JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : This writ application has been filed with a prayer to declare action of opposite party No.1 not allowing the petitioner to participate in the second round of counseling in spite of deposit of all the required documents as illegal and with further prayer to issue necessary direction to opposite parties to admit the petitioner in PG (Medical) Courses-2013. 2.Petitioner’s case in a nut-shell is that she appeared in National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET)-PG 2013 on 24.11.2012. The result of the said test was declared on 31.05.2013 and the petitioner’s score was 661.1985. The petitioner’s All India Rank was 42528 and State Rank 1110 as per Annexure-1. The petitioner registered herself for counseling and attended the document verification process at the prescribed venue, i.e., Conference Hall, Institute of Engineers, Sachivalaya Marg, in front of Red Cross Bhawan, Bhubaneswar on 16.07.2013 at 9 A.M. The petitioner was called upon to submit the documents as per details given in Annexure-2 for verification. After verification of all her documents, she was allowed to participate in the first round counseling as she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for participating in counseling and getting admission into Postgraduate Course. On 26.07.2013, the first counseling merit list was published and the petitioner was found unsuccessful so far as her preferences are concerned. In order to participate in second round counseling, the petitioner on 28.08.2013 downloaded the counseling Admit Card from internet which revealed that for fresh candidates like the petitioner, counseling will be held at 10.00 A.M. onwards on 30.08.203 at Lecture Theatre, Department of Anatomy, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. In the said counseling Admit Card, it was stipulated that the candidates are advised to bring all the original certificates including CLC to participate in the counseling. The petitioner has submitted all documents except CLC which she could not obtain from MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur within a short time of 24 hours. In absence of C.L.C., opposite party No.1-Convenor, PG (Medical/Dental) Selection Committee did not allow the petitioner to participate in the second counseling process which caused serious prejudice to her. Hence, the present writ petition. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s State rank as per the revised merit list is 414 and some candidates securing rank below the petitioner have been given admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses. 3.Mr. Hence, the present writ petition. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s State rank as per the revised merit list is 414 and some candidates securing rank below the petitioner have been given admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses. 3.Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that action of opposite party No.1 not allowing the petitioner to participate in the second round counseling process to take admission into PG (Medical) Course is illegal and arbitrary. Opposite parties are not justified to advise the candidates to bring all the original copies of the certificates including the CLC to participate in the second round counseling. Many candidates have already taken admission in various Colleges without CLC as production of the same was not mandatory to participate in the first round counseling. After first round counseling the action of opposite party No.1 in changing the Rule and not allowing the petitioner to participate in the second round of counseling is illegal, more particularly when the petitioner has submitted all the documents for verification to participate in the counseling. Opposite parties have unilaterally changed the document verification process, which was never intimated directly to the candidates at any point of time before starting of second round of counseling process. The petitioner had represented before opposite party No.1 that she is willing to furnish her undertaking to produce CLC from MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur within 24 hours time, but her representation was never acceded to. Referring to Annexure-5, Mr. Pattnaik submitted that in fact on 31.08.2013 the petitioner obtained CLC from MKCG Medical College. It was submitted that the action of the opposite parties in calling upon the petitioner for production of CLC to participate in the second round of counseling is neither in conformity with the Information Bulletin for NEET (P.G.) nor with the Regulation of Medical Council of India. On 30.08.2013 at the time of second round counseling, the petitioner gave option for getting admission to the subject “Physiology” and the petitioner verily believed that still there is vacancy in the said subject even after the second (final) round counseling held on 31.08.2013. It is further submitted that on 30.08.2013 when the petitioner was denied to participate in the second round counseling, she immediately approached this Court on 02.09.2013 by way of filing the present writ petition. It is further submitted that on 30.08.2013 when the petitioner was denied to participate in the second round counseling, she immediately approached this Court on 02.09.2013 by way of filing the present writ petition. The action of opposite parties is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There are twenty-seven seats lying vacant in PG (Medical) Courses, 2013 but the petitioner is denied the benefit of getting admission on flimsy and technical pleas which causes much prejudice to the petitioner and the same is against the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences and others, AIR 2012 SC 3396 , Mr. Pattnaik submitted that the opposite parties may be directed to give admission to the petitioner into P.G. (Medical) Courses. 4.Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the P.G. (Medical) Selection Committee, 2013 has the primary responsibility for making admission to the P.G. (Medical) Courses for 2013 in accordance with the regulations and guidelines of Medical Council of India as well as of the State Government and as per the Bulletin prescribed by the National Board of Examination. It was admitted that for the current year, a common entrance test, i.e., NEET-P.G. was conducted by National Board of Examinations and no separate entrance test has been conducted by the State of Odisha for selection and admission into P.G. (Medical) Courses against the State quota seats. The petitioner had registered her name for counseling in pursuance of the instruction given in the website/internet of the DMET, Odisha, Bhubaneswar regarding counseling process for admission to P.G. (Medical)/Dental Courses, 2013. Registration started from 01.07.2013 and continued till 12.07.2013 and the document verification was scheduled to be started from 08.07.2013 to 16.07.2013. Accordingly, the candidates were allowed in the website of DMET, Odisha for registration of counseling and each candidate was asked to give necessary information and documents as per the application from (e-registration) for counseling into P.G. (Medical) Courses. The documents were required to be produced for verification and publication of merit list. Accordingly, the candidates were allowed in the website of DMET, Odisha for registration of counseling and each candidate was asked to give necessary information and documents as per the application from (e-registration) for counseling into P.G. (Medical) Courses. The documents were required to be produced for verification and publication of merit list. After the said merit list was prepared the candidates were asked to exercise their choices for the subjects and as per their choices, they were allowed seats based on the preference of their choices in order of the provisional list. Thus, the candidates who were allowed seats had to report to the institutions on the date and time specified in the seat allotted letter. There were also other conditions. Further the candidates were advised to submit their original documents while reporting at the institution. In the said instruction, it was mentioned that the candidates were advised to submit CLC from the institution last attended. The petitioner was unsuccessful in first round counseling so far her preference of choice is concerned. Therefore, she was not selected for getting admission in first round counseling. 5.Mr. R.C. Mohanty further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court on hearing a petition after 4th round counseling, in respect of All India Seats vide its order dated 23.08.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.433 of 2013, has extended the cut-off date for all the seats with a direction to complete the process of counseling and admission for remaining vacant seats of the State quota as well as the seats returned to the State from All India Quota before 31st August, 2013. Accordingly, the counseling was over on 30.08.2013. The Convenor, P.G. (Medical) Selection Committee on 23.08.2013 uploaded in the website regarding second (final) round counseling for P.G. (Medical/Dental) Courses, 2013, wherein it was mentioned that as per the instruction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.433 of 2013 all the vacant seats with regard to P.G. (Medical/Dental) Courses are to be filled up by 31.08.2013. Accordingly, the second (final) round counseling for P.G. (Medical/Dental) admission in the State of Odisha to three Government Medical Colleges and Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar was scheduled to be held on 29.08.2013 and 30.08.2013. It was further notified that the counseling would be made by personal appearance as per the guideline of the State Government. Accordingly, the second (final) round counseling for P.G. (Medical/Dental) admission in the State of Odisha to three Government Medical Colleges and Hi-Tech Medical College, Bhubaneswar was scheduled to be held on 29.08.2013 and 30.08.2013. It was further notified that the counseling would be made by personal appearance as per the guideline of the State Government. All the candidates, who had registered online for the first round counseling can participate and they were directed to download their Admit Cards from the website of DMET, Odisha and bring it along with the original documents including CLC. In the Admit Card it was categorically mentioned in the heading “Important Note” that the candidates are advised to bring all their original copies of certificates including CLC to participate in the counseling. It was further mentioned that no candidate without CLC will be admitted to the Course. No undertaking of any kind of any kind to this effect will be entertained. It was given in the website/internet for second round of counseling on 23.08.2013. Regarding second round (final) counseling of P.G. (Medical) Courses, 2013 and such publication was made in the newspaper, i.e., “The Samaja” and “The New Indian Express” on 23.08.2013 wherein it was mentioned that second round counseling for admission to different courses to P.G. (Medical/Dental) Courses was scheduled to be started from 24.07.2013 and the detailed programme was made available in the website, i.e., www.dmetodisha.gov.in. Thus, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the candidates have been duly informed regarding production of CLC before counseling and the petitioner has been rightly denied to participate in the second round of counseling for non-production of CLC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Susant Moharana and others v. Convenor, P.G. (Medical) Selection Committee, 2005 and others, 101 (2006) CLT 625. Referring to Annexure-D/1 dated 31.08.2013 Mr. Mohanty submitted that 27 seats are lying vacant after admission to P.G. (Medical/Dental) Courses was over. The said letter (Annexure-D/1) further reveals that “The admission of all direct candidates held on 30.08.2013 is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No.19825 of 2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa”. Mr. Referring to Annexure-D/1 dated 31.08.2013 Mr. Mohanty submitted that 27 seats are lying vacant after admission to P.G. (Medical/Dental) Courses was over. The said letter (Annexure-D/1) further reveals that “The admission of all direct candidates held on 30.08.2013 is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No.19825 of 2013 of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa”. Mr. Mohanty also submitted that some candidates below the petitioner’s rank have been given admission and no admission can be allowed after the cut-off date in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 and Medical Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera, (2010) 1 SCC 173 . Concluding his argument, Mr. Mohanty prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court: (i)Whether opposite party No.1 is justified in not allowing the petitioner to participate in the second round counseling for non-production of CLC which was not required to participate in first round of counseling ? (ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences and others, AIR 2012 SC 3396 after the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2013 ? (iii)What order ? 7.To deal with the above questions, it may be relevant to note certain facts which are not in dispute. The petitioner appeared in NEET P.G., 2013 on 24.11.2012. The result of the said test was declared on 31.05.2013 and the petitioner’s State rank was 1110. The petitioner registered herself for counseling. She attended the document verification process on 16.07.2013. After verification of all her documents, she was allowed to participate in the counseling to get admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses as she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria. At the time of document verification, she was neither asked to produce CLC nor told to produce CLC at the time of participating in first round counseling or second round counseling. To participate in first round counseling, production of CLC was not required by opposite parties. On 26.07.2013 first round counseling merit list was published and the petitioner was found unsuccessful so far as her preferences are concerned. To participate in first round counseling, production of CLC was not required by opposite parties. On 26.07.2013 first round counseling merit list was published and the petitioner was found unsuccessful so far as her preferences are concerned. On 30.08.2013 she was denied to participate in the second round (final) counseling for non-production of CLC. 8.So far as question No.(i) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was allowed to participate in first round counseling without being asked to produce the CLC for verification prior to taking part in first round counseling. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to re-produce the relevant portions of Annexure-2 which contains the particulars required to be submitted for verification of documents before counseling. “(I) I am a fresher/Direct Candidate and this not applicable for me. After taking the print out of the application form, the candidate should paste a self attested photograph and should sign the application form (Full Signature) with date. Then the applicant has to appear for document verification on the date, time and venue mentioned below. The candidate should bring all the following documents in original copies along with a set of attested copies of the same, and original Bank Draft of Rs.1000/- and the original NEET ID Card for Medical P.G./Admit Card for Dental P.G. and Score Card for Medical P.G. and Rank Card for Dental P.G. The Candidate should bring his/her original valid ID proof (Voter ID/PAN Card/Passport/Driving License/Adhar card) at the time of verification. Candidate who have already submitted their Original Documents at the time of Central Counseling of P.G., can come with their Proof of Submission (Receipt from concerned Institutes) for Verification. 1. 10th Certificate 2. NEET Test ID card for Medical P.G./Test ID Card (Admit Card) for Dental P.G. 3. NEET Score Card for Medical P.G./Rank Card for Dental P.G. 4. Resident/Nativity/Domicile Certificate 5. Category Certificate in support of reservation claimed (SC/ST/GC/PH/Ex-Service Men) if any. 6. Service Particulars Certificate issued by appropriate authority. 7.Internship Completion Certificate 8. Medical/Dental Registration Certificate 9. Bank Draft of Rs.1000/- in Original Drawn in Favour of “P.G. (Medical/Dental) Counseling 2013-14” Payable at “Cuttack” only.” (Underlined and highlighted in bold letters for emphasis) 9.Perusal of Annexure-2 extracted above reveals that CLC was not required to be verified to participate in counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses. 7.Internship Completion Certificate 8. Medical/Dental Registration Certificate 9. Bank Draft of Rs.1000/- in Original Drawn in Favour of “P.G. (Medical/Dental) Counseling 2013-14” Payable at “Cuttack” only.” (Underlined and highlighted in bold letters for emphasis) 9.Perusal of Annexure-2 extracted above reveals that CLC was not required to be verified to participate in counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses. Accordingly, candidates including the petitioner without being asked to produce CLC at the time of verification of documents or at the time of first round counseling were allowed to participate in the first round counseling. When the petitioner became unsuccessful in first round counseling, she desired to participate in the second round (final) counseling. In order to participate in the second round counseling, on 28.08.2013 when the petitioner down-loaded her Admit Card from website, she found that in the counseling Admit Card it was stipulated that the candidates were advised to bring all the original copies of the certificates including the CLC to participate in the second round counseling. Since the date for second round counseling was fixed to 30.08.2013, it was not possible on the part of the petitioner to obtain CLC from MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur within one day. It may be noted that the students who became successful in first round of counseling they were required to produce CLC at the time of reporting in their respective colleges to which they were allotted. But students who wanted to participate in second round (final) counseling are required to produce CLC to participate in second round counseling. Important Note clause No.1 of Admit Card under Annexure-4 uploaded by opposite party No.1-Convenor, P.G. (Medical/Dental) Selection Committee clearly stipulated that “The candidates are advised to bring all their original copies of certificates including CLC to participate in counseling.” Such a precondition to participate in first round