Siddharth Mridul, J. - (1.)The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays as follows:
"a. issue a direction, order or writ, including a writ in the nature of mandamus against the Respondent, and /or direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in counselling session and subsequently give admission to the petitioner in the current academic session without any further delay.

b. quash the admission process and issue direction to the respondents to reschedule the counselling process and consider the candidature of the petitioner for the counselling session in accordance with law."

(2.)The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are briefly encapsulated as under:
a. On 27.07.2017, the petitioner applied for writing the entrance exam in two different trades, i.e. Sewing Technology and Surface Ornamentation Technique, respectively, conducted by the Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (official respondent herein).

b. The petitioner received an admit card bearing registration number-2017CISO14787 to write the exam for the Surface Ornamentation Technique trade and accordingly, appeared in the exam conducted by the official respondent on 13.08.2017.

c. The petitioner is stated to have obtained 60% marks in the general category and secured the 31st rank.

d. The petitioner is aggrieved by the circumstance that the official respondent did not invite her for any of the counselling sessions held for admission to the Surface Ornamentation Technique trade, although, students who had secured lower marks had been so invited.

e. It is an admitted position that the official respondent vide its email dated 24.09.2017, informed the petitioner that she had been allotted Sewing Technology trade, instead of the Surface Ornamentation Technique trade, as per her own request.

f. The official respondent further elaborated that the registration number issued to her was a unique number and remains constant and did not change, for either of the two options she had applied for. It was, however, pointed out that if she had written the examination for Surface Ornamentation Technique trade, the same was illegal, in view of her own request.

(3.)A perusal of the record and in particular, Annexure R-4 annexed to the official respondent's affidavit clearly and unequivocally reflects that the petitioner was included in the list of candidates invited for counselling in the second round for admission to Sewing Technology trade.