JUDGMENT : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. Since pleadings are complete, by consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner before us is an Indian citizen. He belongs to the "Dhangar" NT-2 category. The petitioner is in receipt of caste certificate and a caste validity certificate certifying him as belonging to the NT-2 category. 3. The petitioner appeared for the National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test-2019 (for short, "the NEET-2019). The petitioner appeared for this test as he was interested in seeking admission to the Health Science Courses. The results of this test were declared on 5th June, 2019. The petitioner qualified NEET examination by obtaining 477 marks out of 720 marks. The NEET All India Rank of the petitioner is 63836 and that is evident from Exhibit 'C'. 4. There is a Common Admission Process carried out by the State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra in terms of a statute in the field. That statute is the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 (for short, "Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015"). 5. The respondents to this petition are the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell, Admission Regulatory Authority and two Medical Colleges. Respondent No.4 is operating from Solapur and respondent No.5 is a functioning Medical Sciences and Research Center operating from the Vidarbha region, namely, at Nagpur. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the two students who have been admitted respectively at the respondent Nos.4 and 5- Colleges, but now respondent No.7 gave up the admission and instead, respondent No.8 and thereafter respondent No.9 have been admitted in this college. 6. The petitioner says that a State-wise merit list has been drawn up of eligible candidates. That was drawn up on 12th July, 2019. After it was drawn up and prepared, the petitioner's ranking was 5598. The petitioner says that he was not allotted any college in any of the Centralised Admission Process (for short, "CAP") rounds. There is a mop-up round conducted by the second respondent-the Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell, in which as well the petitioner could not be accommodated. Thereafter there were institutional rounds and a notice for such rounds was duly published by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'F' to the petition, has a bearing on the issue raised in this writ petition. Therefore, we reproduce it. Thereafter there were institutional rounds and a notice for such rounds was duly published by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'F' to the petition, has a bearing on the issue raised in this writ petition. Therefore, we reproduce it. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA STATE COMMON ENTRANCE TEST CELL No.MED-1019/CR.No.95/NEET-UG 2019/Notice No.30/2019/2427 Date: 04/09/2019 NOTICE NO. 30 NEET-UG-2019 Revised Schedule for MoP UP Round for MBBS/BDS Ref:- (1) State CET Cell, Mumbai Notice No. 6, dated 28/06/2019 (2) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Order dated 05/08/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6135/2019 (Arising out of the SLP (c) No. 16809/2019) (3) State CET Cell, Mumbai Notice No. 27, dated 14/08/2019 (4) Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, letter No. V. 11025/35/2012-MEP, Dated 22 August, 2019. The admission process of MBBS/BDS Course was postponed as per State CET Cell Notice No. 27, dated 14/08/2019 in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, Order dated 05/08/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6135/2019 (Arising out of the SLP (c) No. 16809/2019). In view of the order from Hon’ble supreme Court, some of the ST Category Candidates have received Caste Validity Certificate. Such candidates are included in the current selection list as ST category candidates. Hence there is revision of the seat allotment in this MoP UP round as compared to 2nd round in ST Category. The admission process for MBBS/BDS Course will continue as per schedule given below: Table-I-Schedule for mop up Round for MBBS/BDS Course Sr.No. Activity Dates 1 Publication of ST category candidates made eligible as per Hon’ble Court order 04/09/2019 2 Publication of MoP UP Round 04/09/2019 3 Joining of MoP UP Round 05/09/2019 to 08/09/2019 4 Last date for filling Status Retention form 08/09/2019 upto 5.00 pm Table-II-Schedule for Institutional Level Round only for Private Unaided Medical Colleges Sr.No. Activity Dates 1. Publication of Vacancy position and Publication of list of Eligible Candidates (who have non joining status as on 08/09/2019) 08/09/2019 after 10.00 pm 2. The eligible desirous candidate to apply in person to respective college in prescribe format 09/09/2019 to 10/09/2019 upto 3.00 pm 3. Publication Merit list, Selection List and Wait List at notice board and the web site of respective Colleges 10/09/2019 after 06.00 pm 4. Joining of selected candidates as per 1st Selection List dated 10/09/2019 with original documents and requisite fees. Publication Merit list, Selection List and Wait List at notice board and the web site of respective Colleges 10/09/2019 after 06.00 pm 4. Joining of selected candidates as per 1st Selection List dated 10/09/2019 with original documents and requisite fees. 11/09/2019 upto 03.00 pm 5. Publication of list of joined candidates and vacancy after 1st Selection List 11/09/2019 at 05.00 pm 6. Publication of 2nd selection list from the waitlised candidates on notice board and web site of respective Colleges 11/09/2019 at 06.00 pm 7. Joining of selected candidates as per 2nd Selection List dated 11/09/2019 with original documents and requisite fees. 12/09/2019 upto 03.00 pm 8. Filing of Residual Vacancy with the prior permission of Competent Authority 12/09/2019 upto 6.00 pm 9. Cut Off date for MBBS Course 12/09/2019 Table-III-Schedule for Institutional Level Round only for Private Unaided Dental Colleges Sr.No. Activity Dates 1. Publication of Vacancy position and Publication of list of Eligible Candidates (who have non joining status as on 08/09/2019) 08/09/2019 after 10.00 pm 2. The eligible desirous candidate to apply in person to respective college in prescribe format 09/09/2019 to 12/09/2019 upto 5.00 pm 3. Publication Merit list, Selection List and Wait List at notice board and the web site of respective Colleges 12/09/2019 after 06.00 pm 4. Joining of selected candidates as per 1st Selection List dated 12/09/2019 with original documents and requisite fees. 13/09/2019 to 14/09/2019 upto 02.00 pm 5. Publication of list of joined candidates and vacancy after 1st Selection List 14/09/2019 at 04.00 pm 6. Publication of 2nd selection list from the waitlised candidates on notice board and web site of respective Colleges 14/09/2019 at 05.00 pm 7. Joining of selected candidates as per 2nd Selection List dated 14/09/2019 with original documents and requisite fees. 15/09/2019 upto 03.00 pm 8. Filling of Residual Vacancy with the prior permission of Competent Authority 15/09/2019 upto 6.00 pm 9. Cut Off date for BDS Course 15/09/2019 Sd/ (A.E.Rayate) IAS Commissioner & Competent Authority State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai" 7. Then the petitioner refers to another notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'G' to the petition (Pages 31, 32 of the paper-book). That is known as a notice to conduct mop up round-II and prescribes a cut-off date for resignation/cancellation. This notice concerns itself only with Government/Government Aided/Corporation Medical and Dental Colleges. Then the petitioner refers to another notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'G' to the petition (Pages 31, 32 of the paper-book). That is known as a notice to conduct mop up round-II and prescribes a cut-off date for resignation/cancellation. This notice concerns itself only with Government/Government Aided/Corporation Medical and Dental Colleges. It is common ground that the petitioner, a candidate from NT-2 category, was not allotted a seat in a medical college, but offered a seat in the Government Dental College, Mumbai for the BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) course. 8. At Exhibit 'I' is another notice which has been published and this Notice No.34 sets out the procedure of Institutional Rounds for MBBS course at Private Unaided/Minority Medical Colleges covered by the Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 2015. This notice, copy of which is at pages 34 and 35 of the paper-book, reads thus :- “GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA STATE COMMON ENTRANCE TEST CELL No.MED-1019/C.R.No.95/NEET-UG 2019/Insti. Level Round./ Notice No. 34/2255 Date: 08/09/2019 NOTICE NO. 34 NEET-UG-2019 Procedure of Institutional Round for MBBS course at Private Unaided/Minority Medical Colleges As per NEET UG 2019 notice no 30, dated 04/09/2019 Institutional level round for Private Unaided/Minority Medical college is scheduled from 08/09/2019 to 12/09/2019. 1. Institutional Round is only for Private Unaided/Minority Medical colleges and for seats remaining vacant after MOP UP-I round. 2. All the candidates having admitted status in Government/Corporation/Private for MBBS course only as on before 08.09.2019 are NOT ELIGIBLE for institutional round. 3. The list of eligible candidates for the institutional round will be published on the website on 08.09.2019 as per schedule. 4. For institutional round eligible and interested candidates should approach to the Dean/Principal of the respective colleges within prescribed time and submit application in person. Such type of applications should not be submitted in the State CET Cell in person or email. Such type of applications submitted in State CET Cell will not be considered valid for any institutional level admission process. 5. At the time of admission during institutional round a candidate should submit all his original documents along with requisite fees in the form of DD/Cheque during prescribed time limit. 6. It is the sole responsibility of the candidate to submit all his original documents and requisite fees at the time of admission. 7. 5. At the time of admission during institutional round a candidate should submit all his original documents along with requisite fees in the form of DD/Cheque during prescribed time limit. 6. It is the sole responsibility of the candidate to submit all his original documents and requisite fees at the time of admission. 7. All those candidates selected and joined during 1st round, 2nd round and MOP UP-I round in Government/Corporation/Government Aided/Private Unaided/Minority Medical Colleges are NOT ELIGIBLE to participate institutional level round. 