JUDGMENT : Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPA No. 9864 of 2020 (Ms. Saniya Subash Vs National Medical Commission & Others) wherein prayer was made for admission of the writ petitioner into undergraduate medical education course (MBBS) for the session 2020-21 in Andaman & Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ANIIMS). The grievance voiced by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition was to the effect that the students applied under Category-II under the scheme of admission in undergraduate medical education course framed by the concerned authority of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration cannot be permitted to take admission in the MBBS Course under Category-V of the said scheme considering the definition of Category-II and Category-V under the said admission scheme. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition runs infra: “(A) (i) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No.2 to set aside the part of the combined provisional merit list dated 07/11/2020 published by the respondent No. 2 whereby the name of some of the aspirants appeared under Category V (Sl. No. 11, 52, 99, 151 and 252). (ii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to act strictly in terms of the Distribution Scheme of 1996 and the judgment of the Supreme Court passed on 28/01/2000 in the case of Parents Association and Others versus Union of India and others.” The Hon’ble Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2021 dismissed the writ petition chiefly on the ground that as per merit position the petitioner failed to emerge to be successful for admission as a candidate either under Category-IV or under Category-V inasmuch as her name featured at serial number. 46 against total number of 17 seats available under Category-IV and at serial number 22 in the merit list against total number of 16 seats under Category-V. The writ petitioner having being aggrieved by the said decision as contained in the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2021 presents this intra-court appeal. 3. In this appeal in addition to the points taken by the appellant in writ petition Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Learned Counsel representing the appellant, also has thrown challenge to the admission of respondent Nos. 3. In this appeal in addition to the points taken by the appellant in writ petition Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Learned Counsel representing the appellant, also has thrown challenge to the admission of respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on certain grounds and upon placing reliance on category-wise merit list of NEET-UG 2020-21 qualified candidates for admission to the MBBS Course in ANIIMS strenuously made deliberate attempt to impress upon this Court that as per the said category-wise merit list at page 201202 of the paper-book these private respondents (respondent Nos. 4 to 11) ought to be declared ineligible and should this exercise is carried out the appellant who ranked 22nd under the category-V merit list prepared for mop up round counselling would have come within the zone of consideration for admission. 4. In support of such contention raised on behalf of the appellant elaborate submissions have been made on the scheme of admission into undergraduate medical education course in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands as promulgated by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 30th May, 1996 which is a part of the paper-book, page 902 to 920. The prospectus issued by the concerned authority as a guideline for admission to MBBS Course in the Islands was issued in terms of the said parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that five categories of candidates are contemplated under the said scheme of admission apart from EWS quota and other backward classes candidates which are defined in clause 4.7 of the said prospectus, as below :- 4.7.1(Category-I) Tribals: Certificate as per Appendix B duly signed by the Tehsildar of the Jurisdiction to be attached to support your claim. 4.7.2(Category-II) Wards of Central Govt. Employees & those on Deputation with transfer liability: Central Government Employees & those on deputation with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory provided their wards have studied the last two years (11th and 12th class) in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands. Certificate as per Appendix C duly signed by the competent authority of the concerned department, needs to be attached to support your claim. 4.7.3(Category-III) Pre-1942 Settlers & those who were settled under various rehabilitation schemes introduced after reoccupation of Islands. Certificate as per Appendix C duly signed by the competent authority of the concerned department, needs to be attached to support your claim. 4.7.3(Category-III) Pre-1942 Settlers & those who were settled under various rehabilitation schemes introduced after reoccupation of Islands. Certificate as per Appendix D duly signed by the Tehsildar of the jurisdiction needs to be attached to support your claim. 4.7.4(Category-IV) Other Locals who do not fall under Categories (I) (II) or (III) above and such central givt. Employees having no transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory provided all their wards have had 10 years education in the islands. Certificate as per Appendix D duly signed by the Tehsildar of the jurisdiction and or competent authority of the concerned department needs to be attached to support your claim. 4.7.5(Category-V) General merit quota opens to all the residents of Andaman & Nicobar Islands subject to condition that their wards should have studied the last 02 years in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands. Class XI and XII Certificate to be attached to support your claim.” 5. On drawing attention of this Court to the definition of Category-II as per Clause 4.7.2 of the said prospectus it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that for getting benefit of reservation under Category-II being ward of central government employees and those on deputation with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory the two conditions are needed to be fulfilled, first one is the student concerned must have studied Classes XI & XII just preceding their admission in the MBBS Course for the relevant academic session in the islands and must have passed qualifying examination which is Class-XII final examination from a school in the islands. It is further submitted that some of the private respondents in this appeal passed Class-XII final examination in the previous academic session not in current academic session of 2020-21. Therefore, those candidates were not entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the said Category-II. Another limb of submission was also advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner while questioning the admission of the private respondents was transfer of the guardians of some of the respondents to the main land from the islands before 3rd November, 2020 being the date of commencement of admission process for the Session 2020-21. Another limb of submission was also advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner while questioning the admission of the private respondents was transfer of the guardians of some of the respondents to the main land from the islands before 3rd November, 2020 being the date of commencement of admission process for the Session 2020-21. It is argued in support of the case made out on behalf of the appellant that since the transfer of the guardian of the respective private respondents took place before the commencement of the process of admission therefore those candidates are not entitled to get benefit of reservation under Category-II. Specific submission has also been made based on the requirement of certificate as per Appendix ‘C’ of clause 4.7.2 of the said prospectus by the candidate claiming benefit of reservation under Category-II. Appendix ‘C’ annexed to the prospectus, page 69 of the paper-book, goes to show that a certificate is required to be submitted by the candidate claiming reservation under Category-II wherefrom it can be established that the guardian of the said candidate is posted in Andaman & Nicobar Islands at the material point of time when the admission process is continuing. 