JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant special appeal has been preferred against order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 20.3.2015 holding that against 30% quota reserved for in service candidate for the academic session 2010-11, the respondent-1 be considered on the 4th seat reserved for in-service candidate against 13 seats of DM Cardiology. 2. Instant matter pertains to admission in DM (Cardiology) for the academic session 2010-11 and in all 13 seats in the discipline of DM (Cardiology) came to be notified with 30% reservation for in service candidates, and if 30% reservation is applied on 13 seats, it comes to 3.9 seats and if it is rounded off, comes to 4 seats available for in service candidates but only 3 seats were kept reserved for in-service candidates and the present respondent being 4th in order of merit in-service category admitted in three years DM (Cardiology) Course at JLN Medical Hospital, Ajmer under the interim order of the Court. 3. When the fourth seat was not exchanged to the present respondent, she approached this Court by filing CWP- 11274/2010 and by an interim order dated 30.8.2010, the appellant was directed to provide provisional admission to the respondent in DM (Cardiology) Course against quota of in-service candidates in the academic session 2010-11. In compliance thereof, the respondent joined on 10.9.2010. The interim order for the present purpose reads ad infra- "The petitioner submits that this Court has already issued notices to the respondents on 13.8.2010. Service on behalf of all the respondents is complete. Reply has also been filed only by respondent no. 4 and not be other respondents. She has submitted a copy of the letter dated 30.7.2010 before this Court issued by the Principal & Controller, Office of the Principal SMS Medical College & Controller of the Attached Hospitals, Jaipur and also prayed for taking on record. Petitioner submits that she is an in-service candidate and she has been constrained to file the present petition because of illegal and arbitrary action of respondents whereby 30% reservation for seats for in-service candidates out of total 13 seats in DM (Cardiology) course which comes to be 3.9 seats have been anomalously rounded off to 3 seats instead of 4 seats, thereby violating the rights of the petitioner who is at 4th merit position for D.M. (Cardiology) course in the in-service category and has been denied admission. In view of above, the respondents are directed to give provisional admission to the petitioner in DM (Cardiology) course in-service category for the academic session 2010-11. However, the result of the same shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition." 4. However, the writ petition-11274/2010 was disposed of vide order dated 20.7.2011 and it was held that the respondent as an in-service candidate ought to have entitled out of 13th seats in DM (Cardiology) for the academic session 2010-11 by virtue of 30% quota reserved for in-service candidates. 5. It was further directed that the authorities may write to the Medical Council of India in the' peculiar exigencies for increase of intake of one seat in DM (Cardiology) for the session 2010-11 in view of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, admissions to all the 13 seats had been made including the one which had been given to an open category candidate when it ought to have gone to in-service candidate. The petitioner, aggrieved of what she perceived to be incomplete relief putting her fate in the hands of M.C.I. and so also the fact that since the Medical Council of India refused to grant admission for any additional seat for academic session 2010-11 vide order dated 7.12.2011, preferred DB SAW-1665/2011 against the judgment dated 20.7.2011, but she withdraw the same on 1.3.2012 with Division Bench of this Court, review petition-31/2012 came to be preferred at the instance of the respondent and it was decided after hearing the parties vide order dated 20.3.2015 holding that the respondent was entitled to get admission to DM (Cardiology) for the academic session 2010-11 and 4 seats should have been given to in-service candidates against 13 seats of DM (Cardiology). Three seats allocated to in-service candidates were short by one seat to provide 30% quota and thus the open category candidate was in excess but candidate having completed the course and degree was awarded to each of them, thus while maintaining the admission of the student, authorities were directed to adjust one seat in the academic session 2013-14. 6. The respondent took admission in the academic year 2010-11 in D.M. (Cardiology) and she too had completed her three years course and also wrote written examination of D.M. (Cardiology) in August 2013. 7. 6. The respondent took admission in the academic year 2010-11 in D.M. (Cardiology) and she too had completed her three years course and also wrote written examination of D.M. (Cardiology) in August 2013. 7. However, as regards her fate of examination in which she appeared in D.M. (Cardiology) is concerned, the dispute is separately pending in DB SAW-777/2015 preferred at the instance of student and that will be separately looked into. However, the question in the instant special appeal is only to the limited extent whether four seats are to be filled by in-service candidates or it has to be three seats as being considered by the University of Health Sciences for admission to in-service candidates and the Ld. Single Judge while disposing of the review petition observed that if 30% seats are reserved for in-service candidates and there are 13 vacancies, the ratio comes to 3.9 seats and on round off it become 4. 