JUDGMENT & ORDER : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. 1. All these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioners have mainly challenged the validity of Rule 16 read with Rule 4(5) (A) of the Gujarat Professional Medical Education Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017). In two petitions, petitioners have challenged the communication dated 15.11.2017 as well as communication dated 16.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2. The issue involved in all these petitions is similar and therefore with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these petitions are heard together and taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Antani waives service of notice of rule for all respondents in all these petitions. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts set out in Special Civil Application No.22606 of 2017 are taken into consideration. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 2.1. The petitioner is an Association of self financed Ayurveda colleges in the State of Gujarat imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda at the level of graduation and post graduation. Petitioner is having the status of recognized body of self-financed Ayurveda colleges in the State of Gujarat. The centralized admission process for the Government seats in the State of Gujarat for the colleges imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda at the level of graduation for the academic year 2017- 2018 was officially declared as closed on November 15, 2017. However, even after 8 rounds of centralized counseling which were conducted by respondent No.2 Committee for admission in Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) courses, 319 seats out of 1280 seats remained vacant. The respondent No.2 Committee, therefore, vide communication dated 15.11.2017, informed all the self-financed colleges imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda that all the vacant seats have been returned to the respective colleges for the purpose of granting admissions thereon. The said communication further directed that the said vacant seats shall be filled, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. The said communication further directed that the said vacant seats shall be filled, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. As per the said Rule, admissions on the vacant seats in the course of BAMS for the academic year 2017- 2018 shall be granted to the students on the basis of such relaxed eligibility criteria as may be communicated to the State Government by the concerned Ministry of Government of India. 2.2. The petitioner has referred to Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017, which provides for minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS and BNAT courses. As per the said Rule, minimum qualifying marks which are to be obtained in HSC examination and NEET are prescribed. Petitioner has pointed out that NEET was made applicable for admission in BAMS/BHMS course for the academic year 2017- 2018 on the basis of directive dated 26.04.2017 issued by the Ministry of AYUSH, whereby the respective State Governments were given an option to implement NEET for granting admission in BAMS course for the academic year 2017-2018. However, thereafter, Ministry of AYUSH issued a communication dated 03.07.2017 making NEET mandatory for the purpose of granting admission in BAMS for the academic year 2017-2018 but immediately thereafter on 04.07.2017 another communication was made whereby the directive dated 03.07.2017 was withdrawn and kept in abeyance. Thus, it is stated that directive dated 26.04.2017 was operative for the purpose of granting admission in B.A.M.S. course for the academic year 2017-2018, whereby the applicability of NEET for admission in BAMS course for the said academic year was made optional and left to the discretion of the respective State Governments. 2.3. Petitioner has further stated that power to prescribe minimum eligibility criteria for admission in BAMS course is with the Central Council of Indian Medicine as per the provisions contained in Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. Accordingly, the said Council has framed the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1986). As per the said regulation, minimum eligibility criteria for the purpose of admission to BAMS course is passing of 12 standard in the science stream with minimum 50% marks. It is stated that the respondent State Government provided higher eligibility for admission to BAMS course by providing NEET for getting admission in BAMS. 2.4. As per the said regulation, minimum eligibility criteria for the purpose of admission to BAMS course is passing of 12 standard in the science stream with minimum 50% marks. It is stated that the respondent State Government provided higher eligibility for admission to BAMS course by providing NEET for getting admission in BAMS. 2.4. The case of the petitioner is that when the seats have remained vacant in respect of BAMS course and when it is decided to fill-up these vacant seats by following minimum eligibility, the question of following higher eligibility for admission prescribed by Rules of 2017 does not arise. It is, therefore, stated that NEET as a qualifying criteria was only applicable for admission on Government seats and management seats in BAMS course for the academic year 2017- 2018 for the initial rounds of centralized admissions conducted by the respondent No.2 Committee for Government seats and by the petitioner association as a consortium of self financed Ayurveda colleges for management seats. However, admission on vacant seats is to be granted on the basis of a relaxed eligibility criteria as may be prescribed by the Government of India. 2.5. It is stated that on 16.11.2017, the petitioner addressed a communication to the respondent No.2 explaining the stand of the petitioner Association on the applicability of NEET as a minimum eligibility standard for the purpose of granting admission on vacant seats in BAMS course for the academic year 2017-2018. In response to the same, the respondent No.2 addressed impugned communication wherein it has been stated that the colleges have to strictly follow the minimum eligibility criteria of NEET as decided by the respondent State for admission to BAMS course for the said academic year. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued communication dated 28.11.2017 addressed to all the colleges and/or institutions imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda at the level of graduation in the State of Gujarat wherein they asked the colleges to furnish the details of admission granted by them on vacant seats to the admission Committee within stipulated time. 2.6. Petitioner association made representation dated 21.11.2017 to the respondent No.2. However, no response was received and therefore the petitioner association proceeded with granting admission to the students who possessed the requisite eligibility as per the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations of 1986. 2.6. Petitioner association made representation dated 21.11.2017 to the respondent No.2. However, no response was received and therefore the petitioner association proceeded with granting admission to the students who possessed the requisite eligibility as per the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations of 1986. The petitioner, by way of amendment challenged the decision dated 16.02.2018 taken by the respondent No.1 during the pendency of the petition. By way of the said decision, the State Government reduced the cut off marks required to be obtained by the students in NEET 2017 for the purpose of admission in vacant seats and thereby fixed minimum cut off marks as 30 marks out of 720 marks. Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the following main relief/s: "(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.2 Committee to recall/annul the Impugned Directive rendered vide its letter communication dated November 15, 2017 (bearing reference number ACPUGMEC/119/2017) and vide its letter communication dated February 16, 2018, copies of which are placed at "ANNEXURE F" and "ANNEXURE J", respectively, and thereupon, direct Respondent No.2 Committee to accept/endorse the admission granted to students fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations 1986. (B) That in the alternative, this Honourable Court may be pleased to read down Rule 16 read with Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017, as applicable, to the extent that admissions be granted to the students with the higher eligibility criteria prescribed under the Rules 2017 of being qualified in NEET available for admission on the vacant seats for B.A.M.S. Course for the academic year 2017-2018 and the seats that remain vacant thereafter be filled up with students that fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations 1986. (C) That in the alternative, this Honourable Court be pleased to declare Rule 16 of the Gujarat Professional medical Educational Colleges Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India." 3. (C) That in the alternative, this Honourable Court be pleased to declare Rule 16 of the Gujarat Professional medical Educational Colleges Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India." 3. The respondent No.2 filed an affidavit-in-reply in which mainly it has been stated that the applicability of Rule 4 of Rules of 2017, more particularly, with regard to its mandate of NEET qualification was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application No.12827 of 2017 in case of Dhrutikumari B. Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, wherein this Court upheld the validity of Rule 4 of Rules of 2017. Thus, in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, petitioner's challenge to validity of Rule 16 may not be entertained by this Court. It is stated that the respondent State had already prescribed NEET to be mandatory requirement for admission to AYUSH system of medicines and therefore minimum eligibility criteria prescribed under Regulations of 1986 may not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 4. It is stated that the respondent State in pursuant to the representations made by the individuals and different associations has relaxed the eligibility criteria of NEET by communication dated 24.10.2017, whereby cut off percentile of 45 was prescribed instead of 50 percentile. Respondent No.2 has referred various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the affidavit-in-reply. The respondent No.2 has stated that eligibility of NEET cannot be relaxed while interpreting Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. 5. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder in which mainly it has been stated that the contention of the respondent No.2 that Rule 16 cannot be challenged without challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 4 of Rules of 2017 and in fact validity of Rule 4 has been upheld by this Court in Special Civil Application No.12827 of 2017, is misconceived. It is stated that the validity of said Rule is upheld by this Court on the premise that State of Gujarat is empowered to prescribe higher eligibility criteria than the one prescribed by the Central Council in order to ensure that more meritorious students can be admitted when the number of applicants far exceed the number of available seats. It is stated that the validity of said Rule is upheld by this Court on the premise that State of Gujarat is empowered to prescribe higher eligibility criteria than the one prescribed by the Central Council in order to ensure that more meritorious students can be admitted when the number of applicants far exceed the number of available seats. As against this, the issue involved in the petition is as to whether same higher eligibility criteria can be made applicable in respect of vacant seats or not for which separate provision is made in form of Rule 16 in the Rules of 2017. 6. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. C. Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr. Udit N. Vyas and Mr. M. M. Bhatt for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Dave mainly contended that as per the mandate of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, admission on vacant seats is to be granted on the basis of the relaxed eligibility criteria as may be prescribed to the Government of Gujarat by the Government of India. It is stated that the applicability of NEET for granting admission in the course of BAMS for the academic year 2017-2018 was made optional by the Ministry of AYUSH. It is beyond any doubt that NEET is not mandatory for granting admission in BAMS course for the academic year 2017-2018. Hence, it would be open to the respective State Governments not to implement NEET and to relax the same in the event there are vacant seats to be filled. Thus, refusal on the part of the respondent No.2 to give admission to such students who fulfilled deemed to be relaxed eligibility criteria, is violative of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017 and therefore the impugned decision dated 15.11.2017 be quashed and set aside. 8. It is thereafter contended that applicability of NEET for the purpose of preparation of merit list and granting admission in BAMS course for the academic year 2017-2018 is having the effect of prescribing a higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations of 1986. 8. It is thereafter contended that applicability of NEET for the purpose of preparation of merit list and granting admission in BAMS course for the academic year 2017-2018 is having the effect of prescribing a higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine under Regulations of 1986. However, the higher standard would be of relevance in the event there are more applicants than the number of available seats but in case when the seats have remained vacant, the respondent State has no authority to insist upon a higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council. Thus, in the present case, when the seats have remained vacant after exhausting list of eligible students on the basis of higher eligibility prescribed by the Rules of 2017, there is no rationale for following the same higher eligibility criteria for filling up the vacant seats. It is, therefore, submitted that the member colleges of the petitioner Association have legally and justifiable granted admission to such students who fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council under Regulations of 1986. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Dave alternatively would submit that Rule 16(1) is violative of Article 14 to the extent that it treats BAMS course at par and equivalent to MBBS and BDS courses for the purpose of filling-up of vacant seats. NEET is the minimum eligibility criteria for the purpose of granting admission in MBBS and BDS courses pursuant to the statutory provisions in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Dentists Act, 1948. Hence, the same cannot be diluted even in the case of large number of vacancies. However, so far as BAMS course is concerned, the minimum eligibility criteria as per Regulations 1986 is passing of 12th Standard with science stream with minimum 50% marks and therefore prescription of NEET for BAMS course becomes an enhanced criterion which has to be done away with in case of vacant seats. At this stage, it is further contended that a purposeful reading of Rule 16 would reveal that the objective of the said Rule is to enable filling up of the maximum number of vacant seats in accordance with the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by an authority competent to do so. The respondent State though capable of prescribing higher eligibility criteria is not the authority competent to prescribe minimum eligibility criteria. The respondent State though capable of prescribing higher eligibility criteria is not the authority competent to prescribe minimum eligibility criteria. It is, therefore, contended that treating BAMS course at par with MBBS and BDS courses and consequently making NEET applicable for filling the vacant seats, creates a class of unequals with their being no nexus of the same with the objective of filling-up of the vacant seats in accordance with the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the competent authority. 