JUDGMENT : SANJAY YADAV, J. Petitioner calls in question the validity of Rule 8.1 of Madhya Pradesh Homoeopathy Chikitsa Snatakottar Pathyakram Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2016, which lays down criteria for in service candidate for admission to post graduate course in Homoeopathy i.e. ^^dsoy os vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus Áos'k o"kZ ds 30 vÁSy 2016 dks gksE;ksiSFkh fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds :i esa] ftUgksusa e/; Áns'k 'kklu ds vk;q"k foHkkx ds varxZr fu;fer vFkok lafonk lsok esa U;wure 05 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks vkSj dk;Zjr jgdj xzkeh.k {ks= esa 03 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gksA f'k{kdksa gsrq xzkeh.k {ks= esa rhu o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh 'krZ ykxw ugha gkssaxhA** Meaning thereby that only such regular/contractual Homoeopathy Medical Officers are eligible to be considered who have completed 5 years of total years (of service) out of which three years service is rendered in the rural area as on 30-4-2016. 2. Petitioner after graduating in Homoeopathy was appointed as a contract Homoeopathy Medical Officer vide order dated 27-5-2011 and was posted at Primary Health Centre, Picchore, District Gwalior w.e.f. 1-6-2011. That in pursuance to notification for Post Graduate Degree in Homoeopathy, petitioner was issued a provisional letter of seat allotment (second round)-Ayush (Homoeopathy) PG Counselling-2016 under the category in service OBC. However, as the petitioner had not completed 5 years of service as on 30-4-2016 her candidature was denied in view of Rule 8.1 of the Rules of 2016 on 11-12-2016. 3. Aggrieved present petition is filed wherein the validity of Rule 8.1 is questioned on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the Rule is invalid as it has no nexus with the object of the Rules and there exists no intelligible differentia in carving out 5 years to be a service rendered. It is argued that for similarly situated doctors working as Ayurved Medical Officer or the Medical Officer the stipulation is only 3 years of service. It is further contended that the co-ordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is governed by Entry 66 of list I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature under the garb of Entry 25 of list III of Schedule VII of the Constitution has encroached upon the field exclusively governed by the Central Legislature. It is urged that field being occupied by the regulations framed by Central Council of Homoeopathy under Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, it is beyond the competency of the State to incorporate Rule 8.1 which is in contravention to provisions of Homoeopathy (Post Graduate Degree Course) MD (Hom.) Regulations, 1989. It is further contended that as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 2016 which provides for the courses recognized by Central Council of Homoeopathy, candidates sponsored by the State/Union Government from States/UTs will be considered as per the norms laid down by the Central Government and Central Govt., vide Circular No. R. 12013/02/2016-Edc (PG) dt. 28-7-2016 having laid down the norms that while making nomination against Government of India's Nominees; preference will be given to regular teaching staff with 3 years. Regular service of any Government cum medical institution and if no teaching staff is available, Medical Officers and Research Officers working on regular basis and have rendered 3 years service would be eligible whereas for the same cause a different criteria has been laid down for State Government regular and contractual medical officer, which is discriminatory. On these grounds, petitioner seeks quashment of Rule 8.1. 4. Respondents, on their turn, have supported the Rule under challenge. In the return, it is contended that since the relevant Rule 8.1 is framed for in service incumbents both regular and contractual and a medical officer is selected for Post Graduate Degree, M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 vide Rule 42(4)(ii) study leave is not granted to a government servant who has not been regularized in government service and who has rendered less than 5 years' service under the Government including service in ad hoc capacity. On these submissions, the State defends Rule 8.1 of the Rules of 2016. 5. Considered rival contentions. 