she would be entitled to a seat. In support of the said contention, sustenance is drawn from the contention on behalf of Dr.H.L.Prasad, with regard to the three seats being filled up on the basis of a separate merit list , excluding those candidates who had secured post Graduate Degrees in M.S General Surgery/M.S.ENT.M.S. Orthopedics/M.S. OBG Degree and after filling up one post earmarked for such candidates. 13. As far as the first contention advanced by the counsel for appellant – Dr. Prasad H.L., is concerned, that he had service of four years and therefore, was entitled to weightage of 4 marks is concerned, we are of the view that having regard to the fact that the said appellant despite working in two independent Institute was service from 23/06/2006 onwards, entitled him to weightage of 4 marks. The learned Single Judge was therefore, not right in holding that he had not put in continuous service which implied that he had to work in one Institution continuously for the requisite period of three years. The learned Single Judge was therefore, not right in holding that he had not put in continuous service which implied that he had to work in one Institution continuously for the requisite period of three years. In the instant case, although the said appellant has worked in two institutes, there is continuity in service in as much as he worked in Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences from 23/06/2006 to 17/08/2008 and on 18/08/2008 he resigned from the said post and joined Mysore Medical college of Research Institute, as a professor, since he was appointed to the said post on 12/08/2009. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to weightage of 4 marks and his total score would be 69 marks and therefore, that portion of the order of learned Single Judge is set aside. The controversy however, does not end as far as this appellant is concerned as he would be entitled to a seat only in case he is successful in his second contention which we would presently consider. 14. Before embarking on an answer to the question as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in holding that after admitting one candidate who had secured the highest marks from amongst the candidates who had obtained M.S. general surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S. Orthopedics/M.S.OBG Degree and the remaining three seats to be filled on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the candidates have obtained, it would be useful to refer to the decision o fthe Supreme court in the case of State of M.P and others vs. Gopal D.Tirthani and other [ (2003) 7 SCC 83 ]. ‘The eligibility test, called entrance test or the pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes. Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate whether he would be able to prosecute postgraduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the merit inter se of the candidate which is of vital significance at the counseling when it comes to allotting the successful candidates to different disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are considered to be more creamy and are more coveted than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go-by. The concept of a minimum qualifying percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go-by. If at all there can be departure, that has to be minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the field of medical education, which for the present are available as body in the Medical Council of India.” In the said case I has also been held thus:- “There is nothing wrong if the State Govt. sets upon a definite percentage of educational seats at post graduation level consisting of degree and diploma courses exclusively for the in-service candidates. It is a separate and exclusive channel of entry or source of admission, the validity whereof cannot be determined on the constitutional principles applicable to communal reservations. Such two channels of entry or two sources of admission is a valid provision. In-service candidates, and the candidates not in the service of the State Government, are two classes based on an intelligible differentia. There is a laudable purpose sought tobe achieved. In-service candidates, on attaining higher academic achievements, would be available to be posted in rural areas by the State Government.” Reference is also made to decision of the Supreme court in the case of K. Duraiswamy, wherein it has been opined thus:- “Thus mere use of the word “reservation” per se does not have the consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the constitutional concept of a protective reservation specially designed for the advancement of any socially-and-educationally-backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to enable them to enter and adequately represent in various fields. The meaning, content and purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used. The meaning, content and purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used. Since reservation has diverse natures and may be brought about in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects, the peculiar principles of interpretation laid down by the courts for implementing reservations envisaged under the constitution