JUDGMENT

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:—Leave granted.

2. These four appeals by special leave challenge a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the validity of the eligibility criteria prescribed for the year 1994 for the entrance test to be conducted for the State of Haryana for the purposes of admission to medical and dental colleges in the State of Haryana. These appellants along with a large number of other petitioners challenged these eligibility criteria of 1994 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court substantially upholding the eligibility criteria, while striking down a portion of the corrigendum, four of these petitioners have filed these appeals by special leave.

3. Till 1993 the eligibility conditions required, inter alia, that candidate should be resident/domiciled in the State of Haryana and was required to produce a certificate of Haryana domicile/residence as prescribed in those rules. In 1994, the eligibility conditions were changed. The relevant parts of these eligibility conditions prescribed in 1994 are as follows:

"i) The candidates who have studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as regular candidates in recognised institutions in Haryana......

ii) The children/wards......... of the employees appointed on regular basis of Haryana State Government/Members of All India Services borne on Haryana cadre/statutory bodies/corporations established by or under an Act of the State of Haryana whether posted in Haryana or outside.......

iii) The children/wards........of the employees of Indian Defence Services/Para military forces belonging to Haryana State at the time of entry into service as per their service records....

Thereunder a Corrigendum was issued by the State of Haryana granting eligibility to children/wards of the employees belonging to Haryana who had studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as regular candidates in recognised institutions in Chandigarh subject to their fulfilment of other eligibility conditions and further providing that they should submit a certificate of Harayana residence/domicile as per State Government Rules along with an affidavit by the parent/guardian that the candidate had not appeared or was not appearing in the entrance test of any State or Union Territory other than Haryana.

4. The petitioners before the Punjab and Harayana High Court had challenged the eligibility conditions of 1994 insofar as they require that candidates should have studied for the 10th, 11th and 12th standards as regular candidates in recognised institutions in Haryana. They had also challenged the Corrigendum. The two learned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who heard these writ petitions differed. Hence the petitions were referred to a third judge who concurred with one of the Judges and held that the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in the 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in recognised institutions in Haryana was valid. The condition in the Corrigendum which required an affidavit from the parent or guardian of the candidate that the candidate was not appearing or had not appeared in the entrance test of any State or Union Territory was, however, struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present appeals, however, we are not concerned with the Corrigendum.

5. Out of a large number of petitioners whose petitions were decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 30th of August, 1994 (being the judgment of the third learned Judge to whom the matter was referred because of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges), only four petitioners are before us as appellants. These are: Anant Madaan in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No-16093/94, Bharat B. Dua in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 16149/94, Nandita Kalra in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 18871/94 and Shalini Jain in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No.20602/94. Anant Madaan has passed his 10+1 and 10+2 examinations fro