JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Having written the NEET, 2018 examination, petitioner found place at Sr. No. 6944 in the Provisional Combined State Merit List (Round Two) MBBS and BDS Admissions, 2018 as issued by the NEET UG Medical & Dental Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 (hereafter 'the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018') as per revised Notification dated 9.8.2018. Having registered for counselling, the petitioner appeared before Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 at SMS Medical College, Jaipur on 13th August, 2018 and submitted the choice form alongwith educational qualification documents and a Demand Draft of Rs. 1.50 lac as required for her admission against the payment seat of MBBS of the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jaipur. She however was not considered to be eligible by the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 on the ground that she did not have two years' regular and continuous study in Biology / Bio-technology subject at the 10+2 level as purportedly was warranted by Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Under Graduate Medical Regulations 1997 (hereafter 'the Regulations of 1997'). Hence this petition was filed on 16th August, 2018. 2. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been stated that petitioner not having undergone two years' regular and continuous study in Biology at the Sr. Secondary level, she was not found eligible by the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 in view of Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997. 3. Mr. JK Yogi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sole defence of the respondents with regard to the purported ineligibility of the petitioner for reason of regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 i.e. for not having studied Biology as a regular student continuously for two years at the 10+2 level stands demolished by the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. - WP (C) No. 6773/2018; decided on 17.8.2018 which has held the regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 as discriminatory and arbitrary and hence ultra-vires the Constitution of India. Mr. Versus Union of India & Ors. - WP (C) No. 6773/2018; decided on 17.8.2018 which has held the regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 as discriminatory and arbitrary and hence ultra-vires the Constitution of India. Mr. JK Yogi further submitted that following the aforesaid judgment, this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18546/2018 - Suraj Bansal Versus Union of India & Ors., by a detailed interim order passed on 20.8.2018 has held that once a provision of a Central statute has been declared ultra-vires and struck off by any High Court, such provision would be inoperative against all through the territory of India. He submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioner's alleged ineligibility for reasons of Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 cannot hold. The petitioner lacks on no other count with regard to her eligibility for being admitted into MBBS, 2018 having qualified the NEET 2018 examination and having admittedly passed the Sr. Secondary Examination with Biology, albeit as an additional subject in the subsequent year. Mr. JK Yogi submitted that the mere fact that Suraj Bansal similarly placed was allotted a College by the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 and the petitioner was not, was only a fortuitous circumstance but yet the act of the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 remains discriminatory. The petitioner like Suraj Bansal also should have been allotted a college with reference to her preference cum merit. It was submitted that in the event a distinction / classification between those similarly placed based only on the fortuitous circumstance of one having been allotted a medical college by the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 and another similarly placed not allotted a medical college were to be allowed, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. JK Yogi submitted that following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar (supra), and the interim order of this Court dated 20.8.2018, when petitioner sought to participate in the mop up round of counselling on 21st and 22nd August, 2018 as regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 rendering her ineligible had been struck off, her case then ought to have been considered for reason of the disability attributed to her with reference to Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 not holding, yet the petitioner was again arbitrarily overlooked and denied admission. Mr. Mr. JK Yogi further submitted that fortunately for her, for some divine intervention she has not been put into a position of irreparable harm in view of the fact that a vacancy (Free Payment Seat) obtains at the Raj Mes Medical College, Bharaptur, to which she can be now admitted. 4. Mr. SK Gupta appearing for the respondents submitted that the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar (supra), has itself confined the benefits to the petitioners before the Court as also the applicants specifically named in para 29 thereof. It was submitted that case of the petitioner cannot be compared with Suraj Bansal and the interim order dated 20.8.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18546/2018 does not attract to the petitioner inasmuch while Suraj Bansal was allotted a medical college by the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018, the petitioner was not. Mr. SK Gupta however in not in a position to deny the fact that one vacant seat (Fre Payment) in MBBS, 2018 obtains at the Raj Mes Medical College, Bharatpur even after the mop up round. Heard. Considered. 5. Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Regulations of 1997 having been struck off as arbitrary and discriminatory by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Tanishq Gangwar (supra), the benefit thereof in law would obtain to the whole world and the petitioner too. The Madras High Court in the case of Dr. T. Rajakumari Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (W.P. Nos. 39022 and connected case No. 36735 of 2015) decided on 3rd August, 2016 has held that: "It is trite to say that once a High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Act, it cannot be said that it would be selectively applied in other States. Thus, there is no question of applicability of provisions struck down by the High Court as of now until and unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court upsets the judgment or stays the operation of the judgment." 6. It is thus apparent that once a provision of a Central Statute has been declared ultra-vires and struck off, that provision would be inoperative through the territory of India. Resultantly the petitioner's alleged disability in view of not having studied Biology for a continuous period of two years at the Sr. Secondary level, is of no consequence. It is thus apparent that once a provision of a Central Statute has been declared ultra-vires and struck off, that provision would be inoperative through the territory of India. Resultantly the petitioner's alleged disability in view of not having studied Biology for a continuous period of two years at the Sr. Secondary level, is of no consequence. The petitioner has qualified the NEET, 2018 examination. She is eligible to be admitted to MBBS seat in terms of her merit in the seats in the State quota. It is not in dispute that a vacancy obtains in the payment seat at the Raj Mes Medical College, Bharatpur even after the mop up round. Equity also warrants that the injustice to the petitioner so far done is rectified by this Court with appropriate directions. 7. On the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that both in law and in equity the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 that she be considered for admission forthwith against the vacant (Free payment) seat at Raj Mas Medical College, Bharatpur. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. SK Gupta, counsel for Admission / Counselling Board, 2018 for onward transmission and immediate compliance.