JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner, a non-Himachali, is seeking direction to the respondents to consider him for admission to MBBS/BDS course in Medical/Dental Colleges situated in the State against 85% State quota seats on account of he having passed all the four examinations i.e. 8th, 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 standard from Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to consider the category of the students who have passed two school examinations out of the four prescribed in the Prospectus from the schools situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and have studied in the educational institutions situated within the State for number of years, irrespective of not being bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has conducted NEET-UG- 2018 examination on all India basis for admission in MBBS/BDS courses throughout the country. The result was declared. In the State of Himachal Pradesh admissions on the basis of merit were to be made in the Medical/Dental Colleges against State quota seats i.e. 85% seats. The Prospectus (Annexure P-4), containing terms and conditions and eligibility criteria etc. for seeking admission was prepared and published on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 by respondent No. 3 University. A Counseling Committee under the Chairmanship of Director, Medical Education and Research, (H.P.), the second respondent was constituted by first respondent for granting admission strictly on the basis of merit and as per the criteria laid down in the Prospectus (Annexure P-4). The respondent-University had invited ONLINE applications from the candidates having qualified NEET-UG-2018 examination and otherwise fulfilling eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus. The petitioner had applied for counseling ONLINE and as per the previous merit list, he was placed under general combined merit rank 196 for admission under State/Management quota seats, however, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility criteria. The petitioner appeared before the Counseling Committee during first round of counseling held on 30.6.2018. The Committee, on examination of his form submitted ONLINE and the certificates/other testimonials, found him not eligible to seek admission against 85% State quota seats, being not a bonafide Himachali, irrespective of he having fulfilled the condition of passing two school examinations out of the four from Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The Committee, on examination of his form submitted ONLINE and the certificates/other testimonials, found him not eligible to seek admission against 85% State quota seats, being not a bonafide Himachali, irrespective of he having fulfilled the condition of passing two school examinations out of the four from Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner, however, has opted for management quota seats in private Medical College (s) situated in the State being eligible for the same. 3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for 85% State quota seats on account of being not a bonafide Himachali, has questioned the legality and validity thereof on the ground that he having studied for number of years i.e. from 6th standard onwards up to 10+ 2 in Sainik School, Sujanpur Tira, an educational institution situated in District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, there should have been a provision in the Prospectus to grant admission to a student like the petitioner irrespective of having not been resident of Himachal Pradesh. The non-inclusion of such criteria in the Prospectus according to him is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, according to the petitioner, have rightly inserted provisions in the prospectus to hold the domicile/bonafide Himachali eligible for seeking admission in MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh in relaxation of the conditions of passing two examinations out of four from the educational institutions situated in the State, however, the persons like the petitioner who have spent considerable time of their schooling in such educational institutions and also deserves for admission by way of relaxation in the condition of bonafide Himachali/residents of Himachal Pradesh no provisions qua it finds mention in the prospectus. An example that in IIT Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, no such condition is prescribed for granting admission, such criteria prescribed for admission in medical courses is stated to be discriminatory and arbitrary has also been given. 4. The respondent-State, in its response while supporting the eligibility criteria laid down in the Prospectus for granting admission in MBBS/BDS courses against 85% State quota seats has come forward with the version that the petitioner who is not a bonafide Himachali or permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, is not entitled to seek parity against those who as per the criteria laid down are granted certain exemptions in eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria so laid down is stated to be legal and valid and not discriminatory, arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, the respondent-University coming forward with the version that the petitioner having submitted application form ONLINE for seeking admission against 85% State quota seats in the Medical/Dental Colleges situated in the State and having appeared before the Counseling Committee on 30.6.2018, was not found to have fulfilled the basic condition of being a resident of Himachal Pradesh or a bonafide Himachali. Therefore, irrespective of he having passed all the four examinations i.e. 8th, 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 from Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur, a school situated in the State could have not been considered for admission against State quota seats. He, however, opted for admission against management quota seats in private medical colleges situated in the State and rightly so because as per further version of respondent No. 3, he was eligible for the same. Therefore, both the sets of respondents have sought the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General as well as learned standing Counsel for the respondent-University and going through the record, no doubt as per the version of the petitioner, the condition that one should be either a resident of Himachal Pradesh or at least bonafide Himachali, for seeking admission in the Medical/Dental Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh against 85% State quota seats is unreasonable, illegal, discriminatory and un-Constitutional also, however, the eligibility criteria so laid down in the Prospectus long back in the year 1994-95 has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Gagan Deep vs. State of H.P. and its connected matters 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 242. 