Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 662 (GUJ)

VISHAKHA D/O MAHENDRA PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2012-09-15

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals were heard together as the points involved in these two appeals are similar. 2. LPA No. 921 of 2012 is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 6th July 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8925 of 2012 by which His Lordship dismissed the writ-application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondent No.1 to give admission to the petitioner in MBBS course for the year 2012-13 on merits and to quash the action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner. 2.1 In the other appeal being LPA No. 1094 of 2012, the writ-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11th September 2012 by which the learned Single Judge issued rule nisi making it returnable on 11th September 2012 but no interim relief was granted. In the said writ-application, out of which the present LPA arises, the petitioner prayed for the following relief: “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions commanding the respondents to construe, interpret, and read the provisions of Rule 5(1) and (2) of Rules for Admission to M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P courses in Government, Municipal, Grant in Aid and Self Financed colleges or Institutions in the State of Gujarat after H.S.C.E (12th) Science Stream (B/AB Group) and GUJCET 2012-13 as the petitioner is eligible for admission in the course of M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P in the institutions in the State of Gujarat and to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list prepared for the purpose of admission in the course of M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P in the institutions in the State of Gujarat. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P in the institutions in the State of Gujarat. In the alternative B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to suitably amend the language of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Rules for Admission to M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P courses in Government, Municipal, Grand In Aid and Self Financed Colleges or Institutions in the State of Gujarat after H.S.C.E (12th) Science Stream (B/AB group) and GUJJECT 2012-13 so as to include the children of officers of Army, Navy and Air Force of Gujarat original as eligible for admission in the institutions situated in Gujarat at par with the children of officers of All India Services and Gujarat Government Employees. C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to accept the form of admission of the petitioner for admission in M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P courses. In Alternative D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the provisions of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Rules for Admission to M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P courses in Government, Municipal, Grant In Aid and Self Finances Colleges or Institutions in the State of Gujarat after H.S.C.E. (12th) Science Stream (B /AB Group) and GUJCET 2012-13 to the extent it excludes the children of Army, Navy and Air force of Gujarat origin as eligible for admission in the institutions situated in Gujarat and not treating them at par with the children of officers of All India Services and Gujarat Government employees.” 3. In these two Letters Patent Appeals, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the two appellants, viz. Mr. Oza and Mr. In these two Letters Patent Appeals, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the two appellants, viz. Mr. Oza and Mr. Pahwa confined their arguments on the question whether the Rules for Admission to M.B.B.S. / B.D.S. / B.P.T. / B.A.M.S. / B.H.M.S. / B.Sc. Nursing / B.P.O. / B.O. / B.O.T. / B. Nat. / B.A.S.L.P Courses in Government, Municipal, Grant-in-Aid and Self Financed Colleges or Institutions in the State of Gujarat after H.S.C.E (12th) Science Stream (B / AB Group) and GUJCET 2012-13 [the Gujarat Rules, for brevity, hereafter] are ultra vires the Constitution of India and also in conflict with the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 [the Regulations, for brevity, hereafter] framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 4. The facts giving rise to filing of Special Civil Application No. 8925 of 2012 may be summed up thus: 4.1 The native place of the father of the petitioner is the village Vagharota, Taluka Prantij, Dist. Sabarkantha situated in the State of Gujarat. The father of the petitioner lastly studied at Sainik School, Balachhadi, Jamnagar, from which he was selected to National Defence Academy in the Army as an officer. Since the father of the petitioner was working in the Army, he was posted at different places including border areas and thus, the petitioner studied at different schools staying with her father while he was working at different places with the Army. 4.2 The father of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 4th April 2010 when the petitioner was studying in 12th standard in a school, namely, Tagore International School, Delhi. The petitioner continued her studies in the same school and completed her 12th standard education in March 2011 scoring 90.60% marks in Science stream from Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. The petitioner thereafter appeared for GUJCET examination in the year 2011 but having obtained less than 50% marks, was not qualified for admission to MBBS course. In the next year, viz. 2012, the petitioner again appeared for GUJCET and has cleared the said examination in all the three papers, i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology scoring 78.75 marks out of 120 and the percentile rank of the petitioner was 93.25, qualifying her for admission in MBBS course. In the next year, viz. 2012, the petitioner again appeared for GUJCET and has cleared the said examination in all the three papers, i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology scoring 78.75 marks out of 120 and the percentile rank of the petitioner was 93.25, qualifying her for admission in MBBS course. The petitioner submitted form to the respondent No.1 for MBBS course and necessary receipt was also given accepting the form. However, when the provisional merit was published in the website, the petitioner's name was not found. Subsequently, the petitioner went to the office of the respondent No.1 and came to know that she had not been given admission since she had not studied in the State of Gujarat in 11th and 12th standards. The petitioner submitted a written application to give the reasons, but no reasons having been assigned, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 8925 of 2012 which as stated hereabove, was rejected by the learned Single Judge. 4.3 In the other writ-application, viz. SCA No. 9917 of 2012 out of which LPA No. 1094 of 2012 arises, the case of the petitioner was that the father of the petitioner was serving in the Indian Navy and for the period between 30th May 2009 and 30th May 2012, she prosecuted her studies at Navy Children School, Kochi, which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner appeared at the 12th standard examination taken by the said Board and also appeared in GUJCET for securing admission for MBBS and she was permitted to appear at the said examination. Having cleared GUJCET, the petitioner applied for admission to the MBBS course. However, the said form was not processed on the ground that the petitioner had not cleared the 12th standard examination from a school situated in the State of Gujarat and the petitioner was not exempted from the said requirements provided under the Gujarat Rules. 4.4. According to the petitioner, though Rules 5 (1) and (2) of the Gujarat Rules are aimed at facilitating the children of officers of the State of Gujarat and All India services who are posted out of Gujarat for the reasons beyond their control, to secure admission in the institutions situated in the State of Gujarat, the same are required to be read, construed and interpreted to include even the officers/personnel of the defence so as to uphold its validity. According to the petitioner, the discriminatory treatment to the officers/personnel of the Defence is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the exclusion of the defence personnel has no rationale. In other words, according to the petitioner, there exists no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by excluding the children of the defence personnel. 4.5 As stated above, in the writ-petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge issued Rule, but did not grant any interim relief. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently attacked the Gujarat Rules on the ground that the provisions contained in the said Rules excluding the original residents of Gujarat from the process of selection for admission in the Medical Colleges in Gujarat simply on the ground that they did not pass 12th Standard examination from a school within the State of Gujarat is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India and is also arbitrary. They point out that if a student who studied throughout his/her career in Gujarat but if his/her father was transferred for doing service to the Government out of Gujarat when he/she studied in 12th standard, such student will be deprived of the benefit of admission whereas a student who has prosecuted his/her studies throughout his/her career outside Gujarat but if his/her father was transferred for doing service within the State of Gujarat at a time when she was prosecuting her studies at Class 12, and for that reason if a student passes 12th standard examination from Gujarat, such student will get the benefit of admission. This, according to the learned counsel, has no rational basis. Secondly, it is contended that when benefit of admission is given to the children of the members of the Indian Administrative Services, Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service etc, though their children have passed from outside the State of Gujarat, there is no reason why the said benefit should not be given to children of persons doing military services for the Government of India. Lastly, it is contended that the Gujarat Rules is in violation of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, and hence, the Central legislation will have overriding effect upon the Gujarat Rules. Lastly, it is contended that the Gujarat Rules is in violation of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, and hence, the Central legislation will have overriding effect upon the Gujarat Rules. 5.1 In support of these contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed strong reliance upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of PRIYANKA VERMA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2012 (2) GLH 517 . 6. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondent has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Oza and Mr. Pahwa, and has contended that the decision of the Full Bench relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants has no application to a case where 15% quota is already allotted to outsider students. According to Mr. Trivedi, in the case before the Full Bench on which reliance is placed, there was total exclusion of candidates who got the required qualification from the Board other than Gujarat whereas in this case, such is not the factual position. Mr. Trivedi further contends that the Supreme Court has approved in various decisions the right of State Medical Institutions to have reservation of quota on the basis of domicile. In support of his contention, Mr. Trivedi has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654 . 2. P. Verma C/o. V. Nath Verma v. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (2) GLH 517 . 3. Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. Education v. Paritosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 4. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore reported in AIR 2000 SC 114 5. Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt reported in AIR 1996 SC 2066 6. Dinesh Kumar (II) vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College reported in (1986) 3 SCC 727 . 7. Kumari C. Ghosh v. Union of India reported in 1969(2) SCC 228 8. Joshi D.P. v. M.B. State reported in AIR 1955 SC 334 . 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the Gujarat Rules is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to rules 5, 6 and 8 of the Gujarat Rules, which are quoted below: “5. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the Gujarat Rules is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. 8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to rules 5, 6 and 8 of the Gujarat Rules, which are quoted below: “5. Eligibility for Admission- (1) For the purpose of admission, a candidate shall have- (A) Passed the qualifying examination with “B-group” or “AB-group” from- (i) the Gujarat Board; or (ii) the Central Board of Secondary Education Board provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, should have been located in the State of Gujarat; or (iii) the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi Board provided that the school in which the candidate has studied should have been located in the State of Gujarat: Provided that the candidate seeking admission in Ayurveda shall have passed either the qualifying examination or the 10th examination with Sanskrit subject, and (B) Appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year. (2)(a) Sons and Daughters of All India Services Officers viz. Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service alloted to the Gujarat State and serving outside the Gujarat State on deputation, and (b) Sons and daughters of Gujarat Government Employees who have been posted outside the Gujarat State for the Administrative reasons, shall be treated at par with the candidates under sub-rule (i) provided they have passed the qualifying examination from the respective state Board and he/she must have appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year and obtained marks under sub-rule (3) of rule 12. In such cases, his candidature shall be included in the Gujarat Board merit list referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule(2) of rule 11. If such a candidate has passed the qualifying examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education or the Council of the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi Board his candidature shall be included in the merit list of respective Board referred to in clause (b) of said sub-rule (2).” (3). A candidate who has, (i). Studied under Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme upto Standard VIII in any of the schools located in the State of Gujarat. (ii). A candidate who has, (i). Studied under Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme upto Standard VIII in any of the schools located in the State of Gujarat. (ii). thereafter studied in any of the schools located out of the State of Gujarat under the said scheme. (iii). passed qualifying examinations from a Navodaya Vidyalay located outside Gujarat State and (iv). appeared in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year and obtained marks under sub-rule (3) of rule 12 shall be eligible for admission and his candidature shall be included in the merit list of the Central Board as prescribed in clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 11. Explanation.- “Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme” means the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme started during the year 1985-86 by the Government of India in accordance with the National Policy of Education. The scheme is managed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous organization under the department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (4). A candidate who has passed the qualifying examination after appearing in the supplementary examination conducted by the Board shall not be eligible for admission in the current academic year. (5). A candidate who has secured admission under these rules in any year shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he/she might have completed the course in which he has secured admission. Explanation.- “Candidate who had taken admission after the implementation of the Act shall not be eligible for further admission to any course until the period within which he/she might have completed the course in which he/she has secured admission i.e. candidates admitted in academic year 2008-09 and onwards”. 6. Eligibility Criteria.- The following shall be the criteria for admission of a candidate to the Professional Medical Courses. A. For Government Seats and Management Seats. (1). A candidate shall be an Indian citizen: Provided that the candidate whose parents are origin of India, but he/she does not hold Indian citizenship and has applied for Indian citizenship, shall have to produce the proof of submission of the application to the Admission Committee before the date of interview. Such candidates shall be admitted provisionally subject to submission of the certificate of their having acquired the Indian citizenship on or before 31st December of the current year, failing which their provisional admission shall be cancelled without giving any notice thereof. (2). Such candidates shall be admitted provisionally subject to submission of the certificate of their having acquired the Indian citizenship on or before 31st December of the current year, failing which their provisional admission shall be cancelled without giving any notice thereof. (2). A candidate shall have completed 17 years of age on the 31st December of the Academic Year for which the admissions are being conducted: Provided that in case the under age candidate, he/she may be granted admission at the time of counselling but his/her academic term shall start from the day when he/she completes 17 years of age and his/her term in the concerned Professional Educational College or Institution shall commence after completion of age of 17 years. (3). A candidate shall be eligible for admission under the provisions of these rules. B. For Non-Resident Indian seats;- (1). (i). A candidate shall be Non-Resident Indian, or (ii). his/her parents or in absence of his/her parents, his/her legal guardian shall be Non-Resident Indian, or (iii). he/she shall be dependent of Non-Resident Indian for the educational purposes and shall have necessary proof/evidence in support of his dependent. (2). A candidate shall have completed 17 years of age on the 31st December of the Academic Year for which the admissions are being conducted. Provided that in case of under age candidate, he/she may be granted admission at the time of counselling but his/her academic term shall start from the day when he/she completes 17 years of age and his/her term in the concerned Professional Medical Educational College or Institution shall commence after completion of age of 17 years. (3). A candidate shall be eligible for admission under the provisions of these rules. 