Judgment 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd April, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, declining the interim relief sought by the three appellants in W.P.(C) No.495/2014 preferred by the three appellants and listing the writ petition for hearing on 30th July, 2014. 2. The appellants have filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises, impugning the denial by the respondents to the three appellants of admission to the LL.B. course in the academic year 2013-14. The appellants sought the interim relief of directing the respondents to reserve three seats in the LL.B. course commencing in the academic year 2014-15, to enable the appellants to be admitted thereto, if succeed in their petition, without undergoing the admission test for the year 2014-15. Reliance in this regard was placed on Parmender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 177 . 3. The learned Single Judge however in the impugned order declined the interim relief, merely observing that since the Court till then had not reached the conclusion that the appellants had been unjustly and illegally denied admission, no such relief could be granted. 4. We, at the outset, enquired from the appellants as to why the appellants cannot appear in the entrance test for the academic year 2014-15 scheduled to be held in June, 2014. The appellants state that since according to them, they were successful in the entrance test held for the year 2013-14 and were entitled to be admitted and have been wrongly denied admission, they, if succeed in their petition, cannot be left without any relief of admission as sought in the writ petition, particularly when they have already suffered for one year. 5. Reliance is again placed on Parmender Kumar (supra). 6. We have invited the attention of the appellants to the judgments of this court in Dr. Mundhe Kailas Maharudra Vs. AIIMS, New Delhi and of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajat Goel Vs. 5. Reliance is again placed on Parmender Kumar (supra). 6. We have invited the attention of the appellants to the judgments of this court in Dr. Mundhe Kailas Maharudra Vs. AIIMS, New Delhi and of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajat Goel Vs. Ministry of Human Resource and Development (Govt of India), SLP(C) No.9544/2012 preferred where against was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2nd April, 2012, where it has been held; (i) that the reward of success in one competition cannot be given in another competition in which the petitioner has not (ii) that it is not a matter between petitioner and educational institution only; the others who participate in the competition are also concerned; such others cannot be made to suffer for the folly even if any of the educational institution in not admitting the petitioner in the year in which he was eligible; such relief if granted will be detrimental to the admission seekers in the test for the subsequent year; (iii) that the medallion won in one race, if not awarded for whatever reasons, cannot be awarded in another race without participating in the same; (iv) granting admission in the next academic session will necessarily be at the cost of the aspirants for admission in the next academic session and the seats available to them for admission would stand reduced; the Court cannot issue such an order prejudicial to the person/s who are not even before the Court; (v) that a student cannot be declared successful in an admission test without appearing and participating in the same and the same if allowed would be against all cannons of justice, equity and conscience. Reliance, besides on a catena of judgments, was placed on Rajiv Kapoor Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 9 SCC 115 and certain other judgments of the Supreme Court, where such directions had been issued, were found to be consent orders. 7. The appellants however again referred to Parmender Kumar (supra) and contend that that being the judgment of the Supreme Court, will prevail over the judgments of this Court. 8. We find the Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar (supra) to have issued such a direction, without any discussion this respect and merely on the basis of such a direction having been issued in Vinay Rampal (Dr.) Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) 1 SCC 160 . 8. We find the Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar (supra) to have issued such a direction, without any discussion this respect and merely on the basis of such a direction having been issued in Vinay Rampal (Dr.) Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1984) 1 SCC 160 . We have perused Vinay Rampal (Dr.) (supra) also and do not find the Supreme Court therein also to have given any reason or to have debated whether such a direction can be issued or not. 9. Per contra, the judgments of this Court were directly concerned with and debated the subject issue. We are thus of the opinion that the issue cannot be said to have been ‘decided’ in Parmender Kumar (supra). 10. Not only so, the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice has also invited our attention to Faiza Choudhary Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2012) 10 SCC 149 where also the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the carry-forward principle is inapplicable and the vacant reserved seats for previous years cannot be filled up by a candidate of previous year’s merit list / waiting list. 11. We therefore do not find the appellants to be entitled to the interim relief claimed. 12. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.