JUDGMENT By the Court.—By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought to challenge the validity of a Government Order dated 16 December 2013 which regulates admissions to the Uttar Pradesh Post-Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (U.P.P.G.M.E.E-2014). All the petitioners obtained the M.B.B.S. Degree from the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Science, Karnataka. The petitioners have stated that since they have not completed their M.B.B.S. from the State of U.P., they are being denied the benefit of competing for the State quota of 50% in the Post-Graduate Medical Courses. Consequently, it has been contended by the petitioners that as a result, even if a student is domiciled in U.P., by operation of the Government Order he would be deprived of the opportunity to compete for the State quota. 2. The Information Brochure for the U.P.P.G.M.E.E-2014 stipulates that the total available seats in the State quota would be governed by an eligibility requirement that candidates, who passed the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses from certain State run Medical Colleges and from recognized Private Medical and Dental Colleges of the Uttar Pradesh are eligible to appear in the Entrance Examination. The relevant condition is to the following effect: “Eligibility for Admission : 1. Candidates who have passed MBBS/BDS course from the State Medical Colleges of Agra, Allahabad, Gorakhpur, Jhansi, Kanpur, Meerut, UP Rural Institute of Medical Science & Research Saifai Etawah, Medical/Dental Faculty of K.G. Medical University, Lucknow and recognized Private Medical/Dental Colleges of U.P. are eligible to appear in the entrance examination (Vide GO, No. 4097/71-2-13-103/2011) Dated: 16-12-201.” The brochure embodies the requirement which is stipulated in the Government Order dated 16 December 2013. Among other conditions, it is provided that fifty per cent seats are available in the All India quota and the balance fifty per cent are State quota seats available for students who have to appear at the U.P.P.G.M.E.E-2014. 3. Among other conditions, it is provided that fifty per cent seats are available in the All India quota and the balance fifty per cent are State quota seats available for students who have to appear at the U.P.P.G.M.E.E-2014. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that in certain other States such as the State of Karnataka, a restrictive condition of the nature that is imposed in the State of Uttar Pradesh has not been imposed and the eligibility criteria for the Post-Graduate Entrance Test in that State is that the students should be of Karnataka origin and should have pursued the M.B.B.S. Degree Course in a Medical College situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka but such College should be affiliated to a University recognized by the Medical Council of India. However, it has been submitted that since the petitioners are not of Karnataka origin, they are not eligible to compete for the Post-Graduate Entrance Examination in Karnataka, whereas in the State of U.P. they have been disabled from appearing in the Medical Entrance Examination on the ground that they have not passed their M.B.B.S. course from the State run Medical Colleges within the State or a Private recognized Medical College. 4. The issue as to whether an Institutional Preference of the nature that is provided by the Government Order dated 16 December 2013, is constitutionally valid has been considered in several judgments of the Supreme Court. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it would be sufficient to refer to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others, (2003) 11 SCC 146 . 5. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of an institutional preference which is based on a reasonable and identifiable classification on the ground that the State would be justified in stipulating an institutional preference as expenses have to be met by the State from its resources for the purpose of medical education. Reservation by way of institutional preference, therefore, should be confined to 50% of the seats on the ground that this would be in the public interest. During the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654 , in which the concept of an institutional preference was duly noticed. During the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654 , in which the concept of an institutional preference was duly noticed. Institutional preference permits a student who has passed the M.B.B.S. Course from a Medical College or University to be given preference for admission to the Post-Graduate Course in the Institution. In Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) the Supreme Court had held that such institutional preference should not, in any event, exceed 50 per cent of the total number of available seats for admission to the post-graduate course. This view in regard to the institutional preference was reiterated in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri (supra). 6. In the circumstances, there would be no valid reason to assail the policy of the State of U.P. under which institutional preference has been granted to students who have passed the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course from State Medical Colleges or from a recognized private Medical College/Dental College. A student who has appeared in the M.B.B.S. Course from outside the State of U.P. cannot obviously qualify for an institutional preference since institutional preference, by its very nature, is confined to those students who have passed their M.B.B.S. Course from a Medical College within the State. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere and it is not open to the petitioners to contend that institutional preference should be extended to students who have not obtained their M.B.B.S. Degree from a College situated within the State of U.P. merely because their permanent residence is in the State of U.P. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. —————