Judgment :- (1) IN the wirt application, the petitioner, who had passed MBBS examination and had served as a Medical Officer with the Indian Air Force for Armed Forces Medical Corps and had completed active five years Short service Commission Service, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents particularly, upon the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to admit him in one of the seats available in the Post-Graduate Courses for May, 2008 Session as a priority-IV candidate. Submission has been made that since there are eight seats open for admission in the Command Hospital, Kolkata, the petitioner who has been placed 4th in the Priority IV category is entitled to be appointed since there are either lesser number of students or no students in Priority-I, Priority-II and Priority-Ill categories. Submission is the answering respondents cannot curtail the seats as has been sought to be done in violation of the provisions contained in section 10 (a) of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and as the writ petition was filed on 24th April, 2008. orders may be passed accordingly. (2) REFERRING to the Eligibility Criteria, 7 (g) in particular and rules regarding counselling session it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 that it was duly notified that in order to maintain the teacher-pupil ratio, the total number of vacancies available are 16 and not 18 as contended. (3) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submits that vacancies notified arc pursuant to a policy which cannot be interfered with. In this regard, attention has been drawn to the judgements of the apex Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 sc 1612 and Government of Orissa vs. Haraprasad Das and Ors. , reported in air 1998 SC 375 . (4) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India submits that there is no scope for having the petitioner admitted in the mid-stream in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Medical council of India vs. Madhu Singh and Ors. , reported in 2002 (7) SCC 258 and the time-frame for admission to the postgraduate course as. laid down in paragraph 11 in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in JT 2005 (1) SC 340. , reported in 2002 (7) SCC 258 and the time-frame for admission to the postgraduate course as. laid down in paragraph 11 in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in JT 2005 (1) SC 340. (5) IN my view, the seats available-whether 16 or 18-is a matter of policy. In view of the settled principles of law in Shankarsan Dash (supra) it has to be decided by the authorities. So far the availability of scats are conerned it is evident from Clause 7 (g) of the Eligibility Criteria the exact number of seats available after approval by the DGAFMS would be displayed on the notice board of the Institution before the start of counselling session. In the instant case it was done. The total scats available are 16. Therefore, such notification was in accordance with the guidelines which the petitioner was well aware of as evident from page 56 of the writ petition. With regard to admission, is concerned in order to stop mid-stream admission Supreme court in the judgement of Mridul Dhar (Minor) (supra) has held that the final date for admission of a candidate to the post-graduate course is 31st may, 2008 which is over. Therefore, the petitioner does not succeed on any of the points discussed. (6) HENCE, no order is passed on the writ petition. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.