JUDGMENT : M.K. HANJURA, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th October 2017, delivered in the Writ Petition, bearing OWP no.901/2017, titled Dr Nazia Manzoor v. State of J&K and others, filed by the respondent no.1, disposing of the writ petition, observing that the order bearing no.203-BOPEE of 2017 dated 22nd September 2017 shall be ignored and directing respondent Board to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the MD Radio Diagnosis seat and to pass appropriate orders within one week, on the grounds set out therein. 2. The case projected by the appellant – J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination, Srinagar, is that under J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) created under Act no.XXV of 2002, the respondent Board is mandated to conduct the examinations for various professional courses including the counselling. The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses was conducted for the first time with effect from 5th December 2016 to 13th December 2016, through National Board of Examinations (NBE) and the result was declared on 6th January 2017, in respect of MDS Course and on 13th January 2017 in respect of MD/MS/PG Diploma. Notwithstanding the fact that the examination was conducted by the NBE, the counselling and allotment of the seats rest with the competent authority of the State Government. It is stated that the respondent Board notified the State Merit List vide Notification no.008-BOPEE of 2017 dated 25th February 2017 and subsequent thereto, the litigations poured in on various issues. The State contested the cases. However, in one of the cases, bearing SWP no.577/2017 titled Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmad Choudhary and others v. State and others, this Court directed re-drawl of the merit list. There against an SLP was preferred, which, however, was dismissed vide order dated 29th May 2017, keeping the questions of law open. The Supreme Court granted fifteen days extension in time to the appellant Board to complete the process of the admission in view of the peculiar circumstances as otherwise the admission process had to be completed by 31st of May of the year in accordance with the MCI Schedule, which has the seal and stamp of the Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan’s case. Consequent upon the directions ofthe Supreme Court to complete the process by 15th June 2017 and after the notification of the first admission list issued vide Notification no.052-BOPEE of 2017 dated 2nd June 2017, the respondent Board also notified the schedule for upgradation, round through various Notifications to enable the candidates desirous of participating in the same. The first Notice in this regard was issued vide Notification no.053-BOPEE of 2017 dated 5th June 2016, asking the desirous candidates to participate in the upgradation round. It was partially modified by Notification no.054-BOPEE of 2017 dated 6th June 2017 and a recast schedule for physical counselling was also notified. Everywhere mopping up round has to be conducted in the admission process to ensure that no seat remains unfilled and the candidates available within the premises on the fixed dates are considered by order of merit-cum-preferences for admission against the seats which become available due to resignation/leaving the seats/non-joining by the candidates. Physical/upgradation/ mopping up round commenced from 10th June 2017 in pursuance of Public Notice no.53-BOPEE of 2017 dated 5th June 2017 read with Public Notice no.054-BOPEE dated 6th June 2017 and Public Notice dated 8th June 2017. The physical round of counselling (mopping) was held on 11th and 12th June 2017. The appellant Board conducted the first physical round on 10th June 2017, consequent upon which Notification no.056-BOPEE of 2017 was issued, vide which the list of the candidates was notified in whose case the upgradation had taken place. The candidates were given time to join between 12th and 13th June 2017. Another list of the candidates was notified vide Notification no.057-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 1017, who were allotted the seats against the available vacancies. They were asked to report to the Colleges on 14th June 2017 till 12.00 Noon. The Colleges were asked to convey the shortfall due to non-joining of any candidate on 14th June 2017, so that the shortfall was made good by the Board as far as possible considering time constraint of 15th June 2017. Accordingly, on 14th June 2017, a list of 13 candidates was notified for upgradation/ allotment of seats. 3. It is also averred that the writ petitioner had qualified NEET PG with a rank of 477 and a NEET score of 854.2075 while issuing the first revised allotment/ admission list vide Notification no.052-BOPEE of 2017 dated 2nd June 2017. Accordingly, on 14th June 2017, a list of 13 candidates was notified for upgradation/ allotment of seats. 