ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. This group of Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has arisen out of the common judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge on 25.9.2019 by virtue of which, the petitions have been dismissed by holding that the Association-original petitioner of the writ petition could not have admitted the students without observing the requirement of the relevant Admission Rules of 2017. 2. So far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 1677 of 2019 is concerned, the same is filed by Swanirbhar Homoepathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal, Gujarat State, who originally filed Special Civil Application No. 3532 of 2019 with a relief to set aside the impugned communication dated 18.12.2018 issued by the respondent No. 2 Committee, being violative of Rule 16 of the Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses Rules, 2017 (as amended) and relief is sought as mentioned in para 19, which reads as under:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the communication dated December 18, 2018 (ANNEXURE-L) issued by Respondent No. 2 Committee, as being violative of Rule 16 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 (as amended) and thereupon, be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing Respondent No. 2 Committee to issue necessary clarification to its communication dated December 18, 2018 (ANNEXURE L) permitting students who have been granted admission to B.H.M.S. Course for the academic year 2018-19 following the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by CCH under applicable regulations to continue with their studies. (b) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the Communication dated December 18, 2018 (ANNEXURE-L) issued by Respondent No. 2 Committee, and thereby permitting the member colleges of the Petitioner to continue with the admissions granted on vacant seats on such terms and conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (c) … ........." 3. (c) … ........." 3. Next Letters Patent Appeal No. 1678 of 2019 is preferred by few of the colleges headed by the Association of Self-financed Ayurveda Colleges of Gujarat, being original petitioner No. 1 of Special Civil Application No. 3531 of 2019, and the petition referred to above is also related to the challenge of the impugned communication dated 18.12.2018 and almost identical relief is prayed for like earlier petition. 4. Next in line is Letters Patent Appeal No. 1685 of 2019 is filed for challenging the decision which is passed in Special Civil Application No. 2411 of 2019 filed by some of the students who got admission in the First Year BHMS Course on 9.11.2018 with a relief in the main petition for setting aside the letters dated 11.6.2018, 26.10.2018 and 1.11.2018 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Department of AYUSH, i.e. respondent No. 2, and consequently sought the reliefs which are incorporated in para 32, which reads as under:- "(A) To admit and allow this petition; (B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the letters dated 11.06.2018, 26.10.2018 and 01.11.2018 issued by the Government of India-Department of AYUSH - respondent no. 1 and consequentially advertisement published by the ACPC-respondent no. 3 on its website, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble Patna High Court and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 Saurashtra University to accept the enrollment form of the present petitioners, for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition and in the interest of justice; (C) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the letter issued by the Saurashtra University dated 24.12.2018 by which the University has intimated the College that admission of the year 2018-2019 for Ayurvedic, Homeopathy will be governed only as per the criteria fixed by NEET-UG-2018 and AIPGET-2018, for the reason stated in the memo of the petition and in the interest of justice; (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4-Saurashtra University to accept the enrollment form of the present petitioners and further be pleased to restrain the respondent no. 5- College from discontinuing/cancelling the admission of the petitioners in 1st year BHMS Course, for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition and in the interest of justice; (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D); (F) … ....." 5. Since the controversy revolves around these Letters Patent Appeals is identical in nature, learned counsel appearing for the respective sides have requested to take the main matter filed by the Association as a lead matter and conjointly deal with all the three appeals. Accordingly, this Court has opened up the hearing by treating the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1677 of 2019 as a lead matter. 6. The case of the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1677 of 2019 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 3532 of 2019 is that the petitioner society on behalf of its member colleges is running self-finance Homeopathy Colleges in the State of Gujarat and the petitioner is a duly registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner of this petition is also a recognized body and spokesperson of self-finance Homeopathy colleges in the State of Gujarat in the discipline of Homeopathy on the pattern of self-financing at the level of graduation and post-graduation colleges imparting education in the discipline of Homeopathy at various level in the State of Gujarat within the domain of the respondent No. 1 through its Health and Family Welfare Department. The respondent No. 2 Committee is a regulating body who processed the admission in respect of self-finance Colleges in the State of Gujarat and for enforcement and to regulate, the Rules are framed, which are popularly known as 'Admission Rules' named as Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission and Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017. The respondent No. 1 authority in exercise of its power under Section 20(1) read with Section 4 of the Act, 2007 to regulate the admission to the first year of the Professional Medical Educational, including Bachelor in Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery, and in furtherance of this, for the purpose of admission in BHMS courses in the State of Gujarat for the academic year 2018-2019, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 4(5) of the Admission Rules for initial state of centralized admission process. 7. Further case of the appellant is that for the purpose of securing admission in BHMS course for the academic year 2018-2019 in the State of Gujarat, a higher eligibility was prescribed by way of introducing NEET as an additional eligibility criterion over and above the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council of Homeopathy. But, moment the admission process gets over, at the authorities' level and seats remained vacant, then it would be open for the appellant to fill up these vacant seats by observing minimum eligibility prescribed by Council and this identical controversy arose with respect to this very discipline in the previous academic year 2017-2018 in Special Civil Application No. 22612 of 2017 wherein, by reading down Rule 16 of the Rules, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to approve the admissions on the vacant seats fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by CCH for that year. 8. It is the further case of the appellant that with a view to implement the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and to provide a statutory flavour to it, the Admission Rules, more particularly Rule 16, was amended vide Gujarat Professional Medical Education Course (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Course (Amendment) Rules, 2018. So, in substance, the appellant has stated that the effect of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules, post amendment and prior to amendment, stands on a different footings and by referring to it, it has been the case of the appellant that it would be open for the appellant to admit the students on vacant seats after list is exhausted by the State authorities and seats can be filled in by minimum eligibility criteria as then was prescribed. It was further contended that here, in the present background, common counseling for BHMS course was commenced on 22.8.2018 and thereafter, two additional rounds of common counseling were conducted from 19.9.2018 to 28.9.2018 and from 21.10.2018 to 26.10.2018. Last date for granting admission was notified to be 30.10.2018 but, as on 27.10.2018, despite three rounds were of common counseling, large number of seats left vacant. As a result of this, from 27.10.2018 to 30.10.2018, the member colleges of the appellant had filled vacant seats as they were required to filled them latest by deadline of 30.10.2018. However, on 29.10.2018, initial deadline, as referred to above, was extended by the Ministry of AYUSH till 15.11.2018. As a result of this, from 27.10.2018 to 30.10.2018, the member colleges of the appellant had filled vacant seats as they were required to filled them latest by deadline of 30.10.2018. However, on 29.10.2018, initial deadline, as referred to above, was extended by the Ministry of AYUSH till 15.11.2018. By that time, seats were filled up. 9. It is the further case of the appellant that while deadline for admission was extended to 15.11.2018, cut-off for admission to BHMS course through NEET-UG-2018 for being notified in merit was reduced by Ministry of AYUSH from 50 percentile to 35 percentile on account of lack of availability of seats. But, subsequently, upon revised cut-off criteria, another round of common counseling was conducted by the respondent No. 2 committee for vacant seats insofar as it relates to only the Government Homeopathy colleges and not for self-finance colleges. Had the member colleges been included in the additional round of common counseling, not only would have many vacancies being filled up, but distribution of residual vacancies would have been also equitable. But, the authorities have conducted additional common counseling only for the Government Homeopathy Colleges and filled up their seats through centralized admission process. As a result of this, it was well within the domain of the member colleges of the petitioner to admit the students. So much so, that by way of additional affidavit, it has been pointed out that on the website on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm., a list was uploaded indicating round 5th non-reported seats summary. It is further the case of the appellant that much after on 3.11.2018, the respondent No. 2 committee issued a communication to the member colleges of the petitioner along with the merit list directing the colleges and institutions to fill up the vacant seats as per the merit list of the students enclosed and the said merit list appears to be based on the reduced cut-off for NEET 2018. According to the appellant, directives of the respondent No. 2 committee was in contradiction with the effect of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules, precisely for two reasons as indicated in para 14.11.1 and 14.11.2. According to the appellant, directives of the respondent No. 2 committee was in contradiction with the effect of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules, precisely for two reasons as indicated in para 14.11.1 and 14.11.2. Resultantly, the petitioner addressed a communication on 23.11.2018 upon the Member Secretary of the respondent No. 2 Committee objecting against the directives dated 3.11.2018 with a request to approve the admissions granted by the colleges following the mandate of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules, by observing the eligibility criteria prescribed as mentioned in Rule. So much so, a reminder was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 Committee on 14.12.2018 but, then much after only on 18.12.2018, the member colleges of the appellant were in receipt of the general communication from the Committee clarifying that all admissions for the academic year 2018-19 must be granted in accordance with the eligibility criteria notified by the Ministry of AYUSH under NEET-UG-2018. Now, by that time, according to the appellant, the admissions were already effected. In response to this, even another representation dated 22.12.2018 was sent to the respondent No. 2 committee seeking clarification in respect of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules. No response after filing of the petitions was given and was awaited. Resultantly, left with no other alternate, the appellant rushed out to this Court by way of Special Civil Application for seeking the reliefs which are mentioned in para 19 substantially to set aside the impugned communication dated 18.12.2018 and consequentially, permitting the member colleges of the petitioner to continue with the admissions granted on vacant seats. In the aforesaid background, the petition came up for consideration before learned Single Judge and all the mentioned above writ petitions were clubbed as per the request and by common judgment and order on 25.9.2019, learned Single Judge passed an order dismissing all the petitions which has led the appellants to prefer the present group of Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 10. Looking to the urgency posed and looking the controversy related to the interest of the students, request was made by learned counsel to take up the hearing. Resultantly, we have heard Shri D.C. Dave, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri Udit N. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 10. Looking to the urgency posed and looking the controversy related to the interest of the students, request was made by learned counsel to take up the hearing. Resultantly, we have heard Shri D.C. Dave, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri Udit N. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1677 of 2019 and 1678 of 2019, and Shri Daxay Patel, learned counsel for Shri B.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1685 of 2019, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader assisted by Shri K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Shri Siddharth Dave, learned counsel for Shri Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Central Government. 11. Learned senior advocate Mr. D.C. Dave, heading the hearing of these appeals, has vehemently contended that the member colleges of the appellant association have admitted the students after the State Committee has exhausted itself the list of merit and it is only after the list having been published on the website on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm., so there is no irregularity committed by any of the institutes in not observing the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Council. It has been submitted that over the period of time, almost one year has also completed of these students who have been admitted on the basis of minimum eligibility criteria and if interception is made at this stage, same would ruin the career of so many students. It has further been contended that the controversy is revolving around the issue of minimum eligibility criteria and related to Rule 16 of the Admission Rules. A close reading of the Rules and effect of it will clearly indicate that the minimum eligibility criteria which has been prescribed by the Council cannot be given a go-bye, which has not been done in the present case. Resultantly, learned Single