ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.3566/2013, which is an application for hearing during vacation. 2. Learned counsel seriously objects the conduct of the office in not listing the case for hearing on 20.5.2013. Learned counsel submits that in this matter on the last date of hearing i.e. on 17.5.2013, this Court had fixed the case on 20.5.2013 during vacations which was to be commenced from 18.5.2013. It is submitted that the case was not listed and upon enquiry it was informed that on account of the judicial order dated 24.5.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1334/2010, case cannot be listed. It is submitted that under the compelling circumstances, petitioner had no other remedy except to move an application for early hearing. 3. Chapter VII of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 deals with vacation, rule 5 of which reads, thus : “No application, petition or appeal except the following shall be presented or received during vacation -- (1) Jail appeals under section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (2) Applications, petitions and appeals wherein an urgent relief has been prayed for, accompanied by an application for urgent hearing during vacation; (3) Applications under section 389(1), 438 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Provided that no repeat application for bail or suspension of sentence shall be filed or received during vacation. Such application, if filed before vacation, may, however, be posted before the Bench or the Judge to which it is tied up, if that Bench or Judge is sitting during vacation.” 4. Keeping in view clause 2 of rule 5 of Chapter 7 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, vide order dated 24.5.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1334./2010, this Court had directed that there cannot be listing of the case during vacation in violation of any High Court Rule. It is, thus, the judicial order which compels the petitioner to move the application for early hearing. 5. The Rules are made for conduction of the business of the Court smoothly and conveniently. As per the rule, no petition, appeal can be received unless accompanied by an application for urgent hearing during vacation. In the present case, petition was already pending. No fresh petition was filed. In the pending petition, this Court found that it requires urgent hering, therefore, listed the same for hearing during vacation. As per the rule, no petition, appeal can be received unless accompanied by an application for urgent hearing during vacation. In the present case, petition was already pending. No fresh petition was filed. In the pending petition, this Court found that it requires urgent hering, therefore, listed the same for hearing during vacation. Rule is silent for listing of those cases which are pending and are to be listed during vacation under the orders of the Court. If just before commencement of vacation, this Court is of the opinion that the case is required to be heard during vacation and a particular date is fixed for hearing by judicial order then the said order cannot be superseded by the office quoting any rule. In view of this, this Court finds that the office was bound to list the case on 20.5.2013 as directed by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2013. Henceforth, the office is directed to list the cases for hearing during vacation, if dates are already fixed by the Court before commencement of vacation. 6. Heard on merits. 7. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-institution wherein the prayer has been made, thus : (1) That, the action of the respondents declining to issue examination forms and further not permitting the students to appear in the examination for Purva Madhyama Second Part (Class 10th) and Uttar Madhyama Second Part (Class 12th), may kindly be declared to be illegal, null and void and consequently the impugned order Annexure P-1 and P-12 may kindly be quashed. (2) That, consequently the respondent No.3 may be directed to issue 256 examination forms to the students for appearing in the examinations of Purva Madhyama Second Part (Class 10th) and 100 examination forms for the students of Uttar Madhyama Second Part (Class 12th) as regular students for session 2012-13 scheduled to be conducted in the month of May, 2013 and the students be permitted to appear in the said examination. 8. In the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner, namely, Dr. Raman Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Datia, is an educational institution which is imparting Sanskrit education to the students. The institution is being run by Shri Lalaram Chaurasiya Shiksha Samiti registered under the provisions of Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It is alleged that the petitioner institution is enjoying recognition from respondent No.3 since last three years. Raman Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Datia, is an educational institution which is imparting Sanskrit education to the students. The institution is being run by Shri Lalaram Chaurasiya Shiksha Samiti registered under the provisions of Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. It is alleged that the petitioner institution is enjoying recognition from respondent No.3 since last three years. It was alleged that the petitioner institution was applying for renewal of recognition which was recognized from time to time and for the academic session 2012-13 also the application for recognition was submitted by the petitioner institution before 31.3.2012 but the same was allowed on 5.10.2012. It is submitted that prior to it, since the petitioner institution was recognized and recognition was renewed, therefore, the petitioner institution gave admission to the students for Purva Madhyama II and Uttar Madhyama II between 1st July, 2012 to 16th August, 2012. Application for issuance of examination forms was also submitted by the petitioner institution on 22.12.2012 as the last date for issuance of forms was 31.12.2012. It is submitted that since forms were not issued and no reason was assigned, therefore, petitioner prayed before this Court by way of preferring Writ Petition No.133/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.1.2013 with the following directions: “The factum of the students being regular students or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court and therefore this writ petition stands disposed of without commenting upon the merits of the case with the following directions: 1. In case, the petitioner institute complies with the conditions contained in the guidelines for the academic year 2012-13, especially clauses 6 and 7 of the said guidelines specify the Director, Maharishi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan, Tulsi Nagar, Bhopal, respondent No.3 by fulfilling the requirement sa contained in the said guidelines within a period of 10 working days from today, the respondent No.3 or any other competent authority, as the case may be, shall consider the said claim of the petitioner institute and take a decision on the same, without being influenced by the earlier decision and the filing of this petition, within a period of 10 days thereafter and take consequential steps in terms of the decision taken. 