JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, Sanjay Yadav , JJ. Nonefor respondent No. 5 though served Hamdast , asapparent vide affidavit dated 29.4.2012 filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Petitionera GATE qualified student pursuing her Masterin Pharmacy (M. Pharma ) from Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyalaya , Sagar , a CentralUniversity has filed this petition seeking direction to respondents that beingqualified she is entitled to Post Graduate Scholarship/Stipend of Rs.8000/. Itis the contention of the petitioner that instead the scholarship is granted torespondent No. 5. Itis a matter of record that 8 seats ( 5 General and 3SC/ ST) for Post Graduate Course in Pharma BioTechnology in respondent Vishvidyalaya is approved by All India Council for Technical Education. That,for the benefit of students and to promote technical education in differentdisciplines the AICTE has framed regulations for grant of scholarship tostudents pursuing Masters Degree in different disciplines. Material on recordfurther reveals that, respondent Vishwavidyalaya submitted proposal for releasing scholarship to GATE qualified students admitted in Pharmaceutical Bio Technology Course. Thescholarship was sanctioned for eight students as per the approved intake capacityand the same on the basis of the GATE Scoring as per merit. Grievanceof the petitioner is that against intake of 8 students the University for academic session 200910 has admitted 10 students. That, thescholarship was earlier disbursed to 8 students including one Gyanendra Singh Kushwaha , whosubsequently left the course; therefore, the scholarship which was released in his favour was transferred in favour of respondent No. 5, who had 441 GATE score. The petitioner, who has 338 GATE score claims the entitlement on the ground that respondentNo. 5 was admitted to the Course in the second round of counselling and, therefore, he is not entitled for the scholarship as the 8 students werealready admitted in first round of counselling . Indisputablyrespondent No. 5 who has been admitted to the P.G Course in second round of counselling is more meritorious than the petitioner. Thepetitioner has also not challenged the admission of respondent No. 5 to theP.G. Course. Since respondent No. 5 has continued to prosecute his studies. In view whereof since the petitioner has not questioned theadmission of respondent No. 5 to the P.G. Course and since respondent No. 5 ismore meritorious than the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with thescholarship which has been granted to respondent No. 5. Since respondent No. 5 has continued to prosecute his studies. In view whereof since the petitioner has not questioned theadmission of respondent No. 5 to the P.G. Course and since respondent No. 5 ismore meritorious than the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with thescholarship which has been granted to respondent No. 5. Even otherwisethe P.G course to which petitioner and respondent No. 5 were admitted was inthe year 200910 was of two years and they must have by now completed the entirecourse as would warrant any interference. Inthe result petition fails and is hereby dismissed.