Judge has committed an error in taking too technical view of the matter. It has further been contended that it is not that before the list was exhausted by the Admission Committee, any attempt is made by the member colleges of the petitioner to fill up the posts and it is not alleged as well. It is only after the list having been published on the website, as indicated above, admissions have been filled in. Mr. It is only after the list having been published on the website, as indicated above, admissions have been filled in. Mr. Dave has further submitted that in the midst of change of criteria, this innocuous situation has erupted. As a result of this, for the academic year 2018-19, compulsion to apply the criteria of NEET would be arbitrary. It has been contended by Mr. Dave that even after last round of the attempt of the Admission Committee, several seats have fallen vacant and having realized, in the interest of education, admissions have been given. Rule 16 related to the vacant seats will have to be visualized in its effect prior to amendment and post amendment and if that be considered, there is hardly any reason for raising any grievance about the admissions which have been effected. It has further been submitted that this issue has cropped up before several High Courts and practically, every High Court has taken care of the interest of admitted students. As a result of this, taking assistance of such observations and the decisions even if at an interim stage, same ought to have been considered by learned Single Judge. For that purpose, Mr. Dave has referred to the observations made in his petitions. 12. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has further submitted that this situation of almost similar in nature has cropped up before the Division Bench of this Court in previous academic year about the prescription of minimum eligibility criteria and the Division Bench of this Court for the academic year 2017-18 has taken care of the situation which has prevailed over. No-doubt, at one stage, an observation is made that since the next academic year, i.e. 2018-19, NEET is made compulsory, in such peculiar circumstance, the Division Bench passed an order. But, here is a situation of such peculiar in nature on the basis of which, learned Single Judge ought to have taken a pragmatic view instead of cancelling the whole admissions of the students who have practically passed on almost one year by now. Mr. But, here is a situation of such peculiar in nature on the basis of which, learned Single Judge ought to have taken a pragmatic view instead of cancelling the whole admissions of the students who have practically passed on almost one year by now. Mr. Dave has further submitted that no-doubt, Rules dated 23.6.2017 contains how to deal with the vacant seats in Rule 16 but, then has also contended that the notification of the Central Council of Homeopathy Rules are also not to be ignored in a situation like this and the eligibility criteria contains in para 3 of Rule 4 deserve to be considered, especially when there is a notification of the State Government dated 4.5.2018, which has substituted the effect of Rule 16, which is reflecting on page 69 of the petition compilation and by referring to such substituted Rule 16, it has been contended that no irregularity is committed by the petitioner and its member colleges. Mr. Dave has further contended that on one hand, the authorities are insisting to comply the requirement of NEET despite substitution, as indicated above, and on the other hand, in the 6th round of admission, the State Government has pronounced for the Government Homeopathy Colleges only and not for private colleges, like the members colleges of the petitioner, and therefore also, a clear inference ought not to have been ignored by learned Single Judge that admissions which are filled on the basis of minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Council can be said to be valid admissions. Mr. Dave has further submitted that the action on the part of the authorities peculiar in nature ought not to have been unnoticed by learned Single Judge that on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm., uploading has taken place on the website and then much after two days, vide communication dated 29.10.2018, the State authorities are being informed by the Government of India that the last date for cut-off for admission will be 15.11.2018 and thereafter on 1.11.2018, further clarification is being indicated about the minimum marks at 30 percentile only for the academic year 2018-19 and then surprisingly, the additional round of admission is being processed only for Government Homeopathy Colleges by the State authorities on 30.10.2018 and not for private colleges. Other intimations are also much after taking place after the admissions having been effected by the member colleges of the petitioner. 13. Other intimations are also much after taking place after the admissions having been effected by the member colleges of the petitioner. 13. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has further submitted that the decision delivered by the Apex Court reflecting on page 120, has also taken note of the effect of introduction of NEET qualification and after taking note of the controversy which has been erupted in several States, Hon'ble the Apex Court has permitted to make admission in that case without reference to the letter dated 11.6.2018. By referring to this decision, Mr. Dave has vehemently contended that in a situation like this, the colleges have filled the seats on the basis of the minimum eligibility criteria, only after the Admission Committee has exhausted its merit list. 14. A reference is made by learned senior advocate Mr. Dave to the observations and recommendations made in the Lok Sabha in which the stand of the Committee is reflecting, referred to on page 131, which reads as under:- "In such kind of scenario, the Committee finds it simply baffling to understand as to how the admissions in Under Graduate courses of Ayush can be brought within the ambit of NEET without first amending the relevant Rules and regulations. The committee, therefore, recommend amendment of Regulations regulating the admission process in AYUSH medical colleges before introduction of NEET for admission in AYUSH undergraduate courses to ensure uniformity in the basic eligibility criteria." 15. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has further submitted that thereafter, a notification got published by the Central Council of Indian Medicine on 7.12.2018 on page 133, which has framed the regulations for the academic session 2019-20. Accordingly, admissions for the year 2018-19 deserve to be taken care of in this peculiar set of circumstance. 16. By referring to additional affidavit which has been tendered after supply of the copy to the other side, filed by Dr. Accordingly, admissions for the year 2018-19 deserve to be taken care of in this peculiar set of circumstance. 16. By referring to additional affidavit which has been tendered after supply of the copy to the other side, filed by Dr. Arifg M. Syed, authorized signatory of the appellate Association, an attempt is made to justify that not only there is no irregularity in respect of the admission for the year 2018-19 but even assuming without admitting that there is some irregularity, then also, in such a situation, since vacant seats have been filled in as per the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Council on the basis of the list of vacant seats uploaded by the authorities itself on 27.10.2018, such admissions having become final, may be saved from any consequences because the colleges have been led to believe that the vacant seats right from 27.10.2018 to be filled in and since last date of admission was 30.10.2018, said seats were filled in because after such date, seats would remain vacant throughout. So in this bona-fide belief about the construction and effect of Rule 16, since the colleges have admitted the students for the academic year 2018-19, learned Single Judge ought to have taken care of the present situation which has been erupted. Mr. Dave has also reiterated that this is more so logical because final round, i.e. 6th round of admission, is undertaken only for the Government colleges and not for the private colleges. Mr. Dave has submitted that the reasons which have been assigned by learned Single Judge are not cogent enough to cancel the admissions which have been effected. Mr. Dave has submitted that it is not correct to conclude that the admissions on vacant seats are contrary to Rule 16 of the Rules 2017. As a result of this, Mr. Dave has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Daxay Patel for Mr. B.T. Rao has adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant. 18. As against this, learned Government Pleader Ms. As a result of this, Mr. Dave has submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Daxay Patel for Mr. B.T. Rao has adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant. 18. As against this, learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent authorities has contended that there is neither any irregularity nor illegality committed by learned Single Judge which warrants any interference, on the contrary in the best interest of education, learned Single Judge has passed an order which is well supported by cogent reasons. Ms. Shah has vehemently contended that not only learned Single Judge has taken care of the effect of Rule 16 of the Admission Rules 2017 but has also analyzed the entire scheme of the admission process vis-à-vis the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 4. It has been further contended that what has been done by the petitioner Association is that moment the list is uploaded, without waiting for an intimation from the authority, de hors the merit list of the Admission Committee, all admissions have been effected. It has been submitted that on account of the transparency, the list was uploaded on the website on 27.10.2018 but it was incumbent on the part of the colleges to wait till the intimation to fill up the vacant seats is received by them. Here is a case in which without waiting for next step to be followed in consonance with the Rules, straightway, in a short while, admissions have been effected and according to Ms. Shah, most of the students are below the minimum requirement of criteria. Hence, in a situation like this, when learned Single Judge has considered every aspect of the situation, there is hardly any reason for interference in a well reasoned decision. 19. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah has vehemently submitted that the Rules and Regulations are framed by the authorities for following and not to keep aside. Here, despite the colleges having specific knowledge about the effect of the eligibility criteria Rules, have chosen to grant admissions to the students and have played with the future of the students by granting such admissions. Shah has vehemently submitted that the Rules and Regulations are framed by the authorities for following and not to keep aside. Here, despite the colleges having specific knowledge about the effect of the eligibility criteria Rules, have chosen to grant admissions to the students and have played with the future of the students by granting such admissions. The effect and consequence of the Rule prescribed of a mandatory nature, cannot be given a go-bye by the member colleges and having analyzed the situation, learned Single Judge rather was constrained to arrive at a decision which is impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeals. 20. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah has further contended that the Apex Court time and again has observed that eligibility criteria regarding admissions are to be strictly adhered and it is rather an obligation to follow the same. Ms. Shah has further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court on 11.8.2017 has clearly observed that when Rules of 2017 prescribing NEET examination to be cleared, the respondent State has not encroached upon the field occupied by the Central Legislation and the petitions rightly came to be dismissed. After referring to such decision, which is delivered in Special Civil Application No. 12827 of 2017 dated 11.8.2017, a contention is raised that there is no error committed by learned Single Judge which calls for any interference. Reference is also made to another decision delivered by High Court of Karnataka, wherein also, similar situation has erupted in which also, NEET examination, if not fulfilled, or such criteria is not available, admissions were held to be bad. Ms. Shah has also submitted that even on 11.6.2018, the Ministry of AYUSH has informed all the State authorities that there should be a strict compliance about the mandatory merit criteria, including qualifying criteria of NEET from the academic year 2018-19. When that be so, there is hardly any reason for the appellant to assail the order of learned Single Judge having specific knowledge about the requirement of NEET clearance. Ms. Shah has further submitted that debate or discussion of Lok Sabha will not alter the situation, especially when there is an undisputed non-compliance by the member colleges while admitting the students de hors the merit list. It is a flagrant violation according Ms. Shah, which has rightly been dealt with by learned Single Judge. Ms. Shah has further submitted that debate or discussion of Lok Sabha will not alter the situation, especially when there is an undisputed non-compliance by the member colleges while admitting the students de hors the merit list. It is a flagrant violation according Ms. Shah, which has rightly been dealt with by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, with no other submissions, a request is made to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeals by upholding the view taken by learned Single Judge. 21. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave appearing with learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. Devang Vyas has vehemently opposed the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that all the admissions are made in violation of the Regulations and deserve to be cancelled and has rightly been dealt with by learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that without waiting for intimation from the authority, in the present case, the colleges have admitted the students and concluded the process before time which has been extended by the Central Government authority. This hot hurried attempt which has been made deserves to be deprecated and learned advocate has adopted the submissions made by learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah in this regard and has opposed the grant of relief of any nature in favour of the appellants. 22. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the relevant material on record, before examining the controversy erupted in the present proceedings, few circumstances are worth to be taken note of first in point of time from the record which is available: (1) First of all, no-doubt, the Admission Rules, 2017 reflecting on page 37 of the Letters Patent Appeal compilation, a notification dated 23.6.2017 has prescribed the eligibility criteria for admissions. Rule 4 on page 39 has indicated that candidates shall possess relevant criteria mentioned therein. Sub-rule (3), (4) and (5) have prescribed the relevant criteria that candidate must have passed 10th and 12th qualifying examinations with B-group or AB-group from the referred Education Board as mentioned in sub-Rule (3). Sub-rule (4) has prescribed that candidate shall have qualified in NEET conducted in current academic year in case of MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT. Sub-rule (5) has prescribed the minimum qualifying standard for admission which has prescribed a percentage/percentile to be secured by candidate. Sub-rule (5), since relevant, is reproduced hereinafter:- (5). Sub-rule (4) has prescribed that candidate shall have qualified in NEET conducted in current academic year in case of MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT. Sub-rule (5) has prescribed the minimum qualifying standard for admission which has prescribed a percentage/percentile to be secured by candidate. Sub-rule (5), since relevant, is reproduced hereinafter:- (5). Minimum qualifying standard for admission: No candidate shall be admitted in the professional medical educational courses unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying percentage/percentile as follows; A. Minimum qualifying standard for MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS, BNAT Courses: Eligibility criteria in HSC examination and NEET of current academic year. (a) For Government Seats Course Exam General Category Gen-PH category Reserved (SC, ST, SEBC including Physically disabled Categories) MBBS, BDS and BAMS HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology Theory and Practical, in percentage 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% BHMS & BNAT HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theory and Practical Pass Pass Pass NEET qualifying Percentile of the current academic year 50 45 40 (b) For Managements seats: HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology- Theory and Practical Same criteria as for the Government seats. NEET qualifying Percentile (As per criteria laid down by the Government of India) (c) For NRI seats: Course Exam All candidates MBBS, BDS, BAMS HSC or Equivalent examination (Physics, Chemistry, and Biology Theory and Practical) in percentage 50.00% BHMS BNAY HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theory and Practical Pass NEET qualifying Percentile (As per criteria laid down by the Government of India) B. Minimum qualifying standard for other Courses: (a) For Government Seats: Course Exam General Category Gen-PH category Reserved (SC, ST, SEBC including Physically disabled Categories) B.Sc. Nursing HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology Theory and Practical, and English in percentage 45.00% 45.00% 40.00% BPT, BOP, BO, BASLP HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology-Theory and Practical Pass (b) For Management and NRI seats.- Course Exam All candidates B.Sc. Nursing HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology Theory and Practical, and English in percentage 45.00% 45.00% 40.00% BPT, BOP, BO, BASLP HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology-Theory and Practical Pass (b) For Management and NRI seats.- Course Exam All candidates B.Sc. Nursing HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology Theory and Practical and English in percentage 45.00% BPT, BOP, BO, BASLP HSC or Equivalent examination passed with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theory and Practical Pass (2) Admission process how to be conducted is prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, whereas preparation of the merit list for admission how to be undertaken is prescribed in Rule 10. Detailed admission procedure is prescribed in Rule 11, whereas Rule 12 has indicated that no admission on vacant seats be given after the specified date, meaning thereby moment that cut-off date for admission has elapsed, no admissions to be undertaken. Here in the present case, the date is 30.10.2018. (3) The center of controversy is related to Rule 16 which deals with vacant seats after exhaustion of the merit list. Since this being the main controversy, same is reproduced hereinafter:- 16. Vacant Seats: (1) If any government and management seat remain vacant in MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT courses after completion of admission process and exhaustion of merit list, such vacant seats shall be displayed on the official website and on the notice board of the office of the admission committee and same shall be intimated to the colleges or institutions wherein the seats are vacant and the State Government may seek a new list of candidates from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India for relaxation of the eligibility criteria. (2) For other courses, Colleges or Institutions shall admit the candidates on the basis of inter-se merit of the applicants; subject to the eligibility criteria, in respect of the course the candidate is granted admission, as laid down by the respective Council or as the case may be, the respective University. The vacant seats shall be filled by giving priority to the candidates belonging to Gujarat State. The vacant seats shall be filled by giving priority to the candidates belonging to Gujarat State. (4) Now, while observing the Rules related to 2017, a perusal to State notification dated 4.5.2018 cannot be unnoticed by the Court, which has effected the amendment in Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017, which is referred to above, in which Rule 16, which is substituted by this amendment Rule, reads as under:- "16. Vacant Seats: If any government and management seat remain vacant in the MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT courses after completion of admission process and exhaustion of merit list, such vacant seats shall be displayed on the official website and on the notice board of the office of the admission committee and shall be intimated to the colleges or institutions wherein the seats are vacant. Such seats shall be filled up by the respective institute as per the criteria laid down by the respective council/Central Government for respective year." This amendment/substituted Rule 16 has indicated that after completion of the admission process and exhaustion of the merit list, such vacant seats shall be displayed on official website and on notice board of the Admission Committee and shall be intimated to the colleges, wherein the seats are vacant. It further reads that such seats shall be filled up by respective institution as per the criteria laid down by the respective Council/Central Government for the respective year. So, the effect of Rule 16, which is prevailing in Rules of 2017, is substituted by the State notification dated 4.5.2018, referred to above. So, resultant effect is that after exhaustion of the merit list, vacant seats shall be filled in as per the criteria laid down by the respective Council. So, the effect of Rule 16, which is prevailing in Rules of 2017, is substituted by the State notification dated 4.5.2018, referred to above. So, resultant effect is that after exhaustion of the merit list, vacant seats shall be filled in as per the criteria laid down by the respective Council. (5) Yet, the minimum qualifying standard for admission, which is prescribed in Rule (5) is also substituted by the State notification dated 4.5.2018, which reads as under:- "(5) Minimum qualifying standard for admission: No candidate shall be admitted in the MBBS, BDS, BAMS, BHMS and BNAT Courses in Government Seats, Management Seats and NRI seats unless he/she possesses minimum qualifying standard in HSC examination and NEET of current academic year, as may be decided by the respective Council/the Central Government and fulfills eligibility criteria under these rules." (6) Now, apropos to this, the Central Council of Homeopathy has issued a notification, called as "Homeopathy Degree Course Regulation, 1983", referred to by the appellant on page 64 of the appeal compilation, in which the eligibility criteria prescribed in Rule 4 which according to the appellant is minimum eligibility criteria of Council. Since the same is significant to be mentioned herein, is reproduced hereinafter:- 4. Since the same is significant to be mentioned herein, is reproduced hereinafter:- 4. Eligibility criteria,-(i) No candidate shall be admitted to B.H.M.S. Degree Course unless he has passed- (a) the higher secondary examination or the Indian School Certificate Examination which is equivalent to 10+2 Higher Secondary Examination after a period of twelve years' study, the last two years of study comprising of Physics, Chemistry, Biology with Mathematics or any other elective subjects with English at a level not less than core course of English as prescribed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after the introduction of 10+2+3 years educational structure as recommended by the National Committee on Education; or (b) the intermediate examination in science of an Indian University or Board or other recognized examining body with Physics, Chemistry and Biology which shall include a practical test in these subjects and also English as a compulsory subject; or (c) the pre-professional or pre-medical examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology, after passing either the higher secondary school examination, or the pre-university or an equivalent Examination, which shall include a practical test in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and also English as a compulsory subject; or (d) the first year of the three years' degree course or a recognized University, with Physics, Chemistry and Biology including a practical test in these subjects provided the examination is a University Examination and candidate has passed 10+2 with English at a level not less than a core course. or (e) any other examination which, in scope and standard is found to be equivalent to the intermediate science examination or an Indian University or Board, taking Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical test in each of these subjects and English as a compulsory subject; (ii) No candidate shall be admitted to B.H.M.S. Degree Course unless he has attained the age of 17 years' on or before 31st December of the year of his admission to the first year of the course. (iii) No candidate shall be admitted to B.H.M.S. Degree Course if he is blind (including colour blindness), deaf, dumb, deaf and dump. (7) Yet, another circumstance which deserves to be noticed is that after exhaustion of four rounds of the admission process, it is the authority itself which has notified the vacant seats in the respective colleges large in numbers, in its official website on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm. (7) Yet, another circumstance which deserves to be noticed is that after exhaustion of four rounds of the admission process, it is the authority itself which has notified the vacant seats in the respective colleges large in numbers, in its official website on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm. and this is undisputedly uploaded by the authority itself. Additional affidavit contains such annexure, which is not in dispute. A further perusal of the schedule prescribed in an advertisement for 5th round of online choice filling and allotment on page 72, has clearly indicated that payment of fees at designated Axis Bank should be by 25.10.2018 and last date for reporting Help Center is 26.10.2018, meaning thereby that 5th round of the process of admission got over by 26.10.2018 and the merit list was exhausted by the Admission Committee and only thereafter official website has uploaded the seats summary available as on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm. On page 73-A, there is a declaration that 5th round was the last round and if any seat remains vacant after 27.10.2018, those seats will be surrendered to the respective institute and the institute can fill those seats as per the Council Rules. Now, this is an indication that left out seats to be filled in as per the Council Rules. But, then the official website undisputedly has already intimated the particulars of vacant seats. (8) It is surprising to note that after publication of the vacant seats on the official website, practically after 2 days, all the State authorities are being informed that last cut-off date for admission of ASU & H Under Graduation Courses will be 15.11.2018. So, this extension was given on account of the fact that various representations about the vacant seats were received by the Ministry and even the authority thought that one or more two rounds of counseling are still required to be undertaken to fill up the vacant seats in Under-graduation course and therefore, time was extended. This communication is reflecting on page 74 issued by the Director of Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy (AYUSH). This communication is reflecting on page 74 issued by the Director of Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy (AYUSH). (9) It is also not possible to be unnoticed that vide later communication dated 1.11.2018, which after uploading of vacant seats in official website, the minimum marks came to be reduced to 35 percentile for general category candidates and 25th percentile for SC, ST, OBC candidates and this clarification is for the academic year 2018-19, which is reflecting on page 75. Therefore, a substantial reduction of percentile as compared to previous year, is solely with a view to see that the Ministry has received various representations about the vacant seats to be filled in on account of less number of qualified students in NEET-2018. (10) A further surprising feature is that on one hand, vehemently the stand is taken by the State authority about the admissions which are effected by these private colleges who are members of the petitioner Association but then 6th round which is possibly on account of previous communication dated 1.11.2018 is undertaken by the authority only for the Government colleges and not for private colleges and this is an undisputed fact on the basis of which, it is possible to be inferred that the State has been well within the knowledge of the admissions which are effected and probably, that might be the reason that 6th round is only for the Government colleges. (11) A further fact which deserves consideration is that Annexure-P on page 129 onwards in 16th Lok Sabha 37th Report was in deliberation in which also, this issue related to the admission in Under-Graduate course of AYUSH was a point of consideration and the report of the Committee has clearly indicated baffling to understand as to how the admission for course of AYUSH can be brought within the ambit of NEET without first amending the Rules and Regulations and therefore, the Committee recommend the amendment of regulations regulating the admission process in AYUSH Medical Colleges before introduction of NEET for admission. Operative part of the said relevant observations reads as under:- "In such kind of scenario, the Committee finds it simply baffling to understand as to how the admissions in Under Graduate courses of Ayush can be brought within the ambit of NEET without first amending the relevant Rules and regulations. Operative part of the said relevant observations reads as under:- "In such kind of scenario, the Committee finds it simply baffling to understand as to how the admissions in Under Graduate courses of Ayush can be brought within the ambit of NEET without first amending the relevant Rules and regulations. The committee, therefore, recommend amendment of Regulations regulating the admission process in AYUSH medical colleges before introduction of NEET for admission in AYUSH undergraduate courses to ensure uniformity in the basic eligibility criteria." (12) It further appears that in consonance and in persuasion of such, the amendment has taken place and such amendment is framed vide notification dated 7.12.2018 for the academic year 2019-2020. So, in substance, it appears that vacant seats have already been uploaded on 27.10.2018 at 5.45 pm. The member colleges have effected the admission prior to original cut-off date on the basis of substituted Rule 16 and on the basis of following the criteria of Council, as suggested. So, this is the scenario, which is on record of the case placed before us to examine the order of learned Single Judge. 