JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The case of the petitioner in short is that in response to the advertisement inviting applications from the prospective candidates for admission to Post Graduate (Medical) course available in S.C.B. Medical College; Cuttack, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla and M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur for the year 2010, the petitioner, who had already completed M.B.B.S. course, applied for a seat as a direct candidate under defence quota in the prescribed form depositing fee of Rs. 1000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Convener, P.G. (Medical) Selection Committee. She appeared in the entrance examination on 24.1.2010 and was placed at Rank 4 under defence quota. Two seats - one in general medicine and the other one in biochemistry had been reserved under defence quota for direct candidates. In the 1st round of counselling held on 1.4.2010, Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, who was placed at Rank 1 under defence quota took admission in general medicine in V.S.S. Medical College, Burla and the petitioner took admission in bio-chemistry in S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack as the second and third Rank holders did not turn up. In the same round of counselling, opp. party No. 7, a direct general candidate, was admitted to general surgery in S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack. Second round of counselling was conducted on 29.6.2010. The petitioner and some other candidates including Dr. Saroj Kumar Das attended the said counselling. Dr. Soraj Kumar Das, surrendered his seat in general medicine and took admission radiotherapy meant for direct general candidates, in S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack, as such, the seat in general medicine reserved under defence quota fell vacant. According to the petitioner, it should have been allotted to her since the candidates, who secured second and third Ran in defence quota under direct category did not turn up either in the first or second round of counselling, but the said seat was allotted to opp. party No. 7 a direct general candidate in V.S.S. Medical college, Burla in complete violation of the provision contained in the Prospectus for Selection of Candidates for Post Graduate Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa, 2010. The petitioner made a representation in writing to opp. party No. 1 under Annexure-6, but it did not cut ice. So, she has filed the present writ petition with prayer to quash the admission of opp. The petitioner made a representation in writing to opp. party No. 1 under Annexure-6, but it did not cut ice. So, she has filed the present writ petition with prayer to quash the admission of opp. party No. 7 in general medicine in V.S.S. Medical College, Burla and to allot that seat in her favour. 2. In their joint counter, opp, parties 1 to 4 and 6 contended that only two seats - one in general medicine and the other in biochemistry, were available for candidates under defence quota in P.G. Medical course for the year 2010. Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, who was the first Rank holder was given admission in general medicine according to his choice. As the 2nd and 3rd Rank holders in the merit list of defence quota did not attend the first counselling, the petitioner, whose Rank was 4, was given admission in bio-chemistry in V.S.S. Medical College, Burla. On 29.6.2010 the 2nd round of counselling was held. The candidates, who attended the counselling, were directed to give their options and accordingly they were allotted with seats in different disciplines as per the merit list keeping in mind their respective choices. Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, who had taken admission in V.S.S. Medical College, Burla in general medicine had also attended the counseling and as his Rank was 73 in general merit list, he was allowed to take admission in radiotherapy as per his choice and the seat in general medicine of V.S.S. medical college, Burla, in which he had taken admission fell vacant. The said seat was filled up by opp. party No. 7, whose Rank in the general merit list was 77. The Rank of the petitioner in general merit list being 268, her case was not considered for that seat. It is the further case of the answering opp, parties that the last date for taking admission to P.G. course having been over long since, there cannot be any admission to any seat/subject in P.G. Course. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 3. Opp, party No. 7 in his counter contended that as per the Guidelines of the Medical Council of India, the seat, which was surrendered by Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, could not be kept reserved under defence quota. According to him, he was rightly allotted the seat in general medicine as per his Rank in the merit list. 3. Opp, party No. 7 in his counter contended that as per the Guidelines of the Medical Council of India, the seat, which was surrendered by Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, could not be kept reserved under defence quota. According to him, he was rightly allotted the seat in general medicine as per his Rank in the merit list. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Clause 6.4 of the Prospectus for Selection of Candidates for Post-Graduate Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa-2010, submitted that seats reserved for children of defence personnel were to be filled up by such candidates under direct category only. Such seats can not be allotted to general candidates. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision. Sayantana Patra Vs. State of Orissa and Others. Here, in the present case, when Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, who was placed at Rank 1 under defence quota, surrendered the seat in general medicine and took admission in radiotherapy meant for general candidates, the seat in general medicine ought to have been given to the petitioner, since she was placed in Rank 4 and the 2nd and 3rd Rank holders did not turn up either in the 1st or 2nd round of counselling. But it was illegally giver, to opp. party No. 7, who belongs to general category, whereby the reasonable expectation of the petitioner was frustrated leading to miscarriage of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in case the Court feels that if the petitioner is allowed to take admission in general medicine, opposite party No. 7 would be put disadvantageous position, the Court can direct the competent authority to enhance one seat in general medicine for the petitioner. In support of his submission with regard to power of this Court to direct the competent authority for enhancement of seat, in such peculiar circumstances, he relied on the unreported decisions of this Court in the case of Dr. V.S. Ramchandra v. the Chairman, P.G. Selection Committee, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla and others (O.J.C. No. 4859 of 1994) and Dr. Gautam Panda and others v. State of Orissa and others (O.J.C. No. 5204 of 1991). 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties contended that Rank of the petitioner was 4. V.S. Ramchandra v. the Chairman, P.G. Selection Committee, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla and others (O.J.C. No. 4859 of 1994) and Dr. Gautam Panda and others v. State of Orissa and others (O.J.C. No. 5204 of 1991). 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties contended that Rank of the petitioner was 4. Two seats-one in general medicine and the other in bio-chemistry were allotted to the direct candidates under defence quota. Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, whose Rank under the defence quota was 1 by exercising his option took admission in general medicine. Since the 2nd and 3rd Rank holder did not turn up, the petitioner whose Rank was 4 under defence quota took admission in bio-chemistry. In second round of counselling, Dr. Saroj Kumar Das surrendered his seat in general medicine and took part in second counselling and on the basis of his choice and merit in the general merit list, he was admitted into radiotherapy. The Rank of opposite party No. 7 being 77 in general list, as per his option, he was given the seat in general medicine surrendered by Dr. Saroj Kumar Das. The case of the petitioner was not considered since her rank was 268 in general list. 7. Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 8, further contended that once a seat from the reserve quota is surrendered, it shall be given to a candidate from the general merit list as per his Rank. It cannot be given to the candidate who has already taken admission on quota basis. Learned counsel, Mr. Mohanty, further submitted that the cut off date of taking admission in the P.G. Medical Course being 31.06.2010 even if the petitioner has a right to the seat surrender by Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, it cannot be given to her, as held by different High Courts and the apex Court of the country. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions, State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc. Ajay Pradhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . 8. It would be profitable to quote clause 6.4 and clause 14.4 of the prospectus of Selection of Candidates for Post-Graduate Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa-2010. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . 8. It would be profitable to quote clause 6.4 and clause 14.4 of the prospectus of Selection of Candidates for Post-Graduate Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Orissa-2010. Clause 6.4 reads as follows : Seats reserved for children or Spouse of Service / Ex-service personnel (Defence) are to be filled up by such candidates under the Direct category only. Clause 14.4 reads as hereunder; Selection of Candidates under quota of Children/Spouse of Service/Ex-service personnel :- If eligible candidates under this category are not available, the seats shall be filled up by General (Direct) candidates. If the aforesaid two Clauses are read together, it would mean that seats reserved under defence quota are to be filled up by candidates coming under that quota only. If eligible candidates are not available under that category, then only the seats shall be filled up by general (direct) candidates. Admittedly the petitioner had already taken admission in bio-chemistry by the time the seat in general medicine under defence quota fell vacant. So, as per the submission of learned counsel for opp, parties the said seat was not given to her. If opp. party No. 7, who had already taken admission in general surgery in the first round of selection was allowed to take admission in general medicine meant for defence quota, there was no bar to give that seat to the petitioner, even if she had already taken admission in bio-chemistry under defence quota. 9. Now the question is whether the seat in general medicine can be allotted to the petitioner ? As stated earlier Opp, party No. 7 had taken admission in general surgery in the 1st round of selection. Now, if the petitioner is allowed to take admission in general medicine, then opp. party No. 7 shall be placed in a disadvantageous position. He cannot get the seat in general surgery, which he had got on merit, because as submitted at the bar all the seats in the three Medical Colleges of Orissa have already been filled up. In the case of Sayantana Patra (supra), the petitioner was daughter of an army personnel. party No. 7 shall be placed in a disadvantageous position. He cannot get the seat in general surgery, which he had got on merit, because as submitted at the bar all the seats in the three Medical Colleges of Orissa have already been filled up. In the case of Sayantana Patra (supra), the petitioner was daughter of an army personnel. As per the brochure, 3 seats in each Medical College of the State and one more seat in S.C.B. Medical College for B.D.S. course were reserved for children of defence and para-military personnel. In the entrance examination, 4 children of defence and Para-Military personnels securing high position were within the list of general category, but they were considered under reserved category. So this Court held that when those 4 candidates were selected under general category they should not have been considered as reserved category. It was directed that if any seat is available in MBBS/BDS course, the petitioner would be permitted to be admitted within a period of two weeks from the date of order. However, if no such vacancy is available, the petitioner has to rue her luck and wait for the next year. So this decision will be of no help to the petitioner in the present case. 10. With regard to enhancement of one seat to accommodate the petitioner, on perusal of the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner, in the cases of Dr. V.S. Ramachandra and Dr. Gautam Panda (supra) it is found that those decisions would not be applicable to the present case, as in those cases the petitioners were not given any seat at all, whereas in the present case, the petitioner has already taken admission in bio-chemistry discipline. If a seat in general medicine is increased then the seat in bio-chemistry will go in waste. More over, as submitted at the Bar the last date of admission has already been over since long. So in view of the decisions in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, etc. Dr. Ajaya Pradhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 7875 and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, midstream admission cannot be allowed. Under such circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed