JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. The petitioner student has approached this court seeking prayer to set aside the second merit list published by the first respondent-the National Institute of Design, wherein the cut-off marks for Scheduled Category are prescribed higher than the cutoff marks provided for general category for the admission to the course of Master of Designs-Transportation & Automobile Design Programme for the batch of Academic Year 2016-2017. 2. In the impugned second merit list, the cutoff marks for the scheduled caste category are mentioned to be 62.89%, whereas for the general category they are put at 57.21%. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside all the actions taken by the first respondent institute in furtherance of the said second merit list. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the institute to follow the decided criteria for selection and admission to the course in question. The petitioner finally prayed to give him admission to the aforementioned course for the Batch 2016-2017 with all consequential benefits. 3. The facts are that the petitioner, borne on 26th October, 1994, belonging to the scheduled caste, having passed All India Secondary SCH Examination-2009 and All India Senior School Certificate Examination-2011 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, and Bachelor degree of Technology (B. Tech.) from Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar in April, 2015, aspires to seek admission in the Master of Design (M. Des.) course in the Academic Year 2016-2017 in the first respondent-the National Institute of Design (NID), which is an autonomous institute under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, as stated in the information booklet of the institute for admission for 2016-2017. The institute by declaring its information booklet on the website invited on-line application for the admission to the course. 3.1 The admission process consists of Design Aptitude Test, Studio test and interview, with respective weightage of 20%, 50% and 30%. In clause 1.4 of the Information Booklet, relaxation in cut-off scores for candidates for the reserved category is mentioned. 3.2 The said rule 1.4 is extracted hereinbelow: "The score of the last qualified candidate (based on the number of seats available) in the merit list for general category will be considered as cut-off score for general category. In clause 1.4 of the Information Booklet, relaxation in cut-off scores for candidates for the reserved category is mentioned. 3.2 The said rule 1.4 is extracted hereinbelow: "The score of the last qualified candidate (based on the number of seats available) in the merit list for general category will be considered as cut-off score for general category. Candidates belonging to the OBC-NCL, SC, ST and PH categories will be declared as qualified on the basis of a relaxed criterion as follows:- OBC-NCL SC ST PH 10% less than cut off score of General Category 20% less than cut off score of General Category 20% less than cut off score of General Category 30% less than cut off score of General Category 3.3 As to the working of the procedure, the following is prescribed. "Unfilled seats based on cut-off in merit or unavailability of candidate in the OBC-NCL category will be allotted to General category candidates. Seats remaining vacant under the SC and ST categories shall NOT be allotted to candidates belonging to other categories. The reservation for PH candidates is horizontal across all categories. Reservation policy is not applicable to candidates who have applied under overseas category. The category chosen by a candidate at the time of submitting the application form is final and requests for change of category will NOT be permitted under any circumstances. The number of seats available, category wise for B. Des and different disciplines of M. Des. programme is as declared in the Admission 2016-17 Information Booklet, Section 10, page number 14, available online at heep://admissions.nid.edu. Change of discipline at any stage of the admission process and thereafter is strictly NOT allowed." 3.4 The petitioner applied on-line. His application was provided Application No. 443678 by the Institute, he was issued admit card for written test, it was conducted on 10th January, 2016, the petitioner participated, thereafter an admit card was issued to him for studio test and interview. The studio test was conducted on 09th April, 2016. The petitioner appeared in both-studio test and the interview. In the result declared, the petitioner was ranked fourth in the scheduled caste category with the weightage score of 52.13 in the discipline of his choice. The petitioner was not, however, offered counseling for the purpose of admission, the reason being that the respondent-Institute decided higher cut-off marks for the scheduled caste category in the second merit list published. In the result declared, the petitioner was ranked fourth in the scheduled caste category with the weightage score of 52.13 in the discipline of his choice. The petitioner was not, however, offered counseling for the purpose of admission, the reason being that the respondent-Institute decided higher cut-off marks for the scheduled caste category in the second merit list published. 3.5 It may be stated that in the first merit list, cut-off score for general category was 57.21 and for the scheduled caste category it was fixed at 45.77 for the course in question. When the second merit list came out, cut-off score in the general category was same, that is 57.21, for scheduled caste category it was provided to be 62.89. As per Rule 1.4 quoted above, the marks for reserved category has to be less to the percentage indicated. For scheduled caste category it is provided in the rule that cut-off scores would be 20% less than the cut-off score of general category. 