JUDGMENT M.N. Bhandari, J. - These writ petitions were filed to challenge admissions in MBBS/BDS courses alleged to have been given in violation of the Regulations. The prayer was made for an impartial enquiry by the High Power Expert Committee to expose the illegality committed during counselling and, thereupon, in the admissions. The prayer is also made to refer the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the CBI'). 2. A direction is also sought for admission in MBBS Course 2015-16 and. at the same time, for punitive action against the Federation of private medical and dental colleges. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 3. It is a case where petitioners along with others appeared in PCPMT Examination 2015 for admission in MBBS and BDS Courses. The Pre-medical Test (PCPMT) was held by MDS University, Ajmer. The result was declared on 21st August, 2015. The successful candidates were called for counselling. In the meantime, revised result of PCPMT was declared pursuant to the judgment of this Court. The negative marking was ordered to be removed. A fresh counselling after declaration of revised result was conducted on 30th September, 2015. The petitioner/s scored merit position but they were not given admission and, at the same time, it was given to those who did not even appear in the counselling or failed to secure required marks in PCPMT. 4. The petitioner Vivek Bugalia could not attend the counselling as he was in Jaipur to appear in the paper of Human Physiology Bio-Chemistry, 1 year of BDS Examination. Ms. Jyoti Dudi and Mr. Mohan Lal Saini were given admission, though, they did not appear in the counselling and, in the same manner, Shiv Prakash was also given admission. The counselling was thus made for the sake of it because petitioner Vivek Bugaliya apart from three candidates, named above, did not appear in counselling yet they were shown present by putting their forged signatures. The aforesaid itself proves in what fraudulent manner, counselling was conducted followed by admissions. The candidates, who had taken admission else-where, were shown present and seats were allotted to them also, though, they did not appear in the counselling. It was to show that all the seats have been filed. It includes presence of those candidates who were earlier allotted Government Medical College pursuant to the counselling on 31st August, 2015 thus did not appear. It was to show that all the seats have been filed. It includes presence of those candidates who were earlier allotted Government Medical College pursuant to the counselling on 31st August, 2015 thus did not appear. Those candidates were still allotted seats in respondents private medical colleges and after showing them to be absent, fifteen candidates were given admission, out of which, nine were admitted in Pacific Medical College, five candidates in NIIMS Medical College and one in Pacific Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS). The medical colleges to those candidates were allotted on 31st August, 2015 i.e. after the counselling of PCPMT and last date thus allocation of medical college was nothing but as farce. It was with the purpose to give admission to those candidates, not even eligible. 5. The petitioners has filed additional affidavit to show that the candidates failed to secured minimum marks in PCPMT have also been given admission. The aforesaid is a glaring instances of manipulation and illegalities on the part of the respondents medical colleges to give admission in MBBS Course 2015-16. In the Pacific Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur 49 such candidates were given admission. 6. In a litigation against negative marking in PCPMT, direction was given by this Court to remove it. The result was declared afresh and the candidates secured less than five per cent marks therein were also given admission, though, required to possess minimum fifty per cent marks. Thus, ineligible candidates were also given admission. As per the Medical Council of India Regulations of Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short 'MCI Regulations of 1997') as well as judgments of the Apex Court, a candidate securing less than 50 per cent marks in the entrance test is not entitled to get admission, if he/she belongs to general category and, otherwise, 40 per cent in the case of reserve category. Ignoring the judgment of the Apex Court and the MCI Regulations of 1997 providing required qualification, admissions were given by the respondents Medical Colleges. 7. If minutes of the counselling is perused, Devendra Pratap Poonia and Nikita Mehta were given admission on 24th September. 2015 and even deposited fee on the same day. Their names were shown in the list at serial No. 100 and No. 116 respectively. It was after the last date for admission. 8. 7. If minutes of the counselling is perused, Devendra Pratap Poonia and Nikita Mehta were given admission on 24th September. 2015 and even deposited fee on the same day. Their names were shown in the list at serial No. 100 and No. 116 respectively. It was after the last date for admission. 8. It is further stated that 32 candidates given admission out of PCPMT 2015 have received less than 15 per cent marks. It was after showing it to be more than 50 per cent. The name of such candidates have been given along with the affidavit. In fact, 53 students have been admitted despite securing less than 5 per cent marks even after removing negative marking in PCPMT. The list of those candidates was furnished to the Medical Council of India (for short 'the MCI') for appropriate action, but, no action has been taken. 9. As per the minutes of the counselling also, 12 candidates had been allotted Pacific Medical Colleges, but, only four candidates were given admission because college had already given admission to 146 candidates till 26th September, 2016. Eight candidates were allotted Pacific Medical Colleges in the counselling held on 30th September, 2016, but, denied admission in absence of bank guarantee. The aforesaid should have resulted in eight vacancies, but, not a single seat is lying vacant thus even admission against those seats were made in an illegal manner after the last date for it. The petitioners have indicated list of the candidates who had secured less than 15 per cent marks yet given admission by Pacific Medical College. 10. The National Institute of Medical Science also evolved the same mechanism are admitted 27 students who have secured less than 20 per cent marks even after removing negative marking in PCPMT. The list of those candidates has also been furnished to the MCI. In the same manner, allotment of candidate was made even though they had been admitted prior to the counselling. One such candidate is Siddarth Sahai, who was admitted in the college on 28th September, 2016 as per the list given to MCI, but, he was also allotted the seat in Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, though, he was not even present in the counselling and such facts have not been controverted by the respective respondents. 11. One such candidate is Siddarth Sahai, who was admitted in the college on 28th September, 2016 as per the list given to MCI, but, he was also allotted the seat in Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, though, he was not even present in the counselling and such facts have not been controverted by the respective respondents. 11. To cover the default and manipulation, the private medical colleges sent the list of candidates along with marks obtained by them in other entrance test than PMT or PCPMT. In the State of Rajasthan, admissions in the MBBS Course was permissible either through PMT or PCPMT. No admission could have been made based on the entrance examination of other institution, but, in fraudulent manner, the respondent medical colleges have sent the marks obtained by those candidates in the entrance test of other institutions contrary to the MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgment of the Apex Court. The respondent medical colleges have thus committed fraud in the admission in MBBS and BDS Courses. 12. Learned Dy. Government Counsel Mr. Sanjeev Singhal, appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State of Rajasthan, submitted that admission MBBS/BDS course in the State of Rajasthan could have been given out of two competitive entrance tests, i.e., PMT or PCPMT. The private medical college/university in the State of Rajasthan could have opted for PMT PCPMT to give admission in MBBS or BDS Courses. Five private medic and dental colleges, which includes, the medical and dental college arrayed as respondents opted for admission through PCPMT - 2015. The admission could not have been given from any other entrance test this referred to above. It is otherwise as per Regulation 5 of the MC Regulations of 1997. 13. The State Government has provided procedure for admission i: MBBS/BDS courses, which includes, the last date for admission and also the it would be out of the one entrance test, i.e., PMT or PCPMT. The private medical college or university, opted for PCPMT, were entitled to fill the seats out of the merit in PCPMT. No admission therein was permissible after 15th September, 2015, which was the last date for admission. The last date to join the course was 30th September, 2015. Therein, if any seat remained vacant or surrendered from All India Quota, need to be allotted as per the merit by 15th September, 2015. No admission therein was permissible after 15th September, 2015, which was the last date for admission. The last date to join the course was 30th September, 2015. Therein, if any seat remained vacant or surrendered from All India Quota, need to be allotted as per the merit by 15th September, 2015. It should be out of the entrance test opted by the medical college concerned and not from any other entrance test, as has been done by the private medical colleges herein. No college was at liberty to issue advertisement or make admission through internet at their own, rather, if any such practice has been adopted, it is in violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgment of the Supreme Court thus the State Government would have no objection to refer the matter to CBI, as prayed in SBCWP No. 17225/2015, if directed by this Court. 14. It is further submitted that MCI should derecognise those medical colleges or universities which have not followed the MCI Regulations of 1997 and made admissions in the manner alleged by the petitioners. A candidate securing less than five per cent marks and in many cases less than fifteen percent marks in PCPMT, that too, after removing negative marking, could not have been given admission. If any such admission has been given then it is nothing but in violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court apart from playing with life of the public who would be administered medicine by those ineligible candidates. Learned counsel submitted that if the allegations made in the writ petition and the additional affidavit are correct then contempt proceedings can also be initiated against the respondents medical colleges. 15. Learned counsel Mr. Angad Mirdha, appearing for the non-petitioner No. 2 - MCI, made elaborate arguments. It is submitted that a detailed affidavit has been filed by the MCI on the facts of this case. The admission in medical courses cannot be given after the last date of the admission. The reference of various judgments, which includes in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. reported in 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 728 : 2002(7) SCCI 258 has been given. It was followed in the subsequent judgments in the easel of Mridul Dhar (Minor) (5) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. The reference of various judgments, which includes in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors. reported in 2002 WLC (SC) Civil 728 : 2002(7) SCCI 258 has been given. It was followed in the subsequent judgments in the easel of Mridul Dhar (Minor) (5) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 651 : 2005(2) SCC 65 . Therein, the schedule for 1 admission has been given by the Apex Court. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Angad Midha has made reference of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh and others reported in 2012 (7) SCC 433 . Therein, it is held that anyone disobeys or fail to comply with the direction of the Apex Court or Regulations, can be subjected under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act of 1971') 17. Coming to the facts of the case, it is submitted that a list of students admitted in MBBS/BDS course was called and was to be furnished by the 10 MCI by 07th October, 2015. It was then extended till 15th October, 2015 and, lastly, within a period of two weeks since 08th March, 2016. The respective medical colleges sent the list of students. The MCI asked for certain clarifications and documentary evidence in respect to the admission of certain students. FOr illustration admission of a candidate namely Dabhi Pingala Akash in Pacific Mecial College and Hospital, Udaipur, as the said student obtained less than 50 per cent marks in PCPMT. The medical college concerned informed that he ha obtained 71.5 per cent marks. The MCI found that 71.5 marks are in the entrance test conducted by MGM Institute of Health Sciences, Mumbai and not in the PCPMT. In fact, he had obtained less : than 50 per cent marks in PCPMT. The clarification was sought from the State about permissibility to take student from the merit list of other entrance test. The MCI in the meanwhile received many other complaints in respect of all the medical colleges/institutions, arrayed as respondents. The matter was thus taken up at the appropriate level and it was initially considered by the Sub-committee. The decision taken therein was approved by the Executive Committee. The MCI in the meanwhile received many other complaints in respect of all the medical colleges/institutions, arrayed as respondents. The matter was thus taken up at the appropriate level and it was initially considered by the Sub-committee. The decision taken therein was approved by the Executive Committee. The correspondences have been made with medical colleges to seek informations, but it has not yet been given thus the MCI is in process of finalising the action against respondents medical colleges. 18. it is submitted that no admission can be given alter the last date provided by the Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar & Ors. (supra) and also in violation of Regulations. 19. A reference of Regulations 5 of the MCI Regulations of 1997 has been given. In the State of Rajasthan, there exists more than one board and university thus as per the Regulation 5(ii) of the MCI Regulations of 1997, competitive entrance test needs to be conducted for admission to achieve uniform evaluation as there may be variance of standard at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies i.e. the State Board and CBSE. One need to be 10 + 2 with two years study in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics or any other elected subjects with English securing minimum 50 per cent of marks. The student further needs to obtain minimum 50 per cent marks in the entrance test. The relaxation of 10 per cent marks is given to the students of reserve caste. In the instant case, the respondent medical colleges have given admission to the candidates obtained less than required marks in the entrance test, and, in few cases, even less than the required marks even in the qualifying examination. The respondents medical colleges had no authority to make admissions based on other competitive entrance test thus violation of Regulations is apparent on the face of record. 20. The MCI has already taken the matter at their level. They will take a final decision at the earliest after completion of required procedure. The respondents medical colleges had no authority to make admissions based on other competitive entrance test thus violation of Regulations is apparent on the face of record. 20. The MCI has already taken the matter at their level. They will take a final decision at the earliest after completion of required procedure. The admission found in violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997 or judgments of the Supreme Court would not be recognised, as the standard of medical studies cannot be sacrificed in the manner, it is alleged in the writ petition/s. It is also stated that no committee can take a decision to allow admission from more than one competitive entrance test. The private medical colleges have referred decision of the Admission Regulatory Committee in its meeting dated 18th September, 2015 to allow admission out of the other entrance test apart from PCPMT. No one can take a decision to allow admission in violation of MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgments of the Apex Court and it includes the Regulatory Committee. 21. In the case of Prlya Gupta (supra), it is held that admission to the medical or dental courses can be given only through respective entrance test conducted by the competent authority in the State or body of the private colleges. In the State of Rajasthan, PMT is conducted under the authority of the State and PCPMT is by the Federation of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, if anyone has flouted the direction given therein or the Regulations, this Court can appropriately initiate the contempt proceedings against the defaulting persons. 22. The Admission Regulatory Committee is also bound by the MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgment of the Supreme Court and cannot take a decision contrary to it. It is, accordingly, submitted that the MCI would take action against the respondent medical colleges as they have flouded the Regulations and the judgments of the Supreme Court. They would not register the students who have not secured required marks in PCPMT for admission in consonance to the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgments of the Supreme Court. The MCI would not allow any college to sacrifice the minimum standard for admission in MBBS or BDS courses. They cannot act contrary to the MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgments of the Supreme Court. The MCI would not allow any college to sacrifice the minimum standard for admission in MBBS or BDS courses. They cannot act contrary to the MCI Regulations of 1997 and judgments of the Supreme Court. The Admission Regulatory Committee was headed by a retired Judge of the High Court thus expected to take decision in consonance to the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgments of the Supreme Court. 23. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondents Nos. 3 and 6 to 8 Mr. S.N. Kumawat and Mr. Achintya Kaushik submitted that the writ petition/s in the hands of the petitioner/s is not maintainable. He did not appear in the counselling yet preferred this writ petition. He has otherwise taken admission in BDS course thus the writ petition may be dismissed on the aforesaid ground itself. I 24. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the writ petition/s and additional affidavit are absolutely false and incorrect. No forgery has been committed in the counselling or admission, as alleged. The affidavit of Shiv Prakash is not in the manner required and, otherwise, no forged signature was made in the counselling. It is also submitted that on the date of counselling, there was an agitating mob which has taken away the record and, otherwise, the issues raised by the petitioner/s were dealt by this Court in the case of Arundhati Sharma v. Co-ordinator, PCPMT, 2015 & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13552/2015 decided on 29th September, 2015 along with connected writ petitions. The petitioners are not entitled to raise the issue already decided by this Court in the case of Arundhanti Sharma (supra). 25. It is further stated that petitioners appeared in the counselling and put their signatures and now making allegations of forgery therein. In fact, the documents would have been produced, but, as they are not available, thus could not be submitted before this Court. 26. So far as the action by the MCI is concerned, the respondents are making correspondence and giving clarifications sought by them. No admission in the MBBS/BDS Courses has been given to a candidate who has failed to secure less than the required marks in the qualifying examination or in the entrance test. Certain admissions have been given pursuant to decision of Admission Regulatory Committee. No admission in the MBBS/BDS Courses has been given to a candidate who has failed to secure less than the required marks in the qualifying examination or in the entrance test. Certain admissions have been given pursuant to decision of Admission Regulatory Committee. It is permitted to make admissions outside the PCPMT as qualified candidates were not available so as to fill all the seats. The Admission Regulatory Committee has taken a proper decision therein, however, it has been questioned even by the official respondents, having no authority for it. 27. So far the counselling held on 30th September, 2015 is concerned, it was done in the facts and circumstances of the case. A case is not made out to allow the relief prayed by the petitioner/s and, for that to refer the matter to CBI. It is moreso when, the matter is pending consideration with the MCI and is final authority for that. Till decision is taken by MCI, no direction may be given. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the writ petitions as the admissions outside the PCPMT were given pursuant to decision of the Admission Regulatory Committee in its meeting on 08th September, 2015. 28. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 29. The writ petitions have been filed to challenge the admissions of ineligible candidates in the MBBS and BDS courses thus to sent for impartial enquiry by High Power Committee and even to CBI. A direction for punitive action against federation of private medical and dental colleges has also been prayed. 30. The writ petition was filed in regard to admission in medical and dental colleges for the session 2015-16. As per the regulations then existing, the admissions in MBBS and BDS course in the State of Rajasthan were permissible out of two entrance tests. One is PMT conducted under the State Government and other was PCPMT conducted by federation of private medical and dental colleges. 31. The admission in the instant case was permissible out of PCPMT conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges as the respondent private medical colleges opted for it. After the entrance test of PCPMT, result was declared. The successful candidates were called for counselling. 31. The admission in the instant case was permissible out of PCPMT conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges as the respondent private medical colleges opted for it. After the entrance test of PCPMT, result was declared. The successful candidates were called for counselling. The result of PCPMT was, however, altered pursuant to the direction of this Court when it was found that negative marking has been made without any information or direction for it. Accordingly, fresh result was declared after removing negative marking. The admissions were given thereupon also. 32. The petitioners have made manifold allegations against the respondents. It has been stated that admissions were given to the candidates who even did not appear in the counselling conducted by Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges, thus counselling was for the sake of it. It is also stated that admissions were given to the candidates who even failed to obtain required percentage of marks in the entrance test, namely, PCPMT thus the respondents made admission in violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997. It has also been alleged that the candidates taken admission in other medical colleges were shown present in the counselling and seats were allocated to them also, though, they did not appear, thus a forgery has been conducted in the counselling and the admission. The admissions were alleged to have been given after last date provided for it by the Apex Court thus admission of many candidates was nothing but farce. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner - Vivek Bugalia could not appear in the counselling, as he was at Jaipur and appearing in the paper of Human Biology, Bio Chemistry, etc. 33. Learned counsel appearing for the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges submitted that due to agitation on the date of counselling, the record was taken away by the mob thus could not be produced to show that no admission was given after last date or to a candidate not eligible for it. 34. To appreciate the argument, it would be gainful to refer the relevant provision for admission in MBBS and BDS courses, as provided under the MCI Regulations of 1997. Regulations 4 & 5 of the Regulations of 1997 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "4. 34. To appreciate the argument, it would be gainful to refer the relevant provision for admission in MBBS and BDS courses, as provided under the MCI Regulations of 1997. Regulations 4 & 5 of the Regulations of 1997 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "4. Admission to the Medical Course-Eligibility Criteria : No candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical Curriculum of first Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surger (MBBS) Course until: (1) He/she shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st December, of the year admission to the MBBS course; (2) He/she has passed qualifying examination as under :- (a) The higher secondary examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10 + 2 Higher Secondary Examination after a period of 12 years study, the last two years of study comprising of physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics or any other elective subjects with English at a level not less than the core course for English as prescribed by the National Council for Educational Research and Training after the introduction of the 10 + 2 + 3 years educational structure as recommended by the National Committee on education; Note Where the course content is not as prescribed for 10 + 2 education structure of the National Committee, the candidates will have to undergo a period of one year pre-professional training before admission to the Medical colleges; (b) The intermediate examination in science of an Indian University/Board or other recognised examining body with Physics, Chemistry and Biology which shall include a practical test in these subjects and also English as a compulsory subject; (c) The pre-professional/pre-medical examination with Physics; Chemistry arid Biology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent examination. The preprofessional/pre-medical examination shall include a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and also English as a compulsory subject; (d) The first year of the three years degree course of a recognized university, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology including a practical test in three subjects provided the examination is a 'University Examination' and candidate has passed 10 + 2 with English at a level not less than a core course; (e) B.Sc. examination of an Indian University provided that he/she has passed the B.Sc. examination of an Indian University provided that he/she has passed the B.Sc. examination with not less than two of the following subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology) and further that he/she has passed the earlier qualifying examination with the following subjects-Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. (f) Any other examination which, in scope and standard is found to be equivalent to the intermediate science examination of an Indian University/Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and English. Note :- The pre-medical course may be conducted either at Medical college or a . Science College. Marks obtained in Mathematics are not to be considered for admission to MBBS Course. After the 10 + 2 course is introduced, the integrated courses should be abolished. 