JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri L. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri K. Jagat, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State of Manipur; Shri A. Bimol, the learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Sasi, the learned counsels appearing for the JNIMS; Shri H.S. Paonam, the learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri N. Bipin, the learned counsels appearing for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and Shri B.R. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the MCI, Respondent No. 3. 2. The subject matter in issue relates to the admission of MBBS doctors to the postgraduate course under the category of the JNIMS sponsored; the Circular dated 04-04-2017 and the order dated 24-04-2017 issued by the JNIMS are under challenge in this writ petition and one more prayer has been made to direct the respondents to redraw the select list for admission to postgraduate courses in Jawaharlal Institute of Medical Sciences (hereafter referred to as “the JNIMS”). 3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the petitioners are appointed as Medical Officers vide orders dated 12-02-2015 issued by the Principal Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), Government of Manipur on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the MPSC”) and were posted in the remote areas which have been notified by the State Government. Both of them cleared the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as “the NEET-PG, 2017”) for appointment to MD/ MS/ PG Diploma courses. 3.2 The Director, JNIMS issued a circular dated 04-04-2017 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for undergoing postgraduate courses in various disciplines as mentioned therein for the academic session 2017-2018 wherein a separate classification in respect of in-service candidates for the employees of the JNIMS, with four seats being reserved for them, has been made in addition to two seats already being reserved for the JNIMS product. Being aggrieved by it, on 07-04-2017 the petitioners along with other Medical Officers submitted a representation to the Director, JNIMS requesting him to intervene in the matter and to select candidates only on the basis of the merit list. Since no response was received by them from the Director, JNIMS, the petitioners, by way of abundant caution, applied for admission to the postgraduate courses under strong protest. Since no response was received by them from the Director, JNIMS, the petitioners, by way of abundant caution, applied for admission to the postgraduate courses under strong protest. Pursuant to a recommendation made by the Selection Committee, Manipur in its meeting held on 11th and 15th of April, 2017, the JNIMS issued a notification dated 24-04-2017 showing lists of candidates under different categories including the “JNIMS SPONSORED”. On account of the said irregular and illegal proceedings followed by the official respondents, the petitioners’ name did not figure in the merit list depriving them of their right of admission. Being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents and in particular, the JNIMS, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the inter-alia grounds that as per Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “the MCI”), all India merit list and the State wise merit list be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the NEET-PG, 2017 and the admission to postgraduate courses in the State concerned shall be made strictly as per merit list and that in terms of the Notification dated 15-02-2012, proviso (iv) which has been added, provides that in determining the merit, candidates who are in government service/ public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote area and /or difficult area upto the maximum of the marks obtained in the NEET-PG, 2017. The Regulation 9 does not provide for reservation of seats in respect of in-service candidates but stipulates for giving weightage in the form of incentives. The official respondents and in particular, the JNIMS ought to follow the regulations of the MCI but has failed to follow it by making a separate classification of in-service candidates under the category of the JNIMS SPONSORED with four seats being reserved for them. 4. The stand of the State Government as reflected in its affidavit, is that the MCI mandates the rules and regulations for admission to various courses in specialities and super-specialities in various Medical Institutions in the country which provides that the admission should be done on the basis of merit in the NEET-PG. 4. The stand of the State Government as reflected in its affidavit, is that the MCI mandates the rules and regulations for admission to various courses in specialities and super-specialities in various Medical Institutions in the country which provides that the admission should be done on the basis of merit in the NEET-PG. But the MCI does not have any say in the State reservation policy and it is the prerogative of the State Government to decide the reservation of seats in the Medical College/Institutions for various categories. It has further been stated that proviso (iv) to Regulation 9 of the MCI regulation provides that the reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/Institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in the State/Union Territories. The JNIMS employees are not considered as employees of the State Government and in other words, they are not treated as the members of the Manipur Health Services. Many of the JNIMS Senior Residents who are appointed on regular basis, do not possess postgraduate degree and with the start of postgraduate courses in the JNIMS, it has become necessary to have Senior Residents with postgraduate degree. In order to help them to undergo postgraduate courses and as has been done in the case of RIMS, reservation of certain seats for them becomes necessary and this policy of reservation being for certain period, will come to an end, the moment all the Senior Resident doctors have undergone postgraduate courses. There has been no violation of any rule of the MCI from whom no adverse remark has been received. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 raising a point as regards the maintainability of the petition. It has been stated that the petitioners being the in-service candidates and without challenging the categorisation as open and sponsored, have impugned the order and circular and their conduct amounts to misleading the court. The petitioners were sponsored candidates for admission to postgraduate course in the RIMS as well as the JNIMS and it is learnt that they were amongst the candidates who are selected for undergoing postgraduate course in the RIMS and have waived their rights for admission in the JNIMS. The petitioners were sponsored candidates for admission to postgraduate course in the RIMS as well as the JNIMS and it is learnt that they were amongst the candidates who are selected for undergoing postgraduate course in the RIMS and have waived their rights for admission in the JNIMS. During the second counselling, they had come within the selection zone but had refused to accept the seat which led to giving the available seats to candidates who scored lesser marks than them. The private respondents secured more marks than the petitioners without the incentives being given to them. The practice of reservation in the form of institutional preference which has not been struck down by the courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is being followed in the JNIMS in the same line as has been done in the RIMS. The order and the circular, impugned herein, are perfectly in accordance with acceptable norms and the JNIMS was to complete the process of admission on or before 31-05-2017. Moreover, since the admission process having been completed, no relief can be granted to them at this stage. 5. It is not in dispute that the MCI regulates the procedure for admission to postgraduate courses and accordingly, in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 made the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. Regulation 9 provides that students for postgraduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their inter-se academic merit and in terms of the Notification dated 21-12-2010, the procedure for selection of candidates for postgraduate courses have been laid down. Clause 9(IV) is given as under:- “IV. The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. Clause 9(IV) is given as under:- “IV. The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to Post Graduate courses from the said merit lists only.” Vide Notification dated 15-02-2012 issued by the MCI, a proviso has been added after sub-clause-IV which is as under:- “Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who are in service of government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test. The remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by State Government/Competent authority from time to time.” 6. The question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the JNIMS can allocate certain seats for its own employees out of the quota allocated for the in-service candidates in the State, over and above seats being already allocated for its own product. In other words, whether the JNIMS or for that matter, the State Government can classify the in-service candidates into two -one, in-service candidates who are the employees of the State Government and two, in-service candidates who are the employees of the JNIMS for purpose of allocation of seats, even though certain seats have already been allocated for the JNIMS product in the form of institutional preference. The submission of Shri L. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that such allocation of seats for the JNIMS’s employees is impermissible in law and is contrary to the regulations of the MCI and in other words, it amounts to reservation of seats for the employees of the JNIMS. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Services & ors, (2012) 7 SCC 389 wherein one of the issues was as to whether there is any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admissions to such courses. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Services & ors, (2012) 7 SCC 389 wherein one of the issues was as to whether there is any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admissions to such courses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered it in the negative by holding that the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and authorities are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur. In Union of India & ors. Vs. S. Srinivasan & ors., (2012) 7 SCC 683 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “21. At this stage, it is apposite to state about the rule-making powers of a delegating authority. If a rule goes beyond the rule-making power conferred by the statute, the same has to be declared ultra vires. If a rule supplants any provision for which power has not been conferred, it becomes ultra vires. The basic test is to determine and consider the source of power which is relatable to the rule. Similarly, a rule must be in accord with the parent statute as it cannot travel beyond it.” In Sudhir N. & ors. Vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 6 SCC 685 , the validity and correctness of the Kerala Medical Officers’ Admission to Postgraduate courses under the Service Quota Act, 2008 and in particular, Section 5(4) which provides that admission to postgraduate in service-quota shall be made only on the basis of seniority, came to be challenged before the High Court which held that it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature in view of the MCI regulations but directed that seniority of the in-service candidates will continue to play a role provided the candidates concerned have appeared in the common entrance test and secured the minimum percentage of marks stipulated by the regulations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view as the regards the competence of the State Legislature but was not agreeable with the High Court with respect to the declaration that the seniority of the in-service candidates who qualified the test be followed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that merit and merit alone can be the basis for admission among candidates belonging to any given category and held: “24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that merit and merit alone can be the basis for admission among candidates belonging to any given category and held: “24. It is in the light of the above pronouncements futile to argue that the impugned legislation can hold the field even when it is in clear breach of the Medical Council of India’s Regulations. The High Court was, in our opinion, right in holding that inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment provides a basis for selection of candidates different from the one stipulated by the MCI Regulations it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Having said that, the High Court adopted a reconciliatory approach when it directed that seniority of the in-service candidates will continue to play a role provided the