JUDGMENT : BHARATI H. DANGRE, J. 1. The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the process of college allocation by the respondent no.1 Directorate of Technical Education for the Post-Graduate MBA/MMS curriculum has approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/direction for quashing and setting aside the admission process for the MBA/MMS for the year 2018-19 conducted by the respondent no. 1 and has prayed for further direction to treat the petitioner as 'Type-A” Maharashtra Candidate. The petitioner has also sought direction for conduct of fresh admission process in terms of the brochure published on the website of the respondent no.1 and to quash and set aside the amended notification dated 28th June 2018 being not in conformity with the settled position of law governing the admission process to the professional courses. 2. The petitioner claims to be a meritorious student who had cleared her 10th Standard examination from the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE). The petitioner appeared for her 12th Standard examination in the year 2014 and was cleared by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. Thereafter, she appeared for the University of Mumbai examination and obtained a degree in Bachelor of Management Studies (BMS) course in which she acquired a distinction. The petitioner was desirous of pursuing a post-graduate degree in Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and with this aim in mind, she enrolled herself for the common Management Admission Test, 2018 (CMAT) which is conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education as a common Entrance Test for admission to All Management Institutes in the country. The petitioner appeared for the C-MAT examination and acquired All India Rank 20 with a total percentile of 99.97. She participated in the Common Admission process for admission to the Management Colleges in the city of Mumbai which is being conducted by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra (DTE) – respondent no.1. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 had published an information brochure for admission to the postgraduate technical courses in various streams which included postgraduate course in management (MBA) and computer application (MCA) for the Academic Year 2018-19. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 had published an information brochure for admission to the postgraduate technical courses in various streams which included postgraduate course in management (MBA) and computer application (MCA) for the Academic Year 2018-19. The petitioner would submit that the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act of 2015 had published rules on 24th April 2017 to regulate the admissions to the First Year and direct the Second year full time professional technical courses. These Rules were also made applicable for admissions in Government and Government aided professional and educational institutions by Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that she relied on the said brochure and expected the procedure to be followed by the respondent no.1 for admission to the postgraduate courses. The petitioner states that in terms of the said brochure and the rules, the petitioner was required to fill a form categorizing her candidature. The petitioner found herself to be eligible to fall in “Type-A” candidate as stipulated in clause 5(1) of the Information Brochure, since the petitioner had cleared her HSC from the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and since she is domicile of State of Maharashtra and also born in the State of Maharashtra. After choosing the candidature, it was incumbent on the petitioner to select the colleges where she desired to pursue her postgraduate courses. The petitioner was desirous of obtaining a seat in the prestigious Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies (hereinafter referred to as “JBIMS”. However, the petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that the name of the said JBIMS was blocked on the official website. The petition then proceeds to state that JBIMS is an autonomous institution as defined under Section 2(e) of the Information Brochure and it was a part of the MAH-CET. Further, the petitioner would submit that the official website of the JBIMS also reflected that the said institute is affiliated with Director of Technical Education and would necessarily follow the admission procedure as prescribed in the information brochure. The intake capacity of the JBIMS is 120 seats and allocation of seats was governed by the Information Brochure. Further, the petitioner would submit that the official website of the JBIMS also reflected that the said institute is affiliated with Director of Technical Education and would necessarily follow the admission procedure as prescribed in the information brochure. The intake capacity of the JBIMS is 120 seats and allocation of seats was governed by the Information Brochure. The case of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that she underwent the stage of “verification of documents” on 20th June 2018 as provided in clause 9 of the Information Brochure and her form was duly accepted but it was not informed to the petitioner that she was being treated as an All India candidate. The first merit list was published on 29th June 2018 and she was constrained to fill her college preference as “L.N. Welingkar Institute of Management, Development and Research, Mumbai as JBIMS could not be selected as a preference and if she would not have given the preference to any institute, she would have been eliminated from the entire process. In the mean time, the JBIMS also published its merit list on 5th July 2018. The merit list was also published by L.N. Welingkar Institute of Management Development and Research Mumbai and the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.1 in the category of All India (AI) students. The petitioner, though declared herself as a Type-A candidate, was thus treated as an All India candidate and this is the grievance of the petitioner. 4. In support of the petition, we heard the learned counsel Shri Amogh Singh assisted by Advocate Jeet Gandhi. He raised a grievance that though the petitioner is found to be eligible for admission to the Welingkar Institute, the preference of the petitioner was to the prestigious Jamnalal Bajaj Institute and considering her All India Rank in the C-MAT, she was entitled for a seat in the said Institute. However, the access to the said Institute was blocked and there was no option available for the said institute. However, the access to the said Institute was blocked and there was no option available for the said institute. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 28th June 2018, the DTE had published a notification whereby it amended Schedule-I of the Information Brochure and by the said amended notification, the 15% reservation provided to “All India Students” in autonomous institutions, came to be removed for the management colleges, resultantly, the petitioner who had participated in the All India C-MAT test was not held entitled to secure an All India seat in the JBIMS. Shri Singh would submit that MAHCET examinations were conducted on 10th and 11th March 2018 and the petitioner did not appear for the said examination but at the relevant time, when she appeared for the C-MAT, the JBIMS was allotted a quota of 15% to be filled in through the All India Ranking. According to Shri Singh, the petitioner has been left in a situation where in spite of securing an excellent All India Rank, which is AIR-20 in the C-MAT examination, the petitioner is left to grope in the dark since she is not able to pursue her dream of securing a postgraduate degree from the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute. Shri Singh would submit that the amended notification is published as late as on 28th June 2018, and in fact, till that time, the candidates like the petitioner were given an impression that the information brochure which was published would govern the admission to the postgraduate courses. Had it been known to the petitioner, she would have appeared for the MH-CET examination and secured admission