Judgment : The petitioners are students of Second Year Intermediate studying in different institutions, in Hyderabad. They intend to seek admission in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT), by taking part in the admission process. Conducting of entrance examination and selection of the candidates for admission into IITs, was entrusted by the Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent issued a press note, dated 07.09.2012, furnishing the details of the Joint Entrance Examination that may be conducted in the forthcoming academic year. Substantial changes were introduced over the system, which was in vogue till the present academic year. According to the extant system, the candidates used to be selected on the basis of the rank that has been awarded in the entrance examination, subject, however, to the condition that they must obtain minimum of 60% marks in the qualifying examination. This is now replaced by what is known as 'Percentile System'. Whatever be the rank which a candidate may obtain in the entrance examination, he would be considered for admission, if only he figures within the top 20 percentile of the successful candidates in the respective qualifying examination. The petitioners complain that this would result in a situation where a candidate, hailing from a particular State with a low non-meritorious rank would be able to get admission in the Engineering Course in IIT, whereas another from a different State, with a very superior rank would not stand a chance. It is also their case that the same pattern of selection and admission, that existed when they joined the first year of intermediate course, must be available to them, when they take the entrance examination, in the next academic year. On behalf of respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The reasons that warranted the introduction of changes are mentioned, in detail. He submits that their attempt is to discourage the practice known as "Cracking Admission Tests", which is the result of indoctrination through unscientific coaching. He states that extensive study undertaken by them revealed that under the existing system, candidates from certain states were stealing march over those, from the other states, since the selection was on the basis of the performance in the entrance examination. He states that extensive study undertaken by them revealed that under the existing system, candidates from certain states were stealing march over those, from the other states, since the selection was on the basis of the performance in the entrance examination. According to them, the proposed system does not result in any discrimination, nor does it violate any provision of law. It is also stated that the system would ensure equitable and proportionate distribution of seats. Heard Sri Sri Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. There is heavy competition for admission into the first year of Engineering Course conducted by the IIT's. Naturally a selection process, to determine the merit of the candidates has been introduced. The basis for selection was the performance of a candidate in the entrance examination, subject, however, to the condition that the candidates must have secured minimum of 60% marks in the qualifying examination, which is two years intermediate course in the States like Andhra Pradesh, and XII class in other States. The experience thus far has shown that the students, who devoted most of their time for undergoing coaching for the entrance test than to take up regular studies in the colleges, in which they got admitted, stealed march, over others. The cut throat competition, if not unethical practices resorted to by certain coaching centres, has added further dimensions to the complexity. Therefore, a system under which adequate weightage is given to the performance in the qualifying examination also; is proposed to be introduced. The system, which is now on the anvil, comprises of several stages. First, a Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) (Mains), in which every candidate had appeared in the qualifying examination is entitled to take part is conducted. Thereafter, JEE (Advanced) examination is conducted in which the top 1,50,000 candidates, who qualified in JEE (Mains), are permitted to take part. All the participants in the JEE (Advanced) are assigned ranks. The next stage is of ascertaining the top 20 percentile of the successful candidates in the respective qualifying board examinations. For instance, in the next academic year, let it be assumed that 2,40,000 candidates would pass second year intermediate examination in the state of Andhra Pradesh. 20% of the total number of successful candidates would be 48,000. This is known as 20 percentile. For instance, in the next academic year, let it be assumed that 2,40,000 candidates would pass second year intermediate examination in the state of Andhra Pradesh. 20% of the total number of successful candidates would be 48,000. This is known as 20 percentile. Even if a candidate who studied intermediate examination has secured most meritorious rank in the JEE (Advanced) test, he would not be selected, for admission, unless he figures within 20 percentile i.e. 48,000. The petitioners submit that this process would result in discrimination. This Court is not at all inclined to agree with such contention. It may be true that 20 percentile of one State may comprise of less number of candidates and sometimes with less percent in the qualifying examination, compared to the same percentile in other states. For instance in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the last candidate in the 20 percentile may be the one, who secured 85% in the qualifying examination, whereas in a State like Jarkhand, 20% may account for just 5000 candidates and the marks of the last candidate in that group may be 65%. However, in the context of ensuring proper distribution of seats, any steps taken on the basis of the respective qualifying examination, does not amount to discrimination. Marks in the qualifying examination, cannot be treated as an irrelevant criterion. The classification, if exists, is based upon intelligible criteria. In a way, the mechanism ensures that un-equals are not treated as equals or an artificial merit is not permitted to defeat the rights of the otherwise sincere and hard working students, who devoted their time to study in the class rooms and not in coaching centres. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to agree with the contention that the percentile system is unconstitutional. However, the petitioners have one grievance, which this Court finds, is genuine. The respondents themselves made out a distinction between the candidates who are going to qualify in the current academic year and those, who were qualified in the previous academic years. They introduced the percentile method, for the former. The latter, however, are kept outside the system. It would be sufficient if the candidate in that category has secured 60% marks in the qualifying examination. It is not necessary that he must figure within 20 percentile of the successful candidates. The intermediate course in the state of Andhra Pradesh is of two years duration. The latter, however, are kept outside the system. It would be sufficient if the candidate in that category has secured 60% marks in the qualifying examination. It is not necessary that he must figure within 20 percentile of the successful candidates. The intermediate course in the state of Andhra Pradesh is of two years duration. The percentage of marks secured by a student is on the aggregate of the marks secured in the I and II years. Under the new system, the candidates, who devote more time in the regular classroom studies, and have secured high marks in the board examination are rewarded, compared to those who bestow their attention in coaching classes. The petitioners were not aware of the proposed system, when they were studying the I year. Had they been put on notice about this change when they were studying I year, there would certainly have been some change as to the manner in which they should undergo instructions in the regular institutions. A balancing act in this proposed system needs to be thought over. Having regard to the complexity involved in the matter, and the fact that the examination is going to be common for the entire country, this Court refrains from indicating any measures in this regard, but requires the 2nd respondent to focus its attention upon it, and to take a decision in this regard, within a period of four weeks. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the percentile system introduced by the 2nd respondent, however, by directing it to examine the disadvantage which the petitioners may have suffered vis--vis their un-preparedness in the present system when they were studying the I year of intermediate examination. The 1st respondent shall release a press note in this behalf within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into account the relevant aspects that are germane to the issue. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.