JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C J-—The respondent-University called for application for admission to various courses of Post Graduate Degree/Diploma courses in Indira Gandhi Medical College in July, 1996. The petitioner exercised his option for Paediatrics Medicine and Anesthesiology in that order. He was selected and given admission to the Specialty, Anesthesiology on the basis of his merit. Thereafter some of the seats which were reserved for All India Quota remained unfilled and the University had to fill up them. As regards the subject of Paediatrics the seat was reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes There was no candidate available in that category. It was made available for G. D O general category and none had opted in that category also. It was ultimately allotted to the Direct (general). By that process the seat was allotted to the fifth respondent herein who was available next in the merit list. 2. This grant of admission to the fifth respondent is challenged by the petitioner herein. The petitioner had made a representation in November, 1996 as soon as he came to know that some seats will be available from All India Quota as they were not filled up. He had made a claim that his first option was for Paediatrics and he had been given admission only in Anesthesiology He wanted to give up that course and join Paediatrics, though the said representation of the petitioner is stated to have been forwarded by the Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College who is the fourth respondent herein to the third respondent, namely, Controller of Examinations the latter passed an order on 10th March, 1997 granting admission to the fifth respondent herein in the speciality Paediatrics. No reference was made in that order by the third respondent granting such admission to the representation made by the petitioner herein. 3 The petitioner has presented this writ petition only on 10th March, 1997 challenging the grant of admission to the fifth respondent and also claiming his right to be given admission in the specialty Paediatrics. Replies have been filed by respondents No 2 and 3 as well as respondent No. 4. 3 The petitioner has presented this writ petition only on 10th March, 1997 challenging the grant of admission to the fifth respondent and also claiming his right to be given admission in the specialty Paediatrics. Replies have been filed by respondents No 2 and 3 as well as respondent No. 4. The main contention urged by the respondents is that once the petitioner was given admission in the specialty of Anesthesiology he could not thereafter be considered to be continued in the merit list for being considered for admission if the seats in the AH India Quota became available. It is pointed out that at the time when the seats reserved for AH India Quota were made available, the petitioner was no longer in the waiting merit list as he had already been selected and admitted. The person, who had secured highest marks, available in the waiting merit list was only 5th respondent to be admitted to the said course and therefore he was admitted by the University, 4 It is also contended by the respondents that the admission was granted to the fifth respondent in December, 1996 and the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition only in March, 1997 after the fifth respondent had undergone the course for a period of three months It is noted that the petitioner had undergone Anesthesiology course for a period of six months by the time when the writ petition was filed. 5. The petitioner placed reliance on Rules 3.2, 3.5 and 3 7 in the prospectus issued for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses for the years 1996-98/99. The rules are in the following terms "3.2. 66,6% seats will be filled by in service regularly appointed HPHS I in Himachal Pradesh Health Cadre out of which 7 seats in Post Graduate degree and 3 seats in diploma courses will be reserved for HPHS-I Officers who serve in hard and very hard areas of the State for two years and 33 3% seats will be available by open competition from amongst the graduates of Indira Gandhi Medical College and children of bonafide Himachali/Himachal Government employees of autonomous bodies wholly or partially financed by Himachal Pradesh Government getting admission into MBBS through CBSE in MCI recognised Medical Colleges in India. If sufficient number of candidates in one category not available the seats reserved for them will be allotted to the candidates of other category. If sufficient number of candidates in one category not available the seats reserved for them will be allotted to the candidates of other category. 3 5. Distribution of seats in each specialty to (HPHS-J) and direct candidates will be according to the following roster :— 3 5 1. First seat to HPHS-I. 3 5-2. Second seat to direct candidate. 3.5 3. Third seat to HPHS-I. 3.5.4. Fourth seat to HPHS-I 3.5.5. Fifth seat to direct candidate, 3.3.6. Sixth seat to HPHS-I This roster will be repeated after every six seats. 3 7. If sufficient number of candidates in each group of reserved seats (S. C. and S. T.) is not available, the seat(s) reserved for them will be treated open and allotted to the canditdates(s) on merit of same category in the same speciality." 6. We do not find anything in the said rules which would help the petitioner to claim that he is entitled to get admission to the course of specialty in Paediatrics inspite of the fact that he had already been admitted to the specialty of Anesthesiology. The contention of the petitioner that the merit list which was prepared before the admissions were granted as soon as the entrance test was completed continued to be inforce even though the petitioner was given admission in Anesthesiology is not acceptable There is no rule to that effect and the stand taken by the respondents is correct. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not established his right so as to unable this Court to issue a writ. The petitioner could have been considered only if he was in the waiting list. 7. We are also of the view that the petitioner has approached this Court long after granting of admission to the fifth respondent and at this stage we should not interfere with the admission granted to the 5th respondent. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.