in order to ensure adequate and effective representations to the backward classes as whole cannot be readily applied out of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of candidates who were already in service to enable such in-service candidates to acquire higher and advanced education in specialized fields to improve their professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be tr5eated in such medical institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve. That part, where the scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admission have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular lass or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservations and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Fixation of a quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as a mere reservation and whenever a quota is fixed or provided for one or more of the classified group is category, the candidates falling in or answering the description of different classified groups in whose favour a respective quota is fixed have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each of such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category.” 15. Therefore, the earmarking of 4 seats for in service candidates is constitutionally valid. Therefore, the earmarking of 4 seats for in service candidates is constitutionally valid. However, the controversy in these appeals is with regard to the nature of reservation of one within the in-service quota to a candidate who has obtained a post graduate degree in M.S. General Surgery/M.S.ENT/M.S Orthopedics/M.S.OBG Degree and the manner of filling up of the remaining 3 out of r seats earmarked for in-service candidates. 16. It is noticed that by notification dated 04/07/2011, the State Govt. published the seat matrix of the Post Graduation Super Specially course 2011-12. Insofar as Kidwai memorial Institution of Oncology, Bangalore, is concerned, out of a total of 8 Government seats 4 seats were earmarked for in-service quota and the remaining r seats for non-service or entrance quota. Out of the 4 seats for in service quota one surgical oncology seat was reserved for the candidates who had secured M.S—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.OBG Degrees. 17. In [ (2001)8 SCC 694 ] in case of Pre-PG Medical Sangharsh committee and others V. Dr. Bajrang Soni and others, the Supreme Court has observed thus:- “ Itis permissible for the government to fix such a source of classification of candidates from which selection for admission to the postgraduate colleges in the State had to be made.” 18. Therefore, setting apart one seat out of 4 seats in in-service for candidates who have secured M.S.-Ortho/M.S.ENT/M.D.-OBG Degrees is also valid. 19. As per the proceedings of the selection committee meeting for in-service candidates held on 15/07/2011, apart from Dr.Venkatesh.N N. and Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao (M.S.-ENT) the other two selected candidates were Ravi Prakash A and Dr. Prasad H.L. (appellant therein). Dr. Kulkarni Manik Rao was selected as against the seat earmarked for M.S.-Ortho/M.S.ENT/M.D.-OBG Degrees and the other three seats were filled up by candidates who had secured the three highest marks in M.S. General Surgery., without taking into consideration those candidates including the writ petitioners, who had secured higher marks than Dr. Ravi Prakash A and Dr. Prasad H.L., that is 70 marks. Ravi Prakash A and Dr. Prasad H.L., that is 70 marks. The issue is as to whether a common merit list of the in-service candidates has to be prepared and after filling up of one seat from out of the candidates who have obtained post-graduate degree in M.S.-Ortho/M.S.-ENT/M.D.-OBG Degrees on merit, the other three seats have to be filled on the basis of the inter se merit of all the candidates irrespective of the branch of Medicine in which they had secured post graduate degrees or whether the other three remaining seats in the in-service quota have to be filled up only by candidates who have secured Degree in M.S. General Surgery. We have given our anxious consideration to the same and are of the view that after the candidate who has secured the highest marks in M.S.-Ortho/M.S.-ENT/M.D.-OBG Degrees, is admitted to one seat earmarked in M.Ch. Surgical Oncology, the remaining three seats have to be filled up on the inter se merit of all the remaining candidates irrespective of the branch of Medicine in which they have secured their post graduation degree. The Seat Matrix dated 04/07/2011 is as under:- PROPOSED SEAT MATRIX FOR PGSSET-2011 Statement showing the distribution in respect of various Post Graduate Super Speciality Courses reserved for in-service and Entrance Test candidates in Government Medical College and Government Autonomous Institutions applicable for the academic year 2011-12. Sl.No. Name of the College Name of the Total In-service Entrance Super Speciality Govt.seats quota quota course 1. M.Ch. Plastic Surgery 2. M.Ch. Urology 3. M.Ch. Gastro 040201 020101 020101 1 Bangalore Entrology 02 03 01 02 01 01 Medical College 4. D.M. Neurology & research Institute, 5. D.Ch. Peadiatric Bangalore . Surgery 2. Kidwai Memorial 1. M.Ch. Surgical 0806 04*03 0403 institute of Oncology, Oncology Bangalore 2. DM Oncology 3. Vijayanagara Institute M.Ch. Urology 04 02 02 of medical Sciences, Bellary 4. Sri Jayadeva institute 1. DM. Cardiac 082112 0410**06 041106 of Cardiology, Anesthesia Bangalore 2. DM Cardiology 3.M.Ch. Cardio Thorasic Surgery 1. DM. 5. Instituteof Nephro Nephrology 0206 0103 0103 Urology Bangalore 2. M.C. urology /Genito-Urinary Surgery 6. Indira Gandhi Child M.Ch. Paediatric 01 01 Health Institute, Surgery Bangalore Total 80 40 40 * oneSurgical oncology seat is reserved for the candidate who have done Ms Ortho, MS ENT, MD OBG. ** One DM Cardiology seat is reserved for the candidate who has done MD Peadiatrics.” 