ORDER : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. In all the three writ applications, the decision dated 06.06.2018 communicated by Directorate of Medical Education (DME), State of Chhattisgarh to the respective Dental Colleges directing them to cancel the admissions granted to the petitioners in the respective Post Graduate Courses are subject matter of challenge in the three writ applications. The colleges in question are Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Centre, Anjora, Durg, where admission granted to two persons namely, Sailendra Sharma and Moumita Khatua has been ordered to be cancelled which has been assailed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1649 of 2018 and the communication addressed to Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Kurud Road, Bhilai, where admission of two students namely, Aanchal Pradhan and Payal Ramesh Borkar are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition(C) No.1650 of 2018. The third Writ Petition of Rajlaxmi Ashok Agrawal and others relates to New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Mungeli Road, Sakri, Bilaspur, where admission of three namely, Rajlaxmi Ashok Agrawal, Sanghamitra Ghosh and Shefali Kadam also stands cancelled. 2. From a perusal of Annexure P/1 which is common in all the three writ applications dated 06.06.2018, it is evident that the reason for such cancellation stated therein is that these medical colleges for the session 2018 in the after mop-up round granted admissions to these students on the last day of admission ie 31.05.2018 after 4.30 pm on the left over seats without any counselling having been held. Since these admissions were not done on the basis of allotment made by the DME, therefore, they were ordered to be cancelled. 3. In the three writ applications, since a common question and a common decision are matter of challenge before this Court, all the three writ applications have been listed together, heard finally and are required to be disposed of together. 4. The stand of counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respective private Dental Colleges is common. In fact, they support each other in their factual as well as legal stand taken before this Court. In the sense that, according to them, the admission which has been granted to the petitioners was strictly in terms of the requirement of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the rules which have been notified by the Chhattisgarh Government in their notification dated 19.04.2017. In the sense that, according to them, the admission which has been granted to the petitioners was strictly in terms of the requirement of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the rules which have been notified by the Chhattisgarh Government in their notification dated 19.04.2017. It is their refrain that since it was the last day of admission and it was a case of after mop-up round, the candidates according to merit who appeared before the respective colleges were considered and granted admission. They have the requisite merit position in NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) and there is no violation committed by them by ignoring the claim of any more meritorious persons than the petitioners who had been granted admissions by the respective colleges. In fact, they take a further stand that no person has come forward either before the colleges or have gone before any authority making a grievance that their right for consideration for admission into the courses in question was ignored or their claim for admission, based on the merit position, was sidelined in favour of the petitioners, before the writ Court. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in a case arising out of state of Chhattisgarh which was Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2017) 8 SCC 638, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-62 of its order clearly held that : "62. the order dated 09.05.2017 does not relate to admission into postgraduate courses and is confined to admission in undergraduate courses as noted above." 6. Taking clue from such an observation, argument is advanced on behalf of petitioners that the requirement of the State Government to recommend 10 names against each vacancy for the left over vacancies or seats which are being termed as 'after mop-up seats' is not required to be applied or implemented. It is enforced only with regard to undergraduate courses and the insistence of the State or the Dental Council of India that since the admissions to these petitioners were not granted on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Government i.e. DME., therefore, they fall foul of the law and the directive issued by the Apex Court, is misplaced. 7. 7. One thing of significance which has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners is that on 30th of May of 2018, the DME issued a letter with a list of 30 names. This was addressed to the Principal of Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Chhattisgarh Dental and Research Institute. In the three writ applications, the candidates in question are not confined to these two institutions alone, but also include admissions which were granted by one Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Centre and New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute. These two institutions were never notified or issued any directive or provided any list with regard to the after mop-up round for admission into the Postgraduate Courses in dentistry. In absence of any such directive to these two institutions, the State cannot now hold these institutions responsible for granting admission beyond the recommended names. They cannot direct cancelling the admissions since the colleges have granted admission on the closing hours on first come first serve basis and on the basis of the merit position of the candidates of NEET. This, according to the petitioners, is significant, because in absence of any communication or directive, the decision to grant admission cannot be held to be bad by the State Government because they had no instructions contrary to the steps they had taken for filling up the last four seats in the after mop-up round. 8. The further argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the Rule which has been notified by the State of Chhattisgarh, a copy of which is Annexure P/3, the Rule in relation to counselling has been dealt with in Rule 9. The procedure for counselling has been dealt with in quite a detail. Various aspects of the counselling has been dealt with but nowhere the Rule talks about the after mop-up round of counselling or the obligation upon the institutions to go by the directive or the dictate of the State in filling up of the last left over seats and therefore, the institutions went by the available candidates on the last day of admission, in after mop-up round. 9. Court's attention has also been drawn to the Rule 9 (the). 