8. As against aforesaid only 3 seats were kept for in-service candidates and indisputably the present respondent being 4th in order of merit of in-service candidates and taking note of the fact which brought on record that one Dr. Babban who was a student of DM (Cardiology) of academic session 2013-14 left in mid session can be considered, in totality of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that at least the seat which became vacant in the mid session of Dr. Babban can be taken care of in meeting out the exigency and admission without exceeding number of seats of D.M. (Cardiology) respondent can be adjusted and confirmed her admission against vacant seat of Dr. Babban for academic session 2010-11 of D.M. (Cardiology) which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal by the Medical Council of India. 9. The basic bone of contention of counsel for the appellant is that admission cannot be granted under the interim order and the Ld. Single Judge initially committed error in adjusting respondent against vacant seat of academic session 2013-14 when it was nearing its completion and further submits that if any candidate left in mid session at least she cannot be considered for any practical purpose and that has to be kept vacant. 10. Single Judge initially committed error in adjusting respondent against vacant seat of academic session 2013-14 when it was nearing its completion and further submits that if any candidate left in mid session at least she cannot be considered for any practical purpose and that has to be kept vacant. 10. According to the counsel, the respondent could not have been adjusted against the seat of academic session 2013-14 since the seat became vacant in mid session stands lapsed and could not be made available either to the respondent or to any other candidate and this is an apparent error being committed by the Ld. Single Judge. 11. Counsel further submits that the order which has been passed in review petition by the Ld. Single Judge is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in A.P. Christian Medical Education v. Government of A.P., 1986 SCC (2) 667 and the request made for increase of the seat in peculiar circumstances as alleged was declined and it was observed that such direction against parent statute cannot be passed to the statutory authorities. In sum and substance the grievance of the appellant in filing special appeal is that there cannot be increase in the number of seats in D.M. (Cardiology) for the session 2010-2011 and ultimately for academic session 2010-11 D.M. (Cardiology) candidate cannot be exceeded from 13. 12. In counter, counsel for respondent-1, Mr. Resham Bhargava, submitted that it was an apparent error that the respondents 3 & 4 committed in re-allocating number of seats for in-service and open category and if 30% is reserved for in service candidate available for admission to DM (Cardiology) it comes to 3.9 and if it is rounded off it comes to 4 and accordingly 4 seats are to be made available for in service candidates and no justification has come forward from the respondents 3-4 as to what is the basis on which 3 seats are reserved for in service candidates against 13 available seats for academic session 2010-11. 13. 13. Counsel for respondent-1 submits that initially 10 seats were available which were later on increased to 13 looking to the backlog available in DM Cardiology but the increase in seats would be of no benefit to the in-service candidates because at the time of original 10 seats the in-service candidates were getting 3 seats and after the increase to 13 seats also, due to unreasonable rounding of for general candidate from 9.1 to 10 and non-consideration of in-service candidates from 3.9 to 4, is an error apparent being committed by the Rajasthan Health Sciences University and the present respondent was rightly adjusted against 4 seat to be allocated for DM (Cardiology) against 30% seats reserved for in-service candidates and the Ld. Single Judge taking note of the fact that all the students have passed out and they have completed their course and degree has also been awarded to each of them, in these peculiar facts & circumstances considered appropriate that one seat of 2013-14 left vacant by one Dr. Babban can easily be taken care of which may not disturb neither the present respondent nor the other candidate who are admitted against open category in D.M. (Cardiology) for the academic session 2010-11 and that will serve the purpose of all the candidates and that appears to be the reason for which either the respondent State of Rajasthan or University of Health Sciences has not considered appropriate to file any special appeal against the order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 20.3.2015. 14. Single Judge dated 20.3.2015. 14. We do find justification in what is being submitted by the respondent-1 and are of the view that when the admission process was initiated by respondents-3-4 for admission to D.M. (Cardiology) for academic session 2010-11 against 13 seats, it would have been better if allocation for in service candidates and open candidates would be known when the process was initiated at the stage when pre and main examination are conducted and when there is such neck to neck competition and limited number of seats are available it is always better to make it known to the candidates as to how many seats are made available for in-service and open category and in the instant case when 13 seats for DM (Cardiology) for academic session 2010-11 were available and 30% quota reserved for in-service candidates it comes to 3.9 and if is rounded off it comes to 4 and for open category 9.1 was arbitrarily converted to 10 and that appears to be apparent error committed by respondents-3-4 in allocating 3 seats for in-service candidates for giving admission to D.M. (Cardiology) for the academic session 2010-11 in place of 4 seats to be reserved for in service candidates and there appears no error being committed at least by the Ld. Single Judge in passing of the order impugned in the instant proceedings in finally arriving to a conclusion that on rounding off 3.9 it becomes 4 and the respondent