Judgment : 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to select and admit the petitioner for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1995-96. 3. The petitioner applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1995-96 claiming to be considered under special categories viz., (i) Seats reserved for children and grand children of freedom fighters and (ii) Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil language and significant contributions made to Tamil society, culture and literature. 4. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the prospectus, all that was required by the petitioner to do was to produce a certificate issued by the persons mentioned therein to show that her parents have contributed for the development of Tamil Language as per clause 3. 5 (ii) of the Prospectus for the year 1995-96, and a Committee of Tamil Scholars constituted by the Government would examine the claims of the parents whose children apply under this category. The petitioner was not called for to produce any material for the purpose of consideration of the Committee so constituted nor the Committee sought for any further particulars or information relating to the contribution of the parents of the petitioner for Tamil Development. Under the circumstances there was no justification whatsoever to the respondents not to consider the claim of the petitioner under the special category. He pointed out to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, to show that the case of the petitioner was not considered under this category. He also submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner under the special category meant for children and grandchildren of freedom fighters is also not correct. 5. Shri D.Murugesan, learned Special Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit filed, drew my attention to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the said counter affidavit. He submitted that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 108 in the special category meant for children and grand-children of freedom fighters out of 151 candidates. The two candidates who had secured 288.17 and 28 7. 59 were selected and admitted on the basis of merit. He submitted that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 108 in the special category meant for children and grand-children of freedom fighters out of 151 candidates. The two candidates who had secured 288.17 and 28 7. 59 were selected and admitted on the basis of merit. Hence the claim of the petitioner in this regard is untenable. .6. As regards the claim of the petitioner under the special category meant for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil Language and significant contributions made to Tamil Society, Culture and Literature, he submitted that she was placed at Serial No.28. Assuming that the case of the petitioner was considered the chance would not have improved as the seats available in this category were only 7. He submitted that the candidate at Serial No.34 in the rank list of this category was given admission although she had secured lesser marks than the petitioner by following the rule of reservation even in that category. Be that as it may, assuming that the selection and admission made to the candidate at serial No.34 was wrong, it does not advance the case of the petitioner as there were several other candidates above the petitioner. Thus according to the learned Special Government Pleader the petitioner had no chance of being selected at all. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. I find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without asking for any particulars or without prescribing or making any clause so as to enable the candidates to produce particulars or information showing the contribution of the parents of the candidates for the development of Tamil Language, selection to such category may be bad. But in this case it may be unnecessary to examine this question further as the candidate, as pointed out by the learned Special Government pleader, did not have a chance of selection on merits even though the rule of reservation was not applied to the special category, as there were several candidates above the petitioner, and the selection and admission of the candidate at serial No.34 cannot be disturbed for two reasons viz., (i) that the said candidate is not before this Court, and (ii) the petitioner, at any rate, does not get a chance of selection. 9. 9. As regards the selection and admission under the special category reserved for children and grand-children of freedom fighters is concerned, as already noticed above, the petitioner is at serial No. 108 out 15 1. Having regard to the rank of the petitioner, she has no chance of selection. .10. The learned senior counsel urged one more point i.e., if the candidate selected at serial No.34 is disturbed the petitioner would get a seat. He realized on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “ Minor A.Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others ”, A.I.R. 1971 S.C.2303 to contend that the case of only those who are before the Court should be considered. He submitted that since other candidates are not before the Court and only the petitioner is before this Court her case should be examined. 11. I am not persuaded to accept this contention in view of the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “ Dr. Santosh Kumari v. Union of India and others , 1995 (1) S.C.C.269 : 1994 (4) Scale 976 wherein it has been held that the allotment of seats should go according to merit; and it does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. 12. Under the circumstances I do not find any merit in the Writ petition and therefore it has to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.