3. It is also averred that the writ petitioner had qualified NEET PG with a rank of 477 and a NEET score of 854.2075 while issuing the first revised allotment/ admission list vide Notification no.052-BOPEE of 2017 dated 2nd June 2017. The petitioner did not find place in the list on the basis of her merit as the last candidate in the open merit, who was allotted a seat had a rank of 423 whereas the writ petitioner had the rank of 477. As per the Information Brochure published by the Board, it was stated that no proxy candidates shall be allowed in the physical round of counselling. However, in view of the writ petitioner’s request that she is admitted in a hospital in Delhi and be allowed the counselling through a representative, her request was considered and her representative, viz. her father-in-law, was allowed to participate in the physical round of counselling. This fact has also been acknowledged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Not only that, the writ petitioner was telephonically counselled in presence of her representative (father-in-law). The representative of the writ petitioner appeared in the Board office on 11th June 2017 but the candidate/representative did not opt for any available seat and instead choose to prefer CNA (choice not available). After closure of the counselling on 11th, the Board vide Notification no.57-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 2017, allotted/upgraded the seats to those shown as CNA, who had participated in the counselling including the representative of the petitioner. The Board on 11th June 2017 issued a public notice no.41-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 2017, vide which the unfilled category seats were converted into the open merit. These seats were to be filled on 12th June 2017 and the candidates were required to be present in the Board office. The representative of the petitioner approached the Board office on 12th June 2017 at around 10 AM. These seats were to be filled on 12th June 2017 and the candidates were required to be present in the Board office. The representative of the petitioner approached the Board office on 12th June 2017 at around 10 AM. He was counselled about the availability of the seats and was also informed by the counselling committee that the Board was not aware about the resignation/non-joining of any candidate at that point of time and he would better wait as during the mopping up rounds the seats were required to be filled up depending upon the availability of the seats at the particular point of time, subject to the presence of the candidates in the premises and the candidates were in their own interest advised to remain present in the Board office. The representative of the writ petitioner declined to wait. The candidate was also informed telephonically about availability of the seat who also declined to accept any seat available at the relevant point of time. During the process some seats became available due to allotment by the upgradation of the converted seats which obviously had also to be filled up during the process of the counselling considering the availability of the seats on minute to minute basis. The seats, which became accessible due to upgradation, became part of the available seats which were displayed on the monitors available in the Board office and minute by minute changes were reflected on the monitor for information of the candidates. This was in accordance with the conditions notified vide Notice no.38 of BOPEE of 2017 dated 8th June 2017, that the candidates would be called by the counselling committee in order of merit. The seats would vary from minute to minute. The candidates would be given option to make necessary changes in their preference form and they would be considered against the seats available at the relevant point of time. In case of his/her non-availability at such a time, he/she would not have any claim over such a seat and the seat would be allotted to the candidate next in merit preference by that time. The said notification was not superseded at any point of time by any other notification during the process up to 15th June 2017 and therefore it formed the basis for filling up of the seats in the physical round counselling. The said notification was not superseded at any point of time by any other notification during the process up to 15th June 2017 and therefore it formed the basis for filling up of the seats in the physical round counselling. It is contended that the writ petitioner’s authorised person should have remained available in the Board office in his own interest. The appellant Board claims that however, during his brief meeting with the counselling committee on 12th June 2017, he informed that his daughter-in-law has been granted admission in some discipline outside the State and she would better pursue that option available. This was confirmed by the candidate also during phone counselling with her on 12th June 2017. 4. It is next maintained that after the counselling was over on 12th June 2017, the Board issued a Notification bearing no.58-BOPEE of 2017 dated 12th June 2017, notifying a list of 14 candidates, who were considered for allotment of a seat on the basis of merit-cum-preference and availability of the seat at a particular point of time and on the basis of flexible seat matrix which changed on minute to minute basis as a consequence of upgradation. The writ petitioner in the writ petition has also admitted that her father-in-law had approached the Board office on 12th June 2017. It is a fact that serial no.473 was allotted a seat on 12th June 2017 as she was upgraded from M.D. Microbiology GMC Srinagar to PG Anaesthesiology GMC Jammu at 12.30 PM. The resultant seat was allotted to a candidate, next in rank available viz. rank 510 at 12.35 PM. The representative of the candidate should have chosen to be available to stake a claim for the seat which was vacated by rank 473. The petitioner’s representative, who as admitted by the writ petitioner had left the Board for offering prayers in the mosque, was obviously not present in the Board office and did not stake any claim for the seat of Microbiology, which could have been allotted to her at the relevant point of time. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the Writ record and considered the matter. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the Writ record and considered the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Board, to bolster the case set up, has strenuously argued that in pursuance of the interim direction dated 18th September 2017, passed by the Writ Court in OWP no.901/2017, the appellant Board examined the matter and passed a detailed order bearing no.203-BOPEE of 2017 dated 22nd September 2017. The Writ Court, according to the learned counsel, instead of asking the writ petitioner to challenge the Order no.203-BOPEE of 2017 dated 22nd September 2017, passed the impugned judgment in terms whereof, a direction has been issued by the learned Writ Court to grant admission to the respondent no.1 – writ petitioner, without following the proper procedure, which could not have been granted in the eye of law, more particularly when the admission process had come to a close for more than four months back. He has further contended that there are judgments on this point that the admission cannot be restarted beyond the cut-off date, which was extended by the Supreme Court beyond 31st May 2017 up to 15th June 2017 in SLP titled JK BOPEE v. Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmad Choudhary and others and the selection process was, therefore, completed by 15th June 2017. This fact was brought to the notice of the learned Writ Court. The learned counsel for the appellant Board has also stoutly stated that the Supreme Court recently in an application filed in Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others, clearly and categorically directed that the time cannot be extended for filling up the vacant seats in super-speciality, P.G. and MBBS courses as reported in a publication dated 23rd September 2017. The Supreme Court even refused to extend the time for filling up the vacant seats in super-speciality, post-graduation and MBBS courses. The Bench had noted that “if we permit ourselves to say so, the concern travelled through emotional sphere”. The Supreme Court even refused to extend the time for filling up the vacant seats in super-speciality, post-graduation and MBBS courses. The Bench had noted that “if we permit ourselves to say so, the concern travelled through emotional sphere”. The plea of the applicants was vehemently opposed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) represented by Mr Gaurav Sharma, MCI, who emphasized on the fact that the deadline had already been extended by ten days and hence “it will be an anathema to the concept of law to grant extension at the behest of the Institutions or the students.” It was also argued that the extension has the potential to usher in state of chaos and the result may be that the students who are not eligible or have defaulted, would gain the benefit”. Therefore, granting the admission to the writ petitioner after nearly one year that too when she was not eligible and the new admission process, i.e. 2018, is in progress would in a way mean extension in time for granting admission, which is not permissible under law. The learned counsel has further avowed that the learned Writ Court has also ignored the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPAOW no.15/2015 titled J&K BOPEE v. Sovia Anand, in which it has been held that granting of admission beyond the cut-off date does not arise and therefore the issue regarding giving direction to admit the student in P.G. Course after cut-off date needs no finding. He also avers that the directions passed by the learned Writ Court is also against the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kour and others. The learned Writ Court while relying upon the judgment in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, it is next asserted, has not taken into consideration the paragraph 38(a) thereof, whereby the Supreme Court has issued certain directions to put the matter at rest beyond any ambiguity and to ensure that the authorities act in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 has, while defending the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, insisted that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had secured rank 29962 in the NEET and she had given her preferences with regard to discipline and college of seven choices. 