JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is admitted. The contesting respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. Rajendra Soni, advocate. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the appeal, we dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. 2. Rimjhim Shrimal (here-in-after referred to, 'the petitioner') appeared in the Entrance Tests conducted by the Maharishi Dayanand University (for short, 'M.D.S. University') for admission to medical and dental Courses in various colleges in the State of Rajasthan on 9th May, 2005, 10th May, 2005 and 11th May, 2005. 3. It appears that the examinations were held for Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects and the results were declared on 22nd May, 2005 on Internet and published in the news papers on 23rd May, 2005. The petitioner was successful. However, the controversy arose with regard to wrong key answers in all the three subjects. Quite a few candidates challenged the same before this court. Amongst them, one of them was the petitioner and the other Manish Ujwal. The matter of Manish Ujwal went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5077/2005 from the judgment of the Division Bench of this court affirming the judgment of the Single Judge holding that the key answers cannot be said with certainty to be erroneous and incorrect. The Supreme Court decided the appeal of Manish Ujwal on 16th August, 2005 holding thus: "11. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, one say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reasons. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reasons. The Supreme Court mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the Courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case. 12. The second counselling for the admission above-mentioned one is informed, is fixed from 25th August, 2005, onwards. The Supreme Court direct re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding correct answers, as above noticed, and on that basis correct number of marks obtained by all the students should be assigned and their ranking prepared. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three days from today. List so prepared shall be put on internet soon thereafter as also be published in the newspapers wherein it was earlier published. The second counselling and admissions hereinafter in the medical and dental courses in the State of Rajasthan in Government colleges as also in the private colleges insofar as the State quota is concerned would be made on the basis of ranking as per the List which will now be prepared by the University pursuant to the directions of this Court. The merit list shall be prepared for the same number of students as it was prepared earlier while declaring the results on 22nd/23rd May, 2005." 4. The merit list shall be prepared for the same number of students as it was prepared earlier while declaring the results on 22nd/23rd May, 2005." 4. The petitioner's writ petition was disposed of by the Single Judge on 24th August, 2005 in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ujwal (supra). 5. Consequent upon the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ujwal, the re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding correct answers took place and on that basis correct number of marks obtained by the students (including the petitioner) was assigned and their ranking prepared. As a consequence of this exercise, the petitioner's rank which earlier stood at 31st was improved to 26th. Despite the new ranking, the petitioner's place of admission was not changed in as much as the allotment of J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer to her was not disturbed, though as per her new rank, according to the petitioner, she was entitled to the admission in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. 6. This compelled the petitioner to approach this court again by filing a fresh writ petition (7449/2005) praying for direction to the present appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 to admit her at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur in M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of her new merit of RPMT- 2005. 7. The writ petition was contested by the present appellant and the respondent No. 2. 8. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant and the respondent No. 2 to give admission to the petitioner in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur if any seat was lying vacant and if no seat was vacant, these respondents were given liberty to create one more seat to accommodate the petitioner. It is this order passed by the Single Judge on 17th November, 2005 which is challenged by the State Government in the present appeal. 9. It is true that for no fault of her, despite merit, the petitioner has not been able to secure admission in S.M.S. Medical College and that necessitated this court to give direction as afore-noticed. The question before us is: whether the direction given by the Single Judge in his order dated 17th November, 2005 is legal and proper. 10. 9. It is true that for no fault of her, despite merit, the petitioner has not been able to secure admission in S.M.S. Medical College and that necessitated this court to give direction as afore-noticed. The question before us is: whether the direction given by the Single Judge in his order dated 17th November, 2005 is legal and proper. 10. Having thoughtfully reflected over the matter and after giving due consideration to the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Single Judge cannot be sustained for more than one reason. 