IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1960 of 2007 (M/S) Manoj Singh Mehta, S/O Sri Sher Singh Mehta, R/O Village and Post Jamkoo, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Health & Medical, Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Sri M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate, with Sri C.S.Dumka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents no. 1. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Date May 05, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate, with Sri C.S.Dumka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State- respondent no.1 and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to give admission to the petitioner in place of respondent no.4 for the course of MBBS in Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Science Patel Nagar, Dehradun. According to the petitioner, he appeared in Uttarakhand Pre-Medical Test (UPMT) 2007 bearing Roll No. 53008 conducted by respondent no.2/University from G.G.I. College Lakhibagh, Dehradun examination centre and the petitioner got 142 marks in the entrance examination and after counselling the petitioner was referred to the Management Quota and consequently the petitioner filled up Application No. 1751 for admission to 2 M.B.B.S. Course of Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Science vide Annexure No.3. The petitioner obtained Rank 441 in the Combined Merit List (C.M.L.), while the respondent no.4 stood at 443 in the CML ranking. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the petitioner and respondent no.4 are on the same footing and the petitioner having obtained higher rank in CML, but the admission has been refused to the petitioner, while respondent no.4 has been given admission, which is illegal and against the Rules and Regulations of the Uttarakhand Pre Medical Test. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, i.e. the date for commencement of the course and there is no scope for admitting students midstream in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and others [(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 258]. I have perused the case of Medical Council of India (supra). In paragraph no.3, the conclusions are mentioned. Conclusion Nos. (i) and (ii) are relevant, which read as under:- “(i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; (ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions.” In the case at hand, the petitioner himself has annexed the advertisement issued by the Institute as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. In this advertisement, the date of commencement of course has been mentioned as 31-08-2007 for the Session 2007- 3 2008. It is also not disputed that the Session 2007-2008 has already commenced long back. In my view, even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled for admission to the MBBS course in mid-session. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5