candidates concerned have appeared in the common entrance test and secured the minimum percentage of marks stipulated by the Regulations. The High Court was, in our opinion, not correct in making that declaration. That is because, even when in Gopal D. Tirthani case this Court has allowed in-service candidates to be treated as a separate channel for admission to postgraduate course within that category also admission can be granted only on the basis of merit. A meritorious in-service candidate cannot be denied admission only because he has an eligible senior above him though lower in merit. It is now fairly well settled that merit and merit alone can be the basis of admission among candidates belonging to any given category. In-service candidates belong to one category. Their inter se merit cannot be overlooked only to promote seniority which has no place in the scheme of the MCI Regulations. That does not mean that merit based admissions to in-service candidates, cannot take into account the service rendered by such candidates in rural areas. Weightage for such service is permissible while determining the merit of the candidates in terms of the third proviso to Regulation 9 (supra). Suffice it to say that Regulation 9 remains as the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates, provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment notwithstanding. Weightage for such service is permissible while determining the merit of the candidates in terms of the third proviso to Regulation 9 (supra). Suffice it to say that Regulation 9 remains as the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates, provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment notwithstanding. That being so, admissions can and ought to be made only on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates determined in terms of the said principle which gives no weightage to seniority simpliciter.” In State of UP & ors. Vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749 two Government orders issued by the State of UP came to be challenged wherein the question was as to whether in-service medical officers who has working experience (in areas other than remote and difficult areas) could also treated as eligible for admission against the reserved 30% quota for in-service candidates in postgraduate degree courses. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the Government order dated 28-02-2014 holding that Regulation 9 is a complete code and the admission process must strictly adhered to the norms stipulated therein. When the matter came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that Regulation 9 and in particular, Regulation (2) does not envisage reservation of seats for the postgraduate degree courses, unlike the express provision which is made in the same regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service candidates in diploma courses and it envisage that only the weightage be given in the manner provided therein. The reservation referred to in the opening part of Regulation 9 (IV) is, obviously, with reference to reservation as per the Constitutional scheme (For SC, ST or OBC candidates) and not for the in-service candidates or medical officers in service. It has also been held that it is well established that the State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the central legislation and regulations framed thereunder. The contention that providing for such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law, as there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission to postgraduate courses, was not accepted. The relevant paras of the decision are given as under:- “21. The contention that providing for such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law, as there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission to postgraduate courses, was not accepted. The relevant paras of the decision are given as under:- “21. A priori, it must be held that the relief claimed in the application filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to overcome the unconditional and unequivocal statement made before this Court on 12-5-2016. We are of the considered opinion that the State Government is obliged to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order dated 12-5-2016. Regulation 9 has been extracted in the said order dated 12-5-2016, as reproduced above. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the process of “determining the academic merit” of the eligible candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining the academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by the respective candidates in the common competitive test or centralised competitive test held by the authority concerned. What is relevant for our purpose is the third proviso in Regulation 9(2). It envisages that in determining the merit, weightage may be given @ 10% of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the common examination by the candidates. This Regulation does not envisage reservation of seats for the postgraduate “degree” courses, unlike the express provision which is made in the same Regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service candidates in “diploma” courses.” 25.4. Clause (IV) is the relevant provision. It provides for reservation of seats in medical colleges/ institutions for reserved categories as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. The reservation referred to in the opening part of this clause is, obviously, with reference to reservation as per the constitutional scheme (for the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe or the Other Backward Class candidates); and not for the in-service candidates or medical officers in service. It further stipulates that all-India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in NEET and the admission to postgraduate courses in the State concerned shall be as per the merit list only. It further stipulates that all-India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in NEET and the admission to postgraduate courses in the State concerned shall be as per the merit list only. Thus, it is a provision mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the merit list of eligible candidates for the respective medical courses in the State. This provision, however, contains a proviso. It predicates that in determining the merit of candidates who are in service of the Government or a public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/competent authority as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the State up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. This provision even if read liberally does not provide for reservation for in-service candidates, but only of giving a weightage in the form of incentive marks as specified to the class of in-service candidates (who have served in notified remote and difficult areas in the State). 