8. All the candidates already admitted for BDS/BAMS/BHMS/BUMS courses are also eligible for institutional level round for MBBS course. 9. Candidate who have joined their allotted seat of All India Quota/Central University of Round-2 and candidates who have joined a seat in Deemed Universities in Round-2 will not be eligible to participate in Institutional round of counselling as per Notice No. U11011/20/2019/36-MEC published by Directorate General Health of Services, New Delhi on 26/07/2019. sd/- (A.E.Rayate) IAS Commissioner & Competent Authority State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai" 9. The petitioner says that he did not give up his dream of becoming a doctor in allopathic medical faculties. In other words, he desired to pursue the dream of a degree course in medicine. Therefore, he went on applying in the rounds and he noticed that respondent Nos.4 and 5-colleges did have a seat that was lying vacant. In the institutional round for private unaided/minority medical college, the petitioner was hopeful of being accommodated in the college at Solapur or in the college in Vidarbha. 10. After our attention is invited by the petitioner to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2016 (for short, "the 2016 Rules"), the petitioner refers to the Information Brochure published by the Common Entrance Test Cell. The petitioner then states that respondent Nos.4 and 5- Colleges have completed the institutional round and published a select list. The Selection Committee of the fourth respondent-college allotted a seat to Swapnil Bhanudas Chougule from NT-2 category. This is on the basis that he secured 467 marks in the regional quota. The name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No.6 in the wait list despite having scored more marks than said Swapnil Chougule. The Selection Committee of the fourth respondent-college allotted a seat to Swapnil Bhanudas Chougule from NT-2 category. This is on the basis that he secured 467 marks in the regional quota. The name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No.6 in the wait list despite having scored more marks than said Swapnil Chougule. Similar position emerges insofar as the fifth respondent-college, wherein, one Rohit Babaji Gingine, a candidate of NT-2 category, who is ranked at Sr.No.83405 in the All India rank, is admitted. The petitioner, though much higher in that rank, is shown as a wait list candidate. This Rohit B. Gingine did not confirm his admission. The petitioner expected that he would be accommodated against the vacancy, which was filled in by refusal of Rohit B. Gingine. The next candidate should have been offered the seat considering the inter-se merit, but the seat was handed over to one Pravin Pandharinath Kale, again from Vidarbha region and he ranks much below the petitioner in the merit list. Exhibits 'O', 'R' and 'S' are the copies of the wait list. 11. The writ petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the fact that admissions have not gone strictly by the interse merit, but by some quota evolved so as to accommodate non deserving NT-2 candidates in the vacant seats. 12. The essential complaint is that the State of Maharashtra has been divided on the basis of the Development Boards enshrined in Article 371 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Regional Development Boards set up within the meaning of Article 371 denote the regions, and the region-wise division of the State is Vidarbha, Marathwada and rest of Maharashtra. Thus, the State is divided into these three regions. The argument then is that this NT-2 category seat is lying vacant even after all CAP rounds, hence at the institutional level round, it should not be filled in by applying any criteria other than position and ranks in the inter-se merit list. If the State merit list has been drawn up and depicting the inter-se merit, then, that must be taken into consideration for filling up these vacant seats in institutional round. 13. If the State merit list has been drawn up and depicting the inter-se merit, then, that must be taken into consideration for filling up these vacant seats in institutional round. 13. The argument is that instead of such a course, what has been done is that the allocation and distribution of seats during the CAP round has been continued and seats have been filled up by admitting less meritorious students from the regions concerned. If the petitioner is a student of Marathwada region and is not successful in obtaining a reserved seat from Marathwada region that does not mean that he cannot be considered for a vacant seat and particularly of that category in other regions. On account of this position and rank in the merit list, which is higher than that of the admitted candidate, the petitioner could have been either be admitted by respondent No.4 and/or respondent No.5-Colleges. That having not been done, this writ petition. 14. The petitioner has annexed to this writ petition several documents. Primary amongst them being the set of rules and thereafter the details obtained after a meeting with the authorities and e-mail communications. 15. The position today is that though the petitioner has been admitted to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course at Government Dental College, Mumbai, he has taken that seat under protest. He has moved this petition essentially seeking the following two reliefs :- "A. To quash the provisional first selection list in 85% merit quota for institutional level round (vacant seat-70% regional NT-2) dated 10.09.2019 published by the Selection Committee headed by the Dean, Ashwini Rural Medical College, Hospital, and Research Centre, Solapur (Exhibit "N"), by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. B. To quash the provisional list of selected candidates during institutional round against vacant seats (85% state quota after MOP-Up round of DMER for MBBS course (2019-2020) published by the Admission Committee headed by the Dean, N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Science, Nagpur (Exhibit "Q") by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be" 16. As a corollary, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos.2 and 4 to grant him admission to MBBS course against vacant NT-2 category seat in institutional round for the academic year 2019-2020. If that is not possible, then respondent No.5 be directed to accommodate him. As a corollary, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos.2 and 4 to grant him admission to MBBS course against vacant NT-2 category seat in institutional round for the academic year 2019-2020. If that is not possible, then respondent No.5 be directed to accommodate him. This can only be done by cancellation of admissions already granted to the added respondents. 17. The petitioner, after having filed this petition in this Court, served a copy thereof on the contesting respondents. After this writ petition was filed on 13th September, 2019, it was placed before us on 16th September, 2019. We passed the following order on that date. "1. Heard. 2. Leave to amend. 3. Mr Talekar says that the respondent No.7 has not joined the college (respondent No.5), instead Pravin Pandharinath Kale has stepped in his place. We allow the impleadment of Mr Pravin Pandharinath Kamble. 4. The joinder and consequential amendments be carried out during the course of the day tomorrow, 17th September 2019. 5. We would request the Advocates appearing for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to inform the respondent No.6 and the newly added respondent No.8 that their admissions to the colleges concerned are under scrutiny and challenge in this petition and therefore they must make arrangements for their appearance through Advocates or in person on the next date. 6. We post the writ petition 'for admission' on 24th September 2019." 18. Pursuant to that order, the petition was amended and after its amendment, it was placed on 24th September, 2019. On that date, we heard together with writ petition, a Civil Application (Interim Application No.1 of 2019) moved by Rutuja Sanjay Paturde. She has secured admission in NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre and Lata Mangeshkar Hospital-respondent No.5 and desires to protect it against the attack from the petitioner. 19. On that date, therefore, the following order came to be passed. "1. She has secured admission in NKP Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre and Lata Mangeshkar Hospital-respondent No.5 and desires to protect it against the attack from the petitioner. 19. On that date, therefore, the following order came to be passed. "1. After these matters were argued at length and we are informed by both, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective institutions-respondent Nos.4 and 5 that they would like this Court to be satisfied with regard to compliance by the institutions with all the rules of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2016 and particularly, the rule preceding Rule 16 and subsequent thereto so that the admissions granted at the level, stated to be Regional, are found in order or otherwise. 2. In such a controversy, we do not want any intervention application at the behest of those students, who are either admitted or have lost their opportunity. We would like Mr.Rodrigues appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 to produce the original records so that the Court can be shown the compliance with the rules. 3. We post these matters, at the request of Mr.Rodrigues, at 3.00 p.m. on 30th September, 2019." 20. The writ petition was then placed on 30th September, 2019. It was heard on that date and the following order was passed noting the core issues. "1. We have heard both sides in this matter. 2. The core issue is whether the petitioner, who says that he belongs to NT-2 category and ranked at serial number 1 coming from Marathwada region to seek admission against a vacant seat in institutional round, can be admitted/accommodated simply because in the vacancy position shown at pages 36 and 37 of the paper book, there is no college in Marathwada region with a vacant NT-2 seat. He says that at serial number 6 college, namely, M.M.Patel Public Charitable Trust's Ashwin Rural Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre in District Solapur and at serial number 14 college, namely, N.K.P.Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur are the only two colleges where NT-2 seats are vacant. There are two seats, one in Solapur and other in Nagpur. The petitioner is at serial number 1 in order of merit. There are two seats, one in Solapur and other in Nagpur. The petitioner is at serial number 1 in order of merit. The petitioner states that the rest of the Maharashtra seat, which the Solapur college is purporting to have filled in, ought to be offered to the meritorious NT-2 category student simply because in Marathwada he does not have any seat to opt for. He being meritorious, he should be offered this seat over and above the admitted students. 