JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner approached this Court for a direction to respondent no.3Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram to grant her admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 2010-11. There is no doubt that the petitioner has not even appeared for the entrance examination, which is conducted by respondent no.2 - Institute for admitting the students. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that it is not necessary for her to appear in the entrance examination each year and as she had cleared the entrance examination last year i.e. for the academic year 2009-10, she is entitled to get admission this year. 3. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last year, however, due to mistake of the college she was not admitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.4749/2009 decided on 01.02.2010, in which this Court has observed in paragraph 7 that the respondent nO.3-Institute granted admission to less meritorious candidates by denying non Maharashtrian female candidates an opportunity of admission unjustly and arbitrarily. This Court, however, declined to grant relief to the petitioner in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and ors.; (2002)7 Supreme Court Cases 258 : [2002(4) ALL MR 593 (S.C.)] since the cut off date had passed. Mr. Dubey, the leaned counsel for the petitioner, submits that having once passed the entrance examination for the last academic year and having been wrongly denied admission last year. it is not necessary for her to appear for any entrance examination this year and she should be granted admission straightway on the basis of merit. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3Institute, submitted that the entrance examinations are held each year by the Institute for granting admissions to students in that particular academic year and the admissions cannot be granted on the basis of merit in the entrance examination conducted for the last academic year. 5. We find from the prospectus of the College that there is no specific provision that the entrance examination shall be held for admissions only for a particular academic year. 5. We find from the prospectus of the College that there is no specific provision that the entrance examination shall be held for admissions only for a particular academic year. In our view, this does not lead to a conclusion that if a candidate passes entrance examination, it enures to his/her benefit for all the times to come. Flow of fresh pass-out students joins mainstream every year so entrance is necessarily only for the ensuing academic year. The entitlement of candidates from all over the State of Maharashtra and the other States, seeking admissions in a particular year, depends on the entrance examination, which is held before the admissions are granted in that year. 6. The merit, thus, has to be adjudged amongst the students, who have applied in that particular year and have passed the entrance examination for that particular academic year. It would be unfair and arbitrary if the merit at the previous entrance examination, which was adjudged inter se the candidates, who had applied in the previous year is given any weight age or is even considered in the subsequent academic year. Just as it would be impermissible for a college to deny an opportunity of admission to a student because he/she failed in the entrance examination in the last academic year, it is equally impermissible for the college to grant admission to a student on the basis of merit adjudged at the entrance examination for the last academic year. 7. We, thus hold that a student desiring admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the respondent no.3 - Institution in an academic year must appear for the entrance examination held for that year. The petitioner, not having so appeared, is not entitled for admission. In view of above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.