1. The writ petition filed by the respondent against refusal of admission to her for LLM course succeeded before the learned Single Judge who found that the petitioner was qualified and entitled to admission. An appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench a plea appears to have been raised that there were other women candidates who ranked higher in the merit list than the writ petitioner. The Division Bench repelled the plea and noticed that "no material had been placed on the record" to show that there were other women candidates who had ranked higher in the merit list than the writ petitioner. By its order dated 13-2-1996 the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench, however, did not express any opinion on the question of reservation of seats for non-locals and the manner of the distribution of 15% of these seats.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, in this appeal by special leave, submits that material had been placed before the Division Bench to show that there were other women candidates who had higher rank in the merit list and in support of the plea he refers to the memo of appeal filed in the High Court.

3. We are afraid the conclusiveness of the record as reflected in the judgment of the High Court cannot be assailed through a special leave petition. Since the High Court has recorded that "no material had been placed on the record", it appears that despite what was stated in the memo of appeal, no material had been brought to the notice of the Court concerning the comparative ranking in the merit list of the writ petitioner and other women candidates. In any event, it is not permissible in this appeal to assail the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the fact recorded is incorrect. If that was so, the appellant ought to have filed a review petition in the High Court. Reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak 1982 ISC 36 and Apar (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 1991 SC 605 : 1991 (4) JT 61. No other point has been urged.

4. In the facts, as established before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and we are not inclined to interfere. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.