C. M. NAYAR ( 1 ) THE petitioner has moved this Court for issuance of a direction against respondent No. 1 to admit him to Ph. D. course in Agricultural Physics for the academic session 1996-97. ( 2 ) THE petitioner passed Matriculation Examination in the year 1984 from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna obtaining about 77 per cent marks. He passed his I. Sc. Examination from the same University in the year 1986 obtaining 53 per cent marks and passed B. Sc. (Agriculture) Examination from Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa in the year 1993 obtaining 83. 01% marks. Thereafter he joined Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi and passed M Sc; Examination in Agricultural Physics in the year 1995 securing 3. 06 grade out of the highest grade of 4. Therefore, it is contended, that the petitioner has a very good academic record and is fully competent and eligible for higher studies in specialised course in his Discipline for Agricultural Physics. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. I is an Institution run by respondent No. 2 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and was established by the Government of India in 1905 at village Pusa in North Bihar. In 1936 it was shifted to New Delhi. The administrative control of the Institute is vested in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. It is argued that respondents are covered by the term state and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 4 ) IN may, 1996. respondent No. l published Information Bulletin for admission to Ph. D. Courses for the Academic Session 1996-97 and applications were invited for admission to Ph. D. in various Disciplines and a schedule was laid down to the effect that the Scholars were required to submit their applications by 15th June, 1996. Initially, screening was done on the basis of past academic record and only those Scholars who came Upto expectation for the Course were issued admission cards for the written examination. The entrance examination was scheduled to be held on July 14, 1996 and the petitioner applied for admission to Ph. D. course in Agricultural Physics and he was issued admission card and was allotted the examination centre at Kendriya Vidhayala Andrewj Ganj, New Delhi. The petitioner alleges that he duly qualified in examination and his name appeared in the list of successful candidates published by respondent No. 1 who qualified in the written examination. D. course in Agricultural Physics and he was issued admission card and was allotted the examination centre at Kendriya Vidhayala Andrewj Ganj, New Delhi. The petitioner alleges that he duly qualified in examination and his name appeared in the list of successful candidates published by respondent No. 1 who qualified in the written examination. The petitioner was called for interview on August 19, 1996 and subsequently on August 23, 1996 list of Scholars who were admitted to Ph. D. course was published wherein the name of the petitioner was not included. ( 5 ) THE following candidates in Agricultural Physics have been shown as successful in the said list: "discipline:agri. PHYSICS 01 05006 JOYDEEP MUKHERJEE Gen Open Agr 02 05002 SAON BANERJEE Gen Open Agr 03 05009 RABI NARAYAN SAHOO Gen Open Agr"the number of seats which were available on the basis of Information Bulletin are referred to in paragraph 3 and the same reads as follows: 3. NUMBER OF SEATS (i) General Scheme The discipline-wise details of seats for Ph. D. to be filled during the academic session 1996-1997 are indicated below ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not followed and adhered to in filling up the number of seats, as stated in the Bulletin of Information as in many cases the seats filled up actually exceeded the number This has been indicated in the table which has been filed as Annexure e-1 to the writ petition It is further argued that all the available seats have not been filled up and some have been left vacant and candidates including the petitioner who qualified in the written examination as well as in the interview have not been admitted and at least 20 seats have been lying vacant and the petitioner may be directed to be admitted in one of the Disciplines ( 7 ) IN reply to show cause the respondents have pleaded that the seals allocated for the course of Agricultural Physics in which the petitioner was a candidate were only three and no candidate who is lower in merit to the petitioner has been admitted to that Course. The respondents have. The respondents have. however, conceded that the Institute in order to achieve 22 1/2 per cent quota as per the Government Instructions had to lower the percentage of marks for Scheduled Castes/ Schedule Tribes candidates at the cost of diluting the standard of merit fixed for the Scholars. This step is alleged to have been taken under certain compulsive circumstances and the Academic Council felt it necessary not to make any more compromise with the standard of education. Therefore, there is no question of taking the general category students, such as the petitioner under reserved category when he has failed to obtain a seat earmarked for his own category in the respective Discipline. The petitioner was a candidate for Ph. D. in Agricultural Physics and for which three seats were earmarked and all three candidates, it is admitted, are higher in merit than the petitioner. Moreover, no seat is indicated to be reserved for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes candidates in Ph. D. Course for Agricultural physics which can be allocated to the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in some Disciplines the respondents have not confined to the number of seats as indicated in the Information Bulletin. The learned counsel for the respondents has explained that not a single general candidate has been acccommodated by increasing the seats and in some cases it may be due to allocation of seat for reserved candidates. The Discipline-wise details of seats as available have already been cited in the earlier part of this judgment and it may be stated herein that the petitioner was a candidate for Agricultural Physics for which the seats were only three. The three candidates who have been selected for these seats are higher in merit as compared to the petitioner who only figures at serial No. 5. Therefore, he could not have been accommodated on merit and his rejection cannot be assailed on the ground that he has been wrongly excluded. The petitioner could also not be accommodated in any other Discipline as in an answer to the query during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner having done his M. Sc. Degree in Agricultural Physics could only be eligible for selection in Ph. D. course for the same subject. The petitioner could also not be accommodated in any other Discipline as in an answer to the query during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner having done his M. Sc. Degree in Agricultural Physics could only be eligible for selection in Ph. D. course for the same subject. There is reason and logic in this submission as the Ph. D. can only be pursued in a Discipline for which one has obtained M. Sc. Degree. The petitioner in this background could not be accommodated for any other course. ( 9 ) THE plea that the respondents may be directed to increase the number of seats so that the petitioner can be accommodated cannot be entertained as it will not be open for this Court to prescribe the number of seats. Moreover, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that Ph. D. courses involve an advanced study and Institute does not possess the facilities to accommodate more than the number of candidates which have been indicated in the Bulletin. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.