JUDGMENT Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 26th June 1991 in O.P. No. 5913 of 1991-D. By that judgment the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give admission to the appellant in M.S. (General Surgery) in one of the vacancies available in the Medical College, Trivandrum, or in the Medical College, Calicut, in the All India Merit Quota 1990. It is further prayed that the petitioner appellant is entitled to get admission in 1991 in M.S. (General Surgery), if the respondents are not able to give admission for the year 1990. 2. The appellant secured rank No. 1238 in the Merit List. In the application submitted by him, he gave six subjects as regards his choice in the order of preference. His first choice was M.S. (General Surgery), and third choice was M.D. (Dermatology). He also gave a list of eight institutions in the order of preference, where he wished to be admitted. By Ext. P-2, dated 28th December 1990, he was informed that he was selected for admission to M.D. (Dermatology) at E. J. Medical College, Ahamedabad. The appellant did not join there within the time limit, but wanted to wait and see if he could secure a seat in Kerala. According to him on 31st December 1990 several persons with lower rank were given M.S. (General Surgery) seats. He therefore filed O.P. No. 499 of 1991 in this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that the procedure followed by the respondents is illegal and for other consequential directions for allotment of one seat of M.S. (General Surgery) to the appellant. That Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th January 1991 stating that appellant's first choice was M.S. (General Surgery), and that his case for admission to M.S. (General Surgery) anywhere in India, or for M.D. (Dermatology) in any of the Medical Colleges in Kerala should be considered before any of the candidates ranked below the appellant is accommodated. The respondents were directed to consider any representation that the appellant may submit. Thereafter the appellant submitted Ext. The respondents were directed to consider any representation that the appellant may submit. Thereafter the appellant submitted Ext. P-6 representation dated 23rd January 1991 seeking admission to M.S. (General Surgery), preferably in any Medical College at Trivandrum, or any other course based on the order of preference of the subject and college shown by him in the application submitted by him earlier. As things stood thus, the Principal of the Medical College, Calicut, is said to have reported to the first respondent with a copy to the second respondent that a vacancy in M.S. (General Surgery) in the All India Merit Quota was available in the Medical College, Calicut. The appellant therefore contended that in Kerala itself one vacancy was available in M.S. (General Surgery) in the Medical College, Calicut and he should be allotted the said seat. Therefore he filed another Writ Petition, O.P. No. 3109 of 1991 for the aforesaid purpose. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 11th April 1991 by the learned Single Judge stating that in as much as that seat had been allotted to another person with rank No. 821, the appellant petitioner's case should be considered in respect of two other seats which had since fallen vacant in M.S. (General Surgery), one seat in Medical College, Calicut, and another in Trivandrum Medical College. The learned Single Judge, gave a fresh direction that the said seats should not be allotted to any person having rank below the appellant. It is now submitted before us that even out of the above two seats, one seat was again given to another candidate with a higher rank than the petitioner. In so far as the remaining one seat is concerned, the question arose whether the same could be allotted to the appellant within the Sate of Kerala. The appellant therefore filed the present Writ Petition, O.P. No. 5913 of 1991 for a direction that he should be allotted one seat in M.S. (General Surgery) for the year 1990. 3. When the Writ Petition came up before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that in so far as the remaining one seat of M.S. (General Surgery) in Kerala is concerned, the same had been surrendered to the State quota, and that the same was not available for the Petitioner appellant. This contention, raised by the respondents was accepted by the learned Single Judge. This contention, raised by the respondents was accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that there was no grievance for the petitioner that anybody holding a rank below him. in the All India Entrance Examination for 1990 was admitted for M.S. (Surgery) in any of the Medical Colleges in Kerala in violation of the directions given in favour of the appellant in the earlier Writ Petitions; Persons with lower rank than the petitioner appellant were not admitted for M.S. (General Surgery), and the colleges in which such candidates were admitted were not colleges with respect to whom the appellant had mentioned his choice in his initial application. The learned Single Judge further held that when admission for the year was over, there was nothing wrong in surrendering the seat from Central quota to State quota to be filled up in State quota after observing the principles of reservation applicable in this State. Reliance was placed before the learned Single Judge on the decision in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India(AIR. 1984 SC 1420) in which it was held that regional and institutional merits are discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge pointed out that what was condemned in that decision and the subsequent decisions was only wholesale reservation made by some State Governments on the basis of domicile or residence within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who passed the qualifying examination held by the University or the State. The learned Single Judge pointed out that admission to State quota would be invalid if it exceeded the State quota or encroached upon the All India Merit quota. When a seat was reverted to the State quota especially after admissions were over for the academic year, the appellant