ORDER : AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India submits that since admission into BDS course was being sought by the petitioner under domicile quota of Chhattisgarh, it is the Dental Council of India which should have been made respondent as they are the necessary party, therefore, it is a case of non-joinder of the necessary party, which has implications so far as the maintainability of application is concerned. 3. However, ignoring the above technical objection, coming to the merits of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that may be at the time of registration, the petitioner did not have a domicile certificate which could be uploaded on the counselling portal, but the fact is that she had obtained the domicile certificate at the time of counseling and therefore, she should have been allowed to participate in the counselling which was not allowed to be done on the date of scrutiny. 4. It is her stand that verification of the original documents have significance at the time of counselling and therefore, any short fall at the time of registration can be very well made up at the time of counselling. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fact that the petitioner had obtained a domicile certificate on 09/07/2018 is a proof of the fact that her claim under the category of domicile was a bona fide one and now stands supported by the necessary certification issued by the competent authority. 6. Reliance has been placed on two orders which have been passed by a Division Bench which was a case of Abhijeet Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2257/2017 decided on 25/08/2017 and a decision relating to production of Scheduled Caste certificate at the time of counselling in relation to a case of Princy Meshram v. State of Chhattisgarh i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2182/2017 decided on 22/08/2017. 7. 7. The stand of the Additional Advocate General representing the State however is that no indulgence can be given to a candidate contrary to the rule and requirement which has been laid down in Rule 7 including sub-rule (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bhautik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018, which was notified on 25/05/2018, much before the last date of registration which was fixed as 26/06/2018. Since these rules have significance to the adjudication as to the issue raised, therefore, the same is reproduced herein below: **7- dkmaflfyax izfdz;k& jkT; ds 'kkldh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; dh lhVs] futh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds 'kkldh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs ,oa futh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; izca/ku fu;rka'k ,oa vizoklh Hkkjrh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs@jkT; ds 'kkldh; nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; dh lhVs] futh nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds 'kkldh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs ,ao futh nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; izca/ku fu;rka'k ,oa vizoklh Hkkjrh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs@jkT; ds 'kkldh; fQft;ksFksjsih egkfo|k;y dh lhVs] futh fQft;ksFksjsih egkfo|ky; ds 'kkldh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs ,oa futh fQft;ksFksjsih egkfo|ky; izca/ku fu;rka'k ,oa vizoklh Hkkjrh; fu;rka'k dh lhVs ds Lukrd ikB~;dzeksa dh miyC/k lhVksa es izos'k ds fy;s fu;e&6 ds vuqlkj rS;kj dh xbZ izkoh.; lwph ds vk/kkj ij fu;e&3 ¼vizoklh Hkkjrh; gsrq ykxw fu;e 13 lfgr½ ds vuqlkj ik= lapkyuky; }kjk fuEukuqlkj vkWuykbu dkmaflfyax dh tk;sxh& ¼1½ mijksDr mYysf[kr vuqlkj izkoh.; lwph ?kksf"kr gksus ds ckn] vkWuykbZu vkosnu NRrhlx<+ jkT; dh lhVksa gsrq vkeaf=r fd;s tk;saxsA vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds le; izfo"V dh gqbZ ik=rk ;k vU; dksbZ Hkh tkudkjh tSls% ewy fuoklh] Js.kh] laoxZ] lhVksa dk izdkj egkfo|ky; p;u bR;kfn vifjorZuh; gksaxsA vr% fo'ks"kdj viuh Js.kh] laoxZ p;u djus ds iwoZ vius okafNr izk:i esa okafNr le;kof/k ds izek.k i= dk fufj{k.k vo'; dj ysaA lapkyuky; }kjk nks pj.kksa esa vkWuykbZu dkmaflfyax@vkWQykbZu dkmaflfyx dh tk;sxh] ftldh le;&lkj.kh lapkyuky; dh osclkbV ij rRle; izdkf'kr ¼?kksf"kr½ dh tk;sxh( ¼2½ vkuykbZu dkmaflfyax esa iath;u] izkFkfedrk dze dk fu/kkZj.k] vkcaVu] ewy nLrkostksa dh laoh{kk o vkcafVr lhVksa esa izos'k dh izfdz;k lfEefyr gksaxhA vH;FkhZ dks dkmaflfyax gsrq iath;u ds le; okafNr lHkh ewy nLrkost dh LdSu dh gqbZ izfr;kW vkWuykbu dkmaflfyax iksVZy ij viyksM djuh gksxhA ¼3½ vkWuykbu dkmaflfyax esa iath;u gsrq fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk rd mijksDrkuqlkj mYysf[kr ewy nLrkost viyksM ugha fd;s tkus ij vH;FkhZ dkmaflfyax izfdz;k gsrq vik= gksxkA iath;u dh vafre frfFk ds i'pkr tkjh fd;s gq, ewy nLrkost ekU; ugha gksxsA mDr frfFk rd izek.k i= izkIr dj viyksM fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro iw.kZ :is.k vH;FkhZ dk gksxkA** 8. In addition to the above provision, attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure P/9 brought on record by the petitioner herself which is a notification dated 09/03/2018 and relates to the anticipated admissions which will accrue for the session 2018. The notification in unambiguous term informs the 'would be the candidates' as to the requirements which they must fulfill. The notification in unambiguous term informs the 'would be the candidates' as to the requirements which they must fulfill. This notice i.e. Annexure P/9 was issued at least 2½ months prior to issuance of the Rules which only reiterated the position as mandated in Rule 7 and sub-rule (I), (ii) and (iii). 