JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Veterinary Colleges, inter alia praying that the respondent University be directed to permit them to fill up vacant seats, which remained vacant/unfilled after the completion of counselling done by the respondent Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Bikaner for academic year 2018-2019. 2. The petitioners have averred in the petitions that they are entitled to fill seats, which remained vacant after counselling as permitted by Clause - (9) of Regulation 7 of the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education - Degree Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred as "the Regulations of 2008"). 3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that though they are entitled to fill the vacant seats at their end, in light of the stipulation made in Clause-(9) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008, the respondent University is unnecessarily creating hurdles in their way of giving admissions to the students. 4. It has been stated in the petition that when the petitioners-institutions proceeded to give admission, respondent University initially refused, but however, later permitted admission to the students on the vacant seats. The communications/permission letter issued by the Registrar of the University in this regard have been placed on record, as Annexures - 2 and 3 for the academic years 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. 5. The petitioners have alleged that when the petitioners-institutions wanted to give admission to the students for the academic year 2018-2019, the respondent University refused to issue identical letters, which it had issued on earlier occasions, for which they were constrained to approach this Court by way of filing instant writ petitions. 6. The petitioners' contention is to two fold; firstly that the respondent University cannot restrain the petitioners-institutions to give admission to the students, once counselling is over and seats remain vacant and secondly that since the University has been giving permission for last 5-6 years, they cannot withhold such permission, for this year, without there being any justification. 7. On 29.09.2018, while issuing notices, this Court has passed the following interim order: "Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents. Rule is made returnable in four weeks. 7. On 29.09.2018, while issuing notices, this Court has passed the following interim order: "Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents. Rule is made returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, the management of the college is provisionally permitted to fill the eighteen vacant seats as mentioned above without creating any equity either in favour of the College or the students. It is made clear that while admitting the students, a note shall be appended that the admission is being granted provisionally under this Court's order." 8. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, pointing out from the reply, submitted that the University, in-principle has no objection, if the admission given to the students, pursuant to the interim order is upheld/ratified. He however prayed that the petitioners-institutions may be asked to take applicable fee, which they are entitled to charge, if a student is given admission against the State or Central quota. In other words his concern has been that the colleges should not be allowed to charge higher fees meant for management quota. It was also argued that if free hand is given to the petitioners-institutions, they will ignore the eligibility criteria, to justify the indulgence of respondent-University. 9. Mr. N.S. Acharya and Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and State respectively, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Maheshwari. 10. Before proceeding to decide the issue at hand, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Clause i.e. Clause (9) of the Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008, which reads thus: "7. Selection of Students- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (9) The candidates selected through this examination shall be admitted in various recognised veterinary colleges as per the eligibility criteria prescribed in these regulations only and the last date of reporting of these candidates to the allotted University or Veterinary Institution shall be 15th September of that year irrespective of the closing date of admission of that University or Veterinary Institution for that year, if earlier, the vacant seats may be filled by the veterinary college or University by 30th September which shall be the final cut-off date for the admission and thereafter no admission shall be made." 11. A simple look at the above regulation leaves no room for ambiguity that a Veterinary Institution or the University is entitled to fill the vacant seats, left after the counselling, by 30th September of each year after completion of counselling. It is to be noticed that between University and Veterinary Institution, a disjunction 'or' has been used, which undoubtedly means that either Veterinary Institution or the University can give admission to the students qua the vacant seats left after counselling. 12. Admission to be given by the Veterinary Institution are not subservient or dependent to the University's approval. This Court is of the firm view that the University does not have any say, if the veterinary institution concerned gives admission to the students, once the counselling is over. 13. The respondent University only grants affiliation to the concerned veterinary college/institution and enroll students of these colleges. Merely because the affiliation has been obtained from the University and the students are required to be enrolled with the University, the University does not have any power to refuse or grant permission to admit the students. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order dated 29.09.2018, passed by this Court is made absolute. 15. Needless to observe that the respondent University shall declare result of the students, who have appeared in the examination. 16. As far as concern of the University with respect to eligibility is concerned, it goes without saying that none of the institutions shall admit the students, who are otherwise ineligible. If that be so, University can refuse to enroll. 17. With respect to charging of fee also, the University does not and cannot have any say or role to play. The State Government or the Veterinary Council of India, if relevant law permits, can however make appropriate provisions or regulate the charging of fee with respect to the vacant seats to be filled in under Clause-(9) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2008. 18. Needless it is to observe that if such fee is prescribed, the same shall not affect the students, who have been given admission prior to the prescription of fee. 19. All the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.