JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. These two appeals have been filed by the Chairman, Central Counselling Board, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela questioning the correctness of the impugned common order 2012 (2) OLR 554 dated 1.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 11048 and 12934 of 2012 quashing Clause 3.3.1 of the Information Brochure issued by the appellant on 15th June, 2012 and directing him to admit the respondent-students/wards as per their ranking taking into consideration the All India Quota and Home State Quota only, urging various facts and legal contentions. 2. The learned Single Judge has elaborately referred to the necessary facts and has adverted to and extracted relevant clauses from the reservation policy in her order impugned in this case. Therefore, necessary facts for the purpose of considering the legal contentions urged in these appeals are mentioned here-in-below with a view to find out whether the appeals are required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The appellant is the statutory Central Counselling Board (in short 'CCB') for taking policy decision laying down the criteria for conducting entrance examination and also policy decision regarding reservation of seats in its seventeen Institutes spread over the country to impart professional and technical engineering education to the students of the country. Information Brochure was issued in the month of November, 2011 for conducting the entrance examination to fill up the seats in the 17 National Institutes of Technology (In short NIT) and the students took the entrance examination keeping in view the criteria laid down in the information bulletin. The final rank list was published on 9.6.2012. The impugned policy was published and uploaded in their website on 27.5.2012 and 28.5.2012 respectively enumerating its policy in Clause 3.3.1 which has been extracted in the impugned judgment stating the method of selection and filling up of the seats in the National Institutes in the country on the basis of All Indian Rank and the Home State quota rank. That was found fault with by the learned Single Judge at the instance of the respondent-students and parents who filed the writ petitions contending that the said policy has been introduced after publication of the information bulletin for conducting entrance examination and before publication of the result of the said entrance examination. That was found fault with by the learned Single Judge at the instance of the respondent-students and parents who filed the writ petitions contending that the said policy has been introduced after publication of the information bulletin for conducting entrance examination and before publication of the result of the said entrance examination. Online registration, filling up choices and choice locking were done between 16.6.2012 to 25.6.2012. First round of seat allotment was done on 27.6.2012. After the Information Brochure of 2012 was published on 15.6.2012, second round of seat allotment was done on 5.7.2012. Reporting to Centres against the second round of selection was done in between 6.7.2012 to 10.7.2012. Third round of seat allotment was done on 12.7.2012 and reporting to reporting centres against the third round selection for fresh allotment and surrender of the allotted seats was fixed in between 13.7.2012 to 16.7.2012. All reported candidates proceeded to allotted institutes for admission between 17.7.2012 to 22.7.2012. Online modification of choices (for un-allotted candidates and those who surrendered) was fixed between 17.7.2012 to 22.7.2012. All eligible candidates who did not register till date got fresh chance to register fill up choices and choice locking in between 17.7.2012 to 22.7.2012 and classes began for all participating institutions on 23.7.2012. Fourth round of seat allotment was fixed to 25.7.2012 and allotted candidates were to-proceed for admission between 25.7.2012 and 30.7.2012. Internal sliding for every institute was done on 1.8.2012 and vacancy position was published on CCB website on 2.8.2012. Fresh registration for spot round - all eligible candidates who did not register till date- got fresh chance to register for spot round between 3.8.2012 to 6.8.2012. Spot round allotment was done on 8.8.2012. Spot round allotted candidates proceeded for admission in Self-financed Institutes between 9.8.2012 to 12.8.2012. Reporting to centrally funded Institute was fixed to 9.8.2012 to 10.8.2012. The said process was over and admission has already been made in all the NITs following the policy decision which was published and uploaded in the website of the appellant on 27.5.2012 and 28.5.2012. Spot round allotted candidates proceeded for admission in Self-financed Institutes between 9.8.2012 to 12.8.2012. Reporting to centrally funded Institute was fixed to 9.8.2012 to 10.8.2012. The said process was over and admission has already been made in all the NITs following the policy decision which was published and uploaded in the website of the appellant on 27.5.2012 and 28.5.2012. Such a policy has been made by the Council to prevent admission of 50% more than of the Home State students in Home State Institutes which otherwise would prevent other State students to take admission thereby defeating the purpose of National integration and is aim of mingling of students of the State with outsiders and see the spirit of 50% State (Home State) quota and 50% other States quota is maintained in both letter and spirit so that the intention behind such a ratio of percentage to have National integration is maintained. The said policy was introduced in view of the fact that the earlier policy which was in vogue was not working well and was not yielding the desired result as it was seen that the objective of mingling was defeated as addition of home State candidates also from the All India list resulted in more than 50% and in some case even 90% home state students. The seat distribution provides better opportunity for students from other States to improve their educational quality by taking admission in prestigious NITs. The number of students from North East, Jammu and Kashmir and Chattisgarh who are entering into higher and technical education are very less in number because these states are in a geographically disadvantageous position with respect to infrastructure, communication and facilities. Therefore, it is important for the society to create an ambience for confidence and opportunity among the students of these States so that these underprivileged students can be motivated to compete for these reputed institutions