Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner prays for quashing of the allotment of seat in MDS Periodontics in Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘Institute’) which seat has been allocated to the fifth respondent Ms. Meetali Guleria. 2. The undisputed facts are that the Himachal Pradesh University conducted the entrance test for Postgraduate Degree in Masters of Dental Surgery Course (MDS) 2012-2014 in H.P. Government Dental College & Hospital Shimla, Himachal Dental College & Hospital Sundernagar, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Nalagarh and Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib. Out of these, the first institution is under the direct control of the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the last three are private institutions affiliated to the Dental Council of India. A total number of 30 seats in various courses was advertised. The entrance examination was conducted on 11th February, 2012. It is undisputed before me that the results were declared on 21.3.20012 and were displayed on the website as also by way of publication. The petitioner secured 29th rank and the fifth respondent Ms.Meetali Guleria 31st rank. The first counselling was held on 11th April, 2012 in which doctors at serial Nos. 1 to 28 on the merit list were admitted in order of merit. The petitioner and the fifth respondent were placed on the waiting list. It is also undisputed that no options of second preference etc. were called for from the selected students or from those on the waiting list. On 25th June, 2012 the second counselling was held on which date one seat of Prosthodontics (S.T. category) at Himachal Dental College and Hospital Sundernagar and one seat of Orthodontics (General category) at Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences Paonta Sahib become available. The seat in Prosthodontics was allotted to Dr. Kamal Kishor, who belongs to the S.C. category. In Orthodontics, the note of the proceedings of the Committee (Annexure:R2 to the writ petition) is that Dr. Tanuj Singh has surrendered the seat after joining. Dr. Sandeep Kumar attended the second counselling but did not opt for the course. Dr. Ruchi Sharma, who had opted for the seat during the 1st round of counseling in the specialty of Prosthodontics changed the speciality in 2nd counselling and opted for Orthodontics course. The petitioner, who was also present at this counselling was allocated Oral Pathology. Dr. Sandeep Kumar attended the second counselling but did not opt for the course. Dr. Ruchi Sharma, who had opted for the seat during the 1st round of counseling in the specialty of Prosthodontics changed the speciality in 2nd counselling and opted for Orthodontics course. The petitioner, who was also present at this counselling was allocated Oral Pathology. The date of this counselling was notified on All India Radio and by publication in Hindi and English news paper and on the Notice Board of the Medical College/Dental College as the counselling was also for the course in MD vacancies in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and Dr. Rajinder Parsad, Medical College, Tanda. At this session of counselling, the fifth respondent had submitted an application stating that if any seat is left vacant after 27th June, 2012, she would be ready and willing to take it. The application concludes “kindly inform me about the same”. Upto this point, there is no dispute between the parties. It is only subsequent thereto that the controversy arises. 3. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner herein is that the 3rd round for allocate ion of seats (wrongly described as counselling) which took place on 29.6.2012 was not in consonance with the conditions of the prospectus as it was not advertised/notified. At this counselling, the Director, Dental Health Services, Principal, H.P. Dental College, Shimla and Sh.D.C.Negi, Additional Director, DME, Shimla and Dr. Jaishree Sharma, DME-cum-Chairperson were present. The proceedings records that Dr. Akanksha Kanwar, who had secured 26th rank during the 1st round of counselling had opted for Periodontics at the Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib. She changed her allocated speciality from Periodontics to Prosthodontics and was allotted this course. Dr. Meetali Guleria fifth respondent was present at this counselling. The Committee decided to allow the change of speciality of Dr. Akanksha Kanwar and the consequential vacancy in Periodontics was allocated to Dr. Meetali Guleria, who was at serial No.1 in the waiting list. Letter dated 25th June, 2012 (Annexure:R-5/1) reads: “To The Chairman, Counselling Committee. Respected Madam, This is to bring to your kind notice that I had appeared for the second round of counselling held on 25th June, 2012. I am next candidate on the waiting list. If any seat is found vacant after 27th June, 2012, I am ready to take it. Kindly inform me about the same. Respected Madam, This is to bring to your kind notice that I had appeared for the second round of counselling held on 25th June, 2012. I am next candidate on the waiting list. If any seat is found vacant after 27th June, 2012, I am ready to take it. Kindly inform me about the same. Thanking you Yours faithfully Meetali Guleria. Dated: 25th June, 2012”. 4. At this juncture, it will be relevant to reproduce clause 5.1 of the Prospectus. Clause 5.1 provides: 5.1 The counselling will be held on dates mentioned in the prospectus as per the time schedule fixed by DCI/GOI based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The allotment of available seats to the eligible candidates will be made in order of merit drawn group-wise as well as category-wise by the Himachal Pradesh University on the date of counselling BY FOLLOWING 40 POINT RESERVATION ROSTER, 10 point roster for allotment of seats between HPHS in-service GDO (M.O.Dental) and Direct groups and 2 point roster for allotment of seats for Medical Officer (Dental) Regular and Medical Officer (Dental) Contract. All the qualifying candidates or their authorized representative will have to bring their original documents and form No.2 duly filled-in along with required documents at the time of counselling. NO SEPARATE COMMUNICATION WILL BE ISSUED TO THE CANDIDATES FOR ATTENDING THE COUNSELLING. The candidate not reporting for counselling as per schedule will forfeit their claim for admission without any further notice. No further opportunity will be given. Hence, appearance in the 1st round of counselling is mandatory for consideration of candidature for further counselling. Joining time is as per the schedule prescribed in the prospectus. The selected candidates will be required to join latest by 25.5.2012 failing which their candidature will be cancelled. The academic session will start from 31.5.2012. In case of any vacancy arising on or after 25.5.2012 (afternoon) and finally on 30.5.2012. The available vacancies will be filled-up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring the change of subject/speciality and thereafter from the waiting list. The interested candidates will report to the Principal HP. Govt. Dental College & Hospital Shimla at 10.00 AM on 31.5.2012 along with original documents and requisite fee. The available vacancies will be filled-up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring the change of subject/speciality and thereafter from the waiting list. The interested candidates will report to the Principal HP. Govt. Dental College & Hospital Shimla at 10.00 AM on 31.5.2012 along with original documents and requisite fee. No admission will be made after 31.5.2012 (including change of subject/speciality) and seats will remaining vacant will not be filled-up in compliance of directions of DCI/GOI as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Note: The candidate who brings incomplete certificates/documents including service certificate-cum-NOC as per provisions of the prospectus will be rejected without any notice there and then by the Counselling Committee.” 5. The only modification would be that 25th May, 2012 was to be read as 25th June, 2012 and 30th May, 2012 as 30th June, 2012, 31st May, 2012 becomes 2nd July, 2012. This is in consonance with the instructions issued by the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Annexure:R-1). The petitioner had deposited the fee on 26th June, 2012. It is undisputed that 26th June, 2012 was Tuesday. On 29th June, 2012 on which date the counselling (sic. meeting of the Committee for allocation of seats) was held, was Friday and courses were to commence w.e.f. 2nd July,2012 which was Monday. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits (a) that the 3rd round of counselling at which the committee met for allocation of seats was never notified in terms of the mandatory conditions of Clause 5.1 of the Prospectus. The least which was required was that it ought to have been displayed on the Notice Board of the College or some other conspicuous place. In support of her submission, she specifically relies upon Clause 5.1 which provides that the academic session will start from 31.5.2012 (2.7.2012). In case of any vacancy arising on or after 25.5.2012 (25.6.2012) for any reason, this vacancy will be displayed on the College Notice Board on the same date (in the afternoon) and finally on 30.5.2012 (30.6.2012). The available vacancies could be filled up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring change subjects/speciality and thereafter from the waiting list. In case of any vacancy arising on or after 25.5.2012 (25.6.2012) for any reason, this vacancy will be displayed on the College Notice Board on the same date (in the afternoon) and finally on 30.5.2012 (30.6.2012). The available vacancies could be filled up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring change subjects/speciality and thereafter from the waiting list. The candidates were directed to report to the Principal, H.P. Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla at 10 A.M. on 31.5.2012 (2.7.2012) (which according to the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent is to be read as 30th June, 2012 which is Saturday and not as 2nd of July, 2012) along with the original documents and requisite fee. No admission would be made after 31.5.2012 (2.7.2012) (including change of subject/speciality) and seats still remaining vacant will not be filled-up in compliance to directions issued by the Dental Council of India/Government of India as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. These conditions, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, have not been complied with (b) that the seat was never notified on 29th June, 2012 as admitted by the Principal of the Institute-fifth respondent. (c) that change in the preference of the course was permitted upto 30th May, 2012 (30.6.2012) as the courses were to commence from 31st May, 2012 (2nd July, 2012). 7. Submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 is that she has been vigilant as in the second counselling itself, when she had expressed her desire to be allocated any course/any speciality which was found available to be filled in before the last date. She was present at Shimla on the day of 3rd counselling when Dr. Akanksha Kanwar had sent a fax message expressing preference for joining Prosthodontics at the Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib. She states: “To The Director, Medical Education & Research Himachal Pradesh Kasumpti, Shimla-171009. Sub: Admission in MDS Course-2012. Respected Madam: I, Dr. Akanksha Kanwar, State PG (MDS) Rank26 (Direct general category) have joined MDS Course in Periodontics at HIDS Paonta Sahib in 1st counselling. I also attended 2nd Counselling in which I was offered Periodontics, Bhojia Dental College, Baddi. However, I did not opt for this as I already had the same discipline in HIDS, Paonta Sahib. Respected Madam: I, Dr. Akanksha Kanwar, State PG (MDS) Rank26 (Direct general category) have joined MDS Course in Periodontics at HIDS Paonta Sahib in 1st counselling. I also attended 2nd Counselling in which I was offered Periodontics, Bhojia Dental College, Baddi. However, I did not opt for this as I already had the same discipline in HIDS, Paonta Sahib. Now I have come to know that a seat in Prosthodontics in HIDS Paonta Sahib got vacant after 2nd counselling which has been allotted to candidate holding the 31st rank without any third Counselling. In this regard, I request you that I should have been given a chance to change my branch to Prosthodontics being the higher rank holder. Therefore, I request you to grant me justice as per the guidelines given in prospectus by providing me an opportunity to join Prosthodontics (HIDS, Paonta Sahib) and the seat vacated by me may be given to the 31st rank holder. I shall be thankful to you for this act of kindness. Sd/- (Akanksha Kanwar), D/o Dr. S.S.Kanwar, House No.19,Housing Board Colony- Holta, Palampur-176062 District Kangra (H.P.). Cc: The Registrar General, High Court of H.P. Shimla.” 8. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right for admission as she has been lax in pursuing the course. The second submission made on behalf of fifth respondent is that petitioner never submitted her option in the 1st or 2nd round of counselling. These are the points require determination by this Court in this writ petition. 9. Before proceeding with the case further, the genesis of the entire case is Annexure: R-3 which is a purported fax message received from Dr. Akanksha Kanwar by the first respondent. The annexure of the fax filed with the reply of the first two respondents as Annexure-III, does not contain the date and time of transmission or receipt. This fact would assume importance for the reason that it is on this very day that further proceedings vide Annexure: R-5 which is a meeting constituted consisting of Sh.D.C.Negi, Addl. Director, office of DME, Shimla, Dr. R.P.Luthra, Principal-cum-Member Secretary, H.P. Govt. Dental College, Shimla, Dr. Hem Lata Sud, Director Dental Health Services, Shimla and Dr. Jaishree Sharma, DME-cum-Chairperson Counselling Committee, H.P was held in the H.P. Dental College, Shimla on 29th June, 2012. Director, office of DME, Shimla, Dr. R.P.Luthra, Principal-cum-Member Secretary, H.P. Govt. Dental College, Shimla, Dr. Hem Lata Sud, Director Dental Health Services, Shimla and Dr. Jaishree Sharma, DME-cum-Chairperson Counselling Committee, H.P was held in the H.P. Dental College, Shimla on 29th June, 2012. Continuing with the facts, I notice that the file produced before this Court does not contain this fax message and the follow up action taken thereafter. I also find that though representation of the petitioner Annexure: P5 is admitted to have been received by the second respondent Director Medical Education (DME), yet it does not find place on the record. The emphasis of the respondents was that on the receipt of the fax message, immediate action had to be taken by the Director Medical Education (DME). 10. In Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and others, (2012) 7 S.C.C. 433 , the Court has laid down the guidelines which bind every Medical College/Dental College, Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India. The Court holds that in terms of the decision of Neelu Arora Vs. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 366 , no third counseling is permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. In this view of the matter, Annexure:R5 cannot be treated as a counselling and if it has been so treated by the respondents, it constitutes gross contempt of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. In Priya Gupta’s case supra, the Court holds: “46.6. All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ (2003) 3 SCC 366 ] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.” (P.451 & 452) 11. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ (2003) 3 SCC 366 ] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.” (P.451 & 452) 11. The Court has laid down an elaborate procedure for admission to the medical/dental colleges and the course of action to be followed in case of any vacancy which may occurs for change of speciality. It was directed that: 46. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned. 46.1 The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognized by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. 46.2 The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter. 46.3. After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in accordance with the Rules. 46.4. Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the concerned authority and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. 46.5. The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. 46.5. The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the state examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit. 46.6. All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ (2003) 3 SCC 366 ] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. 46.7. If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counseling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year. 46.8. No college may grant admissions without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. 46.9. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. 46.9. The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions” (P.451 & 452) 12. The conditions of the prospectus and the factual matrix regarding the first counselling and second counselling are undisputed but at the time when third purported counselling (meeting of the Committee) takes place, the dispute arises. 13. Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner as also the respondent No.5 on the legality of the course of action adopted by respondents No. 1 to 4 in allocating the seat of Prosthodontics which was vacated by Dr. Mani Sharma by a fax message sent to the Chairman, H. P. Institute of Dental Sciences with a copy to the Principal, H.P. Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla on 27.6.2012. To recapitulate, this is the date after the second counselling and it is the course of action in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta’s case (supra) which had to be followed by the respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions in the prospectus are mandatory and that it is Clause 5.1 which governs the allocation of vacancies arising up to the time of admission which have to be followed. It is undisputed that 31st May, 2012 will be read as 2nd July, 2012 on which date the academic session was started. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions in the prospectus are mandatory and that it is Clause 5.1 which governs the allocation of vacancies arising up to the time of admission which have to be followed. It is undisputed that 31st May, 2012 will be read as 2nd July, 2012 on which date the academic session was started. The relevant portion of Clause 5.1 the prospectus reads: “………Hence, appearance in the 1st round of counselling is mandatory for consideration of candidature for further counselling. Joining time is as per the schedule prescribed in the prospectus. The selected candidates will be required to join latest by 25.5.2012 failing which their candidature will be cancelled. The academic session will start from 31.5.2012. In case of any vacancy arising on or after 25.5.2012 for any reason, the vacancy position will be displayed on the college notice board on 25.5.2012 (afternoon) and finally on 30.5.2012. The available vacancies will be filled-up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring the change of subject/speciality and thereafter from the waiting list. The interested candidates will report to the Principal H.P.Govt. Dental College & Hospital Shimla at 10.00 AM on 31.5.2012 along with original documents and requisite fee. No admission will be made after 31.5.2012 (including change of subject/speciality) and seats still remaining vacant will not be filled-up in compliance of directions of DCI/GOI as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.” 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not complied with this condition on three counts:(a) In case of a vacancy arising after 25.5.2012 (26.6.2012) for any reason, the vacancy position will be displayed on the College Notice Board on 25.5.2012 (A.N.) (26.6.2012) and finally on 30.5.2012 (can be read as 29.6.2012 or 30.6.2012 which is a disputed point). (b) the prospectus provides that the available vacancies will be filled-up purely on merit from amongst the candidates desiring the change of subject/specialty and thereafter from the waiting list and (c) the interested candidates will have to report to the Principal H.P. Govt. Dental College and Hospital Shimla at 10.00 AM on 31.5.2012 (2nd July, 2012) along with original documents and requisite fee. Dental College and Hospital Shimla at 10.00 AM on 31.5.2012 (2nd July, 2012) along with original documents and requisite fee. These conditions when read with the proceeding, the conditions in the prospectus that in case of any vacancy arising on or after 25.5.2012 (read as 25.6.2012) for any reason, the vacancy position will be displayed on the College Notice Board on 25.5.2012 (25.6.2012 A.N.) and finally on 30.5.2012 (30th June, 2012). It is thereafter the vacancies have to be filled-up on merit. What is not disputed before me is the fact that the fifth respondent had already submitted her option in the second counselling vide Annexure:R-3 stating that she had appeared for the second round of counselling held on 25th June, 2012. She was next on the waiting list and if any seat is found vacant after 27th June, 2012, she was willing to take it. The application concludes “kindly inform me about the same” This application is addressed to the Chairman, Counselling Committee. 16. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner did not submit any option after she had been selected for the course of Oral Pathology in the second counselling held on 25th June, 2012. Both the petitioner and fifth respondent were on the waiting list, before second counselling. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conditions in the prospectus are mandatory and for this purpose she relies upon the decision in Sonia Kayastha Vs. State of H.P. and others, 1999 (1) Shim.L.C. 162 , holding: 10. We are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner in his claim that the prospectus issued by the State Government containing guidelines and instructions for regulating admissions cannot be elevated to the Status of ‘law’, and a contravention of which could be said to be a serious violation undermining the decisions arrived at in derogation of the same. We need refer the claim to reject it only, since it is covered by more than one Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in Km. Manju and another V. State, AIR 1972 H.P. 37 and Anil Nag V. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1978 I.L.R. H.P. Series 667, against the petitioner. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the earlier two Division Bench judgments, and this plea shall also stand rejected.” (P.170) 18. Manju and another V. State, AIR 1972 H.P. 37 and Anil Nag V. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1978 I.L.R. H.P. Series 667, against the petitioner. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the earlier two Division Bench judgments, and this plea shall also stand rejected.” (P.170) 18. She also relies upon the decision of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Indu Gupta Vs. Director, Sports Punjab, Chandigarh and another, AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 319, holding : 10. Subsequently, another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 (3) RSJ 475: (AIR 1998 Punj & Har 18) recapitulated the entire law on the subject. The Full Bench was considering the same brochure for the previous year of the Punjab Technical University. The Court held as under :-- "A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 Serv LR 673 had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : (AIR 1996 Punj & Har 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the co-ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected." 11. The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used preemptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure”. (Pp.323&324) 19. She also relies upon the decision in Delhi High Court Varun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, 179 (2011) DLT 24 (LPA No.599 of 2010 decided on 3.3.2011), holding: 14. (Pp.323&324) 19. She also relies upon the decision in Delhi High Court Varun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others, 179 (2011) DLT 24 (LPA No.599 of 2010 decided on 3.3.2011), holding: 14. Presently we shall refer to certain authorities in the field that have dealt with sanctity of a prospectus or brochure and the legal impact when it is changed in the midstream. In Dr. M. Vannila v. Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission, 2007 (3) CTC 69 , a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has opined thus: "19. The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati ( AIR 1983 SC 580 = 1983 (96) LW 172 S.N.). Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr. A. Vs. Director of Medical Education (1986 WLR 207) that the rules and norms of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P. Prasanna vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 WLR 624). The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr. LPA 599/2010 Page 10 of 19 M. Ashiq Nihmathullah vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission." 15. In Indu Gupta v. Director Sports, Punjab and Anr., AIR1999 P&H 319 (FB), the Full Bench in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has expressed thus: "9. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (1994) 4 Recent Services Judgments, 289 disapproved the liberal construction of the terms and conditions of the brochure and specified the need for their strict adherence to avoid unnecessary prejudice to the candidate or the authority during the course of admission. The bench approved that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance test examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of the instructions given in the prospectus having the force of law. The bench approved that the eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance test examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of the instructions given in the prospectus having the force of law. While disapproving the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhvika Khurana (minor) v. M. D. University Civil Writ Petition No. 15367 of 1991, where contrary view had been taken, the Full Bench observed that the students seeking admission to the professional colleges are even otherwise matured enough and supposed to understand the full implication of filling the admission form and compliance with the instructions contained in the brochure. 10. Subsequently, another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 (3) RSJ 475: (AIR 1998 Punj. & Har. 18) LPA 599/2010 Page 11 of 19 recapitulated the entire law on the subject. The Full Bench was considering the same brochure for the previous year of the Punjab Technical University. The Court held as under:- "A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 Serv LR 673 had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) R.S.J. 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : (AIR 1996 Punj. & Har. 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : (AIR 1996 Punj. & Har. 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the co-ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed LPA 599/2010 Page 12 of 19 in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected." 11. The cumulative effect of the above well enunciated principles of law, is that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they used preemptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in such highly competitive entrance examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of the brochure would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to the terms of the brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of the brochure, more particularly, where the cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure.” (Para 14&15) 20. The brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with the terms prescribed in the brochure.” (Para 14&15) 20. No other law has been cited before me or brought to my notice which runs contrary to the principles laid down that the conditions in the prospectus/brochure requires compliance and that they cannot be treated as mere instructions which are directory. In Priya Gupta’s case supra, the Supreme Court has laid down that there should be no third round of counselling though I find that this direction has been observed more in breach than in compliance of the Supreme Court order. Clause 47.6 of the judgment clearly mandates that upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counselling, the un-filled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. Para 47.7 makes it mandatory on the part of each college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counselling and they shall furnish the complete detail, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective States, immediately after each counselling. I find nothing on the record that the compliance of the mandatory directions issued by the Court have been complied with. This course of action was required to be followed by the respondents, who are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is this lackadaisical attitude of the respondents which has caused heart burning amongst the students. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the last date of admission was 30th June, 2012 and that much before that date, the fifth respondent had already submitted her option and was willing to take whatever course was available. In this eventuality, when the fax message from Dr. Akanksha Kanwar was received by the respondent i.e. the Director of Medical Education, the only natural consequence should have been that this vacancy had to be allotted/allocated to this respondent. In this eventuality, when the fax message from Dr. Akanksha Kanwar was received by the respondent i.e. the Director of Medical Education, the only natural consequence should have been that this vacancy had to be allotted/allocated to this respondent. He submits that the conditions in the prospectus is that it was the duty of the petitioner to have enquired from the Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences Paonta Sahib as also the H.P. Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Shimla after she had opted for admission, to find out if there was any vacancy available, in that eventuality, she could have changed the speciality and not at the belated stage on 2nd July, 2012 when she joined the College. He submits that the direction of the Supreme Court would be preemptory, no admission could be granted after 30th June, 2012. 22. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that since no option has been submitted by the petitioner herein and in that eventuality she could not exercise her option as admittedly she had deposited her fee on 26th June, 2012 as per the date prescribed in the prospectus and was quite content in accepting the course. It is in this matrix, this Court is called upon to adjudicate the legality of the admission granted to fifth respondent. Before adjudicating on this aspect, I must express anguish in the manner in which the respondents have dealt with both the petitioner and the fifth respondent. As noticed supra, the fax message of Dr. Akanksha Kanwar does not form part of the record submitted in this Court. The case was adjourned repeatedly asking the respondent-State to produce the original fax message in order to ascertain as to what was the date and time when this fax message was received. Dr. Akanksha Kanwar had joined in Periodontics in Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib and then having come to know that a seat of Prosthodontics was vacated by Dr. Mani Sharma was available at Paonta Sahib, she offered to join that seat. The fax message which was produced in Court does not contain the correct date or time either of transmission or receipt by the respondents. This was crucial and vital for the determination of the entire controversy as the third meeting described as counselling was convened at the Dental College, Shimla on 29th June, 2012, after this fax message was received. The fax message which was produced in Court does not contain the correct date or time either of transmission or receipt by the respondents. This was crucial and vital for the determination of the entire controversy as the third meeting described as counselling was convened at the Dental College, Shimla on 29th June, 2012, after this fax message was received. The meeting does not describe the time when it was convened. I would take it that the meeting was held before 5 p.m. during working hours of the College. At this meeting, Dr. Hem Lata Sood, Director Dental Health Services, Dr. R.P.Luthra, H.P., Principal, H.P. GDC, Shimla and Sh.D.C. Negi, Addl. Director, DME, H.P. Shimla were present. The proceedings records that Dr. Akanksha Kanwar, who had secured 26th rank during the first round of counselling and had opted the speciality of Periodontics at Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib has represented through fax that she wanted to change her speciality from Periodontics to Prosthodontics being in a higher rank. Dr. Meetali Guleria-fifth respondent herein, who secured 31st rank, had submitted option during the second round of counselling that if any seat is found vacant after 27.6.2012, she is ready to opt any seat and was present during the counselling on 29.6.2012. 23. The fax message of Dr. Akanksha Kanwar has not been recorded in any proceedings in the office of the second respondent or elsewhere which discloses a casual and non nonchalant approach spurred by anxiety of compliance that the third meeting wrongly described as counselling was convened and the entire exercise gone through. I also note that the fax of Dr. Akanksha Kanwar clearly indicates her preference not only on course offered but also a recommendation to the College authorities to admit “the seat vacated by me may be given to the 31st rank holder.” (fifth respondent in this case) to the course/speciality vacated by her. There is also an endorsement on fax that a carbon copy has been sent to the Registrar General of this Court but I do not find anything on the record to indicate that copy or such message was in fact received. In this factual matrix, the respondents should and ought to have been careful in assessing the situation. There is also an endorsement on fax that a carbon copy has been sent to the Registrar General of this Court but I do not find anything on the record to indicate that copy or such message was in fact received. In this factual matrix, the respondents should and ought to have been careful in assessing the situation. I am unable to accept the submission that the petitioner was supposed to and had to remain present in the College or the Dental Institute on all dates after 26.5.2012. Even accepting this argument that duty was enjoined upon the petitioner to do so, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that on the same day when the fax message was received from Dr. Akanksha Kanwar, the meeting was convened within a short period and there is nothing on the record to indicate that on that date i.e. 29.6.2012, the vacancy position was displayed or notified on the Notice Board as mandatorily required by Clause 5.1 of the prospectus. 24. There can be no doubt in view of the law in Sonia Kayastha, Indu Gupta and Varun Kumar Agarwal case (supra) that the conditions of the prospectus are binding. I do not find any compliance with Clause 5.1 requiring displaying the vacancies on the Notice Board before the commencement of the courses irrespective of the date whether it be 30th June, 2012 or 2nd July, 2012 (which was the date on which the courses were to commence). This date has been given in the prospectus as 31.5.2012 when the interested candidates were to report to the Principal, H.P. Government Dental College and Hospital, Shimla at 10 A.M. The prospectus then continues that no admission would be permitted after this date and the seats remaining vacant thereafter would be filled up in compliance of the direction of the Dental Council of India, Union of India and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As to why there was no compliance with first part of the mandatory conditions requiring the display of vacancy on the Notice Board, there is no explanation. It is indeed a sad commentary a that the students have to fight in court for the rights for the bureaucratic ineptness of the authorities. In Asha Vs. PT. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, (2012) 7 SCC 389 , the Supreme Court, inter alia, holds: 21. It is indeed a sad commentary a that the students have to fight in court for the rights for the bureaucratic ineptness of the authorities. In Asha Vs. PT. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, (2012) 7 SCC 389 , the Supreme Court, inter alia, holds: 21. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the states, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the Rule of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been causalty. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. Ref. Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr. [CA @ SLP(C) No. 27089 of 2011, decided on 8th May, 2012], Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2005) 13 SCC 464 ], Pradeep Jain v. UOI [ 1984 (3) SCC 654 ], Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Director of Health Services and Another [1993 Supp (1) SCC 632], Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP [ (1999) 7 SCC 120 ], Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and Others [ 2005 (13) SCC 749 ], AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS and Others [ (2002) 1 SCC 428 ]…... 23. Adherence to the schedule is the obligation of the authorities and the students both. The prescribed schedule is to be maintained stricto sensu by all the stakeholders because if one party adheres to the schedule and others do not or there is some kind of lack of communication or omission to make proper announcements and maintain proper records for such counseling, disastrous results can follow, of which the present case is an apt example. 24. The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. 24. The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over BDS given the high-competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a mark, the admission to course could vary. Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the concerned authorities to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The concerned authorities are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations. 25. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been a matter of controversy before the courts. The courts have consistently taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the concerned authorities should adhere to it and should in no circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion, gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardizes the interest and future of the students. Secondly, which is more serious, is that such action would be ex-facie in violation of the orders of the court, and therefore, would invite wrath of the courts under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.In this regard, we may appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Priya Gupta (supra), State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors. [ (1990) 4 SCC 624 ], Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ], GSF Medical and Paramedical Association v. Association of Management of Self Financing Technical Institutes and Anr. [ 2003 (12) SCC 414 ], Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab and Others [ (2010) 12 SCC 167 ]. 26. [ (1990) 4 SCC 624 ], Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ], GSF Medical and Paramedical Association v. Association of Management of Self Financing Technical Institutes and Anr. [ 2003 (12) SCC 414 ], Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab and Others [ (2010) 12 SCC 167 ]. 