1. Heard Mr. Ganbavale, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader for the respondents-State; Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3; and Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. Two petitioners have joined together and have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- 1. for a declaration that admissions of the 30 students to Bachelor of Physiotherapy course and 1 student to Master of Physiotherapy course by the petitioners for the academic year 2015-2016 are in accordance with law, and as such, the admissions are legal and valid; 2. for issuance of writ, order or direction to respondent No. 4 i.e., Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to grant eligibility certificate, to accept examination forms, to issue hall tickets, to conduct examination, to declare the result and to issue the result and mark-sheet, internship completion certificate and degree certificate, besides returning the original documents of all the above students admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course and Master of Physiotherapy course for the academic year 2015-2016. 3. Petitioner No. 2 is a minority unaided educational institution which is run and managed by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is a college of physiotherapy and research and had started functioning from the academic year 2004-2005 offering the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy. From the academic year 2010-2011, petitioner No. 2 started the course of Master of Physiotherapy. For both the above courses, petitioner No. 2 had obtained the requisite recognition and affiliation from the concerned authorities. 4. It is stated that right from the inception till the academic year 2015-2016, petitioner No. 2 had conducted its own entrance test at the institutional level evolving its own admission process in a fair, transparent and merit based manner without charging capitation fee or indulging in any profiteering. After introduction of the course for Master of Physiotherapy from the academic year 2010-2011, petitioner No. 2 also conducted its own entrance test at the institutional level like the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course till the academic year 2015-2016. 5. For the academic year 2015-2016, petitioners submitted application before the Pravesh Niyantran Samitee (Medical Education), Maharashtra i.e., respondent No. 3 seeking permission to conduct its own entrance test at the institutional level for both the courses as was done earlier. 5. For the academic year 2015-2016, petitioners submitted application before the Pravesh Niyantran Samitee (Medical Education), Maharashtra i.e., respondent No. 3 seeking permission to conduct its own entrance test at the institutional level for both the courses as was done earlier. However, such permission sought for was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide the order dated 16.01.2015. Against such rejection, petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015. 6. The aforesaid writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015 was heard along with a connected writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5107 of 2015. It may be mentioned that State of Maharashtra had, in the meanwhile, promulgated an ordinance called 'Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Ordinance, 2015 (for short 'the Ordinance' hereinafter) for regulation of admissions and fees of unaided private professional educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra. Subsequently, the Ordinance became an act by the name of 'Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015' (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). State of Maharashtra filed an affidavit wherein stand taken was that since the petitioners were allowed to hold their own entrance test on orders of the Court prior to promulgation of the Ordinance, the admission process for the academic year 2015-2016 should not be affected due to promulgation of the Ordinance. Petitioners should be allowed to conduct their own entrance test and admission process. 7. In the above context, this Court vide the common judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 set aside and quashed the rejection order dated 16.01.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 and granted permission to the petitioners to conduct their own entrance test and admission process for the academic year 2015-2016 in accordance with law and as per practice adopted in the previous years for both the courses, making it clear that the said arrangement was only for the academic year 2015-2016 and that for the next year, provisions of the Act would be applicable. 8. It is stated that following the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, petitioner No. 2 conducted its own entrance test for both the courses in an open, fair and transparent manner based on merit. The test was conducted on 20.09.2015 which led to declaration of final merit list on 17.10.2015. 8. It is stated that following the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, petitioner No. 2 conducted its own entrance test for both the courses in an open, fair and transparent manner based on merit. The test was conducted on 20.09.2015 which led to declaration of final merit list on 17.10.2015. Following the merit criteria, 30 admissions were made to the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy and a solitary admission was made to the course of Master of Physiotherapy before the cut-off date of 31.10.2015. 9. According to the petitioners on the same day a list of admitted students was submitted in the prescribed manner online to Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, respondent No. 4, as well as to other authorities, like Director of Medical Education and Research, respondent No. 3 and State Government. 9.1. Thereafter as per schedule prescribed by respondent No. 3, petitioner No. 2 within the limitation period submitted documents for approval of admissions to the under graduate and post graduate courses for the academic year 2015-2016 on 16.11.2015, which was duly acknowledged by respondent No. 3. In the same way, petitioner No. 2 also submitted eligibility forms, original documents of the admitted students, fees receipts and other requisite documents to respondent No. 4 on 23.11.2015 for grant of eligibility to those admitted students. Copy of the judgment of this Court dated 26.08.2015 was also enclosed for perusal and information of respondent No. 4. 