JUDGMENT AND ORDER : (Ajit Singh, J.) This bunch of WP(C) Nos. 4058, 4059, 4060, 4146, 4150, 4152, 4153, 4171, 4172, 4185, 4203, 4225, 4229, 4261, 4281, 4292, 4294, 4336, 4359, 4407, 4433, 4509, 4384, 4482, 4400, 4586, 4466, 4056 and 4563, all of 2017, are listed before us because the petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (in short “Rules, 2017”). In the alternative, some of the petitioners have also prayed that Rules, 2017 cannot be retrospectively made applicable to them because these Rules were notified in the official gazette on 1.7.2017 whereas admission process had commenced from January, 2017 with the issuance of admission notice through National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Needless to mention that issue regarding applicability of Rules, 2017 on the petitioners can be decided by the Single Judge Bench and the aggrieved party has a remedy of filing intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. However, the issue pertaining to vires of Rule 3(1)(c) can be decided only by a Division Bench. 2. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to decide whether Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the Constitution. It reads as under:- “3. Eligibility for State Quota Seats: The following conditions must be fulfilled:- 1(c) The candidate must study in all classes from Class-VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the Qualifying Examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. (Certificate at Annexure-II in Application Form at Schedule-I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling): Provided that if a candidate studies outside Assam from Class-VII onwards because his/her father/mother is posted outside Assam as a Assam State Government employee or as a Central Government Employee or as an Employee of a Corporation/Agency/instrumentality under Govt. of Assam or Central Govt. whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting, then the period for which the said father/mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable for such candidate. (Certificate of employment of father/mother outside the State indicating the period of service from the concerned authority must be submitted in a candidate is called for counseling.” 3. of Assam or Central Govt. whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting, then the period for which the said father/mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable for such candidate. (Certificate of employment of father/mother outside the State indicating the period of service from the concerned authority must be submitted in a candidate is called for counseling.” 3. The petitioners are seeking admission into MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam reserved under State Quota Seats. The admissions are governed by the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulation of Admissions into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 ( in short “the Rules”). The State Quota Seats is defined as the seats available for admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam as per the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India norms, excluding the seats allotted under (15%) All India Quota, Central Pool, NE State Quota. The above quoted Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules provides that for eligibility to get admission in the State Quota Seats, candidate must study in all classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. The Rule also provides that if the candidate has studied outside Assam from Class VII onwards because his/her father/mother is posted outside Assam as a Assam State Government employee or as a Central Government Employee or an Employee of a Corporation/Agency/instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting, then the period for which father/mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable. 4. None of the petitioners have studied in all classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam. The petitioners also do not claim to have studied outside Assam from Class VII onwards because his/her father/mother is posted outside Assam as a Assam State Government employee or as a Central Government Employee or as an Employee of a Corporation/Agency/instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting. They have, therefore, been found ineligible for admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical and Dental Colleges of Assam. 5. They have, therefore, been found ineligible for admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical and Dental Colleges of Assam. 5. According to the petitioners, the impugned Rule 3(1)(c) is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners also submit that since all of them are residents of Assam and intend to serve the State of Assam as doctors, they cannot be denied admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses on the ground that they did not study in all classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam. It is to be noted that some of the petitioners have studied in classes from Class VII to X in the State of Assam but have studied in Classes XI to XII outside the State. And because such petitioners did not study in all classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam, they too have been found ineligible for admission. 6. The State Government, in reply, has strongly defended the Rule on the ground that it is strictly in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 135 as well as the decision of the Gauhati High Court in State of Assam vs. Sitalakshmi Srinivasan, 2014 (4) GLT 396. According to the State Government, the main object behind enacting the impugned Rule is to protect the interest of the candidates/students of the State of Assam, who have pursued their matriculation and Higher Secondary Courses in the State of Assam and aspire to pursue MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical Colleges of the State and thereafter serve the State as doctors. The State has also averred that out of total MBBS seats, 85% are allotted to the State Quota Seats and rest 15% seats are reserved for the students selected by the Central Government under All India Quota and that reservation of State Quota Seats is made for giving institutional benefits to the candidates/students, who have studied in educational Institutes of Assam. 7. 7. In the case of Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana (supra), an identical rule requiring the candidates to study 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the State of Haryana for admission into MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical/Dental Colleges of Haryana under State Quota Seats (85%) was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Article 14, but the Supreme Court disagreed with the candidates therein and held that such eligibility condition requiring candidates to study preceding 3 years in recognized schools in respect of 85% State Quota Seats cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, such eligibility criteria is in conformity with its earlier decisions in Jagadish Saran (Dr.) vs. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 and Pradeep Jain (Dr.) vs. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 . In both the cases, the Supreme Court has settled the law that reservation on residential or institutional preference for students clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the Medical Colleges of State is permissible. 8. Also, in the case of State of Assam vs. Sitalakshmi Srinivasan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that a condition requiring ownership of property in the State of Assam for admission into MBBS/BDS Courses is not permissible, but requirement of residence in the State can be laid down by specific and objective parameters such as residence for particular period or study in the State for particular duration. 