6. On another aspect contention has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioner pertaining to eligibility of one Soumi Basak, respondent No. 9; since her father is in private service she cannot avail the benefit extended to Category-V students as she cannot be treated as a permanent resident of the islands in view of the fact that she studied in the islands from 2014 as per the definition of “permanent resident” as provided vide notification dated 14th February, 1984. As per appreciation of the said scheme of admission it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said respondent No. 9 can also not avail the benefit of reservation under Category-IV since she has not studied ten years in the islands preceding her admission in the academic course 2020-21. It is submitted that the said respondent No. 9 has no other option but to apply under All India Category for the seats reserved under All India Quota. It is submitted that the said respondent No. 9 has no other option but to apply under All India Category for the seats reserved under All India Quota. In addition thereto on attention being drawn to Clause 6.4 of the prospectus it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that GAP Certificate as provided in sub-clause (iv) under Clause 6.4 cannot fill up the gap period in between passing Class-XII final examination and taking admission in undergraduate medical education course which is dehors the scheme of admission and the eligibility of a candidate to get the benefit of reservation under Category-II cannot be kept alive on the strength of GAP certificate if such candidate does not pass the qualifying examination in the current academic session. It is specifically submitted that GAP certificate is meant for students who have been doing graduation course as is clear from the definition of such GAP certificate in Clause 6.4(iv) of the said prospectus. 7. Mr. Kabir appearing on behalf of the appellant has also submitted that a candidate who cannot qualify under any of the categories from Category-I to Category-IV cannot straightway apply to get the benefit of Category-V since Category-V is residual in nature. Therefore according the appellant entry into Category-V straightway without being identified as a candidate under Category-I, Category-II, Category-III and Category-IV is impermissible. 8. Mr. Kabir during course of his submission has relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 (1) CHN page 18 (Tanushree Ghosh vs. A & N Administration & Ors.) in order to fortify the ground that after the transfer of the guardian of a candidate from the islands to the main land the benefit of reservation as contemplated under Category-II cannot be extended to the candidate claiming the same. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the appellant on the judgment reported in AIR 2020 SC page 47 (S. Krishna Sradha), AIR 1989 SC page 1568 (Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi & Ors.) and an unreported judgment of the Apex Court passed on Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 1835-1836 of 2020 in I.A. No. 183249 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016 in the case of (Abdul Ahad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.). 9. Mr. 1835-1836 of 2020 in I.A. No. 183249 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016 in the case of (Abdul Ahad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.). 9. Mr. Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader appears on behalf of the A & N Administration, respondent No. 1 and Director of Andaman & Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Science, respondent No. 2 and has submitted that A & N Administration has established an institute imparting medical institution named Andaman & Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Sciences (ANIIMS). ANIIMS is affiliated to university of Pondicherry and presently imparting graduate medical education to the students of the said institute. The said institution had 100 intake capacity but after implementation of quota of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) the intake capacity has been enhanced to 114 from the academic year 2020-21. Mr. Rao has also relied upon the relevant part of the prospectus issued by the concerned authority of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which deals with the categorisation of students for taking admission in undergraduate medical education course and has brought to the notice of the Court that 15% of the total intake capacity is reserved for all India quota seats. Ten seats are reserved for EWS candidates and for State Quota total 87 seats are reserved for the academic session 2020-21. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that out of total state quota seats 20% seats are reserved for Category-I candidates, 10% are reserved for Category-II candidates and 50% are reserved for Category-III candidates and rest of the 20% of the state quota seats are reserved for Category-IV candidates. Category-III is sub-classified into three subcategories which are-(a) pre-1942 settlers, (b) others settlers and (c) seats to be allocated on the 1/3rd basis of combined merit of (a) & (b) under Category-III. In addition thereto there is Category-V which is general merit quota opens to all the residents of Andaman & Nicobar Islands subject to the condition that their wards should have studied the last 2 years in the islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the islands. 10. Mr. Rao, has further submitted that the result of NEET-UG for the academic Session 2020-21 was published on 16th October, 2020. 10. Mr. Rao, has further submitted that the result of NEET-UG for the academic Session 2020-21 was published on 16th October, 2020. On publication of such result the respondent authorities issued prospectus providing guidelines for admission to undergraduate medical education course on 2nd November, 2020 and the result of NEET-UG 2020-21 was uploaded on the website for providing necessary information to the desirous students seeking admission in the said course. Subsequently, time schedule was fixed for making application by the candidates for taking admission into the said course. As per such time schedule 3rd November, 2020 was the initial date for submission of the online application and the last date for submission of online application was 6th November, 2020 till 5 p.m. Merit list was scheduled to be declared on the basis of the application received online on 11th November, 2020 at 5 p.m. In addition thereto it has also been submitted to the Court on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the first round of counselling & verification of documents was fixed on 12th & 13th November, 2020 and the second round of counselling was fixed on 9th December, 2020 and lastly mop up counselling was scheduled to be conducted on 21st December, 2020 from 9 a.m. onwards. The first provisional merit list prepared by the scrutinizing committee was uploaded in the ANIIMS website, college notice board on 8th November, 2020 prior to the counselling of all India quota by Medical Counselling Committee was conducted on 26th November, 2020 and which ended on 8th December, 2020. Subsequent thereto UT/State level counselling for admission to the said course was held on 12th and 13th November, 2020. It has further been submitted by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that a counselling committee was constituted consisting of faculty and officers of the institute which also included an official deputed by the Department of Higher Education to verify the authenticity of the category certificate submitted by the candidates. After conclusion of counselling for the seats under all India quota on 8th December, 2020 second round counselling for the seats under UT/State quota was held on 9th December, 2020. After second round of counselling for UT/Sate quota seats the mop up round of counselling was held on 21st December, 2020 against 16 seats which were available under Category-V in terms of the scheme of admission. 