3. It is apparent from the list provided to us by both colleges that the M.M.Patel Public Charitable Trust's college has admitted a student, namely, Swapnil B. Chaugule. He is shown as a candidate selected from NT-2 category from the rest of Marathwada region. This college refused to admit the petitioner because he is from NT-2 category, but from Marathwada region. 4. We are asking the competent authority to resolve this issue and particularly in the interest of a meritorious student of the same category coming from Maharashtra, who cannot get admission though listed at serial number 1, in any of the vacant seats meant for that category in Vidarbha and rest of the Maharashtra. Is this the correct understanding of the rule or as put at a higher pedestal by Mr.Talekar, that the subject rule, which is the rule applicable [Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2016], devises all that has been done by the two institutes and the competent authority and the seats would have to be filled based on the inter-se merit of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). 5. We grant final opportunity to the competent authority to clarify this position. We place the matter for passing final orders on 4th October, 2019." 21. After that, we had the benefit of the presence of Mr.Vijay Thorat, who appeared for respondent Nos.4 and 6 and Mr.Joel Carlos, who appeared for respondent No.5. Mr.Rui Rodrigues appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned AGP appeared for the State. Mr.Sinha appeared for respondent No.9 alongwith Ms.Mugdha Chandurkar. 22. Thereafter, on 7th October, 2019, when this matter was heard fully, the Court realised that the petitioner is arguing based on his residence in Marathwada region. Mr.Rui Rodrigues appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned AGP appeared for the State. Mr.Sinha appeared for respondent No.9 alongwith Ms.Mugdha Chandurkar. 22. Thereafter, on 7th October, 2019, when this matter was heard fully, the Court realised that the petitioner is arguing based on his residence in Marathwada region. He submitted that he is entitled to a seat which is vacant in colleges which fall in rest of Maharashtra and Vidarbha region. The admission to the vacant seat cannot be restricted to students from Vidarbha or rest of Maharashtra in the respective regions. The argument was, irrespective of the residence, if the seat has fallen vacant on account of all the rounds prior to institutional round, then, in institutional round, the process of filling up of such vacant seat must follow the mandate of Rule 16. In other words, Rule 16 would be the governing rule and institutional rounds are not on par with the prior rounds of admission. The seat has to be filled in strictly on merit or at least inter-se merit of NT-2 category students. 23. Mr.Talekar appearing on behalf of the petitioner, consistent with the stand of the petitioner noted above, contended before us that we should not be influenced by the regional allocation and distribution of seats when it comes to the institutional round. The institutional round is an altogether distinct round. The institutional round must follow Rule 16 and if that rule is perused carefully and minutely, it would reveal that there is no scope for then going back to a region-wise allocation and distribution of seats. The CAP round and the institutional round are two distinct and defined concepts. In the CAP round, all prior rules would govern the whole process. The institutional round is after the conclusion of CAP round and to fill up the vacant seats. To that process, there is no warrant for applying the prior stages or phases of admission. Thus, the admission process may continue, but this is not a continuation of the prior rounds and cannot be understood in that sense. This is only to fill up the vacant seats and the institutions are granted that authority. Mr.Talekar would submit that in the instant case we are not concerned with all vacant seats, but the vacant seats of NT-2 category. This is only to fill up the vacant seats and the institutions are granted that authority. Mr.Talekar would submit that in the instant case we are not concerned with all vacant seats, but the vacant seats of NT-2 category. The collegewise position will show that in the college at Solapur and at Nagpur, there are vacant seats and reserved for NT-2 category. The inter-se merit of NT-2 category students shows that the seat should be offered to the petitioner and only on his refusal, the others can be admitted. The writ petitioner has been denied the admission on the specious plea that he does not belong to Vidarbha region or rest of Maharashtra region and he belongs to Marathwada region and he will not be able to compete with vacant NT-2 category students although meritorious. 24. Mr.Talekar submits that there is something obnoxious in such a construction of the rules and the concerned process. Our attention has been invited to pages 29, 33 and 36 of the paperbook by Mr.Talekar to submit that the seats were transferred to the institutions. It is not just the nomenclature but the character of the seats. That is lost after all CAP rounds are over. Now, the institutional level round has to be held for filling up the vacant seats. In that round, there is no warrant for introducing the regional criteria or region-wise distribution. Article 371 of the Constitution of India is not applicable to this process. That is of admission to Medical College which is distinctly understood in the Constitution itself (See Schedule VII, List-I, Entries 63 to 66 and Entries 25 and 26 of List III of the Constitution). In other words, Article 371, even if assumed to be applicable, still Clause 3 thereof cannot be overlooked. Medical education is not referred therein. Hence, merit alone should govern the process. Our attention was invited to the Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015, particularly Sections 4 and 10(7) thereof. Our attention is invited to all the rules preceding Rule 16 to contend that if this rule is read as suggested by the respondents, that would mean doing violence to its plain language. The plain language of the rule does not merit any other construction or interpretation than the one suggested by the petitioner. 25. Our attention is invited to all the rules preceding Rule 16 to contend that if this rule is read as suggested by the respondents, that would mean doing violence to its plain language. The plain language of the rule does not merit any other construction or interpretation than the one suggested by the petitioner. 25. In support of his argument, Mr.Talekar, relying on the Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 2015 and the 2016 Rules, invited our attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in the matter of Asha Vs. PT.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 389 . 26. On the other hand, we had the benefit of the arguments canvassed by Mr.Rodrigues and Mr.Patwardhan for the authorities and Mr.Thorat and Mr. Carlos for the respective colleges. Ms.Mughdha Chandurkar also addressed us on behalf of Rutuja Sanjay Paturde-the intervener. 27. Before referring to the arguments of the statutory authorities, it would be better to refer to the stand of the admitted students. 28. Mr.V.M.Thorat appearing on behalf of one of the admitted student, who has been admitted against the regional seat, which had fallen vacant in the college at Solapur (rest of Maharashtra category, urged that the petitioner has not challenged either the provisions of the Act or the 2016 Rules. Mr.Thorat has submitted that the rules and the brochure are consistent. It is the mandate of the rule that the allocation and distribution of seats, regionwise has to be consistently followed and borne in mind. The underlying identity and character of the seat, therefore, is not lost even when the seat has fallen vacant and could not be filled up in rounds prior to institutional round. The vacant seat, therefore, has to be allotted as per the merit-wise position, but to the candidates from the respective regions. There is no other manner of construing the rules. In any event, the argument is that the institutional round is another or at best a extended round. The nomenclature "institutional round" does not alter this position. There is a common/combined list for all regions. Now, the process has therefore been concluded in accordance therewith. Mr.Thorat countered all arguments of Mr.Talekar by pointing out that there is no question of a separate rest of Maharashtra or Vidarbha list. That cannot be prepared or operated. The nomenclature "institutional round" does not alter this position. There is a common/combined list for all regions. Now, the process has therefore been concluded in accordance therewith. Mr.Thorat countered all arguments of Mr.Talekar by pointing out that there is no question of a separate rest of Maharashtra or Vidarbha list. That cannot be prepared or operated. The attempt is not to prepare or draw up a separate merit list but to follow the allocation and distribution of seats already made and imposed. 29. In addition, Mr.Thorat has handed over to us a written note of his submissions. That follows his essential line of argument. 30. The arguments of Mr.Thorat are more or less adopted by Mr.Carlos and Ms.Chandurkar. They would submit that the State has not committed any error, much less acted perversely in admitting the regional students in respective regional colleges. That subserves the larger interest of the State and also maintains consistency in the admission process is their contention. 31. Mr.Patwardhan appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Admission Regulatory Authority would submit that we must read the 2016 Rules as also the Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015 together and harmoniously. Even all the rules in the 2016 Rules will have to be read together and harmoniously. There is no scope for singling out Rule 16 and reading it out of context. The 2016 Rules follow a pattern. The pattern has already been set out and is in place. For all these years, that pattern is not questioned nor are the rules challenged by anybody. Our attention is invited to the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the state-wise distribution of seats. Mr.Patwardhan submits that consistent with the mandate of Article 371 of the Constitution of India, the State of Maharashtra is divided into three regions. For these three regions, Development Boards have been set up and established by the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra. Therefore to achieve the regional development, the allocation and distribution of seats has been done. That is to ensure sufficient numbers of doctors in these regions. The State of Maharashtra has boundaries adjoining the States of Karnataka and Telangana. The object is to ensure that there is no regional imbalance or there is regional balance. According to him, therefore, there is no question of the nomenclature or character undergoing a change as contended before us. That is maintained and must be recognised throughout. The State of Maharashtra has boundaries adjoining the States of Karnataka and Telangana. The object is to ensure that there is no regional imbalance or there is regional balance. According to him, therefore, there is no question of the nomenclature or character undergoing a change as contended before us. That is maintained and must be recognised throughout. Once the position is understood in these terms, then, there is nothing erroneous, illegal and perverse, much less unconstitutional about the whole process of admission in the institutional round. The State has neither deviated or departed from the constitutional mandate nor has ignored or brushed aside the merit. For these reasons, it is submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 32. For properly appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015. Prior thereto, we must also make a reference to the Maharashtra Act No.XXX of 2006, which is titled as the Maharashtra Private Professional Educational Institutions (Reservation of Seats for Admission for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006. Section 2 in the said Act defines the term "Private Professional Educational Institution" in clause (i) and "Professional Course" in clause (j). The crucial definition is of "Reserved Category" and that is to be found in clause (l). 33. Thereafter, Section 4 of this Act says that in every Aided Private Professional Educational Institutions, seats equal to fifty per cent of the Sanctioned Intake of each Professional Course shall be reserved for candidates belonging to the Reserved Category. Thus, this Reserved Category is identified and seats are reserved in every Aided Private Professional Educational Institutions and equally by Section 5, there is reservation of these seats in every Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions. 34. The NT-2 category is admittedly one such category for which the seats are reserved. 35. It is common ground, therefore, that there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about providing reservations even in the Medical Colleges for NT-2 category candidates. We are concerned in this writ petition only with this category. Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015 is an Act to provide for regulation of admissions and fees by Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions in the State of Maharashtra and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The definitions are contained in Section 2 of the Act. We are concerned in this writ petition only with this category. Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015 is an Act to provide for regulation of admissions and fees by Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions in the State of Maharashtra and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The definitions are contained in Section 2 of the Act. The following definitions are crucial and relevant for our purpose. Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015 is an Act to provide for regulation of admissions and fees by Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions in the State of Maharashtra and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The definitions are contained in Section 2 of the Act. The following definitions are crucial and relevant for our purpose. "2(a) "Admissions Regulating Authority" means the Authority constituted under section 7 for regulating the admissions in Unaided Private professional Educational Institutions and conducting CETs; 2(b) "appropriate authority" means the authorities declared by the State or Central Government which approve and regulate the professional courses or educational disciplines; 2(c) "Centralized Admission Process (CAP)" means the centralized process of admission carried out by the competent authority through single window system in a transparent manner for admitting the students for various professional courses in educational institutions; 2(d) "Common Entrance Test (CET)" means the entrance test conducted for determination of merit of the candidates by Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for the purpose of admission to professional education courses through a single window system; 2(e) "Competent Authority" means the Commissioner of State CET appointed by the Government under section 10, for conducting CET through CAP for the admissions into Private professional Educational Institutions; 2(l) "management" means the managing committee or the governing body, by whatever name called, of the Private Professional Educational Institution to which the affairs of such Institution are entrusted and where such affairs are entrusted to any person, by whatever name or designation called, includes such person; 2(p) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act; 2(q) "Private Professional Educational Institution" means any college, school, institute, institution or other body, by whatever name called, conducting any professional course or courses approved or recognized by the appropriate authority and affiliated to any university, but shall not include, - (i) any such institution established, maintained or administered by the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority; (ii) institution declared to be a deemed university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; or (iii) a university to which the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Establishment and Maintenance of Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 are applicable; 2(t) "regulations" means the regulations framed by the Regulating Authorities; 2(u) "Regulating Authority" means the Admissions Regulating Authority under section 7 or the Fees Regulating Authority under section 11, as the case may be; 2(x) "unaided institution" means private Professional Educational Institution, which is not receiving aid or grant-in-aid from the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority." 36. The survey of these definitions leaves us in no manner of doubt that this Act is specifically enacted so that there is a regulation of admissions and fees in Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions across the State. Chapter II of the Act is titled as "Regulation of Admissions" and Section 3 thereof says that the eligibility conditions and requirements for admission to a professional course at any Private Professional Educational Institution shall be such as may be notified by the Government from time to time, but shall not be less than those stipulated by the appropriate authority. No student shall be admitted to a Private Professional Educational Institution unless the student possesses such educational or equivalent qualification as may be notified. The unaided institution shall admit students through a process as may be prescribed. 37. The two words, "notified" and "prescribed" have therefore to be understood accordingly. The word "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015 and the word "notified" means the notifications issued by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time in exercise of its executive powers conferred by the Constitution of India. Section 4 of this Act reads as under : "4. The admissions to seats for professional course in every unaided institution shall be carried out in the following manner :- (a) admission to seats in a Private Professional Educational Institution excluding institutional quota declared by Government from time to time, shall be made on the basis of merit by following the procedure of Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted in the manner, as may be prescribed by rules : Provided that, the admission to institutional quota shall be on the basis of merit and after following the procedure specified by the appropriate authority: Provided further that, the State Government may by order issued from time to time exempt any professional courses, from requirement of the Common Entrance Test (CET) thereto. (b) admissions to such institution shall be carried out by the competent authority through the Centralized Admission Process on the basis of Common Entrance Test (CET) and Centralized Admission Process (CAP); (c) the Competent Authority shall supervise and guide the entire Centralized Admission Process in such manner as it may specify with a view to ensuring that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and non-exploitative." 38. A perusal of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 4 leaves us in no manner of doubt that admission to seats in Private Professional Educational Institution excluding institutional quota declared by Government from time to time, shall be made on the basis of merit by following the procedure of Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted in the manner, as may be prescribed by rules. The proviso clause (a) to Section 4 further clarifies that the admission to the institutional quota shall be on the basis of merit and after following the procedure specified by the appropriate authority. There is a power to exempt and conferred in the State Government, but which need not detain us. By clause (b) to Section 4, admissions to such institution shall be carried out by the competent authority through the Centralized Admission Process on the basis of Common Entrance Test (for short, "CET") and Centralized Admission Process (CAP). Any admission made in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be void if not following the mandate of Section 5. We, therefore, must be mindful of the distinction made or the attempt of the petitioner before us. True it is that admission to seats in a Private Professional Educational Institution excluding institutional quota declared by Government from time to time, shall be made on the basis of merit by following the procedure of CET conducted in the manner, as may be prescribed by rules, still, the admission to the institutional quota shall be on the basis of merit and after following the procedure specified by the appropriate authority. Thus, the admission to seats in a Private Professional Educational Institution excluding institutional quota shall be made on the basis of merit by following the procedure of CET conducted in the manner, prescribed by rules. The admission to institutional quota shall be on the basis of merit and after following the procedure specified by the appropriate authority. However, clause (a) is not the only clause appearing in Section 4. By clause (b), admissions to such institution shall be carried out by the competent authority through the CAP on the basis of CET and CAP. The competent authority shall supervise and guide the entire CAP in such manner as it may specify with a view to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and non-exploitative. By clause (b), admissions to such institution shall be carried out by the competent authority through the CAP on the basis of CET and CAP. The competent authority shall supervise and guide the entire CAP in such manner as it may specify with a view to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit-based and non-exploitative. The words "institutional quota" and "admission to institutional quota" are not advisedly defined in this Act. Pertinently, the phrases "Institutional Quota" and "Institutional Round" do not carry and convey the same meaning. However, what is evident from Section 4 is that there are certain rules, which have to be put in place to govern the admission process. Section 10 after the preceding sections and titled as "State Common Entrance Test Cell and its functions" sets out, inter alia, that admission to every seat excluding institutional quota shall be made on the basis of merit secured at the CET followed by CAP of the State, subject to the reservation policy of the State. Now, there is a specific power conferred by this Act itself to make rules. That power is found in Section 23. There is a power given by the Act itself and conferred in the State to issue directions by Section 22. A combined reading of these provisions, therefore, leaves us in no manner of doubt that the admissions and fees to Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions is governed by this Statute. Then we have the 2016 Rules in place. Therein we have a set of definitions. The definitions of the following terms and words are crucial. "2. A combined reading of these provisions, therefore, leaves us in no manner of doubt that the admissions and fees to Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions is governed by this Statute. Then we have the 2016 Rules in place. Therein we have a set of definitions. The definitions of the following terms and words are crucial. "2. Definitions.- (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "Act" means the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 (Mah.XXVIII of 2015); (b) "Admission Reporting Institution" means an institution where the Candidate shall report for confirmation for admission by submission of documents and payment of fees; (c) "Application Form" means the prescribed form to be filled up online or offline by the candidate for admission to the Courses as defined in clause (e); (d) "CAP Seats" means the seats filled in through the Centralized process of admission carried out by the Competent Authority; (e) "Courses" means the Undergraduate Medical Courses or Undergraduate Dental Courses, as the case may be, conducted in the State as per the approval of the MCI and DCI and affiliated to MUHS; (f) "Document Verification Centre" means the city or town declared by the competent authority where the document verification is to be conducted: (g) "DCI" means the Dental Council of India constituted under the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948); (h) "Eligible Candidates" means the candidates who are eligible for different professional courses as notified by the Government, from time to time, under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act; (i) "HSC" means the Higher Secondary School Certificate (Standard XII) examination conducted by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (Mah. XLI of 1965) or its equivalent certificate awarded by a recognised Board; (j) "Institutional Quota" means seats available for admission to eligible Candidates at Institution level as declared by the Government or appropriate authority from time to time; (k) "inter-se merit" means the order of merit in respect of various classes or category of Candidates; (l) "Minority Quota" means the seats earmarked for the Minority Community students from within the State of Maharashtra, belonging to the Minority Community to which the institution belongs; (m) "MUHS" means the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (Mah. X of 1999); (n) "MCI" means the Medical Council of India constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956); (o) "National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test" or "NEET" means the examination conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi for admission to under graduate Medical and Dental Courses; (p) "Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) means a candidate or a person registered as an Overseas Citizen of India as declared by the Central Government under section 7A of the Citizenship Act 1955, and includes Persons of Indian Origin (PIO). Explanation, - For the purposes of this clause, all the existing Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) card-holders registered under Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs No.F.No.26011/04/98-F.I. dated 19th August 2002 and shall now be deemed to be Overseas Citizens of India, (OCI) card holders by virtue of Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, No.25024/9/2014-F.I. dated 9th January, 2015; (q) "Qualifying Examination" means the Higher Secondary Certificate (12th Standard) or equivalent examination, from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra with English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botany and Zoology) at the time of admission; (r) "Region" means the area in respective Statutory Development Board for Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra; (s) "SSC" means the Secondary School Certificate (Standard X) examination conducted by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (Mah. XLI of 1965) or its equivalent certificate awarded by a recognised Board;" 39. A perusal of these definitions reveals that there is a definition in place of "CAP Seats" which means the seats filled in through the Centralized process of admission carried out by the competent authority. XLI of 1965) or its equivalent certificate awarded by a recognised Board;" 39. A perusal of these definitions reveals that there is a definition in place of "CAP Seats" which means the seats filled in through the Centralized process of admission carried out by the competent authority. Then, there is a definition of the term "Institutional Quota". That means seats available for admission to eligible Candidates at Institution level as declared by the Government or appropriate authority from time to time. The word "inter-se-merit" defined in Section 2 is repeatedly emphasised by Mr.Patwardhan. This means the order of merit in respect of various classes or category of candidates. The word "Region" is defined in Section 2 clause (r) to mean the area in respective Statutory Development Board for Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra. The words and expressions used but not defined in these rules carries the same meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act. 40. Rule 3 is titled as "Invitation of Application Form" whereas Rule 4 sets out "Declaration of Medium, Pattern, Syllabus, Schedule, etc.". The Medium, Pattern, Syllabus, Schedule shall be as per the Information Bulletin of the NEET, CAP rounds for respective academic year shall be declared by the Competent Authority. Rule 5 is titled as "Candidature Type" and reads thus:- "5. Candidature Type.- (1) Maharashtra State Candidature :- Type Eligibility Criteria (A) (i) The candidate must be an Indian National. (ii) Except for the year 2016, Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) or Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), Non-Resident Indians (NRI) shall not be eligible. (iii) Except for the year 2016, the candidate should be Domicile of the State of Maharashtra. (iv) The candidate must have completed 17 years of age on or before 31st December of the year of admission for the course. The Birth certificate indicating name of the candidate, Secondary School Certificate examination i.e. SSC or equivalent examination certificate or School Leaving Certificate endorsing the date of birth shall constitute a valid proof of age. (The eligibility of age shall be as prescribed by MCI & DCI from time to time) (v) The candidate must be medically fit. (vi) The candidate must have passed the SSC or equivalent examination from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. (The eligibility of age shall be as prescribed by MCI & DCI from time to time) (v) The candidate must be medically fit. (vi) The candidate must have passed the SSC or equivalent examination from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. However, except for the year 2016, candidate who has passed SSC or equivalent examination from an institute situated within Maharashtra State and HSC or equivalent examination from an institute situated within Maharashtra State is eligible for seeking admission to the course, provided that he or she is Domicile of Maharashtra. (vi) The candidate must have passed the qualifying examination. (B) Exception for clause (A)(vi) for SSC or clause (A) (vii) for HSC or equivalent examination for children of employees of the Government of Maharashtra and its Undertakings :- (i) The Children of such employees of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have joined service since beginning at a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra but who have been transferred to a place situated within the State of Maharashtra shall be eligible for admission even though such children might have passed the SSC or HSC equivalent examination from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra; provided that, such employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its Undertaking must have been posted or transferred or deputed at a place of work located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty i.e. joined the duty before the last date of submission of preference form. (ii) The Candidates belonging to the aforesaid category at (i) above shall be required to produce the requisite certificate from the office at which such employee of Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking has reported for duty, as a proof off date for eligibility, i.e. the last date of submission of Preference Form. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of filling the preference form. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of filling the preference form. (iii) The Children of such employees of Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have been transferred or deputed to a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra or who have returned to the State of Maharashtra after initial transfer or deputation shall be eligible for admission even though such children might have passed the SSC or HSC equivalent examination from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra. (iv) The candidates belonging to the aforesaid category at (iii) above shall be required to produce the requisite certificate from the office at which such employee of Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking has reported for duty, as a proof off date for eligibility, i.e. the last date of submission of Preference Form. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of filling the preference form. (C) Exception for clause (A) (vi) for SSC or for clause (A) (vii) for HSC or equivalent examinations for Children of employees of the Government of India or its undertaking,- (i) The Children of the employees of Government of India or its Undertaking shall be eligible for admission even though they might have passed the SSC and/or HSC or equivalent examination from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra; provided that, such an employee of Government of India or its undertaking must have been transferred from out of Maharashtra State and posted at a place of work, located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty, i.e. joined the duty before the last date of submission of preference form. (ii) The Candidates belonging to the aforesaid category at (i) above shall be required to produce the requisite certificate from the office at which such an employee of Government of India or its undertaking has reported for duty, as a proof of the fact that such employee has joined the office or reported for duty before the cut-off date for eligibility, i.e. the last date of submission of preference form. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of filling the preference form. (2) Minority Candidature.- The Maharashtra domiciled Candidate belonging to a particular linguistic or religious minority community from within the State fulfilling eligibility criteria as per sub-rule (1) of rule 5 shall be eligible under this category. (3) NRI Candidature,- The candidate who fulfills the conditions as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Act shall be eligible under this category." 41. The tabulated Form in which the Rule is enacted shows that type 'A' has several clauses under the caption or heading "Eligibility Criteria". Then, type 'B' deals with children of employees of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertakings. Then, type 'C' deals with children of employees of the Government of India or its undertakings. The broad category of Minority Candidature is also set out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. Rule 6 is titled as "Eligibility". The "Sanctioned Intake Seats for various Courses" are set out in Rule 7 and then comes Rule 8, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "8. Allocations of seats.- The percentage of allocation of seats for various types of candidates through NEET for First Year of the Courses shall be as per the MCI and DCI regulations, and in accordance with the policy of the Government as specified in the Schedule,- (1) Maharashtra State Candidature Seats.- The Candidates having Maharashtra State Candidature as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 5, shall be eligible for these seats. (2) Minority Candidature Seats.- The Candidates having Candidature mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 be eligible for these seats as specified in the Schedule. Three seats shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. (2) Minority Candidature Seats.- The Candidates having Candidature mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 be eligible for these seats as specified in the Schedule. Three seats shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. (3) Institutional Quota Seats - The Institution can admit Eligible Candidates against 15 percent of the Sanctioned Intake, as per the Schedule, subject to following conditions, namely :- (i) the candidates having candidature mentioned in sub-rules (1), (2) And (3) of rule 5 shall be eligible for these seats, as may be applicable; (ii) the NRI Candidates shall be admitted under the Institution quota seats, subject to the approval by Admission Regulating Authority; (iii) if the seats reserved for the NRI remains vacant, those vacant seats may be filled in by the Institution, from the Eligible Maharashtra State Candidature as given in sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 5 on the basis of inter-se-merit of NEET." 42. A careful perusal of Rule 8 shows that it deals with allocation of seats. The percentage of allocation of seats for various types of candidates through NEET for First year of the Courses shall be as per the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India regulations and in accordance with the policy of the Government as specified in the Schedule. The Schedule means the schedule to these Rules. "The Maharashtra State Candidature Seats" are dealt with by sub-rule (1) and it is stated that the candidates having Maharashtra State Candidature as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 5, shall be eligible for these seats. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 deals with "Institutional Quota Seats" and the institution can admit eligible candidates against 15% of the Sanctioned Intake, as per the Schedule, subject to the conditions enumerated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 8. Then follows Rule 9. That is titled as "Distribution of Seats". The distribution of seats shall be allotted by the Competent Authority. The distribution of seats in State level 30% quota means out of the seats at the disposal of the Competent Authority, 30% of such seats shall be first made available for candidates from the State and these seats shall be filled on the basis of NEET merit list. There shall be constitutional and female reservations in these seats as per the prevailing rules in this behalf. There shall be constitutional and female reservations in these seats as per the prevailing rules in this behalf. Then, the distribution of seats in Regional level 70% quota means after the exclusion of State level 30% quota seats referred in clause (i) of Rule 9, the remaining 70% seats shall be filled from amongst the candidates who have passed HSC from the colleges situated in the respective region, subject to the constitutional and female reservations as per the prevailing rules in this behalf. The criteria for 70% Regional Quota seats for candidates who have passed qualifying examination from Maharashtra State is then set out in clause (iii). That says that region of the candidates for selection under 70% regional quota seats will be the region from where he or she has passed HSC or equivalent examination. The criteria for 70% regional quota for candidates who have passed qualifying examination from institution situated outside Maharashtra State has been then provided in clause (iv). Thus, the seats distributed by the competent authority are in the manner referred by us above. We are not concerned with State level 30% quota, but we are concerned with seats in Regional level 70% quota. There, we have to follow the criteria prescribed above. There is a merit list and preparation thereof is contemplated by Rule 10. Then follows Rule 11 titled as "Centralised Admission Process". The Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution shall admit candidates through the CAP as referred in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXVIII of 2015. The stages of CAP are then mentioned in Rule 11. After Rule 11, there is Rule 12 which is titled as "CAP allotment stages and process of allotment". Thus, the Centralized Admission Process is followed by Centralized Admission Process allotment stages as stated therein. Then, it has been clarified and by broadly indicating the stages of computerised allotment are (1) for all the candidates. There all the candidates belonging to various categories shall be considered for allotment of seats as per their inter-se-merit. The Minority category candidates shall be considered for allotment in Open Category seats by virtue of their inter-se-merit and in Minority Quota seats by virtue of merit in their respective minority community to which the institution belongs. There all the candidates belonging to various categories shall be considered for allotment of seats as per their inter-se-merit. The Minority category candidates shall be considered for allotment in Open Category seats by virtue of their inter-se-merit and in Minority Quota seats by virtue of merit in their respective minority community to which the institution belongs. Similarly Backward Class Category Candidates shall be considered for allotment in Open Category seat by virtue of their inter-se-merit or in their respective category of reservation, if Open Category seats are not available, at their merit. The Special Backward Class students would have also to follow similar path. Then stage (II) is for respective groups of Backward Class Category Candidates and in that inter-se-merit, amongst the reserved categories, shall be operated at the end of each round, if necessary, against the unfilled reserved category seats as per merit and choice of the reserved category candidates. The seats remaining vacant from various categories shall be filled in during inter-se-merit admission process as indicated in stage II clause (a) and in Groups (I) to (III). Thus, the remaining vacant seats shall be filled from among the candidates of their respective group of that particular region where the vacancies exist, by inter-se Regional merit. 43. If the seats still remain vacant, then, the same shall be filled in as indicated in clause (b) of stage II. Thus, they can be filled in from candidates of all categories mentioned above of that particular region where the vacancy exists, by inter-se regional merit and if seats still remain vacant, they can be filled from amongst the candidates of the common merit list of the concerned region and if the seats still remain vacant, then, they will be filled amongst the candidates of the common merit list of the inter-se State merit. 