JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The matter comes up on an application (1/2019) for impleadment at the instance of one Tanisha Goyal and another application (3/2019) at the instance of Kanishka Agarwal and Karan Chandwani. 2. The case of the applicants is that having succeeded in NEET UG 2019 they had applied for admission to MBBS Course in the NRI quota in the State quota seats in Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. It has been submitted that information booklet issued by the Office of the Chairman, NEET UG Medical and Dental Admission/ Counselling Board-2019 and Principal & Controller, SMS Medical College & Attached Hospitals, Jaipur (hereafter 'the Admission Board, 2019') in respect of reservations of seats vide clause 4 (f) provided that for admission in the NRI quota seats preference would be given to NRIs, son's/ wards with ancestral background of the State of Rajasthan. These guidelines for availing the NRI quota were consonant with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Others W.P. (c) No.689/2017 decided on 22.8.2017. It has been submitted that the applicants fulfill the aforesaid parameters to be considered for admission in MBBS Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan in the NRI quota. Pursuant to their registration online for the purpose a list of eligible NRI candidates as per the documents verification on 26.6.2019 was published. Therein the applicant Tanisha Goyal was placed at serial no.18 having a State rank of 5955, the applicant Kanishka Agarwal was placed at serial no.21 with State merit of 6212 and the applicant- Karan Chandwani was placed at serial no.43 with a State merit of 7737. The petitioner on her part was placed at serial no.115 with a State merit of 12064. 3. The petitioner on her part was placed at serial no.115 with a State merit of 12064. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner then approached this Court even prior to declaration of the priority/ merit list for admission in the NRI quota and on 4.6.2019 the Vacation Judge while issuing notice on the petition, passed an ad- interim ex-parte order directing that while conducting counselling for admissions into the NRI quota seats NRI students, i.e. those who had actually studied outside India and had participated in the NEET UG Examination 2019 for admission into MBBS course in Government Medical Colleges and Private Medical Colleges, and whose parents were also NRI, be given preference over those who were claiming seats in the NRI quota solely on the basis of their sponsor being a bona fide NRI. The said ex-parte ad interim order albeit passed on 4.6.2019, oddly surfaced after 26.6.2019 when the merit/ priority list of NRI students was drawn and a revised priority/ merit list of those eligible for admission in the NRI quota was issued on 1.7.2019. And thereof the petitioner earlier at serial no.115 in the list of 26.6.2019 was placed at merit no.11 while the applicants were pushed down to merit no.37, 40 and 61 respectively from their merit of 18, 21 and 43 in the original list of 26.6.2019. It has been submitted that on coming to know of the said revised merit list dated 1.7.2019 for admission in the NRI quota, these applications for impleadment in the writ petition have been filed as also one application has been filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019. 4. Mr.Vigyan Shah and Mr.Mukesh Agarwal appearing for the applicants seeking impleadment submitted that from the facts recorded above, it is apparent that the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 has worked to the applicant's disadvantage and in the event the petition were to be allowed they will be prejudiced. Hence the applications for impleadment be allowed. 5. Mr.Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that, in the facts of the case, he does not have any objection to the applications for impleadment being allowed. 6. Consequently, the applications at the instance of Tanisha Goyal as also Kanishka Agarwal and Karan Chandwani for impleadment as party respondents in the petition, are allowed. 7. 5. Mr.Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that, in the facts of the case, he does not have any objection to the applications for impleadment being allowed. 6. Consequently, the applications at the instance of Tanisha Goyal as also Kanishka Agarwal and Karan Chandwani for impleadment as party respondents in the petition, are allowed. 7. Amended cause title be filed today itself in view of the urgency of the matter with College allotments based on the revised list dated 1.7.2019 being imminent. 8. The issue now is with regard to the application for vacation of ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019. 9. Mr.Sandeep Singh Shekhawat counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 is not listed in Court today. Yet he would have no objection to address it on merits in view of the urgency of the matter relate as it does to admissions to MBBS within the Apex Court's defined calendar. 