JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:--- At the stage of notice before admission, we have heard this matter at length fully as it was an urgent matter. Hence rule. Heard forthwith. 2. This is a writ petition in which the petitioners have claimed a writ against the respondents and particularly, the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, for creating a Centre at nagpur for All India Pre-Medical/ Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 1988, scheduled to be held on 22nd May 1988. 3. Briefly the facts are that for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of ( Pradeep Jain V. Union of India), A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1420 as modified by the first decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Dr. Dineshkumar V. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad), A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1059 which was its off-shoot, it was directed the Supreme Court that the Central Government, the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India should frame a proper scheme for holding All India Entrance Examination for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses. A scheme was accordingly framed which was considered and finally approved with certain modification by the Supreme Court in its second decision in the case of Dr. Dineshkumar, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877. By the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court directed that instead of 30% seats, 15% seats in admission to M.B.B.S./ B.D.S. Courses should be filed in on the basis of All India merit .It also directed by the aforesaid judgment that the said All India Entrance Examination for admission to M.B.B.S./ B.D.S. Courses should be held by the Central Board of Secondary Education i.e. the respondent No.1. 4. Although as per the above decision the Scheme was finalised and accordingly the entrance examination was to be held in 1987-88, there were certain objections raised and clarifications sought in the scheme which were considered by the Supreme Court in its third decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2397. The Supreme Court by its above judgment directed that the entrance examination be held before the commencement of the academic session 1988-89 for admission to the MBBS/ BDS Courses and that no more objections to the scheme would be entertained. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2397. The Supreme Court by its above judgment directed that the entrance examination be held before the commencement of the academic session 1988-89 for admission to the MBBS/ BDS Courses and that no more objections to the scheme would be entertained. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 Board issued a notification in January 1988 for holding the All India Entrance Examination on 22-5-1988 notifying the last date for submitting the application forms for appearing at the examination as 1-3-1988 which was subsequently extended upto 15-3-1988. 5. It may be seen that as regards the examination Centres about which there is the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition, the Supreme Court has observed in para No. 2 of its second decision in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877, relying upon its first decision in the said case, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1059 that the All India Entrance Examinations should be conducted in at least one Centre in each State and that having regard to the population, the number of students seeking admissions, and the extent of geographical area of the State, it would be desirable to have more than one Centre in some State or States, both in regard to the admission to the post-graduate course and also in regard to the admission to the M.B.B.S. course. In the same para, it is further observed by the Supreme Court that the authorities concerned should evolve such a scheme for the All India Entrance Examinations for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses as well as for the post-graduate courses which would cause the least hardship and inconvenience to the students and at the same time implement its direction in Pradeep Jain's case (cited supra). 6. Pursuant to the above guidelines laid down by the Surpreme Court originally, for the All India Entrance Examination for 1987-88 Session which was to be held as per decision of the Supreme Court in the second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877, the respondent No.1 Board had fixed Nagpur as one of the Centres for the said examination. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877, the respondent No.1 Board had fixed Nagpur as one of the Centres for the said examination. However, after the said examination stood postponed because of certain difficulties envisaged in the holding of the same, the respondent No. 1 Board changed its policy about examination centres for holding entrance examination for the academic session 1988-89 and decided to hold the examinations in the capital of each State and each Union territory providing thus one centre in each State and in each Union territory. As already pointed out, the notification to that effect was issued in January 1988, the date of examination notified being 22-5-1988 and the last date for submitting the application form for the examination after its extension being 15-3-1988. It is pertinent to see that the Bulletin in January 1988 giving the details of the aforesaid entrance examination to be held for 1988-89 academic session gives the names of the Centres where the said examination would be held. It also contains the application form which gives the choice of three preferences about the centres. It is also pertinent to see that any examinee can choose any centre in India for the examination, Although the said notification in which the examination centres are given was issued in January 1988, it is material to notice that the instant writ petition is filed on or about 16-3-1988 i.e. after the last date for receipt of application forms was over. It is thus in the context of the above facts and circumstances that the grievance of the petitioners about the examination centre at Nagpur needs to be considered. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the policy decision taken by the respondent No. 1 about holding the Entrance Examination in the capital of each State and each Union territory is erroneous because the respondent No. 1 failed to follows the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877 referred to herein before. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877 referred to herein before. It is submitted that having regard to the population of the State of Maharashtra and the number of students seeking admissions from the Vidarbha area and also the fact that Bombay is far away from Nagpur, a centre for the Entrance Examination should have been given to Nagpur as per the above guidelines in that regard laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment. It is also urged that the respondent No. 1 did not follow another guideline laid down by the supreme Court in the above judgment. viz. that the scheme of examination should cause the least hardship and incovenience to the students. It is pointed our that since Bombay is far away from Nagpur, it would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the students and in particular the poor students from this region in going to Bombay and appear for the examination in Bombay where there would be more problems for the then students to stay there till the examination is over. In particular, it is pointed out that the women students would find it very difficult to stay alone at such far away places for appearing at the Entrance Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the difficulties experienced by the students for appearing for the examination at far away places many of the students in this region did not at all apply for appearing at the said Entrance Examination and are therefore, unfortunately deprived of competing for one of the seats to be filled in on the basis of the All India merit. The above submissions are high lighted on behalf of the petitioners particularly with reference to the grievances of the students in the region where the Medical Colleges catering to their needs established by the State Government or other agencies are situated because they could have without such hardship and inconvenience claimed seats in these Colleges on the basis of their eligibility but for the filling up of 15 per cent seats in these Colleges on the basis of All India Merit judged through the All India Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent No.1. 8. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has, however, countered the above submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1 Board by submitting that after considering all pros and cons of the matter, the respondent No.1 Board has taken a policy decision that the centres for the Entrance Examination should be only in the capital of each State or each Union territory. He has further urged that the instant writ petition is highly belated and there are practical difficulties now in providing for a centre at Nagpur. He has also urged that if the Centre for examination is now awarded at Nagpur there would be demand for such centres in other States also and further if a Centre is awarded at Nagpur now there would be a demand by the students who did not fill in the application forms for appearing at the Entrance Examination only because the Centre was not at Nagpur. To allow them to submit their applications forms for appearing for the examination which would dislocate the whole process of the examination. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has also raised a basic objection that since the whole scheme of holding All India Entrance Examination is scrutinised and approved by the Supreme Court this Court should not entertain this writ petition which can appropriately be entertained by the only Supreme Court. 9. In considering the rival submissions, it is first necessary to see that the petitioners themselves have moved this Court after great delay for claiming the examination Centre at Nagpur when the notification for examination itself was issued in January 1988 and when it was known from the Bulletin and the application form enclosed therewith that Nagpur was not one of the Centres included therein. As already pointed out, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on or about 16-3-1988 i.e. after the last date for submitting the application forms was over. Although as a grievance it is put forward by the petitioners that many of the students could not apply for the examination because they are being at far away places, it may be seen that if now the Centre were to be allowed at Nagpur, the grievance of the said students cannot be redressed because they would not be in a position to appear for the examination as the last date for submitting the application forms is already over. In fact, the fixation of Centre at Nagpur now would thus be detrimental to their interest and they could make a legitimate grievance that if the Nagpur Centre had been announced in good time. They would have applied for appearing in the said Entrance Examination and therefore the fixation of such centre now would be arbitrary and violative of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution unless the last date for making an application is suitably extended to enable then to submit their application forms for the examination. 10. The question therefore is whether it is possible for us to extend the last date for submission of the application forms to enable such students to submit their application forms before the date of the examination or whether to redress their grievance it is possible for us to postpone the date of the examination which is to be held on 22-5-1988. In considering this question, it is necessary to notice the last decision of the Supreme Court it Dr. Dineshkumar's case reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2396 while considering certain objections, the Supreme Court has clarified and has in fact directed in para 5 of its aforesaid judgment that the examination should be held between 16th May and 31st May and that the results should be notified between 15th and 20th June. The merit list of the candidates has to be prepared within one week from the publication of result and three week's time is allowed to intervene before the actual admissions start. According to the scheme as envisaged by the Supreme Court the whole process has to be completed by the end of August so that actual teaching can start from the beginning of September. Since these are the direction issued by the Supreme Court, it is not open to us to the Change the date of examination. It is not therefore possible for us to extend the date for submission of application forms because if it is extended it would not be possible to hold the examination between 15th May and 31st May 1988 as directed by the Supreme Court. It is not therefore possible for us to extend the date for submission of application forms because if it is extended it would not be possible to hold the examination between 15th May and 31st May 1988 as directed by the Supreme Court. 10-A It may be seen that when this writ petition came earlier before us for admission, we had pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the whole supreme was considered and was approved by the Supreme Court, it would not be open to us have any change in the said scheme as envisaged by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, clear that we have to work within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in considering the grievance of the petitioners about the allotment of Centre at Nagpur. The Supreme Court has directed that the examinations should be held between 16th May and 31st May and in fact the whole further programme is so given by the Supreme Court because of which as already shield it is not possible for us to extent further the last date of submitting the application forms for the examination now. If the last date for appearing at that examination cannot be extended as already pointed out, it would cause great hardship to the students who did not apply because Nagpur was not one of the Centres for the examination. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, drawn our attention to para 14 of the third decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2396 and particularly the observations therein which are reproduced below :- "We accordingly direct the authorities to hold the examination in the manner directed, in June 1988." On the basis of the above observations, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the date of the examination can be postponed to June 1988 and, therefore, the date for submitting application forms can conveniently be further extended. It should be seen that although at the first sight it appears that June 1988 may refer to the date of the examination on further probe and particularly read in the light of the clarification and direction given by the Supreme Court in para 5 of its aforesaid judgment expression "to hold the examination in the manner directed. It should be seen that although at the first sight it appears that June 1988 may refer to the date of the examination on further probe and particularly read in the light of the clarification and direction given by the Supreme Court in para 5 of its aforesaid judgment expression "to hold the examination in the manner directed. " and particularly the expression, "in the manner directed" according to us, would mean the whole process of holding the examination including the date of the examination and declaration of its results which process is fully outlined by the Supreme Court in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment. At any rate, if there is any doubt or discrepancy in the observation of the Supreme Court in Para 5 and Para 14 of its aforesaid judgment, the said discrepancy can be cleared or resolved by the Supreme Court itself and not by this Court. Apart from this, in our view if the last date for submission of the application forms were to be extended, it cannot be for the submission of the application forms State of Maharashtra or the Vidarbha region of the State of Maharashtra only but would be on All India level which would dislocate the whole examination even in June 1988 as is urged by the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to extend the date of submitting application forms in which case as already pointed out it would cause great injustice to the students who did not apply because Nagpur was not one of the centres for the examination. 12. There are also other practical difficulties which are brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 through the note submitted before us today. In para 2 of the said note, it is pointed out what the steps are which the respondent No. 1 has to undertake in conducting these examinations at various centres. It is stated that all steps upto issuing of the roll number, and admission cards are underway and that the printed papers have already been dispatched to the Centres concerned. It is also pointed out that if now Nagpur was to be notified as a Centre then fresh options would have to be given to all the students for the Centre at Nagpur which would at least take two weeks time. It is also pointed out that if now Nagpur was to be notified as a Centre then fresh options would have to be given to all the students for the Centre at Nagpur which would at least take two weeks time. It is further pointed out that after giving such options some time would also be necessary for issuing fresh admission cards. Apart from this, it is pointed out that there would be difficulty in sending printed papers to Nagpur in time. It is also submitted that if there are additional or excess papers in any Centre due to sending of papers at Nagpur, it would not be conducive to fair conduct of the examination. Besides these, other difficulties such as of requisitioning examination halls at Nagpur, appointment of invigilators and Centre Superintendent in such a short time are also highlighted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Taking into consideration these practical difficulties also we do not think that it will be possible now to fix Nagpur as Centre for holding the Entrance examination. 13. It may be seen that the conduct of an examination is an administration matter and we can not visualise all the difficulties which the respondent No. 1 may be required to facet in fixing the Centre now at Nagpur particularly when the Entrance Examination is on All India level. Moreover, as pointed out above, the respondent No. 1 as well as this Court has to act within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court and it is not therefore possible to alter the examination schedule except with the leave of the Supreme Court. In view of these facts and circumstances, the delay in moving this Court is fatal to the instant writ petition. 14. It may, however, be observed that the grievance made by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is genuine and the respondent No. 1 has not in determining centres for examination applied its mind to all the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in para 2 of its second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877. 14. It may, however, be observed that the grievance made by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is genuine and the respondent No. 1 has not in determining centres for examination applied its mind to all the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in para 2 of its second decision in Dr. Dineshkumar's case, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877. As pointed out above, as per the above decision of the Supreme Court, the population of the State, the extent of its geographic area, the number of student seeking admission, hardship and inconvenience to the students are the factors which the respondent No. 1 ought to have taken into consideration before merely taking a policy decision that the Centre would be in the capital of each State and the Union territory only. In fact, when the Entrance Examination was proposed to be held in 1987-88 the above factors, as it appears to have been taken into consideration and a Centre was allotted at Nagpur besides many others for the said examination It is not known why for the ensuing examination as 1988-89 Nagpur is dropped as a Centre and why a policy decision is taken to restrict the Centres to the capital of each State only. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has, however, fairly stated before us that all these aspects and difficulties will be taken into consideration while holding the next examination in 1989. He has also stated before us that this is a first examination and therefore on experiment and that by reason of the experience gained in conducting the present examination the respondent No. 1 would try to remove the difficulties while holding the next examination in 1989. For the next session, it would also be open to the petitioners to make a proper representation to the respondent No. 1 Board for providing a Centre at Nagpur which can be sympathetically considered by it. 16. With these observations, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. ------