6. As regards competency of the State in legislating Admission Rules of 2016, the issue has come to take rest with the recent decision by five Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Modem Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353 wherein it is held: “101 To our mind, Entry 66 in List I is a specific Entry having a very specific and limited scope. It deals with co-ordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions. It deals with co-ordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions. The words ‘co-ordination and determination of standards’ would mean laying down the said standards. Thus, when it comes to prescribing the standards for such institutions of higher learning, exclusive domain is given to the Union. However, that would not include conducting of examination, etc. and admission of students to such institutions or prescribing the fee in these institutions of higher education, etc. In fact, such coordination and determination of standards, insofar as medical education is concerned, is achieved by Parliamentary legislation in the form of Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and by creating the statutory body like Medical Council of India (for short, ‘MCI’) therein. The functions that are assigned to MCI include within its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution as well as co-ordination of standards and that of educational institutions. When it comes to regulating ‘education’ as such, which includes even medical education as well as universities (which are imparting higher education), that is prescribed in Entry 25 of List III, thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well as States. It is significant to note that earlier education, including universities, was the subject-matter of Entry 11 in List II. Thus, power to this extent was given to the State Legislatures. However, this Entry was omitted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from July 3, 1977 and at the same time Entry 25 in List II was amended. Education, including university education, was thus transferred to Concurrent List and in the process technical and medical education was also added. Thus, if the argument of the appellants is accepted, it may render Entry 25 completely otiose. When two Entries relating to education, one in the Union List and the other in the Concurrent List, co-exist, they have to be read harmoniously. Reading in this manner, it would become manifest that when it comes to co-ordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures. However, other facets of education, including technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25. However, other facets of education, including technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25. The field covered by Entry 25 of List III is wide enough and as circumscribed to the limited extent of it being subject to List I Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66. 105. We do not find any ground for holding that Dr. Preeti Srivastava excludes the role of states altogether from admissions. Thus, observations in Bharti Vidyapeeth that entire gamut of admissions was covered by Entry 66 of List I cannot be upheld and overruled to that extent. No doubt, Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 List I, it is not possible to exclude the entire gamut of admissions from Entry 25 of List III. However, exercise of any power under Entry 25 of List III has to be subject to a central law referable to Entry 25. 106. In view of the above, there was no violation of right of autonomy of the educational institutions in the CET being conducted by the State or an agency nominated by the State or in fixing fee. The right of a State to do so is subject to a central law. Once the notifications under the Central statutes for conducting the CET called ‘NEET’ become operative, it will be a matter between the States and the Union, which will have to be sorted out on the touchstone of Article 254 art of the Constitution. We need not dilate on this aspect any further.” 7. In view whereof and in absence of any Rule by the Central Government relating to admission for PG courses, we are not inclined to cause dent to the Admission Rules of 2016 on the ground raised by petitioner as to competence of State in framing admission rules cannot be countenanced, therefore, rejected. Furthermore, the example of the nominees by the Central Government set out by the petitioner is of no assistance as they are class separate from the in-service candidate. 