7. The provisions contained in clause IV (A) 1 in the Prospectus Annexure P-4 published for the academic session 2018-19 provides for the following eligibility and qualification for granting admission against 85% State quota seats: “IV. ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS (A) For State Quota Seats : 1. Children of Bonafide Himachali/Domicile/Himachal Govt. L.C. 242. 7. The provisions contained in clause IV (A) 1 in the Prospectus Annexure P-4 published for the academic session 2018-19 provides for the following eligibility and qualification for granting admission against 85% State quota seats: “IV. ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS (A) For State Quota Seats : 1. Children of Bonafide Himachali/Domicile/Himachal Govt. employees and employees of autonomous bodies wholly or partially financed by the Himachal Pradesh Government who qualified the NEET-UG-2018 will only be eligible to apply ONLINE for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses through counselling in Government Medical/Dental Colleges including State Quota seats in Private unaided Medical/Dental Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh. They should have passed at least two exams out of the following examinations from the recognized schools or colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE/H.P. Board of School Education or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India. (a) Middle or equivalent (b) Matric or equivalent (c) 10+1 or equivalent (d) 10+2 or equivalent” 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Gagandeep's case cited supra, while holding that the criteria so laid down is legal and valid and also in accordance with the Constitutional provisions has held as under: “18. Looking to the material placed before us and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that students studying in the Schools, Institutions, Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh form a separate class while the students falling to the category of the petitioners, form a distinct class. Contention that there are many good Schools in Shimla and a few other places with good educational facilities, is hardly convincing. Assuming that there are some such schools, they are far behind the schools outside the State. Moreover, they can be counted on finger tips. Except for bare contention, no material has been placed before us to assess the standard of education and the percentage of appearance and selection to the Medical Courses. A few schools cannot be made the basis for assuming that the standard of education in all the School, Institutions and Colleges in the State is as high as in Schools, Institutions and Colleges located outside the State. What is the requirement of the State which maintains the Medical Colleges and what should be the sources of recruitment for admission, is primarily for the State to decide. What is the requirement of the State which maintains the Medical Colleges and what should be the sources of recruitment for admission, is primarily for the State to decide. The eligibility criteria has to be the result of the past experience and the requirement of the State. Of course, the State action should not transgress. 19. Second facet of this question is whether laying down of this kind of criteria is constitutionally permissible; whether it is arbitrary and unjust causing hardship to the petitioners? We answer all these questions against the petitioners. By now, such kind of reservations have been held constitutionally permissible in series of decisions by the apex Court and this Court. Similarly, question of hardship or that the State could have extended this kind of benefit to the candidates passing these examinations from the Institutions and Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh in a different and better way, do not make the provision unconstitutional, unjust or harsh. …………………………….. …………………………….. …………………………….. 27. The third facet for sustaining the eligibility is equally efficacious when it is pointed out by the respondents that although quite a large number of persons have qualified medical degree from the State Medical College, yet people are deprived of medical facilities in rural and far flung areas of the State since the doctors do not want to go to such areas and they flee the State to avoid postings in such areas. Although bond amount has been increased, yet that has not given the desired results. State Government is spending lacs of rupees on a student for doing the medical course but the amount is going into the drawings since they are not prepared to remain in the State and serve the people. 28. The fourth facet is about the arbitrariness, un-justness and hardship being caused to the petitioners by the eligibility criteria. State Government is spending lacs of rupees on a student for doing the medical course but the amount is going into the drawings since they are not prepared to remain in the State and serve the people. 