Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has to fail on two grounds. the first ground is that the petitioner having applied under the rules set out in the prospectus for Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu for Post Graduate Higher Speciality courses and appeared for the examination, cannot challenge the rules in the prospectus. This position is settled in so far as this Court is concerned by two judgments of Nainar Sundaram, J., and one of a Division Bench delivered recently. The judgments of Nainar Sundaram, J., are reported in Tanujas v. Director of Medical Education, Madras 1 , and Muthumanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agricultural Department 2 . In Muthumanickams case , the learned Judge referred to the judgments of Supreme Court in Manaklal v. Dr. Premchand 3 , Dr. G Sarana v. Universityof Lucknow 4 , and R. Honnegouda v. State of Karnataka 5 . With respect I agree with the principles laid down in the two judgments of Nainar Sundaram, J. 2. Learned Advocate General brought to my notice the fact that a Division Bench has, by its judgment delivered yesterday in Vidhyavathi v. Chairman T.N.P.S.C., Madras and others 6 , batch, approved of the view taken by the single Judge referred to earlier. 3. In those circumstances, I find that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not sustainable and it has to be dismissed. 4. The second ground is that under Art. 371 (D) of the Constitution of India, there is a Presidential Order for Andhra Pradesh State conferring privileges on the students of that State. That has been referred to by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad 1 . In paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, they have referred to the Presidential Order which is in force in Andhra Pradesh State and upheld the contention put forward by the parties to that case that the students from Andhra Pradesh State are not entitled to compete with students of other States in those States. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows— “There is in our opinion, great force in this contention. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows— “There is in our opinion, great force in this contention. If the students from the other States are not entitled to compete for admission to the Medical colleges and institutions in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, it would clearly be inequitous to allow the students from the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir to compete for admission in the Medical colleges and institutions of the other States. The lack of reciprocity would plainly and inevitably result in inequity and gi ving of undue advantage to students from the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, as against the students from other States. We are therefore of the view that the students from the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir should not he entitled to appear in the All India Entrance examination, unless the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir agree to make not less than 15 percent of the total number of seats for the MBBS/BDS course and not less than 25 per cent of the total numb er of seats for the Post Graduate courses in their respective medical colleges or institutions available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance examination.” The same position is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Fazal Ghafoor v. Union of India 2 , In that judgment they have referred to the judgment in Dr. Surekha v. Union of India 3 , where they rejected the challenge to the validity of the provisions of Art. 371-D. The relevant passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court is as follows— “By our judgment delivered today in Dr. Surekha v. Union of India 4 , we have already held that there is no merit in the allegation of the Presidential Order or the Constitutional provision authorising the issuance of such order is hit by violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. So far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the position, is as envisaged in the Presidential Older. In Dr. Pradeep Jains case 5 , this Court has observed that in super Specialities there should really be no reservation. So far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the position, is as envisaged in the Presidential Older. In Dr. Pradeep Jains case 5 , this Court has observed that in super Specialities there should really be no reservation. This is so in the general interest of the country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving the quality or available medical services to the people of India. We hope and trust that the Government of India and the State Government shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by the Indian Medical Council so as to keep th e super Specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free.” In view of the aforesaid rulings of the Supreme Court, the petitioner who is admittedly a person belonging to Andhra Pradesh State cannot claim any right in the matter of selection in the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu. The respondents have produced the application presented by the petitioner in which he has stated clearly that he belongs to West Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh State. In those circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief prayed for by him. 5. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.