5. Selection of Students : The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination of the merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformly throughout the country. (1) In states, having only one Medical College and one university board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks obtained at such qualifying examination may be taken into consideration; (2) In states, having more than one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination (or where there is more than one medical college under the administrative control on one authority) a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies; (3) Where there are more than one college in a state and only one university/board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joint selection board be constituted for all the colleges; (4) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions of All India character; 5. Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall be as follows :- (i) In case of admission on the basis of qualifying examination under clause (1) based on merit, candidate for admission to MBBS course must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology & English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4. In respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination be 40% instead of 50% as above; (ii) In case of admission of the basis of competitive entrance examination under clause (2) to (4) of this regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4 and in addition must have come in the merit list prepared as a result of such competitive entrance examination by securing not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the competitive examination. In respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken in qualifying examination and competitive entrance examination be 40% instead of 50% as stated above : Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria under regulation 4." 35. Perusal of the Regulation 5(i) of MCI Regulations of 1997 shows that admission can be given based on marks obtained in the qualifying examination in the State where there exists only one medical college or university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination. The qualifying examination has been given under Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations of 1997. In the State of Rajasthan, there exists more than one medical college and university/board/examining body conducting qualifying examination. In view of the above, Regulation 5(ii) of the MCI Regulations of 1997 applies in the State of Rajasthan and has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. As per the aforesaid Regulation, competitive entrance test needs to be conducted to achieve uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standard in qualifying examination conducted by different agencies. In the State of Rajasthan, there exists two entrance tests, namely, PMT and PCMPT. The private medical colleges can opt for admission to medical courses either from PMT or PCPMT. 36. In the State of Rajasthan, there exists two entrance tests, namely, PMT and PCMPT. The private medical colleges can opt for admission to medical courses either from PMT or PCPMT. 36. In the instant case, :he respondent private medical colleges opted for admission out of PCPMT thus it could not have been based on the marks obtained in other entrance test conducted outside the State of Rajasthan or other medical college. It is even in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). Therein, the Apex Court has shown concern to the admission in medical courses. It was not only to maintain the time schedule, but, to avoid favouritism, thus to make process of admission, fair, transparent and non-explotative. Therein, reference of earlier judgments has been given to indicate as to how admission in medical courses can be given. A greater concern was shown for the students obtaining higher merit position yet deprived to get admission while it is given to those, who were not even in merit. Para Nos. 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 31 of the judgment in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference : "18. It deserves to be noticed that the stands taken by the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh in the present petitions are not exactly the same. According to the DGHS, Respondent No. 2 herein, the letter dated 8th August, 2006 is fake and no seats had been allotted to the Jagdalpur College. Seats were allotted only to Pt. JLN Medical College, Raipur. The letter dated 8th August, 2006 is alleged to have been sent by the Assistant Director General (ME), Ministry of Health and Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Having found the letter to be fake, the DGHS directed cancellation of the admission granted to both the appellants. According to the State of Chhattisgarh, the State had to distribute only 41 seats of the Jagdalpur College as 15 per cent were reserved for all India quota and three per cent for Central Pool quota. It is their stand that Dr. S.L. Adile, Respondent No. 3 is the father of Akanksha Adile and is the highest officer in the State for controlling pre-medical education and post graduate admission. It is their stand that Dr. S.L. Adile, Respondent No. 3 is the father of Akanksha Adile and is the highest officer in the State for controlling pre-medical education and post graduate admission. Seats reserved, if any, would have reverted back on 23rd August, 2006 to Respondent No. 3 and no action was taken to fill up these seats at that time. Suspiciously, the seats were filled only on 30th September, 2006, by giving the seats to the appellants. They support the case of the Union of India that the letter dated 8th August, 2006 is fake and claim that the two seats were deliberately not offered for the second round of counselling, which was held on 22nd-23rd August, 2006. All other candidates had been absent on 30th September, 2006 as they had not been contacted. The entire admission process of the appellants was vitiated by fraud. 19. The admission to MBBS and BDS courses, whether at State level or All India level has ever been a matter of concern for the courts. Large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the admission process or admission of some particular candidates on varied grounds, like admission being contrary to Rules, the principle of merit being disturbed, admissions being arbitrary, etc. and there is still flagrant violation of the dicta of this Court, as issued in various judgments, as well as of the Rules and Regulations wherever framed by the State or Central Government or Medical or Dental Council of India. The present case is one example of violation of procedure and admissions being arbitrary. Before we examine the intricacies of procedural irregularities in the present case and the arbitrary admission of the appellants, we must examine the background in which admissions of the present kind are normally questioned before the courts of competent jurisdiction. 