’ ’ Present. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, counsel for th petitioner. Mr. UNS Dec, Govt. Advocate for the $tate. ORAL ORDER “ (1 7f February, 201 0) Per Dhimndm Mishm .I 1. Case of the petitioner is that she appeared in the Pre Medical Test Examination. 2009 for admission to MBBS/BDS course under Unreserved Freedom Fighter Class. She was placed at 12‘" rank in the merit list for Freedom Fighter Class. 3% seats were reserved for the candidates belonging to Freedom Fighter Class in all categories. Thus, out of 250 seats for MBBS course, 7 seats are reserved for Freedom Fighter Class, and out of 100 seats for BDS course, 3 seats are reserved for Freedom Fighter Class. Since no candidate from reserved categories: Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class, appeared in Freedom Fighter Class, therefore, as per Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Tatha Dant Chikitsa Snatak Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2006 (in short “Admission Rules"), all the seats of Freedom Fighter Class are availableto the candidates of Freedom Fighter Class irrespective of their categories. ' When the petitioner appeared in the second round of counseling on 28‘“ August, 2009, there were 5 seats for MBBS course and 2 seats HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HONBLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HONBLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Petition (c) No. 5531 of 2009 e Petitioner Aparajita Singh D/o Ashwini Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o Janjgeer, Tahsil & Dist. Janjg’eer—Champa, Chhattisgarh present Rlo Clo Deshbandhu Press; Civil Lines, Jarahabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8. Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ‘Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Medical Education, Directorate of Medica! Education, Old Nurse’s Hostel, Dau Kalyan Singh = “Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3, Chairman, Counselling Committee, (MBBSIBDS Courses), Counselling Date 28.8.2009 Through Director, Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Old Nurse’s Hostel, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. M for BDS course vacant for Freedom Fighter Class. However, she was denied admission against the vacant seats for Freedom Fighter Class in reserved category on the ground that the aforesaid vacancies are being tiiled in from the candidates of the same category without any class, which is contrary to Rule 8(a) of the Admission Rules. The respondents/State in their reply have submitted that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is based on incorrect interpretation of Rule 8(a) and (b) of the Admission Rules. Rule 8(a) and (b) stipulates that initially the seats reserved for Freedom Fighter Class in various categories would be hlled in by the candidates, who belong to Freedom Fighter Class of that category. However. if the candidates of Freedom Fighter Class are not available in any category i.e. Unreserved Category, STISC/OBC, then the same will be converted into “No Class“ in the same category. lt is further submitted that the instant petition has become infructuous with the lapse of time as the petitioner’s application for interim relief was rejected by this Court on 25.9.2009 and since then, admission process has been completed in all the Medical Colieges and Dental Colleges of the State of Chhattisgarh and no admission in Medical and Dental Colleges of the State can be given after 30‘" September, 2009 as per regulations of the Medical Council of India. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. indisputably, after rejection of the interim application of the petitioner, admission process has been completed in various Medical and' Dental Colleges of the State by 30‘" September, 2009. In view of the settled law, admission cannot be given after 30‘“ September of any academic session and therefore, the substantive relief claimed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in MBBS/BDS course in the Govt. Medical Colleges and Govt. Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh in the current academic session, cannot be granted at this belated stage and the instant petition has become infructuous. 5. in that view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to decide the issue raised by the petitioner on merits and accordingly, dismiss the petition as having become infructuous. ‘ht Sd/— Dhireadra Mishra ’ ' Judge