Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This appeal arises out of the order dated 19th Sept., 2005, passed in W.P. No.23862/04, which was disposed of along with another case. 2. As the appeal could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant ones, as stated hereunder :- The respondent/petitioner, son of one employee of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ONGC) sought for admission to medical course against government quota in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. For the academic year 200405, in the information bulletin, at para 2.6, the following provision was made :- "2.6 Pondicherry UT Candidates : Candidates who are residents of Pondicherry UT are eligible for admission to all the degree courses. A candidate is considered to be of Pondicherry Resident (Pondicherry UT Candidate) provided he/she is an Indian national and satisfies at least one of the following criteria. .............. 3. Children of Central / State Government Servants / Defence Personnel / Central Paramilitary Forces / Employees of Public Sector Undertakings wholly or substantially run either by the Central Government or by the Pondicherry UT administration posted and serving in the Pondicherry UT for atleast a minimum period of one year prior to the last date of submission of application." It appears that the petitioner was not given the benefit of para 2.6 of the provision as given in the information bulletin as an Union Territory of Pondicherry candidate giving rise to the writ petition preferred by him and another. 3. Learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 19th Sept., 2005, while accepted the submission as was made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to his claim as Pondicherry Union Territory candidate, ignored the following plea as was taken by the appellant, who was the respondent in the writ petition :- a) Though the office of the father of the petitioner was at Karaikal, the concerned person, i.e., the father of the petitioner was not working within Pondicherry, but was working in the rigs (which are in the off-shore) and that they were not staying within Pondicherry, but were staying at Chennai; and b) The admission in the academic year during which the petitioner sought for admission being over, no direction for admission could be given during the subsequent year on the basis of the earlier entrance examination. Before learned single Judge as also before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant (respondent before the writ court) relied on Supreme Court decision in Rajiv Kapoor – Vs – State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2000 (9) SCC 115 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) relied on one or other direction given by Supreme Court and High Court for admission of students in the subsequent session, as noticed and has been referred to by learned single Judge in his judgment. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. The judgments as referred to by the parties have also been noticed by us. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared for admission to the MBBS course for the academic year 2004-05, but for one or other reason was not admitted. Learned single Judge passed order for admission in the subsequent year, but the impugned judgment was stayed in this appeal by way of interim order. In view of the interim order, the petitioner was not admitted in the MBBS course and having got opportunity, as informed, he is now pursuing BDS course in some Dental College. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner persuaded to dismiss the writ appeal so as to enable the petitioner to be admitted in MBBS course in the next academic year, i.e., 2008-09, but it was opposed by learned counsel for the appellant in view of the stay of the order made by learned single as in fact now more than four years have passed after the academic year 2004-05. 7. From the impugned judgment passed by learned single Judge, it will be evident that learned single Judge issued direction in favour of petitioner in view of one or other order passed by Supreme Court in different cases. At para-16 reference to Civil Appeal No.4051/04, disposed of on 12th July, 2004, has been made, wherein taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner of the said case (1st respondent before the Supreme Court) was pursuing his studies pursuant to the High Courts order at least from the beginning of the said year, in that view of the matter, allowed the said respondent to pursue the study and to grant admission for the academic session 200405 without counselling. From the said judgment it will be evident that it was not a ratio laid down by Supreme Court, but a direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the said case. At para-17 of the judgment, learned single Judge relied on Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos.2423 to 2425/05, disposed of on 4th April, 2005. In the said case also no law was laid down by Supreme Court. The Apex Court considered as to how to accommodate one Dr. Deepa in the dental course. On the facts and circumstances of the said case, certain direction was given by Supreme Court with regard to Dr.Deepa, which cannot be relied upon to grant the same relief to any other person, without discussing the case of others. Similarly, in regard to the case of Dolly Chhanda – Vs – Chairman, JEE & Others. reported in 2004 (4) CTC 796, of which reference was made at para-19 by learned single Judge, it will be evident that no ratio was laid down, but a mere direction was given by the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the said case. So far as the case of Rajiv Kapoor – Vs – State of Haryana & Others reported in 2000 (9) SCC 115 is concerned, though it was a case of post-graduate course, it will be evident that the Supreme Court refused to pass any order regarding admission of the successful appellant in any subsequent academic year. Apart from the aforesaid judgment as relied by learned single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on unreported judgments of this Court in W.A. Nos.2282 and 2313 of 2005 & W.P. No.34510 of 2005 and W.A. No.1978 of 2005 dated 23rd Jan., 2006 and 31st July, 2006. These are cases in which taking into consideration the Supreme Court judgment, which were passed on the facts and circumstances of particular case, this Court also directed to take admission as per direction of the Court. The question has not been determined whether a candidate, who was successful for admission in the earlier session and denied admission could be accommodated in the subsequent session, even if not applied for admission in the subsequent year and without ascertaining the seats vacant in the subsequent year. The question has not been determined whether a candidate, who was successful for admission in the earlier session and denied admission could be accommodated in the subsequent session, even if not applied for admission in the subsequent year and without ascertaining the seats vacant in the subsequent year. Though it was a case of appointment, in the case of Prem Prakash – Vs – Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 1831 , almost similar question fell for consideration. Two candidates were wrongly excluded from the reserved appointment of 1979. On the ground that they have to be accommodated in the subsequent year, 1980, as per quota fixed, selected candidates of the subsequent year was refused appointment. The Supreme Court held the same illegal. 8. Admittedly, admission in the academic session 2004-05 was over by the date the case was taken up and final order was passed by learned single Judge. For the subsequent session, 2005-06, in absence of any application preferred by the petitioner, there was no occasion for learned single Judge to direct to admit a student of the earlier session in the subsequent session. Further, it is known to all concerned that the seats in a medical college or dental college are sanctioned and approved by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India. No admission could be made beyond the strength of sanctioned seats. If for the session 2005-06, successful candidates were there pursuant to the successive competitive examination, there was no occasion for learned single Judge to direct to admit a student of a preceding academic session, without verifying the existence of any vacant seat. Now, as much more than four years have passed, as stated earlier, after the academic session 2004-05, for which the petitioner appeared. If any direction is given and the order of learned single Judge is upheld, it will amount to giving a fresh direction to the parties to admit the petitioner for the next session 2008-09 for which separate steps has been taken to fill-up those seats. 9. In the facts and circumstances, no relief could have been granted in favour of the petitioner (respondent herein). For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 19th Sept., 2005, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.23862/04 and allow the appeal. But there shall be no order as to costs.