20. Admission to professional colleges are governed by the judgment of this Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [ 2002(8) SCC 481 ] . The framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some detail by this Court. However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [ 1984(3) SCC 654 ] , the concept of an All India quota came to be introduced while determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such admissions. The framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some detail by this Court. However, even in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [ 1984(3) SCC 654 ] , the concept of an All India quota came to be introduced while determining the validity of a domicile requirement in such admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the under-graduate courses were reserved for this purpose, which came to be modified to 15 per cent seats for All India quota in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [1984(3) SCC 22] . In the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [ 1987(4) SCC 459 ] , this Court also passed directions in relation to the manner of notification/announcement of details, results and counseling for admission, in that case, for post graduate admissions, which were to be published in two successive issues of newspapers, including one national paper in English and at least two local papers in the language of the State. Declaration of results would be made four weeks after the examination and academic courses were to mandatorily begin on the 2nd of May every year. Again, in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [ 1990(4) SCC 627 ] , as some of the States were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court took punitive action against the State of Uttar Pradesh and even contemplated action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Right from Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), this Court has always directed that merit alone must be the criteria for admission to MBBS courses. To make such admissions more subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain further directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc. [ 1993 (3) SCC 332 ] . To make such admissions more subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain further directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc. [ 1993 (3) SCC 332 ] . This Court clarified that candidates who have been allotted a seat in the second round of counselling will have to join the college within 15 days from the date of their personal appearance and the whole allotment and admission process to 15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over before the 30th September of each year, the remaining seats having been surrendered back to the college/State. Various judgments of this Court have sought to carry forward, with greater clarify, the fundamental requirement as stated in TMA Pai (supra) that the admission process should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Every subsequent judgment of this Court has attempted to elucidate one or other aspect of this principle. Having noticed that there have been irregularities in maintaining the prescribed schedule and that the last few days of the declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees for securing admission and thereby defeating the principle of admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2005(2) SCC 65 ] applied the schedule notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix 'E' of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. v. Union of India & Ors. [ 2005(2) SCC 65 ] applied the schedule notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix 'E' of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. The said Schedule reads as under: "TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE Schedule for admission Seats filled up by the Central Government through All-India Entrance Examination Seats filled up by the State Governments/ Institutions Conduct of entrance examination Months of May Months of May Declaration of result of qualifying exam/entrance exam By 5th June By 15th June Last date for joining the allotted college and course Within 15 days from the date of allotment of seats St July Second round of counselling for allotment of seats from waiting list To be over by 8th August UP to 28 August Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counseling from the waiting list Within 15 days from the date of allotment of seat (seats vacant after 22nd August will be surrendered back to the States/Colleges St August Commencement of academic session St of August Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason Th September 25. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these standards cannot be deviated from. Reference can be made to State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. [ 2003(7) SCC 83 - paras 24 and 26] ; Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [ 2004(11) SCC 755 -para 20]; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [ 2011 (3) SCC 617 - paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18] and Harish Verma & Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava & ors. [ 2003(8) SCC 69 - paras 14 to 21 ] . 26. What is of greater significance is that this Court has not so far considered or stated as a principle, what consequences should follow where the Central Government, or the State Government or Medical Council of India or the College itself, with impunity, violate the time schedule, regulations and order of merit to give admission to students in an arbitrary and neoptistic manner. Also, we must consider what preventive steps can be taken to avoid such repetitive and intentional defaults, as well as undue exploitation of the class of students. Admissions based on favouritism necessarily breach the rule of merit on the one hand, while on the other, they create frustration in the minds of the students who have attained higher rank in the competitive entrance examinations, but have not been admitted. We propose to specifically address this concern in this judgment. From the above discussion and reference to various judgments of this Court, it is clear that adherence to the principle of merit, compliance with the prescribed schedule, refraining from mid-stream admissions and adoption of an admission process that is transparent, non-exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme. 28. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the Governments and the Universities are expected to act in tandem with each other and ensure that the recognition for starting of the medical courses and grant of admission are strictly within the time frame declared by this Court and the regulations. It has come to the notice of this Court that despite warnings having been issued by this Court and despite the observations made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously, matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by different authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarilyi and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this Court. In the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355 ] , the Court observed that the process of counselling cannot go on continuously for a long period and the resultant chain reaction should be checked. Some seats may have to be left vacant per compulsion, but, the process of admission should stand the test of rationality. There should be exceptional and fortuitous circumstances to justify late admission. In the case of Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS [ (1994) 2 SCC 370 ] , the Court was even compelled to issue notice of contempt to the Director General of Health Services as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not taken for non-compliance with the scheme framed by the Court for consideration of applications for transfer of students between colleges and they be not punished accordingly. The consistent effort of this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being thwarded by motivated action on the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time. This Court, thus, now views this matter with greater emphasis on directions that should be made to curb incidents of disobedience. 30. Thus, the need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and statutory regulations be enforced, so that all concerned are mandatorilty required to implement the time schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult and not even advisable to keep some windows open to meet a particular situation of exception, as it may pose impediments to the smooth implementation of laws and defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed upon serious consideration by all concerned. They are to be applied stricto sensu and cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some economic or other interest of any institution, especially, in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the above-stated principles. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned. (i) The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. (ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter. (iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. (iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15tn July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counselling, in accordance with the Rules. (iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counselling to be conducted by the concerned authority and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. (v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the state examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10 + 2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit. (vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counselling should be the final counselling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ 2003(3) SCC 366 ] and third counselling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. Under the directions of this Court, second counselling should be the final counselling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms. Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ 2003(3) SCC 366 ] and third counselling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. (vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counselling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year. (viii) No college may grant admissions without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. (ix) The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions. 31. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. 31. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions (a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc. (b) The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these directions of overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant. (c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default. (d) There shall be due channelization of selection and admission process with full cooperation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government, Universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerned action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in this behalf. (e) The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college. (f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counselling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. (f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counselling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. (g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counselling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counselling. (h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner." 37. In para No. 30 of the said judgment, various directions have been given in rem for their strict compliance without demur and default, by all concerned. Para 30(v) directs for admission to the medical or dental colleges only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competent authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. In the State of Rajasthan, there were two entrance tests for admission in medical courses, i.e., PMT and PCPMT. 38. In view of the above, admissions in the medical and dental courses in the State of Rajasthan could have been given through competitive entrance test conducted by the State or Federation of Private Medical Colleges. Accordingly, none of the medical colleges was entitled to give admission out of the entrance test conducted by any other institution. It is even in view of the fact that Regulation 5(ii) of the MCI Regulations of 1997 can be followed only when there is a common competitive entrance test to achieve uniform evaluation of the candidates and it cannot be through different entrance tests where uniform evaluation cannot be achieved. It is, therefore only, private medical colleges were asked to opt for PMT or PCPMT. Any medical college, opts for admission out of PMT, was required to give admission out of the merit of PMT and, at the same time, those medical colleges opted for admission out of PCPMT, to go by the merit of PCPMT. It is, therefore only, private medical colleges were asked to opt for PMT or PCPMT. Any medical college, opts for admission out of PMT, was required to give admission out of the merit of PMT and, at the same time, those medical colleges opted for admission out of PCPMT, to go by the merit of PCPMT. It could not have been from any other entrance test conducted elsewhere, that too, out of the State of Rajasthan thus there is a clear violation of Regulation 5(ii) of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court in giving admission to the candidates who did not secure required qualifying marks in PCPMT but elsewhere. A general caste candidate needs to secure minimum 50 per cent marks in entrance test and, for reserve caste, it is 40 per cent. 39. The MCI has admitted that list given by the respondent medical or dental colleges shows marks obtained by few students in the entrance test different that PCPMT thus learned counsel Mr. Angad Mirdha, appearing for MCI and Mr. Sanjeev Singhal, Dy. Government Counsel, appearing for the State Government admitted violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court. 40. Learned counsel for MCI has given details of various judgments showing as to how admission to the medical and dental colleges can be given. It is not only by adhering the time schedule, but, the Regulations. It is admitted that MCI has made correspondences with the respondent medical and dental colleges on the issue raised by the petitioners herein, but, final decision in the matter has not yet been taken. 41. It is quite surprising that MCI knowing about admission of students in violation of MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) failed to conclude its action, rather, making correspondences even after knowing that admission of the students is even outside the list of PCPMT. It is even to those who have secured less than 15 per cent marks in PCPMT. It is by taking marks of other competitive entrance test conducted in other State or college thus cannot be taken for uniform evaluation of the students and, otherwise, in violation of direction given in para 30(v) of the judgment in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). It is by taking marks of other competitive entrance test conducted in other State or college thus cannot be taken for uniform evaluation of the students and, otherwise, in violation of direction given in para 30(v) of the judgment in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). The delay or inaction of MCI needs to be deprecated, otherwise, present litigation could have been avoided. 42. The facts available on record show that the students obtaining less than 5 to 15 per cent marks in PCPMT, have been given admission, though, need to possess 40 or 50 per cent in the case of reserve caste and general caste, respectively. To evaluate uniform standard of the students, PCPMT was conducted for medical colleges opted for it. The students, could not secure minimum required qualifying marks in PCPMT, have been given admission thus the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) need to be applied in the case in hand. 43. The Apex Court has taken similar view even in the case of Ranjan Purohit & Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. reported in 2012(10) SCC 770 . Para Nos. 15, 16, 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference : 15. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the MCI, submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has in the impugned order held that the stand of the College that the permission letter dated 16.09.2008 of the Central Government was received by the College on 25.09.2008, i.e. after the second and last counselling of students selected in the RPMT-2008 was over, appears to be doubtful. He supported the aforesaid finding of the High Court and argued that the College avoided to participate in the counselling of students selection in the RPMT-2008 even though it was aware that the Government of India had granted the permission for establishing the College on 16.09.2008. He submitted that the MCI Regulations were made by the MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of power conferred Under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and was, therefore, statutory in character and are binding so far as admissions to medical colleges are concerned. He submitted that the MCI Regulations were made by the MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of power conferred Under section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and was, therefore, statutory in character and are binding so far as admissions to medical colleges are concerned. He vehemently argued that the letter dated 16.09.2008 of the Secretary of the MCI clarifying that admissions could be made on the basis of marks in the qualifying examination to complete the admissions by 30th of September could not override the MCI Regulations. 16. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Regulation 4 of the MCI Regulations, which provides the minimum eligibility of students to be admitted to the MBBS course, is not the only provision which has to be followed by the Medical Colleges for admissions to the MBBS course. He submitted that Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations provided that selection of students to a medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidates and Clause (2) of Regulation 5 stipulated that in States, having more than one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standard at qualifying examination conducted by different agencies. He submitted that selection for the 85% of the seats in the College for the academic year 2008-2009 could, therefore, be only on the basis of merit as determined in a competitive entrance examination and not on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination. He submitted that there is a clear finding in the impugned order of the High Court that the College was not listed in brochure with the application form notified by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan for PC-PMT 2008 and in fact no competitive entrance examination was conducted for admission to the MBBS course of the College. He argued that the admissions of the 16 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 on the basis of PC-PMT 2008, thus, were not on the basis of merit as determined in a competitive entrance examination as is sought to be made out by the Appellants. He argued that the admissions of the 16 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 on the basis of PC-PMT 2008, thus, were not on the basis of merit as determined in a competitive entrance examination as is sought to be made out by the Appellants. He submitted that names of 101 candidates who had been admitted on the basis of their marks in the qualifying examination vis-a-vis of the candidates who had not been admitted had not been determined in a common competitive entrance examination. He argued that the only way the College could comply with the provisions of Clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations was to admit students selected in the RPMT-2008. 