11. After second round of counselling for UT/Sate quota seats the mop up round of counselling was held on 21st December, 2020 against 16 seats which were available under Category-V in terms of the scheme of admission. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that merit position of the appellant was serial no. 46 against 17 seats available under Category-IV since primarily appellant was considered against those 17 seats under Category-IV as she applied as Category-IV candidate. Subsequently, appellant’s merit position was at serial no. 22 against 16 seats available under Category-V as a result thereof the appellant could not find a berth. 12. It is contended on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that seats under Category-V opens to all the residents of Andaman & Nicobar Islands provided their wards are required to have studied the last two years in the islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the islands. Mr. Rao has submitted that the private respondents have fulfilled the conditions for being treated as Category-V candidates and in terms of merit they ranked above appellant. Therefore, there is no flaw in selecting the private respondents for admission in the said course. 13. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 effort has been made to substantiate the provision relating to issuance of GAP certificate in favour of the selected candidates as contained in Clause 6.4(iv) of the prospectus. It is submitted that the GAP certificate has been prescribed and the said GAP certificate is necessary for the students who have passed Class-XII examination prior to academic session 2020 to bridge the gap after conclusion of higher secondary course and commencement of medical education course in order to conform to the requirements for getting the benefit of reservation under the scheme of admission in undergraduate medical education course. 14. The last contention made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 is on the order dated 30th May, 1996 issued by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the scheme of admission to professional/technical and non-technical education and reservation of seats thereof was framed in terms of the order dated 31st January, 1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in C.O. No. 11514 of 1995. It is also submitted that the said scheme of admission formulated by the concerned authority of Ministry of Home Affairs was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 845 (Parents Association and another vs. Union of India and others). 15. Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 submits that as per provisional merit list of eligible candidates, page 105 to 115 of the paper book if seven private respondents would not have been permitted to take admission in that event the appellant herein could not come within the zone of consideration since one Ansh Dahiya, respondent No. 7 has already been admitted by the appellant to be eligible to get a berth. By placing reliance on the said provisional merit list of eligible candidates it has been argued on behalf of the private respondents that respondent No. 7 has rightly obtained a seat being an eligible candidate and there are seven candidates in between respondent No. 7 and the appellant. Considering the merit position of the appellant in the said provisional merit list if private respondents were not permitted to take admission leaving aside Ansh Dahiya, respondent No. 7, the appellant would not come within the zone of consideration being a candidate who ranked 81st in the said provisional merit list. In addition thereto reliance has also been placed on category-wise merit list prepared for mop up round counselling, page 201 and 202, in support of the contention that there were seven candidates in between the last candidate who got admission in mop up round counselling and the appellant herein which according to the private respondent, goes to show that in absence of the private respondents the appellant would not have been selected as an eligible candidate for a berth in mop up round counselling. 16. On GAP certificate it has been submitted on behalf of the private respondents that the same has been incorporated in the prospectus for the students who passed class XII final examination not in the relevant academic session but prior to the said academic session and it is incorrect to contend that such certificate has been introduced for the students pursuing graduation. 17. 17. Further contention made on behalf of the private respondents is that the expression “last two years” used to define Category-II means the candidate studied Classes XI and XII not the preceding two years of study in the islands just prior to the relevant academic year. In the event of any gap in between completion of higher secondary course and commencement of medical education course, according to the private respondents, GAP certificate is necessary to be submitted. There are three chances provided to the candidates to clear NEET-UG. Therefore, in the event of failure of a candidate in first attempt to qualify NEET-UG the said candidate will get two more chances to participate in the said entrance test which would definitely lead to create a gap in between conclusion of higher secondary course and commencement of medical course. Therefore, according to the private respondents the said expression “last two years” used in defining Category-II denotes study of the students in Classes-XI and XII not the preceding two years before taking admission in the medical education course. According to the private respondents there are many candidates apart from the private respondents who passed Class-XII final examination in 2018 and 2019 but they found place in the merit list for admission in the academic session 2020-21. 18. It is the specific contention made on behalf of the private respondents that the appellant has made an attempt to run a new case in the appeal in sharp contrast to the case made out in the writ petition which emanates from paragraph 15 of the writ petition. The writ petition was restricted to the point that only permanent resident of the islands can get benefit of reservation under Category-V and most of the private respondents who have applied under Category-II are not eligible to get a seat earmarked under Category-V but in the appeal a new case has been made out whereby challenge has been thrown to the eligibility of the private respondents on the ground that considering the definition of Category-II candidate the private respondents are not entitled to get the benefit of reservation under Category-II. 19. 