JUDGMENT 1. It appears that the respondent University had fixed number of sents for the B. Ed. course in the respondent college at 112 for the year 1982 - 83. The college, however, admitted 85 students in excess of this limit. These 85 students we however, issued admit cards under an injunction issued by civil court and they actually appeared at the examination which was held in April, 1982. Subsequently, the admission these 85 students was cancelled by the respondent University on the ground that their admission was in excess of the prescribed limit. Aggrieved, 32 out of these 85 students challenged the cancellation of their admission by means of a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by this court by an order dated Normal 26, 1984. Thereafter these students appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed their Special Leave Petition on 9.9.85 but made a direction that the appellant before them be given first preference, if they sought admission to the B. Ed. examination, during that academic year or the next academic year. Petitioner contends that he too should be granted admission on the same basis. 2. We cannot agree. It is not disputed that the petitioner who was among the 85 students, had not challenged the cancellation of his admission either by way of a petition in this court or otherwise. Nor was the petitioner a party to the litigation which was disposed of by the Supreme Court under its order dated September 9, 1985. 3. The petitioner, however, contends that the same privilege should have been allowed to the petitioner as was granted to the 32 petitioners who had approached this court as well as the Supreme Court in the matter of admission. 4. We are unable to agree. In the first place, the direction which the Supreme Court had given with regard to first preference being accorded was expressly limited to the petitioners who has approached the Supreme Court. It was not a general direction applicable to all those students whose admission had been cancelled by the respondent University on the ground mentioned above. Secondly, the petitioner cannot claim any parity with those petitioners who had challenged the cancellation of their admission in the very first instance by approaching the civil court and later this Court and finally the Supreme Court. Secondly, the petitioner cannot claim any parity with those petitioners who had challenged the cancellation of their admission in the very first instance by approaching the civil court and later this Court and finally the Supreme Court. Those petitioners were vigilant and they immediately challenged the action that had been taken against them. The petitioner, on the other hand, slept over his rights. He has become wiser only after the order of the Supreme Court. In our opinion the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. 5. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of the requisite charges within 2 days.