ORDER The question arises for consideration is whether the claim of the petitioner for admission in Post Graduate Course of M.Ch. Urology in Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences can be brought within the meaning of rarest of rare case for which the deadline set by Hon’ble Supreme Court is required to be breached and whether a judicial order in his favour for admission can be given now? 2. Petitioner was one of the candidate, who figured in the merit list of candidates, who could be given admission in M.Ch Urology Course for Academic Session 2013 subject to vacancy. Merit position of the petitioner was 4th out of six candidates, who were shortlisted for such admission. The 1st person on the merit list was Dr. Sandip Kumar. He chose not to take admission because he had got admission in yet other institution of his liking or reputation. The 2nd man in the list, Dr. Rana Pratap Singh shown as a wait list candidate was given admission. Admission was also offered to one Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra, who was over and above merit position of the present petitioner. In the normal course of things, petitioner had no chance of being given admission. However, due to certain developments and exercise carried out by the petitioner behind the scene, his hope for admission rose but when he failed in his mission, he decided to approach the High Court for a direction. 3. Assertion in the writ application is that petitioner reported before the authorities of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medial Sciences (IGIMS) on 30th of September, 2013, the last date of admission. He had adequate input that Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra had already taken admission in Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research at Puducherry. He was not likely to join IGIMS and, therefore, he being next on the wait list, approached the authorities to give him a chance for admission even with an undertaking that in case the said Doctor turned up and made his claim, he was more than willing to vacate the seat. 4. The respondent authorities did not act upon the representation of the petitioner because they had nothing in writing from Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra that he was not interested or would not join. In this circumstance, IGIMS refused to give admission to the petitioner. 5. 4. The respondent authorities did not act upon the representation of the petitioner because they had nothing in writing from Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra that he was not interested or would not join. In this circumstance, IGIMS refused to give admission to the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner thereafter produced a hand written fax message, which was supposed to have been written by Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra and faxed on the number of the Director of the IGIMS indicating that he is not interested in admission. Without going into the issue of the authenticity of such a communication or the content, the fax message, which has been produced by the petitioner in Court, seems to have been dispatched at 22.07 hours i.e. 8.07 pm. This according to the counsel was adequate notice to the respondents to not allow a seat of the Post Graduate level to go unrepresented and give a chance to the petitioner, who had due merit position. 6. Counsel representing Medical Council of India takes a stand that they are bound by various directives and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The deadline, which has been fixed in various decisions, are regulations for MCI. They have no leeway in granting any concession by permitting anybody to join the Course after the D-Day, which in the present case is 30th of September, 2013. 7. Stand of counsel for IGIMS is that there was no clear vacancy position available to them on which petitioner was looking for admission on 30th September. Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra had been given admission. They did not receive any communication giving up the vacancy to be made available to any other candidate. So far the fax communication is concerned, this was received much after the office hours and they also plead that they are not sure that such a communication was received at all. They have no official records in this regard. However, at the instance of the petitioner, a letter dated 1st of October, 2013 was addressed to Dr Amit Kumar Mishra seeking his response and stand on the admission position. Till date, no communication has been received from Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra by the respondents, which could have egged them on to consider offering the seat to the petitioner provided such a response had come within a reasonable time. Till date, no communication has been received from Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra by the respondents, which could have egged them on to consider offering the seat to the petitioner provided such a response had come within a reasonable time. The said respondents do not have any grudge against the petitioner but to avoid any litigation in future as well as embarrassing position, which could be created in absence of categorical declaration by the candidate over and above the petitioner that they chose not to take a decision at least on 30th of September when petitioner asserts there was a vacancy. 8. In the opinion of the Court, the non- grant of admission to the petitioner is not attributable to the respondents. They cannot be faulted if it was their opinion that there was no vacancy position to be offered to the petitioner. The vacancy position even till date is not officially certified in absence of any communication of refusal by Dr. Amit Kumar Mishra till date. There cannot be a presumption on this account. Therefore, the petitioner unfortunately did lose admission on the D-Day. 9. The question now arises is whether petitioner could be given admission under rarest of rare case which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has talked about in the case reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 (Asha V. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and others). 10. If refusal of admission by the respondents was for any other extraneous consideration or any gross violation of the merit position of the petitioner then the Court would have surely reached out to the petitioner by giving a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for grant of admission in the Course. However, since no clear vacancy position was available on 30th of September and for which adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to even beget some confirmation, the Court would not like to breach the deadline set by the Hon’ble Apex Court for such admission. 11. The Court, therefore, declines to interfere in the writ application. It is dismissed.