ORDER Petitioner appeared as a candidate in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, which is known as NEET-UG 2013 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Examination. It is her case that she did qualify and was shown in All India Merit List at 1132. She then expected a call for admission in MBBS/BDS Courses. She was looking for counseling which were held on various dates. She was not given an opening but people with lesser marks from the reserved category ended up with better opening. This was the background which compelled her to approach the High Court for a direction upon the respondents to call her for counseling. It is her case that the policy adopted by the State of Bihar contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of respondents No.1 and 2 has effect of providing more reservation to reserved category candidates at the cost of the petitioner or general category candidates. The prospectus and provisions therefore are under challenge. 2. The policy which has been followed by the State of Bihar is not new in such examination. The said policy has been in place and was also subject matter of challenge earlier in yet another writ application filed by one Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, which was CWJC No.8414 of 2011, which after extensive argument came to be decided on 12.8.2011. Similar challenge was negated. The Court did provide reasons for not accepting the plea of the said petitioner that the said policy is detrimental to the interest of people belonging to general category candidates, despite having merit and position in the merit list. The said decision has not been interfered with so far. In fact, the Government continues to follow the policy on the basis of which admissions are offered and have been offered in various competitive examinations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tries to distinguish the said judgment or at least find loopholes in the reasoning on the basis of a decision rendered by the Apex Court, which is State of Bihar and others vs. M Neethi Chandra and others, (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 36. He also contends that the policy of the State of Bihar does indicate that since the said matter is or was sub-judice before the Hon`ble Apex Court, any final decision taken in the SLP will govern the issue. 4. He also contends that the policy of the State of Bihar does indicate that since the said matter is or was sub-judice before the Hon`ble Apex Court, any final decision taken in the SLP will govern the issue. 4. Since the said judgment has been delivered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court and has also been affirmed in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram and others, (2010) 7 SCC 234 , the matter is left to the State Government with a direction whether the above two decisions of the Hon`ble Supreme Court would compel them to have a re-look at their reservation policy which are in vogue. This Court has some predicament in disagreeing with the previous decision which has been rendered in identical situation as a dichotomous situation would be created. 5. The Court would expect the State authorities to take a policy decision in this regard within a reasonable time-frame, which shall have the effect of deciding the future admissions. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, there may not be any occasion to give any direction for any counseling or admission at this stage. 6. Writ application is otherwise dismissed.