JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The petitioners are students who have secured Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) Degree from Universities outside Kerala. The petitioners though of Kerala origin were not successful in securing admission to MD (Homoeo) in view of the preference given to candidates who have passed out from the colleges in Kerala. 2. Such preference was given in view of clause 5 of Ext.P1 prospectus which is extracted below: "Distribution of seats: Distribution of seats will be regulated as below: (i) 50% of total seats will be Merit Quota, out of which half (25%) will be All India Merit Quota (open to all Indian citizens) and other half (25%) will be State Merit Quota open to only candidates of Kerala origin passing out from the colleges in Kerala. (ii) Community Reservation will be provided as follows: 8% for SC, 2% for ST, 9% for SEBC. The criteria/conditions applicable for PG Medical Course will be adopted for the above categories." 3. This Court in Saurabh Jain v. State of Kerala [ 2011(2) KLT 646 ] has held that reasonable reservation or preference could be made to local students in the State. Therefore the allocation of 25% of the seats to 'only candidates of Kerala origin' cannot be faulted. 4. But a further preference is given to candidates who have 'passed out from the colleges in Kerala'. Only students who have passed out from the colleges in Kerala will be entitled to apply for this 25% State Merit Quota. This is nothing but 100% reservation for those students in the 25% State Merit Quota. The term 'Colleges in Kerala' can at best be treated on par with institutional preference even though there is difference between the two. 5. The Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others [ (1984) 3 SCC 654 ] has held that institutional preference cannot in any event exceed 50%. The dictum in Pradeep Jain's case has been followed in Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others [ (2003) 11 SCC 146 ] and Magan Mehrotra and others v. Union of India and others [(2003) 11 SCC 186]. 6. Therefore this reservation to the extent of 100% in the State Merit Quota to students 'passing out from the colleges in Kerala' is unreasonable and arbitrary. 6. Therefore this reservation to the extent of 100% in the State Merit Quota to students 'passing out from the colleges in Kerala' is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is brought to my notice that admissions to MD (Homoeo) course is over and the classes have begun about two months back. I clarify that the declaration as above will not affect the admission to MD course done as per Ext.P1 prospectus. 7. Suffice it to say that the reservation to the extent of 100% to students passing out from the colleges in Kerala in the 25% State Merit Quota is bad and deserves to be rectified in future. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.