JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.13580 and 14296 of 2013 as the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.13580 of 2013. 2. The petitioner passed his M.B.B.S. and M.S. General Surgery. The respondents issued its prospectus for M.Ch. (Urology). It was a solitary seat in the superspeciality course. A note was appended in Chapter III of the prospectus that “in all the above super specialty courses, 1st seat will be filled up from Haryana Domicile candidates whenever if 2nd seat is available, it will be open to all eligible candidates. Also if Haryana Domicile Candidate(s) for 1st seat is/are not available, such seat(s) will also be open to all eligible candidates”. The petitioner appeared in the written examination on 09.06.2013 under Roll No.200035 and was declared successful with the 1st position. Since he is not a domicile from Haryana, therefore, he would not get admission in M.Ch. (Urology) despite securing 1st position in the merit. Thus, he challenged the aforesaid note in which it is provided that if there is one seat in the superspeciality course, it shall be filled up with the candidate of Haryana domicile. 3. After the issuance of notice, order was passed by this Court on 27.06.2013 directing the respondents to carry on with the process of counselling and complete the other formalities but would not finalize the admission to the seat of M.Ch. (Urology) for which the petitioner is one of the candidates and topper in the list as per written examination. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reservation of single seat amounts to 100% reservation which is contrary to the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association, 1998 AIR (SC) 1767 and Dr. Puneet Gulati & Ors. v. State of kerala & Ors., (2011) 8 SCLR 060. He has further submitted that even in the case of superspeciality course, there should not be any reservation. 5. In reply, counsel for the respondents has submitted that no seat has been reserved rather the preference has been given to Haryana domicile in respect of first seat and wherever 2nd seat is available, it will be open to all the eligible candidates. 5. In reply, counsel for the respondents has submitted that no seat has been reserved rather the preference has been given to Haryana domicile in respect of first seat and wherever 2nd seat is available, it will be open to all the eligible candidates. He has further submitted that it is provided in Clause 9 of Chapter V of the prospectus that if any candidate has any objection regarding any condition provided in the prospectus, then it can be challenged within a week before the date of holding of written test, whereas, in the present case, the written test was held on 09.06.2013 but the note/condition prescribed in prospectus in Chapter III was not challenged by the petitioner before the written test. 6. As a matter of fact, counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no reservation rather preferential seat has been given to the Haryana domicile. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The question involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Puneet Bali and others’ case (supra), in which the constitutional validity of reservations for local students by the State for admission to Superspeciality Medical Courses in the State of Kerala was challenged because it was provided in the prospectus that the students who had completed MBBS or Postgraduate courses from Medical Colleges in Kerala and Doctors who had done Rural Service in Kerala, would be given preference for admission and students who were not from Kerala would get a chance for admission only if there were no students from the State of Kerala available for admission in those courses. The students, who were from outside Kerala and participated in the written examination, questioned the validity of condition laid down in the prospectus by which preference and reservation was provided to the local students. The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that after participating in the entrance examination they were not entitled to challenge the prospectus, which was later on found to be maintainable by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court and the matter was remanded back to the appeal court for a decision on merits. It has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment that to challenge the above condition of the prospectus, the main ground is that 100% reservation was unconstitutional as had been held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others, (2003) 11 SCC 146 . The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court extracted the relevant portion from the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri’s case (supra) and it was, inter alia, held that the higher the level of speciality, the lesser the role of reservation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has held that “having considered the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench as to the constitutional validity of the first and second prospectus reserving 100% of the seats in the said Super Specialty Courses for students from Kerala alone”, meaning thereby, the view expressed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in which they have held that 100% reservation is unconstitutional was upheld. 9. Similarly, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research’s case (supra), constitutional validity of the reservation for members of Scheduled Castes in a single cadre post was challenged, which was allowed with the observation that “we, therefore, approve the view taken in Chkradhar’s case that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasoning in Madhav’s case, Brij Lal Thakur’s case and Bageswari Prasad’s case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point”. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(3) RSJ 209, which was pertaining to admission in MDS and MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses on the basis of institutional preference in which it has been held that the institutional preference is constitutionally permissible by laying down the intelligible differentia of identifying the students of colleges and Universities which would constitute a separate class. 11. 11. This judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case which pertains to 100% reservation of seat for admission in a superspeciality course for a Haryana domicile. In this regard, the law laid down in Dr. Puneet Bali and others’ case (supra) would apply. 12. In view thereof, I find the present writ petition to be meritorious and hence, the same is hereby allowed and the note/condition in Chapter III of the prospectus making 100% reservation of the seat of superspeciality course for Haryana domicile is hereby struck down being illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Puneet Bali and others’ case (supra). ---------------------