JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of free seat in MBBS Course. He was entitled to admission in MBBS course against free seat being meritorious than respondent No. 4. 2. It is stated that in all 689 seats were advertised for different Medical Colleges and 1% seats were reserved for SBC as per advertisement at Annexure-3. Out of it, 25% was to be given to the girls of that category. The respondents failed to properly determine quota for SBC inasmuch as on 689 seats, 1% comes to 6.89 and if it is rounded-off, comes to 7 being greater than .5. The respondents had given only 6 admission to the SBC candidates thus it is short by one. While filling up 6 seats for SBC, they had given 3 seats to the female and 3 to the male thus there was excessive reservation for female candidate inasmuch as even on 6 seats 25% comes to 1.5 and if it is rounded-off, becomes 2 thus admission to more than two female candidates is illegal. It is moreso when two female candidates are having less marks than petitioner and many other candidates. The petitioner has secured 626 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 is having 525 marks hence she should not have been given admission on free seats. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that one Lado Bai had secured 668 marks thus she was considered against SBC (General) category i.e. meant for SBC irrespective of gender. She was not considered towards reservation to the female candidate. In view of the above, two seats were offered to the female candidates making it in all three. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents. 4. So far as calculation of 689 seats is concerned, 1% comes to 6.89 thus it was rounded-off to six and accordingly admissions were given. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 further submits that having pursued the course, now any transfer from free seat to payment seat would be harsh for her thus if at all this court causes interference, the respondent No. 4 may be taken against payment seat now onwards and not from earlier period. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 7. The first question is how many seats should have been given to the SBC category. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 7. The first question is how many seats should have been given to the SBC category. It is admitted that 689 seats were for different Government Medical Colleges and 1% of it comes 6.89 and on rounding-off, it becomes 7 being .89 greater than .50. The respondents have committed illegality in giving only 6 admission to the SBC category. 8. The question further remains as to whether six seats given to the SBC or it is taken to be seven, reservation to female candidates cannot be more than two. The respondents applied principle of vertical reservation by not counting Lado Bai, whereas for female, it is horizontal reservation and thereby even if a female candidate has secured marks more than others in SBC category, she is counted towards reservation meant for female. The respondents failed to apply aforesaid formula and thereby given excess reservation to the female. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 wherein issue was as to how reservation to the female candidates is to be given. Therein, illustration has also been given for horizontal reservation. In view of the above, respondents committed illegality in giving benefit of 25% reservation to the female in excess. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 was not entitled to free seat having secured 525 as compared to petitioner having secured 626 marks. In fact, one Lado Bai and other female candidate had been given admission thus third admission to a lower merit female candidate against free seat was not legal and justified. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of free seat. He should accordingly be charged fee against free seat. The implementation of the order for refund of difference amount would be through respondent No. 3. 9. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, she was given admission against free seat and charged fee accordingly. As per discussion made above, she was not eligible for free seat. Infact, the respondent No. 4 would not have been given admission in Kota Medical College, if respondents could have applied method of horizontal reservation. 9. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, she was given admission against free seat and charged fee accordingly. As per discussion made above, she was not eligible for free seat. Infact, the respondent No. 4 would not have been given admission in Kota Medical College, if respondents could have applied method of horizontal reservation. It is informed that in Kota Medical College, all the seats are on the payment of meagre fee thus called as free seat, whereas in Jhalawar Medical College, the bifurcation of seat exists between free as well as payment seats. In view of the above, the petitioner would have been given admission in Jhalawar Medical College. However, now I am not intend to change the Medical Colleges. The respondent No. 4 would however pay fee as payable for payment seat even while pursuing studies in Medical College, Kota where such seats may not be available. It is to avoid change of Medical College. So far as fee become payable by respondent No. 4 in view of the direction given above is concerned, I leave it on the respondents to decide whether fee should be charged from her against payment seat now onwards or it should be charged from the beginning. The aforesaid issue may be decided by the respondents within a period of two months from today. The respondent No. 4 has otherwise agreed to pay fee of payment seat from today onwards.With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed of as above. *******