CWP No. 1474 of 2008. 25.08.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the counseling of subsidized and non-subsidized seats shall not be held simultaneously. This Court has categorically enquired from the petitioner that which of its right is being infringed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not reply the same. However, the petitioner wants that there shall be reservation for subsidized seats and should not be any reservation for non-subsidized seats in the light of indication in the prospectus. Learned Counsel, Shri B.C. Negi appearing for the University states that the University is holding the counseling in accordance with the prospectus and the reservation will be only for subsidized seats and there would be no reservation for non-subsidized seats. In the light of the above statement, no further interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. August 25, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)