JUDGMENT :- 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by two different petitioners seeking for a declaration declaring that the respective petitioners were qualified to be selected for M.L. Degree Course first year for the Academic Year 2010-2011 in the second respondent Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and for a consequential direction to admit the petitioners to the said course for the said Academic Year. 2. When the matter came up on 15.12.2010, this Court directed that the admission process may go on, but the admission shall not be finalized until further orders. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 14.2.2011, this Court was informed that the Government Order, of which reliance was placed, namely, G.O.(Ms).No.206, P & AR Department, dated 06.11.2008 applying 200 point roster will not apply for regular admission in the educational institutions. On 22.2.2011, this Court requested the learned Advocate General to assist the Court with reference to the application of roster system in educational institutions. 3. The second respondent, the Principal of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai had filed a counter affidavit, dated 03.1.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the interview for selection of candidates for admission to M.L. Degree course for the Academic Year 2010-2011 was held in the College premises between 22nd and 24th November 2010 and based upon the academic mark and the performance in the interview, the rank list was prepared and the selection list and waiting list were published on 09.10.2010. The Selection Committee was constituted by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.94, Law Department, dated 16.9.2010, which consisted of senior professors headed by the Principal of the Law College. It was stated that the reservation as per the communal quota has been strictly followed and out of 15 seats available to each branch, as per the rules of reservation, five seats were reserved for Open Competition, three seats for Scheduled Caste Category, four seats for Backward Class Category and three seats for the Most Backward Class Category. The cut-off mark as per the select list was as follows:- O.C.=197.59 S.C.=187.11 B.C.=181.11 M.B.C=180.97 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in W.P.No.28648 of 2010 had secured 152.07 out of 350 marks and was placed in the 281st rank. The cut-off mark as per the select list was as follows:- O.C.=197.59 S.C.=187.11 B.C.=181.11 M.B.C=180.97 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner in W.P.No.28648 of 2010 had secured 152.07 out of 350 marks and was placed in the 281st rank. The petitioner in W.P.No.28649 of 2010 had secured 163.04 marks and was placed in the 145th rank in the main list and 28th rank in the MBC list. It is also stated that due to the poor performance of the petitioners, they could not be selected as they did not come within the zone of consideration. 5. As per the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994, which provides for reservation of seats in educational institutions in the State, proper reservation has been adopted by the respondents. The petitioners have not questioned the methodology adopted by the respondents and they have fully participated in the selection process. Having found that they have not been selected, they have come forward with the stale prayer and untenable contentions. They have also not made the selected candidates as party respondents to the writ petitions. 6. Both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Even otherwise, their contention that the 200 point roster should be followed in educational institutions does not stand to reason. The 200 point roster is evolved for the purpose of public employment under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and not for the purpose of educational institutions. There may be cases where in a public employment, backlog vacancies can also be filled up exclusively. But the admission to educational institutions is done on an academic year basis and the law on the subject, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 has been scrupulously followed, as has been stated in the counter affidavit. 7. Without any reference to the issue on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research -vs- K.L.Narasimhan reported in (1997) 6 SCC 283 , just for contending that even for post graduate courses, the post shall be clubbed and reservation should be applied. It is not known as to how the said judgment will have any relevance to the case on hand. First of all, this Court is not dealing with any public employment by adopting 200 point roster. It is not known as to how the said judgment will have any relevance to the case on hand. First of all, this Court is not dealing with any public employment by adopting 200 point roster. Secondly, the judgment in K.L.Narasimhan's case, cited supra, has subsequently been overruled by a Constitution Bench in Dr.Preeti Srivatsava -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1999 SC 2894 = (1999) 7 SCC 120 (see paragraph 72). It is also not clear as to why the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to rely upon such judgments when the stand of the respondent State is not that of denying reservation even in postgraduate degrees, such as, Master of Law etc.. 8. In the light of the above, no case is made out to entertain the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.