counseling was not stipulated anywhere. Thus, different standards have been adopted without any supportable basis which is not permissible in law. Petitioner’s case is that she was not allowed 24 hours time to produce the CLC for which she was willing to furnish undertaking. Neither the State Guidelines for allotment of candidates for P.G. Medical Courses in Govt. Thus, different standards have been adopted without any supportable basis which is not permissible in law. Petitioner’s case is that she was not allowed 24 hours time to produce the CLC for which she was willing to furnish undertaking. Neither the State Guidelines for allotment of candidates for P.G. Medical Courses in Govt. Medical Colleges nor Regulations and Guidelines of Medical Council of India, nor the Information for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Post Graduate) for Admission to M.D/M.S/Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2013 admission Session prescribed by NEET, P.G. provides that the candidates are required to produce CLC in order to participate in first round Counseling and/or second round counseling to take admission in P.G. Medical Courses. Thus denying the petitioner to participate in second round counseling for non-production of CLC is unfair being not in conformity with the State Guidelines, MCI Guidelines and Regulations and NEET Information Bulletin, 2013, as there was no such requirement. Paragraph 2.2. of General Instructions, Terms and Conditions of NEET Information Bulletin, 2013 provides that “the selection and admission to Post-Graduate seats in any Medical Institutions recognized for running M.D./M.S./P.G. Diploma Courses as per Indian Medical Council, Act, 1956 is subject to fulfilling the admission criteria, eligibility, medical fitness and such criteria as may be prescribed by the respective Universities, Medical Institutions, Medical Council of India, State/Central Government”. As stated above, none of the above authorities has made any Rule/Regulation or formed any Guideline/Policy providing for production of CLC to participate in second round counseling for admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses. Further, Annexure-5 to the writ petition is the CLC issued by MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur on 31.08.2013, i.e., before expiry of the cut off date for admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses. Action of opp.parties not allowing the petitioner 24 hours time to produce the CLC, i.e., before expiry of the cut off date and on that ground debarring the petitioner from participating in the second round of counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses does not appear to be just and fair. Even otherwise, in the fact situation, it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle and deny the petitioner to participate in the second round of counselling for non-production of CLC. Every infraction of the instruction relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. Even otherwise, in the fact situation, it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle and deny the petitioner to participate in the second round of counselling for non-production of CLC. Every infraction of the instruction relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. (See Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, OJEE and others, AIR 2004 SC 5043 ). Further, admittedly, the students who ranked below the petitioner have been given admission to P.G. (Medical) Courses. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason for denying the petitioner to participate in second round counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses for non-production of CLC and not allowing the petitioner 24 hours time to produce CLC, i.e., before expiry of the cut off date. 10.In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that opposite party No.1 is not justified in denying the petitioner to participate in second round counseling to take admission in PG (Medical) Courses for non-production of CLC which was not provided in State Guidelines, MCI Guidelines and Regulations and NEET Information Bulletin, 2013 and not required at the time of participating in first round counseling. Thus, the petitioner was denied to participate in second round counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses for arbitrary reasons. 11.To deal with Question No.(ii), it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences and others, AIR 2012 SC 3396 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha (supra) after taking note of its earlier judgment in the case of Mriduldhar (minor and another) (supra) held as under : “31. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cutt-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 be 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. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible. 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 unfortunately but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. Though there can be rarest of 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.” “36. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us in the opening part of this judgment. ANSWERS (a)The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and concerned authorities are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur. (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. 