44. A perusal of these stages leaves us in no manner of doubt that the vacant seats can be filled in by the candidates of all categories of that particular region where the vacant seats exist, by inter-se regional merit. Now, this may be a stage set out and mentioned in Rule 12, but Rule 12 itself is broadly titled as "CAP allotment stages and process of allotment". The following Rule 13 sets out the "Selection process through CAP round". Now, this may be a stage set out and mentioned in Rule 12, but Rule 12 itself is broadly titled as "CAP allotment stages and process of allotment". The following Rule 13 sets out the "Selection process through CAP round". There, the obligation of the Unaided Private Professional Education Institution is, to admit the candidate through the centralised admission process in the manner set out in Rule 13. That is dealing with a selection process. What emerges therefrom is that while filling the seats for any college or institution, 30% State quota seats shall be filled first followed by 70% Regional quota seats. Seats those have arisen or fallen vacant after the first round shall be made available at the second round of selection on the basis of preference forms already submitted and no new preference form will be required to be filled in for any subsequent rounds. The vacancy position shall be made available on website before commencement of the next round. "Disqualification for Admission" is set out in Rule 14 and Rule 15 deals with "Payment of Fees". 45. Thus, we have referred Rules 12 and 13 and the Rules preceding them. Now, we come to Rule 16, which reads as under:- "16. Institution Level Round.- If the seats remain vacant after all CAP Rounds, the said seats shall be filled in by the institution through Institution Level Round with the prior approval of the Competent Authority. The institute shall invite applications from desirous candidates who are declared eligible in the NEET. The admission shall be granted by the institution strictly on the basis of inter-se-merit of the NEET, as per the instructions from the Competent Authority." 46. A perusal of this Rule shows that if the seats remain vacant after all CAP rounds, then they can be filled in by the institution through institutional round with prior approval of the competent authority. Mr.Talekar would argue that there is no reference to Region and State quota and, therefore, this is taken as a distinct round. However, a perusal of the Rule in its entirety would demonstrate the fallacy in the submission of Mr.Talekar. The institute shall invite applications from desirous candidates who are declared eligible in the NEET. So far so good. The admission shall be granted by the institution strictly on the basis of inter-semerit of the NEET, as per the instructions from the competent authority. The institute shall invite applications from desirous candidates who are declared eligible in the NEET. So far so good. The admission shall be granted by the institution strictly on the basis of inter-semerit of the NEET, as per the instructions from the competent authority. It is, therefore, evident that when the stage mentioned in Rule 16 is reached, we have only the vacant seats to be filled in. The vacant seats, after all CAP rounds, can be filled in by Institution Level Round, but it is not as if this round must be held without taking into consideration or bearing in mind all preceding rules and stipulations therein. We need not refer to the further rules, but what the Schedule tells us is that there is a type of institution. There are Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions excluding Minority Institutions and Unaided Minority Educational Institutions. Both of them have percentage of seats to be filled through the State Common Entrance Test Cell. The percentage therein is 85% and 15% is the Institutional Quota including NRI Quota. We must not lose sight of this broad distinction between the term "institutional round" and "institutional quota". If that is how the rules are framed, then, the entire brochure, which sets out how the institutional round will have to be conducted, would become meaningless. The Circulars which have been issued and for the provisional selection process in 85% merit quota for institutional level round, denotes that the competent authority had in mind all the rules preceding Rule 16, but it impressed upon the concerned colleges by separate notices (Notice No.30 and Notice No.34) as to how the seats are to be filled up. 47. It is clear from the Circulars, copies of which are at Exhibits 'F', 'G' and 'I', that insofar as the Notice No.34 is concerned, it deals with the institutional round for MBBS course at Private Unaided/Minority Medical Colleges. The institutional round is only for Private Unaided/Minority medical Colleges and for seats remaining vacant after mop up-I round. The procedure has to be in accordance with the Notice No.34. 48. Today, we also have Notice No.35 which indicates the vacancy for Institutional Level Round for Private Unaided/Minority Medical College and at Sr.No.6 of this Notice is M.M.Patel Public Charitable Trust's Ashwin Rural Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, At Post Kumbhari, Taluka and District Solapur. The procedure has to be in accordance with the Notice No.34. 48. Today, we also have Notice No.35 which indicates the vacancy for Institutional Level Round for Private Unaided/Minority Medical College and at Sr.No.6 of this Notice is M.M.Patel Public Charitable Trust's Ashwin Rural Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, At Post Kumbhari, Taluka and District Solapur. This is respondent No.4 before us and represented by Mr.Thorat. There, the vacancy position notified and in 85% State Quota is 70% NT2- one (01) and, therefore, total is one (01) vacant seat. Similar is the position with regard to N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences, Near C.R.P.F. Campus, Digdoh Hills, Nagpur. There, 70% NT2- one vacant seat together with 70% ST (Women)-one vacant seat. Thus, in all two seats are indicated. Thus, the position is that for NT-2 category, one seat is vacant in Solapur College and one seat is vacant in Nagpur College. Solapur College falls in the rest of Maharashtra region whereas Nagpur College is in the Vidarbha Region. Neither is in the Marathwada region. The nomenclature as against them of 70% would denote the fact that these seats are those which are referred in the rules specifically as Regional level 70% quota seats. Now, the Regional level 70% quota is the distribution of seats in the three regions contemplated by Article 371 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no pleading, arguments, no particulars and no material to decide the wider and larger question of applicability of Clause 3 of Article 371 of the Consitution of India to medical education, that need not be considered at all. We leave it open for decision in a more appropriate case. Suffice it to hold for present that this article is referred for identification of the Regions into which the State is broadly divided. The distribution of seats follows the 30% quota of State level. After exclusion of State level 30% quota, the remaining 70% seats shall be filled in amongst the candidates who have passed HSC from the college situated in the respective region, subject to the constitutional and female reservation as per the prevailing rules in this behalf. Mr.Talekar's argument overlooks this distribution of seats set out in Rule 9. This is not a round-wise or State-wise distribution of seats, but is a broad region-wise indication. The distribution shall be by the competent authority. Mr.Talekar's argument overlooks this distribution of seats set out in Rule 9. This is not a round-wise or State-wise distribution of seats, but is a broad region-wise indication. The distribution shall be by the competent authority. The allocation of seats is in Rule 8, whereas, distribution of seats is done in accordance with Rule 9. In distribution, the seats are distributed as against State as a whole and that is termed as 30% State level quota. That is the first nomenclature and balance 70% Regional level quota is the second one. There is a criteria prescribed for 70% Regional quota seats and candidates who have passed qualifying examination from Maharashtra State are eligible. Therefore, if a candidate has passed qualifying examination from Maharashtra State, then, the region of the candidate for selection under this quota will be the region from where he or she passed HSC or equivalent examination. It is in these circumstances that though the petitioner may be ranked higher in the merit list as propounded by him, still, the selected candidates are those who have cleared or passed the HSC or equivalent examination from the concerned or applicable region. If this is how the regional distribution is achieved, then, there is no substance in the complaint of the petitioner at all. The petitioner is not a student who has passed his HSC or SSC examination from either Vidarbha or rest of Maharashtra. He is admittedly a student who has passed his qualifying examination from Maharashtra State, but not from these regions. He belongs to distinct region, namely, Marathwada. It is in these circumstances that his placement in the merit list apart, his region-wise claim has to fail. He cannot then say that those who have been admitted may be clearing their examinations (HSC and SSC) from the very region, still, they are ineligible because they are ranked below him in the State merit list. The distribution itself is done in the manner set out in Rule 9 by applying inter-se Regional merit of NT-2 category students. Pertinently, the distribution is not challenged by the petitioner. He does not say that after exclusion of seats in State level 30% quota, remaining 70% seats cannot be filled from candidates who have passed HSC from the colleges situated in the respective region, subject to the constitutional and female reservation as per the prevailing rules. Pertinently, the distribution is not challenged by the petitioner. He does not say that after exclusion of seats in State level 30% quota, remaining 70% seats cannot be filled from candidates who have passed HSC from the colleges situated in the respective region, subject to the constitutional and female reservation as per the prevailing rules. There is, therefore, a clear distinction made in Rule 9 and while allowing the regional candidates to stake their claim after having passed HSC from the college situated in the respective region. That quota is maintained even for those who have passed their qualifying examination from Maharashtra State. In other words, the region where he or she has passed HSC or equivalent examination is the region of the candidate for selection under the 70% Regional quota. These words are not mere surplusage. The words have been carefully chosen and employed so as to achieve the distribution of region-wise seats and criteria for filling up of these seats. Once the criteria broadly is thus understood, then, a student's ranking in the inter-se merit or his or her ranking in the applicable reserved category only would then not enable him or her to obtain admission in the regional distribution of seats. 