JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 24.10.1996 seeking to question the admission process to the General Nursing Course under the advertisement dated 27.02.1996 (Annex.2) particularly challenging the ratio of 70:30 for female and male candidates; and also suggesting that the candidate standing lower in merit had been allowed admission and the petitioner was illegally deprived of the same. The respondents have filed reply denying that there had been any arbitrariness in fixing such ratio at 70:30 for female and male; and also pointing out that no candidate belonging to male OBC Category having lesser marks than the petitioner was accorded admission inasmuch as the last male candidate given admission in the OBC Category had secured 67.69% marks whereas the petitioner had secured only 45.8% marks. 2. During the course of submissions, learned Government Counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/2000 : Sanjay Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 13.07.2000 wherein this Court has upheld the said ratio of 70:30 looking to the nature and requirement of the service. In view of the decision aforesaid, the grounds as sought to be urged by the petitioner fail and are required to be rejected. In the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2000, this Court has referred to Rule 7 of the General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990 and has found that the Government had been clothed with the power to fix the ratio for male and female candidates and it were not a case where the Government had issued the executive instructions beyond the Rules. This Court further said,- "So far as the question of exceeding 50% of the reservation in favour of female candidates is concerned, looking to the nature and requirement of service, the Government is fully justified in making 70% reservation in favour of the female candidates. Discrimination on the ground of sex only is not permissible but if nature of service and other attendant factors are also taken into account, it becomes permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yusuf Abul Aziz v. State of Bombay & Anr., AIR 1954 SC 32 ; Javed Niaz Beg & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 794 ; and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1823 ." 3. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 794 ; and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1823 ." 3. Even otherwise, this petition could only be treated as redundant for the selection in question for the three years' training course were made in the year 1996 and there appears no reason to issue any writ, order or direction in this matter at this stage. 4. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******