of higher learning. The number of institutions in these areas for imparting quality technical education is very few as a result of which students need to travel to far off places for receiving technical education, as a result of which, majority of the students are enrolled in Arts colleges instead of Science or Engineering Colleges. It was under the aforesaid premises that the Government of India decided that aim of the higher education in these states should be relevant to the growth of the State. It was under the aforesaid premises that the Government of India decided that aim of the higher education in these states should be relevant to the growth of the State. The Knowledge Commission in its recent report has stated that engineering education is among the key enablers of growth for transforming the economy of the State. The XIth Plan has placed a higher priority of all types of education as a central instrument for achieving rapid and inclusive growth with specific emphasis on expansion, excellence and equity. 4. The respondent-writ petitioners in the writ petitions challenged the allotment policy for Home State Quota (in short called 'HSQ') in AIEEE 2012 framed by the Central Counselling 'Board (in short, 'CCB') for National Institutes of Technology (NIT in short) 'urging that they are prejudiced because of the solitary reason that the impugned policy was made known to them just before the counselling and not at the time of publication of the prospectus. It came 'as a surprise to them was the only ground for prejudice alleged in the writ petition. They never alleged discrimination against the impugned policy. The said policy decision was taken by the NIT Council on 28.6.2011 under the Chairmanship of the Minister, Human Resources Development, Government of India and CCB as the implementing body Published the Counselling Brochure on 27/28.5.2012 giving the schedule of events. Therefore, it is not open for the respondent-writ petitioners to urge that there is discrimination in not allotting the seats to the students of Odisha State from All India Quota in the NIT at Rourkela though they have secured All India ranking which amounts to creating a class within the class which is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the decision of the apex Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 S.C. 1420 . The said contention as advanced on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners by Shri J. Das, Learned Senior Counsel, is only an after-thought which contention need not be accepted by this Court to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge as the same was not urged in the writ petitions. 5. It is also contended that there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution nor is there any negative reservation of any third category. The same is also not permissible in law. 5. It is also contended that there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution nor is there any negative reservation of any third category. The same is also not permissible in law. All the other categories of reservation, like Physically Handicapped category, S.C. and S.T. etc. take its toll within both the above mentioned All India quota and Home State Quota at 50% ratio. The object behind the aforesaid ratio, as already stated, is to exchange the educational, cultural and ethnic value of the States inter se for betterment of the students and the Country for the growth of knowledge and wisdom. It is also further contended that the said policy framed by the NIT Council after detailed study and its members being experts in the technical education have aimed at 'preventing the 50% more than of the Home State students from taking admission in Home State Institutes which otherwise would prevent other State students to take admission thereby defeating the purpose of National Integration. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge on the basis of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case reported in 2012 (I) SCC 177 (Parmender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others) which has laid down the principle that the conditions invited in the prospectus cannot be changed after declaration of the results and preparation of select list just a day before the counselling has begun should not have quashed the impugned allotment policy. The learned Single Judge ought to have noticed the fact that information bulletin of AIEEE 2012-was published in October/November, 2011, the respondent writ petitioners and other candidates took the entrance examination keeping in view the criteria laid down in the bulletin and if any additional information is added subsequently, the same can be challenged on the ground of surprise, and after-thought as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 upon which strong reliance is placed by Shri J. Das, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioners. Relevant portion of the said judgment will be dealt with in the reasoning portion. 6. Relevant portion of the said judgment will be dealt with in the reasoning portion. 6. It is also further contended that as per the terms declared unambiguously in the bulletin, a two phased recruitment process has been prescribed statutorily in terms of the NIT Act, namely, the entrance examination is held and completed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE in short) and counselling by the Central Coul1selling Board, which is a statutory body under the NIT Act. Clause 13 of the bulletin clearly lays down the procedure for evaluation and declaration of results. It envisages separate rank list as per scores in the entrance examination and publication of the same in the website. In Clause 13.2 it was clearly mentioned that the All India/State Rank to be eligible for central counselling will be decided by the CCB which will be constituted by the Ministry of HRD, Government of India and decision of seat matrix etc. will be taken by the CCB and the required information will be displayed at appropriate time in the CCB website. It is further contended by the appellants that the four candidates, namely, Pritam Bag, Gourav Kumar Padhi, Adarsh Goutam Senapati and Sibani Padhi secured All India Rank 2,93,596 (OBC Category), All India Rank 90514 (General Category), All India Rank 28,097 (General Category) and All India Rank-40,144 (General Category) respectively and requested this Court to take judicial note of the fact that the entire selection process is over and 18000 selected candidates as per the impugned policy have started their courses in their respective institutions. If the impugned order is allowed to stand