19. It is also contended on behalf of the private respondents that the last date for taking admission into the undergraduate medical education course for the academic session 2020-21 was fixed on 15th January, 2021 which was extended up to 8th February, 2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the last date for taking admission in the relevant academic session has expired long back the appellant cannot be permitted to take admission in the said academic session 2020-21 and in this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2020 (13) Scale 695 (National Medical Commission Vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi & others). 20. In addition thereto on behalf of the private respondents reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in 2011 (10) SCC 1 (Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lieutenant Governor & others) on the point that where there is no requirement of investigation on new facts the said plea can be taken in appeal and not otherwise but in the present appeal new points have been agitated requiring de novo investigation of the issue. Reliance has also placed on the judgment reported in 2009 (5) SCC 545 (Nair Service Society vs. Beermastham & others) as well as on the judgment reported in 1991 (Sup) 2 SCC 516 (Nityananda Kar & Another vs. State of Orissa) on the point that where two interpretation of rules are possible, the interpretation which favours the practice which was being followed for a long period should ordinarily be preferred unless it is clearly in violation of rules. 21. On anxious consideration of the entire gamut of submissions made on behalf of the parties to this appeal and also scrutinizing all the relevant documents placed before this Court it appears the scheme of admission in professional/technical and non-technical education course has been framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in C.O. No. 11514 of 1995 dated 31st January, 1996. On the issue of reservation in favour of wards of locals of the islands and such central government employees having no transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory who have had ten years education in the islands which was brought down to 20% from 35% by the said order dated 30th May, 1996 issued on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs, challenge was thrown to the said admission scheme before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on consideration of the entire scheme of admission to professional/technical education as framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs upheld the same in the case of Parents Association and another vs. Union of India and others. The said scheme of admission having obtained imprimatur from the Apex Court can be said to be the final words in the matter of admission in professional/technical/higher education including medical education unless and until the same being revised by the appropriate authority on review as per observation contained in paragraph 38 of Parents Association (Supra). Therefore, this Court while examining the issue involved in the present appeal needs to follow strictly the scheme promulgated under the order dated 30th May, 1996 issued by the Ministry of Home of Affairs. 22. In terms of the said scheme ANIIMS issued a prospectus before commencement of admission process for the session 2020-21 which is in the form of guideline for admission into undergraduate medical education course in the said institute. As per the said scheme the Category-II has been defined as under: “Category II Deputationists and Central Government employees with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory, provided the candidates in this category have studied the last two years in the islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the islands.” 23. In contradistinction to the definition attributed to Category-II in the said scheme in Clause 4.7.2 of the prospectus Category-II has been described as follows: “4.7.2(Category-II) Wards of Central Govt. Employees & those on Deputation with transfer liability: Central Government Employees & those on deputation with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory provided their wards have studied the last two years (11th and 12th class) in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands. Employees & those on Deputation with transfer liability: Central Government Employees & those on deputation with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory provided their wards have studied the last two years (11th and 12th class) in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands. Certificate as per Appendix C duly signed by the competent authority of the concerned department, needs to be attached to support your claim.” On careful reading of the definition of Category-II provided in parent scheme of admission and prospectus issued by the ANIIMS for the academic session 2020-21 it appears after the words “last two years” within first bracket the expression “11th and 12th class” has been inserted in the said prospectus which is not there in the parent scheme. In addition thereto additional sentence has been added in the definition of Category-II in Clause 4.7.2 of the said prospectus – “as per ‘Appendix-C’ duly signed by the competent authority of the concerned department, needs to be attached to support your claim”. 24. One of the questions arises in this appeal is whether the expression “last two years” in the definition of Category-II candidate denotes last two years preceding the commencement of academic session of 2020-21 in medical education course or the two years of study, i.e., Classes XI & XII? It also comes to our mind that whether the expression “last two years” means reading in Classes XI & XII before taking admission in undergraduate medical education course? Reading of two definitions of Category-II one contained in parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996 and another as per Clause 4.7.2 in the prospectus leads to two different meaning due to insertion of expression “(11th and 12th class)” in Clause 4.7.2. Simple and plain reading of definition of Category-II as contained in the parent scheme take us to the conclusion that for getting the benefit of seats reserved under Category-II two conditions are required to fulfill – (i) the candidate must have studied last two years in the islands and (ii) the candidate passed the qualifying examination from the school in the islands. It is also pertinent to note herein that while imposing these two conditions in the definition of Category-II the word “and” is used. Therefore, these two conditions are disjunctive and independent in nature. It is also pertinent to note herein that while imposing these two conditions in the definition of Category-II the word “and” is used. Therefore, these two conditions are disjunctive and independent in nature. Whereas, if the definition as per Clause 4.7.2 of Category-II is read due to insertion of expression “(11th and 12th class)” will take us to the conclusion that the expression “last two years (11th and 12th class)” denotes prosecution of study in higher secondary section (Classes XI and XII). Therefore, according to our appreciation of the definition of Category-II as per Clause 4.7.2 in the prospectus is not in sync with the definition attributed to Category-II candidate in the parent scheme. While adjudicating question raised in this appeal this Court has no other option but to follow the definition attributed to Category-II candidate by the order dated 30th May, 1996 of the Ministry of Home Affairs since the scheme framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs is a parent scheme which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Parents Association (Supra). According to our reading there is repugnancy in between the definitions of Category-II candidate in view of insertion of expression “(11th and 12th class)” in Clause 4.7.2 of the prospectus and in view of such repugnancy the definition as contained in the parent scheme will prevail over the definition as provided by Clause 4.7.2 of the prospectus. 