JudgmentJudgment Permod Kholi, J. 1. The petitioner participated in Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2009, conducted by respondent University and obtained rank No. 15 against 80 seats. The petitioner was required to fill up the admission form for seeking admission in the Five Years Law Course for which the necessary advertisement/notification was issued and the last date for submitting the admission form was 30.6.2009. It is petitioners own case that on account of her illness she sent form on 30.6.2009 from Jammu. This clearly implies that the form has been received by the respondent University beyond time fixed for receipt of the application form. On that basis, the petitioner has been denied participation in the counselling. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court through the medium of this petition seeking a direction to permit him to participate in the counseling and to admit him in the Five Years Law Course in the Law Department of respondent -University. The averment made in this petition, itself establish that the petitioner admission form was not submitted within the prescribed period. This question is no more res integra having been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Sharma v. Punjab University, 2002 (1) S.C.T. 1124 wherein following observation has been made:- "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The facts are hardly in dispute in the present case. The petitioner alongwith number of other candidate could not submit their final year result or even detailed mark-sheet before the competent authority within the prescribed period i.e. 4.7.2001. They were unable to produce the said documents even by extended date i.e. 20.7.2001. The result was declared on 20.8.2001. Thereafter the petitioner could have produced the said result before the authorities. It is clear that, no fault is attributable to any of the respondents. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and others, 1993 (4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) : 1993(4) SLR 673 and Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others, 1997 (3) SCT 526 (P&H) (FB) : 1997 (3) PLR 13 terms and conditions of the brochure are binding...." 2. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, despite his higher rank in the test, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.