8. Reservation of Seats.- (1). Fifteen percent (15%) of available seats for admission in each Government Medical and Dental College recognized by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India respectively shall be reserved for candidates of All India Entrance Examination (A.I.E.E.) who are allotted for admission by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi. (2). After deduction of the seats referred to in sub-rule (1), the remaining Government seats shall be reserved for the candidate who are origin of Gujarat and falling under the following categories, namely:- (a). Scheduled Castes : 7% (b). Scheduled Tribes : 15% (c). (2). After deduction of the seats referred to in sub-rule (1), the remaining Government seats shall be reserved for the candidate who are origin of Gujarat and falling under the following categories, namely:- (a). Scheduled Castes : 7% (b). Scheduled Tribes : 15% (c). Socially and Educationally backward Classes including Widows and Orphan of any caste : 27% Explanation- The reservation of the seats shall be for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes including Widows and Orphan of any caste recognized as such in the State of Gujarat and not for those who have migrated from other States. (3). Ten percent seats of the total available Government seats in the Nursing Colleges shall be reserved for male candidates. (4). A candidate seeking admission on reserved seat shall be required to produce a Certificate of Caste from which he originates. Provided that the candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class shall be required to produce a certificate to the effect of non-inclusion in Creamy Layer in addition to the caste certificate. (5). No caste certificate shall be valid unless it is duly stamped, signed and issued by the authority empowered by the Government of Gujarat. (6). No certificate to the effect of non-inclusion in Creamy Layer shall be valid, unless it is duly stamped, signed and issued by the authority empowered by the Government of Gujarat. Such certificate shall have been issued on or after the 1st April of the academic year in which the candidate is seeking admission. (7). If a candidate fails to submit the certificates as required under sub-rule (2) within the stipulated time, his candidature shall be considered for admission under unreserved category. (8). If a candidate of reserved category gets admission on unreserved seat in order of merits, he may be given admission on the unreserved seat according to his preference. (9). The admission of a candidate of a reserved category on a reserved seat shall be valid subject to the verification of cast certificate by the authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf. In case the caste certificate is found invalid on verification, he/she shall not have right to claim his admission on reserved seat and if he/she has been already granted admission, such admission shall be cancelled. (10). In case the caste certificate is found invalid on verification, he/she shall not have right to claim his admission on reserved seat and if he/she has been already granted admission, such admission shall be cancelled. (10). After granting admission to all the candidates of reserved categories on reserved seats, the reserved category seats remaining vacant shall be transferred to the unreserved category seats. 8.1 It will be also necessary to refer to the provisions contained in regulation No.4 of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is in conflict with the Gujarat Rules. “4. Admission to the Medical Course – Eligibility Criteria: No candidates shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical Curriculum of first Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Course until: 1. He/She shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st December, of the year admission to the MBBS Course (1. Substituted vide notification dated 29.05.1999). 2. He/She has passed qualifying examination as under:- 1. The higher secondary examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher Secondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of study comprising of physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics or any other elective subjects with English at a level not less than core course of English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after the introduction of the 10+2+3 years educational structure as recommended by the National Committee on education. Note: Where the course content is not as prescribed for 10+2 education structure of the National Committee, the candidates will have to undergo a period of one year pre-professional training before admission to the Medical colleges; Or 2. The intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/Board or other recognised examining body with Physics, Chemistry and Biology which shall include a practical test in these subjects and also English as a compulsory subject. OR 3. The pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent Examination. The pre-professional/pre-medical examination shall include a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and also English as a compulsory subject. OR 4. OR 3. The pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent Examination. The pre-professional/pre-medical examination shall include a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and also English as a compulsory subject. OR 4. The first year of the three years degree course of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology including a practical test in three subjects provided the examination is a “University Examination” and candidate has passed 10+2 with English at a level not less than a core course. OR 5. B. Sc. Examination of an Indian University, provided that he/she has passed the B. Sc. Examination with not less than two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology [Botany, Zoology) and further that he/she has passed the earlier qualifying examination with the following subjects- Physics, Chemistry and Biology and English OR 6. Any other examination which, in scope and standard is found to be equivalent to the intermediate science examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and English. Note. • The pre-medical course may be conducted either at Medical College, or a science College. • Marks obtained in Mathematics are not to be considered for admission to MBBS Course. • After the 10+2 course is introduced, the integrated courses should be abolished. Selection of Students: The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merits of the candidate and for determination of the merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformly throughout the country. 