ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. Appellant Jawahar Singh Saini has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include his name in the counselling for admission to Post Graduate Dental Course. 2. The fundamental facts, as averred in the memorandum of writ petition, are that the petitioner had completed his Undergraduate Dental Course on 27.05.2013 from the Government Dental College, Jaipur. The respondent No. 2 - Assistant Controller of Examination (Post Graduate Dental/Medical Entrance Examination-2015) published a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical/Dental Entrance Examination, 2016. The petitioner also submitted his online application in the category of O.B.C.(non creamy layer). Since the petitioner is domicile of Rajasthan, he applied for the State of Rajasthan. He appeared in the online examination for All India Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examination, 2016 on 13.12.2015. The result of the examination was declared on 21.12.2015 and was uploaded on the official website of the respondents. The petitioner secured 427 marks out of 800 and his All India Rank is 563, whereas his O.B.C. Rank is 550. It is stated that the respondents after preparation of the All India Merit List, sent an email to the petitioner intimating him that he is declared eligible for All India Quota P.G. Medical/Dental Counselling, 2016. A copy of the said mail is placed on record as Annexure-3. The respondents thereafter published the schedule as per the All India Merit List. The first counselling was fixed from 12.03.2016 to 18.03.2016. It was conveyed that facility for online registration, choice filling and locking of choice (for Round 1 and 2) is now open till 18.03.2016 upto 05.00 PM. The petitioner was advised to visit the website www.mcc.nic.in to see the counselling schedule, counselling scheme, changes in scheme for the year 2016. It was informed that there would be two rounds of counselling. The task of counselling for State Quota was given to the Chairman of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Counselling Board, 2016, who on their official website i.e. www.medicaleducation.raj.gov.in, issued a notification for on line allotment process. It was informed that there would be two rounds of counselling. The task of counselling for State Quota was given to the Chairman of Post Graduate Medical and Dental Counselling Board, 2016, who on their official website i.e. www.medicaleducation.raj.gov.in, issued a notification for on line allotment process. As per the notification, the date for depositing the registration fee and on line registration and information form to be filled by the candidates was fixed from 04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016, the verification of the certificates was fixed for 10.04.2016 and online choice filling and locking by eligible candidates was fixed from 11.04.2016 to 12.04.2016. The first round of seat allotment and verification by the Board was fixed from 13.04.2016 to 14.04.2016; declaration of result and generation of online allotment letter was fixed for 15.04.2016; and the date of reporting and documents verification at the allotted college along with allotment letter was fixed from 15.04.2016 to 22.04.2016 upto 5.00 PM. Although the date for submitting online registration was from 04.04.2016 to 08.04.2016, but the petitioner could not get himself registered for online counselling as the respondents did not inform about it on the official website of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, rather they have uploaded the said notification on the website of the Medical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan. Some of the candidates got themselves registered for online counselling, but the petitioner and certain other candidates could not get themselves registered for online counselling. 3. Shri Kapil Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the candidate with lesser merit than the petitioner would be admitted to the PG Dental Course, whereas the petitioner with higher merit would be deprived of admission to the PG Dental Course. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court to the provisional combined merit list of PG Dental Non-Service Candidates, dated 10.04.2016, which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act and submitted that the candidates at S. Nos. 5 and 6, namely Daizy Rani Kumawat and Suhani Khundia are lesser meritorious than the petitioner. The petitioner has secured 427 marks, whereas the candidate at S. No. 5, Daizy Rani Kumawat in OBC (non creamy layer) category has secured only 420 marks. 5 and 6, namely Daizy Rani Kumawat and Suhani Khundia are lesser meritorious than the petitioner. The petitioner has secured 427 marks, whereas the candidate at S. No. 5, Daizy Rani Kumawat in OBC (non creamy layer) category has secured only 420 marks. The petitioner is a person belonging to rural background and non-submission of online registration form was a bonafide mistake on his part as he remained under the impression that the information will be displayed on the official website of the RUHS and was completely unaware of the fact that the schedule for online registration will be notified on the official website of the Medical Education Department. Furthermore, the respondents did not publish the State-wise Merit List and also did not publish as to how many seats are there for PG Medical Course in State-wise Quota. Since the petitioner was not aware about the State-wise Merit List, he was under the impression that firstly the respondent will publish the State-wise Merit List and thereafter counselling will be conducted for allotment of seats. Immediately on coming to know that online allotment process has been started, he approached the respondents and soon thereafter filed the present writ petition on 13.04.2016. It was listed before the Single Bench not having the roster on that day, who passed the order for listing it before the appropriate Bench. From 14.04.2016 to 17.04.2016, there were holidays in the High Court, therefore, the matter has been listed today i.e. 18.04.2016 before this Court. In between the counselling has taken place for PG Dental Non-Service category candidates and four candidates have already been admitted to the course. Learned counsel has submitted that although those four candidates are having higher merit than the petitioner, but the candidate at S. No. 5, namely Daizy Rani Kumawat (OBC-non creamy layer) appears to be having 420 marks and the candidate at S. No. 6, Suhanu Khundia (ST) appears to be secured only 325 marks. Thus the petitioner has preferential right over these two candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 310/2015 - Monika Choudhary Vs. Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi & Ors., decided on 13.04.2015. 4. Thus the petitioner has preferential right over these two candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has cited the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 310/2015 - Monika Choudhary Vs. Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi & Ors., decided on 13.04.2015. 4. Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that the entire schedule of online allotment process of PG Dental Counselling was notified properly in the newspapers and was uploaded on the website of the department as well. The petitioner has not given any justifiable reason as to why he did not register himself in time for the course. The fault lies on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be attributed to the respondents as he himself failed to register within time. The first counselling is now over and admissions have already given to the four candidates and now third party rights has accrued and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as against the candidates selected. Even otherwise, no candidate with lesser merit than the petitioner has been admitted. It is uncertain whether second counselling would at all take place. It would happen only if selected candidates do not join the course or leave after joining or certain seats become available on being surrendered to State from All India Quota. He submitted that the Division Bench judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case, thus, the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, has submitted that second counselling may have to be convened because of non joining of the course, but leaving the seats by the selected candidates also. The unfilled seats of All India Quota may be filled by the non-service candidates on being surrendered to the State Quota. Even if the petitioner could not appear in the first counselling, the respondents may be directed to permit him to appear in the second counselling, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Monika Choudhary Vs. Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi & Ors. (supra). Even if the petitioner could not appear in the first counselling, the respondents may be directed to permit him to appear in the second counselling, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Monika Choudhary Vs. Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi & Ors. (supra). All that would happen if the petitioner is permitted to participate in the second counselling and admissions of the candidates to the PG Dental Course would yet be made on merit. If the petitioner qualifies for admission as per his merit, then only he would get admission. In this way, the petitioner is seeking right of consideration for admission and not a direction for admission in State Quota. Hence, the writ petition be allowed. 6. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the provisional combined merit list of PG Dental Non-Service candidates, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, it is evident that out of four candidates, who have been admitted pursuant to the first counselling, three candidates are belonging to OBC (non creamy layer) category. All these four candidates have secured much higher marks than the petitioner. As per the provisional combined merit list, Ms. Priyanka Yadav belonging to OBC (non creamy layer) has secured 478 marks; Ms. Aparna Choudhary belonging to the same category has secured 467 marks; Kompal Gautam in general category has secured 447 marks and Kamal Kumar Soni of OBC(non creamy layer) category has obtained 442 marks, whereas the marks obtained by the present petitioner are only 427. But the fact also remains that two other candidates in the said provisional combined merit list, namely Daizy Rani Kumawat of OBC (non creamy layer) category and Suhani Khundia of ST category have secured 420 and 325 marks respectively. Both of them thus have secured lesser marks than the petitioner, who has secured 427 marks. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in Monika Choudhary Vs. Ministry of Human Resources & Development, New Delhi & Ors. (supra), dealt with the identical issue, where the appellant failed to get herself registered online for counselling and approached this Court. This Court on 01.04.2015, permitted her to be registered for admission in 50% State Quota for admission to Post Graduate Course in the OBC category. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner/appellant therein. (supra), dealt with the identical issue, where the appellant failed to get herself registered online for counselling and approached this Court. This Court on 01.04.2015, permitted her to be registered for admission in 50% State Quota for admission to Post Graduate Course in the OBC category. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner/appellant therein. However the Division Bench took note of the fact that the appellant due to illness and personal problem, could not register herself for counselling, but subsequently submitted the application with endorsement that no definite information was given in the brochure about the website, on which the candidates were required to login for registration. The appellant therein had secured first position in her category in the All India Merit for admission to Post Graduate Course in medical college in Rajasthan. It was by way of human error compounded by the fact that the candidates were required to watch the website that she could not secure online registration by the last date i.e. 21.03.2015. The appellant therein finally got herself registered online on 25.03.2015 i.e. with delay of four days, but much before the date on which the admissions were to be made. With the permission of the Court, the registration of the appellant was accepted and on the same day she was admitted after deposition of fee, bank guarantee and security amount. 8. Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the appellant in that case was placed at S. No. 1 in the merit list of her category, whereas the present petitioner has not been able to secure a seat for admission to the course against any of the first four seats. All the four candidates, mentioned above, who have been selected, have secured higher marks than the petitioner. Though it may be true that the petitioner could not get admission against the four seats, but at the same time, it is also equally true that the petitioner is more meritorious than the two remaining candidates, who have secured 420 and 325 marks respectively. The petitioner would be considered for admission if eventually second counselling takes place against the seat, which become available on account of non-joining or leaving of the seats by the selected candidates, or such seats becoming available on being surrendered for State Quota. 9. The petitioner would be considered for admission if eventually second counselling takes place against the seat, which become available on account of non-joining or leaving of the seats by the selected candidates, or such seats becoming available on being surrendered for State Quota. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court is persuaded to allow the writ petition. However, all that would happen if the petitioner is permitted to register himself now for second counselling would be that he would be considered for admission, but even then ultimately the admissions against the seats, which may now become available, would be made on the basis of merit. In other words, if candidates higher in merit than the petitioner also participate in the counselling, then obviously the petitioner would not be able to get admission, but herein the fact is that there were only six online registration and the petitioner has higher merit than the remaining two candidates, it would be too harsh to deny him the right of consideration for admission. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part with direction to the respondents to register the petitioner on the basis of off line application submitted by him with requisite fees and include his name in the second counselling, if eventually the same takes place. However, case of the petitioner shall be considered strictly on the basis of his merit. 11. Stay application also stands disposed off.