8. Now, coming to the challenge on the ground of discrimination. The petitioner has compared herself with the in-service candidates in Ayurved and Medical/Dental. The State Government simultaneously framed the Post Graduate Admission Rules, for the candidates in these services, viz; as a candidate belonging to Ayurved Service following Rules are framed viz. 8. Now, coming to the challenge on the ground of discrimination. The petitioner has compared herself with the in-service candidates in Ayurved and Medical/Dental. The State Government simultaneously framed the Post Graduate Admission Rules, for the candidates in these services, viz; as a candidate belonging to Ayurved Service following Rules are framed viz. “Madhya Pradesh Ayurved Chikitsa Snatakottar Pathyakram Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2016 wherein Rule 8 stipulates: And in respect of Medical/Dental Service, Rule 8 of the Rules, viz; Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Swashasi Chikitsa Tatha Dant Chikitsa Snatakittar Padhyakram (Degree/ Diploma) Pravesh Niyam, 2016 stipulates: ^^8- p;u ekinaM ¼lsokjr vH;FkhZ½ %& lsokjr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, mikf/k rFkk i=ksikf/k ikB~;Øe gsrq p;u ÁfØ;k ,oa 'krsZ yksd LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr uhfr vuqlkj fuEukuqlkj gksxh %& ¼1½ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh %& ¼d½ dsoy os vH;FkhZ ftUgksaus Áos'k o"kZ ds 30 vÁSy 2016 dks fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds :i esa tks e/; Áns'k 'kklu ds yksd LokLF; ,oa dY;k.k foHkkx vFkok vU; fdlh foHkkx vFkok jkT;@ftyk LokLF; lfefr ds vUrxZr fu;fer vFkok lafonk lsok esa dk;Zjr gks ,oa ftlus 03 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gksA ¼[k½ fu;fer ,oa lafonk ij dk;Zjr lsokjr~ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ihŒthŒ ikB~;Øe iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr fMxzh gsrq 05 o"kZ rFkk fMIyksek ikB~;Øe iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr~ 03 o"kZ dh lsok foHkkx@ lkslkbVh }kjk fofgr vkfnoklh ckgqY; {ks=ksa esa nsus gsrq fu/kkZfjr Ái= ¼ÁksQkekZ&6½ ij ck.M dk fu"iknu djuk gksxk tks ihŒthŒ fMxzh gsrq :i;s 30-00 yk[k ¼rhl yk[k½ rFkk ihŒthŒ fMIyksek gsrq :i;s 20-00 yk[k ¼chl yk[k½ gksxkA ck.M dk fu"iknu lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; esa vf/k"Bkrk] fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds i{k esa djuk gksxkA ¼x½ jkT; 'kklu ds foHkkxksa }kjk Likalj fd;s x;s fu;fer lsokjr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks LikaljdrkZ ewy foHkkx }kjk osru Ánk; fd;k tk,xkA lafonk ij dk;Zjr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks osru Ánk;xh dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA ;g Likaljf'ki ikB~;Øe Qhl ,oa fdlh vU; ykHk ds fy;s ns; ugha gksxh] cfYd ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ikB~;Øe ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr Qhl tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA lafonk ij dk;Zjr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ihŒthŒ dkslZ ds nkSjku fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk LVk;iSaM ns; gksxkA ¼?k½ rhu o"kZ dh vgZrkdkjh lsok gsrq ml dkykof/k dh x.kuk ml fLFkfr esa ugha dh tkos] tc vH;FkhZ ml dk;Zdky ds nkSjku vukf/kd`r :i ls drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgk gS@dksbZ MkbZtukWu vof/k gqbZ@dksbZ voSrfud NqV~Vh ij jgk gSA ¼³½ lsokjr iq:"k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq vf/kdre vk;q lhek Áos'k o"kZ dh 30 vÁSy dks 45 o"kZ gksxh rFkk efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s vf/kdre vk;q lhek 50 o"kZ gksxhA ¼2½ Án'kZd %& ¼d½ ftu Án'kZdksa us 30 vÁSy 2016 dks 5 o"kZ yxkrkj fu;fer lsok iw.kZ dj yh gks dsoy os gh Án'kZd 06 lhVksa ij Áos'k ds fy;s ik= gksaxsA ¼[k½ ihŒthŒ ikB~;Øe iw.kZ djus ds mijkar ikap o"kZ dh lsok fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx esa nsus gsrq :i;s 30-00 yk[k ¼:i;s rhl yk[k½ dk ck.M fu"iknu djuk gksxkA ¼x½ inLFkkiuk dk in o LFkku dk fu.kZ; fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ds v/khu gksxkA inLFkkiuk ,oa inksUufr ds laca/k esa leLr vf/kdkj e/; Áns'k fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ds varxZr gksxsaA vH;FkhZ dks viuh bPNkuqlkj inLFkkiuk@inksUufr djokus gsrq vkosnu djus dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksxk ,oa dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ Áns'k ds fdlh Hkh 'kkldh; Lo'kklh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; esa fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx esa inLFk fd;k tk ldsxkA Án'kZdksa dks mDr vk'k; dk LogLrk{kfjr ?kks"k.kk i= dkmalfyax ds le; vfuok;Z :i ls ¼ifjf'k"V&2½ vuqlkj ÁLrqr djuk gksxkA ¼?k½ Án'kZdksa ds p;u gsrq vf/kdre vk;q lhek iq:"k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s Áos'k dh 20 vÁSy dks 45 o"kZ gksxh rFkk efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s vf/kdre vk;q lhek 50 o"kZ gksxhA** 9. Comparative analysis of these three rules would reveal that an in-service candidate in Homoeopathic service has only to render 5 years regular/contractual service for becoming eligible to appear in entrance examination for Post Graduate Course and on completion of the course he/she is not required to fill any bond to work in Tribal Area for a period of 3 years, a condition which is imperative for the incumbents from Ayurved and from Medical/Dental service. Thus an in-service candidate is treated a separate class than those in Ayurved or Medical/Dental Service. 