Judgment V.K. Sharma, J. The issue involved in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution concerns application of ‘4 point roster’ in terms of sub clause 3.5 (i) (iii) of clause 3 ‘Eligibility & Distribution of Seats’ of Part-A of the ‘Prospectus-cum-Application Form for Counselling and Admission for Post Graduate degree (MD/MS) Courses in Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital, Shimla and Dr. Rajindera Prasad Government Medical College and Hosptial Kangra at Tanda’, Annexure P-9, vis-à-vis ‘66.6% of the State Quota Seats’ under sub clause 3.1 (A) of clause 3 of Part-A of the said Prospectus, which are re-produced below for ready reference:- 3.1 (A) HPHS (In-service GDO) Group “(i) 66.6% of the State Quota Seats will be filled-up by in service Medical Officers. The in-service group will consist of two sub-groups i.e. one sub-group consisting of regularly appointed Medical Officer and second sub-group consisting of contractual and Rogi Kalyan Samiti appointees. The distribution of seats between regular and those appointed on contract basis including Rogi Kalyan Samiti appointees will be made in the ratio proportionate to their total number as on 31.10.2013. For the academic session 2014-17 the distribution of seats between above two sub-groups will be in the ratio of 3:1.” 3.5 (i) (iii) “4 point roster has been applied for allotment of seats/specialties between the Regular GDO’s and the contractual GDO’s (including appointees of RKS) on the basis of the respective in-position strength ratio of both the categories as on 31.10.2013 i.e. (3:1). The 4 point roster will (sic. be) applicable as under:- 1. GDO (Regular) 2. GDO (Regular) 3. GDO (Contract) 4. GDO (Regular) After 4th point, it will be repeated again.” 2. According to the petitioners the way respondents No. 2 and 3 have applied sub clause 3.5(i) (iii) during counselling, the same amounts to virtual sacrificing of merit in derogation to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Duraisamy and another vs. State of T.N. and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 538, followed by State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 83 (para 19). 3. 3. Against the above backdrop, the petitioners are seeking the following substantive relief:- “That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside Conseling held by Respondents 2 and 3 on 28.3.2014 for admission to post graduate MD/MS courses in Indira Gandhi Medical College Shimla and Dr. Rajinder Prasad Govt. Medical College Kangra at Tanda under the 66.6 percent quota meant for in service candidates, qua the private respondents and direct Respondents 2 and 3 to offer the subjects allotted to the private respondents in the above mentioned counseling, again in the 2nd round of counseling and offer the said seats amongst in service candidates, be it regular in service or contractual in service candidate, purely on merit and merit alone.” 4. In support of their claim the petitioners have also relied upon Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 389 (para 21) and Satyabrata Sahoo and others vs. State of Orissa and others, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 203 (paras 26 and 27). 5. Per contra, the petition is contested by the appearing respondents on twin grounds, firstly that the petitioners, who have participated in the admission process under the aforesaid prospectus cannot approbate and reprobate and secondly they have also not laid any challenge against sub clause 3.5(i)(iii) in the writ petition. In support of these contentions reliance has been placed on (1) Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another vs. Union of India and others, (1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases 228 (para 9), (2) D.N. Chanchala vs. The State of Mysore and others etc. etc., 1971 (2) Supreme Court Cases 293 (para 18), (3) Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Punjab, Chandigarh and another, AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 319 Full Bench (paras 9, 10 and 11), (4) Gunjan Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1999 (1) Shim. L.C. 246 (paras 22 and 26) and (5) Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779 (para 7). 6. Admittedly 46 seats are available in 66.6% of the State Quota meant for in service candidates comprising of regular GDOs and the contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS), out of which 35 seats would go to regular GDOs and 11 to contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS). 6. Admittedly 46 seats are available in 66.6% of the State Quota meant for in service candidates comprising of regular GDOs and the contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS), out of which 35 seats would go to regular GDOs and 11 to contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS). However, the dispute between the parties is that according to the petitioners these seats are required to be filled in strictly in accordance with the merit determined on the basis of State rank of a particular candidate irrespective of the fact whether he is a regular GDO or a contractual GDO (including RKS appointees) and the candidates are required to be called for counselling strictly in order of merit so as to enable more meritorious candidates to opt for a speciality of their choice, the respondents contend that the candidates are required to be called for counselling strictly in accordance with sub clause 3.5(i) (iii) read with sub clause 4.1 of clause 4 ‘Counselling’ of Part-A, relevant part whereof reads as under:- “4.1 The Counselling will be held on dates mentioned in the prospectus as per the time schedule fixed by MCI/GOI based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The allotment of available seats to the eligible candidates will be made in order of merit on the basis of State merit drawn (group-wise as well as category-wise) by the Principal Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla-cum-Member Secretary Counselling Committee on the basis of score of Himachal Pradesh State AIPGMEE-2014 result supplied by the Assistant Director (Medical), NBE (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Govt. of India) New Delhi vide letter No.NBE/AIPGMEE(2014)/Result/14038 dated 4.2.2014 of those candidates who have applied on the prescribed application form within stipulated date as mentioned in the prospectus for admission to PG(MD/MS) degree courses in Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital Shimla and Dr. Rajindera Prasad Govt. Medical College & Hospital Tanda against 50% State quota seats for the academic session 2014-17 on the day of Counselling.” 