ORDER : Rohit Arya, J. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners, who were candidates in NEET (UG) 2023 Examination held on 07/05/2023 seeking the following reliefs: “i- That, the action/inaction of respondent department of not allotting the MBBS Unreserved Category Government School Quota Seats to the meritorious Reserved Category Government School Quota candidate to be ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law; ii- That, respondent department may kindly be directed to allot the MBBS seat of Unreserved Category Government School Quota to the meritorious Reserved Category Government School Quota candidate; iii- That, respondent department may kindly be directed to commence fresh counselling from Round 1 in regard to Government School Quota for Unreserved and Reserved candidate; iv- That, it may be declared that action/inaction of respondent department of not allotting the MBBS Unreserved Category Government School Quota seats to the meritorious Reserved Category Government School Quota candidate is in violation to the dictum of Saurav Yadav & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ( (2021)4 SCC 542 ) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted” Results were declared on 13/06/2023. After completion of counseling successful candidates were allocated seats in respective colleges. No seats are vacant. The aforesaid facts are recorded in the order passed by this Court on 08/11/2023. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is taken up for decision. It is pertinent to mention that petitioners respectively belong to OBC, SC, OBC, SC and EWS categories. 2. Before adverting to the merits of rival contentions, it would be expedient to extract the rule position governing the point in issue. Department of Technical Education Skill and Training has framed M.P.Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 which inter alia provide as under :- Rule 1 laf{kIr uke vkSj izkjEHk-& ¼1½ bu fu;eksa dk laf{kIr uke e/;izns'k fpfdRlk f'k{kk izos'k fu;e] 2018 gSA ¼2½ ;s fu;e e/;izns'k jkti= esa buds izdkf'kr gksus ds fnukad ls izo`Rr gksaxsA Rule 2 ¼B½ defines as under:- ¼B½ ^izoxZ* ls vfHkizsr gS] efgyk] Lora=rk laxzke lSukuh] lSfud fnO;kax ,oa vfuoklh Hkkjrh; izoxZ( Rule 2 ¼i½ defines for ^Js.kh* as under:- ¼i½ ^Js.kh* ls vfHkizsr gS] vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vukjf{kr Js.kh A Rule 4 provides for reservation. Rule 4 (1) provides for reservation Js.kho) and Rule 4 (2) defines reservation izoxZokj. For ready reference, the said Rules are quoted below: 4- vkj{k.k & ¼1½ Js.khokj vkj{k.k & ¼d½ Js.khokj vkj{k.k vuqlwph&2 ds [k.M ^v^ vuqlkj gksxk A ¼[k½ jkT; 'kklu ds fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds rgr dzhehys;j dh ifjf/k esa vkus okys vU; fiNMk oxZ Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk,xkA ¼x½ dkmaflfyax ds f}rh; pdz esa vkjf{kr Js.kh fo'ks"k dk vgZrk/kkjh iathd`r vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus dh n'kk esa izos'k gsrq vkoaVu fuEu dze ls fd;k tk,xk%& ¼1½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh fjfDr;ksa ds in ds fo:) vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks( ¼2½ vuqlwfpr tkfr dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks( ¼3½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr ds fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vU; fiNMk oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks( ,oa ¼4½ mijksDr rhuksa Jsf.k;ksa ds vkjf{kr vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus dh n'kk esa] fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vukjf{kr Js.kh ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks A ¼?k½ dkmaflfyax ds vafre pdz esa vkjf{kr Js.kh fo'ks"k dk vgZrk/kkjh iathd`r vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus dh n'kk esa] ,slh Js.kh dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vukjf{kr Js.kh ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izos'k fn;k tk,xk A [k.M&c izoxZokj vkj{k.k provides as under :- izoxZ IkkB~;Øe ftlesa ykxw gS egkfo|ky; ftuesa ykxw gS dqy lhVksa dk izfr'kr vfuoklh Hkkjrh; vH;FkhZ leLr dsoy futh egkfo|ky;ksa 15 efgyk vH;FkhZ leLr leLr egkfo|ky;ksa esa 30 fnO;kax vH;FkhZ leLr 5 Lora=rk lsukuh vH;FkhZ ,e-ch-ch-,l- ,oa chMh-,l dsoy 'kkldh; egkfo|ky;ksa esa 3 lSfud vH;FkhZ ,e-ch-ch-,l- ,oa chMh-,l 3 The aforesaid Rules were further amended vide State notification dated 19.06.2019. The definition of izoxZ and Js.kh was amended as under :- 1- mifu;e 2 ¼B½ rFkk 2 ¼i½ ds LFkku ij] dze'k% fuEufyf[kr mifu;e LFkkfir fd, tk,a vFkkZr%& There was further amendment by way of notification dated 10/05/2023, wherein the definition of ¼B½ was further revised as under :- B½ ^^izoxZ^^ ls vfHkizsr gS] efgyk] Lora= laxzke] lsukuh ,oa fnO;kax izoxZ ¼i½ ^Js.kh^ ls vfHkizsr gS] vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ¼bZ0MCyw0,l0½ ,oa vukjf{kr Js.kh 2- fu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds LFkku ij] fuEufyf[kr mifu;e LFkkfir fd;k tk, vFkkZr%& ^^¼2½ ^^izoxZokj vkj{k.k%& ¼d½ izoxZokj vkj{k.k vuqlwph&2 ds [k.M &^c^ ds vuqlkj gksxk ¼[k½ izFker izoxZokj vkj{k.k dh fjfDr;ka Js.khokj u gksdj dqy fjfDr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh rRi'pkr bu fjfDr;ksa ij fu/kkZfjr Js.khokj vkj{k.k ykxw fd;k tkdj fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa esa foHkkftr fd;k tk;sxk- ¼x½ dkmaflfyax ds f}rh; pØ ¼ekWi vi pj.k½ esa