CWP No.2760 of 2009. 19.8.2009. Present: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate has placed before the Court judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohit Dogra vs. Monica Bhadwal & ors., in Civil Appeal No. 5718 of 2006. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “From the facts stated above, it is clear that the seat, which had fallen vacant in the All India quota had to be filled by the merit candidate in the State quota and the candidate at sl. No. 73 viz. Surya Saini though a reserved candidate, was the next in the merit list and he had to be adjusted against the merit quota for the MBBS Course. This candidate earlier got admission against OBC reserved category and meanwhile a seat fell vacant and the Counselling Committee had rightly directed the appellant to be admitted against that vacancy. The contention of the respondent that the seat had fallen vacant on the merit quota, therefore, the admission had to be given to the respondent, is not correct. Clause 10(i) of the prospectus is clear that “….. the candidates of reserved categories if selected on merit under Group B(i) (unreserved) shall not exhaust the seats reserved for them, and allotment of seats will be made college-wise”. The High Court, in our view, though correctly stated as to how the unfilled vacancies have to be filled up but the view taken by the High Court that the general category seat is to be filled up by a candidate who was first in the waiting list in the general category is not correct since the candidate at sl. No. 73 Surya Saini, even though in the reserved quota, had secured more marks than the respondent herein in the general quota, and therefore, he was entitled to get the admission on merit. The view taken by the High Court is not correct and the view taken by the Counselling Committee is correct. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, the college authorities have already taken a decision and the appellant had been admitted in the MBBS Course and the respondent has been given admission in BDS course. We affirm the interim order passed by this Court and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.” In view of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (R.B.Misra), Acting Chief Justice August 19, 2009 (Rajiv Sharma), J. (ks)