7. Be it stated at this juncture that there is no dispute between the parties that 35 regular GDOs and 11 contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS) are bound to get admission in MD/MS degree courses. However, the bone of contention between them is as to who gets the preferential right to opt for a particular specialization. Be it stated at this juncture that there is no dispute between the parties that 35 regular GDOs and 11 contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS) are bound to get admission in MD/MS degree courses. However, the bone of contention between them is as to who gets the preferential right to opt for a particular specialization. The rational behind allocation of seats against 66.6% of the State quota between regular GDOs on the one hand and contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS) on the other is to accommodate both the sub groups. However, while doing so merit cannot be made sacrificial goat as is the consistent view held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as would be seen hereinafter. 8. In K. Duraisamy and another vs. State of T.N. and others, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the above principle in paras 8, 11 and 12 of the judgment as under:- “8. That the government possess the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to particulars disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled, too. It has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of this court that at the super speciality level in particular and even at the Post-Graduate level reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible. Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged under Article 15(4) or 16 (4) and extended the special mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations. (emphasis supplied) 11. (emphasis supplied) 11. On a consideration of the reasoning of the Full Bench as also the construction placed upon the Government order and the Prospectus, we are of the view that State Government, in the undoubted exercise of its power, has rightly decided, as a matter of policy, so far as the admissions to super speciality and Post Graduate Diploma /Degree /MDS courses for the academic session 1999-2000 are concerned to have scheme or pattern of two sources of candidates based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e. in-service candidates and non-service or private candidates with each one of them allocated exclusively for their own respective category of candidates fifty percent of the seats, the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. As pointed out by the Full Bench, the change in the nomenclature of the categorisation from "open competition" in 1998-1999, to "open quota" in 1999-2000 and the conspicuous omission in the scheme and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 of a specific stipulation like the one contained in clause X (5) in the prospectus for 1998-1999 that the 50% of the seats available for open competition shall be made available for selection and admission of both service and non-service candidates, as also the stipulation contained in the Government Order and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 under the caption 'criteria for selection under 50% open quota, which specifially reads that all other eligible Medical Officers except those specified in clause (iii) (d) above (meaning thereby Medical Officers who will be treated as service candidates and allowed to apply as such) are eligible to apply under 50% of the open quota, supports the stand of the State Government and the State Government and the Selection Committee and justify the selections for admission already made by them. The further stipulation that the reservation will be confined to and kept at 50% in favour of in-service candidates on merit basis, coupled with the other provisions noticed above make it abundantly clear that the selection of in service candidates is confined to and has to be kept at 50% only of the total seats and not against any of the other seats, exclusively earmarked for the non-service or private candidates. 12. 12. The mere use of the word 'reservation' per se does not have the consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the constitutional concept of a protective reservation specially designed for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to enter and adequately represented in various fields. The meaning, content and purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used. Since reservation has diverse nature and may be brought about in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects, the peculiar principles of interpretation laid down by the Courts for implementing reservations envisaged under the Constitution in order to ensure adequate and effective representation to the backward classes as a whole cannot be readily applied, out of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of candidates, who were already in service to enable such in-service candidates to acquire higher and advanced education in specialised fields to improve their professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be treated in such Medical Institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve. That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Fixation of a quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as a mere reservation and whenever a quota is fixed or provided for one or more of the classified group or category, the candidates falling in or answering the description of different classified groups in whose favour a respective quota is fixed have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each of such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category. Since we are of the view that the Full Bench has correctly come to the conclusions that the scheme adopted for selection of candidates for admission in question provided for a definite and fixed quota for the respective classified sources of admission and the reasons assigned therefor do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever to call for any interference at our hands, these appeals fail and are dismissed.” 9. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others, supra, vide para 19 of the report thus:- “19. The controversy in the present litigation does not concern the open category candidates; it is confined to in-service candidates. We, therefore, propose to preface our discussion by determining the nature of 20% seats allocated to in-service candidates - whether it is by way of reservation or quota or is a channel of entry. Our task stands simplified by the law laid down by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court recently in K. Duraiswamy and anr. v. State of T.N. The question arose for decision in almost a similar factual background. The seats were at the State level and not all-India quota seats. The State Government had allocated 50% of the seats exclusively for in-service candidates and left the remaining 50% seats as open quota, i.e., to be filled in from out of such candidates as were not in State Government service. The seats were at the State level and not all-India quota seats. The State Government had allocated 50% of the seats exclusively for in-service candidates and left the remaining 50% seats as open quota, i.e., to be filled in from out of such candidates as were not in State Government service. The classification was made as `service quota' and `open quota', for