3.6 The aforesaid position of cut-off score in the general category and scheduled caste category as was manifested in the first merit list and shown in the second merit list were evident from the copy of first and second merit list produced on record of the petition. The relevant entries may be reproduced hereinbelow. First Merit List : Cut off Scores Sr. No. General Category OBC-NCL Category SC Category ST Category PH (H All Ca No. of seats Cut off score (excl. PH) No. of seats Cut off score (excl. PH) No. of seats Cut off score (excl. PH) No. of seats Cut off score (excl. PH) No. of seats 12 Transportat-ion & Auto Design 8 57.21 4 51.49 2 45.77 1 45.77 1 Second Merit List : Cut off Scores Sr. No. Programges/Category General Category OBC-NCL Category SC Category ST Category PH (horizontal – all categories) (excluding PH) (excluding PH) (excluding PH) (excluding PH) Score 18 Transportati-on & Auto Design 57.21 65.34 62.89 49.71 NA* 3.7 By filing an affidavit-in-reply to the petitioner's case, a contest was raised. The first respondent speaking on oath through its Secretary & Head, General Administration Department, did not dispute and accepted that as per the admission policy, the cut-off marks for scheduled caste candidates are 20% less than the cut-off score of general category. The first respondent speaking on oath through its Secretary & Head, General Administration Department, did not dispute and accepted that as per the admission policy, the cut-off marks for scheduled caste candidates are 20% less than the cut-off score of general category. It was further accepted that for the Academic Year 2016-17, cut-off marks for general category candidates was 57.21 and for that of scheduled caste category candidate the same was determined at 45.77 by deducting 20% from the general category cut-off score. In other words, the facts regarding the cut-off marks and provision with regard thereto was not disputed. 3.8 The first respondent has put forth the following case. "...out of the total students appearing on Scheduled Caste candidates, only 6 students qualified the cut-off of 45.77. It is stated that the Petitioner herein stood 4th in rank amongst the Scheduled Caste candidates at 52.13, which fact is admitted by the Petitioner in the memorandum of petition. It is stated that in the merit list, one Mr. Aman Verma scored 64.76 and stood first, Mr. Seshasayee S. scored 62.89 and stood second and Mr. Sai Kishan Marri scored 56.68 and stood third. It is stated that since only 2 seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste Category, the seats were offered to Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshaseyee S., who ranked first and second respectively." 3.9 It was contended that the said students Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. accepted the seats offered to them and there was no question of offering seats to other candidates from scheduled caste category. It was contended that remaining students were therefore not offered seats. It was then stated, "Merely because the Petitioner had qualified the minimum cut off score, it would not entitle the Petitioner to offering of a seat in the Institute." A further affidavit-in-reply is filed to contend that said students who stood first and second respectively in the merit list of scheduled caste candidates for the course in question had submitted their forms for scheduled caste category only. They were accordingly treated for age as well as cut-off relaxation and were given placement in the list on such basis. 4. Learned advocate Mr. They were accordingly treated for age as well as cut-off relaxation and were given placement in the list on such basis. 4. Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara submitted that providing higher cut-off marks under the scheduled caste category than the cut-off score for the general category was evidently against the rules for admission and the policy for providing cut-off marks for the category in question. He submitted that there was a legitimate expectation based on the rules for admission that since the cut-off marks for the petitioner's category was to be less and they were provided to be less in the first merit list than that of general category, that the petitioner would be able to get the admission. He submitted that the said named two students Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshaseyee S. could not have been given the merit place in the list meant for scheduled category since because of their merit score, they were qualified to be given admission along with the general category students, and they ought to have been given admission in that way only. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Y.L. Yamul [ AIR 1996 SC 1378 ] and Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [ (2007) 8 SCC 785 ]. He countered the ground sought to be raised by the first respondent that the application forms of the said two students was in scheduled caste category, therefore they were admitted in the same category, by submitting that merely because they sought admission in the reserved category and paid fees accordingly, would be of no consequence for the purpose of observing the rules of preparation of merit list for different categories, by pressing into service the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2010) 3 SCC 119 ]. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nandish Chudgar for Nanavati Associates for the first respondent resisted the petition. According to his submission, exercise of giving admission as above in which the petitioner could not be admitted, was not intended to do favour to anybody. He submitted that there were 15 seats available for admission to the course. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nandish Chudgar for Nanavati Associates for the first respondent resisted the petition. According to his submission, exercise of giving admission as above in which the petitioner could not be admitted, was not intended to do favour to anybody. He submitted that there were 15 seats available for admission to the course. Referring to Page 52, details was given that in general category there were 08 seats, in scheduled category there were 02 seats, whereas 01 seat was available for scheduled tribe and 04 seats for other backward classes. He emphasised that two students named Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. were the applicants in the reserved category. They belonged to the reserved category students and their applications were submitted in that category by giving concession in fee and relaxation in age. He submitted that therefore they were required to be treated along with the class of scheduled caste and given admission in that category. According to his submission if the case of the petitioner is accepted, a student of scheduled caste category having given age relaxation from 30 years to 33 years, would have to be construed in general category list which would be in breach of the requirement of upper age limit. Learned advocate however could not dispute that petitioner's merit score was higher than some students who are given admission in the scheduled caste category, which had happened due to the said two students scoring higher marks were placed in scheduled caste merit list. 4.3 The submission about upper age may be dealt with right now, for, no such situation arises in the present case, the two students named Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. are below 30 years of age, therefore they satisfy the upper age limit prescription applicable to the general category. In a given case such situation may arise, however the same is left to be considered in the appropriate case. Admission to those two students to general category is a mandate of law, as discussed hereinbelow and could not have been resisted on the aforesaid non-extant ground. 4.4 In the further affidavit, following was submitted, which was highlighted by learned advocate for the respondent. "..Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Admission to those two students to general category is a mandate of law, as discussed hereinbelow and could not have been resisted on the aforesaid non-extant ground. 4.4 In the further affidavit, following was submitted, which was highlighted by learned advocate for the respondent. "..Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. who stood first and second respectively in the merit list of Scheduled Caste Candidates for the Course of Transportation & Automobile Design, had submitted their Application Forms for Scheduled Caste Category only. It is submitted that therefore, the application fees, age relaxation and cut-off relaxation were all available to the said candidates as per the admission policy of the Respondent Institute. It is stated that the application fees for M. Des in 1 discipline by a General Category candidate is Rs. 1500 whereas it is Rs. 750 for Scheduled Caste Category candidates. It is stated that Mr. Aman Verma had applied only for 1 discipline and therefore, the Application fees paid by him was Rs. 750 and that since Mr. Seshasayee S. applied for 2 disciplines, his application was Rs. 1500 (Rs. 750 for each discipline). It is stated that the aforesaid candidates have having availed of the benefits of reserved category candidates, they cannot be considered in the general category. Moreover, both the candidates had applied only under the Scheduled Caste Category and therefore, they were considered only under the scheduled caste category. In this view of the matter, when only two seats were reserved for scheduled caste category, the said two seats were offered to Mr. Aman Verma (Scheduled Caste Merit No. 1) and Mr. Seshasayee S. (Scheduled Caste Merit No. 2). As both of them accepted the offer, there was no further seat available in scheduled caste category. Hence, the Petitioner was not offered the seat under Scheduled Caste Category." 5. Having considered the controversy, it is well settled principle that a student belonging to reserved category but scoring higher merits capable of being competing with general category merit, would have to be given admission in the general category without working anything to his disadvantage. In Ritesh R. Shah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors., [ AIR 1996 SC 1378 ] delineates the principle in the following words. In Ritesh R. Shah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors., [ AIR 1996 SC 1378 ] delineates the principle in the following words. "A student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they will be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category-candidate and not as a reserved category candidate." (Page 17) (emphasis supplied) 5.1 A subsequent decision in Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [ (2007) 8 SCC 785 ] takes a reiterating view with reference to reservations under Article 16(4) of the Constitution which are social reservations, also called vertical reservation, as under. "Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are "vertical reservations". Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations". Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective Backward Class. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs stood filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category." (Paras 9 and 17) 5.2 As far as submission that since the said two students had applied in scheduled caste category were treated accordingly for the purpose of fees, etc., a direct answer to the submission and contention is given by the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2010) 3 SCC 119 ]. It was held that conditions of age relaxation or waiver of examination fees for SC, ST or OBC candidates do not amount to reservation, nor does they imply relaxation of standards. In that case, the State of U.P. conducted a competitive examination for filling up the post of Sub Inspectors of Civil Police and Platoon Commanders by direct recruitment. The candidates belonging to reserved category were granted waiver of examination fee and also relaxation in upper age limit, as provided in Section 8(1) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. The appellants contended that the candidates who had availed concession and relaxation should be adjusted against reserved vacancies even if marks secured by them in open competition were more than the marks secured by a last general candidate in open competition. 