in the JBIMS on the basis of her scoring in the said examination, since 100% seats in the said institutes are kept reserved for the students participating in the MAH-CET examination. The petitioner, has therefore, assailed the said notification as being violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution and it is also alleged by Mr. Singh that the JBIMS has not followed the process in the Prescribed Information Brochure, by which it was imperative upon the autonomous institutes to allocate 85% seats to the Maharashtra candidates and 15% seats to the All India candidates out of the total intake of 120. Learned counsel Mr. Singh that the JBIMS has not followed the process in the Prescribed Information Brochure, by which it was imperative upon the autonomous institutes to allocate 85% seats to the Maharashtra candidates and 15% seats to the All India candidates out of the total intake of 120. Learned counsel Mr. Singh would vehemently submit that reserving 100% seats to the Maharashtra State candidature is amounting to 100% reservation and this is frowned upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgments on which he would place heavy reliance. Since the petitioner is desirous of only pursuing her postgraduate degree from JBIMS and though she is offered a seat in the Welingkar Institute from the All India Quota on the basis of her All India Ranking, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition in order to achieve her aim to secure a seat in the prestigious JBIMS, and to which she is legally entitled. 5. When this writ petition was listed before us, we had directed the State Authorities to file its response. The State Government accordingly filed its affidavit through the Joint Director, Directorate of Technical Education on 16th July 2018 and in the said reply, it is attempted to be canvassed that though the petitioner claims to be the Maharashtra State candidature Type-A, she has not appeared for the MAH-MBA/MMS-CET 2018 conducted by the competent authority and therefore, she cannot stake her candidature through the said door. On the contrary, the petitioner had only appeared for C-MAT examination and she is eligible for claiming an All India (AI) seat only and she cannot fill the option of JBIMS because in the said institute, All India (AI) seats are not available. It is further stated that in response to the preference of the petitioner that she is already allotted a seat from the All India Quota on the basis of merit in Principal, L.N. Welingkar Institute of Management Development and Research, Mumbai as per her own option/ preference no.1 as mentioned in the option form and as per the admission rules that the seat has been auto freezed and confirmed. Reliance is sought to be placed on the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 20th June 2018 along with the amendment of Schedule-I of the Information Brochure. Reliance is sought to be placed on the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 20th June 2018 along with the amendment of Schedule-I of the Information Brochure. When this matter was listed before us on 10th July 2018, we had accepted the said affidavit in reply filed by the State and passed the following order. “1 Affidavit in reply of the State is taken on record. 2. A perusal of the same, and particularly the annexure thereto, reveals very sorry state of affairs and prevailing in the Department of Higher and Technical Education as also the Directorate of Technical Education. 3. The Government of Maharashtra through this Department has brought to the notice of the Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, that the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017 contains a schedule and styled as Schedule-IV. The Schedule to that and Schedule to the present brochure, copy of which is at page 61 of the paper book styled as 'Schedule I' are not identical. 4. In the former, 100% seats are reserved in the Government/Government aided institutions and university departments and SNDT University, excluding minority institutions, whereas the relevant part of the Schedule-I to the information brochure for admission to Post Graduate technical courses 2018-19 reads as under :- SCHEDULE-I Sr. No. Type of Institution No. of Seats as % of Sanctioned Intake CAP Seats Maharashtra State (M.S) Candidates All India Seats Minority Quota For Management Courses 1 Government/Government Aided Institutions, University Departments Excluding Minority Institutions SNDT University Autonomous – 85% (State Level) Non-Autonomous & University departments – 70% for HU, 15% for OHU (85% State Level Seats in SNDT University) 15% Nil 5. We do not think that the State Government and particularly this Directorate ever intended to comply with the law of the land but has proceeded to reserve 100% seats for management courses in the above institutions. Whether this Schedule-I which we have reproduced above is accurate or the understanding of the Government based on the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017 and Schedule IV appended thereto is correct, has to be ascertained and for that, we would like both sides to assist the Court. 6. Whether this Schedule-I which we have reproduced above is accurate or the understanding of the Government based on the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017 and Schedule IV appended thereto is correct, has to be ascertained and for that, we would like both sides to assist the Court. 6. At this stage, it is also not clear to us whether the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Sciences is government/government aided institution or University department for schedule I to the brochure as reproduced above and Schedule VI to the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017 indicate that Government/Government aided institutions and University Departments are distinct. In order not to cause further confusion and chaos and unsettle every single student who may have by now frozen his options and choices, let this matter be posted tomorrow at 3.00 p.m.” 6. Considering the wider ramifications and importance of the issue involved in the petition, the learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 and assisted us by placing before us the developments that had taken place during the pendency of the said writ petition. At the outset, the learned Advocate General raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition at this stage when the CAP process is at the fag end. Citing the chronology of events, the learned Advocate General Shri Kumbhakoni would submit that the State of Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions, Regulation of Admission and Fees Act 2015. The said enactment was brought into force on 12th May 2015. On 24th April 2017, the rules to renew the admissions to the First Year of Full Time Professional Post-Graduate Technical courses (Engineering and Technology), Pharmacy, Architecture, Hotel Management and Catering technology, Management and Computer Applications were framed. He would submit that on 25th April 2017, the Government issued a resolution regulating the conduct of admissions to the Government/Government aided, University Departments, University Management Colleges along with Unaided Private Professional Technical Education Institutes and introduced a mechanism of admission through a single window system under the Commissioner, CET Cell. He would submit that on 25th April 2017, the Government issued a resolution regulating the conduct of admissions to the Government/Government aided, University Departments, University Management Colleges along with Unaided Private Professional Technical Education Institutes and introduced a mechanism of admission through a single window system under the Commissioner, CET Cell. He would submit that this Government Resolution was appended with Schedule-VI which provided for distribution of seats in the postgraduate courses and this Schedule-VI provides for distribution of seats in the management course in an autonomous institute in the Maharashtra State and perusal of the said schedule would reveal that for autonomous institute in the Maharashtra State, 100% seats are prescribed to be filled in at State level and 15% seats to be filled in