9. It is relevant to mention here that in a bunch of writ petitions, the provisions of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges of Assam and Regional Dental College, Guwahati (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2015, as amended by Notification dated 30.01.2016, were put to challenge. By the said amendment in 2016 it was stipulated that candidates, including sons/daughters of the officers of All India Services must study in all classes of Class VI to X in the State of Assam and must pass HSLC or equivalent examination conducted by Government recognised Board/Council from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. Prior to the said amendment, the stipulation was in respect of all classes from Class VII to XII. Prior to the said amendment, the stipulation was in respect of all classes from Class VII to XII. In the said bunch of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) 4904/2016 (Sri Hira Lal Choudhury v. State of Assam and Ors.), the Division Bench of this Court declared that the requirement as provided in Rule 3(1)(c), as amended in 2016, was irrational, legally discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench noticed that whereas pursuing education in Class-XI and XII from a school outside the State was not treated as a disqualification under the amended Rule 3(1)(c), but in respect of candidates who have done their schooling upto Matriculation standard from a school outside the State were made ineligible. The Division Bench noticed that the nature of education upto Matriculation level is not of much relevance for MBBS curriculum as in the case of the subjects in Class-XI and XII which has greater connection and relevance for medical studies. The question that arose for consideration was whether the distinction made amongst the students between the two groups was based on any rational criteria, whether classification of Class-XI and XII in one group and Class-VI and X in the other amounts to class legislation which is prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution. In the final analysis, the classification was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The said writ petitions were allowed with directions that admission of the candidates be processed as per their respective ranking in the Entrance Examination without disqualifying them for having done their schooling in Class-VI and X from schools outside the State. And later the same Bench in Review Petition No.7/2017 vide order dated 24.1.2017 clarified that the law laid down in the case of State of Assam vs. Sitalakshmi Srinivasan (supra) has not been diluted and that the State is also competent to prescribe reasonable duration of study by the candidates in Assam’s schools to qualify for the State Quota Seats. 10. In the present bunch of cases, we are concerned with 2017 Rules, wherein validity of Rule 3(1)(c) is challenged insofar as it requires a candidate to have studied in all classes from Class-VII to XII in the State of Assam. 10. In the present bunch of cases, we are concerned with 2017 Rules, wherein validity of Rule 3(1)(c) is challenged insofar as it requires a candidate to have studied in all classes from Class-VII to XII in the State of Assam. This provision is not affected by the Division Bench order in Hira Lal Choudhury (supra), in as much as, the requirement of schooling from Class- VI to Class-X under the aforesaid 2015 Rules, as amended in 2016, was interfered with for the apparent classification and relaxation given to the candidates who had studied Class-XI and XII from institutions outside the State. The present cases are apparently covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana (supra). To make the Rules of 2017 more wholesome in the light of Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana, the State Government may consider and confine the requirement of study in the State of Assam to Class-X, XI and XII without insisting on studies in the State of Assam in respect of Class-VII, VIII and IX. It is left to the wisdom of the State Government for taking a conscious decision in this regard. 11. Mainly two decisions of the Supreme Court were cited on behalf of the petitioners in support of their submission that Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules, 2017 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the first decision, Nikhil Himthani vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237 , the issue was regarding admission in Post Graduate Medical Course by a candidate, who was a permanent resident of Delhi and had qualified in the All India Pre-Medical Test conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education for the 15% seats reserved for the All India Quota. He was admitted in the MBBS Course at Haldwani in the State of Uttarakhand but was denied admission to Post Graduate Medical Course in that State. It is in such situation, the Supreme Court held that a candidate cannot be denied admission to Post Graduate Course merely because he was not admitted to the MBBS course through Uttarakhand State PMT or he was not a domicile of Uttarakhand when he was admitted to MBBS Course through the 15% All India Quota. The decision is apparently distinguishable from the issue involved in the present bunch of cases and therefore, it does not help the petitioners. The decision is apparently distinguishable from the issue involved in the present bunch of cases and therefore, it does not help the petitioners. The second decision, Suneel Jatley vs. State of Haryana, (1984) 4 SCC 296 also does not help the petitioners because in that case, reservation of seats for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for students who received education from Classes I to VIII in common rural schools as against students educated in urban schools from Classes I to VIII standard was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Here, there is no such reservation of seats for students who have received education from Classes VII to XII in common rural schools as against students educated in urban schools. 12. In three of the writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No.4407/2017, WP(C) No.4433/2017 and WP(C) No.4336/2017, an additional ground is raised in respect of the proviso to Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules, 2017. Challenge is on the ground that the proviso have introduced a classification between an Assam State Government employee or a Central Government employee or employee of a Corporation/ Agency/ Instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central Government, on one hand, and a Government employee employed in another State, on the other hand. In the aforesaid three writ petitions, the respective fathers of the candidates are either serving under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh or Mizoram. Submission made that if a Central Government employee or an employee of a Corporation/Agency/Instrumentality under the Government of Assam or Central Government can be provided relaxation to the rigour of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules, 2017, the same has to be made applicable to a Government employee employed in another State and who is otherwise a resident of Assam but residing in the other State in the course of his service. We have tested this argument having regard to a harmonious reading of Rule 3 of the Rules. If the challenge so made by the petitioners on the aforesaid aspect is to be answered favourably, it would amount to rendering Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules as otiose, inasmuch as, the prescription is not only of being a permanent resident of Assam but also includes continuous residence in the State of Assam for a period not less than 20 years. The relaxation so provided under the proviso to Rule 3(1)(c), in our considered opinion, lays down rational and reasonable differentia and does not suffer from the vice of class legislation. We may add that unlike a Central Government employee or an employee of a Corporation/Agency/Instrumentality under the Central Government who can be posted in the State of Assam, employees serving in another State under respective State Governments cannot be posted in the State of Assam. 13. We, therefore, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana and of this High Court in State of Assam vs. Sitalakshmi Srinivasan cannot agree with the petitioners that Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules is ultra vires to the Constitution. 14. As regard alternative issue raised by some of the petitioners that Rules, 2017 cannot be retrospectively made applicable to them, we deem it proper to refer the same for its decision before the Single Judge Bench of this High Court. The Registry shall now list the cases before the Single Judge Bench as per roster on priority basis preferably in the next week.