in-service candidates and other candidates respectively, confining the respective class/cadre candidates to the respective percentages earmarked for the two of them exclusively. The Court held : (i) the Government possesses the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in educational institutions or to particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what proportion; (ii) that such allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota is not to be equated with the usual form of communal reservation and, therefore, the constitutional and legal considerations relevant to communal reservations are out of place while deciding the case based on such allocation of seats; (iii) that such exclusive allocation and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats between in-service and non-service or private candidates, provided two separate channels of entry and a candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot claim to steal a march into another exclusive quota by advancing a claim based on merit. Inter se merit of the candidates in each quota shall be determined based on the merit performance of the candidates belonging to that quota; (emphasis supplied) (iv) that the mere use of the word `reservation' per se is not decisive of the nature of allocation. Whether it is a reservation or an allocation of seats for the purpose of providing two separate and exlcusive sources of entry would depend on the purpose and object with which the expression has been used and that would be determinative of the meaning, content and purport of the expression. Where the scheme envisages not a mere reservation but is one of the classification of the sources from which admissions are to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups does not attract applicability of considerations relevant to reservation simplicitor.” 10. Significance of merit has further been highlighted by the highest court of the land in Asha vs. Pt. Significance of merit has further been highlighted by the highest court of the land in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, supra, in para 21 of the judgment, which goes thus: “21. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the states, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the Rule of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a casuality. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. (Ref. Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, Harshali v. State of Maharashtra, Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, Sharwan Kumar v. DG of Health Services, Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS.)” 11. To the similar effect is the proposition of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyabrata Sahoo and others vs. State of Orissa and others, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 203. Para 27 of the judgment being relevant is re-produced below:- “27. We notice that the seats earmarked for the open category by way of merit are few in number and encroachment by the in-service candidates into that open category would violate clause 9(1)(a) of the MCI regulations, which says students for PG medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of the inter se academic merit i.e. on the basis of the merit determined by the competent test. Direct category or open category is a homogeneous class which consists of all categories of candidates who are fresh from college, who have rendered service after MBBS in Government or private hospitals in remote and difficult areas like hilly areas, tribal and rural areas and so on. Direct category or open category is a homogeneous class which consists of all categories of candidates who are fresh from college, who have rendered service after MBBS in Government or private hospitals in remote and difficult areas like hilly areas, tribal and rural areas and so on. All of them have to complete on merit being in the direct candidate category, subject to rules of reservation and eligibility. But there can be no encroachment from one category to another. Candidates of in-service category cannot encroach upon the open category, so also vice-versa.” 12. Thus, it is more than clear from the above that allocation of quota to a particular group or sub group is not akin to reservation envisaged under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the constitution. It being so “inter se merit of the candidates in each quota shall be determined based on the merit performance of the candidates belonging to that quota” : Re State of M.P. and others vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others, supra. “There cannot be any circumstance where rule of merit can be compromised” : Re Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, supra. Above all, a more meritorious candidate ought to and must get a preferential right to choose a particular speciality. 13. The rival contention that once the petitioners have elected to participate in the process enunciated under the aforesaid prospectus, they cannot approbate and reprobate, does not hold good in view of the binding nature of the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. It is for the same reason that lack of challenge against sub clause 3.5(i) (iii) of clause 3 of the Prospectus in the writ petition is of no consequence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the counselling held by respondents No. 2 and 3 on 28.3.2014, followed by subsequent counselling, if any, for admission to post graduate MD/MS courses in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Dr. Rajindera Prasad Medical College Kangra at Tanda, vis-à-vis 66.6% quota meant for in service candidates, is quashed with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to hold fresh counselling strictly in order of merit based on the State merit list, Annexure P- 11. Rajindera Prasad Medical College Kangra at Tanda, vis-à-vis 66.6% quota meant for in service candidates, is quashed with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to hold fresh counselling strictly in order of merit based on the State merit list, Annexure P- 11. To be explicit, the candidates belonging to both the sub groups, that is, regular GDOs and contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS) shown in the merit list shall be called for counselling one by one in order of their merit. To illustrate once candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 of list Annexure P-11 belonging to the first sub group of regular GDOs are called, the candidate at Sr. No.6, who belongs to the other sub group of contractual GDOs (including appointees of RKS) shall be called. The process shall proceed further so on and so forth. The entire process shall be completed well within the schedule for admission fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 14.3.2014, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 2013, Dr. Fraz Naseem & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. and the connected matters. 15. The petition as also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.