who is indisputably a 4th candidate in-service category she ought to have been considered for admission in DM (Cardiology) for the session 2010-11 and at the same time for academic session 2010-11 and all the candidates who were admitted in M.D. (Cardiology) 2010-11 by this time have completed their respective course and degree has also been awarded to each of them and the fact that one Dr. Babban left the course in mid session of 2013-14, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that this seat can be taken care of in making adjustment and that may not disturb neither respondent-1 nor the other candidates were admitted and completed their course and we further support what is being expressed by the Ld. Babban left the course in mid session of 2013-14, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that this seat can be taken care of in making adjustment and that may not disturb neither respondent-1 nor the other candidates were admitted and completed their course and we further support what is being expressed by the Ld. Single Judge to say that at least the present respondent-1 was never at fault and she was within her rights to claim 4th seat against in-service candidates of D.M. (Cardiology) 2010-11 and what would be the fate of others at least the present respondent-1 may not be concerned about it and the Ld. Single Judge was conscious of this fact that once the MCI has declined to increase the number of seats for academic session 2010-11 and the startling fact which is noticed of one seat became vacant on account of Dr. Babban left in the mid session and this adjustment could be considered without disturbing the candidates who have passed out and degree has been awarded to them. 15. Ld. counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in 2014 (10) SCC 521 Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors. & Supreme Court taking note of various decisions relied upon laid down certain principles in para 33 & which reads ad infra- Appellant in SLP (C) No. 18099 of 2014 and the contesting Respondent, we are able to discern the following principles: (1) The schedule relating to admissions to the professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted. (2) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and that there is faulty only on the part of the authorities or there is an apparent breach of rules and Regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone. (3) If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the institutions/Authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any. (4) When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously and promptly, then the Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in the form of securing an admission. (5) If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by subjecting himself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/her non-selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of selection was unfair. (6) If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her right to claim relief before the Court promptly, then in such case, the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate. (7) No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly. Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility. (8) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry forward of seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a candidate is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidate to re-apply next academic year. (9) There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either by the Court or the Board to increase the number of seats which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India. (10) Each of these above mentioned principles should be applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical." 16. (10) Each of these above mentioned principles should be applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical." 16. From the principles laid down by the Apex Court, we find that the present controversy raised for our consideration can certainly meet out as per para 3(2) and we find that there was no fault which could be attributable to the candidate and if there was apparent breach of the Scheme or Ordinance on the part of the authorities which was committed in the process of grant of admission certainly interim order passed by the Ld. Single Judge initially in granting admission to the respondent, was in consonance with the Scheme and Regulation and at least her admission was within 13 seats and as regards adjustment is concerned, it was in reference to the fact that one Dr. Babban left in the mid session of 2013-14 and being in excess at the relevant point of time & could be adjusted in the peculiar exigency. It is true that it may not be rightful approach but in peculiar exigency when all the 13 candidates of academic session 2010-11 have completed their course and degree has been awarded to each of them, we do not find any error being committed by the Ld. Single Judge in making adjustment in peculiar exigency which came on record. 17. It is true that in the competitive process the rounding off the aggregate marks may be permitted as that deprives the candidate who has secured the marks on his merit but in the instant case rounding off may be permissible for the reason that the vacancy cannot be break up and in such circumstances if it comes to 3.9 it is always advisable to round off to 4 and what is being adopted by the respondent in the present case if taken care of, we find that 9.1 has been rounded off to 10 and 3.9 has been relegated to 3 such approach and the procedure adopted cannot be approved by this Court. 18. After we have heard counsel of the parties and going through the order of the Ld. Single Judge, we do not find any error being committed in the order impugned which may call for our interference. 19. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No cost.