JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that he took admission in Post-Graduation (MDS) course in respondent No. 5 Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital pursuant to their advertisement Annexure-2 dated 24-5-2010 against seat reserved for State Quota for the Session 2010-11 and after the fee was also deposited by him on 28-5-2010, he was not permitted to attend classes after 22-6-2010 which compelled him to approach this Court. 2. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that once he has been given admission by the respondent No. 5 after an open advertisement being issued, the authorities cannot be held justified in substituting the petitioner by another candidate to whom the admission has now been offered on the basis of second counselling held on 23-25/6/2010 which has not been permitted by the Apex Court and the deadline for admission after 31st May of the year and, as such, no admission could have been made by either of the authorities thereafter and in such circumstances, discontinuing the petitioner to pursue his MDS course on the premise that admission has been made on merit-cum-preference against the seat reserved for the State Quota in second counselling held in June, 2010, is in clear contravention and defiance of the orders of the Supreme Court and the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 3. After the notice was served upon the respondents, it has come on record that the controversy regarding admission to such courses against All India Quota went up to the Supreme Court and taking note of the controversy arose, the time schedule relating to such admissions was re-scheduled by the Supreme Court which appears to be a one time measure adopted to meet out the exigency which arose in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 189/2010 and interim order was passed on 31-05-2010 pursuant to which the second counselling was held by the State of Rajasthan from 23/25-6-2010. 4. Mr. S. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. 4. Mr. S. P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submits that since the deadline was 31st May of the year regarding admission to MD/MS/MDS course and the seat remained vacant as such the respondent No. 5 took a bonafide decision that the seats should not be lapsed and to meet out the exigency, the advertisement was issued for admission into MD/MS/MDS course identifying the seats for Management and State quota with a clear stipulation that the admissions which are being offered against the State Quota are provisional and if any admissions are made by the State Authorities at a later stage, the applicants who have been admitted provisionally pursuant to their advertisement dated 24-05-2010, have to make a room for them and only after this undertaking was furnished by the petitioner, the admission was granted to him provisionally pursuant to which he deposited the requisite fee as well. 5. Counsel submits that immediately after the admission was made of the petitioner with the conditions stipulated, referred to supra, the State Government held second counselling on 23-25th June, 2010 and the remaining State Quota seats were allotted to the respective candidates in order of their merit-cum-preference and it was communicated to the respective educational institution by the Convener, PG Admission Board on 28-06-2010 pursuant to which the said State Quota seat in question herein was offered to one Ms. Geeta Verma who indisputably is much higher in merit qua the petitioner. 6. It has also been informed that the petitioner also participated in the second counselling, obviously for the reason that the State Quota seat could have been allotted to the candidates in order of merit in the second counselling and the petitioners' name also finds place in the waiting list of non-service dental candidates at No. 58 and there are almost 18 candidates above him in the order of merit who are also inclined to seek admission in MDS course but could not get admission as they were lower in order of merit. It also goes without saying that the admissions have to be made strictly in the order of merit even at any later stage. It also goes without saying that the admissions have to be made strictly in the order of merit even at any later stage. Even in the instant case, the admissions have been made by the State Authorities against the seats reserved for State Quota on the basis of second counselling held on 23/25-6-2010 strictly in order of merit and the candidate, to whom the admission was offered, is indisputably higher in order of merit and once the time schedule was re-scheduled by the Apex Court of which reference has been made by this Court supra, there appears to be no infirmity in the second counselling which appears to be held by the Government/State Authorities pursuant to the directives of the Apex Court. As already observed, it was a one time measure and the State Authorities are supposed to follow the time schedule as given by the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar's case, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65 , which is not supposed to be changed unless changed by the Supreme Court itself. 7. So far as the submission made by counsel for petitioner that once the petitioner was admitted by the respondent No. 5 after due advertisement of the vacancy, the later decision cannot be said to be fair in the eye of law, is without substance for the reason that the petitioner took admission with open eyes that the seat is reserved for State Quota and if any candidate at later stage is offered admission on the recommendations of the Convener, PG Admission Board in second counselling in order of merit, the petitioner has to make a room for him and such undertaking had already been offered by him at the time of his admission to the course and if the authorities have taken a decision not to continue the petitioner any further pursuant to second counselling held and the candidate being higher in order of merit is made available, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the respondents which may call for any interference. 8. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 8. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. However, the respondent No. 5 is directed to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner within a period of ten days by cheque/demand draft to the petitioner if appears in the office of the respondent No. 5 or it may be sent by registered post at his address which he has mentioned in his application form. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******