Judgment: Per J.K.Maheshwari, J.;- Both these petitions have been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 11.12.2012 and directions to the extend the cut off date of counselling for admission to the PG courses to the Session 2012-2013, in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asha Vs. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 . It is further prayed by the petitioner students that they may be allowed to be admitted in the PG course in Shubh Deep Ayurved Medical College, Indore and to prosecute their studies. 2. The Shubh Deep Ayurved Medical College and Hospital, Indore is being run by Shubh Deep Shikshan Sansthan, a society registered under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 for the under graduate course of BAMS. The institution has applied for running the PG courses whereupon on 27.01.2012, the respondent no.1 has issued a letter of intent vide Annexure P-3. Thereafter the Central Council of Indian Medicines (in short CCIM) has inspected the college on 18th and 19th May, 2012 and submitted its report. As per the requirement of the letter of intent, a bank guarantee of 1.5 crores was also submitted seeking request to grant permission to continue the PG courses on 30.08.2012. After due consideration as per Annexure P-5 dated 26.10.2012, Central Government granted permission to the college for opening of new PG courses in three subjects namely (i) Ayurved Samhita/Siddhant, (ii)Kayachikitsa and (iii) Rasashastra/Bhaishajya Kalpana with in take capacity of five seats in each course for the Session 2012-2013. 3. It is relevant to note here that the said sanction was granted in furtherance to the provision contained under Section 13-A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (in short IMCC Act) subject to the conditions of the compliance of the IMCC (Postgraduate Ayurveda Graduation) Regulations, 2005 for the purpose of staff and infrastructure. Copy of the said letter was also sent to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal and the Registrar, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, because the affiliation was granted by the University vide letter dated 13.08.2008. 4. Copy of the said letter was also sent to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal and the Registrar, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, because the affiliation was granted by the University vide letter dated 13.08.2008. 4. The admission in PG Ayurved Colleges ought to be made as per Rules framed by the M.P. Professions Examination Board, Bhopal which are known as M.P.Ayurveda Chikitsa Snatkottar Patyakram Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2012 (in short Rules, 2012) published in the Gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 22.06.2012. As per those rules, the counselling shall be closed on 31.10.2012 and the last date of the admission in the college is also prescribed as 31.10.2012, or the date if any fixed by CCIM. The Educational session shall start from 01.11.2012. The CCIM has issued their own Regulations which are known as Indian Medicines Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 (in short Regulations, 2012). The professional Examination Board in furtherance to the Rule has conducted the entrance examination on 29.10.2012 and the result has been declared on the same date. The counselling as per the advertisement dated 26.10.2012 was on 30.10.2012. The petitioner Institution has received the copy of the permission letter of the Central Government dated 26.10.2012, on the same date, but on 27th, 28th and 29th October, 2012 were Government holidays and the offices of the State Government were closed. However, he has submitted the letter of sanction on 30.10.2012 to the Director Medical Education for inclusion of the petitioner Institution in the counselling. 5. Immediately, on the next date a writ petition being W.P.No.10430/2012 was filed seeking direction to allow the petitioner Institution to participate in the counselling.. The said writ petition was dismissed on the same day on the instructions of the government advocate, indicating that the counselling has already been closed on 30.10.2012 and within a short span of time, it is not feasibly possible to call the students for a fresh counselling and as per the judgment of the Apex Court, the last date of counselling is 31.10.2012. However, the Court found that there is no justification to interfere in the matter at this stage. Thereafter an application was submitted on 3.11.2012 for extension of the cutoff date to the Central Government and the Review petition was filed being number 559/2012. However, the Court found that there is no justification to interfere in the matter at this stage. Thereafter an application was submitted on 3.11.2012 for extension of the cutoff date to the Central Government and the Review petition was filed being number 559/2012. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asha (Supra), this Court has disposed of the review petition on 21.11.2012 with an observation that the petitioner has already approached before the Competent Authority for extension of the cutoff date for admission and counselling. However, it would be open for the Authority to consider the same and decide the said application as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court. In view of the observations made by this Court and after rejection of the representation vide order Annexure P-1, dated 11.12.2012, refusing the extension of cutoff date to admission in PG courses, the petitioner Institution has preferred one petition. 6. It is contended that the action of the respondents no.1 and 2 is arbitrary and discriminatory while the action of the respondent no.4 in depriving the petitioner Institution for counselling is arbitrary and malafide. To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, it is stated that in a case of Kadam Kuan Ayurvedic College, Patna, the cutoff date for admission to under Graduate as well as PG courses has been extended as per order Annexure P-12 dated 2.11.2012 upto 15.11.2012. The said order was passed in furtherance to the interim order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.No.16355/2012 on 8.10.2012 to grant provisional sanction subject to the final decision of the writ petition. The said action of respondents no.1 and 2 is discriminatory because the extension granted to Kadam Kaun Ayurvedic College has again been extended upto 31.12.2012 vide order Annexure P-20 on 01.01.2013, and thereafter, as per order dated 26.02.2013, Annexure P-21 for a further period of one month i.e. upto 25.03.2013, but in case of petitioner despite observation of this Court at par, benefit has been denied arbitrarily. 7. 7. It is contended that in respect of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, cutoff date has also been extended after 31.10.2012, similarly, to Dr.Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved Vishwavidyalaya, Jodhpur, but in case of petitioner despite directions, the respondents no.1 and 2 has acted arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner, depriving the petitioner Institution to fill up the seats even after permission of the Central Government and affiliation by the University. It is also contended in the rejoinder that in furtherance to the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by this Court, the CCIM also rejected the representation distinguishing the judgment in Asha(supra) without considering the issue of discrimination as stated hereinabove. However, the order passed during the pendency of this petition by the CCIM dated 20.02.2013 may also be quashed. 8. So far as the State authorities are concerned, it is submitted that on granting recognition by the Central Government as per order dated 26.10.2012, Annexure P-5, the copy thereof was sent to the Secretary Department of Medical Education, but the action of the State authorities remained arbitrary because having been aware of the provisional sanction as the copy of the said letter was also sent to them. However, it was in their knowledge that the petitioner Institution is in the queue of permission on completion of the formalities. It is submitted that the Rules of 2012 has been published in the Gazette notification on June 22, 2012 and the permission to Pt. Shivshaktilal Sharma Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Ratlam was granted on 6.7.2012, after the publication of the rules but the said institution has been enlisted in available Institution for counselling. But in the case of the petitioner Institution despite having knowledge of provisional permission from January, 2012, and final permission dated 26.10.2012, not included for counselling and the students have also not been allowed to participate and permitted to admit in PG courses newly started in the petitioner Institution. 9. In addition to the aforesaid it is submitted that on receiving the permission on 26.10.2012 from the Central Government, 27th 28th and 29th October, 2012 were Government holidays. 9. In addition to the aforesaid it is submitted that on receiving the permission on 26.10.2012 from the Central Government, 27th 28th and 29th October, 2012 were Government holidays. However, on 30.10.2012, the order has been submitted before the Director Government of M.P who continued the counselling upto to mid night, but showing the receiving of said letter at 5`O' Clock, counselling to the petitioner Institution has been denied though they have no right to deny the counselling after granting permission by the Central Government. In such circumstances, the action of the State authorities has remained arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory only to deprive the petitioner Institution from the eligible claim. 10. In W.P.No.2084/2013, students who have passed out the PG entrance examination have filed this petition seeking direction to hold counselling by extending the cutoff date and to permit them to prosecute their P.G. studies in the academic session 2012-2013 in Shubh Deep Ayurvedic College, Indore. The petitioner have all together made similar submission as made in other petition filed by the College indicating the arbitrariness and discriminatory action of the Central Government, the State Authorities and CCIM on account of such action the career of the students have been jeopardised. However, it is prayed that the direction to admit the petitioner in the academic session 2012-2013 after holding the counselling may be issued, extending cutoff date. 11. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Anand Pathak has strenuously urged that the action of the State authorities remained arbitrary ignoring the order of the central Government and acted in a discriminatory manner thereby the students have been deprived to prosecute their studies, and the permission of Central Government to run P.G. Course in 2012- 2013 resulted in futility. Learned senior counsel has heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha(supra) and submitted that after considering the judgment in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 and various other judgments it has observed that the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cutoff date which is specifically postulated. Madhu Singh and others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 and various other judgments it has observed that the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cutoff date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and the admission is denied arbitrarily, it would result in ruining the professional career of the candidate, then the Court in rarest of the rare cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or in pressing emergency may grant admission but such power preferably may be exercised by the Courts. It has also been observed that in rarest of rare case where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law remain frustrated, then the Court would exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of admitting the students to the Courses after the deadline of admission in the academic year. It is submitted by him that in the present case, provisional permission was granted in January, 2012 and final permission i.e. on 26.10.2012 prior to the the cut of date with a copy to the State authorities. In such circumstances, they are duty bound to include the petitioner Institution for counselling to grant admission to the students. Deviation would amount to frustrate the legal proceedings and rights accrued to the various students by prosecuting studies to build their career and also to nation. The authorities have acted in discriminatory manner with the petitioner Institution, despite the observations made by this Court though in cases of other institutions of Patna and Bangalore, directions for extension of cutoff date was not issued. However, there is no reason to take a different view in the case of the petitioner Institution. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Central Government refusing to extend the cutoff date and to hold counselling and also the order passed by the CCIM dated 20.02.2013, during the pendency of this petition may be quashed and the extension of cutoff date at par to the Kadam Kaun Ayurvedic College, Patna may be granted to petitioner with the direction to hold counselling 15 PG seats out from the eligible candidates who passed out the P.G. entrance examination of 2012. 12. 12. Per contra, Shri A.K.Sethi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2 CCIM by filing a counter affidavit referring various provisions of IMCC Act contended that the CCIM having much concern to maintain the educational standard for the professional courses and in view of the various judgments of the Apex Court the extension of cutoff date is not permissible therefore it has rightly been refused. The order dated 20.02.2013 has been passed in furtherance to the directions of this Court but it has not been challenged by the petitioner. However, referring the various paragraphs of the judgment of Asha(Supra) it is contented that in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the admission in mid session looking to he fact that more meritorious candidates were deprived from admission, therefore, the judgment of Asha (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. Shri Sethi has further contended that the issue regarding holding counselling has been decided by this Court as per order dated 31.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.10430/2012. However, the petitioner Institution cannot raise the said issue again in the light of the order passed in the R.P.No.559/2012 on 21.11.2012. It is submitted that the CCIM did not find it feasible to extend the date of counselling for granting admission in mid academic session. In such circumstances, interference in the writ petition is not warranted. 13. Respondent no.1 by filing return has not disputed the issuance of letter of intent as well as the letter of permission, Annexure P-3 and P-5 respectively. It is submitted that the Central Government in the case of Kadam Kaun Ayurved College, Patna and RVS Siddha College Coimbatore, has extended the cutoff date in the light of the orders passed by the High Courts. LPA against the interim order of Patna High Court has been preferred which is still pending and the said order cannot be cited to be precedent. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madhu Singh (Supra) it is submitted that the extension of the cutoff date for professional courses has been deprecated by Hon'ble the Apex Court referring various other cases therefore extension of cut of date has rightly been refused by passing the order Annexure P-1. 14 Respondents no.3 and 4 by filing their return has contended that the answering respondents have limited role of conducting the counselling. 14 Respondents no.3 and 4 by filing their return has contended that the answering respondents have limited role of conducting the counselling. They are having no power or authority in the matter of extension of cutoff date for admission in PG Courses and bound to follow the instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard. It is further stated that in the case of Kadam Kaun Ayurved College Patna, the permission was granted by the Central Government and CCIM in the light of order of the Patna High Court. In the order of extension dated 1.1.2013, it is mentioned that this is one time settlement and cannot be cited as precedent for any other college. As the recognition of the petitioner was received first time on 30.10.2012 to him, by that time the counselling was closed thus petitioners were rightly not permitted to participate in counselling, and the said contentions has been accepted by this Court in the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.9492/2012. In such circumstances, the action of the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or malafide, therefore the petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 15. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the letter of intent in favour of Shubh Deep Ayurved College, Indore was issued by the Central Government, for recognition of the PG Courses to the academic session 2012-2013 vide Annexure P-3 dated 27.01.2012 subject to the compliance of conditions as specified therein.. It is not in dispute that the second inspection of the college was conducted on 18th and 19th May, 2012 and thereafter, on submitting the bank guarantee of 1.5 crores on 30.08.2012, the letter of permission dt. 26/10/2012was issued by the Central Government to run the PG courses in three subjects namely (i) Ayurved Samhita/Siddhant, (ii)Kayachikitsa and (iii) Rasashastra/Bhaishajya Kalpana. It is also not in dispute that the copy of the said letter was received by the petitioner on the same date i.e. 26.10.2012, and it was also endorsed to the State Government. It is also not disputed that on 26.10.2012, the State Government has issued a public notice of counselling indicating only two colleges leaving the petitioner Institution. The pre PG Entrance examination was held on 29.10.2012 and the result has also been declared on the same date. It is also not disputed that on 26.10.2012, the State Government has issued a public notice of counselling indicating only two colleges leaving the petitioner Institution. The pre PG Entrance examination was held on 29.10.2012 and the result has also been declared on the same date. Thereafter, as per the public notice made in the news paper, the counselling was conducted on 30.10.2012, although the period to finish the counselling as per the Rules of 2012 was upto 31.10.2012. It is also not in dispute that on 27th, 28th and 29th October, 2012 were Government holidays and the offices of the State Government were closed. However, as per the general Clauses Act, on opening, the first date of office available to the petitioner Institution was 30.10.2012, i.e. the date of counselling. The State Government has said that the letter of recognition send by the Central Government has not been received prior to counselling and it was received only at 5 P.M on 30.10.2012. Such disputed fact is not required to be gone into. However, the said factual aspect is not required to be dealt with. 16. Thus, now the issue for determination confines to the extent that the denial of extension is just, proper or not and in the facts of the present case, the action of the Central Government and CCIM is arbitrary and discriminatory. In the said context, first of all the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhu Singh(Supra) in para 22 is required to be taken note of, which is reproduced as under:- “22. It is to be noted that if any student is admitted after commencement of the course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule. In fact, as the factual positions go to show, the inevitable result is increase in the number of seats for the next session to accommodate the students who are admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session. Though, it was pleaded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that with the object of preventing loss of national exchequer such admissions should be permitted, we are of the view that same cannot be a ground to permit midstream admissions which would be against the spirit of governing statutes. His suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. His suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable. The time schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also need rest and the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling requisite number of days would be harmful to be students' physical and metal capacity to study.” 17. Thereafter, relying upon a judgment of Dr. Dinesh Kumar following the guidelines have been narrated in conclusion which are as under:- "23. There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. In conclusion: (i) there is no scope for admitting students midtream as that would be against very spirit of statutes governing the medical education; (ii) even if, seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid session admissions; (iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year; (iv) the MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission; (v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have to be completed within the specified time; (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed; (vii) in case of any deviation by the concerned institution, action as prescribed shall be taken by the MCI.” 18. The aforesaid judgment of Madhu Singh (Supra) has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment of Asha (Supra), wherein the Apex Court in para 29, 30, 31, and 32 has observed as under:- “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. 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 SCC366], 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 ], Medical Council of India v Madhu Singh and Others [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ]. 30. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer. 31. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to a meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. 32. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. 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. [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 Aravind Kumar Kankane v.State of UP and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 355 ]”. Thereafter, in reference to the question B which relates to the last date of admission of the student and extension of cutoff date, in para 38.2, the Court has concluded as thus:- “38.2 Question (b): 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding of second counseling by 15th September of the relevant academic year [in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta (supra)]. Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extra-ordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extra-ordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) and this judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.” 19. In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that in case of Asha(Supra) all the judgment including the case of Madhu Singh(Supra) and the judgment of Arti Sapru and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (1981) 2 SCC 484 ; Chavi Mehrotra Vs. Director General Health Services (1994) 2 SCC 370 has been considered and thereafter the Apex Court has laid down a law that in very rarest and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible, but such power preferably be exercised by the Courts. It has further been observed that in the rarest of rare cases, where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated, then only the Court shall exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction admitting the candidates to the courses after the deadline of admission of the current academic year. Thus, the judgment of two Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhusingh ( supra ) has been considered and explained in the judgment of Asha ( supra ). However, the latest judgment of the Bench of equal strength is binding. In this regard, the guidance may be taken by the Full Bench Judgment of five judges Bench of this Court in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others Vs. M.P. and another reported in AIR 2003 M.P. 81 . 