as All India seats. The learned Advocate General would submit that this together tallied at 115% of the sanctioned intake and it created confusion among the stake holders. However, in the said Academic Year, the DTE interpreted and applied it as 85% (Maharashtra State quota) and 15% (All India Quota). Shri Kumbhakoni would submit that the said implementation and application of Schedule-VI however created an unrest and representations were received from various sources including All India Students Association of Maharashtra State and repeated request was made to clarify the confusion in the figures mentioned in Schedule-VII at serial no.1 for management courses and this was in particular about the number of seats and its distribution in the JBIMS which is an autonomous institute. The Director of Technical Education made a request to the State Government to correct the unintentional error occurring in Schedule-VI of the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2017. The amendment to the said Rules of 2017 for unaided professional technical institutions, through a gazette notification was effected on 5th February 2018. On 19th June 2018, the information brochure for admission to postgraduate courses for the year 2018-19 was published after obtaining necessary approval from the Commissioner, State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The learned Advocate General would submit that it was on 20th June 2018, the Government issued instructions to implement 100% reservation for the Maharashtra State candidature and 0% for All India seats in the autonomous, Government, Government aided, University department and the University Management Department. The learned Advocate General would submit that it was on 20th June 2018, the Government issued instructions to implement 100% reservation for the Maharashtra State candidature and 0% for All India seats in the autonomous, Government, Government aided, University department and the University Management Department. In furtherance thereof, on 28th June 2018, the correction was carried out in the information brochure showing that 100% intake in the autonomous institution is meant for Maharashtra students and there will not be any allotment for the All India Quota. This covered the JBIMS. 7. The specific submission of the learned Advocate General is that the petitioner expressly became aware about 100% seats being reserved for the Maharashtra State candidates in the JBIMS when the said amendment was carried out in the information brochure. He would submit that thereafter, the provisional merit list was displayed on 29th June 2018 and the final merit list was displayed on 2nd July 2018. It was at this time, the petitioner, according to the learned Advocate General again became aware that JBIMS has 100% reservation for the Maharashtra State candidates but the petitioner proceeded to submit her option form for Cap round I and at this stage, the petitioner was aware that she could not opt for JBIMS since it has 100% reservation for Maharashtra State candidature. Further, according to him, on display of the allotment of Cap Round I, the petitioner who was allotted a seat in L.N Welingkar Institute of Management Development and Research, as per her preference, rightly and willingly accepted that she cannot secure her admission in JBIMS since no seat is reserved for the All India candidates and she was such a candidate. The learned Advocate General has given the data to the effect that the registered number of candidates who participated in the entire process would reveal that total 34083 candidates staked their claims to the postgraduate seats as Maharashtra State candidates, whereas 38,919 staked their claims as All India candidates. On the conclusion of Cap Round I, total 22259 seats came to be allotted and at the conclusion of Cap II round, the number swelled to 23,879. On conclusion of the said rounds, 19,708 students reported for seat acceptance and 6183 candidates reported to institutes and paid fees. On the conclusion of Cap Round I, total 22259 seats came to be allotted and at the conclusion of Cap II round, the number swelled to 23,879. On conclusion of the said rounds, 19,708 students reported for seat acceptance and 6183 candidates reported to institutes and paid fees. The learned Advocate General would thus submit that the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance to overturn the entire procedure adopted for admission to the professional postgraduate technical courses at the fag end when a large number of students have already secured their seats and the learned Advocate General would submit that any tinkering with the said process at this stage to entertain the grievance of the petitioner would disturb the whole admission process and would also amount to disturbing the admissions which are already secured and that too, at a stage when the academic session is to begin. In this backdrop, the learned Advocate General would submit that entertaining the grievance of the petitioner at this stage should be completely unjustified and the Court would restrain itself from entertaining the grievance of the petitioner, since the petitioner has come at a belated stage when the rights of other students have been crystallized. Conclusively, learned Advocate General would submit that the petition cannot be entertained and the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage and even if the Court finds some merit in the claim of the petitioner, he would submit that this need not be entertained in the present Academic Session, but if the Hon'ble Court issues appropriate directions and arrives at a conclusion that the mode of admission adopted by the DTE suffers from some flaw, then at the most, it can be implemented from the next Academic Session. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the copy of the writ petition along with the annexures. We have also apprised ourselves of the legal position holding the field and which is echoed by various precedents over the years in relation to the issue of reservation of seats either at the institution or at the regional level. 9. We have also apprised ourselves of the legal position holding the field and which is echoed by various precedents over the years in relation to the issue of reservation of seats either at the institution or at the regional level. 9. The petitioner though merely seeks a direction for consideration of her admission as an All India Candidate, based on her ranking and score in the C-MAT examination, which is an All India examination and seeks a seat from the 15% All India Quota in the MBA/MMS in the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute, Mumbai, the petitioner in effect calls in question the process adopted by the respondent no.1 for the MBA/MMS examination for the year 2018-19. In the year 2018-19, the State Common Entrance Cell, has published an information brochure for admission to the postgraduate Technical courses which governs the admission for First Year of Post-Graduate in the courses like Engineering and Technology (M.A/M-Tech), Pharmacy, Architecture, Hotel Management and Catering Technology Management (MBA) and Computer Application (MCA). The brochure sets out the criteria of eligibility and the rules of admission to various technical, professional, postgraduate degree courses in State of Maharashtra. It prescribes the various steps to be undergone in the process of admission including the invitation of application, preparation of merit list, distribution of seats, details of reservation and the various rounds and stages of the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) and filling up of the institutional quota seats after the Cap rounds. The information brochure specifically makes a reference to the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fees) Act of 2015 and the Rules published by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the said Act (Maharashtra Act No. 28 of 2015) published on 24th April 2017. The Information brochure explains certain terms and All India seats have been defined in Rule 2(c) to mean seats available to any eligible Indian National candidate. “All India Autonomous Institution” is explained in 2(e) to mean “the institution to which autonomy is granted by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The eligible candidate is assigned a specific meaning in 2(j) and means candidates who are eligible for different professional courses, as notified by the Government, from time to time under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The eligible candidate is assigned a specific meaning in 2(j) and means candidates who are eligible for different professional courses, as notified by the Government, from time to time under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The term “qualifying examination” is defined in section 2(t) to mean examination on the basis of which a candidate becomes eligible for admission or its equivalent examination. Rule 5 provides for the candidature Type and 5.1 defines what is a Maharashtra State Candidature. This Rule categorizes Maharashtra candidates from Type-A to Type-E as mentioned in the Rule to be a Maharashtra State Candidature and clarifies that a candidate can claim only one type of Maharashtra State Candidature. This Rule then enumerates five different categories when a candidate can be said to be a Maharashtra State Candidate and this includes the candidates who are either domicile of Maharashtra and/or is born in Maharashtra or depending upon the residence of the father or mother of the candidate, they are categorized as “Maharashtra State Candidature”. In the present case, we need not detain ourselves to further details of this type of candidature since the petitioner though domiciled in State of Maharashtra had not appeared for the qualifying examination i.e. MHCET and therefore, she is not found eligible to claim a seat of Maharashtra State Candidature type. 10. Section 5.2 defines an All India candidature and reads thus : 5.2 All India Candidature :-The Candidates having Indian Nationality are eligible under this Category. Rule 7 provides for allocation of seats which reads thus : 7. Allocation of Seats : The percentage of allocation of seats for various types of candidates in the Home University, Other than Home University and State Level shall be in accordance with the policy of the Government as specified in Schedule I for First Year and Schedule-II for Direct Second Year of various Post Graduate Courses. 7.1 Maharashtra State Candidature Seats :- The Candidates having Maharashtra State Candidature as specified in 5(1), shall be eligible for these seats. 7.2 All India Candidature Seats :- The Candidates having Candidature as given in 5(2) shall be eligible for these seats. 7.3 Minority Quota Seats :- The Candidates having Candidature mentioned in 5(3) shall be eligible for these seats as specified in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. These seats shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 6, of the Act. 7.3 Minority Quota Seats :- The Candidates having Candidature mentioned in 5(3) shall be eligible for these seats as specified in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. These seats shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 6, of the Act. 7.4 Institutional Quota Seats :- The Institution can admit Eligible Candidates as specified in Schedule-I and Schedule-II, subject to following conditions :- (i) The Candidates having Candidature mentioned in 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4) and 5(6) shall be eligible for these seats. (ii) The maximum 5% seats may be filled in from the NRI Candidates, if it is approved by the Appropriate Authority, at the Institution level. (iii) If the seats reserved for NRI quota remains vacant, those vacant seats may be filled in by the Institution, from the Eligible Candidates of All India Candidature. Perusal of the above Rules would reveal that the State has already decided as to the percentage of allocation of seats of various types of candidates and the candidates having Maharashtra State Candidature as specified in Rule 5(1) are entitled to take the Maharashtra State Candidature seats whereas candidates having candidature as mentioned in Rule 5.2 i.e. All India Candidature are entitled to take All India Candidature seats. Then, there is also an enumeration of who will take the minority quota seats and who will take the institutional quota seats. However, we are not concerned with the same and therefore, will not delve upon that issue. 11. Rule 7.7 prescribes the eligibility criteria and for a Maharashtra State candidate to take a Maharashtra Candidature seat, the following criteria is prescribed : (1) Maharashtra State Candidature Candidate :- (i) The Candidate should be an Indian National. (ii) Passed minimum three year duration Bachelor's Degree awarded by any of the Universities recognized by University Grants Commission or Association of Indian Universities in any discipline with at least 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent at least 45% in case of candidates of backward class categories and Persons with Disability belonging to Maharashtra State only) or its equivalent. (ii) Passed minimum three year duration Bachelor's Degree awarded by any of the Universities recognized by University Grants Commission or Association of Indian Universities in any discipline with at least 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent at least 45% in case of candidates of backward class categories and Persons with Disability belonging to Maharashtra State only) or its equivalent. (iii) Obtained non zero score in CET conducted by the Competent Authority (MAH-MBA/MMS-CET 2018) As far as All India candidature is concerned, the following criteria must be fulfilled by him in order to take the said seat and it is enumerated in 7.7 (2) which reads thus : (2) All India Candidature Candidates, Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Candidature Candidates : (i) The Candidate should be an Indian National. (ii) Passed minimum three year duration Bachelor's Degree awarded by the University recognized by University Grants Commission or Association of Indian Universities in any discipline with at least 50% marks in aggregate or equivalent (at least 45% in case of candidates of backward class categories and Persons with Disability belonging to Maharashtra State only) or its equivalent. (iii) Obtained non zero positive score in one of the following examinations : CET conducted by the Competent Authority (MAH-MBA/MMS-CET 2018), Common Admission Test conducted by Indian Institute of Management (CAT), Common Management Aptitude Test conducted by All India Council for Technical Education (CMAT) Graduate Management Aptitude Test conducted by Graduate Management Admission Council, United States of America (GMAT), Management Aptitude Test conducted by All India Management Association (MAT), Entrance Test for Management Admissions conducted by the Association of Indian Management Schools (ATMA), Xavier Aptitude Test conducted by Xavier School of Management Jamshedpur (XAT), valid for admission during the Academic Year 2018-19. 12. From perusal of the said clause 7.7, it is clear that a Maharashtra State Candidature Candidate can take a seat from the Maharashtra State Quota when he obtains a score in the CET conducted by the Competent Authority (MBA-MMS-CET 2018). This test is conducted by the State Government through the Director of Technical Education. 