7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 has, while defending the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, insisted that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had secured rank 29962 in the NEET and she had given her preferences with regard to discipline and college of seven choices. Due to non-availability of the candidates, the unfilled category seats were converted into the open merit category vide notice no.041-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 2017. When counselling was done on 11th June 2017, the writ petitioner was not physically present because of the unavoidable circumstances. Her father-in-law was permitted to participate in the process on 12th June 2017 in the morning. He reached the appellant’s Board office at 10 AM, but the seat matrix at that point of time did not show any seat of the writ petitioner’s choice and the appellant Board gave it to understand informally that it would not change, so the father-in-law of the writ petitioner departed from the Board office temporarily for prayers, expecting to be informed for signing result sheet of counselling when counselling started/ended for the candidate as was done on the previous occasion i.e. 11th June 2017. Since the appellant board had agreed for telephonic counselling, so in that context the writ petitioner kept on waiting for the telephonic call from the appellant Board, which was never done by them. The omission to call her for counselling was apparently mala fide. It is also stated that the candidate with the State Rank 473, who had been earlier allotted the seat of M.D. Microbiology in GMC, Srinagar, came for counselling and got her allocation changed to P.G.D. Anaesthesiology in GMC, Jammu. Soon after the counselling of the said candidate having the State Rank 473, the telephonic counselling of the writ petitioner should have been done as her State Rank was 477, which was ignored by the appellant Board. Had the writ petitioner been counselled at that point of time, she would have opted for M.D. Microbiology, which had become available and was one of her preferred choices. Had the writ petitioner been counselled at that point of time, she would have opted for M.D. Microbiology, which had become available and was one of her preferred choices. The learned counsel also maintains that the father-in-law of the writ petitioner, who had gone to nearby mosque was two minutes away from the Board office and could have reached before finishing of the counselling for signing necessary papers as was done on 11th June 2017, but while keeping the writ petitioner to wait for the phone call, the appellant Board preferred to march over her claim and called next lower rank candidate and allotted the seat of Open Merit of M.D. Microbiology in GMC, Srinagar, by way of upgradation, to the respondent no.3, having the State Rank 510 and therefore, the allotment of the seat of M.D. Microbiology in favour of the respondent no.5 is against the settled principles of law. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has placed reliance on Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others (2016) 11 SCC 225; judgment dated 7th June 2017, passed by the Supreme Court in civil Appeal no.8268 of 2017 titled Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi and ors v. Union of India; judgment dated 10th July 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.5055 of 2012 titled Asha v. Pt B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences &ors judgment dated 17th August 2017 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in LPA no.322 of 2016 titled Dr.Swati Sailly v. Union of India; judgment dated 20th September 2013 passed by the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) no.20557 of 2013 titled SnehalataJagati v. Convenor, PG (Medical/Dental) Selection Committee, Odisha and others; judgment dated 15th May 2015 passed by the Patna High Court in Hirendra Kumar &ors v. The State of Bihar and ors; judgement dated 18th September 2013 passed by the Orissa High Court in Dr. Manoj Kumar v. State of Odisha and others; judgment dated 22nd August 2012 passed by the Chennai High Court in W.P. no.22229 of 2012 titled Dr. H. Iyengaran v. The Selection Committee by its Secretary; judgment dated 16th September 2014, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in OWP no.572 of 2014 titled Omer Bashir Itoo v. State &ors. 8. H. Iyengaran v. The Selection Committee by its Secretary; judgment dated 16th September 2014, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in OWP no.572 of 2014 titled Omer Bashir Itoo v. State &ors. 8. The petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing OWP no.901/2017, on 3rd of July 2017,seeking following relief: (a) That by issuance of a writ of certiorari allotment of seat in discipline of MD Microbiology in favour of respondent no.5 vide notification No.58-BOPEE of 2017 dated: 12.06.2017 be cancelled/quashed. (b) That by issuance of writ of certiorari public notice No.43-BOPEE of 2017 dated 13.06.2017 to the extent of reopening of the entire selection and public notice No.44-BOPEE of 2017 dated 13.06.2017 whereunder the seat MD Radiology/Radiodiagnosis was withheld may be set aside/quashed. (c) A writ of mandamus be issued whereby respondents 1-4 be commanded to allot the discipline of MD microbiology in GMC Srinagar to the petitioner on the basis of her superior merit. Alternatively, a writ of mandamus be issued whereby the respondents 1-4 be commanded to allot the available seat in the discipline of MD Radiology/Radiodiagnosis in SKIMS Srinagar to the petitioner. (d) The petitioner be awarded due compensation for undergoing mental stress and trauma on account of inaction and mala fide intentions of the official respondents to harm her career. 9. It is an admitted position, and acknowledged by the learned Writ Court as well, that the petitioner was not physically present when counselling was done on 11th June 2017. The appellant Board, taking a humanitarian view, permitted the writ petitioner’s father-in-law, in her place, to participate in the process. Her father-in-law appeared before the appellant Board on 12th June 2017. However, the moment the seat in M.D. Microbiology in GMC, Srinagar, became available, the petitioner’s father-in-law, at that relevant point of time, was not available and accordingly the petitioner was telephonically contacted who is stated to have not responded and as a sequel to which, the said seat of M.D. Microbiology was allotted to the respondent no.3, being next in queue. There is no gainsaying that absence of the writ petitioner or for that matter her representative viz. father -in-law, at relevant point of time cannot be attributed to the appellant Board but ostensibly to the writ petitioner and/or her representative. There is no gainsaying that absence of the writ petitioner or for that matter her representative viz. father -in-law, at relevant point of time cannot be attributed to the appellant Board but ostensibly to the writ petitioner and/or her representative. The learned Writ Court could not have travelled beyond the facts which are triable one and cannot be squared off in the writ proceedings. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ petitioner had qualified NEET PG with a rank of 477. She did not find place in the list on the basis of her merit as the last candidate in the open merit, who was allotted the seat had a rank of 423 whereas the writ petitioner had the rank of 477. The Information Brochure published by the appellant Board provides that no proxy candidates shall be allowed in the physical round of counselling. However, in the case of the writ petitioner there is no gainsaying that it was the icing on the cake that her father-in-law was permitted to participate in the physical round of counselling. She was even telephonically counselled in presence of her father-in-law. The representative of the writ petitioner appeared in the Board office on 11th June 2017 at a turn of the counselling of the candidate he did not opt for any available seat and instead choose to prefer CNA (choice not available). After closure of the counselling on 11th, the appellant Board vide Notification no.57-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 2017, allotted/upgraded the seats to those shown as CNA, who had participated in the counselling including the representative of the writ petitioner/ respondent no.1. The appellant Board on 11th June 2017 issued a Notice bearing no.41-BOPEE of 2017 dated 11th June 2017, by virtue of which the unfilled category seats were converted into the open merit, which were to be filled on 12th June 2017 and the candidates were required to be present in the Board office. The representative of the petitioner approached the Board office on 12th June 2017. He was counselled and was intimated to remain present in the premises as it was in the interest of the writ petitioner. However, the representative of the writ petitioner was not available. The representative of the petitioner approached the Board office on 12th June 2017. He was counselled and was intimated to remain present in the premises as it was in the interest of the writ petitioner. However, the representative of the writ petitioner was not available. During the process some seats became available due to allotment by the upgradation of the converted seats which obviously had also to be filled up during the process of the counselling considering the availability of the seats on minute to minute basis. The seats, which became available due to upgradation, became part of the available seats which were displayed on the monitors available in the Board office and minute by minute changes were reflected on the monitor for information of the candidates. This was done by the appellant Board in accordance with the conditions notified vide Notification no.38 of BOPEE of 2017 dated 8th June 2017, that the candidates would be called by the counselling committee in order of merit. The seats would vary from minute to minute. The candidates would be given option to make necessary changes in their preference form and they would be considered against the seats available at the relevant point of time. In case of his/her non-availability at such a time, he/she would not have any claim over such a seat and the seat would be allotted to the candidate next in merit preference by that time. The said notification was not superseded at any point of time by any other notification during the process up to 15th June 2017 and therefore it formed the basis for filling up of the seats in the physical round counselling. It is rightly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant Board that the writ petitioner’s authorised person should have remained available in the Board office in the interest of the writ petitioner. The counselling was over on 12thJune 2017. The appellant Board issued the Notification no.58-BOPEE of 2017 dated 12th June 2017, notifying a list of 14 candidates, who were considered for allotment of a seat on the basis of merit-cum-preference and availability of the seat at a particular point of time and on the basis of flexible seat matrix which changed on minute to minute basis as a consequence of upgradation. The writ petitioner in the writ petition has also admitted that her father-in-law had approached the Board office on 12th June 2017. It is a fact that serial no.473 was allotted a seat on 12th June 2017 as she was upgraded from M.D. Microbiology GMC Srinagar to PG Anaesthesiology GMC Jammu at 12.30 PM. The resultant seat was allotted to a candidate, next in rank available viz. rank 510 at 12.35 PM. The representative of the candidate should have chosen to be available to stake a claim for the seat which was vacated by rank 473. The petitioner’s representative, who as admitted by the writ petitioner had left the Board for offering prayers in the mosque, was obviously not present in the Board office and did not stake any claim for the seat of Microbiology, which could have been allotted to her at the relevant point of time. In that view of the matter, the absence of the writ petitioner cannot be attributed to the appellant Board. This position has also been admitted by the learned Writ Court while rendering the impugned judgment. 11. Nevertheless, the learned Writ Court, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant Board, has overlooked the imperative facet of the matter that M.D. Radio Diagnosis seat as available on 10th June 2017, was allotted to the candidate, holding Rank 40 in the merit list with a score of 1053.2955, whereas the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had been holding the Rank 477 with a score of 854.2075 only. If the seat was to be filled and not withheld, there were hundreds of meritorious candidates with a far superior merit than the writ petitioner who could have participated had they been made aware of the same. The learned counsel for the appellant is also right in submitting that in case the impugned judgement is complied with, it will cause loss to the meritorious candidates, who have far higher merit than the writ petitioner and those who had participated in the earlier rounds of counselling but were not allotted the Radiology Seat even though they opted for the same, besides it would tantamount to compromise with the merit of the candidates and, therefore, would be against the principles of natural justice and also against the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the subject-matter. The buck, however, does not stop here. 12. The buck, however, does not stop here. 12. In the writ petition, bearing OWP no.901/2017, the learned Single Bench, as an interim measure, passed the order dated 18th September 2017, directing the appellant Board to consider the claim of the writ petitioner against the available seat in Radio Diagnosis in SKIMS Soura, on the ground of having more merit than the one granted admission for M.D. Microbiology. In compliance to the said direction, the appellant Board considered the matter and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for allotment of a seat in Radio Diagnosis (Admission 2017). The said rejection order was not put to challenge by the writ petitioner. Yet, the learned Writ Court by impugned judgment, after relying on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Asha v. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences & ors 2012 (4) Supreme 511 , directed the appellant Board to again consider the case of the writ petitioner for allotment of the seat in M.D.Radio Diagnosis and while directing so, the learned Writ Court said that the order bearing no.203-BOPEE of 2017 dated 22nd September 2017, passed by the appellant Board, would be ignored. 13. The impugned judgment has been passed on 25th October 2017. The courses, for which the writ petitioner, the respondent no.3 or any other candidate applied/competed in selection process and got selected and thereafter participated in counselling, have been started by the Colleges as early as on 15thJune 2017.Was it practicable to grant admission to the petitioner in the month of October/November 2017? The answer is a big “No” because it would amount to admission in subsequent academic session/semester. In this regard it is long since held by the Supreme Court that if any student is admitted after the commencement of the course it would be against the intended object and purpose of fixing a time schedule. Even the Supreme Court turned down the plea of preventing loss to the national exchequer in the event admission is not given beyond the fixed timeframe inasmuch as the Supreme Court said that such a plea cannot be a ground to permit midstream admissions, which would be against the spirit of governing the statutes. The time schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The time schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the student to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others (2002) 7 SCC 258 , has held that there is a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period, during which the admission can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. It has been categorically made clear by the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh’s case (supra) that there is no scope for admitting the students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of the statutes governing the medical education. The Supreme Court further proceeded to held that even if the seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making the midsession admission. This axiom of the Supreme Court knocks the bottom out of the case of the writ petitioner and as a corollary warrants reversal of the impugned judgment. 