ORDER 1. Petitioners have preferred this writ application inter alia for grant of following reliefs: “(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to give benefit of Clause 4.4(a)(i) of its Prospectus of Post Graduate Medical Admissions Counselling (PGMAC)-2013 i.e. to allot 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courss for the persons who have served for three years and more in remote or difficult areas of the State and thereafter to give benefit to the petitioners under the aforesaid 50% of the seats as already a certificate has been issued to the petitioners by the competent authority i.e. Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Government of Bihar, certifying therein that the petitioners who are in Government service (on regular/contract basis) have served for at least three years in remote and/or in difficult areas, pursuant to the examination and merit list prepared by the National Board of Examinations of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - PG (NEET-PG). (ii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners is found to been tilted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner no. 8, namely, Pratap Narayan Jha, has not pressed this application in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 9.10.2013 rendered in L.P.A. No. 1024 of 2013 setting aside the order dated 22.7.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13112 of 2013 which would be evident from the order dated 13.02.2014. 3. Short facts which would be necessary for consideration of the issue involved in this case emanating from the pleadings of the parties are extracted as under. 4. The petitioners are admittedly, after obtaining MBBS degree, in service of the State of Bihar, petitioner no. 3 being in regular service whereas other petitioners are serving on contract for a particular period. 5. All the petitioners have been granted certificates by the Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, declaring that they have served for three years and more in the remote/difficult area of the State of Bihar. On the basis of the aforesaid, they are claiming eligibility for admission in P.G. Diploma Course as per paragraph 4.4. of prospectus of P.G. Medical Counselling 2013 based on NEET (PG)-2013. The certificates have been appended as Annexures 1 series. On the basis of the aforesaid, they are claiming eligibility for admission in P.G. Diploma Course as per paragraph 4.4. of prospectus of P.G. Medical Counselling 2013 based on NEET (PG)-2013. The certificates have been appended as Annexures 1 series. In response to the notice advertised for National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test – P.G. (hereinafter referred to as “NEET – PG”) issued by the National Board of Examination in September, 2012 for admission to the MD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Course 2013, the petitioners applied and have appeared in the examination concerned and were declared successful. Their ranks stand stated in paragraph 6 of the writ application. The petitioners, in view of the aforesaid result, were eligible to be called for counseling on all India basis in different colleges and also in colleges of the State of Bihar. It has been stated in the writ application that out of 140 seats, which are to be filled up from the aforesaid results in the State of Bihar, 50% , i.e., 70 seats are to be reserved in terms of the MCI Regulation and the prospectus of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The prospectus of the Post Graduate Medical Admissions Counselling (PGMAC) – 2013 has been appended as Annexure 5 to this writ application. The petitioners claim that they have obtained certificates issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar certifying that they have served in remote or difficult area and, thus, they are entitled to be considered for their admission to PG Diploma courses against the seats reserved for such candidates as they are also willing to serve for two more years in such areas after acquiring the PG Diploma. They claim that they are entitled to be considered for their admission in such category as per clause 4.4 of the prospectus issued by the Board. However, the Board is not considering them for the said purpose and they are not being called for counselling. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 , i.e. the Board and the Controller of Examination of the Board, have stated in their counter affidavit that the Special Officer of the Department of Health of the State of Bihar had communicated the Board through the letter No. 2/Court-59/13 906(2) dated 27.07.13 addressed to the respondent no. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 , i.e. the Board and the Controller of Examination of the Board, have stated in their counter affidavit that the Special Officer of the Department of Health of the State of Bihar had communicated the Board through the letter No. 2/Court-59/13 906(2) dated 27.07.13 addressed to the respondent no. 5 that, since the issue of defining the remote and difficult area of the State of Bihar is yet to be defined, the Board should not give any weightage for the concerned purpose at the time of counselling till such notification is issued by the competent authority. 7. Thus, in above view of the matter, it is admitted position that the petitioners are not being given advantage of such certificate issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. The State Government in its counter affidavit had stated that neither any communication regarding the notification of MCI dated 15.2.2012 nor the Brochure/Information of NEET 2013 Examination was received by the State Government as a result of which the steps as per Clause 5 of the said notification for defining the remote/remote area could not be taken. However, subsequently, after getting knowledge of the aforesaid notification, State of Bihar has come up with a notification dated 13.7.2013, as contained in Annexure A, defining the remove/difficult area. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that now only the candidates who will obtain the certificate in view of their respective eligibility for the said purpose in accordance with aforesaid notification would be benefited. 8. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid policy of reservation of seats for remote/difficult area is not a new thing brought by NEET after notification of the MCI dated 15.1.2012 for NEET 2013 but the same was prevailing for last several years and the candidates, holding such certificates issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar acknowledging their continuous three years service in remote/difficult areas of the State, were being called for counselling and they were being admitted in the Post Graduate Diploma Courses. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel has appended prospectus issued by the State of Bihar for the Post Graduate Medical Examination Board 2013 as Annexure 5 and the prospectus of the Board for the year 2012 as Annexure 4. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel has appended prospectus issued by the State of Bihar for the Post Graduate Medical Examination Board 2013 as Annexure 5 and the prospectus of the Board for the year 2012 as Annexure 4. It is submitted that identical provision was therein for the previous years prospectus also which could be found at Clause 5.4 of Annexure 4. Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid clauses were introduced into the prospectus of last several years on the basis of regulation of MCI issued and amended time to time. Copy of the regulations amended up to May 2013 has been brought on record as Annexure 2. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards Clause 9.1 (b) of the amended notification of P.G. Regulations to impress upon this Court that 50% seats in Post Graduate Diploma were directed to be reserved for Medical Officer who are in Government service and who have served at least three years in the remote/difficult area. However, they would be further required to serve two more years in such area after acquiring PG Diploma. It is submitted that such certificates were being granted and admissions were also being allowed on the aforesaid premises under the reserved category after introduction of aforesaid provision in the statutory regulation by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel further submitted that even Annexure A appended with the counter affidavit of the Board, which is a letter written by the Examination Controller, Health Services, State of Bihar to the Examination Controller of the Board, indicates that the seats have been made available for admission under the category reserved for the candidates who have served in the remote / difficult area of the State of Bihar. Thus, it is contended that even the State Government had taken a decision that fixed numbers of seats are to be filled up from candidates having served the remote area. The prospectus clearly indicates that certificates granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar would be valid and the case of the petitioners is that they have obtained the requisite certificates. The aforesaid process is continuing for last several years. It is contended that now, at the fag end of the procedure of admission, i.e., at the stage of counselling, the authority concerned cannot deny such benefit to the petitioner by introducing a notification defining the remote/difficult area. 9. The aforesaid process is continuing for last several years. It is contended that now, at the fag end of the procedure of admission, i.e., at the stage of counselling, the authority concerned cannot deny such benefit to the petitioner by introducing a notification defining the remote/difficult area. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since State Government had never defined the remote/difficult area, the petitioners could not get benefit by the certificates granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. 10. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6, i.e., Medical Council of India. It is submitted that in view of the amended clause 9(2)(d) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2000 all the concerned authorities including the State Government/Universities, at the time of determining the merit in the entrance test for the Post Graduate Admission, were required to give weightage incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year in service in remote or difficult areas upto the maximum of 30 marks. The concerned regulation was amended time to time. Lastly it was amended in the year 2012. However, subsequently the aforesaid provision granting benefit of weightage of marks to the in-service candidates for admission in P.G. degree courses was declared ultra vires by the Apex Court in Satyabrata Sahoo & Others vs. State of Orissa & Others, (2012) 8 SCC 203 . However, the concerned provision contained in clause 9 of the MCI regulation with respect to grant of reservation for candidates who have served at remote/difficult area still holds good. It is next contended that last date of counselling having ended in the month of September, 2013, even though the petitioners may have succeeded in merit and they could not be allowed to be admitted in PG Diploma within the period that has been ear-marked by the Apex Court, thus, now their admission in the course concerned cannot be allowed. He has submitted that there are catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue holding that the date fixed for counselling cannot be relaxed and after expiry of such date not a single admission can be taken by the authorities. He has submitted that there are catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue holding that the date fixed for counselling cannot be relaxed and after expiry of such date not a single admission can be taken by the authorities. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his aforesaid submission, such as, in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 932 , Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Others, (2002) 7 SCC 258 as well as Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, (2012) 7 SCC 433 . It has been contended that the Apex Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has held that vacancies of seats cannot be a ground to allow admission in midstream of the courses. He submits that, in Medical Council of India (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the student is admitted after commencement of the course it would be against the time schedule fixed by the Apex Court. He has further submitted that in Priya Gupta (supra) the Apex Court has held that schedule prescribed for admission in course form part of the judgments of the Supreme Court which are declared law of the land. It is further contended that the regulation of the MCI, being statutory in nature, is also binding upon all concerned. Thus, no authority, i.e., the MCI, the Government of India, the State Government, the Universities or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counselling would have any discretion to alter the time schedule to suit the given situation. 11. This Court, while hearing the matter on 26.9.2013, after noticing the stand of the State Government that no communication has ever been received by the State Government either from MCI or Board conducting the examination or counselling regarding the said notification of the MCI reserving for in-service candidates who have served in the remote/difficult area, had directed to explain as to under what circumstances the prospectus got published and notified on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 incorporating the aforesaid provision under Clause 5 not only for Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling (PGMAC) 2013 but also in the prospectus of the previous year, i.e. for PGMAT 2012 which has been appended as Annexure 4. 4 and 5 incorporating the aforesaid provision under Clause 5 not only for Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling (PGMAC) 2013 but also in the prospectus of the previous year, i.e. for PGMAT 2012 which has been appended as Annexure 4. The Principal Secretary was directed to file another counter affidavit on his behalf on the said issue. This Court had also held on 26.9.2013 that in case the seats reserved for the in-service candidates who have served in remote / difficult area are filled up by any other category then the aforesaid action would be subject to the result of this application. It is also admitted position that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ application prior to the date of the counselling. On 30.09.2013, a direction was given to keep 8 seeks vacant for the petitioners. 12. Surprisingly, learned counsel for the MCI did not raise the aforesaid issue when the interim relief was being granted in favour of the petitioners on 26.9.2013 and again on 30.9.2013. 13. Upon consideration of the rival contentions following issues emerge for determination in this case. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of certificates having been granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar vide Annexure 1 series in favour of the petitioners certifying that they have worked for remote/difficult area, the petitioners would be entitled to be called for counselling for their admission under such category under the State of Bihar quota of seats? (ii) Whether at this stage the respondents can deny counselling on the ground that the State Government was yet to define remote/difficult area at the relevant point of time and in view of such definition now having been declared under the subsequent notification dated 27.8.2013, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the candidates would be governed by such notification for the present examination/counselling also meaning thereby that the notification would have a retrospective effect also affecting the candidates who have already been granted such certificates by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar which includes the petitioners who have been declared successful and are fit to be admitted to the course on the seats reserved for such categories? of Bihar which includes the petitioners who have been declared successful and are fit to be admitted to the course on the seats reserved for such categories? If yes, then what would happen to such candidates who have already been admitted under such on the basis of certificate on earlier occasions, such as successful candidate under PGMAT 2012 and even earlier? (iii) Whether in view of decision of the Apex Court, as has been relied upon by the respondent MCI, the respondents could not be directed to hold the counselling of the petitioners even if they are found to be entitled for such counselling and even if the issue nos. 1 and 2 are decided in their favour? 14. Issue nos. (i) and (ii), being intertwined, would have to be considered together. It is admitted position that the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ application much earlier to the closure of a proceeding of admission or the counselling. The Court vide its order dated 26.9.2013 had directed that any admission taken on the seats reserved for in-service candidates, which is claimed by the petitioners, would be subject to the result of this present writ application. Later on when the necessary counter affidavit was not filed on behalf of the State then on 30.9.2013 another direction was issued that there would be no further allotment of seats to the extent of 8 vacancies if the seats were still vacant. This is admitted position that the seats have remained vacant under such category till date. 15. This is further admitted that the petitioners have been granted certificates by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar declaring that they have served in remote/difficult area for more than three years. For better appreciation of the case the relevant provision contained in regulation of the MCI as amended vide notification dated 15.2.2012 contained in Annexure 2 are extracted as under: “Clause 9 under the heading SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS, as amended vide notification No. MCI.18(1)/2010-Med/49070 dated 21st December, 2010, following shall be added after sub-clause VI which is as under: “VII. 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and/or difficult areas. 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and/or difficult areas. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas as defined by State Government/competent authority from time to time.” 16. The relevant provision contained in prospectus issued by the Board for PGMAT 2012 and PGMAC -2013 are extracted as under: From the prospectus of PGMAT 2012 “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5.4 (a) (i) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma courses will be reserved for Medical officers in the Bihar Govt. service, who have served for atleast three years in remote and difficult areas of the state and will produce authentic original certificate from Director in Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, to this effect at the time of Interview/Counselling. Also they will have to give undertaking to serve for two more years in remote or difficult areas after acquiring the P.G. Diploma degree. Such reserved seats are included in the available Post Graduate Diploma Seats. (ii) If eligible candidates are not available after the allotment of seats in any reservation category, the remaining vacant seats will be made available for all other candidates of the same category. (b) (i) For being eligible for the above mentioned reservation, the concerned Medical Officer has to submit a certificate in the format given in Annexure-4, that he has rendered Govt. service in remote/difficult areas of the state for a period of minimum three years, duly issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar. (ii) For being eligible for the above mentioned reservation, the concerned Medical officer will also have to submit an undertaking by an affidavit in the format given in Annexure -3, that he is ready to serve for a further period of two years in remote/difficult areas of the state. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” From the prospectus of PGMAC 2013 “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4.4 (a) (i) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma courses will be reserved for Medical officers in the Bihar Govt. service, who have served for atleast three years in remote and difficult areas of the state and will produce authentic original certificate from Director in Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, to this effect at the time of Interview/Counselling. service, who have served for atleast three years in remote and difficult areas of the state and will produce authentic original certificate from Director in Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, to this effect at the time of Interview/Counselling. Also they will have to give undertaking to serve for two more years in remote or difficult areas after acquiring the P.G. Diploma degree. Such reserved seats are included in the available Post Graduate Diploma Seats. (ii) If eligible candidates are not available after the allotment of seats in any reservation category, the remaining vacant seats will be made available for all other candidates of the same category. (b) (i) For being eligible for the above mentioned reservation, the concerned Medical Officer has to submit a certificate in the format given in Annexure-4, that he has rendered Govt. service in remote/difficult areas of the state for a period of minimum three years, duly issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar. (ii) For being eligible for the above mentioned reservation, the concerned Medical officer will also have to submit an undertaking by an affidavit in the format given in Annexure -4, that he is ready to serve for a further period of two years in remote/difficult areas of the state. 17. It appears from the prospectus of both the years, i.e., of 2012 and 2013, that the relevant provisions are pari materia and appears to have been issued in compliance of the notification issued by the MCI. It clearly indicates that, out of the seats of the State quota, 50% seats stand reserved for in-service the candidates who have served in the remote / difficult areas for a minimum period of three years. 18. Now a question would be as to whether the State Government, in view of the aforesaid, would be in a position to take a stand that the aforesaid notification of the MCI, as quoted above, was not within its knowledge specially when the prospectus was notified in terms of such notification specially when such provision was already existing in the MCI regulation (Annexure 2) after its amendment brought on 21st July 2009 under clause 9 thereof? For better appreciation the relevant passage from the aforesaid amendment of 21st July 2009 is also quoted as under: Clause 9 under the heading “Selection of Postgraduate Students” shall be substituted as under:- (1)(a) Students for Post Graduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their inter-se Academic Merit. (b) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas.” 19. The admissions have admittedly been taken on such reserved seats on the basis of certificates granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar even for the year PGMAT 2012 as the aforesaid fact has not been controverted by the respondents. When a question was put to the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the Board at the time of hearing as to whether the prospectuses for PGMAT 2012 and PGMAC 2013 were issued after approval or without approval of the State Government, they were not in a position to specifically answer it. In such a situation it has to be deemed that the prospectuses for both the years were published after the approval of the State Government. Once it is held as above that would again lead to another question, i.e., if the State Government was yet to define difficult / remote area then under what circumstances seats were kept reserved for such in-service candidates? Learned counsel for the State and the Board were not in a position to answer the aforesaid question also. This is also clearly indicated in the prospectus that the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar would be the competent authority for issuance of such certificates and admittedly he has issued the same. Though it is also a fact that the MCI notification 2012 also indicates that the State Government would be a competent authority to define such remote/difficult area time to time but admittedly that was not done before notifying the prospectus and the examination and, on the basis of information gathered, certificates were being issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar who was the competent authority to issue such certificates. of Bihar who was the competent authority to issue such certificates. In such case another question would arise as to whether in such a situation the certificates would stand vitiated or would be irrelevant? Annexure A dated 27.8.2013 defining the remote area by the State Government just before counselling suffers from a vital lacuna. A plain reading of the notification would reveal that the same has been issued for defining the remote / difficult area for the purpose of weightage marks for admission in Post Graduate Course but the petitioners are not seeking any weightage of marks as the same is not available under the standing regulations. In fact, they are seeking admission in PG Diploma Course under the 50% reserved category seats out of the State quota. Of course there was a provision for grant of weightage of maximum 30 marks for the admission in PG Degree course also but that provision has already been struck down by the Apex Court in Satyabrata Sahoo (supra). Thus, Annexure A does not appear to have been issued for the relevant purpose. Similarly Annexure C dated 27.7.2013 appended with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also refers the weightage of marks to be given to the in-service candidates for serving in remote/difficult area but such weightage of marks is admittedly not being given for admission in P.G. Diploma Course. Therefore, a question would arise as to be whether the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were justified in not calling the petitioners for counselling on the basis of such letter? Even if it is assumed that the aforesaid notification and letter were issued for the reserved category in-service candidates also then another question would be as to whether could it be held to be applicable in the case of the petitioners or other similarly situated candidates who had appeared in the concerned NEET 2013 in view of the advertisement/notice published by the National Board of Examination in the year 2012 itself, meaning thereby whether it would have a retrospective effect? The answer would have to be in negative as it is well settled that during the examination process such notifications cannot be brought specially when the candidates have submitted their applications on the basis of the certificates granted by the competent authority, i.e., Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. The answer would have to be in negative as it is well settled that during the examination process such notifications cannot be brought specially when the candidates have submitted their applications on the basis of the certificates granted by the competent authority, i.e., Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar in terms of the provision contained in clause 5.4 of the prospectus. There would be another reason due to which Annexure A cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners. The notification concerned does not disclose as to what would happen to the certificates which have already been granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. Those certificates can be nullified either by any notification or by an order of the State Government but the State Government has not come up with any notification or order nullifying the certificates granted to the petitioners perhaps due to the reason that in such case all the previous admissions taken on that count including PGMIT 2012 and even earlier would also become nullity as admittedly at that relevant point of time also the remote/difficult area was not defined by State. Learned counsel for the State and the Board were not in a position to counter such limb of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, in my considered opinion, any further notification/order has not nullified the certificates granted earlier than the date of Annexure A dated 2.7.2013, such certificates cannot be held to be ineffective or invalid. 20. Accordingly, in my considered opinion the petitioners would be entitled to be considered for admission on such reserved category on the basis of certificates granted by Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as only petitioners cannot be discriminated leaving the others similarly situated candidates who have been admitted to course concerned on earlier occasions on the basis of identical certificates. Further the claim of the State Government that the concerned notification of MCI was not within its knowledge stands belied as the prospects itself could not have been published without the approval of the State Government and such provision was also there in previous years prospectus of 2012 (Annexure 4) as has been discussed above. This shows a casual approach of the State authorities in the matter and for omission on their part the petitioners cannot be denied benefit. 21. This shows a casual approach of the State authorities in the matter and for omission on their part the petitioners cannot be denied benefit. 21. In above view of the matter the issue no. 1 and 2 stand decided in favour of the petitioners. 22. Now coming to the issue no. 3, it has been urged on behalf of the MCI that, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, as discussed above, even if the petitioners are held to be fit for admission in the course, as last date of counselling was in the month of October 2013, now they cannot be allowed to be admitted as the Apex Court has held on several occasions that no authority would be required to alter or modify the time schedule. However, a question would be as to whether that bar also stands imposed upon the High Court in exercising of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially in the present facts and circumstances when the petitioners have approached this Court well in advance and at appropriate time and they are absolutely not at any fault? This issue has been answered by the Apex Court itself in its another decision rendered in Satyabrata Sahoo (supra). The Apex Court has held in the aforesaid case that though it is true that the authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut off date which is specifically postulated but where no fault is attributable to a candidate and who has been denied admission for arbitrary reasons then the cut off date cannot 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. The relevant passages from the aforesaid decision stand extracted as under: “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. 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. 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.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” 23. 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.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” 23. This is also a rare and exceptional case of unequivocal dissemination or arbitrary action of the State as it has admittedly allowed others to be admitted on previous occasion on the basis of identical certificates granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services but the petitioners are being denied such admission though the factum of notification of MCI was well within the knowledge of the State Authorities as the relevant provision was included in Clause 5.4 of the prospectus of PGMAC-2013 and even in the prospectus of the earlier year, i.e., of PGMAT 2012. Even though remote area was never defined, admissions were allowed for the previous years under such reserved category on the basis of the certificates granted by the Director-in-Chief, Health Department, who is a competent authority under the statute concerned. Certificates issued by the aforesaid competent authority have not been annulled till date. Thus, this is a rare case in which, if this Court does not interfere, then the ends of justice would be defeated and the process of law would stand frustrated. 24. This matter was earlier heard and order was reserved but the respondent nos. 4 and 5 requested for further hearing and filed a supplementary counter affidavit taking stand that they had moved the Apex Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. (S) 1021 of 2013 for grant of permission to fill up rest of the vacancies but that has been dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the factum of pendency of this case was also stated in the pleading which has been appended in the writ application as Annexure D. However, he could not show from the record that the factum of passing of interim order was also stated. It appears from the writ application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India that specially from paragraph no. 2(xix) that relief was being sought in the background of the fact that altogether 35 MBBS seats and 34 PG Medical Degree seats and 22 PG Medical Diploma seats were reported to be vacant by the Medical Colleges of the State mostly due to abandoning the course by the candidates in view of choosing better option. 2(xix) that relief was being sought in the background of the fact that altogether 35 MBBS seats and 34 PG Medical Degree seats and 22 PG Medical Diploma seats were reported to be vacant by the Medical Colleges of the State mostly due to abandoning the course by the candidates in view of choosing better option. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.12.2013 contained in Annexure E had dismissed the writ application in limine without any observation. However, it is for the concerned respondents themselves to establish as to how a petition could have been filed by them before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the aforesaid decision would affect the present writ application which is only being considered with respect to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case which was not an issue raised in the writ petition filed by the respondent-Board before the Apex Court. 25. Thus, this writ application stands allowed. The petitioners, except the petitioner no. 8, would be entitled to be called for the counselling as the seats are admittedly vacant in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on earlier occasions and they would have to be considered for admission under category reserved for in-service candidates who have served in remote/difficult area for a minimum period of three years if they are otherwise eligible for admission.