9.1. Similarly, it is contended that Rule 16(2) is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as it permits grant of admission on vacant seats in accordance with the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the respective councils in courses such as B.Sc. (Nursing) but not in the case of BAMS in accordance with the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by Central Council. 9.2. Thus, learned counsel contended that a complete and purposeful reading of Rule 16 would reveal that the objective of the said Rule is to enable filling-up of the maximum number of vacant seats in accordance with the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by an authority competent to do so and in the case of BAMS course, the competent authority is the Central Council of Indian Medicine. Thus, restricting grant of admission in accordance with such minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on the one hand and permitting the same for B.Sc. (Nursing) on the other hand, amounts to treating equals, unequally. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Dave further submits that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent No.1 State has taken a decision on 16.02.2018, whereby the minimum cut off marks required to be obtained by a student in NEET 2017 for the purpose of obtaining admission on vacant seats came to be fixed at 30 marks. Thus, in substance the eligibility criteria of minimum 50 percentile at NEET prescribed under Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017 for regular seats as opposed to the vacant seats and sought to be made applicable to the vacant seats. Thus, the respondent State has prescribed approximately 4 percentile at NEET as minimum criteria for granting admission on the vacant seats. There is no rationale behind the said fixing of 30 marks out of 720 marks in NEET. Thus, the respondent State has prescribed approximately 4 percentile at NEET as minimum criteria for granting admission on the vacant seats. There is no rationale behind the said fixing of 30 marks out of 720 marks in NEET. Thus, it is submitted that when the respondent State itself has reduced the minimum eligibility criteria for grant of admission in BAMS course at 4 percentile at NEET, this Court may consider to give direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to grant admission on vacant seats of BAMS/BHMS courses on the basis of minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council as per the Regulations of 1986. 11. Learned counsel Mr. Dave has placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) In the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another v. Union of India and others, (1969) 2 SCC 228 . (2) In Union of India and others v. N.S.Rathnam and sons, (2015) 10 SCC 681 . (3) In Vikram Cement and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 708 . (4) In State of H.P. And others v. Himachal Institute of Engg. And Technology, Shimla, (1998) 8 SCC 501 . 12. Learned counsel Mr. Dave for the petitioners therefore urged that these petitions be allowed and the reliefs prayed for be granted in favour of the petitioners. 13. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondent State opposed these petitions and mainly contended that validity of Rule 4 of Rules of 2017 was challenged in the petition being Special Civil Application No.12827 of 2017, wherein this Court upheld the validity of Rule of 4 of Rules of 2017. By way of the said Rule, qualification of NEET is prescribed as a mandate for securing admissions in BAMS and BHMS courses. Thus, when this Court has upheld the validity of the Rule by which NEET is prescribed as qualification for grant of admission to BAMS and BHMS courses, the contentions of the petitioners are misconceived. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, petitioners' challenge to validity of Rule 16 may not be entertained by this Court. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, petitioners' challenge to validity of Rule 16 may not be entertained by this Court. It is, therefore, urged that when the respondent state had already prescribed NEET as mandatory requirement for admission to AYUSH system of medicines, minimum eligibility criteria prescribed under Regulations of 1986 may not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 14. Learned AGP Mr. Antani would further submit that the vacant seats cannot be filled in violation of law. In the present case, the insistence of the petitioners is to surmount applicability of Rule 4 of the rules 2017 which mandates NEET qualification for admission to BAMS and BHMS courses and such mandatory requirement cannot be done away with, more particularly in the guise of relaxation. Relaxation per se would literally mean lowering/relaxing of standard and not doing away with a standard all together as is being sought by the petitioners in this batch of petitions. 15. Learned AGP further submits that Rule 16 of Rules of 2017 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Rule 16 cannot have an independent application of an enabling force insofar as prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned. Petitioners, therefore, cannot insist that minimum eligibility criteria of passing of NEET as per Rule 4 of Rules of 2017 may be done away with. 16. It is further submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that respondent State has taken a decision to reduce the cut off marks at 30 out of 720 in NEET on the basis of the representation made by the petitioners as well as other students. However, for getting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses, the concerned student has to pass NEET with reduced criteria prescribed by the respondent State as per the decision dated 16.02.2018. If the concerned students are not fulfilling such criteria, they are not eligible to get admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that petitioners are not entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for in this batch of petitions and therefore the same be dismissed. 17. If the concerned students are not fulfilling such criteria, they are not eligible to get admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that petitioners are not entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for in this batch of petitions and therefore the same be dismissed. 17. In support of his submissions, learned AGP has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.12827 of 2017 on 02.08.2017 in the case of Dhrutikumari Bhagubhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another. Learned AGP has also placed reliance upon the following decisions rendered by the Delhi High Court: (1) In the case of Association of Self Financing Institutions and another v. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University and another rendered in WP(C) 3262/2013 decided on 09.05.2014. (2) In Rajeev Kumar v. Union of India, 2014 8 AD(Del) 18. (3) In Vrinda Gaur and others v. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University and others rendered in W.P.(C) 8138/2011 decided on 14.12.2011. (4) In Kanika Aggarwal (Minor) v. N.C.T. Of Delhi, (2001) 93 D.L.T 756 . (5) In M.I. Hussain v. N. Singh, (2005) 125 D.L.T 223. 18. We have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have gone through the material produced on record and the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel. From the material placed on record, it has emerged that the petitioner is an association of self-financed Ayurveda colleges in the State of Gujarat imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda at the level of graduation and post-graduation. The respondent No.1 state has framed the Rules of 2017 for granting admission in MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS and other medical professional courses. So far as the admission to BAMS and BHMS courses are concerned, after 8 rounds of central counseling, which were conducted by the respondent no.2 Committee, certain number of seats remained vacant. The respondent No.2 Committee, therefore, informed all the self-financed colleges imparting education in the discipline of Ayurveda by communication made in November 2017 that all the vacant seats have been returned to the respective colleges for the purpose of granting admission thereon. It is further stated in the said communication that the said seats shall be filled in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. It is further stated in the said communication that the said seats shall be filled in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017. The main contention of the petitioners is that Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017 provides for minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT courses. However, so far as BAMS and BHMS courses are concerned, for the academic year 2017-2018, the respondent State has prescribed higher eligibility criteria by prescribing NEET, whereas the Central Council of Indian Medicine has prescribed minimum eligibility criteria for grant of admission in BAMS is passing of 12th Standard in science stream with minimum 50% marks. The prescription of higher eligibility criteria would be applicable to the admission to the regular seats but when the seats remained vacant, such higher criteria would not be made applicable and the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the said Council by way of regulation would be applicable. 19. For considering the issue involved in this batch of petitions, provisions of different Acts, Rules and Regulations are required to be referred to. 20. The respondent State has enacted the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2007'). As per Section 20 of the said Act, State Government is empowered to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act by issuing notification in the Official Gazette. The respondent State has framed the Rules of 2017 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 20(1) read with Section 4 of the Act of 2007 for academic year 2017-2018. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017 provides eligibility criteria for admission to professional medical educational courses. Relevant Rules 4(4) and 4(5) (A) (a) and 4(5) (A) (b) of the Rules of 2017 provide as under: Rule 4(4) "4. Eligibility for Admission.- x xx x xx x xx (4) have qualified in NEET conducted in current academic year in case of MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT. (5) Minimum qualifying standard for admission: No candidate shall be admitted in the professional medical educational courses unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying percentage/percentile as follows; A. Minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT Courses: Eligibility criteria in HSC examination and NEET of current academic year. (5) Minimum qualifying standard for admission: No candidate shall be admitted in the professional medical educational courses unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying percentage/percentile as follows; A. Minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT Courses: Eligibility criteria in HSC examination and NEET of current academic year. (a) For Government Seats Course Exam General Category Gen-PH Category Reserved (SC, ST, SEBC including Physically disabled) Categories MBBS, BDS and BAMS HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology Theory and Practical, in percentage 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% BHMS & BNAT HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Theory and Practical Pass Pass Pass NEET qualifying Percentile of the current academic year 50 45 40 (b) For Management seats: Exam All Candidates HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology Theory and Practical. Same criteria as for the Government seats NEET qualifying Percentile (As per criteria laid down by the Government of India) 20.1. Rule 16 of Rules of 2017 provides as under: "Vacant Seats: (1) If any government and management seat remain vacant in the MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT courses after completion of admission process and exhaustion of merit list, such vacant seats shall be displayed on the official website and on the notice board of the office of the admission committee and same shall be intimated to the colleges or institutions wherein the seats are vacant and the State Government may seek a new list of candidates from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Government of India for relaxation of the eligibility criteria. (2) For other courses, Colleges or Institutions shall admit the candidates on the basis of inter-se merit of the applicants; subject to the eligibility criteria, in respect of the course the candidate is granted admission, as laid down by the respective Council or as the case may be, the respective University. The vacant seats shall be filled by giving priority to the candidates belonging to Gujarat State." 20.2. The Parliament has enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1970'). Section 3 thereof provides for constitution of Central Council, whereas Section 22 of the Act of 1970 provides as under: "22. The vacant seats shall be filled by giving priority to the candidates belonging to Gujarat State." 20.2. The Parliament has enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1970'). Section 3 thereof provides for constitution of Central Council, whereas Section 22 of the Act of 1970 provides as under: "22. Minimum standards of education in Indian medicine.- (1) The Central Council may prescribe the minimum standards of education in Indian medicine, required for granting recognised medical qualification by Universities, Boards or medical institutions in India. (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to all State Governments and the Central Council shall, before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 9 shall, from time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit." 20.3. Section 36 of the Act of 1970 empowers the Central Government to make regulations in connection with various matters including the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in any University, Board or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications, the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations, etc. While exercising powers conferred under Section 36 of the Act of 1970, the Regulations of 1986 are framed which have been amended by way of Regulations of 2016 .Regulation 2 of amended Regulations of 2016 provides for admission qualification in Bachelor of Ayurveda education, which provides as under: "2. Admission qualification.-The eligibility to seek admission in Bachelor of Ayurveda education are as under: "(a) 12th standard with science or any other equivalent examination recognised by concerned State Governments and Education boards with at least fifty percent, aggregate marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Admission qualification.-The eligibility to seek admission in Bachelor of Ayurveda education are as under: "(a) 12th standard with science or any other equivalent examination recognised by concerned State Governments and Education boards with at least fifty percent, aggregate marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. (b) For reserved category or special category like physically handicapped students in 10+2, they shall be given relaxation in marks for admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery as per rules for time being in force. (c) For foreign students any other equivalent qualification to be approved by the concerned authority may be allowed." 21. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Central Council has been constituted under the Act of 1970 and the said Council is empowered to prescribe minimum standard of education in Indian medicine. The Regulations of 1986 and amended Regulations of 2016 prescribe minimum eligibility criteria for admission in BAMS courses and as per the said criteria, the eligibility to seek admission in BAMS course is passing of 12th standard with science stream or any other equivalent examination recognized by the concerned State Government and Education Board with at least 50% aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, whereas the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondent State in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017 is of 50% marks in HSC or equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as well as 50 percentile in NEET for the academic year 2017-2018. Thus, the respondent State has prescribed higher qualification than the qualification prescribed by the Central Council under the Regulations of 1986 as amended in 2016. 22. It is required to be noted that when the validity of Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017 was challenged by the concerned students by filing Special Civil Application No.12827 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 02.08.2017 in the case of Dhrutikumari B. Patel upheld the validity thereof. However, it is further required to be observed at this stage that the Division Bench has specifically observed in para 21 as under: "21. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions, it is revealed that State is empowered to frame the Rules for the subject mentioned in Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, it is further required to be observed at this stage that the Division Bench has specifically observed in para 21 as under: "21. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions, it is revealed that State is empowered to frame the Rules for the subject mentioned in Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. From the regulations framed under the Act of 1970 as well as Act of 1973, it is revealed that the minimum eligibility criteria for giving admissions in BAMS and BHMS courses respectively is provided. From the submissions canvassed by learned Additional Advocate General, it is revealed that for approximately 15, 000 seats available for Professional Medical Educational Courses, approximately 33, 000 students were registered. Hence, looking to the number of seats available for admission to various Professional Medical Educational Courses and looking to the registration of large number of candidates for such courses, the impugned Rules framed by the respondent State laying down the qualification for a candidate to be eligible for being considered for selection for admission to BAMS and BHMS courses on the basis of the merit list of NEET, cannot be said to be in conflict with the Act of 1970 and Act of 1973 or in any way repugnant to the said Central Legislations. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are referred to hereinabove, it is further clear that When there are more students/applicants than the available seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the center or the Central authority to short-list the students/applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List and when the Rules are framed by the State laying down further qualification, it cannot be said to be in conflict with the Central Law or repugnant to the Central Law. Thus, when the field is not occupied, the State is empowered to frame the Rules." 23. From the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench, it is clear that this Court held that the State is empowered to prescribe higher standards than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Council. It is further clear that approximately 15, 000 seats were available for professional medical courses against which approximately 33, 000 students were registered. From the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench, it is clear that this Court held that the State is empowered to prescribe higher standards than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Council. It is further clear that approximately 15, 000 seats were available for professional medical courses against which approximately 33, 000 students were registered. Thus, looking to the number of seats available for admission to the various professional medical educational courses and looking to the registration of large number of candidates for such courses, Rule 4(5) (A) framed by the respondent State laying down higher qualification was accepted by this Court. 24. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent State of Gujarat has accepted the option given by the Ministry of AYUSH for implementing NEET for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses for the academic year 2017-2018. During the course of submissions, it is brought to our notice that many State Governments have not accepted the option given by the Ministry of AYUSH for introducing NEET for grant of admission in the aforesaid courses for the academic year 2017-2018. The minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Council is applicable to such States which are granting admission to the students who have passed HSC or equivalent examination with 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 25. It is not in dispute that after completion of 8 rounds of counseling, certain seats for BAMS and BHMS have remained vacant and therefore all such seats have been returned to the respective colleges for the purpose of granting admission thereon. 26. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the situation has arisen in the present case for the academic year 2017-2018 only. It is not in dispute that from the next academic year i.e. from 2018-2019, the Ministry of AYUSH has declared that for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses, NEET is compulsory. Thus, for the academic year 2017-2018, on account of acceptance of option given by the Ministry of AYUSH to the State Government to grant admission on the basis of NEET, the peculiar situation has arisen. Thus, for the academic year 2017-2018, on account of acceptance of option given by the Ministry of AYUSH to the State Government to grant admission on the basis of NEET, the peculiar situation has arisen. As observed hereinabove, in most of the States, NEET is not made applicable for the current academic year 2017-2018 and such States are granting admission to the students/candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in standard 12 qualifying examination. Whereas, the respondent State has introduced the NEET by way of Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017 as minimum eligibility criteria for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. 27. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present petitions, the respondent State has, on the basis of the representations made by the petitioners and others, reduced the cut off marks at 30 out of 720 marks in NEET and thereby prescribing approximately 4 percentile for grant of admission to BAMS and BHMS courses. Thus, the respondent State has relaxed the eligibility criteria while exercising powers under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017 for the vacant seats. If the respondent State has relaxed the cut off marks up to 4 percentile though minimum eligibility criteria as per Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2007 is 50 percentile, there was no reason for the respondent State to deny admission to the students who have not appeared in NEET. Thus, we are of the view that non-appearance in NEET and to get 4 percentile in NEET is the same thing and there is no justification for the respondent State not to relax the eligibility criteria to that of minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Council. 