JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The petitioners, who applied for admission to the professional medical/dental courses for the academic year 2018-19, under the quota reserved for NCC candidates, have come up with the above writ petitions challenging the manner in which priorities were accorded to them and the manner in which the priorities earlier accorded, were altered. 2. We have heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Gopalakrishna, Mr. P. Sree Ramulu Naidu, Mr. C. Sai Reddy, Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, Mr. V.V.S.S. Srikanth learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. K.V. Simhadri, Mr. V. Ramchander Goud, Mr. S.A.K. Mynuddin, Mr. P. Vikram, learned counsel appearing for the impleading respondents. 3. Like the quota for sports persons, the quota for NCC has also become a perennial problem, with zealous parents soliciting the assistance of unscrupulous employees in the NCC Directorate and getting wrong priorities accorded, so as to gain admission to MBBS Courses through shortcut methods. At least the malpractices adopted by a few officials of the Sports Authorities of both the States came to light when their houses were raided by the Anti Corruption Bureau of the State. But since NCC Directorate is under the control of the Union of India, the officials of the Directorate have been escaping from the clutches of law. The cases on hand demonstrate how the local NCC Directorate has been manipulating the records, recognising and derecognising the certificates and playing havoc in the matter of according of priorities. Brief Background to the Reservation: 4. With a view to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the educational system in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State enacted the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Subsequently, the State also enacted the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, with the avowed object of regulating the admission into Educational Institutions. Section 15 (1) of the State Act empowers the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 5. Subsequently, the State also enacted the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, with the avowed object of regulating the admission into Educational Institutions. Section 15 (1) of the State Act empowers the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15(1) of the A.P. Act No.5/1983, the Government issued a set of Rules governing admissions to undergraduate medical and dental courses. These Rules provided for a particular percentage of reservation for National Cadet Corps. Since the candidates joining NCC may have to undergo different levels of training and are called upon to participate in different types of events or sports activities, the question of according priorities among candidates who seek the benefit of the quota, became a vexed issue. This issue was sought to be addressed by the Government from time to time in the form of executive instructions. So long as the State remained a composite State, only one set of executive instructions occupied the field. But after the bifurcation of the State with effect from 02.06.2014, both the State Governments had to issue separate orders, individually for admission to professional Engineering Courses and to professional Medical Courses. 6. The Government of A.P., issued G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 19.06.2005 listing out the priorities to be accorded to the candidates seeking admission to professional Engineering Courses under the quota reserved for NCC. An identical Government Order was issued by the State of Telangana under G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015, for admission to professional Medical Courses. In other words, what was followed by the State of A.P., for admission to Engineer Courses, was simply copied by the State of Telangana for admission to Medical Courses. 7. Subsequently the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.109, dated 18.08.2016 listing out the priorities for admission to professional Medical Courses. This was followed by an order in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Government of Telangana for admission to Engineering Courses. 8. Since both the Governments issued separate orders for admission to Engineering Courses and admission to Medical Courses, some discrepancies were found in the priorities. It is relevant to point out that the State Governments left it to the wisdom of the NCC Directorate to prepare the priorities. 9. 8. Since both the Governments issued separate orders for admission to Engineering Courses and admission to Medical Courses, some discrepancies were found in the priorities. It is relevant to point out that the State Governments left it to the wisdom of the NCC Directorate to prepare the priorities. 9. Priority II-(f) as found in G.O.Ms.No.109, dated 18.08.2016 of the State of A.P. for admission to Medical Courses was modified by an order in G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 25.07.2017. It must be stated for the purpose of completion of narration that this Court had to intervene and direct both the Governments to follow a common pattern of priorities, as it was the same NCC Directorate that was advising both the Governments. Problems that arose in the Current Academic Year: 10. When admissions to professional medical courses for the current academic year commenced, the NCC Directorate prepared a provisional list of priorities on 19.07.2018, but in the meantime, two writ petitions came to be filed on the file of this Court in W.P.Nos.23930 and 23973 of 2018. The primary grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions was about different parameters fixed in the matter of according priorities to the NCC cadets. Actually the issue revolved around Priority II-(f). The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 17.07.2018 directing both the Governments to follow the very same Priority-II-(f) as adopted by the Government of Telangana in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 09.06.2017. 11. Thereafter the NCC Directorate prepared a revised list of priorities. In the revised list of priorities, a few persons who had secured higher priorities in the provisional list, had to go down. 12. Persons whose priorities got changed when the final list was released and the persons who clamed to have been not accorded appropriate priorities either in the provisional list or in the final list, have come up with the above writ petitions seeking appropriate reliefs. Since the facts in each of these writ petitions are different and also since the grounds on which the petitioners seek relief are different, we shall now present the facts of each case separately. W.P.No.28822 of 2018 13. The petitioner was not granted priority II-(f), which relates to participation in certain events. The events include Sailing. The petitioner produced a copy of the certificate issued by Sailing Federation of India, showing that she participated in the National Adventure Sailing Championship, 2016. W.P.No.28822 of 2018 13. The petitioner was not granted priority II-(f), which relates to participation in certain events. The events include Sailing. The petitioner produced a copy of the certificate issued by Sailing Federation of India, showing that she participated in the National Adventure Sailing Championship, 2016. Her name as a NCC cadet with her number is also mentioned in the certificate. 14. But NCC refused to recognize her participation in the National Federation Sailing Championship on the ground that she did not represent through NCC. Representation through NCC was made a must, by Note-5 inserted by way of amendment to G.O.Ms.No.75. 15. But the communications issued by NCC Directorate both before and after the amendment to the G.O. shows that if sponsorship through NCC is a must, no candidate could have secured Priority II-(f) as even according to some of the correspondence, NCC stopped sponsoring candidates. W.P.Nos.29038 and 29659/2018 16. The petitioners in both these writ petitions claim to have participated in the local Republic Day Parade in the year 2017. As per the Government Orders according priorities, the participants at the state level Republic Day parade are to be accorded Priority III- (a) But the petitioners were accorded Priority III-(c). The petitioners herein also hold ‘B’ Certificates in NCC. Therefore their claim is that they should be accorded Priority III-(a)+B. But they were accorded Priority III-(c)+B. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.29038 of 2018 was pushed to Sl.No.131, whereas according to her she is entitled to be at Sl.No.25. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.29659 of 2018 was pushed to Sl.No.81, whereas she claims to be entitled to be at least at Sl.No.30. 17. But the NCC Directorate took a stand that as per the Annual Training Directive, the petitioners who were only in the first year of training were not entitled to be sponsored for the local Republic Day Parade Camps and that since they were wrongly sent for training they could not be accorded the priority. Though at the time of hearing, only one page of the Annual Training Directive was produced before the Court, this Court directed the Assistant Solicitor General to produce the entire booklet containing the Annual Training Directive to see if the contention of the NCC Directorate was correct. Though at the time of hearing, only one page of the Annual Training Directive was produced before the Court, this Court directed the Assistant Solicitor General to produce the entire booklet containing the Annual Training Directive to see if the contention of the NCC Directorate was correct. When the entire booklet containing the Training Directive was furnished, it was found that paragraph-7 of the Directive relied upon by the NCC Directive, related only to Centrally Organised Camps, referable to Appendix-A. In Appendix-A there is no whisper about the Republic Day Parade. Therefore, the contention of the NCC Directorate that only those in the second year of Training are entitled to participate in the Republic Day Parade Camps at the State Level was found to be obviously erroneous and even misleading. W.P.No.29635 of 2018 18. The petitioners in this case were originally assigned Sl.Nos.12 and 10 respectively in a provisional priority list issued by NCC Directorate on 19-07-2018. But in the final priority list issued on 17-08-2018, their serial numbers have been changed respectively to 113 and 30. 19. The stand of the NCC Directorate is that Priority II-(f) as it stood under G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08-09-2015 underwent an amendment under G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 09-06-2017 and that this amendment was upheld by this Court by a judgment dated 17-07-2018. Before receipt of the copy of this judgment, the provisional priority list was released on 19-07-2018. After the receipt of the copy of the judgment, the final priority list was issued on 17-08-2018. 20. But the contention of the petitioner is that the decision of this Court dated 17-07-2018 was obtained by playing fraud upon this Court without producing a copy of the letter dated 22-06-2018. According to the petitioner, once all types of games are deleted, on the ground that NCC is not sponsoring candidates for games, the whole of Priority II-(f) becomes redundant and no candidate could have got Priority II-(f). But some persons have been granted Priority II-(f). W.P.No.29638 of 2018 21. There are three petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners 1 and 2 were placed at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 in the provisional priority list dated 19-07-2018. It was changed to S.Nos.90 and 140 in the final priority list dated 17-08-2018. 22. But some persons have been granted Priority II-(f). W.P.No.29638 of 2018 21. There are three petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners 1 and 2 were placed at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 in the provisional priority list dated 19-07-2018. It was changed to S.Nos.90 and 140 in the final priority list dated 17-08-2018. 22. The reason stated by NCC Directorate is that originally the petitioners 1 and 2 were granted Priority II-(f) + B. But after the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23930 and 23973 of 2018 dated 17-07-2018, the amended clause for Priority II-(f) was applied resulting in the change of priorities. 23. But the above explanation appears to be wholly perverse. The first petitioner was issued with a certificate by NCC Directorate itself, of having participated in Basket Ball. The second petitioner was issued with a certificate for having participated in Kho-Kho. 24. If NCC Directorate had stopped organizing/sponsoring candidates for sports, it is not known how these games were conducted. In any case, if the emphasis is on team event, Basket Ball is certainly a team event. Therefore, something fishy appears to have happened. W.P.No.30251 of 2018 25. The petitioners were placed at S.Nos.11 and 13 in the provisional list. It was changed to S.Nos.106 and 116 in the final list. This is also attributed to the change of Priority II-(f) and the judgment of this Court upholding the change of priority. Interim Order passed by this Court in this batch of cases: 26. In view of the glaring discrepancies found in the matter of according of priorities and in view of the conflicting positions taken by the NCC Directorate, this Court passed an interim order on 24.08.2018, which reads as follows: “1. The standing counsel for the University shall furnish a listof candidates who have been allotted seats under this quota, along with their addresses and e-mail IDs. 2. The counsel for the petitioner shall take notices to the allotted candidates by e-mail indicating the date of hearing as 27-08-2018. 3. The Registrar of the University, in order to ensure early service of notices on the selected candidates, who are now impleaded as parties, shall also serve notices to the e-mail IDs of the selected candidates that they have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition and that the matter will be taken up for hearing on 27-08-2018. 4. 3. The Registrar of the University, in order to ensure early service of notices on the selected candidates, who are now impleaded as parties, shall also serve notices to the e-mail IDs of the selected candidates that they have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition and that the matter will be taken up for hearing on 27-08-2018. 4. In the meantime, the learned Additional Solicitor General shall inform the Director General of NCC to depute a responsible Officer of Superior Rank known for impeccable integrity to go over to Hyderabad. Before such an officer, nominated by the Director General, the University shall place the records of all candidates, who applied under the NCC quota. The Officer shall scrutinize the credentials of the candidates, who applied under the NCC quota and find out whether appropriate priority had been accorded by the local Directorate and furnish such a report before this Court.” 27. But on 27.08.2018 the Head Quarters of the NCC Directorate expressed inability to complete the investigation in a time bound manner. Therefore, we directed the local NCC Directorate to accord appropriate priority to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.29038 and 29659 of 2018, since those cases were found to be open and shut cases. But on the next date of hearing, the NCC Directorate expressed inability even to do that, on the ground that their task is only to prepare a priority list and that the preparation of a final list of selected candidates for admission, by applying horizontal reservation after vertical reservation, was the responsibility of the university. 28. Therefore, we faced a roadblock, in view of the fact that if the writ petitions were allowed as prayed for, an equal number of candidates who already gained admission, will get displaced, but their identity was not known at that stage. It was also not possible to direct the universities to increase the number of seats as the Medical Council of India would not agree to the same. 29. Therefore, despite finding the grievances of the petitioners to be justified in fact and in law, this Court was helpless in view of the constraint that the highest Court of the land had imposed in the matter of admission to professional Medical Courses. Hence this Court passed another interim order on 31.08.2018. 29. Therefore, despite finding the grievances of the petitioners to be justified in fact and in law, this Court was helpless in view of the constraint that the highest Court of the land had imposed in the matter of admission to professional Medical Courses. Hence this Court passed another interim order on 31.08.2018. Paragraphs 22 to 25 of the order read as follows:- “Therefore, despite finding that at least some of the petitioners have made out a clear case for the grant of relief, we are unable to grant the reliefs that they actually want, in view of the constraints indicated in the preceding paragraphs. But, the helplessness of the court can never be the reason for the court to turn away persons who knock at its doors, especially when their grievances are well founded. While we may not be able to grant the reliefs that the petitioners want, we may be able to consider certain other types of reliefs, if the investigation that we have ordered exposes the malpractices. The learned Assistant Solicitor General produced a copy of the communication received from the Headquarters of the NCC Directorate indicating that the Deputy Director General by name Brig. Rovin has been nominated to conduct an investigation. Therefore, all that can now be done is to await the outcome of the investigation. The Officer nominated to investigate, shall take note of the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners, examine the records of the local office independently without placing too much reliance upon the ministerial staff employed therein. His investigation shall include issues such as (i) the details of games, both individual and team events, sponsored by NCC Directorate and/or recognized by NCC Directorate (ii) the credentials of the candidates who are already selected for admission under the quota reserved for NCC, (iii) the genuineness of the training undergone by the selected candidates and the genuineness of the certificates produced by them. The Officer entrusted with investigation should keep in mind the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted a C.B.I. investigation, but this court has reposed faith in an officer nominated by the Headquarters. Therefore, if the investigation does not inspire the confidence of this court, the court may have to explore other alternatives. The investigation shall be completed and a report filed on or before 10-09-2018. Therefore, if the investigation does not inspire the confidence of this court, the court may have to explore other alternatives. The investigation shall be completed and a report filed on or before 10-09-2018. Both the Universities involved in these cases shall inform the candidates who have already gained admission under the quota for NCC that their admissions will be treated as provisional and that their continuance will depend upon the outcome of the investigation relating to the genuineness of their claims for appropriate priorities. The prayer of the petitioners for a direction to the Universities to admit them is rejected. Call on 10-09-2018.” 30. Pursuant to the said order, the officer nominated by the Head Quarters of the NCC Directorate submitted a report on 16.09.2018. Unfortunately this report is a wishy-washy report though it contains findings in favour of the writ petitioners even while holding that there were no serious irregularities. In other words, the report appears to be nothing but a cover up of the illegalities, however with a recommendation to mollify the petitioners. 31. Therefore, this Court passed a further interim order dated 27.09.2018 directing the two universities concerned, viz., Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to redraw the merit list of candidates already admitted under the NCC quota, based upon the observations of the investigation officer, to enable this Court to find out the candidates who could be displaced if the writ petitions were allowed. 32. But the universities took a stand later that since the entire admission process was through web counseling based upon a software that was programmed to apply different types of reservations, both horizontal and vertical, it was not possible to redraw a merit list in respect of candidates admitted under the NCC quota alone. The learned Standing Counsel for the universities submitted that the entire computer programme had to be rerun for finding this out and that it was too late in the day to do the same. 33. Therefore, it became clear that despite the grievance of the petitioners being justified and despite the finding that the petitioners have been wronged, by the lackadaisical approach on the part of the NCC Directorate, we could not take the cases to their logical end. 33. Therefore, it became clear that despite the grievance of the petitioners being justified and despite the finding that the petitioners have been wronged, by the lackadaisical approach on the part of the NCC Directorate, we could not take the cases to their logical end. Hence, we heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to the nature of the reliefs that this Court is entitled to grant. 34. But before going into the said question, it may be necessary to look into the relevant findings of the investigation officer, even according to which, the petitioners are entitled to relief. Findings of the Investigation Officer: 35. It is a pity that though the object of ordering investigation was to find out the malpractices in the matter of according priorities, the Investigating Officer went on a tangent and submitted a report about the grievances of the writ petitioners, to see whether those grievances can be redressed. But nevertheless, the Investigating Officer has recorded certain findings which go in favour of the writ petitioners. 36. As seen from the pleadings, the grievances of the writ petitioners could be categorized broadly into two types viz.,- (i) the non-recognition of their participation in Local Republic Day Parade camps and (ii) the recognition to be accorded to games or events in which NCC cadets participated either individually or as teams, with or without sponsorship, from the NCC Directorate. 37. Insofar as the first category of cases is concerned, which relates to the non-recognition of the participation in Local Republic Day Parade camp, we have ourselves found – (i) that the NCC Directorate was refusing to recognize the participation in Local Republic Day Parade Camps, of those candidates who were in the first year of NCC training and (ii) that NCC Directorate was relying upon a Training Directive in support of their contention that only those in the second year of the training are entitled to participate in Local Republic Day Parade Camp. 38. In his report, the Investigating Officer, has come to the conclusion in paragraph-12 that cadets of first year NCC cannot participate in any game at any level, because the first year training of cadets is supposed to be carried out in institutions to orient them towards NCC. We do not know the basis on which the Investigating Officer came to the said conclusion. 39. We do not know the basis on which the Investigating Officer came to the said conclusion. 39. Despite reaching such a conclusion without any basis, the Investigating Officer has also recommended that the benefit of appropriate priority be given to candidates who attended Local Republic Day Parade Camps, irrespective of whether they were in the first year of training or not. This recommendation is on the ground that the candidates were not at fault. Therefore, it is clear that such of those writ petitioners who had actually participated in Local Republic Day Parade Camps, but who were denied the grant of appropriate priority on the basis of a Training Directive inapplicable to them, have been wrongfully deprived of the recognition that they are entitled to. 40. Insofar as the second category of cases is concerned, the same can be sub-classified into – (1) games and (2) events. These sub-categories can further be sub-divided into – (i) individual events/games and (ii) teams events/games. 41. According to the Investigating Officer, games in the NCC at the level of Headquarters Directorate General, New Delhi, comprise of games like shooting, foot ball and hockey where NCC cadets participate as a team at the National Level and there are certain games played at the National Level which were discontinued from 09-5-2017. But there are certain games conducted at the Inter-State Directorate Level only within the NCC and there are certain adventure activities for which NCC selects candidates for participation. The salient features of the findings of the Investigating Officer in this regard can be summarized as follows: (i) NCC has been sending teams for a shooting championship conducted by the National Rifle Association of India; for a foot ball championship conducted by the Foot Ball Federation of India; and for a hockey tournament conducted by Indian Hockey Federation; (ii) The team games played between the State Teams of NCC, such as shooting, foot ball, hand ball, hockey, athletics, basket ball, volley ball, kabaddi and kho-kho were discontinued from 09-5-2017; (iii) Inter-State Competitions are held for selecting a team to be sent for the shooting championship and for all State Sailing Teams; and (iv) NCC enables selected candidates to participate in certain sports and adventure activities such as para jumping, skydiving, mountaineering, mountaineering expedition, sailing, rafting/canoeing/kayaking, shooting, equestrian competitions and para sailing, but no medals are awarded to the candidates who attend these events. 42. 42. After having indicated the position with regard to the individual/ team events/sports, the Investigating Officer has also recorded certain findings with regard to the grievances of each of the writ petitioners. The recommendations made by him could be summarized in the form of a tabular column as follows:- Petitioner/s in Recommendation of Investigating Officer 1. W.P.No.29038/2018 Her Local Republic Day Parade Camp Certificate should be recognized and she could be given Priority III(a). 2. W.P.No.29659/2018 - do - 3. W.P.No.28822/2018 She is not entitled to the priority for participating in National Adventure Sailing Championship, organised by the Sailing Federation of India, as she was not sponsored by NCC. 4. W.P.No.29635/2018 The candidates participated in NCC National Games in the year 2016 and hence they cannot be made to suffer now. They are entitled to Priority II(f). 5. W.P.No.29678/2018 - do – 6. W.P.No.30251/2018 - do – 43. In the light of the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer, whose conclusion alone is extracted in a nutshell in the tabular column above, all the petitioners except perhaps the petitioner in W.P. No. 28822 of 2018 (who participated in the sailing championship), are entitled to relief. But the petitioner in W.P. No. 28822 of 2018 is also wronged since the stand taken by the NCC directorate about sports/events organized by NCC Directorate is found to be misleading. Thus it is clear that the petitioners in these writ petitions have been accorded wrong priorities, which has resulted in the candidates either not getting a seat or getting a seat under the payment category or getting a seat in BDS Course. Therefore, the petitioners are actually entitled to the reliefs that they have sought for. 44. However, the last date for admission of candidates to the first year of the MBBS Courses has already expired. The question of law as to whether this Court can grant the relief of admission of the writ petitioners at this distance of time, is still in a state of flux. 45. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 and S. Nihaal Ahamed v. Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Civil Appeal No. 8067/2015, dated 11-9-2017), the Supreme Court merely awarded compensation on the ground that admission beyond the cut-off date was not possible. 45. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 and S. Nihaal Ahamed v. Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Civil Appeal No. 8067/2015, dated 11-9-2017), the Supreme Court merely awarded compensation on the ground that admission beyond the cut-off date was not possible. But this proposition was doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017 SCC OnLine SC 66). The Court has now referred the issue to a Larger Bench. Till the Larger Bench comes to a conclusion that compensation need not be the only relief that could be granted, we think it is not possible to violate the mandate of the Supreme Court, by directing the grant of admission beyond the cut-off date. 46. Some of the learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners approached the Court much before the cut-off date and also since this Court recorded a finding even before the cut-off date that the denial of admission to the petitioners was wrongful, the petitioners can be granted relief which will relate back to the date of the interim order. Reliance was placed in this regard on a decision of the Supreme Court in Asha v. PT B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC 389 , where the Supreme Court held that in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission of candidates may be ordered even beyond the deadline, provided the conditions prescribed by the Court in the case of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 were found to be unexceptionally satisfied. Reliance was also placed on a recent order of the Supreme Court dated 09-10-2018 in SLP (Civil) No.24064/2018, where the Court permitted the admissions wrongly granted, to be cancelled. 47. But the difficulty in the cases on hand is that unless the Universities re-run the computer programme relating to the admission of candidates, it is not possible to find out the candidates who were wrongfully admitted as against the seats that should have been allotted to the writ petitioners. 47. But the difficulty in the cases on hand is that unless the Universities re-run the computer programme relating to the admission of candidates, it is not possible to find out the candidates who were wrongfully admitted as against the seats that should have been allotted to the writ petitioners. Moreover, when the issue relating to the nature of the relief that could be granted in such cases, is pending consideration before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, by virtue of the reference made in Krishna Sradha, it is not possible for us to issue a direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioners. 48. Mr. Sriramulu Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the writ petitions submitted that his client got admitted to a seat under Category-B which is a payment seat and that therefore the respondents should be directed at least to covert the seat into a Category-A seat. The difference between a Category-A seat and Category-B seat is roughly about Rs.10 lakhs per year. But the petitioners in W.P.No.29635 of 2018 in which Mr. Sriramulu Naidu is the learned counsel, were downgraded in the priority list, in view of a decision of this Court rendered on 17-7-2018. Though the learned counsel stated that an application for review of that judgment is pending, the petitioners may not be entitled to be compensated fully to the extent of the entire payment made by them, even if the review application is allowed. The fundamental principle in this regard is actus curiae neminem gravabit which means no one can be prejudiced by an act of Court. If the NCC Directorate has altered the priority list on the basis of a judgment of this Court, they cannot be directed to pay compensation on the ground that the petition for review of that judgment was later allowed. We have not even reached that stage today. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sriramulu Naidu cannot be accepted. 49. In fine, we find that the petitioners have been wrongfully denied of appropriate priorities and they are entitled to relief. The only relief that could be granted to them is to direct the erring party to compensate the petitioners monetarily. We have not even reached that stage today. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sriramulu Naidu cannot be accepted. 49. In fine, we find that the petitioners have been wrongfully denied of appropriate priorities and they are entitled to relief. The only relief that could be granted to them is to direct the erring party to compensate the petitioners monetarily. In this case, the NCC Directorate has played havoc, both in the matter of preparation of priorities and in the matter of allowing candidates to participate in Local Republic Day Parade Camp or Inter-State or National events/sports. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed directing the NCC Directorate to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to each of the writ petitioners. It is open to the NCC Directorate to initiate an in-house procedure for finding out the person who was responsible within the local NCC Directorate, for the mess created by them and to initiate action against such persons. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.