28. The fourth facet is about the arbitrariness, un-justness and hardship being caused to the petitioners by the eligibility criteria. Having upheld the institutional preference and accepting the submission of the learned Advocate General that the candidates studying in Schools, Colleges and Institutions situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh form a separate category and are entitled to protection to enable the them to secure and admissions in the medical institutions as compared to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates falling in different group with better facilities and chances to appear in the institutions located in the States they are studying, nothing much remains for examination of this question, more particularly, in view of the latest decision of the apex Court reported in of Anant Madaan Vs State of Haryana and others, (1995)2 SCC 135 upholding reservation of 85 percent seats to MBBS/BDS courses on the basis of candidate's education for preceding three years in the state and rejecting the contention of the reservation being arbitrary, discriminatory and causing hardship. It is necessary to quote paras 8 and 9 of this judgment: “8.In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th and 10+2 classes in a recognized Institute in Haryana, can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is by now well settled that preference in admissions on the basis of residence, as well as institutional preference, is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional preference. As far back as in basis 1955, in the case of D.P Joshi Vs. State the of Madhya Bharat, this Court making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence in educational institutions.” "9. In the case of Jagdish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting to medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons of why such preference may be required. In the case of Jagdish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting to medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons of why such preference may be required. For example, the residents of a particular region may have very limited opportunities for technical education while the region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who were residents of that region were more likely to remain in the regions and serve their regions if they were preferred for admission to technical institutions in the State, particularly medical colleges. A State which was short of medical personnel would be justified in giving preference to its own residents in medical colleges as these residents, after qualifying as doctors, were more likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. The Court also observed that in the case of women students, regional or residential preference may be justified as their parents may not be willing to send them outside the State for medical education. We, however, need not examine the various reasons which have impelled this Court to uphold residential or institutional preference for admission to medical colleges. The question is settled by the decision this Court in Pradeep Jain (Dr) Vs. Union of India. This Court has observed in that judgment: (SCR p. 981: SCC p. 687, para 19): We are, therefore, of the view that certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalize opportunities for medical admissions on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical college in the State…..” This Court held in that case that reservation to the extent of 70%, on this basis would be permissible. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr) Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr) Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College. This Court in that case directed an entrance examination on an all-India basis for the remaining 15% of seats.” Consequently, all the submissions raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the case are rejected.” 9. It is thus seen that in this judgment reservation in medical educational institutions on the basis of residential and institutional preferences both has been held legal and valid. Therefore, the point in issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment supra against the petitioner. 10. This Court in Vikram Singh Negi vs. State of H.P. & ors., (2009) 2 Shim. LC 362 has held that it is for the State to decide that reservation should be made and if so, for what category of people. Also that, no person has a right to claim as to which condition should be retained and which condition must be deleted from the Prospectus, meaning thereby that the Courts must be slow in interfering with the criteria prescribed for admission in Medical/Dental Colleges by the State. In a recent judgment rendered on 13.7.2018 in CWP No. 1353 of 2018, titled Shivam Sharma vs. State of H.P. and its connected matters, this Court while placing reliance on the law laid down in Gagandeep's case and Vivek Singh Negi's case (supra) and also in Gunjan Kapoor vs. State of H.P. & ors, 1999 (1) Sim. L. C. 246, has held that the provisions contained in the Prospectus have the force of law. 11. Therefore, when in the Prospectus Annexure P-4, there is no provision for considering a person like the petitioner to grant admission against 85% State quota seats, this Court has no reason nor any material to stretch the eligibility criteria to the category of the petitioner who neither is a resident of Himachal Pradesh nor bonafide Himachali, though has passed all the four school examinations from a well reputed school i.e. Sainik School, Sujanpur Tihra, situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is for the policy makers to lay down such criteria and when no case to establish the arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out, the Court cannot interfere with the criteria so laid down. 12. It is for the policy makers to lay down such criteria and when no case to establish the arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out, the Court cannot interfere with the criteria so laid down. 12. Having said so, coupled with the factum of the petitioner is neither a resident of Himachal Pradesh nor bonafide Himachali, is not entitled for admission against 85% State quota seats in the Medical/Dental Colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 13. This petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed so also the pending application (s), if any.