26. From the plain language of this proviso, it is amply clear that it does not envisage reservation for in-service candidates in respect of postgraduate “degree” courses with which we are presently concerned. This proviso postulates giving weightage of marks to “specified in-service candidates” who have worked in notified remote and/or difficult areas in the State - both for postgraduate “degree” courses as also for postgraduate “diploma” courses. Further, the weightage of marks so allotted is required to be reckoned while preparing the merit list of candidates. 27. Thus understood, the Central enactment and the regulations framed thereunder do not provide for reservation for in-service candidates in postgraduate “degree” courses. As there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission to postgraduate “degree” courses, it was contended that providing for such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law. Further, there are precedents of this Court to suggest that such arrangement is permissible as a separate channel of admission for in-service candidates. This argument does not commend to us. In the first place, the decisions pressed into service have considered the provisions regarding admission process governed by the regulations in force at the relevant time. Further, there are precedents of this Court to suggest that such arrangement is permissible as a separate channel of admission for in-service candidates. This argument does not commend to us. In the first place, the decisions pressed into service have considered the provisions regarding admission process governed by the regulations in force at the relevant time. The admission process in the present case is governed by the regulations which have come into force from the academic year 2013-2014. This Regulation is a self-contained code. There is nothing in this Regulation to even remotely indicate that a separate channel for admission to in-service candidates must be provided, at least in respect of postgraduate “degree” courses. In contradistinction, however, 50% seats are earmarked for the postgraduate “diploma” courses for in-service candidates, as is discernible from clause (VII). If the regulation intended a similar separate channel for in-service candidates even in respect of postgraduate “degree” courses, that position would have been made clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it must be presumed that a separate channel for in-service candidates is not permissible for admission to postgraduate “degree” courses. Thus, the State Government, in law, had no authority to issue a Government Order such as dated 28-2-2014, to provide to the contrary. Hence, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the said government order being contrary to the mandate of Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations, as applicable from the academic year 2013-2014. 31. However, in the present case, the Medical Council of India itself has framed a regulation predicating one merit list by adding the weightage of marks assigned to in-service candidates for determining their merit in NEET. 34. The crucial question to be examined in this case is: whether the norm specified in Regulation 9 regarding incentive marks can be termed as excessive and unreasonable? Regulation 9, as applicable, does not permit preparation of two merit lists, as predicated in Tirthani. Regulation 9 is a complete code. It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. 47. Regulation 9 is a complete code. It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. 47. We must hold that the High Court was justified in quashing the stated government order providing for reservation to in-service candidates, being violative of Regulation 9 as in force. However, we modify the operative direction given by the High Court and instead direct that admission process for academic year 2016-2017 onwards to the postgraduate degree course in the State should proceed as per Regulation 9 including by giving incentive marks to eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to clause (IV) of Regulation 9 [equivalent to third proviso to Regulation 9(2) of the old Regulations reproduced in the interim order dated 12-5-2016]. We, accordingly, mould the operative order of the High Court to bring it in conformity with the direction contained in the interim order dated 12-5-2016 but to be made applicable to academic year 2016-2017 onwards on the basis of Regulation 9 as in force. We are conscious of the fact that this arrangement is likely to affect some of the direct candidates, if not a large number of candidates whose applications were already processed by the competent authority for postgraduate degree course concerned for academic year 2016-2017. However, their admissions cannot be validated in breach of or disregarding the mandate of Regulation 9, as in force. The appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7-4-2016 are disposed of accordingly.” 7. On the other hand, Shri H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondents has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners are also in-service candidates and since they have not questioned the classification, they cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned circular and the order. According to him, certain seats can be reserved for admission to postgraduate courses on the basis of institutional preference. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain & ors. Vs. According to him, certain seats can be reserved for admission to postgraduate courses on the basis of institutional preference. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors., (1984) 3 SCC 654 , the question was as to whether residential requirement or institutional preference in admission to technical and medical colleges can be regarded as constitutionally permissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the residence requirement in a State for admission to MBBS course cannot be said to be irrational and irrelevant and can be introduced as condition for admission to the MBBS course. So far as the admission to postgraduate courses is concerned, certain percentage of seats can be reserved on the institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to postgraduate course in the same medical college or university. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIIMS Students Union Vs. AIIMS & ors., (2002) 1 SCC 428 wherein it has been held that institutional preference is not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principles. A certain degree of preference for students of the same institution intending to prosecute further studies therein is permissible on grounds of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an institutional environment. Such preference has to be reasonable and not excessive. The preference has to be prescribed without making an excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality. Similar is the case with the decision in Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & ors. Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 8268 of 2017 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as regards the central universities where there is no State quota, these seats have to be filled up on the basis of merit and institutional preference that could be given to the extent permissible i.e., 50% as has been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Saurabh Chaudri & ors. Vs. Union of India. 8. Shri A. Bimol, the learned Advocate appearing for the JNIMS has submitted that the allocation of certain seats for admission to the postgraduate course for the employees of the JNIMS, is not a reservation and it is a matter of classification for purpose of fixation of quota. Vs. Union of India. 8. Shri A. Bimol, the learned Advocate appearing for the JNIMS has submitted that the allocation of certain seats for admission to the postgraduate course for the employees of the JNIMS, is not a reservation and it is a matter of classification for purpose of fixation of quota. The petitioners have not questioned the authority of classification nor have they submitted that the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have been violated while granting admission to the employees of the JNIMS. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision in K. Duraisamy & anr. Vs. State of T.N & ors., (2001) 2 SCC 538 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with the question relating to the validity of a Government order which envisaged reservation confining upto 50% in favour of the in-service candidates on merit basis for which the State Government enumerated various categories of medical officers who alone will be treated as in-service candidates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “8. That 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, 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 postgraduate 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 the in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged under Articles 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. 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 the Scheduled Tribes, to enable them to enter and adequately represent in various fields. 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 the Scheduled Tribes, to enable them to enter and adequately represent 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 natures 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 conclusion that the scheme adopted for selection of candidates for admissions 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. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is well clear that the criteria for selection as regards the admission to postgraduate medical courses, has to be merit only and there cannot be any circumstances where the rule of merit can be compromised. The subject matter in issue relates to State’s quota in respect of the admission to postgraduate courses which is categorised into two - one, for open/ general candidates and two, for in-service candidates. As per the Circular dated 04-04-2017 issued by the JNIMS, there appears to be 24 seats - 12 seats for the open category and the remaining 12 seats for the in-service category. Open category is classified into four - (a) Scheduled Tribe; (b) Unreserved; (c) OBC(M) and (d) the JNIMS-Product while in-service category is classified into four - (i) Scheduled Tribe; (ii) Sponsored (State); (iii) OBC(M) and (iv) the JNIMS Sponsored. The issue involved herein is confined to the JNIMS sponsored namely seats allocated for the in-service candidates of the JNIMS. Open category is classified into four - (a) Scheduled Tribe; (b) Unreserved; (c) OBC(M) and (d) the JNIMS-Product while in-service category is classified into four - (i) Scheduled Tribe; (ii) Sponsored (State); (iii) OBC(M) and (iv) the JNIMS Sponsored. The issue involved herein is confined to the JNIMS sponsored namely seats allocated for the in-service candidates of the JNIMS. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that such allocation of seats for the employees of the JNIMS is impermissible in law for the reason that the selection is to be made on the basis of merit alone in terms of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2012. Disputing the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has submitted that such allocation of seats is based on and by way of institutional preference which appears to have no substance at all. It is no doubt true that in its various decisions starting from Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that certain percentage of seats can be reserved on the basis of institutional preference. But it may be noted that the institutional preference is available only to a student who has passed MBBS course from the same medical college or university to which the admission is being made. In the present case, since two seats have already been allocated for the students who did pass their MBBS from the JNIMS under the category of JNIMS product, four seats allocated for the employees of the JNIMS, under the category of the JNIMS sponsored, cannot be said to have been allocated on the basis of institutional preference. Whether the allocation of seats under the category of the JNIMS Sponsored is by way of or on the basis of institutional preference is not the subject-matter in issue in the present case and moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have no any grievance as regards the allocation of seats under the category of the JNIMS product which is nothing but by way of institutional preference. 10. 