Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims that his case should be considered for being granted admission to M. S. (General Surgery) course. It is not disputed before us that on the basis of the result declared, he was selected for admission to M. D. (Radiotherapy). Reliance is placed upon Annexure 1 and it is submitted that the case of the petitioner should have been considered for being adjusted against M. S. (General Surgery). He further submits that this matter was considered by the Board and its minutes (Annexure-5) disclose that since the application form of the petitioner was not available, the matter remained pending. Thereafter no order has been passed. 3. Annexure 1 is quite clear and unambiguous and provides that against Central quota seats which may have been released by the Central Government, candidates who have been selected and admitted on the basis of P.G.M.A.T. should submit an application to the Principal concerned in the prescribed form for re-adjustment to courses/institutions of higher choice. They had to make an application latest by 14-9-1992. Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to Annexure 2 which is his application iti which the subject mentioned is as follows: "For the omission of higher option of M.D. Radiotherapy". 4. It appears from a reading of that application that the petitioner wanted to change his preference as given by him in his original application. Moreover this application is dated 16-9-1992, two days after the prescribed date fixed under Annexure 1. 5. No provision has been brought to our notice, nor is there anything in Annexure 1, which justifies the plea of the petitioner that he can change his preference at any stage. All that Annexure 1 enables a candidate to do is to seek admission by re-adjustment to a course which was originally given by him as a higher preference, in the event any seat has remained unfilled in the course of higher preference. From Annexure 2 it appears that the subject M. D. (Radiotherapy) was given as a higher preference in his application than M.S. (General Surgery). There is no statement in the petition that the petitioner had shown M.S. (General Surgery) as a higher preference to M.D. (Radiotherapy). From Annexure 2 it appears that the subject M. D. (Radiotherapy) was given as a higher preference in his application than M.S. (General Surgery). There is no statement in the petition that the petitioner had shown M.S. (General Surgery) as a higher preference to M.D. (Radiotherapy). There is, therefore, no justification in the petitioners claim that he should be given a subject which was shown as a lower preference, after he was admitted to a course in a subject of higher preference. If such changes are permitted, admissions can never be finalised. That apart, there is no provision which permits a candidate who has been selected for admission to a course, according to his higher preference, to change his preference on a later date and seek admission in a subject of lower preference. All that Annexure 1 permits is that if he has been admitted to the course in a subject which had a lower preference, on seats remaining unfilled in a subject of higher preference, his application for re-adjustment can be considered. 6. The submission urged on behalf of the State is that Annexure 1 relates to P.G.M.A.T. 91, whereas the petitioner belongs to P.G.M.A.T. 90. We may only observe that the principle regarding change of course is the same. Counsel for the petitioner states that a similar advertisement was issued in regard to P.G.M.A.T. 1990 on the same date. Since no such document has been placed on record, we make no observation in this regard. However, the principle being the same, it will make no difference even if an advertisement was issued in the same terms with regard to P.G.M.A.T. 1990. 7. This application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.