12. From perusal of the said clause 7.7, it is clear that a Maharashtra State Candidature Candidate can take a seat from the Maharashtra State Quota when he obtains a score in the CET conducted by the Competent Authority (MBA-MMS-CET 2018). This test is conducted by the State Government through the Director of Technical Education. As far as All India Candidate is concerned, he takes an All India seat on the basis of his score obtained in any of the examinations conducted at All India level i.e. the CET conducted by Competent Authority i.e. the State Government, CET conducted by the Indian Institute of Management (CAT), the Common Management Aptitude Test conducted by AICT (C-MAT), Graduate Management Aptitude Test conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council, United States of America, (G-MAT) and certain other similar tests which are conducted at All India Level. The brochure also proceeds to mention in Rule 10.2 that the allotment of All India Candidature candidate to the seats shall be done on the basis of the percentile score conducted by the Competent Authority and the various authorities conducting the entrance examination. Schedule-I appended to the said brochure prescribes allocation of seats within sanctioned intake for first year of postgraduate courses in the Government and Government Aided institutions. We are concerned with the admission of management courses and the relevant prescription in Schedule-I in relation to the management courses reads thus : S.No. Type of Institution No. of Seats as % of Sanctioned Intake CAP SEATS Maharashtra State (M.S) Candidates All India Seats Minority Quota For Management Courses 1 Government/Government Aided Institutions, University Departments Excluding Minority Institutions SNDT University Autonomous 85% (State Level) Non-Autonomous & University Departments 70% for HU, 15% for OHU (85% State Level Seats in SNDT University) 15% NIL Thus, the Schedule prescribes that as far as Autonomous Institutions are concerned, 85% seats of the sanctioned intake in the Government and Government Aided institutions would be allotted to the Maharashtra State candidates whereas 15% would go to the All India candidates. The State Government, therefore, conveyed to the participants in the process that in the Autonomous Institution, 85% seats are reserved for Maharashtra State candidates whereas 15% seats would be allotted to the All India Candidature candidates. The State Government, therefore, conveyed to the participants in the process that in the Autonomous Institution, 85% seats are reserved for Maharashtra State candidates whereas 15% seats would be allotted to the All India Candidature candidates. The Jamnalal Bajaj Institute in which the petitioner seeks admission is an Autonomous Institution and would fall within the said category which offers the courses in management. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of filling up of the option form, no option for her was available as an All India Candidate in the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute. This fact is not disputed by the State Government and also by the learned Advocate General. The case set up by the respondent is that the said Schedule-I appended to the brochure came to be amended by a notification and by a communication addressed by the State Government to the Director of Technical Education. Thus, the Schedule came to be amended. The amended schedule reads thus : S.No. Type of Institution No. of Seats as % of Sanctioned Intake CAP SEATS Maharashtra State (M.S) Candidates All India Seats Minority Quota For Management Courses 1 Government/Government Aided Institutions, University Departments Excluding Minority Institutions SNDT University Autonomous 100% (State Level) Non-Autonomous & University Departments 70% for HU, 15% for OHU (85% State Level Seats in SNDT University) Nil 15% NIL 14. The effect of the amended schedule is that in an autonomous institution, 100% seats are reserved for Maharashtra State candidates. Surprisingly, this amendment is effected in the backdrop of a question that has been raised by the Member of the Legislative Council, one Professor Shrikant Deshpande, who by making reference to the notification dated 25th April 2017, represented to the Government that reading of the said notification has given an impression as if 100% seats are reserved at the State level and over and above it, 15% seats are for All India Candidates and this would take it to 115% which is not permissible. This discrepancy being pointed out, promptly, the schedule came to be amended deleting the allocation of 15% All India seats in the autonomous institution, thereby reserving 100% seats for the State Candidature candidates. This is what is objected by the present petitioner. 15. This discrepancy being pointed out, promptly, the schedule came to be amended deleting the allocation of 15% All India seats in the autonomous institution, thereby reserving 100% seats for the State Candidature candidates. This is what is objected by the present petitioner. 15. The question as to whether 100% seats can be reserved for the Maharashtra State candidates or for that matter, for any State candidates, is no more res integra and is entrenched by series of authoritative pronouncements delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts and also this Court. The claim of the Institutions/University or the Region to reserve 100% seats in its favour was subject matter of special leave petitions and a series of judgments concludes the issue by answering it in the negative. In the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dr.Pradeep Jain and others Vs. Union of India and ors (1984) 3 SCC 654 Court had noted that in almost all States and Union Territories, admissions to medical colleges were based either on residential requirement or upon institutional preference. Though the extent of the residence required, varied from State to State, every State had prescribed some requirement of residence. The poser before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether, consistent with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college or any other institution of higher learning situated in a State can be confined to those who have their domicile within the State for a number of years or can any reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them precedence over those who are not domiciled or resident of a particular State, irrespective of the merit. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that effort must always be to select the best and meritorious student for admission to technical institutions or medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the country and that it would be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions, less meritorious students when more meritorious students are available. So, wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile or residential requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by a University or the State excluding all students not satisfying the requirement, regardless of merit has been condemned. So, wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile or residential requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by a University or the State excluding all students not satisfying the requirement, regardless of merit has been condemned. The Court took a view that reservation of seats based on residential requirement within the State or on institutional preference should in no event, exceed the outer limit of 70% of the total number of seats. The Hon'ble Apex Court had in so many terms held that as far as admission to the Post Graduate courses are concerned and specifically the super specialties, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admission should be granted purely on merit at All India basis. Nonetheless, the Apex Court evolved the proposition that certain percentage of seats, may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in a sense that a student who has passed a course from the medical college or University may be given preference to admission to the Post-Graduate course in the same medical college or University, but it should not, in any case, exceed 50% of the open seats available for postgraduate course. In the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Court in case of Nidamarti Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1986 SC 1362 which relates to constitutional validity of region wise reservation of seats in medical colleges, the Hon'ble Apex Court recognized the need of the region from which the students of the University are largely drawn and particularly when the region is backward, and it examined the issue from the point of view of opportunities of medical education or availability of competent and adequate medical services and held that it would be constitutionally permissible, without violating the mandate of equality clause to provide a percentage of reservation or preference for students coming from that region because without reservation or preference, the students from such backward region, will be hardly able to compete with those from advanced regions, since there is a