49. The Centralized Admission Process is referred in Rule 11 and that follows the CAP allotment stages and process of allotment. Rule 12, therefore, is also consistent. Firstly, it refers to all candidates, then the candidates of respective groups of Backward Class Category. Then, if the seats remain vacant, they have to be filled in from amongst the candidates of all categories mentioned in Rule 12 of that particular region where the vacancies exist, by inter-se regional merit. If the seats still remain vacant, then, the seats shall be filled from amongst the candidates of the common merit list of the concerned region. 50. If the seats still remain vacant then the seats will be filled amongst the candidates of the common merit list of the inter-se State merit. It is in these circumstances that vacancy-wise, interse regional merit and vacancy-wise common merit list placement is taken into consideration. In the instant case, the vacancy is of NT-2 category seat. Therefore, the inter-se regional merit of the candidates of that category, namely, NT-2 has been rightly taken into consideration. That is how a balance is achieved in distribution and allocation of seats. 51. In the instant case, the vacancy is of NT-2 category seat. Therefore, the inter-se regional merit of the candidates of that category, namely, NT-2 has been rightly taken into consideration. That is how a balance is achieved in distribution and allocation of seats. 51. We do not think that the interpretation placed by the competent authority on Rule 16 therefore suffers from utter perversity or manifest illegality, much less unconstitutionality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 52. The underlying categorisation, identity and character has been throughout maintained by the State and the competent authority. It has adhered to the selection process through CAP round and that is not even the complaint. If the seats remain vacant after all CAP rounds, it does not mean that in institutional level round everything preceding Rule 16 has to be ignored or has to be necessarily brushed aside. If there was any permission or latitude for doing so, the language of Rule 16 would have been different. Rule 16 follows all the rules preceding it and subsequent to it. It must therefore be read harmoniously and together with the prior and subsequent rules. So read, the institutional level round must conform to the distribution and allocation of seats done by the competent authority in terms of all the rules preceding Rule 16. If that has been taken note of while allowing the two regional colleges before us to fill up vacant NT-2 category seats from meritorious students in that region, then, we do not see any cause for the complaint laid before us. The regional quota enables the regional colleges to fill up the vacant seats and which remain vacant after all CAP rounds. They are filled in by taking into consideration the position or ranking of the regional candidates in the merit list. This is not therefore a case where inter-se merit has been ignored. The complaint of Mr.Takekar has no substance because the rule itself understands inter-se merit to mean the order of merit in various classes or categories of candidates. Therefore a class or category of candidate is a crucial and relevant factor in determining the inter-se merit. The inter-se merit would be the category of candidates belonging to SC, ST, NT2 etc. The type or category of student would here indicate, in broadest terms, the position, namely, in the State Quota or the Regional Quota. Therefore a class or category of candidate is a crucial and relevant factor in determining the inter-se merit. The inter-se merit would be the category of candidates belonging to SC, ST, NT2 etc. The type or category of student would here indicate, in broadest terms, the position, namely, in the State Quota or the Regional Quota. Once we have understood the whole process in this manner, then, there is no scope for the argument canvassed before us. Mr.Talekar may invite our attention to the mark-wise position of the candidates and would urge that the petitioner tops in the merit list, still, we do not think that there is a separate Vidarbha region list prepared or operated. The position, the rank and the list is one and the same. That it has been operated in the manner set out in the rules is therefore apparent to us. In other words, upholding the distribution and allocation of seats, the merit list has been operated. That has been operated to fill up the 30% State Quota seats and thereafter 70% Regional Quota seats. The anxiety of the authorities is that no meritorious student belonging the NT-2 category from the respective region in which these colleges are located should be left out. If there are candidates available and fulfilling the eligibility criteria, then, they must be admitted is their larger concern. That is to ensure representation of that category of student who, besides merit, has also passed his S.S.C. and H.S.C. from the particular region who is expected to serve that region and secondly, the student of NT-2 category is not deprived of pursuing his studies for MBBS course, from the medical college of that region. More so, when that regional medical college has a vacant NT-2 category seat. If that could have been filled in by the respondent nos.4 and 5 by admitting respondent Nos.6 to 9 before us, then, we do not see how the process can be faulted or questioned by the petitioner, who admittedly is not from the Vidarbha or rest of the Maharashtra region. 53. The petitioner is complaining that a student who has secured percentage of marks below him has got admission, but he forgets that the candidate who has been admitted is very much a NT-2 category candidate. 53. The petitioner is complaining that a student who has secured percentage of marks below him has got admission, but he forgets that the candidate who has been admitted is very much a NT-2 category candidate. That the candidate above him in the regional merit list has turned down the admission would mean that he is next in line and eligible to secure it. That is how he has been accommodated and admitted. 54. For this student, the dictum in Asha's case (supra) has no application. Asha's case (supra) was the case projecting a complaint of the student, who had cleared her secondary examination (medical stream) with 75% marks and was eligible for taking medical entrance examination after fulfilling the requisite criteria to take it. Pt.B.D.Sharma University issued a notification/advertisement for the entrance examination for MBBS, BDS and BAMS to be held in the first week of May, 2011. The appellant applied for the same in the Backward Class B and Dependents of Ex-Servicemen category. Her application was accepted and roll number was issued to her. The date of the examination was fixed for 12th June, 2011 by the University. The appellant was declared successful in the entrance examination and placed at Sr.No.13 of Dependents of Ex-Servicemen category. All concerned were informed that the first counselling for allotment of seats was to be held on 14th and 15th July, 2011. In this counselling, the appellant was not admitted to the MBBS course as she was lower in merit. Hence, she took admission in the BDS course on that very day. However, the appellant participated in the counselling (second session), which was held in September, 2011. Her name and roll number were not declared by the respondents for the said admission. When the list of allocation of seats was displayed, it came to light that the students/candidates ranked below her in the merit were admitted and had been given admission to MBBS course. They were from Ex-Servicemen category. That is how she approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. A Single Judge had passed an order, which was challenged before a Division Bench. After both orders were noted and the complaint of Asha was not redressed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the rival contentions. They were from Ex-Servicemen category. That is how she approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. A Single Judge had passed an order, which was challenged before a Division Bench. After both orders were noted and the complaint of Asha was not redressed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the rival contentions. The argument was that whether the decision of the learned Single Judge was based on inference or assumption or whether it was a reasonable conclusion which the Court would arrive at in view of the pleadings of the parties and the relevant rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the pleadings and argument in detail and concluded that a strict adherence to the time schedule and the rules is expected to avoid any complaint. The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits of no exception. That has to be adhered to. 30th September is the last date by which the admitted students should report to the colleges, without fail. The questions framed, therefore, have been answered. It is, therefore, clear that Asha's case (supra) is not identical on facts. Within the ex-serviceman category, Asha was discriminated though meritorious and higher in rank. She was not preferred for admission in MBBS course. The candidates lower in the rank of Ex-servicemen category were preferred. Consequently, Asha had to give up her dream of becoming allopathic doctor. It is in these circumstances that all the observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr.Talekar may rely usefully on some of the observations, but though general in nature, they cannot be applied to every case. Their applicability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Apart therefrom, we do not think that these observations and conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been deviated or departed from. The merit has not been ignored in the case before us. 55. Once we reach the above conclusion, then, there is no alternative but to dismiss the writ petition. Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. 56. In the light of the dismissal of the writ petition, Interim Application No.1 of 2019 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.