JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. The appellants before us were the writ petitioners and they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.9.2018, whereby their challenge to the Rules for selection of candidates for the reserved MBBS seat for the wards of Malayalees living in Lakshadweep, was negated by the learned single Judge. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the present proceedings are referred to as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The court found that although the 2nd petitioner, who was the aspiring student, had higher ranking in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Examination (UG) 2018 (NEET-UG 2018) she can have no legitimate claim, as she was never a resident in Lakshadweep or had ever done her schooling in a school in the island. Since the rival candidate Sri.Shelwin George P.G. (the additional respondent No.6) is found to have satisfied the criteria of being a ward of a Malayalee living in the island and who had studied in an island school, the admission granted to the additional 6th respondent for the quota seat, was left undisturbed by rejecting the challenge of the 2nd petitioner, who is found to have not satisfied the norms, for the claim to the reserved category medical seat. 3. The learned counsel Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar for the petitioners contends that the Ext.P1 read with the circular dated 10.7.2018 (Ext.P5), which provides for adding of grace marks, to the percentile score obtained in NEET-UG 2018, to consider applicants for the quota seat, is discriminatory and the same is inconsistent with the requirement of giving admission on merit, as per the NEET score. The counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan [ (2016) 9 SCC 749 ] and reads clause 1.4 (c) of the Ext.P2 prospectus, to argue that admission to MBBS Medical courses should be regulated on merit as assessed in the NEET-UG 2018 conducted by the CBSE. In that context, the counsel points out that the marks secured by the 6th respondent in the NEET-UG 2018 is 99 whereas the 2nd petitioner scored 278 marks, which is way above the chosen candidate. 4. In that context, the counsel points out that the marks secured by the 6th respondent in the NEET-UG 2018 is 99 whereas the 2nd petitioner scored 278 marks, which is way above the chosen candidate. 4. On the other hand, Sri.S.Manu, as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep submits that the Rules for admission to the reserved seat for the wards of Malayalees living in Lakshadweep, was notified on 18.7.1979 (Ext.P1) and it was intended to provide a level playing field for those who suffered disadvantage for having to live in the Lakshadweep island and pursue their school education from an island school. The counsel submits that the 2nd petitioner had done her schooling from a mainland school and suffered no disadvantage and accordingly, it is argued that special provision made for the reserved seat for the Malayalees living in the island, should not be permitted to be usurped by a daughter of a Malayalee, who having studied in a mainland school, never suffered any of the disadvantages, which the Ext.P1 intended to address. 5. The additional 6th respondent is represented by the learned counsel Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan and he submits that by virtue of the selection made by the admission authorities, the additional 6th respondent Sri.Shelwin George P.G. has been admitted for the Medical course subject to the outcome of the writ petition and now that the challenge was not entertained and was dismissed by the single Judge, no interference should be caused to the admitted student. 6. As earlier noted, the NEET marks of the 2nd petitioner is 278 whereas the 6th respondent had a poorer score of 99 marks. With such low scores, neither of them could hope for admission to a general Medical seat on merit. There is no dispute that if the admission is to be made on the basis of the NEET Examination result, as is intended by the judgment relied upon by the appellants' counsel, as also the clause 1.4 (c) of the Ext.P2, the 2nd appellant with her NEET mark of 278 can never aspire for admission to any of the general category seats. But here, we are concerned with the entitlement to the reserved seat for the wards of Malayalees, living in the Lakshadweep island. 7. But here, we are concerned with the entitlement to the reserved seat for the wards of Malayalees, living in the Lakshadweep island. 7. The entitlement of the parties to the benefit of reservation to the seat earmarked under the Ext.P2 prospectus will depend upon the student satisfying the criteria under clause 4.1.11 (b)(iii) of the prospectus (Ext.P2) namely, being of Kerala origin settled in the Lakshadweep island, being sponsored by the Administration of that Union Territory and possessing the requisite qualifications as per the prospectus. Ext.P1 Rules framed by the Lakshadweep Administration, for identifying the candidates entitled for reservation benefits, stipulates, inter alia, the following criteria: RULES FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR MBBS COURSE AGAINST THE KERALA GOVERNMENT RESERVED SEAT FOR THE WARDS OF MALAYALEES LIVING IN LAKSHADWEEP OTHER THAN LOCAL INHABITANTS The following criteria will be followed for drawing up merit list for selection of candidates against the seats reserved by government of Kerala for the wards of Malayalees living in Lakshadweep. 1. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 3. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4. Along with the total marks obtained in the three subjects viz, Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination, waitage at the following scale will be added for the duration of the candidate's schooling or study in the islands schools/college. (a) For classes I to IV 15 marks per year 60 (b) For classes V to VII 20 marks per year 60 (c) For classes VIII to X 25 marks per year 75 195 (It is necessary that the candidate should produce certificates from Heads/Heads of Schools / Colleges in the islands where they had studied showing the details of their periods of study in different classes) 5. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 6. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8. All Malayalees other than islanders living in these islands are entitled to apply for this seat. The first priority will go to the children (sons and daughters) of such people. If none is eligible in that group the seat will be open to other dependent relatives of these Malayalees living in this Union Territory. 8. The petitioner No.2, while satisfying the criteria under clause 8, is admittedly not a person, who can aspire for the grace marks provided under clause 4 since she never studied in an island school. As can be seen, clause 4.1.11(b)(iii) of the prospectus, together with Ext.P1 Rules constitutes a code specifying the criterion for identifying the beneficiary, for the reservation contemplated under the prospectus, and the clauses in the Ext.P1 Rules have to be read cumulatively to identify the class of beneficiaries entitled for the quota seat. When so read, the challenger before us, who admittedly cannot get grace marks in terms of clause 4 of the Ext.P1 Rules, cannot be seen as a targetted beneficiary contemplated for reservation under the prospectus and the Rules. 9. Here undoubtedly, the candidate was initially included in the short list of beneficiaries under the reservation category. However, while considering the challenge against the Ext.P5 order that prescribed the modalities for awarding grace marks, the learned single Judge went into the issue of eligibility of the petitioner to impugn the same, more so when it was apparent that she did not qualify as a beneficiary for the reservation. The learned single Judge found the following in paragraph 6 of the judgment, which reads as under: “xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 6. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides at considerable length. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the marks in NEET examination alone was liable to be counted and as such, the 2nd petitioner, who had higher marks in NEET examination, would be eligible for admission to the reserved seat. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides at considerable length. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the marks in NEET examination alone was liable to be counted and as such, the 2nd petitioner, who had higher marks in NEET examination, would be eligible for admission to the reserved seat. I am of the opinion that what has to be looked into is the specific provision in the prospectus. The prospectus provides for reservation for persons of Kerala origin settled in Lakshadweep. The only meaning that can be attributed to relevant clause in the prospectus is that the student, to be eligible, should have been settled in Lakshadweep at least for some part of her/his life. This WP(C).25374/18 10 apparently is the reason for the provision of grace marks for the number of years which the student has undergone education in Lakshadweep as well. It is apparent from a reading of the prospectus that reservation as of now, is specifically provided for candidates of Kerala origin who are residing in Lakshadweep. The 2nd petitioner in this writ petition has no case that she was ever a resident in Lakshadweep. The 1st respondent specifically pointed out that the reason for grant of reservation is the disability suffered by the students by reason of backwardness of the facilities of education. It is specifically argued before me that there are no coaching centres in Lakshadweep and that the standard of education offered to the students of Higher Secondary Schools in Lakshadweep is far different from the standard available in main land Kerala. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx” 10. In our assessment of the above interpretation of the relevant clauses, we see no infirmity in the finding of the learned single Judge on the 2nd petitioner not meeting the norms for the reserved quota admission. For the reasons already noted, we would have come to the same conclusion, as drawn in the impugned judgment. 11. As regards the contention of the appellants regarding the modalities of granting grace marks in the Ext.P5, we are of the view, as taken by the learned single Judge that we need not go into the said issue at the instance of the appellants herein, who admittedly is not affected by the award of grace marks to persons who qualified for the benefit of reservation. The 2nd appellant, as we have already found, is not entitled to the benefit of reservation contemplated under the prospectus since she did her entire schooling in the mainland institutions only. 12. Following the above, we endorse the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal.