Judgment BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that she has been wrongly denied admission in LL. M. Course by the respondent-University. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she had secured 52. 8% marks in LL. B. Final Examination held in the year 1996-97. She applied for being admitted to LL. M. Part I in the academic session 1997-98. However, she was not given admission. Therefore, she preferred a writ petition before this Court, being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3709 of 1997. In this writ petition, this Honble Court was pleased to issue a direction that the petitioner should make a representation before the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor will consider and decide the same. The case of the petitioner is that she was not granted admission notwithstanding the representation being preferred. ( 3 ) IN the academic session 1998-99 a notice for admission was issued by the respondent-University. The petitioner applied for being admitted to the LL. M. course. The admission was available to those students who have secured 52% or more marks in the LL. B. Examinations. Since the petitioner had secured 52. 8% marks in the LL. B. Examinations, she applied for being admitted to the LL. M. course. There were 55 seats in LL. M. course for which applications were invited from the students. But the respondents have published the list of only 43 candidates, who were offered admission in LL. M. Part I. ( 4 ) THIS was done mala fide, arbitrarily, deliberately and with the ulterior motive of leaving out the petitioner from the admission list. She met the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Law but both of them did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner feels that since the petitioner had filed the earlier writ petition, they were annoyed with her. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that all those who have secured more than 52% marks have been given admission although 12 seats are available and the petitioner secured 52. 8% marks but she has not been given admission. Since the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court, she was not granted admission. 8% marks but she has not been given admission. Since the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court, she was not granted admission. The petitioner in the writ petition levelled the allegations of mala fides and stated that having stopped the admissions at 42 and not given admission to the petitioner, a discrimination has been made against her. ( 6 ) THE respondent-University has filed reply and has stated that in the academic session 1997-98 the last student who was given admission had secured 54. 8% marks. The petitioners percentage was only 52. 77% marks. Therefore, she was not given admission. Not only she had not been given admission on being found less meritorious but there were 16 more students having above percentage of marks waiting for admission. Therefore, she was not admitted in the academic session 1997-98 and this is only a wrong notion of the petitioner that she was illegally denied admission in the academic session 1997-98. ( 7 ) AS regards the academic session 1998-99, the respondent-University has submitted that the result of the LL. B. examinations of the respondent-University was declared on 9-7-1998 and, therefore, the students who were desirous of seeking admission in LL. M. course were directed to submit their application forms up to 23-7-1998 and with late fees by 9-8-1998. Thus, for all practical purposes 9-8-1998 was the date up to which a person desirous of getting admission in LL. M. course could fill up the form. A first list of 43 students was issued by the respondent- University before the last date of submission of the application forms i. e. 9-8-1998 with the expectation that more students are likely to fill in the forms by the last date. In fact on 10-8-1998 a further list of 13 students was published by the respondent-University granting admission to LL. M. course. Out of the list of 43 students published earlier only 42 students deposited the fees and, therefore, a list of 13 more students was published to make the total to 55 seats as prescribed by the Admission Board and the Academic Council. ( 8 ) IN this list published on 10-8-1998 the percentage of last admitted student by the respondent-University for boys was 53. 5% and for girls 53. 2%. The petitioner had only 52. 77% marks and, therefore, she was not in the run and was not given admission. ( 8 ) IN this list published on 10-8-1998 the percentage of last admitted student by the respondent-University for boys was 53. 5% and for girls 53. 2%. The petitioner had only 52. 77% marks and, therefore, she was not in the run and was not given admission. After giving all the bonus and adjustment to the local students, the percentage of the last student (boys) was 53. 5% and 53. 2% for girls and, therefore, the petitioner cannot make any grievance. The petitioner when approached was made aware that the list of 55 candidates could not be published before 9-8-1998 as the last date for receipt of the application form is 9-8-1998 and before complete seats could not be filled up, otherwise that will render the last with late fees nugatory. ( 9 ) THE allegations of arbitrariness and mala fides have been strongly denied by the respondent-University. The respondent-University has strongly stated that it cannot be said that every student who has secured 52 or above percentage of marks should have been admitted to the LL. M. course. The admissions were made strictly in accordance with the merit. Out of 55 seats which were to be filled in for LL. M. course 40 were from the general category and rest 12 seats were to be filled in from the reserved categories. The list of 43 students, published prior to 9-8-1998 contained 42 general category candidates and one from reserved category. The respondents were required to see whether the reserved categories candidates were coming in sufficient number or not? Until the last date of submission of the application forms the respondent-University cannot know the exact position of the reserved category candidates and before that the transfer of reserved categories seats to general category seats could not be possible and, therefore, until the last date was over non-publication of the complete list was justified. Ultimately when only two students from reserved category of SC/st quota and none from physically handicapped quota came and both of them were offered admission one in the first list and another in the second list. It was after expiry of last date that 13 students of General Category were offered admission. Ultimately when only two students from reserved category of SC/st quota and none from physically handicapped quota came and both of them were offered admission one in the first list and another in the second list. It was after expiry of last date that 13 students of General Category were offered admission. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder and has stated that the respondents were required to fill in the seats by the last date i. e. 24-7-1998 and they were not required to wait up to 9-8-1998. Having included only 43 students in the list they excluded the petitioner because she was at No. 44 in the list. The petitioner has further averred that she had obtained 52. 8% marks and if she was given the concession of 10 marks then her percentage comes to 53. 33% and then she refers to Annex. R. 3 wherein admission has been given to those candidates who got 52. 