28. In the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 8 and 9 as under: "8. As laid down in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others(1) , Art. 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The first group of persons for whom seats have been reserved are the sons and daughters of residents of Union territories other than Delhi. These areas are well known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh they do not have any Medical College of their own. It was necessary that persons desirous of receiving medical education from these areas should be provided some facility for doing so. As regards the sons and daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad it is equally well known that due to exigencies of their service these persons are faced with lot of difficulties in the matter of education. Apart from the problems of language, it is not easy or always possible to get admission into institutions imparting medical education in foreign countries. The cultural, Colombo Plan and Thailand scholars are given admission in medical institutions in this country by reason of reciprocal arrangements of educational and cultural nature. Regarding Jammu & Kashmir scholars it must be remembered that the problems relating to them are of a peculiar nature and there do not exist adequate arrangements for medical education in the State itself for its residents. The classification in all these cases is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from the group to which the appellants belong. 9. It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical college. It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. The Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the -admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of Persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. The Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the -admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of Persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. , If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification." 29. In the case of N. S. Rathnam and Sons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 12 and 18 as under: "12. The judgment of this Court in Kasinka Trading's case, no doubt, lays down the principle that there is wide discretion available to the Government in the matter of granting, curtailing, withholding, modifying or repealing the exemptions granted by earlier Notifications. It is also correct that the Government is not bound to grant exemption to anyone to which it so desires. When the duty is payable under the provisions of the Act, grant of exemption from payment of the said duty to particular class of persons or products etc. is entirely within the discretion of the Government. This discretion rests on various factors which are to be considered by the Government as these are policy decisions. In the present case, however, the issue is not of granting or not granting the exemption. When the exemption is granted to a particular class of persons, then the benefit thereof is to be extended to all similarly situated person. The Notification has to apply to the entire class and the Government cannot create sub- classification thereby excluding one sub-category, even when both the subcategories are of same genus. If that is done, it would be considered as violating the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, judicial review of such Notifications is permissible in order to undertake the scrutiny as to whether the Notification results in invidious discrimination between two persons though they belong to the same class. In Aashirwad Films v. Union of India and Others, this aspect has been articulated in the following manner: (SCC pp.628-29, paras 9-12) "9. The State undoubtedly enjoys greater latitude in the matter of a taxing statute. In Aashirwad Films v. Union of India and Others, this aspect has been articulated in the following manner: (SCC pp.628-29, paras 9-12) "9. The State undoubtedly enjoys greater latitude in the matter of a taxing statute. It may impose a tax on a class of people, whereas it may not do so in respect of the other class. 10. A taxing statute, however, as is well known, is not beyond the pale of challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. Union of India, (1962) AIR(Supreme Court) 1006 it was stated: (AIR p. 1021, para 37) "37. But it does not follow that every other article of Part III is inapplicable to tax laws. Leaving aside Article 31(2) that the provisions of a tax law within legislative competence could be impugned as offending Article 14 is exemplified by such decisions of this Court as Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.V. Vishvanatha Sastri, (1954) AIR(Supreme Court) 545 and Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri, (1955) AIR(Supreme Court) 13. In K.T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, (1961) AIR(Supreme Court) 552 the Kerala Land Tax Act was struck down as unconstitutional as violating the freedom guaranteed by Article 14. It also goes without saying that if the imposition of the tax was discriminatory as contrary to Article 15, the levy would be invalid." 12. A taxing statute, however, enjoys a greater latitude. An inference in regard to contravention of Article 14 would, however, ordinarily be drawn if it seeks to impose on the same class of persons or occupations similarly situated or an instance of taxation which leads to inequality. The taxing event under the Andhra Pradesh State Entertainment Tax Act is on the entertainment of a person. Rate of entertainment tax is determined on the basis of the amount collected from the visitor of a cinema theatre in terms of the entry fee charged from a viewer by the owner thereof." x xx x xx x xx 18. We are conscious of the principle that the difference which will warrant a reasonable classification need not be great. However, it has to be shown that the difference is real and substantial and there must be some just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation or notification. Classification having regard to microscopic differences is not good. We are conscious of the principle that the difference which will warrant a reasonable classification need not be great. However, it has to be shown that the difference is real and substantial and there must be some just and reasonable relation to the object of legislation or notification. Classification having regard to microscopic differences is not good. To borrow the phrase from the judgment in Roop Chand Adlakha v. D.D.A.: "To overdo classification is to undo equality." 30. In the case of Vikram Cement and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7, 8 and 9 as under: "7. The law on the scope and meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution has now been well articulated. We may gainfully refer to the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, wherein this Court observed as under: "10. The scope, content and meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution has been the subject-matter of intensive examination by this Court in a catena of decisions. It would, therefore, be merely adding to the length of this judgment to recapitulate all those decisions and it is better to avoid that exercise save and except referring to the latest decision on the subject in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, from which the following observation may be extracted: "7. ...what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this Article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning for, to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits....Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence." 11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence." 11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute in question [See Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors.[5]]. The classification may be founded on differential basis according to objects sought to be achieved but what is implicit in it is that there ought to be a nexus, i.e. casual connection between the basis of classification and object of the statute under consideration. It is equally well settled by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure." 8. In Special Courts Bill, 1978[6], this Court undertook a survey of plethora of decisions touching upon the 'Equality' doctrine enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and culled out certain principles. In principle No.3, the Court highlighted that though classification was permissible and it was not for the Courts to insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case, but, at the same time, classification would be treated as justified only if it is not palpably arbitrary. It was also emphasized that the underlined purpose in Article 14 of the Constitution was to treat all persons similarly circumstanced alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Following was the emphatic message given by the Court: "72......(4) ...It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. It was also emphasized that the underlined purpose in Article 14 of the Constitution was to treat all persons similarly circumstanced alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Following was the emphatic message given by the Court: "72......(4) ...It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same." Another principle which was restated was that the classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all persons grouped together and not in others who are left out, but those qualities and characteristics must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. 9. Article 14 eschews arbitrariness in any form. This principle was eloquently explained in EP. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu[7] holding that the basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 15 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. We would like to quote the following passage from that judgment as well, which is as under: "85.....From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 14. Article 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment..." On the application of the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the irresistible conclusion is that the Explanation is highly discriminatory in nature." 31. In the case of Association of Self Financing Institutions & Anr., the Delhi High Court has observed in para 52 as under: "52. The petitioner also argues that the CET violates Article 14. In the case of Association of Self Financing Institutions & Anr., the Delhi High Court has observed in para 52 as under: "52. The petitioner also argues that the CET violates Article 14. It is argued that the CET is to be considered as a means of selection of students where the number of students is more than the number of seats. In cases where seats are running vacant, however, it is argued that a CET is arbitrary. This argument, however, misses the point. The rationale for a CET, and generally, all academic regulation at the university level, is to ensure a minimum standard of excellence and merit. The purpose is not to ensure that seats are filled up, or to sacrifice merit at the instance of business interests of private institutions. The classification sought to be created by the petitioner is two-fold, i.e. cases where seats are running vacant, and cases where students are competing for limited seats. In this argument, a CET bears a rational nexus only to the latter category. However, the state WP(C) 3262/2013 Page 54 purpose of a CET - academic excellence - bears a rational nexus with both instances, i.e. merit must be protected independent of the number of students and seats available. Merely because some seats are vacant does not allow the institutions to forgo the principle of merit, or more specifically, the manner in which merit is judged generally. If anything, doing so would tend towards arbitrary conduct. In fact, this issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Visveswaraya Technological University and Anr. v. Krishnendu Halder and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 606 . The question before the Court was: "whether the eligibility criteria for admission to the Engineering courses stipulated under the Statutory Rules and Regulations of the State Government/University could be relaxed or ignored, and candidates who do not meet with such eligibility criteria can be given admission, on the ground that a large number of seats have remained unfilled in professional colleges" 32. The aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said case the CET is to be considered as a means of selection of students where the number of students is more than the number of seats and in cases where seats remained vacant, it is observed that the rationale for a CET, is to ensure a minimum standard of excellence and merit. The purpose is not to ensure that seats are filled up, or to sacrifice merit at the instance of business interests of private institutions. It is further observed in the said case that merely because some seats are vacant does not allow the institutions to forgo the principle of merit. However, as observed hereinabove, in the present case the respondent State has prescribed higher eligibility qualifying standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by way of regulations. The regulations framed by the concerned Central Council do not provide for NEET and therefore for vacant seats, the NEET would not be applicable. 33. In the case of Rajeev Kumar, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has observed and held in para 7, 8 and 9 as under: "7. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Though undoubtedly the issue flagged by the petitioner is of vital importance and it is in national interest that no seats in such premium educational institutions of the country as IITs are wasted but at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that for the sake of filling up the seats, the academic calendar devised by the professional experts at IITs, owing to whose efforts the said institutions have today reached the exalted position which they occupy, leading to the vacant seats therein being called a national waste, cannot be disturbed. The IITs are perceived to be better than NITs, perhaps for commencing their academic session well before the NITs, as is evident from the academic session of the IITs having already begun, while the process of admission in NITs is stated to go on till August, 2014. Thus, the filling up of vacant seats cannot be at the cost of maintaining standards of education and merit in IITs. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in M.I. Hussain Vs. Thus, the filling up of vacant seats cannot be at the cost of maintaining standards of education and merit in IITs. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in M.I. Hussain Vs. N. Singh, (2005) 125 D.L.T 223 held that seats remaining vacant is no reason to fill them up CM No.8178/2014 in W.P.(C) No.2275/2010 Page 8 of 12 by admitting non-meritorious students. Another Division Bench in Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, (2005) 116 D.L.T 290 held that once the dramatic performance starts, no one is allowed to enter-similarly counselling of seats must stop once the course of study commences. Again, in Sunint Kaur Vs. GGSIP University, 2005 ILR(Del) 215, this Court held that even if seats are not filled, that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions. 9. The Supreme Court also in Arvind Kumar Kankane Vs. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 355 held that if counselling goes on continuously for a long time, it will upset the course of study. Similarly, in Neelu Arora Vs. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 366 it was held that when a detailed scheme has been framed and the manner in which it has to be worked out is indicated therein, merely because a certain number of seats are not filled up, is not a reason enough for adopting one more round of counselling, if there is no scope therefor under the scheme. It was held to be not advisable to go on altering the scheme as and when seats are found vacant." 34. The aforesaid decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, it was held that filling up of vacant seats cannot be at the cost of maintaining standards of education and merit in IITs. In the present case, in most of the States, for the current academic year 2017-2018, NEET is not made compulsory for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses and further the Central Councils have not prescribed NEET as minimum eligibility criteria for grant of admission in the aforesaid courses and therefore there is no question of filling up of vacant seats at the cost of standard of education and merit. 35. 35. In Vrinda Gaur and others, the Delhi High Court has observed on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of prescribing eligibility criteria is to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to fill up all the seats. Reducing the standards to fill the seats was held to be a dangerous trend which would lead to destruction of the quality of education. However, this judgment is also not applicable in the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove. 36. In the case of M. I. Hussain, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed in para 14 as under: "(14) In our opinion, there is no legal principle that all vacant seats must necessarily be filled up. If such a contention is accepted, it would mean that vacant seats have to be filled up even by filling them up with students who have no aptitude for science or maths. We cannot countenance any such argument. Many schools have a reputation to uphold and protect, and they can certainly fix the minimum criteria below which it will not admit students to a particular stream even if seats remain vacant. The writ petitioner has not been able to show any legal right to get admission to science stream. Moreover, there are 36 students of the school who have passed Class X examination with higher merit than the writ petitioner and were seeking admission to science stream, but have been denied the same. Hence, the writ petitioner can have no legal right to get admission in science stream." 37. All these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and would not render any assistance to the respondents. 38. In the case of Dhrutikumari Bhagubhai Patel, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed in para 21 that looking to the seats available for the professional medical educational courses and the students registered, the respondent State is empowered to prescribe higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council by way of regulations. However, for the seats which have remained vacant, such higher qualifying standard prescribed by the State would not be applicable but the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Councils by way of regulations would be applicable. However, for the seats which have remained vacant, such higher qualifying standard prescribed by the State would not be applicable but the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Councils by way of regulations would be applicable. Hence, the reliance placed by the respondents on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case would not render any assistance to them. 39. We have kept in view the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by learned advocates for the parties. From the facts discussed hereinabove, it is revealed that as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, admission on vacant seats is to be granted on the basis of the relaxed eligibility criteria. The applicability of NEET for the purpose of preparation of merit list and granting admission in BAMS/BHMS courses for the academic year 2017-2018 is having the effect of prescribing a higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine under the Regulations of 1986. As per the discussion made hereinabove, Ministry of AYUSH had given option to the state governments to implement NEET for academic year 2017-2018. Most of the states have not accepted the option given by the Ministry of AYUSH for the current academic year and the respondent-State has applied the said higher standards for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. The minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Councils for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses is not NEET for the current academic year i.e. 2017-18. It is further required to be noted that by decision dated 16.2.2018, the respondent-State has reduced the criteria for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses by which the respondent-state has described approximately four percentile for grant of admission. Thus, in substance, the eligibility criteria of minimum 50 percentile at NEET prescribed in Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017 for regular seats has been reduced to approximately 4 percentile at NEET as minimum criteria for granting admission on vacant seats. We see no logic/rationale behind the said fixing of 30 marks out of 720 marks in NEET. Thus, in substance, the eligibility criteria of minimum 50 percentile at NEET prescribed in Rule 4(5) (A) of the Rules of 2017 for regular seats has been reduced to approximately 4 percentile at NEET as minimum criteria for granting admission on vacant seats. We see no logic/rationale behind the said fixing of 30 marks out of 720 marks in NEET. Thus, when the respondent-state itself has reduced the minimum eligibility criteria for grant of admission in BAMS at four percentile at NEET, we are of the view that the respondent-State shall permit the members of the petitioner-association i.e. the concerned institutions to grant admission to the students in BAMS and BHMS courses on the basis of the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Councils under the regulations. 40. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out by learned advocates appearing for the parties that the members of the petitioner association i.e. the concerned institutions have granted admission on the vacant seats which are returned to the respective colleges by the respondent no.2-Committee on the basis of the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Councils as per the regulations and therefore such admissions granted to the students are required to be approved. At this stage, it is further required to be noted that the present situation is arising for the current academic year 2017-18 only because from the next academic year i.e. 2018-19, NEET is made compulsory for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid findings are recorded. 41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned communications are set aside. The respondent no.2-Committee is directed to endorse/approve the admission granted to the students who are fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central councils under the concerned Regulations. Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017 is read down to the extent that the seats that remained vacant in BAMS/BHMS courses for the academic year 2017-2018 be filled-in with the students who fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the central Councils under the concerned regulations. 42. All these petitions are allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions.