JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was granted admission in B.S.T.C. Course vide order dated 03.10.2006 vide Annx.5. in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was admitted in the BSTC course, but later on petitioner was allowed to join the Course, therefore, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner. While admitting this writ petition on 12.12.2006, an order was passed upon the stay application in which it was ordered that "in the meanwhile, respondent, the Principal, D.I.E.T., Churu is directed to admit the petitioner, the petitioner provisionally in the B.S.T.C. Course." In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner was given admissible and allowed to pursue the study of B.S.T.C. Course and after completion of Fibster Year, his result was declared, but he was not allowed to appear in the B.S.T.C. Second Year Examination, therefore the second stay petition was filled by the petitioner, which was registered as S.B. Civil Second Stay Petition No. 3049/2008. In the second stay petition, on 14.03.2008 an order was made by this Court directing the Principal, D.I.E.T., Churu, to allow the petitioner to pursue his study for second year B.S.T.C. Course, while giving admission to the petitioner in the second year B.S.T.C. Course 3. The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now the petitioner has completed the course and his result of First Year was also declared in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 23.10.2008 and, therefore, the final result of Second Year B.S.T.C., which has been withheld by the respondents due to pendency of this writ petition the result may kindly be directed to be declared. 4. in this writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the advertisement dated 25.07.2006 issued by the respondents for providing admission in B.S.T.C. Course, there was a provision to provide admission to the dependents of deceased Government employees and for that purpose, two seats were reserved for male candidates and one seat was reserved for woman candidate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the seats were filled-in by admitting the women candidates, which is evident from Annx. 6 filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and, therefore, denial of admission to the petitioner is totally illegal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the seats were filled-in by admitting the women candidates, which is evident from Annx. 6 filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and, therefore, denial of admission to the petitioner is totally illegal. 5. in reply to the claim of the petitioner, the only assertion has been made by the respondents that though earlier the order was issued to admit the petitioner in B.S.T.C. Course under the category of dependent of deceased Government employee, but later on, while following the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anita Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1442/1999 , fresh merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was not found in merit for admission under the category of wards of deceased Government employee and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that at this stage, when petitioner has completed the B.S.T.C. Course, it is not proper to enter in the merit of the case because the petitioner cannot be denied the fruits of his studies because he has already completed the course and his final result is to be declared. Therefore, in the interest of justice, 1 deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for Second Year B.S.T.C. with in the period of fifteen days from the date of submitting a certified copy of this order.With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******