1. In States, having only one Medical College and one university board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks obtained at such qualifying examination may be taken into consideration; 2. In states, having more than one university/board, examining body conducting the qualifying examination (or where there is more than one medical college under the administrative control of one authority) a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies. 3. Where there are more than one college in a State and only one university/board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joint selection board be constituted for all the colleges; 4. A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of Institution of All India character. 9. 3. Where there are more than one college in a State and only one university/board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joint selection board be constituted for all the colleges; 4. A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of Institution of All India character. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the various authorities placed before us, we find that so far as the reservation by the State in the Medical Colleges is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [supra] initially laid down as a proposition of law that reservation of seats for residents of the State or students of the same University would depend upon the extent or limit of such reservation. In the said decision, the Supreme Court laid down that maximum limit of reservation for MBBS / BDS course should be fixed at 70% which is subject to three-yearly review by Indian Medical Council and Indian Dental Council for deciding reduction in that limit. However, the said decision was reviewed by the Supreme Court on the application of the Union of India and it appears from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (II) vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College [supra] that not less than 15 per cent of the total number of seats in each medical college or Institution, without taking into account any reservations validly made, shall be filled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. According to the Supreme Court, this new formula was fair and just and brought without placing the students in one State in an advantageous or disadvantageous position as compared to the students in another State. In the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment, the Supreme Court further made it clear that the said judgment should not be construed as in any manner prejudicing or affecting or detracting from any rule, regulation or other provision entitling students from other States including the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir to be considered for admission to the remaining 85 per cent seats for the MMBS/BDS course. The Supreme Court also directed the Government of India to consider whether it would not be desirable to set up Regional Institutes of Medical Sciences where admission would be open to students from all over the country and where a high standard of excellence would be maintained. According to the Supreme Court, if such Regional Institutes of Medical Sciences are set up providing opportunity to students from all over the country to compete for admission on the basis of merit, it may become unnecessary to reserve 15 per cent of the total number of seats for admission to the MMBS / BDS course in each Medical College or Institute on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. 10. Thus, so far as the admission in MBBS / BDS courses are concerned, the law as it stands as settled by the Supreme Court is that the State Government is given right to reserve 85% seats based on merits restricting it only to the students who have passed 12th standard examination from any Institute situated within the State. 11. In the cases before us, we find that by the Gujarat Rules, the aforesaid direction given by the Supreme Court has been maintained. We, thus, find that the reservation of remaining 85% seats restricting to only students who have passed the 12th standard examination from the Institutes situated within the State of Gujarat cannot be held to be invalid. 12. As regards the other contention that the benefit given to the children of All India Services Officers viz. Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service alloted to the Gujarat State and serving outside the Gujarat State on deputation, and the children of Gujarat Government Employees who have been posted outside the Gujarat State for the Administrative reasons should be also applicable to the children of persons doing military services for the Government of India, the appellants, by making this submission, are really asking this Court to legislate. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is now well-settled law that merely because a particular legislation would be more wiser or more appropriate, for that reason, the writ-Court, sitting in a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot declare a particular provision which is otherwise valid as an invalid piece of legislation. It is for the State legislature to legislate and that power cannot be usurped by the High Court sitting in a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, in considering whether a particular legislation is invalid, the writ-Court should follow the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kohli and another reported in (2012) 6 SCC 312 wherein the Apex Court considered various earlier decisions of the said court laying down the circumstances in which a writ-court can declare a statutory provision as ultra vires in the following manner: “24. While dealing with the aspect as to how and when the power of the court to declare the statute unconstitutional can be exercised, this Court referred to the earlier decision of this Court in Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala [ (1979) 1 SCC 23 ] and held in para 46 of the Report as under: (P. Laxmi Devi case, [ (2008) 4 SCC 720 ] SCC p. 740) “46. In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different ways e.g. if a State Legislature makes a law which only Parliament can make under Schedule VII List I, in which case it will violate Article 246(1) of the Constitution, or the law violates some specific provision of the Constitution (other than the directive principles). But before declaring the statute to be unconstitutional, the court must be absolutely sure that there can be no manner of doubt that it violates a provision of the Constitution. If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. Also, the court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that requires giving a strained construction or narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala [ (1979) 1 SCC 23 ], SCC para 6 : AIR para 6. Also, the court must make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute, even if that requires giving a strained construction or narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala [ (1979) 1 SCC 23 ], SCC para 6 : AIR para 6. Also, it is none of the concern of the court whether the legislation in its opinion is wise or unwise.” Then in paras 56 and 57 the Court stated as follows: (P. Laxmi Devi case [ (2008) 4 SCC 720 ], SCC p.744) “56. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges’ personal preferences. The court must not invalidate a statute lightly, for, as observed above, invalidation of a statute made by the legislature elected by the people is a grave step. As observed by this Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [ AIR 1952 SC 252 ] (AIR p. 274, para 52) ‘52. … The legislature is the best judge of what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence….’ 57. In our opinion, the court should, therefore, ordinarily defer to the wisdom of the legislature unless it enacts a law about which there can be no manner of doubt about its unconstitutionality.” 25. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1958 SC 731 ] while dealing with the meaning, scope and effect of Article 14, reiterated what was already explained in earlier decisions that to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i). the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii). such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The Court further stated that classification might be founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. 26. In Mohd. The Court further stated that classification might be founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. 26. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi [ AIR 1958 SC 731 ], the Constitution Bench further observed that there was always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. It stated in para 15 of the Report as under: (AIR pp. 740-41) “15. … The courts, it is accepted, must presume that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation.” 27. The above legal position has been reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi [ AIR 1959 SC 942 ] 28. In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India [ AIR 1960 SC 554 ], inter alia, while referring to the earlier two decisions, namely, Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1955 SC 661 ] and Mahant Moti Das [ AIR 1959 SC 942 ], it was observed in para 8 of the Report as follows: (Hamdard Dawakhana case [ AIR 1960 SC 554 ], AIR p. 559) “8. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution, the ascertainment of its true nature and character becomes necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the area in which it is intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be determined. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in Part III of the Constitution, the ascertainment of its true nature and character becomes necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the area in which it is intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy….” In Hamdard Dawakhana, the Court also followed the statement of law in Mahant Moti Das and the two earlier decisions, namely, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India [ AIR 1951 SC 318 ] and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [ AIR 1951 SC 318 ] and reiterated the principle that presumption was always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment. 29. In one of the recent cases in Karnataka Bank Ltd., [ (2008) 2 SCC 254 ] while referring to some of the above decisions, in para 19 of the Report, this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 262-63) “19. The rules that guide the constitutional courts in discharging their solemn duty to declare laws passed by a legislature unconstitutional are well known. There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt; ‘to doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve it in favour of its validity’. Where the validity of a statute is questioned and there are two interpretations, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the former must be preferred and the validity of law upheld. In pronouncing on the constitutional validity of a statute, the court is not concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, the justice or injustice of the law. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of the power conferred on a legislature and violates no restrictions on that power, the law must be upheld whatever a court may think of it. (See State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara. [ AIR 1951 SC 318 ])” 13. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of the power conferred on a legislature and violates no restrictions on that power, the law must be upheld whatever a court may think of it. (See State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara. [ AIR 1951 SC 318 ])” 13. Therefore, whether the benefit of reservation given to the children of All India Services and children of Gujarat Government Employees who have been posted outside the Gujarat State for the Administrative reasons should be also applicable to the children of persons doing military services for the Government of India is a matter which is for the legislature to consider and this Court cannot ask the legislature to legislate, as suggested by the appellants as according to this Court, the same would be more appropriate. 14. We are also not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the word “viz.” appearing in rule 5(2)(a) of the Gujarat Rules brings the case of the children of persons doing military services within the scope of the Rule. After the phrase “All India Services Officers”, the legislature having used the word “viz.”, meaning namely, it has made its intention clear that the benefit should be given only to the children of three categories of officers mentioned after the word “viz.”. We may, at this juncture, appropriately refer to the definition of “viz.” given in Blacks Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, which is quoted below: “Viz. : Namely; that is to say <the defendant engaged in fraudulent activities, viz., misrepresenting his gross income, misrepresenting the value of his assets, and for forging his wife's signature>. See VIDELICET.” 14.1 The word 'videlicet' is defined in the said dictionary as under: “Videlicet: To wit; that is to say; namely; SCILICET. The term is used primarily to point out, particularize, or make more specific what has been previously stated in general (or occas. obscure) language. One common function is to state the time, place, or manner when that is the essence of the matter at issue. Abbr. Viz. See VIZ.” 14.2 The aforesaid definitions in the Black's Law Dictionary also does not approve the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that the word 'viz.' should be interpreted to mean other allied services of the Central Government including defence service. 15. Abbr. Viz. See VIZ.” 14.2 The aforesaid definitions in the Black's Law Dictionary also does not approve the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that the word 'viz.' should be interpreted to mean other allied services of the Central Government including defence service. 15. Lastly, as regards the decision of the Full Bench in the case of PRIYANKA VERMA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [supra], we find that in the said case there was total exclusion of candidates who, inspite of having requisite qualification were excluded from its consideration simply because they have passed from an Institution located outside the State of Gujarat. In such circumstances, the Full Bench was of the view that the same was invalid on the ground that the field of legislation was fully and completely occupied by the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which was enacted by the Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1984 and the Rules framed thereunder were subject to the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and thus, was unenforceable in view of the provisions contained in Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. 16. In the case before us, we have already pointed out that the Supreme Court has made the law clear by permitting reservation to 85% only, and such direction has not been violated by the Gujarat Rules. Although Mr. Oza and Mr. Pahwa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the two appellants, tried to convince us that in view of the decision in the case of PRIYANKA VERMA [supra], we should hold that the Gujarat Rules are in conflict with the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under provisions of section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, such submission is not tenable in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court laying down the law on the question involved before us. It is now well settled that a decision is an authority in the facts of a particular case and even a minute variation in the facts of another case may make the said decision inapplicable to the other case. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of STATE OF ORISSA vs. MD. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of STATE OF ORISSA vs. MD. ILLIYAS reported in (2006) 1 SCC 275 would be relevant, which reads thus: “Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basis postulates- (i). findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential find of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts. (ii). statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, and (iii). judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what is actually decides. 16.1 The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. DHANWANTI DEVI reported in 1996 (6) SCC 44 would also be relevant, which read thus: “Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents.” 16.2 Thus, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Priyanka Verma [supra] is of no avail to them. Moreover, the Regulations under the Indian Medical Council Act merely prescribe the eligibility criteria and the mode of selection of students based on merit but the same has no role to play in the matter of reservation. Moreover, the Regulations under the Indian Medical Council Act merely prescribe the eligibility criteria and the mode of selection of students based on merit but the same has no role to play in the matter of reservation. Thus, there is no conflict of the Regulation with the Gujarat Rules regarding the eligibility criteria and the mode of selection for admission in the MBBS course. 17. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, thus, find that the contentions of the learned advocate for the appellants are not tenable. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 6th July 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8925 of 2012 and the appeal arising therefrom deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in Special Civil Application No. 9917 of 2012 pending before the learned Single Judge, and the same as well as the appeal arising from order dated 7th August 2012 passed therein also deserve to be dismissed. Thus, the two Letters Patent Appeals and the Special Civil Application No. 9917 of 2012 are dismissed. Rule issued in SCA No. 9917 of 2012 is discharged. 17.1 In view of the dismissal of the appeals, Civil Applications arising therefrom have become infructuous, and the same are disposed of accordingly. Rule/Notice wherever issued stands discharged. 17.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, in all the above matters which are disposed of by this judgment, there will be, however, no order as to costs. FURTHER ORDER: After the above order is pronounced, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants prays for stay of operation of our above order. In view of what has been stated above, we find no reason to stay our order. The prayer is refused. Appeals dismissed.