Judgment: 1. They are heard. Petitioner wants a relief in this petition that directions be issued to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in MD course in the subject "Kriya Sharir". 2. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat alongwith some other persons for a relief that she be granted admission in MD course for the academic session 2008-09. That petition was disposed of with the following direction: The aforesaid short comings are curable and in view of the aforesaid we are of the considered opinion that a direction is necessitated in the present case against the respondent No. 2. The respondent no. 2 shall carry out the necessary inspection of the institution, i.e. respondent no. 5 to ascertain whether deficiencies pointed out have been removed or not. We further direct the respondent no. 5 to intimate that the deficiencies pointed out have been cured and the sufficient no. of teachers have been appointed. In case the respondent no. 2 finds that the deficiencies have not been cured then the respondent no. 5 shall be given a reasonable time to remove the deficiencies. After the deficiencies are cured then the petitioner shall be given admission for the next academic session 2009-2010. In view of the aforesaid, petition stands allowed to the extent as above. 3. Thereafter, a review petition was filed and the Court had further extended the period by another year in the review petition. The Court passed the following order dated 12/3/2010 in Review Petition No. 666/2009: Shri P.K. Kaurav, Dy. AG for state. Shri S.S. Tripathi, Advocate for respondents. Learned counsel for the parties agree that direction given by this Court for giving admission to the petitioner for the academic session 2009-10 be substituted by academic session 2010-11, as admissions were already given for the session 2009-10 by the time writ petition writ petition was decided. To that extent, order is modified. Review petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules. 4. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that recognition has been granted by the Government and there are four seats, hence, the petitioner be granted admission in MD (Ayurved). 5. To that extent, order is modified. Review petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules. 4. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that recognition has been granted by the Government and there are four seats, hence, the petitioner be granted admission in MD (Ayurved). 5. It is apparent from the order dated 24/8/2009 passed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 12907/2008 that the petitioner claimed benefit of admission for the academic session 2008-09 and now after a period of near about four years petitioner wants to get admission on the same footing. There was no extension of time by the Court after academic session 2010-11. In our opinion, the petitioner has no legal right to get admission in the academic session 2013-14 or academic session 2014-15 in MD course. Hence, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.