ORDER : 1. The matter has been taken up via video-conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned Government Pleader 27 along with Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader 27 for the State; Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned counsel for the Lalit Narayan Mithila University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), which is also the Nodal University for the process of admission to the B.Ed. course for the Session 2020-22 through a Combined Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CET’); and Mr. Rajendra Giri, learned counsel for the Hon’ble Chancellor. 3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:- “(i) issuance of an appropriate direction, order or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authority to allow the petitioner that the petitioner being minority institutions take admission of candidates of its own choice among the list of candidates prepared on the basis of Combined Entrance Test (CET) for academic session 2020-22. (ii) Issuance of an appropriate direction, order or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents authorities to make available candidates to the petitioner on the basis of Combined Entrance Test (CET) 2020 for admission keeping in view that the fundamental right of the petitioner as a minority institution should not be infringed. (iii) Any other relief that the petitioner may be found entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 4. The short point raised in the writ application is the modality to be adopted while filling up seats for B.Ed. Course for the Session 2020-22 in the petitioner college, which is a recognized minority institution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner straightaway drew attention of the Court to Annexure-5 of the writ application, which is an Order of a co-ordinate Bench dated 24.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 16770 of 2018 (Mirza Ghalib Teacher Training College & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which similar issue arose, and vide interim order, the petitioner-college therein, was given liberty to admit students in the B.Ed. Course in the college, subject to the condition that such candidates should have qualified in the CET. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which similar issue arose, and vide interim order, the petitioner-college therein, was given liberty to admit students in the B.Ed. Course in the college, subject to the condition that such candidates should have qualified in the CET. He further relied upon Annexure-8 of the supplementary affidavit, which is a copy of the Order dated 09.04.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 225/2019, SLP(C) Diary No. 40948/2018, SLP(C) Diary No. 40952/2018 and SLP(C) No. 5223/2019, [listed on the said date with WP(C) No. 1076/2018], where interim directions in the following terms, were issued: “xxxxx In terms of the Memorandum dated 18.3.2019 issued by the Governor’s Secretariat, 50% of the seats in the appellant colleges have to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit on the basis of the result of the common entrance examination. To this extent compliance must be made. For the remaining 50% of the seats, at the first instance, an attempt will be made to fill up the seats in terms of the Memorandum dated 18.3.2019, namely, on the basis of the inter se merit of the minority students, as per the common entrance examination. If, however, a situation arises where any one of the appellant colleges is unable to fill up 50% of the seats from minority students on the basis of the result of the common entrance examination i.e. by following the inter se merit among the minority students, it will be open for the appellant colleges to conduct a separate selection process for filling up the remaining unfilled or the entire 50% of the unfilled seats, as may remain vacant, from minority students. This is a purely interim arrangement which the Court has directed keeping in mind all the relevant facts and circumstances and will hold the field for the academic year 2019-20. The appeals will now come up for final consideration and hearing after the commencement of the academic year 2019 20. The parties will inform the Court by filing affidavits as to the manner in which the above interim directions have been implemented by the appellant colleges.” 6. Learned counsel further relied upon Annexure-9, which is a copy of the order dated 29.05.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 84239/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2019 (Dr. The parties will inform the Court by filing affidavits as to the manner in which the above interim directions have been implemented by the appellant colleges.” 6. Learned counsel further relied upon Annexure-9, which is a copy of the order dated 29.05.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 84239/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2019 (Dr. S.M. Ali Imam vs. Hon’ble Chancellor Universities of Bihar & Ors.) [arising from SLP(C) No.225/2019] and analogous cases, copy of which is Annexure-9 of the supplementary affidavit, in which the following directions were issued: “xxxxx Learned counsel appearing for the allotting University has stated at the Bar that the last round will be completed on 12.5.2019. Whatever the position prevailing after completion of last round 12.6.2019 shall be communicated to the concerned institutions forthwith and whatever the students are allotted the same will be filled by the concerned institutions as per the order passed by this Court on 09.4.2019 and thereafter, it will be open to the concerned institutions to fill up the seats as directed by this Court in the interim order dated 09.4.2019 (the aforesaid order shall be with respect to the minority students only). It goes without saying that the aforesaid order shall be subject to compliance of the regulatory measures by the concerned institutions. With the aforesaid directions, these applications for directions are disposed of. xxxxx” 7. Further, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.(s) 818 of 2019 (Sattar Memorial College of Education & Ors. vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.) and its analogous case, by order dated 01.07.2019, copy of which is Annexure-10 of the supplementary affidavit, while disposing of the matter, permitted/allowed the petitioner college to admit students who have qualified the CET, though fixing a time schedule for finalizing the admission process. 8. The Court notices that Civil Appeal No. 4250/2019 is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, CWJC No. 16770/2018 was disposed of on 17.09.2018 by the co-ordinate Bench with the following observation: “The legal issues which have been raised in the present cases have not been gone into, in view of the changed situation. Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to raise such issues in appropriate proceeding, in future.” 9. However, CWJC No. 16770/2018 was disposed of on 17.09.2018 by the co-ordinate Bench with the following observation: “The legal issues which have been raised in the present cases have not been gone into, in view of the changed situation. Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to raise such issues in appropriate proceeding, in future.” 9. At this stage, the broad and overall picture which emerges, especially taking into account the Memorandum issued by the Governor’s Secretariat dated 18.03.2019, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 09.04.2019 (supra), requires the following exercise to be undertaken: (i) At the first instance, the Nodal University is required to conduct counselling for filling up of 50% seats of the petitioner and similarly situated minority colleges, purely on the basis of inter se merit, from amongst all CET qualified students. (ii) Once the said 50% of the seats is filled up, the remaining 50% seats of such colleges have then to be filled up from minority students on the basis of their inter se merit as per the CET. (iii) If, after the last counselling by the Nodal University, for the remaining 50% of seats which are to be filled up only by inter se merit among minority students on the basis of result of the CET Examination, any seat remains vacant and unfilled, the same is then to be filled up by the concerned minority college. 10. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the aforesaid position. 11. The Court has been informed that with regard to filling up of the first 50% of the seats, the exercise is already complete and there is no controversy with regard to the same. However, for the remaining 50% seats of the petitioner and similarly situated minority colleges, the counselling is going on and on 20.12.2020 the Nodal University shall display the final allotment list, and admission to such seats shall be done by 23.12.2020. Thereafter, the Nodal University shall display the list of students admitted in the colleges. 12. The Court has further been informed that all admissions are required to be completed by 30.12.2020. 13. At this stage it is apt to reproduce Annexure-12 of the supplementary affidavit, which is the Online Counselling Schedule issued by the Nodal University: 1. Date of Choice Filling of Qualified Candidates & Payment of Counselling Registration Fee 07.10.2020 to 17.10.2020 2. 12. The Court has further been informed that all admissions are required to be completed by 30.12.2020. 13. At this stage it is apt to reproduce Annexure-12 of the supplementary affidavit, which is the Online Counselling Schedule issued by the Nodal University: 1. Date of Choice Filling of Qualified Candidates & Payment of Counselling Registration Fee 07.10.2020 to 17.10.2020 2. Display of Allotted College 21.10.2020 3. Date of Part Fee Payment (Online) 21.10.2020 to 31.10.2020 4. Display of Final Allotment List 03.11.2020 5. Physical Verification of Documents at Concerned Participating University 09.11.2020 to 12.11.2020 23.11.2020 to 25.11.2020 6. Display of the List of the Students Admitted in the Colleges 28.11.2020 Online Counselling Schedule for Vacant Seats (if any) 1. Display of Allotted College 01.12.2020 2. Date of Part Fee Payment (Online) 01.12.2020 to 04.12.2020 3. Display of Final Allotment List 06.12.2020 4. Physical Verification of Documents at Concerned Participating University 08.12.2020 to 12.12.2020 5. Display of the List of the Students Admitted in the Colleges 14.12.2020 Online Counselling Schedule for Vacant Seats (if any) 1. Display of Allotted College 16.12.2020 2. Date of Part Fee Payment (Online) 16.12.2020 to 19.12.2020 3. Display of Final Allotment List 20.12.2020 4. Physical Verification of Documents at Concerned Participating University 21.12.2020 to 23.12.2020 5. Display of the List of the Students Admitted in the Colleges 24.12.2020 State Spot Round Counselling (Physical) 1. Display of Vacancy 25.12.2020 2. Date of Counselling (Physical) and Part fee payment by Decided On : 26.12.2020 to 30.12.2020 3. Consolidated List Submission by Colleges 31.12.2020 4. Commencement of Classes 14. Upon hearing learned counsel at length, the Court finds that there is consensus and agreement with regard to the actual procedure and modality of the exercise. 15. In view thereof, on the basis of agreement between the parties, for the sake of clarity, the Court records the following procedure to be adopted and duly followed by all concerned: (i) As per the schedule, after the final round of counselling by the Nodal University, it shall display the final allotment list on 20.12.2020. Thereafter, physical verification of documents shall be made by the concerned participating university between 21.12.2020 to 23.12.2020. This would be followed up by display of list by the Nodal University of the students admitted in the colleges on 24.12.2020. Thereafter, physical verification of documents shall be made by the concerned participating university between 21.12.2020 to 23.12.2020. This would be followed up by display of list by the Nodal University of the students admitted in the colleges on 24.12.2020. (ii) After such students who have been admitted latest by 23.12.2020 and their list displayed by the Nodal University on 24.12.2020, the scene will shift to the respective college(s), which are required to display their vacancy(ies) on 25.12.2020. Thereafter, physical counselling by the concerned college and part fee payment by Demand Draft shall be conducted from 26.12.2020 to 30.12.2020. However, only minority students shall be admitted on such vacant seats on the basis of the result of CET, by following the inter se merit among them. (iii) After completion of such admission by the deadline of 30.12.2020, the concerned college shall forward the final consolidated list of all the students admitted in that college, to the Nodal University, by 31.12.2020. 16. After dictating the present order in Court, learned counsel for the parties were called upon once again to elicit their stand whether the order dictated required any modification, there was unanimity that the same did not require any change or further clarification, as the procedure of the exercise in question had been clearly explained. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court directs the completion of the exercise with regard to filling up of the seats, in B.Ed. Session 2020-22 Course, left vacant after completion of counselling by the Nodal University, as per the Nodal University’s ‘Online Counselling Schedule’, strictly in terms of the present order. 18. Before parting, in view of materials brought before the Court, by learned counsel for the Hon’ble Chancellor, University/Nodal University and State, especially with regard to Online Counselling position with regard to many colleges, including the petitioner, the Court would observe that once it has clarified the scheme of such counselling and the modality of taking admissions on vacant/left over seats for B.Ed. 2020-22 Course, it is expected that no discrimination or distinction shall be made by the Nodal University in applying the same parameters with regard to all similarly situated institutions, with the only rider that such admissions shall be restricted to students belonging to categories permissible in law, which may differ from case to case, besides them satisfying all other eligibility criteria, without being required to individually approach Court. 19. 19. On this issue the Court is tempted to refer to its order dated 07.03.2017 passed in Praveena Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [CWJC No. 19299 of 2014], specifically the following paragraphs: “xxxxx Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar reported as 2006 (3) PLJR 573 , when a person is identically situated, a benefit granted to one by the Court must be granted to persons similarly situated, even if they do not approach the Court and are not party to the said litigation. Having considered the rival contentions, the Court finds no merit in the objection raised by learned counsel for the State with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. First and foremost, the matters which are to be referred to the Authority relate to a ‘dispute’. In the present case, in view of the stand of the State that persons were finally selected and a list was prepared and only formal appointment letters were not given, will not come in the category of a ‘dispute’ as there is nothing to be adjudicated or settled. A mere ministerial act of the authorities of issuing a formal appointment letter, the petitioner moving the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a proper forum, since only a direction has to be issued to the authorities to move to the next stage and complete the formality of the exercise and take it to its logical conclusion by issuing of appointment letter, as is the position in the case at hand. Had there been any ‘dispute’ with regard to the eligibility, selection or otherwise in the transaction, learned counsel for the State would have been correct that the dispute could equally have been adjudicated before the Authority. Had there been any ‘dispute’ with regard to the eligibility, selection or otherwise in the transaction, learned counsel for the State would have been correct that the dispute could equally have been adjudicated before the Authority. Secondly, as per the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ajay Kumar Srivastava (supra), as also the State Litigation Policy, 2010, a conscious decision has been taken by the State government that when an issue has been decided or when similarly situated persons have been granted relief by the Courts, the same benefit should be granted by the authorities themselves to other persons who are similarly situated and who may not have approached the Court. In the present case, identically situated persons have been granted relief and appointment letters have been given to them without the authorities raising any ‘dispute’ or objection and, thus, the matter having attained finality by judicial pronouncements, but the benefit not being given to the petitioner, who is identically situated, is also a violation of the State Litigation Policy itself. xxxxx” 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also, apropos the aforesaid point, placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Ajay Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar [ 2006 (3) PLJR 573 ], which has been adverted to in Praveena Khatoon (supra). 21. In view of the urgency, as the case has been heard on priority at short notice, in the fitness of things, it is deemed appropriate to adjourn the matter to 12th January, 2021, to enable learned counsel to file counter-affidavit(s), if they so desire, and assist the Court before the matter is finally disposed off.