Rules governing admissions to reserved categories in education must ensure continuity of eligible students, underscoring their rights of access to post-graduate courses.

1. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 had applied for admission to Post - Graduation Course in Medicine. The choice of the both fell on "Paediatrics" as their subject, though the petitioner in the alternative had applied for studies in "General Medicine" and "Diploma in Child Health". For the year under dispute, only two seats were available for "Paediatrics" one being earmarked for "open merit", and the other being reserved for Scheduled Caste student Respondent No. 4 belonged to "Other Backward Class", for whom no seat in Paediatrics was reserved. But the relevant rule contemplates allotment of unfilled seat of Scheduled Caste to a student belonging to any group of Backward Class up to the maximum percentage fixed thereunder for the said group. Such rules for admission to the Post - Graduation courses are framed under the Government Resolution dated 18th June 1971. Only students admitted to M.B.B.S. course through reserved seats could claim admission to Post - Graduation course from the reserved seats under these Rules. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 was not so admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. Respondent No. 4 being a Christian, could not have been admitted to any of the Backward Class reserved seats. He was admitted to Miraj Medical College as a candidate sponsored by Wanless Hospital, Miraj in 1973 in one of the three seats earmarked for the said Hospital. However, by a notification of the Government dated 13th February, 1978 Christians converted from Scheduled castes also were recognised as belonging to "Other Backward Class" for the purpose of such reservation. This is how he claimed admission to M.D. to the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, allottable to other Backward Class student in case of its being not claimed by any Scheduled Caste student.

2. Both were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 30th June 1981 and 25th July 1981, the second interview becoming necessary due to the absence of the University representative on 30th June, 1981. The Committee rejected the claim of respondent No. 4 on both occasions on account of his not being admitted to M.B.B.S. course through such reserved quota. On the very first day of the interview viz. 30th June 1981, the petitioner was informed of his having been so selected for the course in Paediatrics, on merits, in addition to one Kulkarni who had secured highest marks. In view of this, the petitioner endorsed his refusal to accept admission to the other two subjects as per the practice in vogue then, though he could have been so admitted on his own merits to these subjects also.

3. The claim of respondent No. 4 was, however, accepted by the higher authorities in appeal. By the letter dated 6th November, 1981, the petitioner's admission was cancelled and respondent No. 4 was notified to have been admitted to the said course. The petitioner challenges this act of the University in this writ petition filed on 20th November, 1981.

4. Mr. Pradhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, raised two points in support of this petition. First, that admitted omission of respondent No. 4 to get admitted to M.B.B.S. course as an "Other Backward Class" students prevents him from seeking admission as such student to Post - Graduation course. Second, that students belonging to "Other Backward Class" already admitted to different subjects including the "open merit" ones till then, for Post - Graduation studies, had already made up the reservation of 10% available to such students, leaving no room for admission of respondent No. 4 to this course as such student.

5. Coming to the first contention of Mr. Pradhan, the