10. The ancillary question that arises for consideration by this court in the present case is as to whether the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Duraisamy’s case (supra), referred to in Gopal D. Tripathy’ case (supra) as well, still holds the field, even after the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case (supra) and in other words, what is the effect of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case? It may be noted that Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case has been decided recently and that too, after the amendment being made to Regulation 9 of the MCI while K. Doraisamy’s case had been decided long back and that too, before the Regulations came into being. In K. Dorasamy’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the State Government can decide from what source the admissions in educational institutions or to particular disciplines and courses have to be made and that too, in what portion and in other words, the State Government can allocate seats in the fixation of quota based on a broad classification. The word “reservation” being used 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 citizen. On the other hand, in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has analysed the regulations of the MCI and in particular, Regulation 9(4), the validity of which has been upheld in its entirety. It has also been held that the admission to postgraduate courses shall be made strictly in accordance with the merit. Regulation 9 recognises the principle of giving weightage only to in-service candidates while determining their merit. Regulation 9 is a complete code and it prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter-se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates appearing in the same NEET by giving commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. The central enactment and the regulations made thereunder, do not provide for reservation for the in-service candidates in postgraduate courses. The central enactment and the regulations made thereunder, do not provide for reservation for the in-service candidates in postgraduate courses. Although K. Doraisamy’s case has not been referred to in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case, one observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is quite relevant and that too, in respect of the contention that as there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission to postgraduate courses, providing for such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that there were precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme court to suggest that such arrangement is permissible as a special channel for admission for in-service candidates, it has observed that this argument does not commend to them, the result of which being that the Hon’ble Supreme Court appears to have expressed its disagreement with its earlier decisions, in that regard, including that of the decision rendered in K. Doraisamy’s case. Even though the law laid down in K. Doraisamy’s case cannot be said to have been expressly overruled in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case, the effect thereof is discernible. 11. In order to contest the writ petition, no counter has been filed on behalf of the JNIMS but an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Government stating therein that since Regulation 9(iv) provides that the reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/ Institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in the State/ Union Territories, the State Government can make reservations for the employees of the JNIMS, under the category of JNIMS Sponsored, for the reasons mentioned therein. In this regard, it may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case has emphatically observed that the reservation referred to in the opening part of this clause namely Regulation 9(iv) of the MCI is, obviously, with reference to reservation as per the constitutional scheme (for the S.C, the S.T or the O.B.C candidates) and not for the in-service candidates or medical officers in service. Therefore, the reasons for making reservations for the in-service candidates i.e., the employees of the JNIMS may be laudable but such reservation will be rendered illegal without the same being sanctified by the law. Since all are governed by rule of law, all actions are to be taken by the State Government in accordance with law. Therefore, the reasons for making reservations for the in-service candidates i.e., the employees of the JNIMS may be laudable but such reservation will be rendered illegal without the same being sanctified by the law. Since all are governed by rule of law, all actions are to be taken by the State Government in accordance with law. Moreover, in its affidavit, the State Government has not referred to any provision of law enacted or rules made by it which empowered it to classify the employees of the JNIMS as a separate category under the style of “JNIMS Sponsored” and reserve seats for them. Any averment made by the State Government in the affidavit without referring to any order or office memorandum or relevant file containing the policy decision will have no meaning at all, so far as the State of Manipur is concerned as seen in some of the cases recently. Therefore, the stand of the State Government is not sustainable in law. Another point which the State Government has vehemently emphasised, is that it can classify the in-service candidates into two or more categories and allocate seats for them separately without referring to a provision of law as has been stated herein above. According to the State Government, such classification of the in-service candidates into different categories and allocation of seats for each of them, is not per se a reservation at all. The State Government may have even refrained from using the expression “reservation”. But it will definitely amount to reservation for the reason that no other candidate who does not belong to a particular category, cannot be considered against the seats reserved for it. This method being adopted by the State Government, if permitted, will dilute the principle that the selection be made strictly on merit and ultimately the purpose of having one merit list will stand defeated. This has exactly happened in the present case. In the combined merit list for admission to postgraduate courses in the JNIMS, the petitioners herein did figure at serial No. 23 & 20 while the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at serial No. 65 & 49 respectively who have been given admissions against the seats reserved for them under the category of JNIMS Sponsored. In the combined merit list for admission to postgraduate courses in the JNIMS, the petitioners herein did figure at serial No. 23 & 20 while the private respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at serial No. 65 & 49 respectively who have been given admissions against the seats reserved for them under