23. No-doubt, the Court should be loath in interfering with the clarificatory criteria prescribed for admission and normally, should not intercept the process of admission but when some apparent circumstances are compelling the Court to take up an issue in the interest of large number of students, the Court should not hesitate in considering the issue in the overall interest of justice. 24. Now, for this issue posed before us, we have an advantage of some of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court of a recent time and while dealing with the validity of Rule 16 read with Rule 4(5)(A) of the Admission Rules of 2017, examined in a group of Special Civil Applications, headed by Special Civil Application No. 22606 of 2017, the Division Bench after analysis of the case law on the subject has observed like this, which also cannot be ignored by us. Of-course, the same is almost similar controversy but with respect to the academic year 2017-18 but the situation is not uncommon. Hence, relevant observations read as under:- 38. Of-course, the same is almost similar controversy but with respect to the academic year 2017-18 but the situation is not uncommon. Hence, relevant observations read as under:- 38. In the case of Dhrutikumari Bhagubhai Patel (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed in para 21 that looking to the seats available for the professional medical educational courses and the students registered, the respondent State is empowered to prescribe higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Central Council by way of regulations. However, for the seats which have remained vacant, such higher qualifying standard prescribed by the State would not be applicable but the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Councils by way of regulations would be applicable. Hence, the reliance placed by the respondents on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case would not render any assistance to them. 39. We have kept in view the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by learned advocates for the parties. From the facts discussed hereinabove, it is revealed that as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 2017, admission on vacant seats is to be granted on the basis of the relaxed eligibility criteria. The applicability of NEET for the purpose of preparation of merit list and granting admission in BAMS/BHMS courses for the academic year 2017-2018 is having the effect of prescribing a higher standard than the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine under the Regulations of 1986. As per the discussion made hereinabove, Ministry of AYUSH had given option to the state governments to implement NEET for academic year 2017-2018. Most of the states have not accepted the option given by the Ministry of AYUSH for the current academic year and the respondent-State has applied the said higher standards for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. The minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Councils for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses is not NEET for the current academic year i.e. 2017-18. It is further required to be noted that by decision dated 16.2.2018, the respondent-State has reduced the criteria for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses by which the respondent-state has described approximately four percentile for grant of admission. It is further required to be noted that by decision dated 16.2.2018, the respondent-State has reduced the criteria for grant of admission in BAMS and BHMS courses by which the respondent-state has described approximately four percentile for grant of admission. Thus, in substance, the eligibility criteria of minimum 50 percentile at NEET prescribed in Rule 4(5)(A) of the Rules of 2017 for regular seats has been reduced to approximately 4 percentile at NEET as minimum criteria for granting admission on vacant seats. We see no logic/rationale behind the said fixing of 30 marks out of 720 marks in NEET. Thus, when the respondent-state itself has reduced the minimum eligibility criteria for grant of admission in BAMS at four percentile at NEET, we are of the view that the respondent-State shall permit the members of the petitioner-association i.e. the concerned institutions to grant admission to the students in BAMS and BHMS courses on the basis of the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Central Councils under the regulations. 40. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out by learned advocates appearing for the parties that the members of the petitioner association i.e. the concerned institutions have granted admission on the vacant seats which are returned to the respective colleges by the respondent no. 2-Committee on the basis of the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the concerned Councils as per the regulations and therefore such admissions granted to the students are required to be approved. At this stage, it is further required to be noted that the present situation is arising for the current academic year 2017-18 only because from the next academic year i.e. 2018-19, NEET is made compulsory for granting admission in BAMS and BHMS courses. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid findings are recorded. 25. Now, this controversy cropped up is also revolved upon one communication of the Government of India of AYUSH dated 11.6.2018, wherein it has indicated that all concerns are requested to strict compliance of the clarification and to ensure that the admission of students in AYUSH/UG courses shall be mandatorily through list and qualifying criteria of NEET from the AY 2018-19. Such clarification contained in para 3 and 4 reads as under:- 3. Such clarification contained in para 3 and 4 reads as under:- 3. In this context, it is further clarified that the intention of the Ministry in directing the concerned authorities to adopt the merit list of NEET includes adopting NEET notification as a whole including the "Merit list and qualifying Criteria" of the NEET information bulletin issued by CBSE. In the said NEET notification, it has been mentioned that in order to be eligible for admission for a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in NEET for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled castes, Schedule tribes, Other Backward castes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of the candidates with bench marked Disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile for General category candidates and 40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All India common merit list in NEET. 4. In view of above, all the concerns are requested to strict compliance of the above clarifications and to ensure that admission of students in AYUSH-UG Courses shall be mandatorily through merit list and qualifying criteria of NEET from the A.Y. 2018-19." 