JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. This is the story of a MBBS doctor who reached so close to fulfill her dream of pursuing Post Graduate course, received communication through e-mail dated 31.05.2016 from the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi for her selection in Diploma in Psychological Medicine course, yet, denied admission for no fault of her. When she approached the Writ Court, referring to the time-schedule fixed vide Notification dated 22.01.2016 which was approved by the Supreme Court in "Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Union of India and others", the Writ Petition was dismissed. How the Writ Court has gone wrong, is the issue raised in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, necessary facts of the case are summarised hereunder; (i) The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") seeking admission in Post Graduate course appeared in All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination, 2016. She appeared for the Mop-up counseling at the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi on 26.05.2016, which was the date notified by the respondent-Institute and she was placed in the waiting list at Sl. No. 2. On 31.05.2016, she received a communication through e-mail from the Institute at about 15.15 hrs. about her selection in the MD/DPM course. The petitioner, who was at Chirim in Chhatisgarh, somehow reached the Institute at about 10 pm, however, since the office was closed by that time she reported at the Institute on 01.06.2016. She submitted an application to the Director, Central Institute of Psychiatry to allow her to take admission, however, citing the decision in W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2015 she was denied admission. In her application dated 01.06.2016, she asserted that distance between her native place and Ranchi is about 400 kms. and she kept ready bond by the local Notary. The Writ Petition was taken up for hearing on 17.06.2016, when to enable the learned ASGI appearing for the Union of India to seek instructions and file response, the matter was posted for 24.06.2016. On the next two dates of hearing, the matter was adjourned, but not at the instance of the petitioner. (ii) Before the Writ Court, the petitioner pleading no fault attributable to her and relying on decision in "Asha Vs. PT. On the next two dates of hearing, the matter was adjourned, but not at the instance of the petitioner. (ii) Before the Writ Court, the petitioner pleading no fault attributable to her and relying on decision in "Asha Vs. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors." (2012) 7 SCC 389 , contended that the action of the respondent-University is arbitrary and contrary to the true spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court. The respondent-Institute however, asserted that after Mop-up counseling was held on 26.05.2016 offer letters were issued to the selected candidates to join the course on or before 28.05.2016, and out of 5 selected candidates for Diploma in Psychological Medicine course only 4 took admission on 30.05.2016; 29.05.2016 being a Sunday, the Institute cancelled the offer for admission to the 5th candidate and the vacant seat under unreserved category was offered to one Dr. Sankesh Kumar Singh, who was in the wait list at Sl. No. 1, however, he also did not join the course and communicated his refusal through letter dated 31.05.2016 in the afternoon. It was thereafter only, that the vacant seat was offered to the petitioner on 31.05.2016. In view of the deadline approved by the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan case, the respondent-Institute expressed its inability to admit the petitioner in breach of the aforesaid time-schedule. As noticed above, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 3. Assailing the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the Writ Court, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Court has completely overlooked the circumstances under which the petitioner was directed to join the course on 31.05.2016 itself. The learned counsel contends that for no fault of the petitioner, if the cut-off date is used as a weapon to deny her admission, it would completely ruin her professional career; merit of the petitioner stands admitted and reflected in communication dated 31.05.2016 from the Institute. Mr. Dubey, in support of his contention, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case "Asha versus PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others" reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 and drawn the attention of the Court to para 32 of the said judgment. Mr. Dubey, in support of his contention, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case "Asha versus PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others" reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 and drawn the attention of the Court to para 32 of the said judgment. He also relied upon a judgment of the Orissa High Court in case "Snehlata Jagati versus Convenor, PG (Medical/Dental) Selection Committee, Odisha & Others" rendered in W.P.(C) No. 20557 of 2013 in which the view taken by the High Court was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 37499 of 2013 vide order dated 03.01.2014 [Photostat copies produced and attached at the proper place]. 4. Per contra, reiterating the stand taken before the Writ Court, the learned ASGI, who appears for the respondent-Institute also, contends that no exceptional circumstance has been pleaded by the petitioner, and moreover, the Institute is under an obligation to adhere to the time-schedule approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India also supports the order passed by the Writ Court, and submits that any indulgence in the matter would open a Pandora's box, and the very object for fixing the time-schedule would be frustrated. 6. In "Mridul Dhar (minor) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors." (2005) 2 SCC 65 , the Supreme Court expressed its anguish to the breach of time-schedule laid down for completion of admission process at various stages by various authorities. Importance of adherence to the time-schedule has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in several judgments. However, the underlying object behind adherence to the time-schedule, one can discern from the judgments of the Supreme Court is to give primacy to merit. It has been observed that, "admission to a professional course based on merit position is paramount for the career of a student", and it has been held neither desirable for the young students nor for the country's future. The concern expressed by the Supreme Court is to the career of those bright candidates who compete in a tough all-India competition. It has been observed that, "admission to a professional course based on merit position is paramount for the career of a student", and it has been held neither desirable for the young students nor for the country's future. The concern expressed by the Supreme Court is to the career of those bright candidates who compete in a tough all-India competition. In Asha's case (supra), the Supreme Court has once again re-emphasized adherence to the time-schedule fixed for admissions however, in the said case also the Supreme Court has pointed out exception to the normal rule of adherence to the time-schedule, in the following words: "32. Though there can be the 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...." 