10. To withstand the test of reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is well settled that the classification must satisfy the twin tests: (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things placed in a group from those left out or placed not in the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. It is held in State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, (2003) 7 SCC 83 that: “21. …………It is permissible to use territories or the nature of the objects or occupations or the like as the basis for the classification. So long as there is a nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved, the classification is valid.” 11. In the present case we have noticed the comparative criteria for in-service candidates of Homoeopathy and of Ayurved and Medical/Dental. The post graduation criteria for the in-service candidates of Ayurved and Medical/Dental is more stringent than of the Homoeopathy, who except putting in five years' service are not required to fill any bond to serve in any particular area. These conditions place the incumbent from Homeopathic service in a class different than the other. 12. In Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 , it is held: “5. …………………It is now well-established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. These conditions place the incumbent from Homeopathic service in a class different than the other. 12. In Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 , it is held: “5. …………………It is now well-established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well-established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.” 13. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well-established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.” 13. In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 , it is held: “11.……… “(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself; (b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles; (c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.” 14. In RE the Special Courts Bill, 1978, Special Reference No. 1 of 1978, decided on December 1, 1978 [ (1979) 1 SCC 380 , it is held “4. In RE the Special Courts Bill, 1978, Special Reference No. 1 of 1978, decided on December 1, 1978 [ (1979) 1 SCC 380 , it is held “4. The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. 5. By the process of classification, the State has the power of determining who should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. This power, no doubt, in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-defined classes, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily. 6. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. 7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 11. Classification necessarily implies the making of a distinction or discrimination between persons classified and those who are not members of that class. It is the essence of a classification that upon the class are cast duties and burdens different from those resting upon the general public. Indeed, the very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. 15. In Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682 , it is held: 29. Learned Additional Solicitor General submits that Section 6-A satisfies the test of reasonable classification. The public servants of the level of Joint Secretary and above take policy decisions and, therefore, there is an intelligible differentia. As they take policy decisions, there is a need to protect them from frivolous inquiries and investigation so that policy making does not suffer. Thus, there is rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In this regard, learned Additional Solicitor General has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia, Union of India and Re: Special Courts Bill, 1978. He also referred to the proceedings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, Law Minister's Speech, the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules and the Central Secretariat Manual of Procedure. 16. In the case at hand, the stipulations contained in Rule 8.1 of the Rules, 2016 in respect of Homoeopathic Medical Officer when considered in comparison to the Rules of 2016 for the Ayurvedic Medical Officer and Medical and Dental Officers for whom the additional conditions are being stipulated after the completion of post graduation courses; and which are not incorporated in the Rules of 2016 for Homeopathic Medical Officer we observe that rule making Authorities were conscious of the circumstances and the facts for treating the Homeopathic Medical Officer as a class different than that of Ayurvedic Medical Officer and Medical and Dental Officers as would attract the frown of Article 14. 17. 17. Having thus considered, we are of the view that Rule 8.1 of the Rules, 2016 is not ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.