88% marks, 53%, 53. 1% and 53. 2%. Therefore, she was required to be admitted to LL. M. course. ( 11 ) AFTER considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents were directed by this Court to file a list of the students who have been admitted. The respondents have filed the list of the students who have been admitted and in terms of this list, the name of the petitioner, is at S. No. 56 with 55. 4% marks after giving weightage of 2. 6 for local student and she is nowhere near to the last meritorious student. Above her in terms of second list filed by the respondent-University there are 12 students who have passed their LL. B. examination from the respondent-University and 4 who have passed their LL. B. examinations from other Universities. Thus, not only that she is not close to those who have been admitted but there are also at least more than 12 students in the waiting list to be admitted to the LL. M. course. B. examination from the respondent-University and 4 who have passed their LL. B. examinations from other Universities. Thus, not only that she is not close to those who have been admitted but there are also at least more than 12 students in the waiting list to be admitted to the LL. M. course. ( 12 ) ON these lists being filed by the respondent-University the counsel for the petitioner sought time to study the matter and has filed an additional affidavit of the petitioner and has stated that the respondent-University is having a provision of giving 5% marks of the aggregate of the marks obtained by the respondent-University students and then she has raised a grievance regarding Miss Jaishree Mishra and Miss Sarita Kumari being less meritorious and Pankaj Mehta being provided 5% marks. The allegations of the petitioner were checked from the lists filed by the respondent-University. The name of Miss Jaishree Mishra finds mention at S. No. 14. Her Original percentage is 53. 7% and she has been given weightage of 2. 6% being local candidate. The petitioner had only 52. 77% as her original percentage. Therefore, Ms. Jaishree Mishra is more meritorious than her and on this count she cannot raise any grievance as her case has no legs to stand. As regards Ms. Sarita Kumari her name finds mention at S. No. 41 and she had the original percentage of 53. 4 and weightage of 2. 6 has been given to her being a local candidate. Therefore, she has also been more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners grievance in relation to Ms. Sarita Kumari is also misplaced. As regards Pankaj Mehta, it may be stated that his name does not figure in the list of admitted candidates submitted by the University on 7-9-1998. His name finds place at S. No. 42 in the initial list wherein he has been shown to obtain 55. 5%. He was not a local candidate and no weightage was given to him and ultimately he has not been admitted. In any case if the case of the petitioner is taken theoretically then her percentage is 52. 8% and as a local candidate she gets advantage of 2. 6 and her percentage comes to 55. 4% and the percentage of the last student who has been given admission is 57. 3. In any case if the case of the petitioner is taken theoretically then her percentage is 52. 8% and as a local candidate she gets advantage of 2. 6 and her percentage comes to 55. 4% and the percentage of the last student who has been given admission is 57. 3. Therefore, the petitioner is less meritorious than the candidate last admitted to the course. Considering the case of the petitioner theoretically, her case is not liable to be considered in this regard. ( 13 ) THE petitioners grievance in the writ petition was limited only to the extent that the respondents have only advertised the list of 43 students. If this grievance of the petitioner is seen plainly and simply then it could be observed that out of 55 students to be admitted to the LL. M. course only 40 seats are to be filled in by General Category candidates. The last date for filing of the application forms with late fees was 9th of August, 1998 and until the last date for filing the application forms with late fees was over, the respondent-University could not have filled in the entire quota of 55 seats because 15 seats belonged to reserved category candidates. Before these seats could be filled in it was required to be known by the respondent-University that no students of reserved categories are coming forward to take admission to the course. Thus, no fault can be found by the Court in not filling all the 55 seats vis-a-vis why a list of 43 candidates was initially advertised. Before the last date of filling up of the forms was there, the respondent-University has legitimately filled in 43 seats and has left out the seats reserved for reserved categories candidates and it was only on 9th August, 1998 that the entire picture was clear and the remaining seats were also filled in. Before the last date of filling up of the forms was there, the respondent-University has legitimately filled in 43 seats and has left out the seats reserved for reserved categories candidates and it was only on 9th August, 1998 that the entire picture was clear and the remaining seats were also filled in. No fault can be found in offering admission only to 43 students in the first instance and after expiry of the last date i. e. 9-8-1998 when the calculation was done and the merit (list) was prepared it clearly emerges that the petitioner is much below in the merit and there are as many as 12 students who are more meritorious than the petitioner and who have passed the examination from the respondent-University and 4 students who have passed the examinations from another Universities are also there and there are yet another 4 students whose forms have received by post. Therefore, there are in all 20 more meritorious candidates available. Ultimately if 20 more meritorious candidates than the petitioner are left out then the petitioner cannot claim admission to the course. ( 14 ) AS regards the subsequent grievance of the petitioner as raised in the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder regarding Miss Jaishree Mishra and Miss Sarita Kumari, suffice it to say that they have been more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner in this regard. ( 15 ) AS regard Pankaj Mehta, he was not given any weightage of being a local candidate. He was a graduate from Udaipur who has ultimately not been given admission and, therefore, no exercise is required to be made qua Pankaj Mehta. The petitioner is less meritorious than those who have been admitted to the course. There is a sizeable number of candidates who are more meritorious than the petitioner because before her case can be considered those students who are more meritorious than her have a preferential claim over the petitioner. The number of seats available with the respondent-University is 55. In all 55 students have already been admitted and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any consideration by this Court as those who have been left out are also more meritorious than the petitioner. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. In all 55 students have already been admitted and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any consideration by this Court as those who have been left out are also more meritorious than the petitioner. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner was granted provisional admission under the order of this Court. Therefore, her admission will stand cancelled. Petition dismissed.