cannot make a fresh claim for the said seat. Such a seat could no longer be filled up under the All India quota. With these observations the Writ Petition was dismissed. Against the judgment in the Writ Petition, this Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that surrender of the seat from the Central quota to State quota is not permissible, and that the decision of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Against the judgment in the Writ Petition, this Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that surrender of the seat from the Central quota to State quota is not permissible, and that the decision of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P. No. 10560 of 1989-F, dated 14th February 1990 (Dr. V. G. Dinkar v. Director General of Health Services and others) in which it was held that the surrender of the seat from the Central quota to State quota was not permissible. It was also pointed out that appeal from the said decision, W.A. No. 151 of 1990, was dismissed by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel contended that surrender was permissible. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel brought to our notice the scheme for conducting All India Competitive Entrance Examination for, admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses and - submitted that if the seat from the Central quota is not surrendered to the State quota, the Central quota seat would remain vacant for a very long period, and in some cases it may go waste. He further contended that there should be a time-limit for fresh allotment and transfer. Otherwise, it will be difficult to make the scheme workable. He also contended that in as much as the appellant did not join M.D. (Dermatology) within the time, it should be held that he had forfeited his right for Central allotment. In reply the learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the recent decision of the Supreme Court and also contended that forfeiture, if any, would apply to a particular subject, in respect of which a candidate had not joined. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Saidalavi v. Union of India ( 1991 (1) KLT 64 ). 5. From the facts aforesaid, it will be noticed that there is one seat alone available within the State of Kerala in M.S. (General Surgery), and the appellant is now claiming that seat by virtue of his rank in the All India Merit List. 5. From the facts aforesaid, it will be noticed that there is one seat alone available within the State of Kerala in M.S. (General Surgery), and the appellant is now claiming that seat by virtue of his rank in the All India Merit List. According to the respondents, the said seat was surrendered to the State quota, and is no longer available for the appellant. We have already mentioned that the learned Single Judge has accepted that there could be a valid surrender of a seat from Central quota to State quota after a particular period. In this context we would refer to the recent direction of the Supreme Court dated 10th July 1991 in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College. The above said direction was given in W.P. No. 348-52/85 in continuation of the earlier direction given by the Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the said order dated 10th July 1991 passed by the learned Chief Justice of India, and Kuldip Singh, J. is as follows: ".............. We find that the submission of the petitioners is reasonable. We make it clear that the outer limit for both allotment and transfer shall be 7th February of the year following the commencement of the Section." (emphasis supplied) We would also refer to the scheme for conducting All India Competitive Entrance Examination for Admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses for All India quota for the relevant year. Para.7 of the Statement of Examination for postgraduate Medical Education appended thereto contains the following statement: "The seats remaining unfilled will revert to the institution." 6. In view of the above said direction of the Supreme Court made in connection with admission to Postgraduate Courses under the All India quota, we are of the view that the last date for allotment/transfer should be 7th February of the year following the commencement of the Session. Further 7th February 1990 appears as the relevant date in another order of the Supreme Court relating to M.B.B.S. seats under All India quota. That order was passed by the Supreme Court in Vinay Shankar v. Director General of Health Services (WP No. 1253 of 1989), and connected cases, dated 20th December 1989. Further 7th February 1990 appears as the relevant date in another order of the Supreme Court relating to M.B.B.S. seats under All India quota. That order was passed by the Supreme Court in Vinay Shankar v. Director General of Health Services (WP No. 1253 of 1989), and connected cases, dated 20th December 1989. in that decision it is stated in Para.10(j) as follows: "If candidates on the wait-list do not report at Colleges to which they are allotted by 7th February 1990, the seats will be deemed to have become vacant and revert to the respective States." 7. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that if allotment/ transfer and the joining of the allottee do not take place before the next 7th February - in this particular case it is 7th February 1991 - the seat from the Central quota will automatically revert to the State quota. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction, we are of the view that the direction of another learned Single Judge in Dr. V. G. Dinkar v. Director General of Health Services (O.P. No. 10560 of 1989, dated 14th February 1990) cannot be treated as a direction applicable to all cases. That direction will be confined to that case, and in W.A. No. 151 of 1990 filed against the said judgment no decision was given on the merits as to whether the reversion of the Central quota to State quota is illegal or not. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, now under appeal, is correct and does not warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Issue photo copy of this judgment to counsel on both sides on usual terms.