20. M.C. urology /Genito-Urinary Surgery 6. Indira Gandhi Child M.Ch. Paediatric 01 01 Health Institute, Surgery Bangalore Total 80 40 40 * oneSurgical oncology seat is reserved for the candidate who have done Ms Ortho, MS ENT, MD OBG. ** One DM Cardiology seat is reserved for the candidate who has done MD Peadiatrics.” 20. On perusal of the seat matrix, we find that as far as M./Ch. Surgical Oncology is concerned (Sl.No.2 in the table above). There is no indication that after filling up of one such seat from amongst the candidates who secured the highest marks in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.— OBG Degrees, the remaining three seats have to be filled up by one those candidates who have secured their post graduation in M.S. General Surgery. In fact, as many as four branches Post Graduate Degree have been treated on par in the matter of admission to M.Ch. Surgical Oncology a Super Speciality course. Thus, the inter se merit of all candidates excluding the candidate who is initially admitted to one seat earmarked for M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.— OBG Degrees on merit basis, have to be taken into consideration. That is what the selection criteria also indicates as per the proceedings of the selection committee 15/07/2011 (Annexure “R-2” in WA.16804/2011), which is extracted for reference:- “4. Selection will be made on Merit cum Seniority basis. 5. Merit cum Seniority shall be determined on the basis of Mark secured in Entrance Test and weightage being given as 01 mark for each year of completed service subject of maximum of 10 marks.” 21. that apart, admission to in-service candidates is separate stream by itself, by which 4 seats have been earmarked , out of which , one seat is set apart for a candidate who has M.S.— Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG degree, the object being to admit a candidate having any of the aforesaid post Graduate Degrees on the basis of merit. The rationale for the same is to admit a candidate, having regard to the specialisation in certain branches of Medicine which would give an added edge while pursuing M.Ch.Surgical Oncology course. In fact, there is no discrimination by earmarking one seat in M.Ch. Surgical Oncology, to a candidate who has obtained Post Graduate Degree in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG Degree on the basis of merit. In fact, there is no discrimination by earmarking one seat in M.Ch. Surgical Oncology, to a candidate who has obtained Post Graduate Degree in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG Degree on the basis of merit. It is only to give an opportunity to a candidate who has a Degree in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.— ENT/M.D.—OBG Degree, that one seat has been earmarked and the same has to be filled on basis of merit. The ear-marked of one seat does not contemplate any horizontal reservation, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, which would imp0ly that on the filling up of the said seat from amongst the candidates having Degrees in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.— OBG Degree., the other candidates who have such a Degree and who are more meritorious than the candidates who have a Degree in General Surgery Course, would not be entitled to be considered for the other three seats. As the Supreme Court has held in the case of AIIMS, the emphasis in reservation is on the subject in order to achieve proportionate distribution and not with the object of barring more meritorious candidates, who have secured M.S.—Ortho/M.S.— ENT/M.D.—OBG Degree, being deprived of admission to M.Ch. Surgical Oncology Course and thereby, make way to the candidates who have a lesser merit merely because they have a post graduate Degree in General Surgery course .In other words, all in-service candidates irrespective of the branch in which they have secured Post Graduate are treated on par. However, the candidate who has secured the highest marks from amongst the candidates who have Degrees in M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG Degree, is in the first instance admitted to the seat earmarked for such a candidate in M.Ch.Surgical Oncology Course. The remaining three in-service seats have to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit of all the remaining candidates irrespective of the branch of Medicine in which they have secured their Post Graduate Degree. 22. The remaining three in-service seats have to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit of all the remaining candidates irrespective of the branch of Medicine in which they have secured their Post Graduate Degree. 