9. Court's attention has also been drawn to the Rule 9 (the). To reinforce the above argument and since reliance has been placed on the said rule, it is reproduced herein below (page- 22) ^^9 ¼M+½ f}rh; pj.k dh dkmaflfyax esa loZizFke jkT; dksVs dh lhVksa dk vkcaVu fd;k tk,xk mDr lhVksa ij izos'k dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i'pkr mu fjDr lhVksa dks izca/ku fu;rka'k esa fu;e 10 ¼ikap½ vuq:i ifofrZr dj izca/ku fu;rka'k dh lhVksa dk vkcaVu fd;k tk,xkA fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls vafre pj.k dh dkmaflfyax mijkar fjDr jg xbZ lhVksa dks ^^vafre izos'k izfdz;k** ls Hkjk tk;sxk] lhVksa dks iwoZ esa fcuk vkcaVu izkIr iathd`r vizosf'kr ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk Hkjk tk;sxkA blds i'pkr Hkh ;fn lhVsa fjDr jg tkrh gS rks mu lhVksa gsrq uohu iath;u Lohdkj fd, tk,axs rFkk iathd`r vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks izkoh.;rk ds vuqdze esa ;s fjDr lhVsa vkcafVr dh tk,axhA^^ 10. It is the stand the petitioners, therefore, that in absence of any clear indication or obligation provided for in the Rule upon the institutions in question, the admission which has been granted by them to the students, who turned up on the final day for the left over seats, cannot be said to be an illegal grant of admission which is required to be annulled. 11. The argument on behalf of the State is that the colleges had to go by similar principle in relation to admission given in postgraduate courses as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to undergraduate courses. The left over seats have to be filled up by recommending 10 names against each vacancy for the final left over seats. Counselling is required to be held by the institutions of all the available candidates before admissions could be granted. By adopting via media, the institutions have tried to break the sanctity of maintaining merit as well as claim of such meritorious students who were otherwise eligible for such admissions. 12. Counsel for the Dental Council of India submits that there is a Regulation which was notified by them on 01.09.2017 in relation to admission to postgraduate dental courses and Regulation 9 of the same talks in terms of common counselling for admissions to all postgraduate courses including Diploma/MDS in Dental education or institutions which is to be based on merit, and list of NEET alone. 13. 13. Regulation 9 dated 01.09.2017 reads as under: "Common Counselling-- (1) There shall be a common counselling for admission to all post-graduate courses (Diploma/MDS) in all dental educational institutions on the basis of merit list of the NEET. (2) The designated authority for counselling for the 50% All India quota seats of the contributing States, as per the existing scheme for post graduate (Diploma/MDS) courses shall be the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Further Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India shall conduct counselling for all post-graduate (Diploma/MDS) Courses in Dental Educational Institutions of the Central Government, Universities established by an Act of Parliament and the Deemed Universities. (3) The counselling for admission to post-graduate (Diploma/MDS) courses in all dental Educational Institutions in a State/Union Territory, including dental educational institutions established by the State Government, University established by an Act of State/Union Territory Legislature, Trust, Society, Minority Institutions shall be conducted by the State/Union Territory Government. (4) In case, any dispute arises on such common counselling, the matter to the Central Government and its decisions shall be final, in this regard" 14. While going through the relevant provisions of the rule notified by the Chhattisgarh Government dated 22.04.2017, the rule seems to be silent as to what is required to be done with regard to the left over seats which are also known as after mop-up round of seats, left over after all counsellings get over. The directive as to what is required to be done in the earlier round of counselling has been dealt with in quite a detail. Obligation both with regard to the requirements placed upon the students and institutions have been dealt with. But this Court somehow finds absence of any clear directive with regard to such a situation and if that be so, then the loop hole, if it was one, is bound to be exploited by the institutions in question. The institutions may have been emboldened by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the directive dated 09.05.2017 did not relate to admission into postgraduate courses and was confined to admission in undergraduate courses as such. 15. The institutions may have been emboldened by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the directive dated 09.05.2017 did not relate to admission into postgraduate courses and was confined to admission in undergraduate courses as such. 15. So far as Regulation 9 of the Dental Council of India is concerned, their stand emerging from the reading of the said regulation is that counselling is the underlying obligation created upon all institutions and if no counselling was held, then any admissions contrary to the same becomes vulnerable. 16. Unfortunately, regulation 9 also talks in terms of generalities and does not specify in a situation as to what a State authority is required to do or is obligated to do with regard to the after mop-up round. They only lay down requirements with regard to counsellings which are required to be held at various stages earlier. Since it does not speak in so many words with regard to the left over seats after the mop-up round then obviously, the institutions in question have granted admission to the students who have turned up on the last day for admission and it is their stand that counselling at their level was held of the students who turned up for counselling and admission and admission was also granted on the basis of merit. This practice is loosely labelled as 'spot counselling' by the colleges. 17. The situation which arises therefore for consideration is whether such admissions fall foul of any directive or any rule which makes these admissions vulnerable and are required to be annulled. 18. It is the stand of the counsel for the petitioners that the State Government's communication dated 30.05.2018 was addressed directly to only two of the colleges and it was not even addressed to the two other colleges in question. Beside that, there was failure on the part of the State Government to put up the notice about the vacant seats on the web site for information to one and all and failure of the state cannot be put on the head of the institutions and the ultimate victims cannot be the petitioners who had no contribution to make in the admission except that they happened to be present on the last day of admission when the exercise was done by the respective institutions. 19. 19. It was pointed out by the counsel for the State that some of these students had given up their options of getting admission into some of courses, but subsequently they themselves have accepted the courses which they had earlier opted, not to accept. 20. Such a position is neither here nor there. The question, therefore, ultimately, verges whether the admissions granted by these colleges can be said to be in violation of any Regulation or Rule as notified by DCI or the State of Chhattisgarh in this regard. 21. This Court can only observe that may be in absence of proper communication or some vaccum subsisting in the directive or the rules the same has been utilised or exploited by the colleges in question but since these admissions have already been granted and courses have begun and when these writ applications were initially taken up, interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioners, holding that there was a strong prima facie case in their favour in continuance of their education in the respective colleges, this Court holds in favour of the petitioners. 22. The impugned order dated 06.06.2018 contained in Annexure P/1 in the respective writ applications stand quashed. The petitioners would be allowed to continue their education till they complete the course.