ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the admission of respondent no. 7 Dr. (Mrs.) Kamlesh Kumari to the M.S. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology on the basis of the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test (PGMAT), 1992. The petitioner also seeks direction for her admission to the above-said Course. 2. In one of its interim orders dated 2.1.1996 this Court noticed the grievance of the petitioner. In view of the Bench decision in the case of M. Neethi Chandra vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 158 denying any relief to the concerned writ petitioners, this Court expressed its inability to pass any positive order with respect to the admission of the petitioner herself but in view of the further grievance that several candidates belonging to the same examination batch, i.e. PGMAT 1992 had been allowed change of Course/College by the Government, the petitioner was permitted to give list of such candidates. This Court observed that if, for reasons mentioned in paragraph 18 of the judgment in the aforesaid case, similar reliefs were denied to the writ petitioners of the same examination batch although the grievance was well-founded, it was not understandable as to how the Government could grant the same relief to them which amounted to circumventing the order of this Court and giving the concerned candidates an advantage which similarly situate had been denied by this Court. The names of Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Dr. Ashok Prasad Yadav, Dr. Suresh Nag Yadav, Dr. Girish Chandra, Dr. Uday Narayan and Dr. Poonam Pandey were cited during course of next hearing on 29.1.1996. This Court noticed the fact that the two last named candidates Dr. Uday Narayan and Dr. Poonam Pandey having been admitted pursuant to order of this Court it was not possible to consider the validity of their admission. This Court further noted the fact that respondent no. 7 Dr. (Smt.) Kamlesh Kumari had been admitted prior to the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Neethi Chandra on 24.1.1994 itself and therefore it could not be said to have been done in circumvention of the Courts order. In the above circumstances, Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Dr. Ashok Prasad, Dr. Suresh Nag Yadav and Dr. Girish Chandra alone were added as respondent nos. 8 to 11 and notices were issued to them. In the above circumstances, Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Dr. Ashok Prasad, Dr. Suresh Nag Yadav and Dr. Girish Chandra alone were added as respondent nos. 8 to 11 and notices were issued to them. By order dated 8.1.1996 notices were issued to two more persons having same name (Dr. Anil Kumar) after adding them as respondent nos. 12 and 13. All these respondents, namely, respondents 8 to 13 were restrained from attending classes and/or prosecuting their studies pursuant to the impugned admission orders. It was further directed that the result of any examination in which they might have appeared in the meantime will not be published. 3. Applications for modification of the abovesaid interim order has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 8, 9, 11 to 13. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The factual position as regards admission of respondent nos. 8 and 9, and 11 to 13 appears to be as follows:– Respondent no. 8 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, a scheduled caste category candidate, has been admitted in the scheduled caste category itself. Respondent no. 9 Dr. Ashok Prasad Yadav and respondent no. 11 Dr. Girish Chandra have been admitted/allowed change of Course against resultant vacancy. The concerned candidates originally were admitted prior to the judgment of this Court. Respondent no. 12 Dr. Anil Kumar and respondent no. 13 another Dr. Anil Kumar have been admitted pursuant to the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 9835 of 1994 and CWJC No. 2397 of 1995. It may be stated that the order passed in CWJC No. 9835 of 1994 was challenged by the State of Bihar in LPA No. 850 of 1995, in view of the Bench decision in the case of Dr. M. Neethi Chandra (supra) which was admitted on 8.12.1995. The Division Bench permitted the concerned writ petitioners to prosecute their studies subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the order. That LPA is pending. 4. It would thus appear that so far as the claim of the petitioner for her own admission is concerned, the same stood rejected by reason of the order dated 9.1.1995 itself. So far as her grievance against the admission of respondent no. 7 Dr. (Mrs.) Kamlesh Kumari is concerned this Court did not find any substance as noted in the order dated 29.1.1996. These were the two reliefs claimed in the writ petition, as stated at the outset. So far as her grievance against the admission of respondent no. 7 Dr. (Mrs.) Kamlesh Kumari is concerned this Court did not find any substance as noted in the order dated 29.1.1996. These were the two reliefs claimed in the writ petition, as stated at the outset. The writ petition was kept pending and it was heard on successive occasions in view of further grievance that person similarly situate as the writ petitioners of the same batch namely, M. Neethi Chandra and others (supra) have been admitted by the State Government on its own giving them an unfair and unequal advantage. As noticed in the foregoing paragraphs their admission (except respondent no. 10 who has not contested the matter) were made either pursuant to the directions of the Court or in distinguishable circumstances. The interim order passed on 3.5.1996 is accordingly vacated as regards respondent nos. 8, 9 and 11 to 13 but made subject to the result of LPA No. 850 of 1995. The said interim order is, however, made absolute against respondent no. 10. 5. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.