it would result in displacement of about 18000 students from the present finalized list. Besides at least four unknown incumbents of the final selection list have to be dislodged to make room for the writ petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge were not maintainable for non-joinder of the selected candidates who are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Besides at least four unknown incumbents of the final selection list have to be dislodged to make room for the writ petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge were not maintainable for non-joinder of the selected candidates who are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Mohanty appearing on behalf of the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and others, AIR 2006 S.C. 2339 para 77 in support of the proposition of law that in the petition challenging the selection list, all candidates in the select list should be impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. Defect of non-impleading all the selected candidates in the writ petitions cannot be cured by publication in the news-paper. In view of the aforesaid decision 'of the apex Court the relief granted in favour of the writ petitioners and the direction issued to the appellant by the learned Single Judge to admit the writ petitioners/their wards is wholly untenable in law. 7. The aforesaid legal contention has been seriously contested by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. Das for the respondent-writ petitioners placing reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another v. A.V.R. Siddhantti and others, (1974) 4 SCC 335 in which one of the contentions was that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in the writ petition. It was contended that they were necessary parties and their non-joinder was fatal to the writ petition. The apex Court held that the employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the readjustment of the petitioner's seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision, were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition. Learned senior counsel for the'appellant further submits that the modified policy clause 3.3.1 provides an equal opportunity to students of all States to get admitted in good institutions of India which otherwise would have been dominated by only Home State Students. Learned senior counsel for the'appellant further submits that the modified policy clause 3.3.1 provides an equal opportunity to students of all States to get admitted in good institutions of India which otherwise would have been dominated by only Home State Students. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions of the apex Court: 1. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and others - (2007) 8 SCC 418 ; 2. K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala - AIR 2006 SC 2339 ; 3. K. Thimmappa and others v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI and another - AIR 2001 SC 467 ; 4. M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India - AIR 1990 SC 1277 ; 5. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India - AIR 1984 SC 1420 ; 6. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India - AIR 1983 SC 130 ; 7. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore- AIR 1964 SC 1823 . 8. Shri J. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent writ petitioners sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge contending that having regard to the allotment policy in Clause 3.3.1 which was published after the examination was held and concluded just before the counselling is altogether changing the previous year's policy of AIEEE 2011 which has been extracted at paragraph 7 of the impugned order thereby the respondent-writ petitioners are affected. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly placing reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Parmender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, referred to supra, held that the evaluation procedure for admission and the conditions invited in the prospectus cannot be changed after declaration of result and preparation of select list as the respondent-writ petitioners had already shown their competence in written test and therefore the revised eligibility conditions could not be applied to them on the pretext of upholding standard of education. Once the process of election of candidates for admission to the course had commenced on the basis of the prospectus, no change could, therefore, be effected by government orders to alter the provisions contained in the prospectus. Once the process of election of candidates for admission to the course had commenced on the basis of the prospectus, no change could, therefore, be effected by government orders to alter the provisions contained in the prospectus. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the prayer made by the respondent-writ petitioners which does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as the appellants have not made out a case. Apart from the said legal contention, Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Counsel has sought to justify the case of the respondent writ petitioners that the revised policy which was published after the examination was concluded in the middle of the selection process before the counselling started has taken the respondents by surprise which amounts to carving out a separate class in the same class which is not permissible in law. 9. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the revised policy introduced by the CCS headed by the Minister, Human Resources Development as Chairman has passed the test of Article 14 and the object of framing such policy is to achieve National integration to allot seats and admit students of All India Rank in the NITs situated across the country? 2. Whether it amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the apex Court in Pradeep Jain's case? 3. Whether non-impletion of the selected students who have been admitted in the course at NIT, Rourkela as parties is fatal to the writ petitions and grant of relief is justified? 4. Whether the grant of relief of quashing the revised policy Clause 3.3.1 placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parmender's case (supra) on the ground that the same was published on 27/28.5.2012 after publication of bulletin and conduct of examination by CSSE is legal and valid? 5. What order? 10. The first and second points are required to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons. 5. What order? 