14. Again the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others 2014 (10) SCC 521 , has laid down the principle that the schedule relating to admission 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. The principles have been recognised by the Supreme Court in Jasmine Kaur’s case (supra), are : “Having noted the various decisions relied upon by the Appellant in SLP (C) No.18099 of 2014 and the contesting Respondent, we are able to discern the following principles: 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. 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 fault 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. 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. 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. 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. If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her right to claim relief before the Court promptly, then in such cases, the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibusaequitassubvenit, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15. What emerges from the above is that even if a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in the process the seats are filled up and the cope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time, then under such circumstances, the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any. 16. The time gap of nearly three months is certainly a long period as the process of admission to professional courses are regulated by the Selection Authorities such as the Medical Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education, National Council for Teacher Education, State Government Authorities as well as the concerned affiliated universities/colleges, each one of whom have got to play their corresponding roles in regulating the admissions and also monitoring the subsequent course of study for the purpose of ultimately granting the degrees of successful candidates after the completion of the course. As the process being a continuous one, any delay in working out the remedies promptly will have to be viewed very seriously or otherwise the same would impinge upon the rights of other candidates apart from causing unnecessary administrative hardship to the regulatory bodies. As the process being a continuous one, any delay in working out the remedies promptly will have to be viewed very seriously or otherwise the same would impinge upon the rights of other candidates apart from causing unnecessary administrative hardship to the regulatory bodies. When the said factors are kept in mind while analysing the case on hand, it will have to be stated that even though the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was found successful in her challenge that she pursued her rights and remedies expeditiously as possible, cut-off date cannot be used to deny admission to the writ petitioner; on that sole ground it cannot be held that every other factor should be kept aside and her claim for admission to M.D. Radio Diagnosis course should be ensured by issuing directions unmindful of the infringement of rights of other candidates and the other statutory bodies. 17. The Supreme Court in Jasmine Kaur’s case (supra) has held that “As time and again such instances of claiming admission into such professional courses are brought before the Court, and on every such occasion, reliance is placed upon the various decisions of this Court for issuing necessary directions for accommodating the students to various courses claiming parity, we feel it appropriate to state that unless such claims of exceptional nature are brought before the Court within the time schedule fixed by this Court, Court or Board should not pass orders for granting admission into any particular course out of time. In this context, it will have to be stated that in whatever earlier decisions of this Court such out of time admissions were granted, the same cannot be quoted as a precedent in any other case, as such directions were issued after due consideration of the peculiar facts involved in those cases. No two cases can be held to be similar in all respects. Therefore, in such of those cases where the Court or Board is not in a position to grant the relief within the time schedule due to the fault attributable to the candidate concerned, like the case on hand, there should be no hesitation to deny the relief as was done by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in such of those cases where the Court or Board is not in a position to grant the relief within the time schedule due to the fault attributable to the candidate concerned, like the case on hand, there should be no hesitation to deny the relief as was done by the learned Single Judge. If for any reason, such grant of relief is not possible within the time schedule, due to reasons attributable to other parties, and such reasons are found to be deliberate or mala fide the Court should only consider any other relief other than direction for admission, such as compensation, etc. In such situations, the Court should ensure that those who were at fault are appropriately proceeded against and punished in order to ensure that such deliberate or malicious acts do not recur.” Thus, the Supreme Court has indubitably held that the decisions rendered by it earlier for granting out of time admissions, cannot be quoted as a precedent in any other case and no two cases can be held to be similar in all respects. The Supreme Court also held that even if mala fide is found, the Court should only consider any other relief other than a direction for admission, such as compensation etcetera. 18. Even a three-Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in MA no.1037 in Writ Petition (C) no.76/2015 titled Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India, has set at rest the controversy relating to the subject-matter of the instant case as well, by its order dated 22nd September 2017, which reads as under: “Though various interlocutory applications have been filed in various writ petitions, yet the prayer in singularity pertains to extension of time for filling up the vacant posts in super-speciality courses, post-graduate courses and MBBS courses. It is not necessary to state that what prayer is made in a particular interlocutory application. Suffice to refer to order dated 4thSeptember, 2017 passed by this Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.743 of 2017. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:- “In the course of hearing, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, after obtaining instructions from the DGSH, submitted that a different situation has arisen as regards the counselling to be held for the super-speciality courses. He would urge that time may be extended for the vacant seats. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:- “In the course of hearing, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, after obtaining instructions from the DGSH, submitted that a different situation has arisen as regards the counselling to be held for the super-speciality courses. He would urge that time may be extended for the vacant seats. Regard being had to the fact situation, we extend the time till 14.09.2017.” From the aforesaid order, it is abundantly clear that time was extended till 14th September, 2017. Today, when these applications were argued by many a learned senior counsel, there was an echo of concern that seats are going vacant and, therefore, there is necessity, may, a requisite warrant, to extend the date. If we permit ourselves to say so, the concern travelled from rationalsphere to emotional sphere. We appreciate the concern, perception and the argument advanced at the Bar. We may also note that Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government gave his concession in no uncertain terms for extension of time on the basis of the instructions given by the Directorate General of Health Services. There was a vehement opposition by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India. He contends that once this Court has extended the time and fixed the time limit till 14th September, 2017 and the candidates did not avail the facilities, it will be an anathema to the concept of law to grant extension at the behest of the Institutions or the students. He would urge that the maintenance of discipline is of transcendental significance in the sphere of admission to medical colleges. He would urge with all humility at his command that grant of extension of time has the potentiality to usher in state of chaos and the result may be that the students who are not eligible or have defaulted, would gain the benefit. Having bestowed our careful and studied consideration with regard to the submissions advanced at the Bar, we are of the convinced opinion and an extension at this juncture would not be appropriate. A sense of concern is one thing, but sustenance of discipline and order is another aspect. Having bestowed our careful and studied consideration with regard to the submissions advanced at the Bar, we are of the convinced opinion and an extension at this juncture would not be appropriate. A sense of concern is one thing, but sustenance of discipline and order is another aspect. Weighing both the concepts in a balanced manner, we unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the prayers made in the interlocutory applications do not deserve any acceptance and, accordingly, they stand rejected.” 19. The Supreme Court has unambiguously refused to extend the time for filling up the vacant seats in super-speciality, post-graduate and MBBS courses beyond the extent fixed by the Supreme Court i.e. 14th September 2017. In the instant case, the impugned judgment has been passed on 25th October 2017, which is totally beyond the time fixed by the Supreme Court. 20. The cumulative effect of the foregoing discourse is that granting admission beyond the cut off date cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. Resultantly, the writ petition OWP no.901/2017, titled Dr Nazia Manzoor v. State of J&K and others, filed by the respondent no.1lacks in merit and as a corollary, the impugned judgement dated 25th October 2017 is liable to be set-aside. 21. For all that has been discussed and done above, the Letters Patent Appeal on hand is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25th October 2017, delivered by the learned Writ Court in the Writ Petition, bearing OWP no.901/2017, titled Dr Nazia Manzoor v. State of J&K and others, filed by the respondent no.1, is set-aside and as a sequel thereto, the writ petition (OWP no.901/2017) is dismissed. Disposed of.