CAV JUDGMENT V.Nath, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent-Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) to give benefit to the petitioner of Clause 4.4(a)(i) of the Prospectus of Post Graduate Medical Admissions Counselling regarding reservation of 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Course for medical officers in the Bihar Government Service who have served for at least 3 years in remote and difficult areas of the State and in the alternative the prayer has been made for compensation/damage of Rs.25 lacs alongwith undertaking to admit the petitioner in the next batch granting benefit of the aforesaid provision of reservation. 3. The petitioner is a Doctor posted at Primary Health Center, Biraul, Darbhanga in contractual service of the Government. The petitioner appeared in National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test- P.G. (NEET-P.G.) for admission to M.D./M.S/Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2013 and was declared successful. Thereafter he appeared before the Board which conducted the Post Graduate Medical Counselling 2013 for admission in various courses on the basis of the result of NEET-P.G.2013, and claimed for his admission against the 50% seats reserved in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for medical officers posted in remote and difficult areas in the State of Bihar. The petitioner produced the certificate granted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga in support of his claim of rendering service in remote and difficult areas in the State for 3 years. Eventually, however, the petitioner was not selected for admission against the above 50% quota of reserved seats which has led to the filing of the present writ application with aforesaid reliefs. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board as well as the respondent no.6 Medical Council of India. It is the specific case of the respondent-Board in the counter affidavit that the provision contained in paragraph- Clause 4.4(a)(i) of the Prospectus of P.G.M.A.C.2013 has been made in consonance with the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 of the Medical Council of India. It is the specific case of the respondent-Board in the counter affidavit that the provision contained in paragraph- Clause 4.4(a)(i) of the Prospectus of P.G.M.A.C.2013 has been made in consonance with the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 of the Medical Council of India. It has been further stated that by amendment notification dated 16.04.2010, the Clause (9)(1)(b) of the said regulation providing for 50% reservation of seats for Medical Officers serving in remote and difficult areas was amended and after the words remote and difficult areas, the words “as decided by the competent State-Authorities from time to time” have been added. It has been further stated in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit of the Board that by letter dated 27.07.2013 the State Government directed the Board not to allow any seat reserved for Medical Officers who claimed to have served in remote and difficult areas for 3 years as the definition with regard to remote/difficult areas was under consideration of the Government of Bihar and the relevant notification had not been issued. It has been further stated that in view of the said direction, the 50% reserved seats for P.G. Diploma Course could not be allotted to any one and remained unallotted. By bringing on record the notification dated 27.08.2013 as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, it has been further pointed out that in the said notification the remote and difficult areas have been identified by the State Government and the Primary Health Center, Biraul, Darbhanga where the petitioner has claimed to have worked has not been included in the said list. It has also been stated that prior to the commencement of the first counselling on 29.07.2013 the aforesaid direction dated 27.07.2013 was issued by the State Government and therefore no admission against such 50% reserved seats had been taken. The Board has also stated that it was bound by the directives issued by the Government of Bihar, and it was not the competent authority to decide the eligibility criteria for allotment of seats of 50% reserved quota. 5. The respondent-Medical Council of India in its counter affidavit has specifically stated in paragraph-23 that all the Post Graduate Admissions are to be completed as per the scheduled time provided by the statutory regulations/directions of the Council and decisions of the Apex Court. 5. The respondent-Medical Council of India in its counter affidavit has specifically stated in paragraph-23 that all the Post Graduate Admissions are to be completed as per the scheduled time provided by the statutory regulations/directions of the Council and decisions of the Apex Court. It has also been stated that carrying forward of any unfilled seat of one academic year to the next academic year is not permissible in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court. By annexing a copy of the order of the Apex Court it has been pointed out that 31.08.2013 was the last date for completing the process for admission in Post Graduate Courses by filling up the unfilled seats. 6. No reply to the aforesaid facts, averred in the counter affidavits of the respondents, has been filed by the petitioner and the same have remained uncontroverted. 7. It is transparent from the writ application and the reliefs prayed therein that the petitioner is grieved by the action of the Board for not selecting him for admission in post graduate medical course against the 50% seats reserved for medical officers who have served in remote/difficult areas of the State and the reliefs have been prayed against the Board. The petitioner has not denied that it was in the domain and competency of the State Government to identify the remote/difficult area for the purpose of allowing the benefit of admission in 50% reserved seats in the post graduate medical course to the medical officers who have rendered three years of service in such area. The Board has come out with specific case that the Government of Bihar by letter dated 27.07.2013 had directed the Board not to allot any seat against the reserved quota as mentioned above till the decision regarding identifying such areas was taken. The fact also remains that subsequently by notification dated 27.08.2013 the State Government has earmarked the remote and difficult areas for the purpose of granting benefit of admission in postgraduate courses to the medical officers who have served in those areas. It is manifest that the area where the petitioner has claimed to have served for three years has not been identified as a remote/difficult area by the State Government. 8. It is manifest that the area where the petitioner has claimed to have served for three years has not been identified as a remote/difficult area by the State Government. 8. Besides the provision contained in Clause 4.4(a)(i) also required production of authentic original certificate issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar in support of the fact of serving in remote and difficult areas for three years by a medical officer seeking admission in postgraduate course against 50% reserved seats. Admittedly the petitioner did not produce such certificate before the Board at the time of counselling and instead has claimed to have produced the certificate dated 12.07.2013 issued by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer. However, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 02.07.2014 wherein the barren statement has been made that on earlier occasions the selection for admission had been made on the basis of the certificates granted by a Civil Surgeon and it has been further stated that the certificate of experience was granted to the petitioner by the Civil Surgeon as Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar had deliberately not issued the said certificate to him. However, the petitioner had not stated the details of making such prayer before the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar for issuing the certificate and even has also not stated that he ever made such a prayer before the said authority for issuing the requisite certificate. Instead the petitioner has stated that he applied to the concerned officer on 24.07.2013 alongwith the certificate granted by the Civil Surgeon and has annexed the said application as Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit. The perusal of the said application dated 24.07.2013 discloses that the same had not been submitted before the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar but before the Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar who was not the competent authority to grant the said certificate. There is also no mention in the application that the certificate was required to be issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar. There is also no mention in the application that the certificate was required to be issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar. Moreover this crucial fact alleging non-issue of the required certificate by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar, has also not been stated in the writ application which has been filed on 25.10.2013 rather this fact has been disclosed by filing a supplementary affidavit filed on 02.07.2014 during the course of final hearing of the matter after the objection by the respondents was raised in this regard on the basis of the Clause 4.4 (a)(i) as abovementioned. In the backdrop of these facts, this Court is not inclined to accept the bald plea of the petitioner that the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar deliberately and willfully did not issue the certificate to the petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this Court is not persuaded to grant the reliefs as prayed by the petitioner. 10. Ex consequenti, this writ application is dismissed.