1. The petitioners have called in question Rule 15 of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, hereinafter for short as Rules of 2005, to the extent of distribution of seats for undergoing Post Graduate Course in MD/MS/M. Tech Engineering and Agricultural Sciences and similar other post-graduate courses. The selection of the candidates from the reserved categories for different streams was to be made on the basis of inter-se merit treating all as a single class. 2. Petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding respondents to prescribe declare as ultra vires the constitution offending Article 14 and 16, Rule 15 of the Rules 2005 to the extent of distribution of seats for undergoing post graduate course in MD, MS and Diploma course amongst the candidates from all reserved categories by treating them as a single class for the purpose of allotment of streams. 3. Petitioners have sought again writ of mandamus to the extent of directing the respondents to prescribe separate reservation for the candidates belonging to rural service category while distributing different streams for undergoing Post Graduate Course in MD, MS and Diploma courses, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 4. Precisely the case of the petitioners is that they are Assistant Surgeons and have rendered five years in Rural Areas, therefore, are entitled to reservation in terms of the Rules 2005. That, respondents have distributed the seats in violation of the mandate of Rules of 2005, as, the competing candidates have been treated as a single class instead of separate class. The action of the respondents is discriminatory and voilative of Constitution,. therefore, merits to be quashed. 5. Respondents have filed the reply and resisted the writ petition on the ground that Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005 have not been violated. It has been contended that Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 15 provides that selection of the candidates reserved for different streams shall be made strictly on the basis of inter-se merit treating them as a single class for purposes of allotment of streams. That there cannot be different treatment to different categories so far as allotment of steams is concerned. The merit obtained in the written test is sole criteria to distribute the allotment of stream. That there cannot be different treatment to different categories so far as allotment of steams is concerned. The merit obtained in the written test is sole criteria to distribute the allotment of stream. That the intention behind treating the reserved categories as a single class aims to avoid confusion, claims and counter claims of different reserved categories i.e., if in a particular stream, mere is one vacancy, all the reserved category candidates would claim for allotment of the stream as per their quota of reservation which is not at all practicable, therefore, in order to do away with this confrontation, the rule has been framed. 6. Respondents have produced record also which throws light on the controversy. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. The contention of the petitioners appears to be mis-directed for the simple reason that the posts are to be filled by categories as per Rules of 2005. 9. No doubt the categories have been shown distinctly and category, to which the petitioners claim to belong, has been shown as category 'f. The allocation is to be made as per the merit obtained by the different categories. If the request of the petitioner is acceded to, that will definitely create confusion and the candidates belonging to different set of categories will come forward with their respective claims and there will be allegations and counter allegations, claims and counter claims in between the group of categories itself. 10. The reliance placed on a judgment of Apex Court, by Mr. Jahangir, reported as AIR 2006 SC 2814 titled Atyant Pichhara Barg Chhatra Sangh & Anr. v. Jharkhand State Vaishya Federation & Ors, is not applicable to the instant case, as, in that case, though the reservation in professional college was recorded as; 14% for Scheduled Caste; 32% for Scheduled Tribe; 18% for Extremely Backward Classes; and 9% for Backward Classes and the total reservation was 73%. Extremely Backward Class and Backward Class were made one Class and their quota was reduced from 27% to 14% for both the streams for the purposes of admission in professional colleges. Amalgamation of two castes i.e. extremely backward class and backward class and its reduction from 27% to 14% was questioned and was quashed on the ground that amalgamation of two categories for reservation would be unreasonable, thus the judgment cited is not applicable to the instant case. 11. Amalgamation of two castes i.e. extremely backward class and backward class and its reduction from 27% to 14% was questioned and was quashed on the ground that amalgamation of two categories for reservation would be unreasonable, thus the judgment cited is not applicable to the instant case. 11. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such.