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 extraordinary 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 competition jurisdiction. (c) & (d) Wherever the Court finds that action of the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and violative of the Rules, regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the Court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials. The Court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Where the admissions given by the concerned authorities are found by the Courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact that such students have put in a year or so into the academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the course.” (underlined for emphasis) 12.In the present case, the petitioner has not at all committed any fault. She was not asked to produce the CLC when she was permitted to participate in first round counseling. Annexure-2, the application form for e-registration clearly reveals the documents, which were required to be produced by the students for verification to register themselves to participate in counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses, but it did not require production of the CLC for verification. Action of opp.party No.1 in not allowing the petitioner to participate in second round counseling for non-production of CLC is not in conformity with State Guidelines, MCI Guidelines and Regulations and NEET Information Bulletin, 2013 as there was no such requirement. Action of opp.party No.1 in not allowing the petitioner to participate in second round counseling for non-production of CLC is not in conformity with State Guidelines, MCI Guidelines and Regulations and NEET Information Bulletin, 2013 as there was no such requirement. Thus, action of opposite party No.1 is completely unjust and unfair. Petitioner’s further case is that she had represented before the opposite party No.1 giving undertaking that she would produce the CLC within 24 hours time after obtaining the same from MKCG Medical College but her request in the representation was never acceded to and she was not permitted to participate in the second round counseling scheduled to be held on 30.08.2013. She has obtained the CLC on 31.08.2013 under Annexure-5 i.e. before expiry of cut-off date. Thereafter, immediately she approached this Court by filing the present Writ petition on 02.09.2013. On 06.09.2013, on the request of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 12.09.2013. On 12.9.2013 when the matter was taken up both the counsel were present but a submission was made on behalf of Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel, who usually appears for opposite party No.1 to take up the matter on 16.09.2013 as he was suffering from post-operational problem in his eyes. On 16.09.2013, hearing was concluded and judgment was reserved. Thus, the petitioner is not at fault and she is diligent in pursuing her rights and legal remedy. Admittedly, 27 seats are lying vacant in PG (Medical) Courses and students who ranked below the petitioner have been given admission to the said Courses. It may be noted that if a meritorious student is not given admission to the PG (Medical) Courses on unsustainable ground and the seat remains vacant, it is a national waste and the country will lose a qualified doctor. Needless to say that education is national wealth. It may be further noted here that the Member-Convenor, PG Medical Selection Committee vide his letter dated 31.08.2013 addressed to the DMET stated that “the admission to all direct candidates held on 30.08.2013 is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No.19825 of 2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack”. Needless to say that education is national wealth. It may be further noted here that the Member-Convenor, PG Medical Selection Committee vide his letter dated 31.08.2013 addressed to the DMET stated that “the admission to all direct candidates held on 30.08.2013 is subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No.19825 of 2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack”. This Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2013, inter alia, directed opposite parties 2 and 3 to redo the admission to PG (Medical) Courses in the Government Colleges of Odisha restricting it to the petitioner and those direct candidates who have secured ranks below the petitioner but got admission in PG (Medical) Course 2013 as soon as possible but not later 10 days from the date of judgment. 13.The decision of this Court in Dr. Susant Moharana and others (supra) has no application to the present case. The facts of that case are completely different from the facts of the present case. In that case, opposite parties insisted that the petitioners have to produce CLC to get admission into PG (Medical) Courses, 2005 and the same was challenged by the petitioners. This Court placing strong reliance on Clause 15(2) of the prospectus for selection of candidates for Postgraduate (Medical) Entrance Examination in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha held that refusal of opposite party to admit the petitioners for non-production of the College Leaving Certificate which otherwise determines their eligibility for admission cannot be faulted. In the present case, as stated above, in the preceding paragraphs neither the State Guidelines for allotment of candidates for P.G. (Medical) Courses in Govt. Medical Colleges nor Regulations and Guidelines of Medical Council of India, nor the Information for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Admission to M.D./M.S./P.G. Courses, 2013 admission Session prescribed by NEET, P.G. provides that the candidates are required to produce CLC in order to participate in first round counseling and/or second round counseling to take admission in P.G. (Medical) Courses. Even Annexure-2 in which the petitioner was required to produce various documents for verification does not include CLC. Therefore, Dr. Susant Moharana (supra) is of no help to opp.parties. 14.For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha (supra). Therefore, Dr. Susant Moharana (supra) is of no help to opp.parties. 14.For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha (supra). Therefore, opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to redo the admission to the P.G. (Medical) Courses-2013 in the Government Colleges of Odisha restricting it to the petitioner and those direct candidates who have secured ranks below the petitioner but got admission in the P.G. (Medical) Courses 2013, as soon as possible but not later than 7 days from today. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to ensure holding of additional classes of student(s) to meet the required number of classes as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. 15.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra, but without any order as to costs. In view of the urgency and paucity of time, urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application in course of the day and free copy of this judgment be handed over to learned counsel for opposite parties for compliance. Petition allowed.