disparity in the opportunities available for their development. In short, the reservation of certain percentage was held to be not averse to the constitutional mandate of equality. The Hon'ble Apex Court made observation to the following effect : “19. In short, the reservation of certain percentage was held to be not averse to the constitutional mandate of equality. The Hon'ble Apex Court made observation to the following effect : “19. It will be noticed from the above discussion that though intra-state discrimination between persons resident in different districts or regions of a State has by an large been frowned upon by the court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran's case and Perukaruppan's case, the Court has in D.N. Chanchalla's case and other similar cases up-held institutional reservation effected through university wise distribution of seats for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its decisions in D.P. Joshi's case and N. Vasundhara's case sustained the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence within a State for the purpose of admission to medical college. These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for us to hold, in the face of these decisions, that residence requirement in at State for admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot be introduced as a condition for admission without violating the mandate of equality of opportunity contained in Article 14. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a State can be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a State can be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course. It is of course true that the Medical Education Review Committee established by the Government of India has in its report recommended after taking into account all relevant considerations, that the "final objective should be to ensure that all admissions to the MBBS course should be open to candidates on an All India basis without the imposition of existing domiciliary condition," but having regard to the practical difficulties of transition to the stage where admissions to MBBS course in all medical colleges would be on all India basis, the medical Education Review Committee has suggested "that to begin with not less than 25 per cent seats in each institution may be open to candidates on all India basis." We are not all sure whether at the present stage it would be consistent with the mandate of equality in its broader dynamic sense to provide that admissions to the MBBS course in all medical colleges in the country should be on all India basis. Theoretically, of course, if admissions are given on the basis of all India national entrance examination, each individual would have equal opportunity of securing admission, but that would not take into account diverse consideration, such as, differing level of social, economic and educational development of different regions, disparity in the number of seats available for admission to the MBBS course in different States, difficulties which may be experienced by students from one region who might in the competition on all India basis get admission to the MBBS course in another region far remote from their own and other allied factors. There can be no doubt that the policy of ensuring admissions to the MBBS course on all India basis is a highly desirable policy, based as it is on the postulate that India is one national and every citizen of India is entitled to have equal opportunity for education and advancement, but it is an ideal to be aimed at and it may not be realistically possible in the present circumstances, to adopt it, for it cannot produce real equality of opportunity unless there is complete absence of disparities and inequalities a situation which simply does not exist in the country today Though the Hon'ble Apex Court recognized the principle of merit as a predominant factor governing the admission process to professional courses, however, it also recognized the affirmative action in favour of socially and economically disadvantageous section of the society. The two considerations which justified the departure from the principle of admissions solely on the basis of merit which were derived from the Hon'ble Apex Court were in respect of “State Interest” and the regions claiming backwardness. As far as the first ground of interest of the State, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon its earlier decision in case of D.P. Joshi Vs. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1955 SC 334 . In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that since a considerable amount of expenditure is incurred by the State in maintaining medical college, the State would be perfectly justified in contemplating a requirement that the advantage of educational system should, at least to a certain extent, ensure the benefit for the respective State and in light of the said principle laid down, a concessional matter of payment of fees to students residing in the State was held to be justified on the ground that some of the students would settle down as Doctors and serve the State and thereby cater to their medical needs. Further, the said judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been consistently followed and in the judgment of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & ors Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and ors, (1986) 3 SCC 727 a revised scheme was set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court with certain modifications and it confined the scheme to medical colleges or institutions run by Union of India or the State Government or a Municipal or other local authority. Dinesh Kumar & ors Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and ors, (1986) 3 SCC 727 a revised scheme was set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court with certain modifications and it confined the scheme to medical colleges or institutions run by Union of India or the State Government or a Municipal or other local authority. The scheme came to be modified by reserving 15% of total number of MBBS/BDS seats and 25% of total number of seats for postgraduate courses available for admission of the post of All India Entrance Examination. The manner in which the All India Entrance Examination should be conducted was also set out by the said judgment. The ratio of these judgments has been consistently followed and after the decision in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) which was followed in Dinesh Kumar (supra), the practice all over the country has been to reserve 15% of the seats in the MBBS course and 25% seats in the postgraduate medical courses in all the Government medical colleges in the country available on the basis of merit alone. Students from anywhere in the country were permitted to compete for these seats which are allotted on the basis of All India Test conducted by designated authority. It was consistently held that the Rule of preference on the basis of domicile or requirement of residence is not bad in law, provided it is within reasonable limits, and does not result in reserving more than the aforesaid percentage. When the students from different Universities appear at a Common Entrance Test, the Rule of University wise preference, lost its relevance, since there would be a difference in evaluation, standards of education and syllabus. Then, stepped in the regime of the State regulating the process of admission and conducting the Common Entrance Test with the intention that the students from different Universities or whatsoever sources would compete in one examination and the result of the said examination would be the basis for securing an entry in the professional courses. 16. Then, stepped in the regime of the State regulating the process of admission and conducting the Common Entrance Test with the intention that the students from different Universities or whatsoever sources would compete in one examination and the result of the said examination would be the basis for securing an entry in the professional courses. 