26. The Court while examining the emphatic stand of the authority in this regard has also an advantage of the observations made by the Apex Court in a recent Civil Appeal No. 1393 of 2019 filed by the Association of Managements of Homeopathic and Medical Colleges of Maharashtra State, in which the Apex Court while dealing with this communication dated 11.6.2018 and disposing of the appeal, has observed in para 5, 6 and 7 as under:- 5. We have perused the judgments and orders passed by the High Courts of Patna, Karnataka, Madras, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad and Kolkata. Directions were issued in favour of the students permitting admissions on the basis of the marks in the qualifying examination without reference to the marks secured by them in the NEET UG-2018 examination. The learned Additional Solicitor General fairly submitted that none of the judgments or orders passed by the High Courts have been challenged. 6. Directions were issued in favour of the students permitting admissions on the basis of the marks in the qualifying examination without reference to the marks secured by them in the NEET UG-2018 examination. The learned Additional Solicitor General fairly submitted that none of the judgments or orders passed by the High Courts have been challenged. 6. Though the last date for admission to the BHMS course was 15 th November, 2018, we are informed that the last date was extended till 20th December, 2018 by the Allahabad High Court. Though there is no agreement on the exact number of vacant seats, it is common ground that there are vacant seats for admission to the 1st year BHMS course in the State of Maharashtra. As there is no uniformity in the matter of admission to the 1st year BHMS course for the year 2018-19, as securing minimum marks in NEET is not required in some States pursuant to orders of the High Courts, we are of the opinion that the Appellants are entitled to the relief of admissions being made without reference to the letter dated 11th June, 2018 of Respondent No. 1 and the consequential notice of Respondent No. 3. In other words, the Appellant-Association should be permitted to make admissions to the 1st year BHMS course for the academic session 2018-19 on the basis of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the information brochure dated 5 th February, 2018. A candidate who has secured minimum marks in the NEET UG-2018 shall be eligible for admission to the 1st year BHMS course for the academic year 2018-19. 7. As two months have passed after the last date of admission to the 1st year BHMS course i.e. 15th November, 2018, we direct the Appellants to complete the process of admissions strictly on the basis of the merit by 15th February, 2019. The Managements of the colleges are directed to hold extra classes for students who will be admitted pursuant to this order to comply with the requirements of minimum working days. This order which is passed in the peculiar facts of the case shall not be treated as a precedent. No opinion is expressed by us regarding the introduction of the minimum percentile as an eligibility criteria in the NEET examination. 27. This order which is passed in the peculiar facts of the case shall not be treated as a precedent. No opinion is expressed by us regarding the introduction of the minimum percentile as an eligibility criteria in the NEET examination. 27. In the aforesaid background, when we noticed that the despite such controversy, the State authority has undertaken 6th round of admission to fill up the vacant posts only in Government colleges and not for private colleges, we are unable to accept the stand of the State in this peculiar background of facts. We have also noticed from the specific averments made on oath by the appellants who are the original petitioners that despite several representations, the authorities have not responded, the petitioner has to rush down to this Court, especially when this controversy has erupted in various States. We have been informed and which can be easily seen from various annexures to this compilation that several High Courts have passed protective orders, may be at an interim stage in some cases, we also deem it proper in the larger interest of students who are already prosecuting their studies almost from several months by now, to shut down the study abruptly would not be in the best interest and especially now since new regulations have been amended, as stated above, reflecting on page 133 onwards and this dilemma about applicability of NEET criteria is set right for next academic year, admissions which are already effected do not deserve to be disturbed in this peculiar background of facts. 28. Since here in the present case, we found that unamended Rule 12 is clearly indicating that no admission shall be granted on the vacant seats after the said date, normally cut-off date, and we found that the official website has declared vacant seats in the evening of 27.10.2018 and declaration about extension of time till 15.11.2018 came almost after 2 days and then reduction of percentile is also on 1.11.2018 declared by the Ministry of AYUSH. When that be so, if admissions are already effected by that time and when 6th round is also not meant for private colleges, to cancel the admissions of students in private colleges would be too harsh a step. As a result of this, in this background of facts available on record, we are of the opinion that the case is made out by the appellants. 29. As a result of this, in this background of facts available on record, we are of the opinion that the case is made out by the appellants. 29. At this stage, we are also posed with the facts that the admissions are effected on the basis of requirement of Council as permitted. The said facts having not been disputed before us by way of any affidavit, we are left with no option but to accept the stand of the appellant that the member colleges have effected admissions on the basis of the substituted Rule 16, as indicated above, and in conformity with the minimum requirement prescribed by the Council. 30. We are also informed that pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee, referred to above, in Lok Sabha, the Central Government of Indian Medicine stated to have amended the Regulations and prescribed eligibility criteria for the academic year 2019-2010 and as such, we deem it proper to accept the stand of the appellants in the present appeals. 31. While examining the order of learned Single Judge, since the aforesaid facts situation appears to have not been dealt with in its proper perspective, we deem it proper to correct the order by granting the reliefs as prayed for by the appellants in the present proceedings. We clarify that the decisions which have been relied upon by learned Single Judge in the order impugned of the Apex Court are not at all in disagreement in any form but the aforesaid peculiar facts situation, as indicated and detailed out hereinbefore, we are of the considered opinion that the case is made out by the appellants. We found that it is delayed response on the part of the authority which has generated such controversy and especially when the stand is taken by the appellants that while effecting admissions, minimum criteria prescribed by the Council has been observed by the institute, we are not inclined to accept the stand of the authority. Resultantly, the appeals stand allowed in terms of the reliefs which have been sought. 32. While parting with the order, we hereby direct the respondent authorities to carry out appropriate steps, if required, to be concluded on their part as expeditiously as possible as the students are already admitted and prosecuting their studies for taking their exams, attendances, computing days of studies, etc. 33. 32. While parting with the order, we hereby direct the respondent authorities to carry out appropriate steps, if required, to be concluded on their part as expeditiously as possible as the students are already admitted and prosecuting their studies for taking their exams, attendances, computing days of studies, etc. 33. Since the main Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of, the Civil Applications filed in the respective Letters Patent Appeals do not survive and stand disposed of.