25. There is another reason behind accepting the definition attributed to Category-II candidate by order of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th May, 1996. On perusal of the entire order dated 30th May, 1996, page 902 to 920 of the paper-book, it appears benefit of reservation has been given to the wards of deputationist and central government employees with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory to incentivise the central government officials posted in far flung place. In this regard we find it apposite to quote paragraph 20 of the said scheme dated 30th May, 1996. “20. The Andaman & Nicobar Islands is a far flung territory cut off from the main land of India. It is about 1200 km. from Calcutta and Madras. Government provided various incentives to the employees posted in the said Islands. So it would be in the fitness of things to retain 10% seats for deputationists and Central Government Employees. “20. The Andaman & Nicobar Islands is a far flung territory cut off from the main land of India. It is about 1200 km. from Calcutta and Madras. Government provided various incentives to the employees posted in the said Islands. So it would be in the fitness of things to retain 10% seats for deputationists and Central Government Employees. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the candidates in this category should have studied the last two years in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands. Unutilised seats, if any, in this category will go to the general merit quota.” The primary object of the scheme of admission under Category-II was to give incentive to the deputationist and officers of the central government having transfer liability to be posted outside the Union Territory since they are working in remote and difficult area like Andaman & Nicobar Islands and facing several odds. Since this definition of Category-II candidate is a beneficent provision it is not a correct approach to read this provision in a restricted sense so as to limit the scope of wards of the central government officials who are posted in the islands in taking admission in undergraduate medical education course. While interpreting the benevolent legislation, rules of interpretation requires that in the case of ambiguity, construction which advance the beneficent purpose should be accepted in preference to one which defeats the purpose. In other words, beneficial legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfil the statutory purpose and not to frustrate the same. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment reported in AIR 1960 Page 936 (Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator-General of West Bengal). 26. On applying rule of interpretation of a beneficent provision as contained in the definition of Category-II candidate in the parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996 this Court hasten to observe that the expression “last two years” as contained in the definition of Category-II candidate means prosecuting course of study in last two years prior to taking admission in undergraduate medical education course notwithstanding higher secondary course (Classes XI & XII). Otherwise if reliance is placed on Clause 4.7.2 of the prospectus offering definition of Category-II with the expression “last two years (11th and 12th class)” would limit the scope of wards of officials of the central government having transfer liability to be posted outside the Union Territory in getting admission in undergraduate medical education course being Category-II candidate since said Clause 4.7.2 would restrict the wards of such central government officials to offer their candidatures if they clear Class-XII final examination not in the current academic year in respect of which the candidate has applied for admission in medical education course. Tenor of the definition as contained in Clause 4.7.2 in the prospectus would lead to a situation in the academic session of 2020-21 where only the wards of central government officials who passed final Class-XII examination in 2020 would be permitted to apply for admission in undergraduate medical education course under Category-II. On the contrary if the definition of Category-II as contained in parent scheme is applied in that event the wards of central government employees who have passed Class-XII final examination before current academic session of 2020 from an institute in the islands and have been prosecuting their studies in the islands can be considered as eligible candidates for getting the benefit of reservation under Category-II. In view of the above discussion and also considering the beneficent nature of provision relating to the definition of Category-II as contained in the admission scheme framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th May, 1996 this Court decides to apply the definition of Category-II as contained in the said parent scheme rather than the definition provided by the Clause 4.7.2 in the prospectus. 27. The discussion and the finding which this Court has made on its quest to find out the appropriate meaning of the expression “last two years” used in defining Category-II candidate also applies in attributing meaning to pari materia expression “last two years” used in defining Category-V candidates. 28. At this stage this Court also find it proper to scrutinize the applicability of GAP certificate as provided by Clause 6.4(iv) in the prospectus. Clause 6.4(iv) reads as follows: “iv. GAP certificate: Students who Pursued B.Sc or Any other Graduation course during the Gap period (period after passing class 12th and before joining MBBBS) or otherwise should submit GAP certificate.” 29. Clause 6.4(iv) reads as follows: “iv. GAP certificate: Students who Pursued B.Sc or Any other Graduation course during the Gap period (period after passing class 12th and before joining MBBBS) or otherwise should submit GAP certificate.” 29. On careful reading of the entire parent scheme framed vide order dated 30th May, 1996 this Court does not find any provision relating to the GAP certificate though the same has been provided in the prospectus. Perhaps the respondent authorities might have felt requirement of such certificate in case of those candidates who have applied either under Category-II or under Category-V after qualifying Class-XII final examination not in the current year but in the previous academic year and pursuing B.SC or any other graduation course during the gap period in between conclusion of higher secondary course and commencement of medical education course. At best this certificate can establish continuity of regular course of study by the candidates before taking admission in medical education course but not otherwise. 30. Mr. Kabir learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant has made strenuous argument on the point that seats under Category-V can only be made available to the candidates who applied under Category-I or Category-II or Category-III or Category-IV. It is submitted that straightaway no application can be made for a seat under Category-V. Since there is a provision relating to allotment of seats under the said scheme that unfilled seats under first four categories would go to Category-V, therefore, not being classified under any of the first four categories a candidate cannot be considered as Category-V candidate. To find answer to this point taken on behalf of the appellant again we need to go back to parent scheme of admission dated 30th May, 1996. Under the said scheme this Court does not find any embargo in applying straightaway for a seat under Category-V provided the candidate fulfills other eligible criteria as defined under Category-V. The definition of Category-V as per the scheme of 30th May, 1996 is quoted below: “Category V General merit quota open to all the residents of the A&N Islands irrespective of any classification. This will be subject to the condition that the candidates in this category have studied the last two years in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands.” 31. This will be subject to the condition that the candidates in this category have studied the last two years in the Islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the Islands.” 31. Considering the above definition of Category-V it appears that a candidate needs to be resident but not the “Local” or “Permanent Resident” and the candidate must have studied last two years in the islands and passed the qualifying examination from a school in the islands. The meaning of the expression “last two years” have already been defined by us in the preceding paragraphs and we need not dilate on this issue further. In the said definition of Category-V since the word “resident” has been used instead of “locals” used in Category-IV or “Permanent Resident” as defined in the notification dated 14th February, 1984 we are ad idem with the findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the judgment dated 28th April, 2021 which is under appeal. Since notification dated 14th February, 1984 defining the term “Local” and “Permanent Resident” has been quoted in the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench there is no need to set out the same notification dated 14th February, 1984 in our order. On perusal of said notification dated 14th February, 1984 it is clear that the term “resident” by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the term “permanent resident”. Therefore, the candidate applied under Category-V need not satisfy the condition of residing 10 years in the islands as a corollary thereof the candidates who applied under Category-II who are not the permanent residents of the islands are also eligible to take admission in a seat earmarked under Category-V albeit not being “Permanent Resident” or “Local”. In absence of any express provision in the parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996 we do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the candidate cannot make straightway application under Category-V. 32. Category-V has been termed as merit quota and the very basis of providing such Category-V in the scheme of admission promulgated by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the order dated 30th May, 1996 can be deciphered from paragraph 16 of the said scheme. Paragraph 16 runs infra: “16. Though the actual utilisation of seats allocated to tribals has been very low so far. Paragraph 16 runs infra: “16. Though the actual utilisation of seats allocated to tribals has been very low so far. I would maintain their quota at 20% as hitherto in view of the submissions made by the A&N Administration and other. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the seats which are not actually utilised by tribals will be diverted to general quota open to all the residents of the A&N Islands irrespective of any classification and will be filled up purely on the basis of merit.” (Emphasis supplied) 33. On reading of paragraph 16 it is clear as crystal that only criteria which governs admission in the seats under the category -V is merit apart from complying two other conditions that the candidate must have studied last two years in the islands and passed qualifying examination from an institute in the island. In other-words it can be said in view of underlying considerations for providing seats under Category-V as appears from paragraph 16 of the said scheme that if a candidate has studied last two years in the islands and passed qualifying examination from an institute in the islands which is Class-XII final examination, the merit is the only criteria for determining the eligibility of the candidates to take admission in the seat under Category-V. 34. Now this Court considering the observations made as aforesaid on the scheme of admission framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th May, 1996 viz-a-viz the provisions relating to admission under different categories (specially Category-II and Category-V) as contained in the prospectus treads warily to examine the admission of the private respondents in undergraduate medical education course for the academic session 2020-21 as follows: i) Respondent No. 4 is Sushant Raj Singh who applied under Category-II and passed Class-XII final examination in 2018 from an institute in the islands and became successful in NEET-UG 2020. Father of the respondent no. 4 is a central government employee posted in the islands and transferred to main land in 2016. In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the private respondent it is stated that respondent No. 4 did coaching for NEET for two years in Cochi, Kerela before qualifying NEET-2020 and did not join any regular course of study at the graduation level during 2018 to 2020. Respondent no. In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the private respondent it is stated that respondent No. 4 did coaching for NEET for two years in Cochi, Kerela before qualifying NEET-2020 and did not join any regular course of study at the graduation level during 2018 to 2020. Respondent no. 4 took admission in the mop up round counselling for the academic year 2020-21 under Category-V and primarily applied under Category-II being ward of a central government employee with transfer liability. ii) Respondent No. 5 is Moumi Das who applied for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the academic session 2020-21 under Category-II. Father of respondent No. 5 was posted at the material point of time in the islands and was transferred to main land in the month of June 2021. Respondent No 5 passed Class-XII final examination in 2019 from an institute in the islands and did not pursue any regular course of study at the graduation level. Father of the respondent No.5 was posted in the islands till June 2021 and the NEET-UG 2020 was held on 13th September, 2020 whereas last dated for submission of forms to participate in NEET-UG 2020 was 6th January, 2020. Therefore, at the time of submitting forms for participating in NEET-UG 2020 father of the respondent No. 5 was posted in the islands and in addition thereto she passed Class-XII examination from an institute in the islands in 2019 and prepared herself for NEET-UG 2020 during the period from 2019 to 2020 and nothing goes to show that during this period from 2019 to 2020 respondent No. 5 was staying not in the islands. iii) Respondent No. 6 is Somesh Kumar who applied for admission in undergraduate medical examination course for the academic session 2020-21 under Category-II and passed Class-XII final examination in 2018 from an institute in the islands. Father of the respondent No. 6 though was posted in the islands from the year 2013 but transferred to main land in the year 2018 as per statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, page 783 of the paper-book, paragraph 4(c)(iii). Respondent No. 6 was not undergoing any regular course of study during the period from 2018 to 2020 and obtained coaching from Akash Institute, South Ex. Delhi to make himself prepared for NEET-UG 2020. Respondent No. 6 was not undergoing any regular course of study during the period from 2018 to 2020 and obtained coaching from Akash Institute, South Ex. Delhi to make himself prepared for NEET-UG 2020. No statement has been made whether he was studying in the islands after passing higher secondary examination 2018 till taking admission in undergraduate medical education course in 2020 in the said affidavit. Rather it is stated that after taking admission in the medical education course he started staying in the hostel provided by ANIIMS. iv) Respondent No. 7 is Ansh Dahiya though wrongly described as “Danya” in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. According to the appellant Ansh Dahiya was eligible to get admission in undergraduate medical education course for the session 2020-21 as one of the candidates namely Yino T. Vadeo has been replaced by Ansh Dahiya. Therefore, no discussion on the eligibility of respondent No. 7 is required. v) Respondent No. 8 is Kumari Nivedita who applied for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the session 2020-21 under Category-II after passing Class-XII final examination in 2018 from an institute in the islands. Nothing goes to show that respondent No. 8 was studying outside the islands from the year 2018 till 2020 before taking admission in the MBBS course. If this Court accepts the contention of the appellant that the father of the respondent No. 8 was transferred on 15th October, 2020 to main land that ought not change the eligibility of the respondent No. 8 to be treated as Category-II candidate since the NEET examination was held on 13th September, 2020 which is prior to the transfer of the father of the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 8 must have applied by submitting forms on or before 6th January, 2020 being the last date for submitting the forms for participating NEET-UG 2020. vi) Respondent No.9 is Soumi Basak who applied directly under Category-V being ward of an employee engaged in private service in the islands from the year 2014. Respondent No. 9 passed Class-XII examination in 2020 from an institute in the islands and thereafter in the same year participated in NEETUG 2020 and was successful in getting a rank which is above the appellant in terms of merit. Respondent No. 9 passed Class-XII examination in 2020 from an institute in the islands and thereafter in the same year participated in NEETUG 2020 and was successful in getting a rank which is above the appellant in terms of merit. Since already this Court has held that there is no embargo in directly applying for a seat under Category-V in terms of the parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996 if other conditions stipulated to be treated as Category-V candidate is fulfilled; respondent No. 9 according to our appreciation of facts as well as the said scheme of admission was permitted to take admission as Category-V candidate based on her application and we do not find any flaw in admission of the respondent No. 9 more so Category-V has been described as general merit quota which is open to the residents of islands and respondent No. 9 ranked above the appellant in terms of merit. vii) Respondent No. 10 is Abhay Shukla who applied for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the session 2020-21 after passing Class-XII final examination in 2019 from an institute in the islands. Father of the respondent No. 10 was transferred to main land from the islands on 30th July, 2020 whereas it has been stated in paragraph 4(c)(vii) of the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the private respondents that respondent No. 10 was staying in the islands along with his mother till the month of January 2021. From GAP certificate submitted by the respondent No. 10 it appears that he did not join any regular course at the graduation level rather did pursue coaching for making himself prepared for NEET-UG 2020 during the period 2019-20 from an institute at Kota, Rajasthan. Whether the respondent No. 10 was studying in Rajasthan or in the islands is not clear since in GAP certificate it was stated that he did coaching from an institute in Rajasthan whereas a statement has been made in the affidavit that he was staying in the islands with his mother. viii) Respondent No. 11 is Supriya who applied for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the session 202021 after passing Class-XII final examination in the year 2018 from an institute in the islands. viii) Respondent No. 11 is Supriya who applied for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the session 202021 after passing Class-XII final examination in the year 2018 from an institute in the islands. Father of the respondent No. 11 was posted in the islands at the material point of time and was transferred in the month of November, 2020 to the main land as it appears from the statements made in paragraph 4(c)(viii) of the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the private respondents. It has also been averred in the said affidavit that she was staying with her mother in the islands after transfer of her father and she did coaching for making herself prepared for NEET-UG 2020 instead of pursuing any regular course of study. Therefore, at the time of submitting filled up form for participating in NEETUG 2020 as well as at the time of NEET-UG examination, held on 13th September, 2020, father of the respondent No. 11 was posted in the islands and in addition thereto it does not appear from the documents being part of the paper-book as well as the statements made in the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the private respondents that the respondent No. 11 was pursuing any course by studying outside the islands after passing Class-XII final examination and before participating in NEET-UG examination held on 13th September, 2020. 35. Considering the examination of eligibility of the respective private respondents on the basis of the scheme of admission dated 30th May, 1996 as well as taking note of the documents which are made part of the records and the statements made by the parties to this appeal in the pleadings it appears to this Court that Moumi Das (respondent No. 5), Ansh Dahiya (respondent No. 7), Kumari Nibedita (respondent No. 8), Soumi Basak (respondent No. 9) and Supriya (respondent No. 11) are eligible to be considered for admission in undergraduate medical education course for the academic session 2020-21 against the respective categories under which they applied for. The appellant has relied upon category-wise merit list prepared for mop up round counselling held on 21st December, 2020 and has demonstrated before this Court that if private respondents Nos. 4 to 11 are found to be ineligible in that event the merit position of the appellant which was at serial no. The appellant has relied upon category-wise merit list prepared for mop up round counselling held on 21st December, 2020 and has demonstrated before this Court that if private respondents Nos. 4 to 11 are found to be ineligible in that event the merit position of the appellant which was at serial no. 22 gets upgraded and she would have come within the first sixteen candidates under Category-V which would have given a berth to her. But in view of our finding upon consideration of the relevant facts that out of eight private respondents five of them are eligible to get admission and if we exclude Ansh Dahiya, respondent No. 7, in that event too we do not find fault with the admission of four other candidates namely Moumi Das, Kumari Nibedita, Soumi Basak and Supriya. In view of such finding appellant did not have any scope to come within the first sixteen candidates in the mop up round counselling under Category-V held on 21st December, 2020. 