JUDGMENT Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. 1. The point of controversy raised by the petitioner is perhaps a part of a misgiving shared by many by their common experience. The misgiving at times is genuine, at times bred by a cynic scepticism. 2. The petitioner obtained her M.A. in Bengali in the year 2012 from Aliah University. She applied for admission to the B.Ed course of 2013-14 in Bengali to the University of Burdwan. According to her it was specifically stipulated in the notification that subject-wise provisional merit list along with waiting list would be prepared on the basis of the grade points to be computed as per the norms specified therein. The petitioner got 38.76 grade point according to her qualification. 3. After the publication of the subject-wise merit list several counseling were held. So far as Bengali is concerned a candidate who secured just above 38.76 grade point was called for in the fourth counseling. 4. Thereafter the university conducted the fifth counseling in all the subjects including Bengali. Two lists were published for fresh candidates for the fifth counseling and for the in-house students of the Burdwan University a separate list of candidates for the fifth counseling had been published. It has been the grievance of the petitioner that many of those who belonged to the Burdwan University were called for the fifth counseling but she was never considered for the same. According to her it was never mentioned in the information sheet that candidates belonging to the Burdwan University would be given preference to those who belonged to other universities and the information sheet was also silent about any deduction of marks while preparing her grade point as she belonged to an outside university. 5. By the present writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction upon the university to call her for counseling for admission to the B.Ed course 2013-14 in Bengali under the University of Burdwan. 6. The petitioner, in other words, has alleged discrimination by the university authorities in not calling her to the fifth counseling. 7. The Burdwan University’s stand on the other hand is very clear. At the time of issuing the notification it was mentioned that 5 per cent. seats of the fresh candidates in each college would be considered for candidates from other universities and this reservation was not subject specific. 8. 7. The Burdwan University’s stand on the other hand is very clear. At the time of issuing the notification it was mentioned that 5 per cent. seats of the fresh candidates in each college would be considered for candidates from other universities and this reservation was not subject specific. 8. A more specific defence taken by the university is that the last candidates for Bengali coming from other Universities were allotted in the fourth counseling for filling up the available vacancies. The grade point of the last selected candidate was 39.1850 which was above that of the petitioner and after the fourth counseling no seat was found vacant for some subjects including the one for which the petitioner had filed her application. 9. Insistence of the petitioner is that there was no question of preparation of two merit lists - one for the in-house candidates of the university and the other for the external ones. It was never given out in the information sheet that in respect of the fresh candidates subject-wise provisional list along with waiting list should be prepared on the basis of their grade points separately for the university. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents and after going through the materials on record I am of the view that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are not permissible in law. The specific stand of the university in the affidavit-in-opposition has not been specifically controverted by the writ petitioner in her reply. The most crucial determining factor warranted a factual denial by the petitioner. The respondents have very specifically argued that in the fifth counseling no candidate was called for Bengali and not a single candidate obtaining lesser marks than that of the petitioner was admitted. The petitioner has chosen not to controvert the statement very specifically and had left it severely isolated. Instead of alleging that the university had not disclosed how many seats were filled in and how many were still left vacant in the subject concerned, it was only expected that she would have furnished more specific particulars about the candidates who even after obtaining lesser marks than the petitioner were called for the fifth counseling. After all the onus lay on her to prove her case, particularly when she had alleged discrimination at the hands of the university authorities. 11. After all the onus lay on her to prove her case, particularly when she had alleged discrimination at the hands of the university authorities. 11. The petitioner’s allegation that it was never given out in the information sheet that two separate merit lists would be published is perhaps a misplaced one. That 5 per cent. seats would be kept reserved for external candidates was mentioned there in no uncertain terms. If the reservation is to be accepted then a combined list without indicating the reservations can never be published amalgamating both the in-house and external candidates which would have led to more chaos and confusion. Therefore, the offshoot of the allegation that the in-house candidates getting lesser marks than that of the petitioner had been admitted must equally fall through. Publication of different lists in respect of candidates belonging to different categories does not per se attract the vice of discrimination. Such difference between the two categories must be considered to be based on a reasonable and intelligible differentia and in the given facts cannot be said to have been vitiated by any logical impropriety. That apart, the petitioner could not be considered for the list meant for the candidates from other universities. 12. A similar issue cropped up for consideration before this court in the case of Vidyasagar University and Another –Vs.- Tanmoy Mondal and Others (AST 163 of 2012). There also the Vidyasagar University kept a certain percentage of seats reserved for their own students for admission to any course of study conducted by the University. Regulation 9 of the University Grants Commission (Regulations of Admission and Fees in Private Non-aided professional Institutions) Regulations, 1997 specifically provided that in case admission to a course of study is not based on a common entrance examination admission shall be given on the basis of such other criteria as may be determined by the competent authority which certainly includes the University. In that case also it was contended by the petitioners that those external who had secured more marks than many of the students of the Vidyasagar University had been left out. By a judgment and order dated June 19, 2012 a Division Bench while allowing the appeal had inter alia held that there was nothing on record that within the same category students have been discriminated inter se. By a judgment and order dated June 19, 2012 a Division Bench while allowing the appeal had inter alia held that there was nothing on record that within the same category students have been discriminated inter se. In other words, a more meritorious student has not been discriminated against anybody within the same group for which he qualified and comparison of merit between the candidates falling in different categories is an unjust and improper consideration. 13. The ratio decided in that case squarely applies to the facts of the present one. 14. That apart, the petitioner must have been although keenly aware that five per cent. seats were kept reserved for candidates from other universities. This was very specifically provided in the notification and the petitioner did fill up a separate form which was meant for candidates coming from the universities. This was also very clearly mentioned in the writ petition. After this, she cannot be heard on the alleged differential treatment by the University. 15. In view of what has been discussed above and particularly in the context of the very specific stand taken by the university that there was no fifth counseling for Bengali I find no merit in the writ petition. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. 17. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.