izoxZ fo'ks"k ds vgZr/kkjh iathd`r vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus dh n'kk esa izoxZ fo'ks"k dh fjfDr;ka vkoaVu gsrq lacaf/kr Js.kh ds iathd`r vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks Lor% vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k gks tk;sxh Accordingly the corresponding Schedule II [k.M&c was revised, which is as under :- 4- vuqlwph ds fo|eku [k.M ¼c½ dh lkj.kh ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr lkj.kh LFkkfir dh tk,%& ^^izoxZ ¼1½ ikB;Øe ftlesa ykxw gS ¼2½ egkfo|ky; ftlesa ykxw gS ¼3½ dqy lhVks a dk izfr'kr ¼4½ efgyk vH;FkhZ leLr leLr egkfo|ky;ksa esa 30 fnO;kax vH;FkhZ leLr leLr egkfo|ky;ksa esa 5 Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh vH;FkhZ ,echch,l ,oa chMh,l dsoy 'kkldh; egkfo|ky; 3 lSfud vH;FkhZ ,echch,l ,oa chMh,l dsoy 'kkldh; egkfo|ky; 3 'kkldh; fo|ky; ds fo|kFkhZ ,echch,l ,oa chMh,l leLr 'kkldh; ,oa futh egkfo|ky; 5^^ The procedure for filling-up of the vacancies as amended by notification dated 19/06/2019 is relevant for the present case. As per the revised procedure firstly percentage of vacancies shall be worked out on the basis of class-wise ¼ÁoxZ½ reservation and not category-wise reservation ¼Js.kh½ out of total vacancies. Thereafter, such vacancies shall be further divided into the proportionate number of category-wise vacancies. For instance; in the instant case the vacancies were classified in the following manner : Bifurcation of MBBS Seats Reserved for Government School Quota for Admission Through Neet UG 2023 SC 16% ST 20% OBC 14% OBC 14% UR Total Seats Govt. & Pvt. Remarks Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. For instance; in the instant case the vacancies were classified in the following manner : Bifurcation of MBBS Seats Reserved for Government School Quota for Admission Through Neet UG 2023 SC 16% ST 20% OBC 14% OBC 14% UR Total Seats Govt. & Pvt. Remarks Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. Pvt. Govt. open seats 257 320 225 161 640 1603 Private open seats 293 366 256 No E W S Qu ota 915 1830 30 Women Reservation is against all available seats across all category and class. There is no earmarked seat for women. There were 2004 female admissions against 4308 total available seats 46.51 %. 3 Ex Army (SN) available only in Govt. Medical Colleges 9 0 12 0 8 0 6 0 23 0 58 0 80 SN admissions. Total Ex army seats (SN) 58 MBBS seats 3 Freedom Fighter (FF) seats available only in Govt. Medical Colleges 10 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 23 0 57 0 15 FF Admissions. Total FF seats 57 MBBS seats 5 Handicapped (PWD) in Govt. and Pvt. Medical Colleges 15 16 20 20 13 15 9 0 38 51 95 102 40 PWD Admissions. Total PWD 197 seats 5 GS (Government School) in Govt. and Pvt. Medical Colleges 15 16 20 21 13 14 9 0 38 51 95 102 197 GS admissions. Total Seats 306 325 382 407 267 285 191 0 762 1017 1908 2034 3942 Note : 366 NRI seats in private medical colleges not included in chart. Thereafter, under Rule 2 ¼x½ after completion of given number of counseling round in the last mop up round if vacancies in the particular class are available, the vacant seats shall be transferred to other candidates in that category notwithstanding the class i.e. izoxZokj . In other words, in the aforesaid given chart if 89 candidates are not available in unreserved government schools, the remaining seats shall be transferred to the open category and likewise if 41 ST candidates are not available the remaining seats shall be transferred to ST category etc. to be filled up in vertical reservation. In the instant case, as against 89 unreserved seats for Government schools only 12 students were found to be above the cut off marks. As a result, remaining 77 seats were transferred to open category in vertical reservation. to be filled up in vertical reservation. In the instant case, as against 89 unreserved seats for Government schools only 12 students were found to be above the cut off marks. As a result, remaining 77 seats were transferred to open category in vertical reservation. Petitioners scored the marks as under:- Petitioner No.1 412 Petitioner No.2 305 Petitioner No.3 390 Petitioner No.4 244 Petitioner No.5 297 The validity of amended Rules (vide notification dt.19/6/2019) have not been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the candidates ought to have been considered firstly under unreserved category and if they have not been able to compete securing less than cut off marks, they could have been considered for the respective reserved category as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2021) 4 SCC 542]. According to him, petitioners since have secured more marks than the last candidate admitted under the unreserved category school all should have been admitted in the said category. That having not been done, they have been subjected to typical hostility in violation of their fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Shri Mody submits that by way of amendment by notification dated 19/06/2019, the procedure for filling up Neet (UG) examination has been revised. Vacancies are required to be filled up by providing izoxZokj vkj{k.k i.e. class-wise reservation in contradistinction to category-wise reservation as in vogue in common parlance. As discussed above, after division of vacancies percentage-wise in different classes, as reservation has been provided