36. In support of the case made out by the appellant reliance has been placed on judgment reported in 1989 (3) SCC 112 (Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi & Ors.), AIR 2020 SC Page 47 (S. Krishna Sradha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others), and the judgment of the Apex Court passed on Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 1835-1836 of 2020 in I.A. No. 183249 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31037-31038 of 2016 in the case of Abdul Ahad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. In the present case this Court finds that admission of the private respondents were not made on compromising merit but strictly in terms of the merit position determined as per the result of NEET-UG 2020; the appellant in terms of merit ranked below the private respondents and in view of the specific findings of this Court that five candidates out of eight private respondents were admitted in terms of the scheme of admission dated 30th May, 1996 the ratio of Meenakshi Malik (Supra) and S. Krishna (Supra) are of no help in the present fact situation. While questioning the admission of the private respondents, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Ahad (Supra) in order to demonstrate before this Court that the back door entry into medical education course needs to be handled by the Court without any sympathy. In Abdul Ahad (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not save the admission of the students since dehors the notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh for conducting centralized admission process the concerned medical college in contravention thereto conducted private counselling which was not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In addition thereto the Medical Council of India (MCI) by issuing order dated 27th January, 2017 discharged the students. In the present case in terms of the prospectus issued by the medical institute private respondents were permitted to take admission and during the admission process merit position of the respective candidates was not compromised. All the private respondents ranked above the appellant in terms of merit. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the admission of the private respondents at this stage specially when the entire process stood completed on 8th February, 2021 being the last date fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon extending time to take admission in undergraduate medical education course in the academic session 202021 though initially last date was fixed on 15th January, 2021. 37. However, in view of the observations made above by this Court on parent scheme framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30th May, 1996 relating to admission in professional/technical and non-technical institutions and colleges in the islands which was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment delivered in Parents Association (Supra), the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are henceforth directed to issue guidelines/prospectus strictly in terms of the said scheme of admission dated 30th May, 1996 without inserting expression “(11th and 12th class)” used after the words “last two years” while defining Category-II since such insertion of expression “(11th and 12th class)” alters the definition attributed to Category-II candidate in the parent scheme which might have created confusion amongst candidates participated in NEET-UG 2020-21 including the appellant. If words are plain and can bear only one meaning in law results are not a matter for this Court. If words are plain and can bear only one meaning in law results are not a matter for this Court. In considering the parent scheme the duty of the Court is to determine the intention of the framer of the scheme as expressed by the words used. The primary rule of interpretation undoubtedly is to take words in their natural, literal or grammatical sense and if the words are plain and admit but of one meaning, seldom any difficulty in interpretation arises. The language in such cases has got to be taken as decisive of the intention of the framers of the scheme and should not be departed from even if it produces in the opinion of the Court, any hardship or injustice. Since the language of the definition of Category-II as contained in the parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996 being plain and unambiguous, it is not open to this Court to read into it limitations which are not there, based on a priori reasoning as to the probable intention of the framers of the scheme. On application of the above rule of interpretation of statute category – II candidate is one being ward of a deputationist or central government employees with transfer liability to serve outside the Union Territory studied last two years in the islands in any course which is not restricted to higher secondary level and passed qualifying examination (Classes-XII final examination) from a school in the islands. 38. There is another aspect which does not escape notice of this Court while interpreting definition of Category-II candidate as contained in the parent scheme dated 30th May, 1996. This Court likes to offer illustration in order to explain the issue. Since this Court is concerned with admission into medical education course for the academic session 2020-21 such illustration is to be in-connection with said academic session. If a candidate, being ward of a deputationist/central government employee with transfer liability qualifies Class-XII final examination being the qualifying examination in 2018 and desires to take admission in medical education course in that event as per norms the candidate has three chances to participate in NEET-UG. If such candidate fails to qualify NEET-UG 2018-19 and NEET UG 2019 – 20 in that event still such candidate gets another opportunity to participate in NEET-UG 2020-21 being the last chance. If such candidate fails to qualify NEET-UG 2018-19 and NEET UG 2019 – 20 in that event still such candidate gets another opportunity to participate in NEET-UG 2020-21 being the last chance. During this period from 2018 till 2020 if there is no alteration of the situation so far the candidate is concerned relating to posting of candidate’s guardian the only change which is inevitable is that the said candidate cannot participate in NEET-UG 2020 being a candidate who qualifies qualifying examination not in the current academic session of 2020 since the candidate qualified qualifying examination in the year 2018. If the argument of the appellant on meaning of definition of Category-II as it appears from the prospectus issued by ANIIMS is accepted in that event in spite of compliance of other conditions by the candidate in terms of the definition of Category-II the said candidate would unnecessarily be debarred from getting the benefit of reservation under Category-II since the candidate qualified qualifying examination in 2018. Therefore, the expression “last two years” needs to be construed in a manner which will not lead to change of category of a candidate (Category-II) if other conditions remain unaltered. 39. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. The judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 28th April, 2021 stands confirmed. 40. In view of the aforesaid directions specially contained in paragraph 37 this Court directs the Registry to forthwith communicate this judgment and order to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 41. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 42. All parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from the 43. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order shall be supplied to the official website of this Court. parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. I agree,