3. 3. In case, decision taken by the respondent No.3 is adverse to the interest of the petitioner the same would be decided by speaking order and communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.” 9. It is submitted that in compliance of that a representation submitted by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.2.2013, hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner subhmits that the students for whom the examination forms were asked were the regular students of the petitioner institution. It is submitted that the policy which was in existence on 27.6.2011 which is Annexure P-5 mentions the last date of admission according to which the last date was 20.8.2011. It is submitted that as per this policy the candidate is eligible for appearance in the examination for Purva Madhyama Dwitiya Khand and Uttar Madhyama Dwitiya Khand provided that he/she has passed the examination of 9th standard and a candidate is eligible for appearance in examination for Uttar Madhyama Pratham Khand provided that he/she has passed the examination of 11th standard. 10. It is submitted that as per the policy if a student has passed the examination of 9th and 11th standards even without having the Sanskrit as a subject is eligible for appearance. It is submitted that since by the time recognition was made to the petitioner institution and the petitioner allowed to admit the students, and no new policy came in force by that time for year 2012-13, therefore, at the relevant time the policy which was for the year 2011-12 remained in force. It is submitted that as per the policy Annexure P-5 the students of the petitioner institution are eligible to appear in the examinatiuon which is scheduled to be held with effect from 27.5.2013. It is submitted that since the forms have not been issued by respondent No.3 so far, hence, necessary directions may be issued for which the fee was deposited with respondent No.3 but was returned by respondent No.3. 11. Per contra, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, submits that since the petitioner institution is asking for admission of the students for the academic year 2012-13, therefore, it has nothing to do with the policy dated 27.6.2011, Annexure P-5, as it was for the yer 2011-12. 11. Per contra, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, submits that since the petitioner institution is asking for admission of the students for the academic year 2012-13, therefore, it has nothing to do with the policy dated 27.6.2011, Annexure P-5, as it was for the yer 2011-12. Learned counsel further submits that as per the policy which was prevailing in the year 2011-12 also it was necessary for the student to have Sanskrit as a subject failing which he/she is not eligible for appearance in examination. Learned counsel submits that the policy for the year 2012-13 came into force with effect from 16.8.2012 of which clause 2.6 and 2.7 read as under : 2-6 mrj e/;ek f)rh; [kaM & esa os gh Nk= fu;fer :i ls lfEefyr gks ik,axs ftUgksaus mrj e/;ek izFke [kaM dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gks vFkok l= 2011&12 ,oa blds iwoZ ds l= esa f)rh; [kaM esa vuqRrh.kZ gks( 2-7 ;fn lkekU; :i ls dksbZ Nk= d{kk 8oha mRrh.kZ gS vkSj iwoZ e/;ek izFke [kaM esa] vkSj ;fn d{kk 9oha mRrh.kZ gS iwoZ e/;ek vafre [kaM esa vkSj ;fn d{kk 10 oha mRrh.kZ vkSj mrj e/;ek izFke [kaM esa izos’k pkgrk gS rks mls dze’k% izosf’kdk lkj izFkek lkj] iwoZ e/;ek lkj] ijh{kk,a mRrh.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA vU;Fkk vuqRrh.kZ ekuk tk,xkA ;g fu;e Lok/;k;h Nk=ksa ds fy, Hkh ck/;dkjh gksxkA 12. It is submitted that since the students for whom forms were being asked are not the regular students, therefore, they are not eligible to appear in the examination which is scheduled to be held with effect from 27.5.2013. It is submitted that the petition has no merits and the same be dismissed. 13. From perusal of the record, it is evident that as per the policy which was in existence for the academic year 2011-12 there was no condition that the student who has to appear in the examination must be regular student of the institution, however, as per the policy for the year 2012-13 the student was required to be regular student in previous session. Since the students who are approaching through petitioner are alleging that they are the regular students in the respective institutions, therefore, the change in policy is not affecting the case of the petitioner institution in any manner. Since the students who are approaching through petitioner are alleging that they are the regular students in the respective institutions, therefore, the change in policy is not affecting the case of the petitioner institution in any manner. Since the examinations are commencing shortly, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions : A. The petitioner institution shall deposit the requisite fee along with late fee for issuance of examination forms within three days before 24.5.2013. B. Respondent No.3 shall permit the students to appear in the examinations of Purva Madhyama Dwitiya and Uttar Madhyama Dwitiya which are scheduled to be held with effect from 27.5.2013. If, because of late submission of forms, respondent No.3 is required to change the date then respondent No.3 shall be free for the same. C. After examination, respondent No.3 shall examine the documents of each of the students to find out whether they were the regular students of their respective institutions or not. If after scrutiny it is found by respondent No.3 that some of the students or all the students were not the regular students then respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to hold that they were not eligible to appear in the examination, otherwise respondent No.3 shall declare the result in due course. 14. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. .............