22. Further, in the case of AIIMS Students’ Union V.AIIMS and others reported in[ (2002) 1 SCC 428 , the Supreme court has opined as follows:- “Sources of recruitment of entry are carved out for the purpose of achieving a defined proportion of intermingling at the target or destination between two or more categories of such persons who though similarly situated or belonging to one class to begin with , have stood divided into two or more categories by fortuitous circumstances and unless allowed entry from two separate sources, one would exclude or block the other. No one of the two classes can be said to be weaker than the other. The factor impelling provision of different or separate sources of entry may not provide justification for reservation. Two sources of entry ensure an equal distribution between two segments of one society. The emphasis in reservation is on the subjects; the emphasis in providing sources of entry is on the subject –matter. Reservation is protective discrimination; provision for sources of entry is aimed at securing equal or proportionate distribution. The characteristics of the two may to some extent be overlapping yet the distinction is perceptible though fine. When protective discrimination for promotion of equalisation is pleaded, the burden is on the party who seek to justify the ex facie deviation from equality. The basic rule is equality of opportunity for every person in the country, which is a constitutional guarantee. A candidate who get more marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance for the higher levels of education like postgraduate courses. Reservation, as an exception , may be justified subject to discharging the burden of proving justification in favour of the class which must be educationally handicapped – the reservation geared up to getting over the handicap. The rationale of reservation in the case of medical students must be removal of regional or class inadequacy or like disadvantage. Even there, the quantum of reservation should not be excessive or societally injurious. The rationale of reservation in the case of medical students must be removal of regional or class inadequacy or like disadvantage. Even there, the quantum of reservation should not be excessive or societally injurious. The higher the level of the speciality the lesser the role of reservation.” 23. We are also fortified in our view by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case Saurabh Chaudri and other v. Union Of India and others reported in [ (2003) 11 SCC 146 ], which read as under:-“102. On the issue whether there can be Article 15(4) reservations in superspeciality courses, this Court was categorical when it declared that: “there could not be any reservation at the level of super specialisation in Medicine because any dilution of merit at the level would adversely affect the national interest I having the best possible at the highest level of professional and educational training”. 103. Similar view was already taken by this Court in Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union Of India. 104. In similar vein, in Jagadish Saran (Dr) v. Union of India this Court observed that: merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher levels of education for postgraduate courses. This Court further observed that a host of variables influence the qualification of the reservation as one factor deserves great emphasis, the higher the level of the speciality the lesser the role of reservation. 107. Of course, as between the reserved category candidates, there should be inter se merit observed. This has been emphasized by this court in several cases.” 24. Thus the contention that there is horizontal reservation in respect of 1 seat for candidates having M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG Degrees and after filling up the said seat, the other meritorious candidates having a M.S.—Ortho/M.S.—ENT/M.D.—OBG Degrees would not be entitled to be considered for the three remaining seats in in-service quota, is not well founded and hence, rejected. 25. Therefore, the selection committee was not right I admitting Dr. Ravi Prakash A and Dr. Prasad H.L. when Dr. Prashanth S. and Dr, Manjunath K.V., the petitioners, are more meritorious than them as they have both secured 70 marks. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in setting aside the allotment of seats made in the name of Dr. Prasad H.L. and Dr. Ravi Prakash A and Dr. Prasad H.L. when Dr. Prashanth S. and Dr, Manjunath K.V., the petitioners, are more meritorious than them as they have both secured 70 marks. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in setting aside the allotment of seats made in the name of Dr. Prasad H.L. and Dr. Raviprakash A as they had secured lesser marks. Even if additional. Weightage of two marks is given to the appellant, Dr. Prasad H.L. his total marks would be 69, which is les than the marks secured by Dr. Prashanth S. and Dr. Manjunath K.V., petitioners. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr.Poornima. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is No.16804/2011 is dismissed. Writ Appeal Nos. 17280-17281/2011 also stand dismissed, except to the extend indicated above. No costs.