9.2. Surprisingly, respondent No. 4 vide two letters dated 24.11.2015 and 10.12.2015 informed petitioner No. 2 about its refusal to accept the eligibility proposal of the admitted students on very shallow grounds, such as, respondent No. 4 not being made a party to the writ proceedings; copy of the writ petition not being served; and there being no specific direction of the Court with regard to registration of the admitted students and granting of eligibility to them for the academic year 2015-2016. Petitioner No. 2 responded to the aforesaid letters of respondent No. 4 stating that it had moved the High Court seeking leave to amend the writ petition by making respondent No. 4 a party to the said proceeding. Copy of the writ petition was also served upon respondent No. 4. 9.3. Petitioner No. 2 responded to the aforesaid letters of respondent No. 4 stating that it had moved the High Court seeking leave to amend the writ petition by making respondent No. 4 a party to the said proceeding. Copy of the writ petition was also served upon respondent No. 4. 9.3. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No. 4 refused to accept the eligibility proposals of petitioner No. 2 on the ground that in the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015, there was no specific direction for acceptance of registration forms, grant of eligibility and for conducting examinations. 9.4. At that stage, petitioners preferred a civil application before this Court in the disposed off writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015 questioning the letters dated 24.11.2015 and 10.12.2015 of respondent No. 4. By the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Court, the civil application was allowed. This Court noted that applicants (petitioners) had conducted their entrance test and admission process in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015 on the basis of which 30 students got admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course and 1 student got admitted to the Master of Physiotherapy course for the academic year 2015-2016. This Court observed that the students could not be made to suffer for the inaction or for want of orders on the part of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This Court also took into account orders passed by this Court in an identical matter. Accordingly direction was issued to respondent No. 4 to approve the title and synopsis, to accept and approve the thesis of the admitted students for the academic year 2015-2016 and further to accept their examination forms, to issue them hall tickets, to allow them to appear in those examinations, to declare their results, to issue their mark-lists and to permit those students to prosecute their studies. 9.5. After this Court passed the order dated 29.03.2016, respondent No. 4 accepted the eligibility forms of the admitted students. However, vide letter dated 01.04.2016, respondent No. 4 informed petitioner No. 2 that such acceptance was temporary, subject to outcome of the final decision of the Court. 9.5. After this Court passed the order dated 29.03.2016, respondent No. 4 accepted the eligibility forms of the admitted students. However, vide letter dated 01.04.2016, respondent No. 4 informed petitioner No. 2 that such acceptance was temporary, subject to outcome of the final decision of the Court. By further letter dated 21.01.2017, respondent No. 4 informed petitioner No. 2 that proposal of the admitted students for the academic year 2015-2016 was temporarily accepted subject to outcome of the 'court case' but till then process for grant of eligibility to the admitted students would not be proceeded with. However, petitioner No. 2 informed respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 02.02.2017 that the High Court had not put any restriction on respondent No. 4 from processing the eligibility of the admitted students. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 was requested to process the eligibility applications of the admitted students. However, respondent No. 4 vide its communication dated 19.01.2018 addressed to all the affiliated colleges and institutions informed about the students whose eligibility and registration were pending. College of petitioner No. 2 was included in the furnished list at Sr. No. 4 wherein it was mentioned that eligibility and registration of all the students was pending because of 'court case'. 9.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners have preferred the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. It is contended that petitioner No. 2 had conducted the entrance test and thereafter admitted the students to both the courses on the strength of judgment and order passed by this Court. Subsequently this Court had issued direction to respondent No. 4 to approve the title and synopsis, to accept the thesis of the admitted students, to allow them to appear in the examinations and thereafter to declare the results. In such circumstances, withholding eligibility and registration on the ground of pending 'court case' is not at all justified. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in P. A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on October 11, 2018, in which this Court had granted identical relief to the admitted students of similarly situated educational institution. Therefore, it is contended that identical relief should be extended to the petitioners. 11. Though this case is pending since 13.04.2019, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 12. State of Maharashtra, decided on October 11, 2018, in which this Court had granted identical relief to the admitted students of similarly situated educational institution. Therefore, it is contended that identical relief should be extended to the petitioners. 11. Though this case is pending since 13.04.2019, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. It has already been decided by this Court in P. A. Inamdar (supra), which decision has been followed in subsequent writ petitions by this Court. Therefore, there is no reason for withholding eligibility and registration of the admitted students. Writ petition may be allowed on identical terms. 13. Learned AGP submits that the matter pertains to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having hardly any role to play in the controversy. 14. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submit that prayer made in the writ petition is of omnibus character. Direction to issue internship completion certificate and degree certificate to the admitted students of both under graduate and post graduate courses is contingent upon the said students completing the internship and being successful in the examination. These are the two fundamental requirements and in the absence thereof, no such certificates can be issued. Instead of approaching the authority with regard to each candidate, petitioners have sought for a general direction from this Court. 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. Also perused the materials on record. 16. To appreciate the controversy, we may first advert to the order of this Court passed in P. A. Inamdar (supra). Challenge in the said writ petition was to an order passed by respondent No. 3 not granting approval to the admissions carried out by petitioner No. 3 college for under graduate and post graduate dental courses for the academic year 2013-2014 following institutional entrance test and admission. Like petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 3 in the said writ petition was a minority unaided educational institution offering dental courses for both undergraduate (BDS) and post-graduate (MDS) courses. Like petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 3 in the said writ petition was a minority unaided educational institution offering dental courses for both undergraduate (BDS) and post-graduate (MDS) courses. Request of petitioner No. 3 to hold its own entrance test for earlier years was rejected by the State Government which led to filing of writ petition before this Court. However, the writ petition was dismissed. Petitioner No. 3 filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Interim orders were passed therein allowing petitioner No. 3 to hold its own entrance test for admission of students. Finally, Supreme Court held that petitioner No. 3 could hold its own entrance test which decision is reported in P. A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 . For the academic year 2013-2014, Dental Council of India had issued two regulations whereby it was decided to hold National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Consequently, Dental Council of India issued instructions to the state governments to implement the regulations. Such regulations and instructions were initially put to challenge before this Court. However, on direction of the Supreme Court, the writ petition was transferred to the Supreme Court and heard along with similar petitions. An interim order was passed whereby it was directed that Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India as well as other institutions would be entitled to conduct their respective admissions for MBBS, BDS and such other courses including PG courses. Finally in Christian Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union of India,: (2014) 2 SCC 305 , Supreme Court held that the regulations of Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India providing for single entrance test (NEET) was unconstitutional and was accordingly struck down. This judgment was delivered on 18.07.2013. 16.1. Medical Council of India filed review petition seeking review of the decision in Christian Medical College (supra). Initially only notice was issued and no stay was granted. Review petition was finally heard by the Supreme Court and by the order dated 11.04.2016, in Medical Council of India Vs. Christian Medical College, (2016) 4 SCC 342 , Supreme Court was pleased to restore National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Decision of the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College (supra) was thus recalled. The review decision was delivered on 11.04.2016. 17. Christian Medical College, (2016) 4 SCC 342 , Supreme Court was pleased to restore National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Decision of the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College (supra) was thus recalled. The review decision was delivered on 11.04.2016. 17. At this stage, it may be mentioned that in P. A. Inamdar (supra), the admissions to BDS and MDS courses were for the academic year 2013-2014. 17.1. Question considered in P. A. Inamdar (supra) was whether for the academic year 2013-2014, petitioner No. 3 was justified in conducting its own admission test at the institutional level and consequently, as to whether the order passed by respondent No. 3 not approving the admissions for the academic year 2013-2014 was required to be quashed and set aside? 18. After due deliberation, this Court held that though the decision in Christian Medical College (supra) was subsequently recalled, the said decision however held the field during the period from 18.07.2013 to 11.04.2016. During this period, the law laid down in Christian Medical College (supra) held the field and was required to be followed. It was further held that all actions which were taken in accordance with the judgment in Christian Medical College (supra) during this period would have to be held as valid. In the facts of that particular case, this Court held that petitioner No. 3 had proceeded to admit the students in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court at the relevant point of time, and therefore, such admissions would stand protected. In conclusion, this Court held that all admissions made during the period between 18.07.2013 and 11.04.2016 in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Christian Medical College (supra) would have to be protected. Referring to the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, it was observed that an act of court should prejudice no man and therefore, the said maxim would be applicable to the facts of that case. Consequently, it was held and declared that admissions of the students for the academic year 2013-2014 were in accordance with law, and therefore, the said admissions were legal and valid. Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue degree certificates to the BDS and MDS students who were admitted by the petitioners for the academic year 2013-2014. Consequently, it was held and declared that admissions of the students for the academic year 2013-2014 were in accordance with law, and therefore, the said admissions were legal and valid. Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue degree certificates to the BDS and MDS students who were admitted by the petitioners for the academic year 2013-2014. Further direction was issued that internship completion certificates should be issued by petitioner No. 3 to such students who had completed their internship. 19. This judgment was subsequently followed in several other writ petitions where admissions had taken place during that period. Again in P. A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra which pertained to admission to BDS course for the academic year 2015-2016, this Court followed its earlier decision and held that admission of the students for the academic year 2015-2016 was in accordance with law and the same was declared as legal and valid. 