17. Mr. Sharan submitted that in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and PA. Inamdar (supra) cited by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, this Court has also held that the admissions to the private unaided professional colleges have to be made by selection through a common entrance test and in the aforesaid judgments, this Court has not held that the MCI Regulations will not be followed while giving admissions to the MBBS Course. He submitted that this Court, on the contrary, has held in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.R and Ors. : (1999) 7 SCC 120 , State of M.P and Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors. : (2003) 7 SCC 83 and Harish Verma and Ors. v. Ajay Srivastava and Anr. : (2003) 8 SCC 69 that the Regulations of the MCI laying down the standards of education for post-graduate medical courses have to be complied with. 31. We may next consider the question whether the admissions of 117 students to the MBBS course of the College were within the fundamental right of the College as explained by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra). In T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), this Court, while holding that a private unaided non-minority institution has the right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India also held that such right will include the right to admit students into the institution. In paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment, however, Kirpal, CJ speaking for the Court observed : "58. For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. In paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment, however, Kirpal, CJ speaking for the Court observed : "58. For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to judge the merit of the applicant who seeks admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Appropriate Regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided institutions. 59. Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies." The observations in para 58 of the judgment of Kirpal, CJ. quoted above make it clear that students seeking admission to a professional institution were required to be treated fairly and preferences were not to be shown to less meritorious but more influential students and greater emphasis was required to be laid on the merit of the students seeking admission. In para 59 of the judgment of Kirpal, CJ. in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) quoted above, it has been further made clear that merit is to be determined for admission to professional colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies. 32. The judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) has been further explained by this Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra) and it has been held therein that that non-minority unaided institutions, like the minority unaided institutions, have also the unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefore but the admission procedure so chosen by the institution must be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Para 137 of the judgment of this Court in PA. Para 137 of the judgment of this Court in PA. Inamdar (supra), which is relevant for eciding this case, is quoted hereinbelow : "137. Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefore subject to its being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The same principle applies to non-minority unaided institutions. There may be a single institution imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the test of being bair, transparent and non-exploitative. All institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the abovesaid triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and preventing mal-administration. The admission procedure so adopted by private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. The second question is answered accordingly." Thus, in para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) quoted above, this Court has taken the view that all institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of the admission procedure being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. 33. Keeping in mind the aforesaid law laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and PA. Inamdar (supra), we may now examine the admission procedure adopted by the College for admitting the students to the MBBS seats for the academic year 2008-2009. The college has admitted 16 students from the list of candidates selected in the PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. The PC- PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan did not call for any applications from candidates for admission to the MBBS course, but only for the BDS course. Moreover, the College had not been included in the brochure published for PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. Moreover, the College had not been included in the brochure published for PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. Consequently, students, who may be interested not in the BDS course but in the MBBS course, could not have applied to take the PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. As a result, many meritorious students desirous of taking admission in the MBBS course in the College could not get an opportunity to participate in the PC-PMT 2008 conducted by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. The admission procedure adopted by the College was thus not fair and transparent and fell short of the triple tests laid down in PA. Inamdar (supra) and such admission procedure was not within the fundamental right of the College to admit students of its choice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as explained in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra). 34. The stand of the College, however, is that the College had published an advertisement dated 26.09.2008 inviting applications from all the eligible candidates who had passed the 10 + 2 examination with minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology individually in all the subjects and having English as compulsory subject for admission to its MBBS course and in response to such advertisement, students had applied and selection of students was done on the basis of their merits. It is, however, not disputed that the candidates, who had applied in response to the advertisement, had not passed the 10 + 2 examination from the same board or university but from different boards and universities. If that be so, the merit of the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement could not be evaluated by a uniform standard and could only be evaluated by a competitive entrance examination of all these students who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the college. It is not the case of the College that any competitive entrance examination of all the students, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement, was held by the College to determine their comparative merit. Hence, the principle of merit as the basis for selection for admission in the profession courses laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as explained in P.A. Inamdar (supra) has not been followed. Hence, the principle of merit as the basis for selection for admission in the profession courses laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as explained in P.A. Inamdar (supra) has not been followed. Thus, even as per the law laid down by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar (supra), the College has not been able to establish that the admissions of 117 students to its MBBS course for the academic year 2008-2009 were within its right under Article 1S(1)(g) of the Constitution. 35. Moreover, the College was bound to follow the MCI Regulations while making the admissions to the MBBS seats. The permission letter dated 16.09.2009 stipulated that the admission process for the academic year 2008-2009 has to be completed within the time schedule indicated in the MCI Regulations. Hence, even if the College was required to complete the admission process by 30.09.2008, it could not violate the MC Regulations on the ground that it had to complete the admission process by 30.09.2008. 36. Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations which deal with the prinicple of merit as the sole basis for selection oi candidate for admission to a medical college are quoted hereinbelow : "5. 36. Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations which deal with the prinicple of merit as the sole basis for selection oi candidate for admission to a medical college are quoted hereinbelow : "5. Selection of Students : The selection of students to medical college shall be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination o' the merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformly throughout the country : (1) In states, having only one Medical College and one* university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks obtained at such qualifying examination may be taken into consideration; (2) In states, having more than one university/board/examining body conducting the qualifying examination (or where there is more than one medical college under the administrative control of one authority) a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies; (3) Where there are more than one college in a state and only one university/board conducting the qualifying examination, then a joing selection board be constituted for all the colleges; (4) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions of All India character; It will be clear from the provisions of Regulation 5 quoted above that the selection of students to medical college is to be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination of the merit, the criteria laid down in Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) will apply. Clause (2) of Regulation 5 on which the MCI relied upon clearly states that in States having more than one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards at qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies. 37. As we have noted, it is not the case of the College that all students who applied pursuant to the advertisement had passed 10+2 Examinations conducted by one and the same University/Board/Examining Body. Hence, the merit of the students who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the College had to be uniformly evaluated by a competitive entrance examination, but no such competitive entrance examination had been held by the College between all the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement. Hence, the merit of the students who had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the College had to be uniformly evaluated by a competitive entrance examination, but no such competitive entrance examination had been held by the College between all the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement. Therefore, there was a clear violation of Clause (2) of Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations in admitting the 101 students to the MBBS Course for the academic year 2008-2009 by the College." 44. The perusal of the paras, quoted above, also reveals that admission in the medical and dental colleges can be given save by a single competitive entrance test and it cannot be out of different competitive entrance test thus action of the respondents in giving admission to the students, who failed to secure minimum required qualifying marks in PCPMT and taking their marks from other entrance test conducted out of the State of Rajasthan or even within the State of Rajasthan but not recognised for the revision for the respondent medical and dental colleges, are to be illegal. 45. It is quite surprising that Admission Regulatory Committee, headed by a retired judge of the High Court had taken a decision on 18th September, 2015 contrary to the Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court. Regulation 5(ii) of the MCI Regulations of 1997 needs an entrance test for uniform evaluation of the candidates and it can not be made through different entrance tests. 46. The judgment in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) shows only two methods of admission i.e. one entrance test conducted by the State Government and other by the Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges. 47. It is even a case where the petitioners have alleged admission of the candidates who did not appear in the counselling. The respondent Federation of Private Medical and Dental College should have produced the record, however, shelter has been that on the date of counselling, there was an agitation and some documents are not traceable, but, there is nothing on record to show FIR for it and even details of the documents, said to have been taken away, as alleged. It is only a letter to the police. It is only a letter to the police. It seems to be nothing but to save it from the illegalities and forgery committed in the counselling where recommendations were made for admission even in favour of those who did not appear in the counselling. Even the petitioner was shown present, though, did not appear in the counselling thus the way, admissions were recommended in the counselling, cannot depose confidence. It is even in reference to the admission after the last date. The Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) (5) & Anr. (supra) had directed adherence of the schedule given by it, but it is alleged to have been violated herein. 48. In the light of the discussion made above, none of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 and 6 to 8 can be accepted while accepting the arguments of learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan and MCI. The petitioner/s is not entitled to get admission now for the session 2015-16 thus relief claimed by him to that extent is denied, however, remaining prayers need acceptance. 49. The admission of those candidates who did not secure required qualifying marks in PCPMT is illegal. It is not only in violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997, but, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). It is even those admissions where students did not possess qualifying marks in the qualifying examination i.e. 10 + 2 and did not participate in the counselling, yet given admission apart from the admissions given after the last date provided by the Apex Court in the case of Mridul Dhar & Ors. (supra). A case for contempt of Court is also made out. 50. The issues could have been taken by the MCI with a prompt act instead of involving only in the correspondences even after knowing about the illegalities in the admissions. 51. The way, counselling took place and admission have been given a, serious view is required to be taken. It is looking to the glaring facts of this case. The prayer made by the petitioners to refer the case to CBI needs acceptance. 52. This is a case of exceptional nature thus is disposed of a following directions : (i) the State Government is directed to refer this case to Cent Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It is looking to the glaring facts of this case. The prayer made by the petitioners to refer the case to CBI needs acceptance. 52. This is a case of exceptional nature thus is disposed of a following directions : (i) the State Government is directed to refer this case to Cent Bureau of Investigation (CBI). It is in regard to admission in MBBS ai BDS Courses in the year 2015. The CBI would investigate on the issues raised in this case. (ii) the MCI is also directed to take action as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). It is to deny registration to students who failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in PCPMT or in the qualifying examination i.e. 10 + 2. It would be even against those who were given admission after the last date and, otherwise, did not appear in the counselling. The action in the matter would be completed within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It would be after an opportunity of hearing. (iii) the MCI would further take action as per para 31(e) of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra). It is in view of violation of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and the judgment of the Apex Court in admission to MBBS and BDS Courses in the year 2015. This exercise would be completed by the MCI within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The institutions would be provided an opportunity of hearing. The MCI would sent the compliance report to this Court within a period of 15 days after expiry of the period given above. (iv) the petitioner/s has prayed for admission in the Session 2015-1 The prayer aforesaid cannot be accepted now, however, this Co having noticed the fact pertaining to illegality in the admission thus even if the petitioner/s is denied admission, other prayers have been taken into consideration and, accordingly, appropriate directions have been given so that nobody may act contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) and the MCI Regulations of 1997. (v) the MCI is further directed to monitor all the complaints promp and not in the manner, it has been taken in this case. (v) the MCI is further directed to monitor all the complaints promp and not in the manner, it has been taken in this case. They are expected maintain sanctity of the medical courses and not to work in superficial manner, rather, to implement the judgment of the Apex Court and the MCI Regulations of 1997 in strict terms. 53. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. 54. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.