11. For one, the Single Judge over looked the observations and the clarification made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of its decision in Manish Ujwal wherein the Supreme Court clarified in un-mistakable and un-ambiguous terms that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admissions as a result of the first counseling on the basis of ranking given with reference to the results already declared. This is what the Supreme Court said in paragraph 9 of its judgment in the case of Manish Ujwal. "9. It seems that nearly thirty thousand students appeared in the examination held between 9th and 11th May, 2005. It was an entrance examination for admissions in the Government medical and dental colleges as also for fifty per cent State quota in the said disciplines in private colleges and not for the remaining management quota. On the basis of the results declared and ranking given, the first counselling for admission to the aforesaid courses in Government colleges and fifty per cent State quota in private colleges has already taken place. It is possible that the fresh evaluation by feeding correct key answers to the six questions may have adverse impact also on those who may have already secured admission on the basis of the results declared and ranking given by feeding incorrect keys in relation to these questions. It is possible that the fresh evaluation by feeding correct key answers to the six questions may have adverse impact also on those who may have already secured admission on the basis of the results declared and ranking given by feeding incorrect keys in relation to these questions. Though we are of the view that the appellants in particular and student community in general, whether one has approached the Court or not, should not suffer on account of demonstrably incorrect key answers but, at the same time, if the admissions already granted as a result of first counselling are disturbed, it is possible that the very commencement of the course may be delayed and the admission process for the courses may go beyond 30th September, 2005, which is the cut-off date, according to the time schedule in the Regulations and as per the law laid down by this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2005(2) SCC 65 . In this view, we make it clear that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admissions as a result of the first counselling on the basis of ranking given with reference to the results already declared." 12. Mr. Rajendra Soni, counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute that the first counselling took place in the period between 14th July to 16th July, 2005. He also did not dispute that in that counselling, the candidate (Ms. Rachna), who ranked 29th then, was given admission in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur while the petitioner who ranked 31st in that ranking was allotted J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer. Based on this, the candidate who held 29th rank joined the M.B.B.S. Course at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur before the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ujwal. In pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ujwal, before the second counselling, the exercise of re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding correct answer took place and on that basis, the petitioner's rank got improved from 31st to 26th but despite that as Supreme Court clarified, admission of then 29th rank holder could not have been disturbed. 13. For two, even otherwise the candidate who originally ranked 29th could not have been displaced without she being party to the writ petition. 13. For two, even otherwise the candidate who originally ranked 29th could not have been displaced without she being party to the writ petition. She has not been impleaded as party-respondent in the writ petition. 14. For three, no direction could have been issued by the Single Judge for creation of a new seat in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. The court passes an order or issues a direction for compliance of law and the statutory provisions. It never passes an order directing the authority to act in contravention of law. Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by over-riding all other provisions to the contrary, provides that no medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the section. 'Admission capacity' has been explained to mean, 'in relation to any course of study in a medical college the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Medical Council of India from time to time for being admitted to such course or training'. It is, thus, not open for the S.M.S. Medical College to increase its admission capacity de-hors the provisions contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Central Government has not accorded any permission to S.M.S. Medical College to increase its admission capacity nor the procedure prescribed for increase of its admission capacity has been followed. The direction by the Single Judge to the S.M.S. Medical College to create one more seat to accommodate the petitioner cannot be legally sustained being contrary and inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rajendra Soni counsel for the respondent No. 1 did not dispute this position and, therefore, his focus was that the petitioner was seeking admission on the basis of her merit pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment in the case of Manish Ujwal. However, as noticed above, this argument over-looks the clarification made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admission as a result of the first counselling. 15. Mr. Bharat Vyas submitted, and to that there was no challenge by Mr. However, as noticed above, this argument over-looks the clarification made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admission as a result of the first counselling. 15. Mr. Bharat Vyas submitted, and to that there was no challenge by Mr. Rajendra Soni, that on the date the second writ petition was filed (i.e., 13th September, 2005) and the writ petition was decided by the Single Judge on 17th November, 2005, all the seats for admission in S.M.S. Medical College of the year 2005 had been filled. 16. In the circumstances, the order of the Single Judge dated 17th November, 2005 has to be set aside and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. 17. By way of foot-note, we record the statement of Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General that if any application is made by the petitioner for her transfer from J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer to S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur to the Medical Council of India, obviously, this litigation shall not be any impediment for the consideration of such application by the Medical Council of India.Appeal Allowed. *******