9. Expanding further, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the eligibility and the category under which registrations are required to be made have significance to the claim of a candidate for consideration at the time of counselling. The list is drawn up of the eligible candidates on the basis of the declaration made at the time of registration and at the time of counselling, a verification is made with regard to the correctness or otherwise of such declarations by verifying the originals. If a candidate has otherwise failed to make full declaration or makes a mis-declaration, then the fallout will be upon the candidate at the time of counselling and even at the time of registration and scrutiny. 10. Eligibility for registration in a particular class or category to which benefit is being claimed must be in place, on the date the registration opens for all the eligible candidates. If for some reason or the other, the full declaration supported by documentation are not placed on the portal, then the eligibility is not complete on the date of registration and a subsequently acquired status cannot accrue to the benefit of a candidate for many a reasons because there has to be certain amount of certainty and finality must be reached at the time of registration when large number of candidates are claimants for consideration for admission to medical courses and the counselling is done on the basis of the list drawn up of such eligible candidates belonging to a category, upon their merit position. Therefore, all those who want to be considered for admission in a particular category must have eligibility in hand at the time of registration and any shortfall cannot be made up by a subsequent acquisition at a later date. 11. Therefore, all those who want to be considered for admission in a particular category must have eligibility in hand at the time of registration and any shortfall cannot be made up by a subsequent acquisition at a later date. 11. There is reason why the State Government has laid down in strict terms the requirement in Rule 7, especially sub-rule (ii) and (iii) because opportunity is required to be given only to such candidates who otherwise fulfill the requirements in entirety and any declaration made which is conditional in nature subject to fulfillment at a subsequent stage cannot accrue to the benefit of such candidate. 12. A strict interpretation to the requirement of the Rule is mandated because there are many candidates waiting in the queue and who too have a right for consideration and if they have completed and fulfilled all the requirement at the time of registration, then their right for consideration cannot be diluted or snatched away by allowing a candidate to overcome the unfulfilled part of the requirement at the time of registration and maintain their position in the queue. In fact, allowing such a benefit would be discrimination to otherwise deserving candidate or candidates who at the time of registration have had all the eligibility, required in terms of Rules. 13. In the above circumstances, the Court is not persuaded to adopt line of the Division Bench in the case of Princy Meshram (supra) or in case of Abhijeet Pathak (supra) because those orders were passed in the given facts of the case and the said orders did not take into consideration the statutory requirement laid down by the State of Chhattisgarh or as per their gazetted notification dated 25/05/2018. 14. To that extent, the aforesaid two decisions cannot be said to be binding precedent before us. In fact, it has been rightly pointed out that in the case of Princy Meshram (supra), the Court had observed that the order may not be treated as a precedent and so far as the case of Abhijeet Pathak (supra) is concerned, the same can be said to be per incuriam in absence of consideration of the statutory rules or any ratio having been used as the basis for passing the order in the said case. 15. 15. The Court is further informed that the counselling is over and nothing much by way of indulgence can be shown to the petitioner for which she alone is to be blamed for not having her certifications and documentation in place at the time of registration. 16. In the above mentioned circumstances, the writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. circumstances, the writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.