7. In the counter-affidavit filed in the writ proceeding, the respondent-Institute took the position that the petitioner did not turn up on 31.05.2016 till normal office hours, and she reported on 01.06.2016 with a letter seeking permission to join the course. Communication to the petitioner through e-mail on 31.05.2016 at about 15.15 hrs. is not denied by the Institute. The only plea taken by the Institute is that in view of the time-schedule approved by the Supreme Court, it could not have permitted the petitioner to join the course beyond 31.05.2016. As noticed above, merit of the petitioner stands reflected in communication dated 31.05.2016, inviting her to join the Post Graduate Diploma course. It is an admitted position that one seat in DPM under unreserved quota has remained vacant. 8. Now, the question arises, whether the petitioner should be denied admission on the plea of adherence to the time schedule, particularly when it would result in complete ruining of her professional career; which we have to answer. It is an admitted position that one seat in DPM under unreserved quota has remained vacant. 8. Now, the question arises, whether the petitioner should be denied admission on the plea of adherence to the time schedule, particularly when it would result in complete ruining of her professional career; which we have to answer. Whether any fault is attributable to her calls for a finding by the Court. Whether the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner for not joining the course on 31st of May, 2016 are undoubtedly exceptional circumstances also calls for a finding. Responding to e-mail communication sent at about 15.15 hrs. on 31.05.2016 and directing the petitioner to join the course by 17.00 hrs. on the same day, when she had to travel about 400 kms. to reach Ranchi could not be humanly possible for her, rather it may not have been possible for a candidate even residing at Ranchi itself. The petitioner has pleaded that she reached Ranchi at 10.00 p.m. in the night and on the next day, i.e., 01.06.2016, she reached the Institute at about 10.00 a.m., which fact is not denied by the respondents. Can, under these circumstances, a fault be attributed to the petitioner, who pursued her rights expeditiously. In our opinion, answer would be emphatic 'No'. The plea taken by the petitioner has also been noticed by the Writ Court, thus; "According to her, despite her best efforts, she could reach 'Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi' from her place of residence in the State of Chhattisgarh, Distt.-Koriya only late at night when the offices were closed. On the following day, she was denied admission on account of the deadline prescribed by the 'Medical Council of India' as per Notification dated 22nd January, 2016 as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 18th January, 2016 in the case of Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. along with other analogous cases (annexed as Annexure-R/4)." 9. What we find from the impugned judgment is that the learned Writ Court has not adjudicated the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioner and the decision in Asha's case (supra) has been distinguished on the ground that subsequently the time schedule has been approved by the Supreme Court in Ashish Rajan's case (supra). What we find from the impugned judgment is that the learned Writ Court has not adjudicated the aforesaid plea taken by the petitioner and the decision in Asha's case (supra) has been distinguished on the ground that subsequently the time schedule has been approved by the Supreme Court in Ashish Rajan's case (supra). The learned Writ Court has further observed that "the case of the petitioner may be a hard case, but the deadline prescribed by the MCI as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have to be followed". This is where, we feel, the Writ Court erred in not exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case like the present one, where the ends of justice would be subverted inasmuch as, career of a meritorious student would be ruined, the Writ Court should have examined the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner and returned a finding in this regard. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that in exceptional circumstances the Courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting the candidates to the courses even after the deadline. Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Snehlata's case (Orissa High Court) which is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court further puts the petitioner on a safe footing. Only to remind ourselves, we reproduce the observation of the Supreme Court in "Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors." (1989) 2 SCC 691 ; "Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach in justice wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226". 10. The plea of adherence to time-schedule raised by the respondent-Institute, in the facts of the present case, is hereby rejected. The contention raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the MCI that any indulgence in the matter would open a Pandora's box cannot be accepted, for the reason that exceptional circumstances do not open Pandora's box. 11. Considering the facts noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to plead and prove exceptional circumstances due to which she could not take admission on 31.05.2016. 11. Considering the facts noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to plead and prove exceptional circumstances due to which she could not take admission on 31.05.2016. It is, thus, held that the petitioner is entitled for admission in Diploma in Psychological Medicine course in the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi, and the Institute shall admit her forthwith, if she is found otherwise eligible. The respondents are further directed to ensure holding of additional classes of the petitioner to meet the required number of classes as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. 12. The net result is that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2016 is hereby set aside and with the aforesaid observations and directions the instant Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed, but without any order as to costs. 13. In view of 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 the respondents for compliance.