Honble JAIN, J.– The Petitioners case is that he being a dependant of the deceased of the government servant was eligible and applied in pursuance of the advertisement Anx. P/2 for one of the three posts but by not adding 5 bonus marks to the percentage as per marksheet Anx. P/1 he was not called for the interview whereas persons having less percentage than the petitioner have been admitted against these three reserved posts. (2). In compliance of the order of this Court dt. 17.8.1995, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the interview but it was ordered that his result be kept separately. (3). In compliance of the notice reply has been filed stating that the minimum qualification prescribed for dependants of deceased employees quota is Secondary School Examination as per Item No.9 though for general category, the minimum qualification prescribed under the Rules is 10+2 examination. It has been stated that even by adding 5 bonus marks the petitioner was not eligible for reserved seat, so the petitioner was rightly not called for the interview. It has also been stated that as per the Government Circular dt. 27.7.95/ 2.7.95 priority was extended to the dependant of the deceased employees and working as a untrained teacher with a view to provide them training and in compliance of the said circular two candidates Yogesh and B.L, Prajapati who are already in service have been given admission and one other candidate was given admission on the basis of hi- gher percentage in Secondary Examination. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Krishna Kumar vs. State (1) decided on 27.2.1996 wherein the petitioner who was dependant was ordered to be admitted in the year 1991 without his merit being considered with the applicants who apply for being admitted to that course in the said institute and one vacancy should be kept reserved for him. He submits that since the criterion, applied by the respondents has been disapproved by this Court in the said Krishna Kumars case (supra) and session has already been started, one vacancy should be kept reserved for the petitioner in terms of the said decision. (5). Mr. Jangir, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed an appeal before the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Krishna Kumars case (supra). (5). Mr. Jangir, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed an appeal before the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Krishna Kumars case (supra). He submits that no future vacancy can be reserved as it depends upon the eligibility & other terms & conditions of the advertisements. He also submits that the minimum qualification prescribed for the dependants of the deceased employee is Secondary School and, therefore, the petitioners merit has been rightly determined on the basis of marks obtained by him in the Secondary School Examination as he applied against the reserved quota of dependants of the deceased employee. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the reply, & rejoinder. (7). The decision rendered by learned Single Judge in Krishna Kumar vs. State (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner and relief granted in that decision cannot be granted to the petitioner as to my mind it would not be appropriate for this Court to reserve one vacancy in future session without knowing about the terms & con- ditions of advertisement which will be issued and the position of respective vacancies, so also the eligibility, criterian and the merit of the respective candidates according to their respective percentage. Therefore, no direction can be issued by this Court as has been issued in Krishna Kumars case (supra). (8). So far as the merits of the present case is concerned, in my opinion, the petitioners claim that his merit should be determined on the basis of Senior Secondary Examination (10+2) is not tenable since the petitioner has sought admission against the reserved quota of dependants of deceased government servant for which the minimum qualification of Secondary School Examination as per relaxation of the State Government. So, the merit can only be prepared on the basis of percentage as per the eligibility on the basis of qualification prescribed in that category as per advertisement Anx. P/2. According to the merit prepared by the respondents on the basis of Secondary School Examination, the petitioner is at S.N. 10 and even by adding 5 bonus marks he does not come in merit to claim admi- ssion. P/2. According to the merit prepared by the respondents on the basis of Secondary School Examination, the petitioner is at S.N. 10 and even by adding 5 bonus marks he does not come in merit to claim admi- ssion. The relaxation in minimum qualification has been granted by the State Government with a view to safeguard the interests of the dependants of the deceased government servants and in case percentage of Senior Secondary School is considered for determining the merit then the entire purpose of relaxation will be frustrated as it will amount to making of unequals equals. Admittedly the peti- tioner has not sought admission in the general category so the percentage of Senior Secondary School (10+2) cannot be seen in the category of dependants of the deceased government servant. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for admission. (9). Even if for the sake of argument the petitioners contention that merit should be determined on the basis of Senior Secondary School is accepted as per the decision in Krishna Kumar case (supra) then too the petitioner cannot be granted admission in view of the Circular dt. 27.7.1995/ 2.7.1995 where by first priority as has been granted to the widows & divorced lady teacher in the matter of admission to the course was also extended to the dependants of deceased gover- nment servant who are untrained and working. In view of this, two candidates who are dependants & already in service as untrained teachers have already been given admission to the STC Course and out of three seats meant for the deceased governments there remains one seat in reserved quota against which the person other than the petitioner (not party in the writ petition) who has top the merit list in Senior Secondary Examination produced in compliance of the direction of this Court will be entitled whereas the petitioner has come in the merit list of Senior Secondary School at No. 3. Therefore, no seat remains vacant in the present academic session which has already commenced and on this count also the petitioner cannot be granted admission. That apart persons who have already been selected for training as per their percentage, are not made party to this writ petition and no relief has been claimed against them, so no relief can be granted. (10). That apart persons who have already been selected for training as per their percentage, are not made party to this writ petition and no relief has been claimed against them, so no relief can be granted. (10). In view of what I have discussed above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference under Article 226 and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, the petitioner will be free to apply in the STC Course 1997 and the bar of maximum age limit will not come in his way. (11). Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.