ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to grant him admission in Post Graduate Course in subject Swasthya Vritta, Rog Nidan and Vikrati Vigyan in Ayurveda as per Comprehensive Revised Guidelines in Central Government Nomination (CGN) to M.D. Course for the Session 2020-21 as introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy dated 02.06.2020. 2. The facts pleaded in the writ petition in nutshell are that the petitioner desirous of getting admission in Post Graduate Course, found himself to be eligible for applying as per Comprehensive Revised Guidelines for admission in the M.D. Course as per Guidelines issued on 02.06.2020, by Government of India. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that there were 19 seats of Post Graduate for Ayurveda, out of which 14 seats were available in National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur respectively for deficient State. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that he belongs to State of Haryana, and as such, as per definition given in Clause 2.a) of the Guidelines, wherein deficient State has been defined as State where no government run college of the respective system/speciality of MD/PG courses for study is available. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that he submitted an application form (Annexure-2 in the writ petition), wherein petitioner specifically mentioned that he had opted for certain subjects and 9 places were mentioned by the petitioner for his preference and Rog Vikriti Vigyan (Pathology) & Swasthya Vrat (Hygiene) were two of the specialist, where petitioner wanted to do his post graduation. The petitioner also mentioned three institutions in his application form i.e. (i) National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, IPGTRA, (ii) Gujarat Ayurveda, Jamnagar & (iii) Govt. Ayurveda College, Guwahati. 6. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that after he had filled the application form, the government serving Doctors were also eligible to undergo PG Course, and were required to send their application form upto 14.08.2020 and same date was extended to 27.10.2020, later on by notification issued on 31.08.2020. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that he had appeared in All India AYUSH Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) 2020 as a fresh candidate and his result was also declared on 03.11.2020. 8. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that he had appeared in All India AYUSH Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) 2020 as a fresh candidate and his result was also declared on 03.11.2020. 8. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that he approached his State i.e. Haryana Government for forwarding application for admission in MD (Ayurveda) Course under CGN Quota in NIA, Jaipur, IPGTRA Ayurvedic University, Jam Nagar, Gujrat and Govt. Ayurvedic College, Guwahati. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that on 11.08.2020, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health & AYUSH Department wrote a letter to the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of AYUSH, whereby application of the petitioner was forwarded for admission for the Session 2020-21. The said letter also specifically mentioned that the courses in which the petitioner applied was not available in the State of Haryana and as such, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Central Government. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, published information for private CGN counselling and after counselling was done for 14 CGN seats on 29.01.2021, there were three seats still vacant in the subject of Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhant, Rog Nidan & Vikriti Vigyan and Rachana Sharira. It was intimated to the candidates that these seats were open to be filled up by private CGN candidates through Online counselling and all those private CGN candidates, who were not registered, could register themselves between 11.02.2021 to 14.02.2021. 11. The National Institute of Ayurveda again issued information for counselling for remaining seats on 17.02.2021 and petitioner is said to have filled his choice for participating in the counselling and documents (Annexure-8) to the same effect has been placed in the writ. 12. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that admission was not granted to him by National Institute of Ayurveda and on the contrary the private respondent Nos.4 & 5-Dr. Komal and Dr. Samidha Sharma, were granted admission by the respondents in illegal manner. 13. The petitioner has levelled allegation in his petition that the application form of private respondent No.4, Dr. Komal was not received upto the last date prescribed and her application form was also not forwarded upto 27.10.2020 and yet she has been granted admission. 14. The petitioner has further levelled allegation that private respondent No.4-Dr. 13. The petitioner has levelled allegation in his petition that the application form of private respondent No.4, Dr. Komal was not received upto the last date prescribed and her application form was also not forwarded upto 27.10.2020 and yet she has been granted admission. 14. The petitioner has further levelled allegation that private respondent No.4-Dr. Komal has been considered for admission under CGN private category as her form was not routed through Ministry as per revised guidelines dated 02.06.2020 and it was directly forwarded to the National Institute of Ayurveda and same is not in consonance with the guidelines issued. 15. The petitioner has pleaded that he got information under Right to Information Act about the eligibility of private respondent No.4 and admittedly her form was recommended by letter dated 04.11.2020 and as such admission to such candidate, has resulted into depriving the petitioner from admission. 16. The petitioner has further pleaded that private respondent No.5-Dr. Samidha Sharma who has given admission in in-service category, is also not entitled to be admitted and her name was recommended by Government of India vide letter dated 11.01.2021 and as such she could not have been given admission. 17. Learned counsel-Mr. Tanveer Ahamad appearing for the petitioner submitted that guidelines which have been issued by the Government of India clearly provided in Clause 4.3 of the Guidelines that application of sponsored/in-service Government Teachers/Medical Officers-Doctors/Research Officers was to be forwarded by the deficient State to the Ministry and last date was fixed as 14.08.2021 and same was extended to 22.10.2021 and any admission beyond this date is violative of the comprehensive guidelines and such admission is required to be treated as bad in eyes of law and same is required to be quashed. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having participated in the admission process and having full eligibility to get admission, has wrongly been deprived by the respondents as candidature of the petitioner was duly recommended by the deficient State i.e. State of Haryana by forwarding the application of the petitioner to the Government of India by writing a letter dated 11.08.2020 and copy of said letter was also endorsed to Director, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, Vice Chancellor, IPGTRA Ayurvedic University, Jam Nagar, Gujrat and Director, Ayurvedic College, Guwahati and as such all these Authorities were under obligation to consider the candidature of the petitioner. 19. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have mis-interpreted the guidelines which have been issued for making admission and National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur has given admission to ineligible candidates and after the cut off date as prescribed. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had specifically given his choice of subject and same was available in National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur and if petitioner was having requisite eligibility and merit and he had applied before the cut off date, no deviations should have taken place by ignoring the candidature of the petitioner for admission. 21. Learned counsel also submitted that if the application form of the petitioner was sent directly to the Government of India by the deficient State i.e. Haryana, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same and his admission ought to be considered through proper channel against the vacant seats. 22. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not at fault if the State of Haryana did not follow the proper procedure for granting admission and as such same should not operate against the vested rights of the petitioner. 23. Learned counsel-Mr. Anurag Agarwal appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 has submitted that reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that procedure which has been prescribed as per guidelines have been followed by granting admission. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Clause No.4.4 of the Guidelines, applications of eligible private candidates from deficient States were to be forwarded to the concerned donor institutes i.e. National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur directly by nominating by deficient States for admission and under no circumstances Government of India was to entertain such application. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.3-institute received a letter along with application form of 96 Private Candidates in All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET)-2020 for admission in M.D. (Ayurveda) Course under CGN quota seats for the Session 2020-2021 and this letter was written by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana to the Director, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur. 27. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.4-Dr. Komal found her place at serial No.25 and accordingly since name of private respondent was mentioned in the said list, accordingly such candidate was given admission. 28. 27. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.4-Dr. Komal found her place at serial No.25 and accordingly since name of private respondent was mentioned in the said list, accordingly such candidate was given admission. 28. Learned counsel further submitted that no private candidate beyond list sent by the State of Haryana, has been given admission by National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur. 29. Learned counsel further submitted that the merit position of private respondent Dr. Komal is at serial No.631 in All India Ranking as per the result which has been declared, filed as Annexure-16 and the petitioner finds his place at serial No.4006 in the said list. 30. Learned counsel submitted that private respondent is much more meritorious having better All India Ranking and having been sponsored by deficient State i.e. Haryana, she was rightly given admission. 31. This Court, asked learned counsel for the respondents to give an answer specifically on the question as whether any admission to private candidate has been made beyond the list which was sent by the deficient State, Mr. Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the respondent-institute has strictly followed the guideline which has been issued by Government of India and they have considered only those private candidates, whose names were sponsored by the deficient State. 32. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as far as admission to private respondent No.5-Dr. Samidha Sharma is concerned, such candidate was in-service candidate who was already working and her name was sent by Government of India in its letter dated 11.01.2021. 33. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Central Government Nomination to M.D. Course for in-service candidates was to be routed through Government of India and as such the admission which has been given to the private respondents, is strictly as per the guidelines. 34. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner of submitting the form beyond the cut off date, is not of much significance in the present facts of the case as the admission to private respondent No.4 has been given as a private candidate much before the cut off date and further the in-service candidate has been given in the quota which is meant for such candidates. 35. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 36. 35. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 36. This Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to get admission is on the basis of letter written by deficient States on 11.08.2020 on account of application form of the petitioner being forwarded to the Government of India by the deficient State of Haryana. 37. This Court finds that as per guidelines which have been issued by Government of India, the application of eligible private candidates (Fresh) from deficient States, was required to be forwarded to the concerned institutes, directly by the nominating candidates by deficient State for admission. 38. This Court further finds that it has been written by the deficient State i.e. State of Haryana on 21.12.2020, where list of private candidates did not include name of the petitioner, and same cannot result into a deemed inclusion, the name of the petitioner for the purpose of considering the admission. 39. This Court while further considering the Clause 4.4 of the Guidelines finds that under no circumstances, the private candidates of deficient States were to be eligible by giving their application directly to the Government of India and as such it cannot be inferred from any stretch of imagination that National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur was to consider the candidate, who was not included in the list sent by deficient State. 40. This Court further finds that the admission was granted to the private respondent No.4-Dr. Komal as a private candidate, who had participated in the pre-test conducted by the respondents, she found her place in the merit list as well as her name in the list sent by State of Haryana, and accordingly admission has been rightly given to her. 41. This Court further finds that admission to the private respondent No.5-Dr. Samidha Sharma, has been given as an in-service candidate and her application form was only required to be routed through Government of India and accordingly admission has been granted by the respondents. 42. 41. This Court further finds that admission to the private respondent No.5-Dr. Samidha Sharma, has been given as an in-service candidate and her application form was only required to be routed through Government of India and accordingly admission has been granted by the respondents. 42. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that cut off date once extended upto 27.10.2020 thereafter no admission could be made and since application of the private respondent was submitted on 04.11.2020, suffices it to say by this Court that as far as admission of in-service candidate is concerned, the same has to be routed through Government of India and for private candidate, such candidature of the candidate is to be considered as per guidelines issued by the Government. 43. This Court finds that the present writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.