5.3 The plea was not accepted by the High Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court holding thus, "...the submissions of the appellants has relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select lit." (Para 48) 5.4 The stand adopted by the respondents and the act of giving admission to the two scheduled caste category students in the scheduled caste category though on merits they were required to be considered for admission in general category, could be tested on the principle spelt out in caravan of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the merit alone has to be the criteria and yardstick for selection to the admission for higher education courses. 5.5 The Division Bench of this Court in Kolasani Sai Yashwanth Reddy Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2015 Gujarat 188], after considering various decisions observed, "... The rule that merit ha have its way in the admission process is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and the authorities concerned are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur. Therefore, may be that valid categories or classes of students are recognized for the purpose of offering them quota of seats for admission, but within that class, it is the order of merit which must have its play and way." (para 7.1) 5.6 Applying the above bound-to-be-adhered principle, considering the merit score of said Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. which is 64.76 and 62.89 respectively, they come up along with general category candidates. The copy of admission list for general category (Page 59 in the petition) reveals that the first four candidates in the merit-rank in the list have got the score of 72.08, 68.24, 65.80, 63.84 and further. Thus, the two candidates above named Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. whose merit is 64.76 and 62.89, are liable to be placed at Serial No. 4 and at Serial No. 6 respectively on merits in the general category list. The general category list admits the students at Serial Nos. Thus, the two candidates above named Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. whose merit is 64.76 and 62.89, are liable to be placed at Serial No. 4 and at Serial No. 6 respectively on merits in the general category list. The general category list admits the students at Serial Nos. 21 and 22 having the merit score of 44.92 and 43.57 and the subsequent students have got merit lesser than that. 5.7 In the scheduled caste category the last merit admitted along with the admission with the said two students who stand on merits at Serial Nos. 4 and 6 in the general category merit, is 32.39. Going above, it is 36.98, 44.38, 51.27 and further. This clearly shows that in the schedule caste category list the petitioner's exclusion though he has scored the merit mark of 52.13 is clearly discriminates against in terms of merits. Though the petitioner has got higher merit, he has not find place in the admission-merit list but the students below-merit have been included. The merit of the petitioner is sacrificed. This is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This has resulted because of wrong application of the admission rules and the policy. The students who would be displaced from the merit list by virtue of transfer of two students Mr. Aman Verma and Mr. Seshasayee S. to the general merit category and admitting the petitioner to course in scheduled caste category, would be admittedly the students possessing lesser merit, therefore question of injustice does not arise. 6. Therefore, in view of clear position emerging from the facts and the law discussed above, the act on part of the respondent Institute in not including the name of the petitioner in the merit list for scheduled caste category stands erroneous in law. Giving admission to the two students named above who had applied in the scheduled caste category, but had fared on merits to compete along with the general category students with higher merit could not have been placed in the merit list for scheduled caste. It was a mistaken action in law to place them in the scheduled caste list and giving admission on that basis. The resultant effect was breach of Article 14 in terms of equality and equal treatment on merits, and brought about in ultimate analysis, a casualty to merit. The petition deserves to be allowed. 7. It was a mistaken action in law to place them in the scheduled caste list and giving admission on that basis. The resultant effect was breach of Article 14 in terms of equality and equal treatment on merits, and brought about in ultimate analysis, a casualty to merit. The petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, discussion and the position of law obtained, the petition succeeds. The second merit list on the basis of cutoff-scores published by the first respondent-National Institute of Design, whereby the cut-off marks (62.89%) for Scheduled Caste category, higher than the cut-off marks (57.21%) provided for General category, for the purpose of admissions to the Master of Degree (M. Des) Course-Transportation and Automobile Design Programme for the Batch of Academic Year 20116-17, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all actions on part of the respondent Institute in furtherance of such List in so far as it resulted into denial of admission to the petitioner, are set aside. The first respondent is directed to give admission to the petitioner in the course in question in the Batch of Academic Year 2016-17 and accord the resultant rights. The petition is disposed of accordingly. FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Vyas for Nanavati Associates for the first respondent prays that the present judgment may be stayed for two weeks. In view of what is held hereinabove, request cannot be acceded to. Hence rejected.