Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J.—This writ petition was filed initially with the prayer seeking quashing of notification No. 08-80PEE of 2015 dated 02.04.2015 to the extent it places the name of the petitioner below private respondent Nos.7 and 8 and to place the petitioner over and above the private respondents in the merit list, which prayer was subsequently amended with the following relief:— “(a) Certiorari, seeking to quash Notification No.08-BOPEE of 2015 dated 02.04.2015, to the extent it places the name of the petitioner below private respondents; (b) Certiorari, seeking to quash Notification No.11-BOPEE of 2015 dated 05.04.2015, to the extent it places the name of the petitioner below private respondents; (c) Certiorari, seeking to quash Notification No.15-BOPEE of 2015 dated 23.04.2015, to the extent it places the name of the petitioner at Sr. No.82 instead of 80 amongst sports category candidate; (d) Certiorari, seeking to quash Allotment of Discipline and Institution in MD/MS/PG Diploma, 2015 made by respondent No.2, to the extent, respondent No.7 was allotted MS ENT in Govt. Medical College, Srinagar and respondent No.8 was allotted MD Pathology in SKIMS, instead of the petitioner; (e) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to place the name of the petitioner over and above the private respondents, in the merit list and also in the list prepared for calling the category candidates for counseling and to call the petitioner for counseling prior to private respondents. (f) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to allot the petitioner MS-ENT at Srinagar instead of respondent NO.7 figuring at Sr. No.40 of list of allotment of discipline by placing petitioner over and above respondents No.7 & 8.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination (hereinafter called BOPEE) issued notification No. 01 of 2015 dated 08.01.2015 inviting applications for admissions to MD/MS/PG Diploma courses from MBBS passed candidates for the academic year 2015-2016. As per the notification, the candidates of the reserved categories were to be treated as one unit in terms of Rule 15 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 for the purposes of allotment of streams/institutions. The candidates of the reserved categories, who figured in open merit category by virtue of their higher merit were to be allotted steams/institutions in accordance with Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules, 2005. The candidates of the reserved categories, who figured in open merit category by virtue of their higher merit were to be allotted steams/institutions in accordance with Rule 17 of the Reservation Rules, 2005. The minimum qualifying marks in the entrance test for selection to postgraduate Degree and Diploma courses is 50% for open merit candidates and 40% for all other reserved category candidates. The open merit category seats were 65 percent and rests of the seats are for reserved categories in the following manner:— Scheduled Casts (SC) 4% Scheduled Tribes (ST) 5% Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Weak and Under Privileged Classes/Social Castes (OSC) 01 % Residents of Backward Area (RBA) 10% Residents of Area Adjoining Actual Line of Control(ALC) 02% Children of Defense Personnel/Military Forces and State Police Personnel(CDP) 02% Candidates possessing outstanding proficiency in sports (SP) 01% Open merit category other than item (1) above who have served for a minimum period of 5 years in Rural Areas(RS) 10% 3. The petitioner, being a sports category person, he applied for admission to Postgraduate Courses under the said category. The entrance examination was conducted on 15.03.2015 and the merit list was published on 02.04.2015. The petitioner’s name figured at Serial No.400 in the merit list, having secured 162 marks out of 297 as three questions were not correctly framed. On 05.04.2015 the counseling dates were announced whereby 241 candidates in open merit category were called to appear in the counseling for allotment of course from 13.04.2015 to 15.04.2015 and 89 reserved category candidates were called to appear in the counseling from 16.04.2015 to 17.04.2015. Two seats in MD/MS courses each were reserved for sports category and OSC category. The petitioner appeared in the counseling and he was selected for admission to PG Diploma course in Orthopedics in Govt. Medical College, Jammu. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were allotted MS ENT at Govt. Medical College, Srinagar and MD Pathology at SKIMS, Srinagar respectively. According to the petitioner, the seats were given to the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by ignoring the weightage in sports achievements as prescribed in Govt. Medical College, Jammu. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were allotted MS ENT at Govt. Medical College, Srinagar and MD Pathology at SKIMS, Srinagar respectively. According to the petitioner, the seats were given to the respondent Nos.7 and 8 by ignoring the weightage in sports achievements as prescribed in Govt. Order No. 1090-GAD of 2008 dated 14.08.2008 which states that weightage to the merit in the selection process which is to be worked out as per the formulae i.e., marks obtained in the entrance test divided by total marks and multiplied by 60 and 40% weightage to the sports achievement as per the criteria i.e. points obtained in the sports activities out of total points multiplied by 40. The contention of the petitioner is that, by applying the said calculation he would get 36.22 points and private respondents could secure only 34.93 and 34.73 points respectively. Therefore, giving PG Degree course to respondent Nos.7 and 8 and Diploma course to the petitioner is improper and consequently the petitioner has filed this writ petition in which one of his prayer is to allot him MS ENT at Govt. Medical College, Srinagar instead of 7th respondent figuring at Sr. No.40 of the list of allotment of disciplines by placing the petitioner over and above respondent Nos.7 and 8. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have justified the admissions given to petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 in their objections, stating that out of total 271 seats notified, 3 seats i.e. two seats in Post Graduate Degree and one seat in PG Diploma course are available to the sports category for academic year 2015-16. The petitioner secured 36.23 marks, whereas respondent Nos.7 & 8 have secured higher marks in the entrance examination than the petitioner under the sports• category. It is further explained that highest ranking candidates in the sports category were identified including the petitioner and they were pooled along with other candidates belonging to reserved categories for the purpose of allotment of seats in terms of Rules 15 of the Reservation Rules 2005. It is not permissible to add second time the sports points to his percentage, as claimed, and to further invoke the formula of 60% + 40%. It is not permissible to add second time the sports points to his percentage, as claimed, and to further invoke the formula of 60% + 40%. Only because of the proviso attached to Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Certification of Outstanding Proficiency in Sports Rules, 2008 the petitioner is selected for Diploma in Orthopeadics and he is now pursuing his PG Diploma Course in Orthopedic in Govt. Medical College, Jammu. It is further stated that once the petitioner and other three candidates are treated as a separate sports category candidates, by applying Rule 3, candidates possessing higher marks in the written examination were given allotment of seats and the petitioner being lower in merit position in written test when compared to respondent Nos.7 & 8, he was rightly given P. G. Diploma course, which he has joined and is undergoing for the last over one and a half year and as such there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. The respondent NO.8 has filed a separate counter affidavit, contending that petitioner’s rank being 400 and the 8th respondent’s rank being 332, the selection given to the 8th respondent in MD Pathology is perfectly legal as per the norms fixed by the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 framed by Medical Council of India. It is the contention of the 8th respondent that as per the above Regulations, 2000, every institute shall adopt the selection criteria as fixed by the Medical Council of India which mandates selection of PG Medical courses strictly on the basis of inter se merit obtained by the candidates in the entrance examination/competitive examination. The contention of the petitioner that marks obtained in sports activities should be preferred than the marks secured in the entrance examination/ competitive test is impermissible as for admission to the postgraduate medical education courses the marks of the candidates secured in the written test, if ignored by giving credit to some other criteria, same would be violative of “The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000”. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 heavily relied on a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP and Others) in support of his contention. He also argued that the cutoff date for admission was over by 31.05.2015, hence in any event the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. He also argued that the cutoff date for admission was over by 31.05.2015, hence in any event the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. Heard the arguments of the respective learned counsels, considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings. 7. The petitioner is seeking admission to Postgraduate Medical degree course for the academic year 2015-2016. The said academic year is over and we are in the academic year 2016-17. As per Regulation No. 9 of “The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000” and in particular sub- Regulation 3, the cut off dates are mentioned for completing the admissions to Postgraduate Medical Courses and Super Speciality Courses and for commencement of courses and there is a prohibition in admitting students after the cutoff date. The said Sub-Regulation 3 of the Regulation 9 reads thus:— “[(3)(i) The Universities and other authorities concerned shall organize admission process in such a way that teaching in post-graduate courses starts by 2nd May and by 1st August for super speciality courses each year. For this purpose, they shall follow the time schedule indicated in Appendix-III. (ii) There shall be no admission of students in respect of any academic session beyond 31st May for post-graduate courses and 30th September for super speciality courses, under any circumstances. The Universities shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date. (iii) The Medical Council of India may direct, that any student identified as having obtained admission after the last date for closure of admission, be discharged from the course of study, or any medical qualification granted to such a student shall not be a recognized qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956)”... 8. On a perusal of Sub Regulation 3 (ii) of Regulation 9, it is evident that admission of students for P.G. courses in Medical Courses shall be completed on or before 31st May of the relevant academic session. In this case all admissions were completed by 31st of May, 2015. Hence the petitioner’s prayer to grant him admission to P.G. Degree Course instead of Diploma course for the academic year 2015-2016 at this point of time is not maintainable in view of the statutory bar contained in Regulation 9 (3) (ii). In this case all admissions were completed by 31st of May, 2015. Hence the petitioner’s prayer to grant him admission to P.G. Degree Course instead of Diploma course for the academic year 2015-2016 at this point of time is not maintainable in view of the statutory bar contained in Regulation 9 (3) (ii). Further, based on the marks secured by the petitioner in the academic session 2015-2016 he cannot be ordered to be given admission to the subsequent year/session, i.e., 2016-2017 as the merit position varies year after year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 34 (Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jasmine Kaur and Others) considered the said two issues and in paragraph 30 answered thus:— “(1) The schedule relating to admissions to the professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted. (2) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone. (3) If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the Institution/Authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope of granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimized for no fault of his/her and the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.” 9. In the said judgment it is further held that granting admission in the subsequent year by exercising equity jurisdiction will be prejudicial to the interest of other eligible candidates of the subsequent year whose rights came to be crystallized based on the process of selection made for the subsequent year. In the said judgment it is further held that granting admission in the subsequent year by exercising equity jurisdiction will be prejudicial to the interest of other eligible candidates of the subsequent year whose rights came to be crystallized based on the process of selection made for the subsequent year. In the said judgment, Hon’ble the Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, giving direction to give admission to a candidate in the subsequent academic year in MBBS course. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage argued that even if admission cannot be granted to the petitioner due to expiry of last date, this Court can order compensation to the petitioner who is denied admission illegally. 11. It is not in dispute that in PG degree medical courses for the session 2015-2016, two seats are to be filled up from sports category and one seat has to be filled in diploma course. Once the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 & 8 are treated as sports category candidates then for allotment of seats their inter se merit shall be based on the marks obtained in the entrance examination alone. Admittedly the petitioner’s rank in the entrance test is 400, whereas the rank of 7th and 8th respondent is 320 and 332 respectively. Thus, the selection given to 7th respondent based on his ranking in the entrance examination for MS ENT course and to the 8th respondent for MD Pathology course is just and proper. 12. The procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent in giving admission to respondent Nos.7 and 8 is in tune with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India i.e., The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. 12. The procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent in giving admission to respondent Nos.7 and 8 is in tune with the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India i.e., The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. In Regulation No.9, it is stated that students for Postgraduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their inter se academic merit and in Sub Regulation (ii), it stated that for determining the “Academic Merit” the University/Institution Universities may adopt the following methodology:— “(a) On the basis of merit as determined by a ‘Competitive Test’ conducted by the state government or by the competent authority appointed by the state government or by the university/group of universities in the same state; or (b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralized competitive test held at the national level; or (c) On the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations provided admissions are University wise; or (d) Combination of (a) and (c):” 13. On a perusal of the said Regulation 9 (ii), it is evident that admissions are to be made to Postgraduate Medical Courses strictly on the basis of inter se academic merit which shall be determined either on the basis of competitive test or the marks in MBBS examination or combination of both. Here the 3rd respondent has considered the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 as sports category candidates and their inter se merit was determined on the basis of marks secured in entrance examination. The said procedure adopted is not only in tune with the Regulation of 2000 but also in terms of the Constitution Bench decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 [Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and Others]. In the said case it is held that admission to Postgraduate medical courses must be made on the basis which is consistent with the standards laid down in statute or Regulations framed by the central government in exercise of powers under Entry 66 List I and the State Government can lay down additional norms for admission or can regulate the admission in exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down. In this case the Central Statute, namely, Medical Council of India having framed the Regulations in exercise of its powers vested under Section 33 read with Rule 20 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, as stated supra, the same alone will prevail over the norms prescribed by the State for admission to the postgraduate medical degree courses. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 3841 ( State of U. P. and ors v. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan) held that Regulations, namely, The Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a self contained code and the State Government has no authority to issue Government Order to provide admission to the contrary. Same is explained in paragraph 23 of the said judgment, though its relates to admission to Postgraduate medical courses in service category. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Government Order issued by the Government of Kerala reserving 50% of the seats in the Postgraduate Medical Courses for in-service candidates who have completed three years of service in remote and difficult areas. It is held that Regulation 9 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a provision mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the merit list of eligible candidates for the respective medical courses in the State. The provision contained in the proviso states that in determining the merit of the candidates who are in service of the Government or a public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government! Competent Authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the State up to maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. It is held that this provision even if read liberally does not provide for reservation for in-service candidates but only of giving a weightage in the form of incentive marks. Thus the reservation made for in- service candidates was found to be illegal by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Further, in the decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP and others), cited supra, it is categorically held that even though reservation is permissible, within the reserved categories inter se merit shall be calculated based on the entrance examination marks. 15. Further, in the decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP and others), cited supra, it is categorically held that even though reservation is permissible, within the reserved categories inter se merit shall be calculated based on the entrance examination marks. 15. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case even for grant of compensation as there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent in giving weightage to the marks secured in the entrance examination and giving admission to respondent Nos.7 and 8 in their respective postgraduate degree courses. There is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.