Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Rule /condition – iv, read with Annexure from prescribed format in 4-A and 4-B mentioned in Prospectus for M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Admission for the year 2011-2012, with consequential relief of writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to include other forms of disability, entitling the petitioner to be eligible under Rule/condition (iv) of the Prospectus. 2. It may be appropriate to record here that the relief of certiorari as claimed is not maintainable as prior to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed W.P.No. 12064 of 2011, where the cause of action to challenge the prospectus was available to the petitioner, but for the reasons best known, she has not at all challenge the prospectus. The relief in this writ therefore is hit by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had directed the District Collector, Tirupur, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2011 and pass orders on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner within a period of three weeks. 4. The prayer made in the earlier writ petition was to consider the representation of the petitioner for getting certificate of disability. In pursuance to the order passed in the previous writ petition, a date was fixed for her medical examination as 28.10.2011. For want of communication in time, the petitioner could not appear on the said date, and subsequently another date was given for her examination for issuance of medical certificate which is still awaited. Even before getting the certificate, the petitioner has filed present writ petition, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to keep one seat vacant for her. 5. The prayer in this writ on the face of it is misconceived. 6. Firstly, for the reason that unless and until medical certificate of disability is issued to the petitioner, she is not eligible for being considered. The petitioner has no right to be considered for admission, much less, retaining one seat vacant for her. 7. Secondly, the last date for admission to the course is over. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to get admission for the session 2011-12. The petitioner has no right to be considered for admission, much less, retaining one seat vacant for her. 7. Secondly, the last date for admission to the course is over. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to get admission for the session 2011-12. 8. Once the petitioner is not eligible for admission after the last date of admission, it is not understood how the petitioner can claim reservation of seats by denying it to deserving candidate, who is not even impleaded as a party in the present writ petition. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is totally misconceived, hence, dismissed.