26. The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all the concerned parties. Various aspects of the admission process as of now are covered either by the respective notifications issued by the State Governments, prospectus issued by the colleges and, in any case, by the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. There is no reason why every act of the authorities be not done as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and why due records thereof be not maintained. This proposition of law or this issue is no more res integra and has been firmly stated by this Court in its various judgments which may usefully be referred at this stage. Ref. State of M.P. v. Gopal D.Tirthani and Others [ (2003) 7 SCC 83 ], State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital and Ors. [ AIR 2001 SC 3006 ], Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra and Another [ (2004) 11 SCC 755 ], Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [ (2011) 3 SCC 617 ], Harish Verma and Others v. Ajay Srivastava and Another [ (2003) 8 SCC 69 ]. 27. In the prospectus issued by the respondents, Chapter 9 dealt with the method of selection and admission. Clause 3.1 stated that it was mandatory for the qualified candidates to appear before the Counseling Board in person. No relaxation was to be given to the candidates who were unable to appear before the Counseling Board on the fixed dates. Further, it was stated in the prospectus that at the time of the counseling, the candidates would be required to exercise their choice for the institution and the course. The allotment of the seats would be made according to the merit and preference exercised by the candidates at the time of counseling. Further, it was stated in the prospectus that at the time of the counseling, the candidates would be required to exercise their choice for the institution and the course. The allotment of the seats would be made according to the merit and preference exercised by the candidates at the time of counseling. During the subsequent counseling the Course/Institution would be allotted as per the merit of the candidates depending on the availability of seats. All these clauses are in accordance with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India or the notifications issued by the concerned State Government. Relaxation of the Rule of Merit for reason of non-appearance is not permissible…….. 29. However, the question that immediately follows is whether any mid-term admission can be granted after 30th September of the concerned academic year, that being the last date for admissions. The respondents before us have argued with some vehemence that it will amount to a mid-term admission which is impermissible, will result in indiscipline and will cause prejudice to other candidates. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Others [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ], Ms. Neelu Arora and Another v. Union of India and Others [ (2003) 3 SCC 366 ], Aman Deep Jaswal v. State of Punjab and Others [ (2006) 9 SCC 597 ], Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and Others [ (2005) 12 SCC 626 ], Mridul Dhar and Another v Union of India and Others [ (2005) 2 SCC 65 ]……. 32. Though there can be rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. [Refer Arti Sapru and Others v. State of J & K and Others [ (1981) 2 SCC 484 ]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director General Health Services [ (1994) 2 SCC 370 ]; and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 355 ]. (Pp.399, 400, 401, 402 & 403) 25. In the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the admission cannot be denied for the petitioner solely for the reason that now there has been delay. If there is anybody responsible for this, it is the respondents except respondent No.5 who has also been sucked into the vortex of bureaucratic red-tape. To recapitulate, I find no explanation and no record with the respondents to justify or explain as to why the last vacancy of which the third meeting was held was not notified on the Notice Board either of the Government Dental College, Shimla or Institute of Dental Sciences at Paonta Sahib. I also note that the attitude of the fourth respondent has been casual, no seriousness has been displayed or discernable from the record as to why when the vacancy become itself available with the College, it also did not notify on the Notice Board. 26. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold: (a) That the respondents were in violation of Clause 5.1 of the prospectus Annexure: P1. (b) That the vacancy position as mandatorily required displaying on the Notice Board was not followed by the respondents. (c) That the fax received from Dr. Akanksha Kanwar was not on the record and the respondents were directed to produce the original fax message which did not clarify any facts but rather kept the entire exercise shrouded by secrecy (d) That it is merit which has to prevail, (e) Even if there was a duty cast upon the petitioner to be present in the College on every day after she had been admitted to the course of Oral Pathology, it would have served no purpose since the vacancy position was never notified/declared. 27. 27. Even assuming that the petitioner was bound to have been present every day both at the Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib or H.P. Dental College, Shimla to inquiry about the vacancy position, it is not clear as to when the third meeting was held and where the petitioner was supposed to report to enquire about the vacancy position. 28. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be allotted the course of Periodontics and the resultant vacant speciality in Oral Pathology shall be allocated to the fifth respondent. In passing this order, I am alive to the situation that time is now past where courses may have commenced. It will be for the Dental Council to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.