16. From the series of judgments, it has been settled that reserving certain number of seats in the educational institutions with its object of ensuring that the incumbent would serve the State concerned and for enhancement of the educational standards of the people who are residing in a particular State, such reservation has been time and again upheld, but on the other hand, cent percent seats having reserved on the basis of regional preference, institutional preference has been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principle that has been enunciated in the series of judgment is to permit certain percentage of reservation on the basis of criteria of residence, region, institution or being domiciled in a State. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has upheld the criteria of reservation of seats for candidates who have a seat upto a particular standard. 17. In case of Anant Madan Vs. Union of India, 1995 (2) SCC 135 the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a case of admission to a medical college and dental college in State of Haryana and the eligibility criteria prescribed for the entrance test to be conducted by the State of Haryana was that a candidate should be a resident/domicile in the State of Haryana. This criteria was prescribed in the year 1994, but till the year 1993, a candidate was required to produce the certificate of Haryana domicile/residence as prescribed in the Rules, but in 1994, an additional condition required the candidate to study 10, 10 + 1, 10 + 2 classes as regular candidate in the recognized institution in State of Haryana and imposition of this additional criteria was the subject matter of litigation. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the said criteria and made the following observations : “8. In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in a recognised institution in the State of Haryana, can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the said criteria and made the following observations : “8. In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in a recognised institution in the State of 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 1955, in the case of D.R. Joshi v. State 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 vs. Union of India this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting admission 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 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 region and serve their region 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 of this Court in Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India. 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 of this Court in Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India. This Court has observed in that judgment : "We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission 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 1 or premedical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges 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 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. 10. In the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of candidates having studied for the preceding three years in recognised schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of seats. It excludes 15% seats which have to be filled in on an all-India basis. This eligibility criterion, therefore, is in conformity with the decisions of this Court referred to above. It cannot, therefore, be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case of Rajdeep Ghosh Vs. State of Assam6 reiterates its earlier decisions. A Rule prescribed for admission to the medical colleges and dental colleges of Assam known as the Regulation of Admission to First Year MBBS/BDS course) Rules of 2017 was the subject matter of a group of petitions decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 17th August 2018. State of Assam6 reiterates its earlier decisions. A Rule prescribed for admission to the medical colleges and dental colleges of Assam known as the Regulation of Admission to First Year MBBS/BDS course) Rules of 2017 was the subject matter of a group of petitions decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 17th August 2018. The said Rule prescribed eligibility for the State Quota seat and one of the eligibility condition prescribed that the candidates must study in all the classes from class 8th to 12th in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. The petitioners who failed to comply with the said Rule and had pursued education for some classes outside the State of Assam, but who were residents of State of Assam and even studied for some classes in the State were aggrieved. They alleged that the classification is violative of Article 14 and that there was no justiciable reason to conclude that students who have studied from class 8 to class 12 outside the State of Assam are not likely to serve the State after they acquire their MBBS degree. The said Rule was examined in extenso by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court made reference to its earlier judgment in case of D.P. Joshi (supra) as well as extensively referred to the judgment in case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra). It also made a reference to the judgment of Saurabh Chaudri & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors (2003) 11 SCC 146 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question of reservation for postgraduate courses in medical colleges by providing an institutional preference, where the Apex Court had concluded that the expression “place of birth” is not synonymous with the expression “domicile” and they reflect two different concepts and it answered the question whether the reservation on the basis of domicile is permissible in the negative. After taking a review of the decisions holding the field, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Government of Assam to provide preference to State residence/institutional preference and it held that it does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and it is based on intelligible differentia and cannot be termed as discriminatory. After taking a review of the decisions holding the field, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Government of Assam to provide preference to State residence/institutional preference and it held that it does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and it is based on intelligible differentia and cannot be termed as discriminatory. The Hon'ble Apex Court also made it clear that all those students who have not pursued their education from class 8 to 12 as was a requirement to obtain a seat from State Quota, can always stake their claim for All India Quota seat for the State of Assam. It thus laid down a proposition of law that with respect to State Quota seat, it is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement, and the incumbent must fulfill the criteria. 19. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of the same Judges also had an opportunity to deal with a similar Rule in relation to medical admission pursuant to NEET UG2018 in a Writ Petition and it concluded as follows : 65. We do not see how any eligibility for admission to Health Science degree courses as has been prescribed by this clause cannot be prescribed in law. Can we then ignore all these sub-clauses and the stipulations therein ? Each one of them would have to be read together and harmoniously. While they outline the condition of residence and domicile in the State of Maharashtra in clause 4.1.2, even an overseas citizen of India candidate will be eligible provided he has passed the tenth and twelfth standard examination from the State of Maharashtra and is a domicile of Maharashtra or staying in Maharashtra for a minimum period of ten years. Thus, merely because a condition by which the candidate is required to be a domicile of Maharashtra is set out separately and the other two conditions with regard to passing of SSC or equivalent and HSC/qualifying examination or equivalent with the subjects set out therein have been distinctly inserted, that we can conclude that they have absolutely no nexus or relation with the object sought to be achieved. Eventually, the object sought to be achieved is that a candidate, domiciled in the State of Maharashtra and fulfilling the requirement of educational qualifications required for admission to the degree course, obtained within the State of Maharashtra, alone is eligible. This condition can be prescribed either together with the domicile or separately. Once it is so prescribed to hold that there is no nexus at all or it has no relation with the object sought to be achieved would not be proper. If there is a departure from the rule of merit permissible in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court verdict itself on two grounds, one of which is the interest of the State, then, to safeguard and protect it, such condition has been inserted. It cannot be termed as superfluous or ignored totally for mere domicile may not justify earmarking of eighty five per cent seats for the State of Maharashtra. If the State of Maharashtra is held to be entitled to fill in these eighty five per cent seats by students residing within its limits and for protecting its interest and achieving the larger cause of obtaining doctors for public health facilities and caring, then, all the more, the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioners on the point of nexus cannot be accepted. If there was ever any doubt even that stands cleared by clauses 4.17 and 4.18 of the Brochure, which reads as under : “4.17 All those candidates who have passed the SSC. (Std. X) and/or H.S.C. (Std. XII) or equivalent examinations from an institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra and not Domicile of Maharashtra are not ELIGIBLE for admission to Health Science courses except, those exempted under Rule 4.7, 4/8, Defence & MKB and NRI quota (41.2) in private unaided college. 4.18 Admission to Health Science Courses is subject to the grant of eligibility by Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik.” 20. The position of law that emanates from the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it is clear that it is not permissible to provide 100% reservation for the local or the State of Maharashtra candidates. The said reservation to the extent of 100% is in the teeth of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. The said reservation to the extent of 100% is in the teeth of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. From a perusal of the facts that have been placed before us, it is seen that in the last Academic Year i.e. 2017-18, the relevant rules provide for allocation of 100% seats in autonomous colleges to the Maharashtra State candidates and over and above it, 15% of seats to All India candidates. By mistake, the total allocation of the seats was construed to be 115% which was impracticable and not permissible. However, while actual implementation of the aforesaid Rules, according to the learned Advocate General, State had allocated 85% seats in autonomous colleges to the Maharashtra State candidates and 15% seats to All India candidates and this ratio was consistently followed for the preceding years. However, this year, the State had changed this stance and has reserved 100% seats for the State candidates and reduced the allocation of All India candidature seats to (Nil) 0”. Thus, it amounts to 100% reservation in favour of candidates/students from the State which is illegal and impermissible. Further more, the justification of the State that the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute is funded by the State Government and that the State incurs huge expenditure from its own funds for running and maintaining very high standards of these Institutions would not justify allocation of 100% seats to the Maharashtra State candidates. The institution which is founded in 1965 is a unique management institution and is one of the oldest management institutions in the country. It has been consistently ranked among the top 10 Business schools in India across numerous “B” School ranking. The Jamnalal Bajaj Institute is known for its Industry synced practical application of knowledge and it aims at promoting and launching various educational research and activities for advancement of management institutions. The said Institution is also well known for its highly professional and qualified faculty members with a brilliant blend of stalwarts from the industry and the academicians. Its alumni consists of the brightest minds of the country varying from various academic backgrounds like Engineering, Commerce, Chartered Accountancy etc. It is an Institute renowned for being nurturing ground for todays top business leaders. Its alumni consists of the brightest minds of the country varying from various academic backgrounds like Engineering, Commerce, Chartered Accountancy etc. It is an Institute renowned for being nurturing ground for todays top business leaders. The institution of such a stature is being deprived of the meritorious All India students who can be shaped by the said institution in the form of the future generation Managers. The institution happens to be situated in the State of Maharashtra does not lose its national identity and status. Merely because it is situated in the State of Maharashtra and funded by the State of Maharashtra, does not further reduce it to a State Institution. JBIMS would create future technicians, Scientists, Economists, Engineers who would further the economic advancement of the country. It is being deprived of bright meritorious students from all over the country as the entry of these students has been completely shunned by reserving the seat only for the State candidates. The candidates like the petitioner who has a high All India Ranking and deserves a seat in the said prestigious institution has been only kept out of the said process because of the amended Schedule-I by which 100% seats in JBIMS have been reserved for the State candidates and thereby aspirants like the petitioner who has excelled in All India Entrance examination have been kept away from entering in the said prestigious institution. This according to us is a great national loss and demeaning the status of an institution of national stature. 21. For the reasons indicated above, we have already found that the reservation is vitiated. The issue now is of relief and instead of quashing the whole process after the three rounds have concluded and causing immense loss and prejudice to number of students from both categories and particularly such students who have been admitted on the footing that there is a 100% reservation for the local or State of Maharashtra candidates, would not redress the petitioner's grievance. The whole process would have to be redone and from inception. Now, disturbing the admissions and after the process has more or less concluded, would not be proper. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned Advocate for the petitioner to this extent. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has enough power to mould the relief. The whole process would have to be redone and from inception. Now, disturbing the admissions and after the process has more or less concluded, would not be proper. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned Advocate for the petitioner to this extent. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has enough power to mould the relief. We, therefore, mould the relief by accepting the statements of the learned Advocate General as undertakings to this Court. We direct that before 14th August 2018, the petitioner shall be allowed to complete the formalities on the footing that she stands admitted to an open seat in the Master of Management Studies (Degree Course) in the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Sciences, Mumbai. Both the Directorate of Technical Education, the Commissioner of State Entrance State Cell and the Institute shall ensure that the petitioner is admitted against the open seat by 14th August 2018. It is on this statement which is accepted as an undertaking to this Court that we are not quashing and setting aside the whole process. 22. Rule is, however, made absolute by quashing the reservation as made to the extent of 100% but by clarifying that the process for the current academic session be not disturbed. That is not disturbed, save and except to the extent relief is granted to the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.