10. The first and second points are required to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons. As could be seen from the narration of facts and legal contentions urged in the writ appeals, the object and intendment of framing the revised policy 3.3.1 which is extracted in the impugned order at paragraph 5 is with a view to achieve National integration and to see that students from different states get into National Institutes of technical education to interact with each other in order to enrich themselves with better knowledge, experience and development. Further the object and intendment of introducing the policy is to restrict admission of the Home State students to the Home State Quota only and to forbid them from taking admission in the Other States Quota seats, i.e. All India Quota minus Home State Quota. This policy is well within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution and the judgment of the apex Court in Pradeep Jain's case (supra). The apex Court in the aforesaid case has clearly held that in respect of Post-graduate Medical Seats, reservation either residential wise and university wise shall not exceed more than 50%. The law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid decision at para 20 reads thus: "20. The only question which remains to be considered is as to what should be the extent of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference. There can be no doubt that such reservation cannot completely exclude admission of students from other universities and States on the basis of merit judged in open competition. Krishna Iyer, J. rightly remarked in Jagdish Saran's case at page 845 and 846 (of SCR) : at p.828 of AIR 1980 SC 820 ) (supra) of the Report: "Reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation-: So a certain percentage which may be available must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation-: So a certain percentage which may be available must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like. Complete exclusion of the rest of the country for the sake of a province, wholesale banishment of proven ability to open up, hopefully, some dalit talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the altar of equalization when the Constitution mandates for everyone equality before and equal protection of the law-may be fatal folly, self-defeating educational technology and anti-national, if made a routine rule of State policy. A fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak with the partial recognition of the presence of competitive merit-such is the dynamics of social justice which animates the three egalitarian articles of the Constitution." We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of domicile or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit." The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court would support the case of the appellant that to achieve the laudable object of National integration and to provide opportunity to the students of other States to get into the NITs, 50% of the seats have been earmarked for Home State Quota and rest 50% out of the All India Quota list has been earmarked for the other State students in order to prevent admission of more than 50% Home State students in Home State Institutes which otherwise would prevent other state students to take admission in the NITs. Therefore, the argument advanced by Mr. R.K. Mohanty and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned .Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant is well founded and accepted. Accordingly, the first and second points are answered in favour of the appellant. 11. The third ground urged is that allowing the writ petition in absence of the selected and admitted candidates being brought on record is in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the first and second points are answered in favour of the appellant. 11. The third ground urged is that allowing the writ petition in absence of the selected and admitted candidates being brought on record is in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the case of K.H. Siraj in which selection of Munsifs was challenged held that all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. In the case at hand, the selected and admitted students had not been made parties to the writ petition. They have been admitted and attending the classes. In case the impugned order is given effect to, such candidates will be affected without being heard. They are all proper and necessary parties and due to their non-impletion, the writ petitions should have been dismissed. But that has not been done. On this ground also the appeals must succeed. 12. There is no specific ground urged in the writ petitions with regard to prejudice caused to the respondent-students due to the revised policy, i.e., Clause 3.3.1 which was framed by the statutory body CCB under the Chairmanship of Minister, Human Resources Development has got statutory force and has been published as an additional criteria for admission of students to the various courses in the NITs across the country, particularly, NIT, Rourkela with which we are concerned restricting 50% of seats to home state students and rest 50% of the All India quota seats for students of other States. The said revised policy has not done any injustice to the students but on the other hand it aims at achieving the laudable object of National integration and promoting development in the backward States of the country. The revised policy does not amount to carving out a separate class in the class itself as contended by Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners which contention is wholly untenable in law and reliance placed on Parmender Kumar's case in justification of the impugned order is misconceived. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. The revised policy does not amount to carving out a separate class in the class itself as contended by Mr. J. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners which contention is wholly untenable in law and reliance placed on Parmender Kumar's case in justification of the impugned order is misconceived. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners is liable to be rejected by answering that Clause 3.3.1 is an additional criteria for selection and admission into NITs of All India quota students and Home state students on the ratio of 50:50 which does not violate Article 14. The same can neither be termed as unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory or negative reservation. 