the category of JNIMS Sponsored. Had there been no category as the JNIMS Sponsored, the said private respondents would not have got admissions because they are far below in the combined merit list. It may be noted that this reservation of seats for the in-service candidates i.e., the employees of the JNIMS is in addition to seats being reserved for the in-service candidates sponsored by the State Government and seats being reserved for the JNIMS Product, i.e., the students who had passed MBBS form the JNIMS. In view of the regulations of the MCI and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case, this court is of the considered view that the actions of the State respondents and in particular, the JNIMS in issuing the said circular and the order, impugned herein, are unreasonable and illegal being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. While the writ petition was pending for disposal, the process for admission to postgraduate courses had come to an end and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the JNIMS has submitted that there is no point of interfering at the admission process, at this stage, by this court. Moreover, his further submission is that since the petitioners have got admissions in RIMS, their grievance is no longer in existence. While issuing notice in the matter, on 19-05-2017 this court passed an order to the effect that the admissions given to the private respondents shall be subject to the outcome of the instant writ petition. Then came the question as to what relief be granted to the petitioners. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Asha’s case (supra) has some relevance wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a question as to whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th September of the academic year concerned, that being the last date for admissions. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Asha’s case (supra) has some relevance wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a question as to whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th September of the academic year concerned, that being the last date for admissions. Although the said decision has been rendered with respect to admission in MBBS, the principle laid down therein will be applicable to that of the admission in postgraduate courses as well. In answer to the said question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “31. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. 32. Though there can be the rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer Arti Sapru v. State of J&K, Chhavi Mehrotra v. DG, Health Services and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P.) 33. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer Arti Sapru v. State of J&K, Chhavi Mehrotra v. DG, Health Services and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P.) 33. We must hasten to add at this stage that even if these conditions are satisfied, still, the court would be called upon to decide whether the relief should or should not be granted and, if granted, should it be with or without compensation. 34. This brings us to the last phase of this case as to what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to. Having returned a finding on merits in favour of the appellant, the Court has to grant relief to the appellant even, if necessary, by moulding the relief appropriately and in accordance with law. This Court must do complete justice between the parties, particularly, where the legitimate right of the appellant stands frustrated because of inaction or inappropriate action on the part of the respondents concerned. In fact, normally keeping in view the factual matrix of this case, we would have directed the admission of the appellant to the MBBS course in the academic year 2011-2012 and would further have directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellant towards the mental agony and expense of litigation and the valuable period of her life that stands wasted for failure on the part of the respondents to adhere to the proper procedure of selection and admission process. May be the Court would have granted this relief subject to some further conditions. However, we are unable to grant this relief to the appellant in its totality for reasons of her own doing. She has completely faulted in pursuing her academic course in accordance with the rules and like a diligent student should do.” 13. May be the Court would have granted this relief subject to some further conditions. However, we are unable to grant this relief to the appellant in its totality for reasons of her own doing. She has completely faulted in pursuing her academic course in accordance with the rules and like a diligent student should do.” 13. In the present case, the circular was issued by the JNIMS on 04-04-2017 inviting applications and being aggrieved by it in respect of the seats being reserved for the in-service candidates, i.e., for the employees of the JNIMS under the category of JNIMS Sponsored, on the next day itself, the petitioners along with others submitted a representation to the Director, JNIMS requesting him to intervene in the matter so that the selection be made on merit only but their request had fallen on deaf ears of the Director, JNIMS which compelled them to submit their applications on protest. In the combined merit list, the petitioners are above the two private respondents, as shown hereinabove, who have been given admissions against the seats reserved for the in-service candidates i.e., the employees of the JNIMS under the category of “JNIMS Sponsored” and although they secured more marks than the said two private respondents, they were not given admissions. The petitioners pursued the matter from day one and the fault cannot be attributed to them at all. Merely because the petitioners are alleged to have been admitted in RIMS, it cannot be a ground to allow the illegality to be perpetuated denying the right to equality and equal treatment of the petitioners. Such denial of admissions to them will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the circular dated 04-04-2017 and the order dated 24-04-2017 issued by the JNIMS are quashed and set aside with the following directions: (a) The official respondent Nos.1 & 2 and in particular, the respondent No.2, the JNIMS shall redraw a select list, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, strictly in accordance with the Regulation 9 of the MCI as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case (supra) and grant admissions to the candidates accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.