Judgment H.L. Gokhale, C.J. Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader in charge of Education in support of this appeal. Mr.S.Arulmurugan, learned counsel appears for the 1st respondent. 2nd and 3rd respondents are served. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General appears with Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Assistant Solicitor General for 4th respondent. Mr.V.P.Raman appears for 5th respondent and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appears for 6th respondent. 2. This appeal by the State Government seeks to challenge the order dated 18. 2009 passed by the learned single Judge on a petition filed by the first respondent herein, whereby the learned single Judge has directed the appellant to admit the first respondent to M.D.(Anesthesia) course under service B.C. Category for the academic year 2009-2010. 3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this way. The seat in contest is a seat for M.D.(Anesthesia) course for the academic year 2009-2010. There are in all 23 seats for the said course and out of them, nine seats were allotted to the Madurai Medical College, run by the State Government and 14 seats were allotted to seven different Government Colleges, situated in other cities of the State. Out of the nine seats in Madurai, five seats were meant for State quota and four seats were meant for the Central quota. Written test was held for these admissions and thereafter there was counselling. 4. One Narendran was allotted one seat at the Stanley Medical College in Chennai, from the State quota and the said seat was meant for B.C. candidate in service. The said Narendran did not join the course. It is the case of the first respondent that she was the next person in the list meant for the B.C.candidates from service quota and this seat should have gone to her. It so transpired that the State Government did not take quick steps to fill this particular seat. The Central Government appears to have proceeded to allot one seat in excess of its original quota of four seats at Madurai and has nominated M.Radhika, 6th respondent herein, in addition to the original four seats for M.D. (Anesthesia), which are available to the Central Government. The State Government did not take any steps to fill this vacancy, arising out of Narendran not joining the course. .5. The State Government did not take any steps to fill this vacancy, arising out of Narendran not joining the course. .5. It however so transpired that when Narendran did not join in the Stanley Medical College at Chennai, the State Government transferred one Usha Kiran, the 2nd respondent herein, from Madurai Medical College to Chennai. She has been admitted in the quota meant for Scheduled Caste and she is occupying the seat meant for M.D. (Anesthesia). The result is that the total number of students studying M.D.(Anesthesia) course remains the same viz., 23. Nine students are studying at Madurai though in one seat, which was meant for the State Government, the State Government having not filled the same, the Central Government has filled it. 6. The first respondent formed an opinion and submitted before the learned single Judge that Usha Kiran was given wrongful admission, which can be seen from paragraph 21 of the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge noted that the first respondent is at Sl.No.325 in the overall merit list and the said Usha Kiran is at Sl.No.565. In our view this comparison is wrong inasmuch as the said Usha Kiran, 2nd respondent herein was altogether from different quota, viz., Scheduled Caste, whereas the first respondent was claiming the seat meant for B.C. Category in service. The seat which fell vacant on account of Narendran not joining, ought to have gone to the first respondent. However, the State Government having not taken steps immediately, the Central Government has filled the post by nominating M.Radhika, 6th respondent, who has joined on 8th June, 2009, subsequent to the counselling held on 5th June, 2009. 7. In the circumstances, if the first respondent was to succeed, it was necessary to disturb the admission of M.Radhika, the 6th respondent. No such order can now be passed in the month of December, 2009. This is because, even if Radhikas admission is set aside, the first respondent cannot be directed to be admitted, inasmuch as all these admissions for post graduate courses are to be completed by 31st May of each year, as pointed out by Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India. Besides, it is the case of Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General, that the Central Government has filled the seat with respect to which there was inaction on the part of the State Government. Besides, it is the case of Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General, that the Central Government has filled the seat with respect to which there was inaction on the part of the State Government. It has acquiesced in the decision of the Central Government. .8. In this scenario, as far as the first respondent is concerned, it is not possible for us to uphold the order of the learned single Judge directing that she should be admitted in M.D.(Anesthesia) course for the academic year 2009-2010. We cannot direct that she should be admitted in the next year as well, on the basis of the marks of the present year. That is the view reflected in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 152 , where the Supreme Court observed that an academic seat is limited to an academic session and it cannot like a vacant government post be carried forward to the next year. 9. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 18. 2009 in W.P.No.10966 of 2009. The writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed. Although we are allowing this appeal, it is apparent that the first respondent would not get admission to M.D.(Anesthesia) course, which she would have otherwise got in the normal course. Whether the State Government is responsible or Central Government is responsible for this situation, it is for the first respondent to seek appropriate remedy for compensation or otherwise, before appropriate forum. There is no order as to costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.