13. The learned Single Judge annulled the impugned Clause 3.3.1 relying on the decision of the apex Court in Parmender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra) holding that the impugned clause came into force after declaration of the results and preparation of select list and that the conditions invited in the prospectus cannot be changed mid-way. In Parmender's case, the appellants were candidates for admission to the postgraduate course conducted by respondent No. 2 university against the Haryana Civil Medical Services (HCMS) reserved quota. The eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus for candidates appearing in the entrance examination in respect of the HCMS reserved quota was as mentioned in Clause 5 of the Prospectus which provided that HCMS doctors sponsored by the State Government will be eligible to appear in the entrance examination against the reserved seats for this category provided they submit the application through their employer or submit their applications for getting NOCs to the Department/State Government well in the time and the Department/State Government will ensure that the NOCs wherever eligible were issued before the date of first counselling i.e. 6.4.2011. HCMS doctors who wanted to join the PG Courses against the HCMS reserved quota required an NOC in terms of the Government of Haryana Instruction dated 5.12.2008. One of the eligibility conditions was contained in Clause 3 of the said letter which provided that the basic condition for eligibility is three years' regular service with successful completion of probation period out of which two years service is essential in rural areas for both reserved and open seats in the case of HCMS doctors. One of the eligibility conditions was contained in Clause 3 of the said letter which provided that the basic condition for eligibility is three years' regular service with successful completion of probation period out of which two years service is essential in rural areas for both reserved and open seats in the case of HCMS doctors. However, the condition of rural service will not be applicable in the case of a member of the HCMS. They were allowed to participate in the selection process on the basis of the above criterion and their names were published in the merit list dated 3.3.2011. When the matter stood thus, the Government of Haryana issued another instruction on 31.3.2011 circulated on the Government website on 5.4.2011, just one day before the date of counselling which was to commence on 6.4.2011 which changed the eligibility conditions making it applicable to the process of admission already commenced. The new eligibility condition provided that MBBS doctors will be eligible for doing postgraduate courses, both degree as well as diploma after completion of 5 years of regular satisfactory service including 2 years of probation, out of which 3 years service should be in one of the District Hospitals or a sub-divisional hospital and 2 Years in rural area institutions. Only those who will fulfil the condition will be eligible for sponsorship against reserved seats in PGIMS, Rohtak or other government institutions and against the open seats in the Government colleges of Haryana or similar government institutions anywhere else in the country. As a result of the aforesaid change in condition, doctors who were found to be eligible for sponsorship under the un-amended provision were denied consideration in the HCMS category. The change had the effect of eliminating many of the candidates from getting an opportunity of pursuing the postgraduate or diploma course in the reserved HCMS category. As a result of the aforesaid change in condition, doctors who were found to be eligible for sponsorship under the un-amended provision were denied consideration in the HCMS category. The change had the effect of eliminating many of the candidates from getting an opportunity of pursuing the postgraduate or diploma course in the reserved HCMS category. It is in this back ground that the apex Court held that if government orders were already in force when the prospectus was published, they would have a bearing on the admission 'process but' once the results had been declared arid as select list had been prepared it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms and conditions just a day before the counselling was to begin it was clearly stated in Clause 13.2 of the Information Bulletin that the All India/State Rank to be eligible for central counselling will be decided by the CCB which will be constituted by the Ministry of HRO, Government of India and decision of seat matrix etc. will be taken by the CCB and the required information will be displayed at appropriate time in the CCB website. From the case pleaded by the appellant, it appears that the final rank list was published on 9.6.2012 and the impugned decision was published and uploaded in their website on 28th of May, 2012. The aforesaid policy decision that the seats of all India quota in the NITS, i.e. 50% of the seats of NITs will be made available only to students from outside the home State was taken by the NIT Council constituted under Section 30(1) of the NIT Act which has been expressed in Clause 3.3.1 with the laudable object and intendment to maintain the national character of the NITs. The aforesaid policy was introduced by the statutory board to achieve national integration and to see that uniform economic development is achieved by imparting technical education as opined by the XIth Plan Commission which is the reason for establishing NITs. In our view, no prejudice has been caused to the respondent-writ petitioners due to introduction of the new policy reserving the 50% of the All India quota seats in the NITs for admission of students from outside the home State because the rest of 50% is reserved for the Home State students. In our view, no prejudice has been caused to the respondent-writ petitioners due to introduction of the new policy reserving the 50% of the All India quota seats in the NITs for admission of students from outside the home State because the rest of 50% is reserved for the Home State students. Even if the writ petitioners are selected and not admitted in their home State, they are not to be prejudiced because on their own merit they can be allotted seat in any other State. Hence, Parmender Kumar's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand. Therefore, granting relief of quashing the revised policy on the technical reason that the same was introduced after publication of result which would affect the 18000 students who are already admitted and undergoing courses is totally impermissible in law. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petitions. Appeals allowed.