20. Adverting to the facts of the present case, we find that when permission for admission to academic year 2015-2016 was rejected by respondent No. 3 on 16.01.2015, petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015. This writ petition was heard along with another writ petition raising identical issue i.e., Writ Petition No. 5107 of 2015. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015. In fact, State of Maharashtra had to a limited extent supported the case of the petitioners by taking the stand that since petitioner No. 2 was allowed by court orders to conduct its own entrance test prior to promulgation of the Ordinance and subsequent enactment of the Act, it should be allowed to proceed with the admission process as in previous years for the academic year 2015-2016. In such circumstances, this Court had quashed the rejection order of respondent No. 3 dated 16.01.2015 and granted permission to the petitioners to conduct their own entrance test followed by admission process for both under graduate and post graduate courses for the academic year 2015-2016 making it clear that this arrangement was confined to that particular academic year 2015-2016 only with provisions of the Act made applicable from the next year onwards. It was with such directions that both the writ petitions were disposed of. 21. It was with such directions that both the writ petitions were disposed of. 21. When respondent No. 3 declined to grant approval to eligibility of the admitted students, petitioners preferred Civil Application No. 666 of 2016 in the disposed of Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2015. Despite the fact that the related writ petition was already disposed off, still having regard to the fact that petitioners had conducted entrance test and thereafter undertook the admission process on the basis of order of this Court pursuant to which the students had taken admission, this Court held that there was no justification for keeping the application for approval pending by respondent No. 3. This Court also took note of order passed in civil application filed in identical disposed of writ petition. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 was directed to accept and approve the thesis of the admitted students and to allow them to appear in the examinations and to declare their results. 22. The students, 30 for under graduate and 1 for post graduate, were admitted to their respective courses following entrance test and admission process undertaken by petitioner No. 2 on the strength of order of this Court. Subsequently, on further orders of this Court they were allowed to appear in the respective examinations and their results were directed to be declared. Having gone through the entire exercise on orders of this Court, it is now not open to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to question admission of those students. As already pointed out, no affidavit has been filed. Even in their respective submissions, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not assail or question the entrance test and the consequential admission process on merit. 23. In such circumstances, withholding eligibility and degree certificates of the students cannot at all be justified. Further, the decision of respondent No. 4 to keep the question of eligibility of the students of petitioner No. 2 for the academic year 2015-2016 pending on the ground of 'court case' is devoid of any logic. The 'court case' referred to is already over, disposed off way back on 26.08.2015. Besides, nothing has been placed on record by respondent Nos. The 'court case' referred to is already over, disposed off way back on 26.08.2015. Besides, nothing has been placed on record by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to show that they had sought for review of this judgment or that they had moved the Supreme Court against this judgment, not to speak of any order either staying or overruling the judgment and order dated 26.08.2015. 24. As already noticed in P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court has held in clear and categorical terms that during the period when the decision of the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College (supra) held the field that is for the period from 18.07.2013 to 11.04.2016, all admissions made in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College (supra) would have to be protected. It was further declared that all such actions would have to be held as valid. 25. The academic year 2015-2016 certainly falls within the aforesaid period and admissions to the courses of Bachelor of Physiotherapy and Master of Physiotherapy were made on the basis of the judgment in Christian Medical College (supra). If that be the position, we see no justification at all in the stand taken by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. As rightly pointed out in P. A. Inamdar (supra), an act of the court shall cause prejudice to no man. This is a principle of law which is based on equity. As a matter of fact, when this Court had allowed petitioner No. 2 to proceed with its own entrance test and admission process by quashing the rejection order of respondent No. 3, it would be a logical corollary to hold that such entrance test and admission process are legal and valid and consequences thereof are also valid. Both law and equity do not permit us to take a contrary view. Regarding the decision of this Court in P. A. Inamdar (supra), learned counsel for the respondents have also not been able to show any distinguishing feature in the present case. 26. That being the position, it is hereby declared that admission of the students by petitioner No. 2 for the courses of Bachelor of Physiotherapy and Master of Physiotherapy for the academic year 2015-2016 was in accordance with law and as such, is legal and valid. 26. That being the position, it is hereby declared that admission of the students by petitioner No. 2 for the courses of Bachelor of Physiotherapy and Master of Physiotherapy for the academic year 2015-2016 was in accordance with law and as such, is legal and valid. Consequently, respondent No. 4 is directed to issue the degree certificates and related mark-sheets to those students who have passed the Bachelor of Physiotherapy and Master of Physiotherapy courses for the academic year 2015-2016. Besides, those students who have completed their internship shall also be issued internship completion certificates; that apart, original documents shall also be returned to the successful students by respondent No. 4. 27. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 28. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.