10. Mr.Sandeep Singh Shekhawat first relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others. , (2005) 6 SCC 537 more particularly on para 131 thereof. He submitted that the intent of the Apex Court in the said paragraph was that, priority for admission to MBBS Course in the NRI quota should be given to the children of bona fide NRIs, who themselves were NRIs as the purpose was to facilitate integration of children of NRIs studying abroad into the cultural, ethos and society in India. Mr.S.S. Shekhawat then submitted that the petitioner's parents are NRIs, residing in Abu Dhabi for the last several years and in fact the petitioner herself is a NRI who passed her Senior Secondary School Examination from the Abu Dhabi Indian School, affiliated to CBSE. The Embassy of India at Abu Dhabi has issued a certificate on 20.5.2019 testifying to the petitioner's parents status as a Non Residents of India for the period from 1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019. The petitioner herself carries a NRI card issued by the competent authority. The Embassy of India at Abu Dhabi has issued a certificate on 20.5.2019 testifying to the petitioner's parents status as a Non Residents of India for the period from 1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019. The petitioner herself carries a NRI card issued by the competent authority. Mr.S.S. Shekhawat also drew the attention of the Court to the notification dated 15.6.2018 issued by the Government of Haryana, Department of Medical Education and Research where for the purpose of admission to NRI category (NRI/ PIO/ OCI/ Foreign Nationals) it has been provided that preference shall be given to actual NRI/ OCI/ PIO/ candidates who originally belonged to the State of Haryana. Mr.S. S. Shekhawat submitted that as against the petitioner the private respondents now impleaded, are residents of India and their parents do not have the NRI status. The said newly impleaded applicants are merely sponsored by NRIs who may be within the degree of relationship as provided for in the order dated 29.4.2019 issued by the State Government and the information booklet issued by the Admission Board, 2019. Mr.S.S. Shekhawat submitted that in the circumstances the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 passed by the Court directing that priority in the NRI quota to students themselves NRI, aside of their parents also being NRIs should be given over those who are only sponsored by their NRIs relatives. He submitted that the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India therefore be dismissed. 11. Mr.Vigyan Shah and Mr.Mukesh Agrawal appearing for the newly impleaded respondents submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar (supra) does not differential between the children of bonafide NRIs, and the wards (as defined) of NRIs. This is reflected in Para 131 thereof. Counsel have also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment in the case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) (supra) where the Apex Court had, albeit for the year in issue i.e. 2017, directed that the criterion set out in the case of Anshul Tomar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , (2008) 2 MPLJ 450 for admission into MBBS in the NRI quota be followed. Counsel further submitted that the information booklet issued by the Office of the Chairman, Admission Board 2019 incorporates the criterion of identification for admission in Colleges in State of Rajasthan in MBBS courses in the NRI quota as detailed in the case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) (supra). They submitted that in terms of the aforesaid criterion, there is no distinction between the students who are NRIs themselves and whose parents have status of NRI on the one hand and wards of NRI within the defined degree of relationship on the other. Counsel submitted that in terms of Clause 4 (f) of the aforesaid information booklet priority/ preference for admission in MBBS Course in the NRI quota is to be only given to NRIs with ancestral backgrounds in the State of Rajasthan, proved in the manner stated. The aforesaid condition no.4 (f) of the information booklet issued by the office of Chairman of the Admission Board, 2019 is not under challenge. There is thus no provision for giving preference/ priority to candidates who are themselves NRIs and whose parents are also indeed bonafides NRI. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 so directing cannot sustain. To do so, would be in the crosshairs of the information booklet published by the Office of the Chairman, Admission Board, 2019 on 17.6.2019. Counsel prayed that the exparte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 be vacated. 12. Heard. Considered. 13. I find no force in the submissions of Mr.S.S. Shekhawat. Nothing in the judgment of the Apex court of P.A. Inamdar (supra) entails differentiation between the candidates themselves NRIs alongwith their parents also being NRIs seeking admission to Medical Colleges in the NRI quota on the one hand and wards of bonafide NRI residents on the other. In fact the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) (supra) lays down the criterion for availing of NRI quota for admission into MBBS Courses following NEET UG. The criterion for availing of the NRI quota for admission into MBBS Course as stated in the aforesaid judgment appears to have been verbatim incorporated in the information booklet issued by the Office of the Chairman, Admission Board, 2019. The criterion for availing of the NRI quota for admission into MBBS Course as stated in the aforesaid judgment appears to have been verbatim incorporated in the information booklet issued by the Office of the Chairman, Admission Board, 2019. The criterion for admission to MBBS in the NRI quota which commended itself to the Apex Court in the case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) (supra) albeit for the year in 2017 and which has not yet been varied by the said Court, cannot by any stretch of imagination said to be perverse or illegal. The operating guidelines in the State of Rajasthan for availing the NRI quota for admission to MBBS do not distinguish between the candidates who are bona fide NRIs themselves, with their parents also so being and wards as defined of bona fide NRIs. The only preference in admission into the NRI quota seats is for NRIs with an ancestral background in the State of Rajasthan. I am also of the considered view that priority/ preference given to students themselves NRIs alongwith their parents for admission into MBBS course in the State of Haryana can be of no avail to the petitioner seeking admission to MBBS/ BDS in Medical/ Dental Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. Policy considerations of the two State Governments i.e. State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana reflected in their respective criterion for grant of MBBS admissions in the NRI quota cannot be pitted against each other and arbitrariness/ perversity ascribed to one on that count. It is well settled that in policy making a potentially better policy cannot entail declaration of another policy as arbitrary or unconstitutional more so when "another" is buttressed by a foundation in the judgment of the Apex Court as in the instant case - Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (CODEUNIK) (supra). The petitioner will have to contend herself with the guidelines for admission to MBBS in the NRI quota, as notified by the Chairman Admission Board, 2019 for admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner will have to contend herself with the guidelines for admission to MBBS in the NRI quota, as notified by the Chairman Admission Board, 2019 for admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan. In fact in the first instance the Chairman, Admission Board 2019 took the view that bonafides NRI candidates themselves whose parents were also bonafides NRIs were not entitled to any preference/ priority and a merit list of the eligible candidates entitled to admission in the NRI quota prepared on 26.6.2019 giving preference as provided to children/ ward of NRIs with ancestral connect to the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter on the strength of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 which oddly surfaced over twenty five days of its passing, the priority/ merit list for admission to MBBS/ BDS course in the NRI quota was revised on 1.7.2019. And the petitioner earlier at merit no.115 placed at merit no.11 while the private respondents correspondingly pushed down to serial no.37, 40 and 61 from their earlier merit position of 18, 21 and 43. I am of the considered view that the revision of the priority/ merit list on 1.7.2019 being contrary to guidelines for the purpose set out in the information booklet issued by Chairman, Admission Board 2019 for admission in the NRI quota on seats in Medical/ Dental Colleges in the State of Rajasthan is wholly arbitrary/ illegal and hence unsustainable. 14. Consequently, I would be inclined to allow the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019. 15. It is accordingly allowed. The ex-parte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 is vacated. 16. At this stage, Mr.S.S. Shekhawat, counsel for the petitioner stated that the merits of the petition having been comprehensively addressed in the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India and the Court having taken a view, this petition also be accordingly disposed of. 17. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated in allowing the application under Article 226 (3) for vacation of exparte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 and vacating the said order, I would also dismiss this petition. 18. 17. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated in allowing the application under Article 226 (3) for vacation of exparte ad interim order dated 4.6.2019 and vacating the said order, I would also dismiss this petition. 18. The Chairman, Admission Board 2019 is directed to proceed with admission to MBBS Colleges under the NRI quota in terms of condition no.4(f) of the information booklet issued by him on 17.6.2019 within the time frame prescribed under the calendar for admissions in issue. 19. Petition stands dismissed accordingly.