to different categories in each class with the provision that in case candidates of a given category in the said class are not available, those vacancies shall be transferred to the same respective category for filling up under the vertical reservation. In the instant case as only 12 students could qualify from amongst the unreserved government school class the remaining seats were transferred to general category to be filled under vertical reservation. He submits that 89 seats earmarked for unreserved (government school) category firstly were required to be filled up from amongst the unreserved category having more marks than the cut off marks. He therefore submits that since only 12 unreserved category candidates could cross the cut off marks they have been given admission against 89 vacancies. He submits that 89 seats earmarked for unreserved (government school) category firstly were required to be filled up from amongst the unreserved category having more marks than the cut off marks. He therefore submits that since only 12 unreserved category candidates could cross the cut off marks they have been given admission against 89 vacancies. Remaining 77 vacancies were transferred to open category or unreserved category in vertical reservation, though there has been no occasion of such transfer in other categories. Since none of the candidates has been given admission against the remaining vacancies of open category having secured less marks than the petitioners (the cut of UR off being 456 marks), petitioners can not make a complaint for not being considered alongwith general category candidates in vertical reservation as has been the factual matrix in Saurabh Kumar's case. Learned counsel further submits that none of the petitioners secured more marks than the candidates admitted in their respective category (social reservations) either in first round or in mop up round. Hence, grievance of the petitioners in the obtaining facts and circumstances is of no consequence. 5. Heard. 6. The law on the point in issue is no more res integra and has been elaborately dealt with by the Apex Court in catena of pronouncements referred to in the case of Saurav Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (Supra). Social reservations (categories) in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”, while special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, government school etc. under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal reservations”. While explaining the concept of “overall reservations” and “compartmentalised reservations”, the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. ( (1995)5 SCC 173 ) has held that where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of compartmentalised reservations. The special reservation is a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation class. As against this, in overall reservations while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of special reservation has yet to be honoured. 7. The special reservation is a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation class. As against this, in overall reservations while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of special reservation has yet to be honoured. 7. However, the case in hand is distinguishable from the above, inasmuch as here the seats have first been divided class-wise (i.e. horizontally/special reservations) and then category-wise (i.e. vertically/social reservations) in terms of Rule 2(“kha”) quoted above. From a bare perusal of the chart quoted above, it is clear that out of total 4308 seats, 366 NRI seats were excluded from calculation. Out of the remaining 3942 seats, firstly 5% horizontal reservation was provided to Government School class which comes to 197 seats. Secondly, these 197 seats have been proportionately divided in SC, ST, OBC etc. categories. Similar calculations have been made for other classes viz. Ex Army, Freedom Fighter and Handicap. Further, as per Rule 2(“ga”), in the second round of counselling if the requisite number of registered candidates are not available in a particular class, the left-over vacancies are to be made available to the registered candidates of the respective category. In pursuance of Rule 2(“ga”), in the instant case, as many as 77 left-over vacancies of OC (open category) were automatically added to the general pool (unreserved/vertical category) for being made available on merit to any candidate, irrespective of his/her caste. In terms of Rule 4(1)(“ga”) (ibid) seats in each of the categories were filled-up, in conformity with settled principles of law as reiterated by the Apex Court in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (Supra). Therefore, it is not a case where the reserved category candidates have been refrained from staking claim against open category seats, nor is it a case where cut-off marks of last student of Open/Unreserved Category (i.e. 456 marks) is less than that of any of the petitioners. As such, when the said vacancies were pooled in the open category for all the candidates (including the petitioners) in terms of the aforesaid Rules, the contention of the petitioners that any prejudice was caused to them cannot be countenanced, moreso in absence of any challenge to the constitutional validity of the rules in vogue. The petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.