Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12890 of 2004 and 13907 of 2004. 2. The challenge in the present writ petitions is to the admission of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the MBBS/BDS Course for the year 2004-05 conducted on the basis of the entrance examination conducted by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. 3. The Health and Medical Education Department, Haryana assigned the task of conducting entrance examination for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the year 2004-05, to Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. In pursuance to the said direction, prospectus was issued by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, publishing the schedule for entrance examination. The said schedule contemplates the last date of receipt of application forms as 11.5.2005, date of entrance examination as 28.5.2004 and date of declaration of result as 15.6.2004. In pursuance of the said prospectus of the University, the petitioner in CPW No. 12890/2004 herein, appeared in the entrance examination as dependent of Ex-serviceman and secured 104.50 marks. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 13907 of 2004 obtained 118.50 marks in the entrance examination. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 also appeared in the entrance examination and they secured 97.75, 94.50 and 92.25 marks respectively, in the said examination. 4. There were 150 seats for admission to MBBS course and 60 seats for BDS course in the respondent No. 2-Institute. 50% of the total seats meant for the bona fide residents of Haryana, were reserved for Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Physically Handicapped categories for the admission in various Government/Government aided/Self Financing Colleges/Institutes located in Haryana. Chapter-V of the Prospectus deals with Reservation and Distribution of Seats for the above reserved categories. It is stipulated in Note-I thereof that if the seats reserved for physically handicapped remain unutilized due to non-availability of suitable candidates of handicapped category, then 1% of those seats shall be offered to the Ex-servicemen and their wards and 1% to the dependents of Freedom Fighters. It is also contemplated therein that the reservation policy is subject to revision/ State Government decision and the same as applicable on the last date of submission of admission form, shall be followed. It is also contemplated therein that the reservation policy is subject to revision/ State Government decision and the same as applicable on the last date of submission of admission form, shall be followed. Note-9 of the said Chapter-V, contemplates that the children/wards of Military personnel (including personnel of para-military forces), killed in action or permanently disabled in action and boarded out from the services or Ex-servicemen and their wards will be considered for reservation as Ex- servicemen and their wards. Appendix-G is the proforma certificate required to be given for deceased/disabled/discharged military/para-military personnel, serving military personnel, Ex-servicemen/ Ex-personnel of para military forces. 5. In terms of the condition of the prospectus, first counselling was scheduled for August 9 & 10, 2004. Since certain seats in the physically handicapped category could not be filed up and remained unutilized, therefore, in terms of Note-1 of Chapter-V of the Reservation and Distribution of Seats, three seats fell to the share of Ex-servicemen. The petitioners in these two Civil Writ Petitions, though higher in merit, were not admitted against the seats of Ex-servicemen, but the candidates lower in rank in merit, such as respondent Nos. 4 & 6 were admitted. It is the admitted fact that respondent Nos. 4 & 6 were admitted in the category of Ex-servicemen on August 10, 2004. Respondent Nos.4 & 5 were admitted in respondent No. 2-Institute, in MBBS Course and respondent No.6 was admitted in respondent No.3-College, in BDS Course. Since the petitioners were not admitted against the seats meant for Ex-servicemen, the present writ petition was filed before this Court on August 23, 2004. 6. In the present writ petition, an ad-interim order was passed by this Court on August 27, 2004, permitting the petitioner to participate in the second counseling to be held on August 28, 2004, provisionally against the seats earmarked for the dependents of Ex-servicemen, as the candidates lower in rank in merit in the category of Ex-Servicemen, were admitted in preference to the petitioner. 7. The respondents have taken the stand in the written statement that while admitting the candidates under Ex-servicemen category, the criteria, as conveyed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health and Medical Education Department, on August 13, 2004 was followed. 7. The respondents have taken the stand in the written statement that while admitting the candidates under Ex-servicemen category, the criteria, as conveyed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health and Medical Education Department, on August 13, 2004 was followed. The said criteria contemplates the sons/daughters/wives and widows of the personnel killed in action should be admitted on first priority and then the sons/daughters/wives and widows of the personnel disabled in action and boarded out from service, and so on so forth. It was pointed out that respondent No. 4 fell in the category first priority of the said criteria, whereas, respondent Nos. 5 & 6 fell under second Priority of the said criteria, therefore, they are admitted in preference to the petitioners. It may be noted that said criteria was circulated on August 13, 2004, whereas the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were admitted on August 10, 2004. 8. I have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 13907 of 2004. It has been argued that the criteria said to be adopted while making admission against the seats meant for Ex-servicemen, was circulated on August 13, 2004, whereas, the admissions were made on August 10, 2004, earlier to the circular. Still further, it has been pointed out that the criteria, which was circulated, was in fact not meant for the seats reserved for Ex-servicemen, but in fact, it was meant for the seats meant for the wards of Defence Personnel as Government of India nominee. Since the admission to three seats of Ex-servicemen, which became available on account of non-utilized seats falling to the quota of physically handicapped category, it cannot be said that the said circular would be applicable in respect of such seats. 9. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the admissions were made in terms of the circular issued by the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, dated 9.6.2004, which contemplates the priority to the sons, daughters, wives and widows of personnel killed in action and so on. 10. 9. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the admissions were made in terms of the circular issued by the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, dated 9.6.2004, which contemplates the priority to the sons, daughters, wives and widows of personnel killed in action and so on. 10. In view of the respective stands of the parties, a short question which arises in the present writ petitions is "whether the admissions were required to be made in terms of the prospectus issued or the circular issued after the admission was made, can be relied upon even though the said circular is meant for Ex-servicemen seats as a nominee of Central Government." 11. I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in admitting the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in terms of the criteria circulated on August 13, 2004, is illegal and unjustified. The present writ petition was filed even before the second counseling was scheduled to be held on August 28, 2004 and after respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were admitted in the category of Ex-servicemen on August 10, 2004. Such averments in para No.7 of the writ petition are admitted by the official respondents in their written statement. Therefore, the circular dated August 13, 2004 could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of admission which was finalized on August 10, 2004. 12. Still further, the communication dated August 13, 2004, Annexure R-2, from the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of India, is based upon a communication received from the Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana. The said communication dated June 9, 2004 is in respect of the reservation of seats for the wards of Defence Personnel as Government of India nominee. There is one seat each meant for MBBS Course at Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak and in Government Dental College, Rohtak, for the Defence Personnel as nominee of Government of India. The said seat is distinct from the seats which are to be filled on account of non-utilization of seats of Physically handicapped category. The circular is applicable only to these two seats and none else. Therefore, the reliance on the circular Annexure R-2 read with Annexure R-3 is fully unjustified. The said seat is distinct from the seats which are to be filled on account of non-utilization of seats of Physically handicapped category. The circular is applicable only to these two seats and none else. Therefore, the reliance on the circular Annexure R-2 read with Annexure R-3 is fully unjustified. Since the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are part of the same category i.e. Dependents of Ex-servicemen and the petitioners are higher in merit than respondent Nos.4 to 6, the denial of admission of the petitioners is wholly arbitrary and cannot be justified. 13. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India, in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, 2002(4) SCT 444 : 2002(7) SCC 258, the admissions to MBBS/BDS are required to be finalized by the end of September each year. In pursuance of such direction, the Medical Council of India has issued a Circular on May 14, 2003, Annexure R-1, appended with the written statement filed by the Medical Council of India, to finalise the admissions by the end of September of each year. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be admitted to the session 2004-2005, though the petitioners were entitled to be admitted in the said academic session. This Court on May 17, 2006, on the application filed by the petitioners, has ordered that one seat each shall be reserved for the petitioner in MBBS course at Government College, Rohtak, for the session 2006-07. Therefore, while allowing the present writ petitions, the petitioners are directed to be admitted to MBBS/BDS Courses in order of their merit, as per the admission process of the year 2004, in the academic session 2006-07. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, if necessary, make way for the petitioners so that the meritorious candidates are granted admission in the academic session 2006-07. The petitioners would be required to pay as that fee which was required to be paid if the petitioners had been granted admission against 2004-05 course. 14. At this stage, the stand of the respondent No. 6 is that she has left the seat against which she was admitted for BDS course on August 10, 2004 and joined the M.M. Institute of Medical Science, Mullana in the third counseling held on September 29, 2004 in respect of which petitioners were not the candidates. 14. At this stage, the stand of the respondent No. 6 is that she has left the seat against which she was admitted for BDS course on August 10, 2004 and joined the M.M. Institute of Medical Science, Mullana in the third counseling held on September 29, 2004 in respect of which petitioners were not the candidates. The respondents shall keep this fact in consideration while finalizing the admission of the petitioners. 15. Since the petitioners have been wrongly deprived admission in the year 2004, it shall be open to the petitioners to claim suitable damages from the responsible person or authority, in accordance with law. 16. The writ petitions are thus allowed accordingly with costs of Rs. 20000/- in each case. Petitions allowed.