JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. In this group of petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - students who have completed their 12th Standard and seeking entry to the stream of medical courses, have challenged the eligibility criteria notified for admission to the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses under the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 ('the Rules 2017' for short), which are framed in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. 2. Primarily, the challenge is to the Rule 4(3)(ii) and Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, 2017 referred above. Though there is some variance in factual aspects in the petitions, as much as, challenge is only to above said Rules in all the petitions, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The Rules which are in force are of the year 2017. Rule 4(1-A) is inserted by way of amendment to the Rules, by notification dated 04.05.2018. As per Rule 5 of the Rules, 2017, 15% of total seats for admission are reserved for candidates of All India Quota and remaining 85% seats for admission are reserved for candidates of Gujarat origin, under various categories. 4. Prior to the Rules of 2017, which were made applicable to the academic year 2017-18, similar set of Rules, 2016 were in force. Eligibility criteria in the Rules, 2016 which were applicable to the academic year 2016-17 was as under :- "4. Eligibility for Admission in case of Government seats and Management seats :- A candidate who desire admission on Government and management seats shall :- (1) be a Citizen of India: Provided that the candidate whose parents are origin of India and does not hold Indian Citizenship and has applied for Indian citizenship shall require to produce the proof of submission of such application to the Admission Committee before the date of counseling. Such candidate shall be admitted provisionally subject to submission of the certificate of their having acquired the Indian citizenship on or before 31st July of next year, failing which their provisional admission shall be treated as cancelled without any notice. Such candidate shall be admitted provisionally subject to submission of the certificate of their having acquired the Indian citizenship on or before 31st July of next year, failing which their provisional admission shall be treated as cancelled without any notice. (2) have completed 17 years of age on 31st December of the Academic year for which the admissions are being conducted. (3) have passed the qualifying examination with "B group" or "B group" from- (i) the Gujarat Board; or (ii) The Central Board of Secondary Education provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat; or (iii) The Council of Indian School Certificate Examination Board, New Delhi provided that the school in which the candidate has studied is located in the State of Gujarat. (4) have qualified in NEET conducted in current academic year in case of management seats of MBBS and BDS courses and have qualified in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test conducted in the current academic year for admission on Government and management seats in all courses except management seats of MBBS and BDS course. From the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that the candidates must have passed qualifying examination with B group or AB group from the Gujarat Board, or, Central Board of Secondary Education provided that schools in which candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat; or the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations Board, New Delhi provided that the school in which the candidate has studied is located in the State of Gujarat. 5. In supersession of aforesaid Rules, new set of Rules were framed in the year 2017, which were notified on 23.06.2017. Eligibility criteria under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2017 is as under :- "4. Eligibility for Admission: A candidate who desire admission shall :- (1) be a Citizen of India: Provided that the candidate whose parents are origin of India and do not hold Indian Citizenship and have applied for Indian citizenship, shall produce the proof of submission of such application to the Admission Committee before the date of counseling. Eligibility for Admission: A candidate who desire admission shall :- (1) be a Citizen of India: Provided that the candidate whose parents are origin of India and do not hold Indian Citizenship and have applied for Indian citizenship, shall produce the proof of submission of such application to the Admission Committee before the date of counseling. Such candidate shall be admitted provisionally subject to submission of the certificate of their having acquired the Indian citizenship on or before 31st July of next year, failing which their provisional admission shall be treated as cancelled without any notice Provided further that candidates seeking admission on Non Resident Indian seat shall be Non Resident Indian or children or wards of a Non Resident Indian. (2) have completed 17 years of age on 31st December of the Academic year for which the admissions are being conducted. (3) have passed the 10th and 12th qualifying examination with "B group" or " B group" from- (i) the Gujarat Board; or (ii) The Central Board of Secondary Education provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat; or (iii) The Council of Indian School Certificate Examination Board, New Delhi provided that the school in which the candidate has studied is located in the State of Gujarat. Provided that a candidate seeking admission on Non Resident Indian seat must have passed the qualifying examination from anywhere with Physics, Chemistry and Biology. (4) have qualified in NEET conducted in current academic year in case of MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT; (5) Minimum qualifying standard for admission : No candidate shall be admitted in the professional medical educational courses unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying percentage/percentile as follows : (A) Minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT courses : Eligibility criteria in HSC Examination and NEET of current academic year. [5.1] To be eligible for 85% quota, as per said Rule, the candidates must have passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying examination with "B group" or "AB group" from the Gujarat Board, or the Central Board of Secondary Education or from the Council of Indian School Certificate Board, New Delhi provided that the schools in which candidate has studied is located in the State of Gujarat. [5.2] The requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the Gujarat Board or any other Board having their school located in the State of Gujarat is introduced in the Rules, 2017. Said Rules which are in force and which are applicable for the admissions to the Academic Year 2018-19 are amended by Notification dated 04.05.2018. By virtue of said amendment, after Sub-rule 1 of Rule 4(1-A) is inserted. As per said Rule 4(1-A), the candidate should be domicile of Gujarat State. Sub Rule 5 of Rule 4 is also substituted. Amendment to Rule 4 to the extent of amendment notified on 04.05.2018 reads as under :- "3. In the said rules, in rule 4 - (i) in sub-rule (1), for the words "be a citizen of India" the words "be a citizen of India or overseas citizen of India" shall be substituted. (ii) after sub-rule (1), following sub-rule shall be inserted namely:- "(1-A) be the Domicile of Gujarat State" (iii) in sub-rule (3), after clause (iii) and before the provisio thereunder the following clauses shall be added namely:- "(iv) The International School Board (International Baccalaureate and Cambridge) provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat; or (v) The National Institute of Open Schooling provided that the school in which the candidate has studied, is located in the State of Gujarat". (iv) for sub-rule (5), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "(5) Minimum qualifying standard for admission : No candidate shall be admitted in the MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT courses in Government seats, Management Seats and NRI seats unless he/she possesses minimum qualifying standard in HSC examination and NEET of current academic year, as may be decided by the respective Council/the Central Government and fulfills eligibility criteria under these rules." 6. In some of the cases, the petitioners/candidates though domicile of State of Gujarat, but who have passed 10th Standard outside State of Gujarat are questioning the validity of Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017. There are some candidates who satisfy eligibility criteria of domicile, but have passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying examination from outside State of Gujarat. In some of the cases, the petitioners/candidates though domicile of State of Gujarat, but who have passed 10th Standard outside State of Gujarat are questioning the validity of Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017. There are some candidates who satisfy eligibility criteria of domicile, but have passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying examination from outside State of Gujarat. In some cases, the candidates are domicile of State of Gujarat and have passed qualifying examination i.e. 12th Standard from Gujarat Board or Central Board having their school located in State of Gujarat, but have passed 10th Standard from the institution outside State of Gujarat. There is yet another type of cases, where the candidates have passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying examination from the Gujarat Board or CBSE Board having their institution in the State of Gujarat, but they do not satisfy criteria of domicile as introduced under Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, 2017. 7. We summarize the facts of some petitions, which will cover the whole gamut of controversy. [7.1] Special Civil Application No.8590 of 2018. The petitioner claims that his birth place is in State of Gujarat and is having domicile certificate of State of Gujarat. The mother of the petitioner is single parent and due to family need, the petitioner had to take admission outside the State of Gujarat for few years. The petitioner had passed qualifying examination i.e. 12th Standard from school located in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that due to need of family, as he had to study 10th Standard outside State of Gujarat, as such, he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria as notified under Rule 4(3)(ii) of the impugned Rules. It is stated that in view of earlier Rules, as there was only requirement of passing of qualifying examination from schools located in the State of Gujarat, looking at the legal position existing then, the petitioner had studied 12th Standard from the institution in the State of Gujarat, but by virtue of amendment made in the year 2017, the petitioner is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.2] Special Civil Application Nos. 8591 of 2018, 8593 of 2018, 8594 of 2018, 8595 of 2018 and 8605 of 2018. In these petitions, the petitioners though qualify domicile criteria, but as they have passed their 10th Standard from the institution outside State of Gujarat, as such, they are not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.2] Special Civil Application Nos. 8591 of 2018, 8593 of 2018, 8594 of 2018, 8595 of 2018 and 8605 of 2018. In these petitions, the petitioners though qualify domicile criteria, but as they have passed their 10th Standard from the institution outside State of Gujarat, as such, they are not fulfilling eligibility criteria. In these cases, where the petitioners are fulfilling requirement of domicile and passing of qualifying examination from the institution located in the State of Gujarat, but as they are not fulfilling further criteria because they have passed 10th Standard from institutions located outside State of Gujarat, as such, they are before this Court. [7.3] Special Civil Application No.8729 of 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner is serving in company and he was posted at Vadodara in the year 2012, upon which the petitioner has secured admission in 7th Standard in the school situated in the State of Gujarat. It is stated that at the time of taking admission in 10th and 11th Standard, his parents verified prevalent rules then. As it was found that the petitioner is required to complete 12th Standard from the institution located in the State of Gujarat, to fulfill eligibility criteria, he continued his studies in the school situated in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner is fulfilling eligibility criteria of passing 10th and 12th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat, but as he is not fulfilling the requirement of domicile as per Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, which is introduced by impugned amendment, as such, he is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that when he studied 10th Standard and pursued 11th and 12th Standard, there was no requirement of domicile, in the eligibility criteria. It is stated that the impugned Rule which is inserted by way of amendment notified on 04.05.2018 cannot be applied and the Rules which were in force at the time when the petitioner had passed 10th Standard and joined qualifying course, is to be applied. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner and his father have settled in State of Gujarat, but in view of Rule 4(1-A), the petitioner is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.4] Special Civil Application No.8592 of 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner and his father have settled in State of Gujarat, but in view of Rule 4(1-A), the petitioner is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.4] Special Civil Application No.8592 of 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born in the State of Gujarat and is permanent resident of State of Gujarat. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner was serving with a company situated in UAE and therefore, the petitioner completed 10th Standard in UAE and looking at the rule position of eligibility then, he had taken admission in 11th Standard and completed qualifying examination of 12th Standard from the institution situated in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner though, is permanent resident of Gujarat, but as he has not studied 10th Standard in the school situated in the State of Gujarat, he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. It is the case of the petitioner that the Rules which were prevailing at the time when he cleared 10th Standard is to be applied, but not the Rules which are in force, as amended by Notification dated 04.05.2018. [7.5] Special Civil Application No.9046 of 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is serving with State Government as Head of Department and Professor of Government Dental College, Jamnagar since 2012 and mother of the petitioner is serving as Assistant Professor in Siddhpur Dental College, Patan since 2013. It is stated that at the relevant time the petitioner joined 8th Standard in the school situated in the State of Gujarat and completed his 10th and 12th Standard from the school situated in Gujarat. The petitioner's father has permanently shifted to Gujarat and as the petitioner is not fulfilling domiciliary requirement as per Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, challenge is made to the said Rules. [7.6] Special Civil Application No.8747 of 2018. This petition is filed by 28 petitioners, who claim that they have passed 12th Standard Board Examination from the institution located in the State of Gujarat and appeared in NEET -2018 to seek admission in medical courses. [7.6] Special Civil Application No.8747 of 2018. This petition is filed by 28 petitioners, who claim that they have passed 12th Standard Board Examination from the institution located in the State of Gujarat and appeared in NEET -2018 to seek admission in medical courses. It is the case of the petitioners that the requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the school located within State of Gujarat is included in eligibility criteria in the Rules of 2017, which was notified on 23.06.2017, but prior to that many of the students had already passed their 10th Standard examination from the schools located outside State of Gujarat in the year 2017 and before. It is their case that having regard to Rules which were in force earlier, as per which passing of 10th Standard from school located in the State of Gujarat was not included in the eligibility criteria, as such, impugned Rule cannot be applied to them. In the said petition, challenge is to Rule 4(1-A) also, which is introduced by way of amendment in the year 2018. [7.7] Special Civil Application No.8641 of 2018. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, which mandates requirement of passing of 10th Standard Examination from the schools situated in Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner was born in Gujarat and family of the petitioner is from Valsad town, which is within the State of Gujarat. It is stated that in view of transfer of petitioner's father to Daman (UT) by the company in which he was serving, the petitioner had to study from 5th Standard in Daman. He studied 10th and 12th Standard from Daman, but as he was keen to join medical course, looking at the legal position which existed earlier, again he has repeated 11th Standard and 12th Standard, from the school situated in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has studied again 11th and 12th Standard, but in view of impugned Rule, as he had studied 10th Standard from Daman, he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.8] Special Civil Application No. 8974 of 2018. In this petition, challenge is to the Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, as the petitioner has studied 10th Standard from the school situated in Rajasthan. [7.8] Special Civil Application No. 8974 of 2018. In this petition, challenge is to the Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, as the petitioner has studied 10th Standard from the school situated in Rajasthan. As stated in the petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was born in State of Gujarat, studied upto 6th Standard at Mundra in the State of Gujarat and from 7th to 10th Standard at Rajasthan and thereafter, 11th and 12th Standard at Surat i.e. State of Gujarat. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the petition that though he is permanent resident of Gujarat and passed qualifying examination from the institution situated in the State of Gujarat, but as he has studied 10th Standard from Rajasthan, due to some family needs, as such, he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. [7.9] Special Civil Application Nos.8745 of 2018, 8747 of 2018, 9060 of 2018, 8997 of 2018 and 8998 of 2018. These are the cases, which include some of the candidates who have not studied 10th Standard in State of Gujarat. The petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.8747 of 2018 and 9060 of 2018 are not fulfilling criteria of domicile. In Special Civil Application No.8997 of 2018, the petitioners have passed 10th and 12th Standard outside State of Gujarat and also not fulfilling domicile criteria. In Special Civil Application No.8998 of 2018, though the petitioner fulfills domicile criteria, but having passed qualifying examination i.e. 12th Standard from the institution outside State of Gujarat, he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. In all other cases also, similar issues arise for consideration. By taking into account the facts of all the petitions, broadly, they can be categorized into cases; where the candidates are not fulfilling domicile criteria, in some cases the candidates are not fulfilling requirement of passing of 10th standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat, and in some cases where the petitioners are not fulfilling criteria of passing of 10th and 12th Standard from the institution situated in State of Gujarat. 8. In this batch of petitions, Civil Applications were filed for preponing the matters, which were allowed, in view of urgency expressed by the respondent State. It is brought to our notice that as per schedule notified by MCI for admissions, counselling will start from 25.06.2018. 8. In this batch of petitions, Civil Applications were filed for preponing the matters, which were allowed, in view of urgency expressed by the respondent State. It is brought to our notice that as per schedule notified by MCI for admissions, counselling will start from 25.06.2018. In view of urgency expressed, request is made by the learned Advocate General to dispose of the matters finally. As we have concluded the hearing on 22.06.2018 and in view of urgency expressed, these matters are being disposed of today, by this judgment. 9. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of 1st respondent-State in Special Civil Application No.8590 of 2018. Learned Advocate General made request to treat the said reply, as common, in all these petitions. In the affidavit-in-reply, while denying various allegations in the petitions filed by the petitioners, wherein challenge is made to the Sub-Rule (1-A) of clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, as amended by the Gujarat Professional Medical Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, it is stated that said Rules are absolutely legal and valid and in consonance with the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in various judgments. While stating that said Rules are framed in exercise of powers under section 20 of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, the case of the respondent-State is as under :- (a) The State Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. (b) Requirement of Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017 for having passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying Examination from the CBSE schools located in the State of Gujarat is nothing but the requirement of furtherance of domicillary of the State. (c) It is well known that imparting medical education by Medical colleges require considerable finance to maintain the same and therefore, it is very much reasonable on the part of the State Government to see that advantage of the educational system prevalent in the State would be to a great extent, yield benefit to the State. (c) It is well known that imparting medical education by Medical colleges require considerable finance to maintain the same and therefore, it is very much reasonable on the part of the State Government to see that advantage of the educational system prevalent in the State would be to a great extent, yield benefit to the State. For this purpose, it is legally permissible for the State to give more weightage to said aspects for giving admission to undergraduate MBBS course being offered in the Medical Colleges of the State and there is nothing wrong. Aforesaid Rule 4(1-A) and 4(3) (ii) of the Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. It is stated that said Rules are based on intelligible differentia and there is nexus between the said classification and the object for the medical education offered in the State of Gujarat. (d) While stating that the issues which fall for consideration in these batch of cases are no longer res-integra, reference is made to judgment in the case of Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v/s. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 and judgment in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) v/s. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 . By the aforesaid cases, it is stated that the State Government is empowered to reserve 85% of seats based on merit restricting only to the students who have passed 12th Standard Examination from any institution situated within State of Gujarat and remaining 15% seats are of All India Quota, which would be filled up on the basis of NEET Examination. (e) Further stating that requirement of having studied 10th Standard and 12th Standard from the recognized institution in the State, has been held to be legal and valid, as such, it cannot be said that provisions are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (f) It is stated that during period from 2015-16 to 2016-17, the eligibility criteria fixed by the State for admission to undergraduate MBBS course being offered in the Medical Colleges by the State was having passed qualifying examination of 12th Standard from the schools located in the State of Gujarat. (f) It is stated that during period from 2015-16 to 2016-17, the eligibility criteria fixed by the State for admission to undergraduate MBBS course being offered in the Medical Colleges by the State was having passed qualifying examination of 12th Standard from the schools located in the State of Gujarat. During the said period, it was realized that many students from outside the State used to come to the State, study in 12th Standard and used to get admission in First Year MBBS Course, who all are keen to go back to their respective Home States after completion of MBBS Course, as a result, the students of the State were being deprived of getting admission. In view of this, after careful examination, admission Rules of 2017 were framed incorporating requirement of passing 10th Standard and 12th Standard qualifying Examination from the schools in the State. It is stated that during the year 2017, several petitions were filed and in the petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No.12303 of 2017 and others, the State Government has assured this Court not to insist for requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the schools located in the State while giving admission. It is stated that as a result of this, about more than 400 students from outside State of Gujarat came to be admitted in the Undergraduate MBBS Course offered by the Medical Colleges in the State. (g) It is stated that the State Government spends considerable amount every year for maintaining the Medical Colleges in question and therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the State to expect a permanent resident of the State succeeding in getting admission in Undergraduate MBBS course on merit. It is stated that after completing studies, the State would be having availability of medical services through such persons for the benefit of the people at large of the State. It is also stated that there is requirement of passing of 10th and 12th Standard in other States also across the country. (h) With reference to allegations made by the petitioners with regard to challenge to Rule 4(1-A) and 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, it is stated that the petitioners have not raised any valid grounds to seek declaration as prayed for. (h) With reference to allegations made by the petitioners with regard to challenge to Rule 4(1-A) and 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, it is stated that the petitioners have not raised any valid grounds to seek declaration as prayed for. It is stated that Rule 4(1-A) and 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017 are framed based on intelligible differentia, as much as, there is nexus between the classification envisaged by the said Rules and the object which is sought to be achieved by the State. It is stated that said classification is made for the benefit of student community of the State of Gujarat and to achieve object of producing best doctors to provide primary health care to the public at large in the State. (i) While stating that there is no basis to plead that impugned Rules are being applied retrospectively, it is pleaded that hardship undergone by the petitioners pales into insignificance, more particularly, when validity of Rule is being examined. It is pleaded that there is no bar or restriction on the part of the State Government in framing or amending Rules for regulating the grant of admission in professional medial educational courses. It is stated that while looking at the development and contingencies, it is always open for the State Government to amend the Rules as required. (j) Further pleading that no rights of the petitioners much less fundamental rights flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India are violated, challenge made by the petitioners in captioned writ petitions are unsustainable and consequently, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 10. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel, Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned Counsel Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned Counsel, Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Counsel Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned Counsel Ms. Nidhi Barot, learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Karnavat, learned Counsel Mr. Bhavdutt Bhatt, learned Counsel Mr. P.J. Mehta, learned Counsel Mr. Jigar Dave and learned Counsel Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt, for the petitioners in the respective petitions and learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi with AGP Ms. Sangeetha Vishen, and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent - State and Admission Committee and learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.C. Dave and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai, Mr. Amit Thakkar, learned Counsel, Mr. Hemang Parikh, learned Counsel and Mr. Kamal Trivedi with AGP Ms. Sangeetha Vishen, and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent - State and Admission Committee and learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.C. Dave and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai, Mr. Amit Thakkar, learned Counsel, Mr. Hemang Parikh, learned Counsel and Mr. Rasesh Parikh for the impleaded respondents in respective petitions. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing for the petitioners in some of the petitions by referring to the impugned Rules and other material on record, submitted that though reservation of seats is permissible to the extent of 85% on the basis of domicile or institutional preference in Undergraduate Medical Courses, but the impugned rule imposing condition i.e. passing 10th Standard from the school located in the State of Gujarat, is illegal and arbitrary. Such a condition is violative of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that reservation based on domicile, in Undergraduate Medical Course is permissible. It is submitted that micro classification which is sought to be made by applying impugned Rules by classifying the students who have passed 10th Standard from schools located in Gujarat and the schools located outside Gujarat is discriminatory, as much as, all the students who have cleared 10th Standard constitute one homogeneous class. Artificial distinction which is sought to be made by impugned Rule amounts to micro classification, as such, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When the seats are sought to be reserved for candidates who are domicile/residents in the State of Gujarat, there is no rational nexus with the impugned rule or object requiring passing of 10th standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat. It is submitted that classification must have rational nexus with the object, which is sought to be achieved, but the impugned rules run contrary to the objects, as such, it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that for domicile consideration when the respondent is considering requirement of permanent residence of 10 years in the State, and when the petitioners are fulfilling such criteria of domicile, as per rules, they cannot be deprived of by applying impugned rule. It is submitted that their study of 10th Standard from the school outside State of Gujarat, is no reason to exclude such candidate from eligibility criteria. It is submitted that their study of 10th Standard from the school outside State of Gujarat, is no reason to exclude such candidate from eligibility criteria. It is submitted that as there is fundamental right to move freely from one place to other place, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, such restriction in the impugned rules, violates fundamental rights also. It is submitted that right to consideration of giving fair chance to apply for the purpose of admission is annihilated by the impugned Rules. It is further contended that in any event, when the petitioners were studying in 10th Standard from the school situated outside Gujarat, during the relevant time, as per admission rules for medical courses, requirement was only passing of 11th and 12th Standard from the school situated in State of Gujarat. It is submitted that as such application of the impugned Rules to the petitioners amounts to operating rule retrospectively, which is not permissible. It is submitted that as all the petitioners in their petitions have passed 10th Standard before the Rule came into force, such Rule cannot be applied to the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel has strongly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court dated 05.07.2017 in Writ Petition No.8268 and batch. It is submitted that in aforesaid judgment, in similar circumstances, directions were issued not to apply rule of passing of SSC examination from the institution/board situated within the State of Maharashtra. 12. Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the petitions in this batch has submitted that though the petitioners are fulfilling requirement of passing of 10th, 11th and 12th Standard from the school situated in Gujarat, but as much as Rule 4(1-A) is inserted by way of amendment to the Rules, 2017, they are deprived of consideration in the State Quota of 85% seats. It is submitted that when the petitioners were studying in 10th, 11th and 12th Standard, there was no requirement of condition of being domicile of State of Gujarat in the eligibility criteria. It is submitted that the impugned Rule i.e. Rule 4(1-A) which was not in force at the relevant time, cannot be applied to the petitioners. 13. Mr. It is submitted that when the petitioners were studying in 10th, 11th and 12th Standard, there was no requirement of condition of being domicile of State of Gujarat in the eligibility criteria. It is submitted that the impugned Rule i.e. Rule 4(1-A) which was not in force at the relevant time, cannot be applied to the petitioners. 13. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some petitions has contended that Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, is framed arbitrarily and same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, is amended in the Rules framed in the year 2017 and Rule 4(1-A) is inserted by way of amendment to 2017 Rules by notification dated 04.05.2018. The petitioners have passed 10th Standard Examination from different Boards across the country from the institutions situated outside State of Gujarat, as such, said Rule is arbitrarily framed and cannot be applied to the petitioners. It is submitted that though such Rules are required to be framed well in advance, so as to plan careerer of the students, but the impugned Rules are amended after passing of 10th Standard Examination and such Rules are sought to be applied to the petitioners illegally and in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as domicile requirement is not approved for Post Graduate Medical admissions in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, impugned Rule 4(1-A) is illegal. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied on the judgments in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v/s. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 ; Dr.Diensh Kumar v/s. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1986) 3 SCC 727 ; Minor P. Rajendran v/s. State of Madras, (1968) AIR SC 1012; S.G. Jaisinghani v/s. Union of India, (1967) AIR SC 1427; Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar v/s. State of Maharashtra [WP No.2469 of 1990 of High Court of Bombay]; Navjyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society v/s. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477 ; State of Gujarat v/s. Ramal Lal Keshav Lal Soni, (1983) 2 SCC 33 and Kumari Shrelekha Vidyarathi v/s. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 . [13.1] In similar lines, learned Advocates Shri D.C. Sejpal, Mr. Bhavdutt Bhatt, Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, Ms. Nidhi Barot, Mr. Ravi Karnavat, Mr. P.J. Mehta, Mr. [13.1] In similar lines, learned Advocates Shri D.C. Sejpal, Mr. Bhavdutt Bhatt, Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, Ms. Nidhi Barot, Mr. Ravi Karnavat, Mr. P.J. Mehta, Mr. Jigar Dave and Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt appearing for petitioners in some petitions have submitted that the impugned Rules are arbitrary and illegal. 14. Mr. Trivedi learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat submitted that reservation of seats on the basis of domicile/residency and institutional preference is approved for Under Graduate Medical admissions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. It is submitted that no case is made out by any of the petitioners to seek invalidation of Rules. It is submitted that as much as, State Government is empowered to frame such Rules in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, by repealing earlier rules, which were in force for the year 2017-18, a new set of rules are framed and notified. It is submitted that further Rule 4(1-A) is inserted by amendment to the rules in the year 2018, as it was found that several students from outside State of Gujarat were taking admission in 11th and 12th Standard only to seek admission in medical courses. It is submitted that in the Rules of 2017, requirement of passing of 10th Standard from any of the school/board situated in the State of Gujarat was introduced and said rules gave rise to several petitions and as the State had assured not to insist for requirement of passing of qualifying examination of 10th Standard for academic year 2017-18, as such, directions were issued by this Court. It is submitted that about more than 400 students from outside State of Gujarat came to be admitted in undergraduate medical courses in medical colleges in the State who are not the permanent residents of Gujarat. It is submitted that as the State Government spends considerable amount every year for maintaining medical colleges, there is nothing wrong on the part of the State to expect permanent resident of State succeeding in getting admission in undergraduate MBBS course on merit, who will, in all probabilities, will be settling in the State after completion of studies and his medical services will be for the benefit of people at large in the State. It is submitted that the rule requiring passing of 10th Standard from the State of Gujarat and further Rule which is inserted as Rule 4 (1-A) of Rules, 2017 are the rules based on intelligible differentia, inasmuch as, there is nexus between the classification envisaged by the said rules and the object which is sought to be achieved. Further it is contended that in absence of admission to course, in educational matters, no right will vest so as to seek enforcement by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that having regard to changing needs and requirements, it is always open for the State to amend Rules, as and when the State feels that such amendment is required in the interest of students of State of Gujarat, as such, it is not open to plead for the petitioners that as there was no such rule when the petitioners were studying 10th Standard, as such, present rules cannot be applied to the petitioners. [14.1] It is further submitted that having regard to amendments to the rules, it is not open to seek reliefs either on the ground of promissory estoppal or legitimate expectation, by the petitioners on the grounds mentioned in the petitions. By referring to judgment of Bombay High Court in W.P.No.8268 of 2017 relied on by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, it is submitted that the Division Bench has not gone into validity of the rule and further disposed of with a direction not to apply such rule. It is submitted that as Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have examined rights of the parties who stand on similar footing of petitioners in various judgments, as such, said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioners. In support of his argument that there can be reservation of seats based on domicile/ residency in undergraduate medical courses, learned Advocate General has relied on judgments in the case of Shri D.P. Joshi v/s. State of Madhya Bharat and Anr., (1955) AIR SC 334; Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v/s. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 ; Kumari N. Vasundara v/s. State of Mysore and Anr., (1971) 2 SCC 22 ; Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v/s. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v/s. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 ; Kumari N. Vasundara v/s. State of Mysore and Anr., (1971) 2 SCC 22 ; Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v/s. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v/s. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1985) 3 SCC 22 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v/s. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 727 ; Anant Madaan v/s. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 135 ; judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishakha v/s. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 GLR 11 , judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheetal Yeshwantkumar Parmar v/s. State of Gujarat, (2013) 3 GLR 2643 ; judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nina Punjabhai Vadhel v/s. State of Gujarat, (2015) 1 GLR 676 ; judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13877 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.14260 of 2017, judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13842 of 2017, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. And Anr. v/s. S.V. Bratheep and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 513 and judgment of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v/s. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1979) 1 GLR 614 . 15. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Shelat appearing for the impleaded respondents has submitted that the rule of preference based on domicile within prescribed time limit, as considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not invalid. It is submitted that it is always open for the State Government to frame rules prescribing eligibility criteria for reserving 85% of seats to local candidates of State of Gujarat. It is submitted that eligibility criteria fixed cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal so as to seek invalidation from this Court, in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on judgments in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v/s. Nilaybhai Thakore and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 139 ; Dr. Prachi Almeida v/s. Dean, Goa Medical College and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 640 ; Dean, Goa Medical College, Bambolim v/s. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki, (2001) 7 SCC 645 ; Dr. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on judgments in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v/s. Nilaybhai Thakore and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 139 ; Dr. Prachi Almeida v/s. Dean, Goa Medical College and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 640 ; Dean, Goa Medical College, Bambolim v/s. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki, (2001) 7 SCC 645 ; Dr. Parag Gupta v/s. University of Delhi, (2000) 5 SCC 684 ; Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v/s. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146 . Further contending that in absence of admission to the course, no rights vests with any candidate, learned Senior Counsel has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Yadav v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 570 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v/s. Gujarat University, (1990) 2 GLR 1066 . It is further contended that hardship which is sought to be projected by few individuals is no ground. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohitash Kumar v/s. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 11 SCC 451 ; Reserve Bank of India v/s. C. N. Sahasranaman and ors., (1986) AIR SC 1830; Kamal Kanti Dutta v/s. Union of India, (1980) AIR SC 2056 and Shankarsan Dash v/s. Union of India, (1991) AIR SC 1612. It is submitted that prescription of eligibility and qualification is within the province of rule making authority, as such, in absence of any ground to seek invalidation, no case is made by the petitioners for grant of relief as prayed for. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul v/s. Chairman, UPSC, (2007) AIR SC 254 and V.K.Sood v/s. Secretary, Civil Aviation and Ors., (1993) AIR SC 2285. 16. Shri D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for impleaded respondents has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned rules to seek invalidation. Learned Senior Counsel referred to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13842 of 2017, wherein Division Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017. It is submitted that competency of respondent in framing rules by way of subordinate legislation is not challenged. Learned Senior Counsel referred to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13842 of 2017, wherein Division Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017. It is submitted that competency of respondent in framing rules by way of subordinate legislation is not challenged. It is submitted that the grounds which are raised are not valid grounds so as to plead that such rules are arbitrary or discriminatory so as to project their case on the ground of violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as 85% of seats are reserved for candidates belonging to Gujarat origin, impugned rules are framed in the year 2017 requiring passing of 10th and 12th Standard from the school/board in the State of Gujarat and by inserting Rule 4(1-A) in the Rules, 2017, domicile criteria is introduced. It is submitted that individual hardship claimed by some of the students is no ground to invalidate the Rules. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Anant Madaan v/s. State of Haryana and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 135 , wherein, similar condition of passing of 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 within the State by Harayana Government is approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By referring to judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition No.8268 of 2017, and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing SLP, it is submitted said judgment will have only persuasive value and cannot be treated as binding precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel has relied on judgment in the case of Justice P. Venugopal v/s. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 726 . In support of plea that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit, by raising plea of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation, learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Aman Piyush Khanna v/s. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 GLR 2382 . 17. Having heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, we have carefully perused the Rules and other material on record. 18. 17. Having heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, we have carefully perused the Rules and other material on record. 18. Though there is some variation in factual foundation of these petitions, but in all cases challenge is to the Rule 4(1-A) and Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulating of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 framed in exercise of powers under section 20 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. The competency for framing rules by the rule making authority is not disputed. Even according to the case of the petitioners it is admissible for the State to reserve 85% seats in undergraduate medical courses based on domicile or institutional preference in the State and same is also not disputed. Learned Counsels on both the sides have cited several judgments, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved reservation based on domicile in undergraduate medical courses, and as much as the impugned rules are framed to ensure reservation to local students of the State of Gujarat, we refer to such judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said issue. 19. In the judgment in the case of Shri D.P. Joshi v/s. State of Madhya Bharat, (1955) AIR SC 334, a student/resident of Delhi who was admitted in medical college in the State of Madhya Bharat pleaded discrimination in the matter of fees between the students who were residents of Madhya Bharat and who were not. While considering the plea of discrimination, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved a concession given to the residents of the State in the matter of fees in undergraduate medical course. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that education being State subject, it is open for the State to help some students of Madhya Bharat in the prosecution of their studies. It is held that it is quite legitimate and laudable objective for State to achieve objective within its borders. 20. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that education being State subject, it is open for the State to help some students of Madhya Bharat in the prosecution of their studies. It is held that it is quite legitimate and laudable objective for State to achieve objective within its borders. 20. In the judgment in the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh v/s. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 also, while considering the provisions of Delhi University Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State cannot be denied right to decide from what source admission will be made and the same is essentially a question of policy and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirement of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. It is further held that if the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. 21. In the judgment in the case of Kumari N. Vasundara v/s. State of Mysore, (1971) 2 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the rules of admission to pre-professional course in medical college, condition of residence for ten years imposed in eligibility criteria in Rule 3 of the Rules was held to be valid. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that State has therefore, to formulate with reasonable foresight a just scheme of classification for imparting medical education to the available candidates which would serve the object and purpose of providing broad based medical aid to the people of the State. 22. Judgment in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v/s. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 , is relied by both the sides to buttress their arguments. In the aforesaid judgment, while considering reservation of seats for residents of the State or students of same University, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn distinction from undergraduate medical courses to that of post graduate courses. Same is evident from paragraph No.22 of the said judgment. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that having regard to socio - economic disparities and inequalities, reservation of certain percentage of seats, in the case of admission to undergraduate medical course was, held to be valid. Same is evident from paragraph No.22 of the said judgment. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that having regard to socio - economic disparities and inequalities, reservation of certain percentage of seats, in the case of admission to undergraduate medical course was, held to be valid. To the extent or limit of such reservation, reasonableness, it was held that it would depend upon particular facts and circumstances. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 70% of available seats can be reserved by the State, but at the same time in case of admission to post graduate medical course, it is held that partial reservation based on residence requirement is not permissible. In the aforesaid judgment, reservation in Post graduate course to the extent of 50% of the seats was held to be permissible based on institutional preference. Paragraph Nos.19 to 22 of the said judgment which are relevant, read as under :- "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 and large been frowned upon by the Court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran, (1968) AIR SC 1012 and Perukaruppan, (1971) AIR SC 2303 the Court has in D.N. Chanchala's case and other similar cases upheld 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, (1955) AIR SC 334 and N. Vasundhara, (1971) AIR SC 1439 sustained the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence requirement within a State for the purpose of admission to medical colleges. 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 a 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 Art. 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 at 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 considerations, 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. 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 nation 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. There are massive social and economic disparities and inequalities not only between State and State but also between region and region within a State and even between citizens and citizens within the same region. There is a yawning gap between the rich and the poor and there are so many disabilities and injustices from which the poor suffer as a class that they cannot avail themselves of any opportunities which may in law be open to them. They do not have the social and material resources to take advantage of these opportunities which remain merely on paper recognised by law but non-existent in fact. Students from backward States or regions will hardly be able to compete with those from advanced States or regions because, though possessing an intelligent mind, they would have had no adequate opportunities for development so as to be in a position to compete with others. So also students belonging to the weaker sections who have not by reason of their socially or economically disadvantaged position, been able to secure education in good schools would be at a disadvantage compared to students belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who have had the best of school education and in open All India Competition, they would be likely to be worsted. There would also be a number of students who, if they do not get admission in a medical college near their residence and are assigned admission in a far off college in another State as a result of open All India Competition, may not be able to go to such other college on account of lack of resources and facilities and in the result, they would be effectively deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing the medical course even though on paper they would have got admission in a medical college. It would be tantamount to telling these students that they are given an opportunity of taking up the medical course, but if they cannot afford it, by reason of the medical college to which they are admitted being far away in another State, it is their bad luck the State cannot help it, because the State has done all that it could, namely, provide equal opportunity to all for medical education. But the question is whether the opportunity provided is real or illusory? 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 pawing the PUC 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 and for this purpose, there should be no distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. It would be constitutionally permissible to provide, as an interim measure until we reach the stage when we can consistently with the broad mandate of the rule of equality in the larger sense: ensure admissions to the MBBS course on the basis of national entrance examination - an ideal which we must increasingly strive to reach - for reservation of a certain percentage of seats in the medical colleges for students satisfying a prescribed residence requirement as also for students who have passed PUC or pre-medical examination or any other qualifying examination held by the university or the State and for this purpose it should make no difference whether the qualifying examination is conducted by the State Board or by the Central Board of Secondary Education, because no discrimination can be made between schools affiliated to the State Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. We may point out that, at the close of the arguments we asked the learned Attorney General to inform the Court as to what was the stand of the Government of India in the matter of such reservation and the learned Attorney General in response to the inquiry made by the Court filed a policy statement which contained the following formulation of the policy of the Government of India : "Central Government is generally opposed to the principle of reservation based on domicile or residence for admission to institution of higher education, whether professional or otherwise. In view of the territorially articulated nature of the system of institutions of higher learning including institutions of professional education there is no objection, however, to stipulating reservation or preference for a reasonable quantum in under-graduate courses for students hailing from the school system of educational hinterland of the institutions. For this purpose, there should be no distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools affiliated to CBSE." We are glad to find that the policy of the Government of India in the matter of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference accords with the view taken by us in that behalf. For this purpose, there should be no distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools affiliated to CBSE." We are glad to find that the policy of the Government of India in the matter of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference accords with the view taken by us in that behalf. We may point out that even if at some stage it is decided to regulate admissions to the MBBS course on the basis of All India Entrance Examination, some provision would have to be made for allocation of seats amongst the selected candidates on the basis of residence or institutional affiliation so as to take into account the aforementioned factors. 20. The only question which remains to be considered is as to what should be the extent of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference. There can be no doubt that such reservation cannot completely exclude admission of students from other universities and States on the basis of merit judged in open competition. Krishna Iyer, J. rightly remarked in Jagdish Saran's case at pages 845 and 846 of the Report : "Reservation must be kept in check by the demands of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly all the best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation. So, a certain percentage which may be available, must be kept open for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and the like. Complete exclusion of the rest of the country for the sake of a province, wholesale banishment of proven ability to open up, hopefully, some dalit talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the altar of equalisation - when the Constitution mandates for every one equality before and equal protection of the law - may be fatal folly, self-defeating educational technology and anti-national if made a routine rule of State policy. A fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak with the partial recognition of the presence of competitive merit - such is the dynamics of social justice which antimates the three egalitarian articles of the Constitution." We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of 'domicile' or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 21. But, then to what extent can reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for students passing the qualifying examination held by the university or the State be regarded as constitutionally permissible? It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question for as pointed out by the policy statement of the Government of India, the extent of such reservation would depend on several factors including opportunities for professional education in that particular area, the extent of competition, level of educational development of the area and other relevant factors. It may be that in a State where the level of educational development is woefully low, there are comparatively inadequate opportunities for training in the medical specialty and there is large scale social and economic backwardness, there may be justification for reservation of a higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State and such higher percentage may not militate against "the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice". So many variables depending on social and economic facts in the context of educational opportunities would enter into the determination of the question as to what in the case of any particular State, should be the limit of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent. of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made. But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent. of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made. The Medical Education Review Committee has suggested that the outer limit should not exceed 75 percent but we are of the view that it would be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70%. We are laying down this outer limit of reservation in an attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting claims of equality and excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit fixed by us will be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may be made by the Indian Medical Council which is the statutory body of medical practioners whose functional obligations include setting standards for medical education and providing for its regulation and co-ordination. We are of the opinion that this outer limit fixed by us must gradually over the years be progressively reduced but that is a task which would have to be performed by the Indian Medical Council. We would direct the Indian Medical Council to consider within a period of nine months from today whether the outer limit of 70 per cent fixed by us needs to be reduced and if the Indian Medical Council determines a shorter outer limit, it will be binding on the States and the Union Territories. We would also direct the Indian Medical Council to subject the outer limit so fixed to reconsideration at the end of every three years but in no event should the outer limit exceed 70 per cent fixed by us. The result is that in any event at least 30 per cent of the open seats shall be available for admission of students on all India basis irrespective of the State or university from which they come and such admissions shall be granted purely on merit on the basis of either all India Entrance Examination or entrance examination to be held by the State. Of course, we need not add that even where reservation on the basis of residence requirement or institutional preference is made in accordance with the directions given in this judgment, admissions from the source or sources indicated by such reservation shall be based only on merit, because the object must be to select the best and most meritorious students from within such source or sources. 22. So much for admission to the MBBS course, but different considerations must prevail when we come to consider the question of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for admission to the post graduate courses, such as, M.D., M.S. and the like. There we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other considerations because that would be detrimental to the interest of the nation. It was rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran, (1980) AIR SC 820, Paras 23, 39 and 44), and we wholly endorse what he has said : "The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scale of specialty where the best skill or talent must be hand-picked by selecting according to capability. At the level of Ph.D., M.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk." "If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher levels of education like post-graduate courses. After all, top technological expertise in any vital field like medicine is a nation's human asset without which its advance and development will be stunted. The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devalue merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. In science and technology and other specialised fields of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave national risk/because in advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people of India should not be denied the best the nation's talent lying latent can produce. If the best potential in these fields is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as reservations, the victims, in the long run, may be the people themselves. Of course, this un-relenting strictness in selecting the best may not be so imperative at other levels where a broad measure of efficiency may be good enough and what is needed is merely to weed out the worth-less." "Secondly, and more importantly, it is difficult to denounce or renounce the merit criterion when the selection is for post graduate or post doctoral courses in specialised subjects. There is no substitute for sheer flair, for creative talent, for finetuned performance at the difficult heights of some disciplines where the best alone is likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise mawkishly with the weaker sections by selecting sub-standard candidates, is to punish society as a whole by denying the prospect of excellence say in hospital service. Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs the attention of super-skilled specialists, not humdrum secondrates. So it is that relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality altogether, is a social risk where the stage is postgraduate or postdoctoral." These passages from the judgment of Krishna Iyer, J. clearly and forcibly express the same view which we have independently reached oil our own and indeed that view has been so ably expressed in these passages that we do not think we can usefully add anything to what has already been said there. We may point out that the Indian Medical Council has also emphasized that playing with merit, so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned, for pampering local feeling, will boomerang. We may point out that the Indian Medical Council has also emphasized that playing with merit, so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned, for pampering local feeling, will boomerang. We may with advantage reproduce the recommendation of the Indian Medical Council on this point which may not be the last word in social wisdom but is certainly worthy of consideration : "Student for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities." The Medical Education Review Committee has also expressed the opinion that "all admissions to the post-graduate courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile in the State/UT in which the institution is located." So also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney General, the Government of India has categorically expressed the view that : "So far as admissions to the institutions of post-graduate colleges and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be entirely on the basis of all India merit subject to constitutional reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to postgraduate courses, such as M.S., M.D. and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 percent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the postgraduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admissions to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super, specialties such as neurosurgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions should be granted purely on merit on all India basis." 23. Judgment in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v/s. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, (1986) 3 SCC 727 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in undergraduate medical courses, admission to 15% of total available seats shall be made on the basis of All India Entrance Examination and remaining can be reserved for the residents of State. [23.1] In this batch of cases, it is the case of the petitioners that the impugned rule which imposes requirement of passing 10th Standard and 12th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat and further Rule 4(1-A) which contemplates candidate to be domicile of State of Gujarat, for the purpose of seeking admission, in 85% quota, is illegal and arbitrary. It is their case that such condition /restriction, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. [23.2] On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that requirement of passing 10th Standard and 12th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat was there in the rules framed in the year 2017, and the requirement of passing 10th Standard was questioned in the year 2017 in the batch of cases, at that point of time, the respondents had not insisted requirement of passing 10th Standard from the school situated in the State. It is further submitted that in the last academic year, it was found that about 400 candidates who were not permanent residents of State of Gujarat, have taken admission in 11th and 12th Standard in the State of Gujarat, for the purpose of seeking admission to medical professional courses, and have joined the course. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that impugned rules have no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that impugned rules have no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved. [23.3] As per rules of admission, 85% of the available seats in undergraduate courses are reserved for residents/domicile of State of Gujarat. When it is the case of the State that to ensure 85% of seats are allotted to students who are permanent residents of State of Gujarat, it cannot be said that such rules are framed without any object sought to be achieved. Looking at the past experience that students from outside State of Gujarat were coming and doing their 11th and 12th Standard from schools situated in State to secure admission in medical courses, it cannot be said that there is no object sought to be achieved by incorporating rule. It is clear from the stand of the respondents that to ensure 85% of seats are to be filled by the students belonging to State of Gujarat, such rules are framed. It is not disputed that 85% of total available seats in undergraduate course in medical stream of admission, can be reserved to local candidates. In that view of the matter, and having regard to stand of the respondents that introducing requirement of passing of 10th Standard from school situated in the State of Gujarat appears to be made only to ensure that seats are allotted to permanent residents of State. At this stage, it is also noticed that further Rule which is inserted by way of amendment to Rules in the year 2018 i.e. Rule 4(1-A) also cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. When the seats are reserved for permanent residents of State of Gujarat to the extent of 85%, insisting such candidates to be domicile of State of Gujarat, cannot be said to be illegal. Domiciliary is something which is different from place of birth. It also will not violate Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India as pleaded by the petitioners. [23.4] The argument of the petitioners that classification of students, who have passed 10th Standard from school situated in the State of Gujarat and outside State of Gujarat amounts to micro classification, also cannot be accepted. Said classification is to be held reasonable classification, so as to achieve object, to ensure that local residents get admission in undergraduate medical courses. [23.4] The argument of the petitioners that classification of students, who have passed 10th Standard from school situated in the State of Gujarat and outside State of Gujarat amounts to micro classification, also cannot be accepted. Said classification is to be held reasonable classification, so as to achieve object, to ensure that local residents get admission in undergraduate medical courses. It is well settled that classification which has nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved, is to be held to be reasonable classification and it will not infringe rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that when Rule is made to implement provisions of legislation, legitimate presumption is that the rule must have been framed by the State Government in good faith and with full knowledge of the existing conditions as well as requirements and the amendment, if any, must have been made to solve difficulties manifested by experience. It is also to be noticed that mere differentiation will not amount to discrimination and further trivial or illusory itself in classification, in treatment cannot attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the judgment in the case of Kumari Jayshree Chandrachud Dixit v/s. State of Gujarat, (1979) 1 GLR 614 , while considering the validity of rules of admission to First MBBS course, the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered identical situation and in the said case, learned Single Judge has held that mathematical nicety or perfect equality is not essential to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the objectives of the Rules, and the plea of the respondent in reply affidavit, we are of the view that impugned rules are not arbitrary and illegal as prayed for and they do not amount to micro classification offending rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view that such rules are framed only in furtherance of the object to reserve 85% of the seats in undergraduate medical courses for residents of the State of Gujarat. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to accept the plea of discrimination as prayed for. We are of the view that such rules are framed only in furtherance of the object to reserve 85% of the seats in undergraduate medical courses for residents of the State of Gujarat. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to accept the plea of discrimination as prayed for. [23.5] Even with regard to Rule 4(1-A), which is inserted by way of amendment to Rules, 2017, by issuing notification dated 04.05.2018, it cannot be said to be illegal. When it is permissible for the State Government to reserve 85% of available seats to the residents in the State quota, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the amendment brought in the Rules by inserting Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, 2017. Such rule framed is within the province of the respondent State to achieve the object as mentioned above. Time and again, place of birth and domicile is differentiated in many judgments. Merely because some of the students, though have fulfilled eligibility criteria of passing 10th, 11th and 12th standard in the State of Gujarat, but they are not meeting requirement of domicile, cannot be ground to invalidate the rules. [23.6] It is to be noticed that when domicile rule was not there, to ensure that 85% seats are allotted to local residents, passing of 10th standard requirement from the school situated in Gujarat was introduced. By recent amendment, which is being made applicable from the academic year 2018-19, domicile rule is brought into force. After domicile rule is introduced, whether rule requiring passing of 10th standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat is to be continued in the same form or not, is a matter which is required to be considered by the respondent authorities. When framing of such rule is within the province of respondents, this Court cannot quash the impugned rule in these petitions. 24. It is further the plea of the petitioners that impugned rule which requires 10th Standard from the school situated in State of Gujarat as contemplated in the present rules was not there when the petitioners were in 10th Standard. It is further case of the petitioners that in view of change of rules and insertion of Rule 4(1-A), the petitioners are being deprived to meet eligibility criteria for consideration in medical courses. It is further case of the petitioners that in view of change of rules and insertion of Rule 4(1-A), the petitioners are being deprived to meet eligibility criteria for consideration in medical courses. So far as condition requiring in the rule that candidates should have passed 10th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat, learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Anant Madaan v/s. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 135 . In the aforesaid judgment, condition prescribing for entrance examination requiring a candidate to have studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes from recognized institutions in the State of Haryana is held to be valid. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment read as under :- "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.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, (1955) AIR SC 334, this Court, making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence, in educational institutions." 25. It is the case of the petitioners that impugned rules cannot be applied retrospectively, mainly relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.8268 of 2017. Relying on the said judgment, it is pleaded that said judgment will apply to the case of the petitioners and seek direction against the respondent to consider their case without insisting requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the school situated in State of Gujarat. In the aforesaid judgment challenge was with regard to clause in information brochure of health science courses for the year 2017-18 in the State of Maharashtra. In the aforesaid judgment challenge was with regard to clause in information brochure of health science courses for the year 2017-18 in the State of Maharashtra. In the aforesaid judgment without going into validity of the Rule, merely on the ground that the petitioners in the said petitions have completed SCC examination, studied from the institution/board out of State prior to the year 2015-16, the rights accrued in their favour, just cannot be taken away by bringing such impugned clause retrospectively, which ultimately denied their right of further higher education in the State, further noticing that eleventh hour change of criteria is unjust, unreasonable and affects the rights, directions are issued to accept application forms without insisting for SCC certificate from the institution situated in the State. It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta that SLP which is filed against said judgment is dismissed and produced copy of the order dated 11.12.2017 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.D35623/2017. Directions contained in the order dated 05.07.2017 in Writ Petition No.8268 of 2017 are issued on the premise that the petitioners therein having passed SCC prior to introduction of said rule have acquired rights and such rights cannot be taken away. It is further held in the said judgment specifically that validity of the Rule is not gone into. 26. Strong reliance is placed on the aforesaid judgment by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Merely because when the petitioners have passed their 10th Standard, impugned rules were not there at the relevant point of time, can it be said that any rights have accrued to the petitioners?. In this regard, it is relevant to notice judgment in the case of J.S. Yadav v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 570 . In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment reads as under :- "20. "The word 'vested' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as vested; fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment reads as under :- "20. "The word 'vested' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as vested; fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent.' Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page 1397, 'vested' is defined as (law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest." (See: Mosammat Bibi Sayeeda and Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar and Ors. etc., (1996) AIR SC 1936)." 27. In the case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v/s. Gujarat University, (1990) 2 GLR 1066 , challenge was to rules of admission to post graduate degree and diploma medical courses. In identical situation, when there is challenge to the rules, it is held by Division Bench of this Court that no right will accrue in admission to medical educational courses unless one is admitted to the course. In absence of admission to the course, it is held that the petitioners cannot be said to have accrued any right. It is further held that, in such situation, taking away of their right does not arise. Further in the said case, while considering change of rules for post graduation admissions, in similar situation, it is held that no promise can be said to have been made by the University to the effect that same rules which were governing admission to postgraduate medical courses would continue to apply to them. We are totally in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. By applying said ratio, we are of the view that merely because, condition imposing requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat was not there, when the petitioners passed 10th Standard, it cannot be said that they have acquired any right. Whether the rules which are in force for entry to medical courses are to be amended or not, it is primarily for the respondent State to do so. Whether the rules which are in force for entry to medical courses are to be amended or not, it is primarily for the respondent State to do so. Having regard to past experience and requirements, it is always open for the State Government to up-date the rules as required to meet the situation to fulfill criteria having regard to object of the legislation. Merely because said rules are not suiting some candidates, it cannot be said that such amendment amounts to taking away their rights. It is to be noticed that in absence of any right, it cannot be said that any right is taken away. Similarly, promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation also cannot be accepted. Such eventualities will have to be considered in case where the candidates prove that they were promised and further they have changed their position in anticipation. In absence of any such eventualities, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the petitioners that view taken by the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.8268 of 2017 is to be accepted for grant of directions as prayed for. It is brought to our notice that SLP filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.8268 of 2017 is dismissed. However, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave appearing for impleaded respondents has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Justice P. Venugopal v/s. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 726 . In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the SLP is dismissed in limine, same will not amount to binding precedent, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the said judgment read as under:- "24. It may be true that this Court did not grant special leave to appeal from the judgment of Justice Nand Lal Ganguly but the same by itself would not render the decision as binding precedent in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 25. In Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another, (2000) AIR SC 2587 this Court, inter alia, held : "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saving that the order of the Court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties."" 28. In view of aforesaid judgment and having regard to judgment of this Court in the case of Prashant Pravinbhai Kanabar v/s. Gujarat University, (1990) 2 GLR 1066 , we are not persuaded to accept the view taken by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 8268 of 2017 and accordingly, we reject such contention. 29. It is further plea of some of the petitioners that though the petitioners are permanent residents of State of Gujarat and have done their qualifying 11th and 12th Standard from institutions situated in the State of Gujarat, but in view of the fact that they have pursued their 10th Standard outside State of Gujarat, they have become ineligible. It is submitted that by operation of such rule, they are being put to great hardship. It is well settled principle that hardship or inconvenience is no ground for interference with the rules or statute, if such provision or rule is made to achieve the object of the Act. It is submitted that by operation of such rule, they are being put to great hardship. It is well settled principle that hardship or inconvenience is no ground for interference with the rules or statute, if such provision or rule is made to achieve the object of the Act. In this regard, judgments relied by the respondents in the cases of Rohitash Kumar v/s. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 11 SCC 451 ; Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v/s. C.N. Sahasranaman, (1986) AIR SC 1830 and Kamal Kanti Dutta v/s. Union of India, (1980) AIR SC 2056 support the case of the respondents. [29.1] In the case of Kamal Kanti Dutta v/s. Union of India, (1980) AIR SC 2056, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.52 as under :- "52. In regard to the individual instances cited before us as exemplifying the injustice caused to the promotees, it is not safe to test the constitutionality of a service rule on the touchstone of fortunes of individuals. No matter with what care, objectivity and foresight a rule is framed, some hardship, inconvenience or injustice is bound to result to some members of the service. The paramount consideration is the reconciliation of conflicting claims of two important constituents of Service, one of which brings fresh blood and the other mature experience." [29.2] In the case of Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v/s. C.N. Sahasranaman, (1986) AIR SC 1830, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.58 has held as under :- "58. Whether there has been denial of equality of the view of promotion or any constitutional right infringed or not cannot be judged, where interest of large number of people are concerned, in the abstract. Vast majority, indeed the overwhelming majority of the workmen are in favour of the scheme as evolved by the Bank as modified as it would be apparent from the submissions urged on behalf of All-India Reserve Bank Employees' Association - impleaded as party - respondent in this appeal as well as All India Reserve Bank Employees' Federation, Hyderabad. It has to be borne in mind that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. It has to be borne in mind that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Kamal Kanti Dutta v. Union of India, (1980) AIR SC 2056". [29.3] In the case of Rohitash Kumar v/s. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 11 SCC 451 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.18 has held as under :- "18. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigour. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. In view of ratio in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, we cannot accept the plea of the petitioners to declare the impugned rules as illegal, on the ground that some of the petitioners are being put to hardship by virtue of such rules. 30. Further, in absence of any ground to demonstrate that impugned rules are illegal and run contrary to the objects, which are intended to ensure proper implementation of reservation of 85% of available seats in undergraduate medical courses for the candidates having domicile/residents of State of Gujarat, we do not find any merit in these petitions. It is primarily for the respondent State to assess and fix eligibility criteria and qualification relevant for the purpose of admissions to the courses by way of framing appropriate rules. As such, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. As such, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. At the same time, it is to be noticed that to regulate admissions in undergraduate medical course, State of Gujarat has brought in force regulation titled 'Gujarat Professional Medical Educational College or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007. Section 20 of the said Act empowers the respondent State to make rules. After the Act has come into force, Rules are framed from time to time to regulate admission to undergraduate medical courses. Till the academic year 2016-2017, as per rules which were framed, there was only requirement of passing of qualifying examination of 11th and 12th Standard from the institute located in the State of Gujarat. To ensure reservation to local resident, in the year 2017, rules were framed in supercession of earlier rules. The respondent - State has framed the rules in the year 2017 to the effect that the candidates will be eligible under 85% if he/she has passed 10th, 11th and 12th Standard from the schools situated in the State of Gujarat and CBSE schools situated in the State of Gujarat. Challenging the Rules of 2017, when batch of petitions was filed questioning such rules, the respondents have not seriously insisted for complying requirement of passing 10th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the respondent State that in last year about 400 students got admission in the medical stream who belong to outside State of Gujarat, by joining in 11th and 12th Standard in the State of Gujarat only for the purpose of entry in medical stream. In view of the same, Rule 4 is further amended by amending Act, 2018 which was notified on 04.05.2018. By aforesaid Rule, domicile requirement is introduced for the purpose of claiming 85% of reserved quota. In view of the same, Rule 4 is further amended by amending Act, 2018 which was notified on 04.05.2018. By aforesaid Rule, domicile requirement is introduced for the purpose of claiming 85% of reserved quota. It is true that earlier when the rules were challenged, we have confirmed Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2017 in Special Civil Application No. 13877 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.14260 of 2017 vide judgment dated 04.08.2017 and Special Civil Application No.13842 of 2017, but there is noticeable change thereafter in the Rules i.e. insertion of Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, requiring fulfillment of domicile criteria for the purpose of reservation in the State quota. In the year 2017, when domiciliary requirement was not there in the Rules, passing of 10th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat, in addition to existing requirement of 11th and 12th Standard was introduced, but further to ensure that quota is reserved for candidates of Gujarat, domiciliary requirement is also introduced under Rule 4(1-A) of the Rules, 2017. 32. Having regard to defence put forth by the respondents, further considering that the eligibility criteria and qualification to be prescribed for making admission, is a matter primarily within the domain of the respondents, in absence of demonstrating that the impugned rules are arbitrary, we cannot grant any relief, as prayed for, by the petitioners in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, as it is the case of some of the petitioners that they are permanent residents of State of Gujarat and having passed 11th and 12th Standard from the schools situated in State of Gujarat, they are not fitting into eligibility criteria only on the ground that they have studied 10th Standard from the schools situated outside State of Gujarat, we deem it appropriate that said matter is required to be considered by the respondents. 33. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions for grant of any relief as prayed for, to strike down Rule 4(3)(ii) and Rule 4(1-A) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions for grant of any relief as prayed for, to strike down Rule 4(3)(ii) and Rule 4(1-A) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. At the same time, as it is noticed that after Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 referred above, is upheld by this Court, in view of dismissal of the petition challenging the aforesaid Rule earlier, there is change in the Rules by introducing Rule 4(1-A) which is inserted by way of amendment to the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, by Notification dated 04.05.2018. In view of insertion of Rule 4(1-A) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, which prescribe the candidate to be domicile of Gujarat, whether requirement of passing of 10th Standard from the school situated in the State of Gujarat, as contemplated under Rule 4(3) (ii) of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, as existed earlier to be continued or not, needs consideration by the respondent State. It is the case of some of the petitioners that though they fulfill criteria of domicile and passing requirement of 12th Standard from the school situated in Gujarat, but they are excluded from the eligibility criteria only on the ground that they have studied 10th Standard from the school outside State of Gujarat. In that view of the matter, as object of the Rules is to give benefit to the candidates who are domicile of the State of Gujarat, we direct the respondent State to take decision forthwith on the said issue whether to continue Rule 4(3)(ii) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 in the same form or not and take appropriate decision accordingly, without loss of any time. 35. At the same time, as it is brought to our notice that as per schedule notified by the Medical Council of India, counseling commences from today i.e. 25.06.2018, but we are not inclined to disturb the schedule notified. 35. At the same time, as it is brought to our notice that as per schedule notified by the Medical Council of India, counseling commences from today i.e. 25.06.2018, but we are not inclined to disturb the schedule notified. We expect the respondent State to take a call on the issue referred above, keeping in mind that counseling commences by the Admission Committee from today i.e. 25.06.2018 for the purpose of making admissions to undergraduate medical courses for the academic year 2018-19. 36. We dispose of this batch of petitions with the direction as indicated above. No order as to costs. Connected Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.