JUDGMENT : The petitioner who appeared in the Post Graduate Entrance Test 2016 in the open category for the admission to the Post Graduate Course under the respondent No.1, has by means of this writ petition challenged the selection and nomination of the respondent No.4 for admission to the Post Graduate Course in General Medicine in Tripura Medical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, the respondent No.1 herein and her consequent admission to the open category Post Graduate seat in General Medicine in the said college for the session 2016-17. It has been urged further in the writ petition that the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 be directed to select, nominate and admit the petitioner to the said PG seat for General Medicine on the basis of his merit position in the Post Graduate Entrance Test 2016 by way of conversion of seat of the petitioner from ENT to General Medicine. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case is that, both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 amongst others appeared in the Post Graduate Entrance Test 2016 in open category for admission to Post Graduate Courses under the respondent No.1. It is undisputed that from the result that has been published on 15.02.2016 it surfaced that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 secured merit positions No.3 and 4 respectively. As per the procedure adopted and declared by the Information Brochure cum Prospectus the following seats were supposed to be allotted by the respondent No.1 from the open category: (i) General Medicine -1 (ii) Pharmacology -1 3. It is not disputed that in the first counselling held on 08.04.2016 there was no qualified sponsored candidates for two seats in Pathology and ENT. Resultantly those were allotted to the open category candidates namely Sutanuka Khasnabish [who was in the merit position No.1 in the open category] and to the petitioner [who was, as stated, in the merit position No.3]. The open category seat in General Medicine was allotted to Dr. Sutapa Das [who was in the merit position No.2]. The petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition has asserted in this context as under : “Although one PG Seat in Pharmacology in the st open category was available during the said counselling and the respondent No.4 was in order of merit entitled to the said seat but she did not accept the seat. The petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition has asserted in this context as under : “Although one PG Seat in Pharmacology in the st open category was available during the said counselling and the respondent No.4 was in order of merit entitled to the said seat but she did not accept the seat. The petitioner and other candidates who were allotted seat duly got admitted to their respective allotted seats. The petitioner got admitted to the PG seat in ENT 15.04.2016 (sic. on 15.04.2016).” 4. Thereafter Dr. Sutapa Das who was allotted the open seat in General Medicine surrendered her seat, but without convening 2nd counselling for allotment of the said seat for General Medicine the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 allotted the said seat to the respondent No.4 who earlier did not accept the allotted seat for Pharmacology . According to the petitioner, he has right to selection, nomination and admission to the said open category seat for General Medicine in order of merit. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said selection, nomination and admission of the respondent No.4. 5. The respondent No. 1 to 4 by filing separate counter affidavits have controverted the claim of the petitioner and stated that the respondent No.4 appeared in the 1st counselling and she was offered the seat in pharmacology, but she denied to accept the seat and surrendered the seat in time on 16.04.2016. On 28.04.2016 the respondent No.4 made a request to allot her a seat in General Medicine as she was at the top of the merit list amongst the candidates in the waiting list. She was allotted the vacant seat in General Medicine as per decision of the Chairman, Permanent Admission Committee (PAC) admittedly without convening the 2nd counselling . The respondent No.4 got admitted on 02.05.2016. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 have stated as under : “4. That, in reference to the averments / allegation/grievance made in para 8 by the petitioner, it may be stated that, in 1st round of counselling the petitioner accepted the seat in ENT and has got also admitted in time. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 have stated as under : “4. That, in reference to the averments / allegation/grievance made in para 8 by the petitioner, it may be stated that, in 1st round of counselling the petitioner accepted the seat in ENT and has got also admitted in time. As he has not declined to accept or surrendered the seat allotted to him and took admission in the said seat on 15.04.2016 i.e. before the fixed last date for joining of candidates in allotted seats during 1st round of conselling, questin does not arise to give him opportunity if vacancy arises. On the other hand, SL. No.4 (Dr. Sonali Bhowmik) denied acceptance of the allotted seat in 1st round of counselling (in Pharmacology) and made request to conduct allotting her a seat, if available in Medicine and hence, the available seat (vacant) in General Medicine was allotted to her. In this context, it may also to be submitted that Dr. Laxman Bhattacharjee, the petitioner, who has got admission on the basis of his option exercised by him at the time of 1st round counselling held on 8.04.2016 and took admission on 15.04.2016 in the discipline of ENT and other candidates as per merit list who exercised their option in the 1st round counselling and got admitted on 15.04.2016 cannot ask for re-opening of entire admission process every time whenever a seat falls vacant. Dr. Sonali Bhowmik did not take admission in Pharmacology and so when a seat in Medicine falls vacant [sic. fell vacant] she applied for the same. Considering her merit position she has been admitted in Medicine. In the eye of law all discipline in Medical education carry equal value and importance. Dr. Sutanuka Khashnobis being at the top of the merit list opted for Pathology, not Medicine. The claim of Dr. Laxman Bhattacharjee, the petitioner is devoid of any merit.” 6. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the relevant clauses of Information Brochure cum Prospectus 2016-17 for Post Graduate Degree Course (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). It surfaces from Clause 5.4 that the selection will be made entirely on the basis of merit. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the relevant clauses of Information Brochure cum Prospectus 2016-17 for Post Graduate Degree Course (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). It surfaces from Clause 5.4 that the selection will be made entirely on the basis of merit. In clause 6, a table has been provided denoting the important dates for admission process for the academic session 2016-17 in the following manner: SL Itme Date 1. Availability of information Brochure cum Prospectus & Application form the College website or from the Office of the Principal, Tripura Medical College, Hapania, Agartala 15th January, 2016 2. Last date of receipt of complete Application form in the Office of the Principal, Tripura Medical College, Hapania, Agartala 30th January, 2016 3. Issue of Admit Card from the Office of the Principal, Tripura Medical College, Hapania, Agartala (to be collected in person) 10th February, 2016 4. Written Entrance Test (from P.M. to 3 P.M.) 12th February, 2016 5. Venue of the Entrance Test Tripura Medical College(Academic Building), Hapania, Agartala 6. Publication of result in College Notice Board & in College website By 15th February, 2016 7. 1st round of counselling and Admission By 10th April, 2016 8. Last date for oining the College and course 17th April, 2016 9. 2nd round of counselling for allotment of seat(s) from the waiting list By 26th April, 2016 10. Last date for oining of candidates in allotment of seats during 2nd round of Counselling 3rd May, 2016 11. 3rd round of Counselling for allotment of seat(s) from the waiting list By 27th May, 2016 12. Last date for oining of candidates in allotment of seats during 3rd round of Counselling 31st May, 2016 13. Commencement of academic session 1st June, 2016 7. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has also referred to the provision as made under Clause 7(iv) of the said Information Brochure cum Prospectus which reads as under: “iv) the allotment of seats once made will be firm and final.” Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has strenuously argued that if the respondent No.4 was allowed to surrender the allotment and was considered for selection and nomination for the Post Graduate Course in General Medicine, the petitioner ought to have been treated similarly and as the petitioner occupied the higher merit position, he should have been allotted the Post Graduate seat for General Medicine. The selection and nomination of the respondent No.4 are tainted by discrimination inasmuch as the procedure as adverted has been violated. That apart, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has right to conversion of seat till the last date of admission as notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI). A communication of the MCI dated 10.6.2016 has been placed before us. It appears that the last date was earlier declared on 08.06.2016 but the said date has been extended up to 16.06.2016. 8. At the very outset, the respondents in unison have raised a jurisprudential objection as to whether the petitioner has got the legal standing to question the action of the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 in respect of the selection and nomination of the respondent No.4. 9. In response to that objection, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has relied on the celebrated decision of the apex court in S.P. Gupta and Others vs President of India and Others, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 . According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, the apex court has broaden the conventional approach to locus standi and has laid down that : “14. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress. This is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. The leading case in S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. which this rule was enunciated and which marks the starting point of almost every discussion on locus standi is Ex parte Sidebotham (1980) 14 Ch D 458. The leading case in S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. which this rule was enunciated and which marks the starting point of almost every discussion on locus standi is Ex parte Sidebotham (1980) 14 Ch D 458. There the Court was concerned with the question whether the appellant could be said to be a 'person aggrieved' so as to be entitled to maintain the appeal. The Court in a unanimous view held that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the appeal because he was not a 'person aggrieved' by the decision of the lower Court. James, L. J. gave a definition of 'person aggrieved' which, though given in the context of the right to appeal against a decision of a lower Court, has been applied widely in determining the standing of a person to seek judicial redress, with the result that it has stultified the growth of the law in regard to judicial remedies. The learned Lord Justice said that a 'person aggrieved' must be a man "who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something." Thus definition was approved by Lord Esher M. R. in In Re Reed Bowen & Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 and the learned Master of the Rolls made it clear that when James L. J. said that a person aggrieved must be a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully refused him of something, he obviously meant that the person aggrieved must be a man who has been refused something which he had a right to demand. There have been numerous subsequent decisions of the English Courts where this definition has been applied for the purpose of determining whether the person seeking judicial redress had locus standi to maintain the action. It will be seen that, according to this rule, it is only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest who can bring an action for judicial redress. It will be seen that, according to this rule, it is only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest who can bring an action for judicial redress. Now obviously where an applicant has a legal right or a legally protected interest, the violation of which would result in legal injury to him, there must be a corresponding duty owed by the other party to the applicant. This rule in regard to locus standi thus postulates a right-duty pattern which is commonly to be found in private law litigation. But, narrow and rigid though this rule may be, there are a few exceptions to it which have been evolved by the Courts over the years." [Emphasis supplied] 10. Thus Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has contended that the petitioner has suffered legal injury having not been considered in the 2nd counselling for the Post Graduate seat for General Medicine in the open category. Even there had been no 2nd counselling for the said seat. However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that the 2nd counselling for admission of one seat of MD Pharmacology as 11. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner did not suffer any legal injury whatsoever. The injury as projected is pretentious or imaginary. Only the candidates who were in the waiting list was entitled to be considered for the PG Seats available subsequent to the 1st counselling and the selection was to be made strictly in order of merit. It would be apparent from the memorandum dated 19.04.2016 that the petitioner got admission and he was directed to joined the course on 01.05.2016 in the concerned department. The writ petitioner has clearly admitted that on the basis of the allotment made to the petitioner after the 1st counselling held on 08.04.2016 he took admission on 15.04.2016 and hence he cannot and could not be in the waiting list. From the Information Brochure it can be clearly had that the 2nd round of counselling was declared to be held for allotment of seats “from the waiting list”. From the Information Brochure it can be clearly had that the 2nd round of counselling was declared to be held for allotment of seats “from the waiting list”. With the admission of the petitioner he cannot expect even remotely to be in the waiting list for purpose of participating in the 2nd counselling or for purpose of consideration against the seats those might be available subsequently. Thus the petitioner had no right for consideration in the 2nd counselling or otherwise and hence there was no legal injury for him to wield the legal standing for approaching surrendered by the respondent No.4 was duly held on 18.05.2016. But the petitioner was not, as it appears, interested in that counselling. 11. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner did not suffer any legal injury whatsoever. The injury as projected is pretentious or imaginary. Only the candidates who were in the waiting list was entitled to be considered for the PG Seats available subsequent to the 1st counselling and the selection was to be made strictly in order of merit. It would be apparent from the memorandum dated 19.04.2016 that the petitioner got admission and he was directed to joined the course on 01.05.2016 in the concerned department. The writ petitioner has clearly admitted that on the basis of the allotment made to the petitioner after the 1st counselling held on 08.04.2016 he took admission on 15.04.2016 and hence he cannot and could not be in the waiting list. From the Information Brochure it can be clearly had that the 2nd round of counselling was declared to be held for allotment of seats “from the waiting list”. With the admission of the petitioner he cannot expect even remotely to be in the waiting list for purpose of participating in the 2nd counselling or for purpose of consideration against the seats those might be available subsequently. Thus the petitioner had no right for consideration in the 2nd counselling or otherwise and hence there was no legal injury for him to wield the legal standing for approaching this court. Thus the petitioner had no right for consideration in the 2nd counselling or otherwise and hence there was no legal injury for him to wield the legal standing for approaching this court. That apart, even if, had there been the counselling, the respondent No.4 and none other would have been selected and nominated for the Post Graduate seats in General Medicine in terms of the merit position inasmuch as amongst the wait-listed candidates, the respondent No.4 was at the top of the merit list. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that on availability of every vacant seat after the 1st counselling, the entire process cannot be reopened allowing participation of the candidates who have been selected, nominated and admitted in terms of the allotments made in the 1st counselling . No institution can invite the chaos by following a wholly illogical method as suggested by the petitioner. According to Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in view of the scheme as followed by the respondent No.1 there would have been further fall out for the petitioner in view of Clause 9 where inter alia it has been provided that : “No admission shall be allowed without deposit of Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.20(twenty) lakhs. In case a seat is vacated while pursuing the PG degree Course the candidate shall have to pay Rs.20.00 lakhs (Rs. Twenty lakhs). For this the candidate has to submit the said Bank Guarantee of the like amount at the time of admission to realize the amount. In case a candidate fails to pay fees while continuing the course the Bank Guarantee shall be available for realization of fees.” We would like to note that this submission is peripheral to the issue and we are not inclined to extend any consideration to that aspect in the context of this case. 12. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, while adopting substantively the submission made by Mr. Datta Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has emphasised that there is no element of discrimination in the impugned action inasmuch as the petitioner clearly belongs to a different class and the respondent No.4 belongs to the class of the wait-listed candidates. Datta Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has emphasised that there is no element of discrimination in the impugned action inasmuch as the petitioner clearly belongs to a different class and the respondent No.4 belongs to the class of the wait-listed candidates. The right to be considered against available seat in the 2nd counselling or otherwise is strictly confined to the wait-listed candidates. Other than the wait-listed candidates none has any right for consideration for a seat available after the 1st counselling. The petitioner himself has admitted that the respondent No.4 surrendered her seat by not accepting the allotment and hence she was fit to be considered for having allotment against the PG seat that was available subsequent to the 1st counselling. The petitioner lacks in the legal standing to maintain this writ petition as there is no injury to say least of the legal injury. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the substantial question that falls for our consideration is that whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain this writ petition or not. 14. It is well settled principle that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of any violation of legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically in disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain the application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons , in the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons. The petitioner himself has stated that he has taken admission in the Post Graduate seat for ENT and as such, he cannot claim any right which is exclusive for the candidates in the waiting list. 15. We are in agreement with the submission made by Mr. The petitioner himself has stated that he has taken admission in the Post Graduate seat for ENT and as such, he cannot claim any right which is exclusive for the candidates in the waiting list. 15. We are in agreement with the submission made by Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 that the petitioner belongs to a distinct class and he cannot urge for treating his status with those seeking admission in the PG course were in the waiting list. Hence there is no substance in the allegation of discrimination. As corollary we must hold that the petitioner does not have any legal standing inasmuch as he did not have any right for consideration in the 2nd counselling or otherwise neither has he suffered any legal injury. 16. Having held thus, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.