20. In the said context and in the facts of the present case, it is to be examined that the petitioner Institution and students fall within the parameters and guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha ( supra ) or not, and refusal of cutoff date for counselling and admission is justifiable in the facts of this case. 21. 21. On careful examination of the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the letter of intent was issued on 27.1.2012 by the Central Government thereby petitioner Institution ought to have start the new PG courses in three subjects namely (i) Ayurved Samhita/Siddhant, (ii)Kayachikitsa and (iii) Rasashastra/Bhaishajya Kalpana with intake capacity of five seats in each course. By sending the copy of the said letter, it was communicated to the State Government also. The aforesaid permission was subject to four conditions. Thereafter, the CCIM conducted the inspection and submitted its report and after furnishing the bank guarantee of 1.5 Crores on 30.08.2012 as per letter dated 26.10.2012, final permission to start the PG courses was granted for academic year 2012-2013, to which the counselling is required to be conducted upto 31.12.2012, as per Rules of 2012. 23. On receiving the letter of permission by petitioner Institution, rushing to Bhopal on 30.10.2012, copy was supplied to the Director, Medical Education on the same date. On 27th 28th and 29th October, 2012, the offices of the State Government were closed due to holidays. However, the date available to communicate the permission was only 30th October, 2012. As per stand taken by the State Government, the said letter was received by them at 5 P.M., while as per the petitioner, it was submitted in due time on opening of the office. From the record, it appears that PG Entrance Examination was conducted on 29th October, 2012 and the result was also declared on the same date. It is also not in dispute that the students who have preferred W.P.No.2084/2013 have passed out the said Entrance Examination, and found place the list of eligible candidates. On the next date, i.e. 30.10.2012 the counselling was done as notified on 26th June, 2012. Thus, it is a case wherein Entrance Examination for Pre PG as well as the counselling has been conducted within two days. In such sequel of facts, if the letter of permission was communicated to the State Authorities on 30th October itself, then on the next date, steps would have been taken by them and the counselling may be conducted for 15 seats as directed by the Central Government. As per the facts which are available on record, the Examination Rules, 2012 were published in the Gazette notification of M.P. dated 22nd June, 2012. The name of Pt. As per the facts which are available on record, the Examination Rules, 2012 were published in the Gazette notification of M.P. dated 22nd June, 2012. The name of Pt. Shivshaktilal Sharma Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Ratlam was specified in the list of colleges available in Rules for counselling, but the permission to the said College was granted on 06.07.2012, later on. It is also relevant to note here that the provisional permission granted by the Central Government in favour of the petitioner Institution on 27.01.2012 was well within the knowledge of State of Madhya Pradesh. However, it was the duty of the officers of the State prior to holding the counselling, to ascertain that how many college in Madhya Pradesh has been granted permission to run the PG Courses and how many seats are available for admission in those colleges. It is to be observed here that if the officers of the State Government were desirous to hold counselling prior to closing it, out from the list of eligible candidates on 31.10.2012, then it may continue the counselling from those students, but it has not been done. It is to be noted further that when the petitioner Institution was not permitted on 30.10.2012 to participate in the counseling, then after coming from Bhopal to Indore and after preparation a writ petition was filed on 31.10.2012, and on the same date, it was listed for hearing. But at the last moment as per the instructions of the Government Advocate, counselling was not found possible on the same date, therefore, this Court has declined to interfere in the matter. From the facts as discussed above, the action of the officers of the State Authorities do not appear to be very fair. On filing review, this Court has directed to file an application for extension of cutoff date for counseling and admission, and the Central Government and the CCIM were directed to decide it as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, uninfluenced with the observations made by this Court in the writ petition. After issuance of such directions, the order of rejection was passed on 11.12.2012 (Annexure P-12) by the Central Government and during the pendency of the writ petition by the CCIM on 20.02.2013. 24. After issuance of such directions, the order of rejection was passed on 11.12.2012 (Annexure P-12) by the Central Government and during the pendency of the writ petition by the CCIM on 20.02.2013. 24. In the said context, it is to be noted here that the Central Government vide its order dated 2.11.2012 granted extension of cutoff date and permitted Under Graduate and the PG Course admission in the Kadam Kaun Ayurved College, Patna. In the said case, the Institution was not having the sanction to run the college. However, the writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 16355/2012 was filed wherein the Patna High Court has directed for grant of provisional sanction to the Institution vide order dt. 8.10.2012. In furtherance to the said order on 2.11.2012 after the approval of the competent authority i.e. CCIM extension was granted upto 15.11.2012 for admission in academic session 2012-2013. It is relevant to point out here that in the said letter it was mentioned that this is one time extension of cutoff date and be not cited as precedent to any other college. However, the Central Government should not have granted further extension. But surprising even after filing the Letter Patent Appeal before the Patna High Court by Union of India without asking for stay, further extension was granted considering the request of the Secretary of Health Government of Bihar, upto 31.12.2012. The said order was passed after expiry of the extended period on 01.01.2013. It is relevant to note that If the extension earlier granted on 2.11.2012 was for one time, then there was no occasion to Central Govt. to further extend the cutoff date, but writing the same language further extension upto 31.12.2012 was granted, for the reason which has not been explained in the return. It is further surprising that again the Central Government has granted extension to the same college on 26.02.2013 for a period of one month with similar condition, which is still continuing, and no plausible explanation is available on record in this regard, except making a bald statement in reference to the judgment of Madhu Singh (Supra) and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to deny extension of cutoff date to petitioners. 25. 25. Similarly, when this Court directed on 15.02.2013 to file reply by CCIM, order dated 20.02.2013 was passed rejecting the prayer of extension of cutoff date distinguishing the case of Asha (Supra) because in the said case, less meritorious candidates were admitted ignoring the candidates of higher merit. It is said that in the present case, no discrimination has done however the extension has denied. The CCIM has not considered the fact that in the case of the Kadam Kaun Ayurved College, Patna, three extensions of the cutoff date have been allowed by their consent without any reason or rhym, though in the order impugned it was mentioned that the uniform policy has been observed for the colleges in India. In the return filed by the Central Government as well as CCIM, the grant of extension to the college of Karnataka has also not been denied except that the action was taken in furtherance to the order of Karnataka High Court. But looking to the orders of both the High Courts in the said cases, it is apparent that the Court has not directed for extension of cutoff date for counselling and admission to the students. While in the review petition, direction was issued by this Court to consider the prayer for extension of cutoff date as well as for granting admission to the PG Courses. In such circumstances, the refusal of the extension of cutoff date as per Annexure P/1 passed by Central Govt dated 11/12/2012 and the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the CCIM appears to be discriminatory. Thus, in the opinion of this Court without having any explanation in the return and in peculiar facts of the case, extension granted to Kadam Kaun Ayurved College Patna, refusing similar relief, to petitioner is discriminatory. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is to be held that the petitioner Institution is not at fault. It is to be further held that the student found place in the list of eligible candidates are also not at fault because the Shubh Deep Ayurved Medical College, Indore has not been included in the list of colleges of counselling on 30.10.2012. It is to be further held that the action of the Central Government as well as the CCIM is discriminatory in the matter of extension of cut off date and to grant admission to the students. It is to be further held that the action of the Central Government as well as the CCIM is discriminatory in the matter of extension of cut off date and to grant admission to the students. In the facts of this case, It is also held that the action of the State Authorities is only to frustrate the process of law, which is not permissible under the law. 27. It is also relevant to note that in the counselling, two colleges were included namely Pt. Shivshaktilal Sharma Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Ratlam which falls in Vikram University, Ujjain and Rani Dhullaiya Ayurved College and Hospital, Bhopal which falls in Barkatullah University, Bhopal. However, the curriculum of both the Universities to conduct the examination for the college affiliated shall be on different dates. while petitioner Institution falls in Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, the curriculum and date of the examination shall be different. As per the Regulations, 2012, the period of study for PG Courses is of three years after the admission. It is apparent that as per clause 7 of the said Regulations, the students were required to attend atleast seventy five percent of total lectures, practicals and clinical classes on starting a new PG Courses. If admission had been granted in this academic year to protect the career of the students on the seats available as per the permission of the Central Government it would not cause any serious prejudice either to other students or it will not cause any burden to the State. In such circumstances, it is one of the rarest of the rare case in which looking to the arbitrary and discriminatory act of the respondent, this Court can exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to secure the ends of justice, for upliftment of the careers of the eligible candidates, direction for counselling of PG Course, to academic session 2012-2013 for admission may be issued. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Asha(Supra), in conclusion the orders Annexure P-1 dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Central Government and also the order passed by CCIM dated 20.02.2013 during the pendency of this petition is hereby quashed. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Asha(Supra), in conclusion the orders Annexure P-1 dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Central Government and also the order passed by CCIM dated 20.02.2013 during the pendency of this petition is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the Central Government shall pass an order regarding extension of the cutoff date within ten days after seeking permission from the CCIM and thereafter within two weeks, the counselling shall be held by the State Government for 15 seats of the Shubh Deep Ayurvedic College, Indore from the list of eligible candidates strictly on merit. Accordingly, both the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and the parties are directed to bear their own costs.