JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein, by way of this petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus to declare the communications dated 24-25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020 as bad, illegal, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The facts in brief are as under: *The petitioner, a student, appeared for his Higher Secondary Education Examination in the month of March, 2019 and secured 43.90 percentile marks. Since he intended to prosecute further studies in the field of Ayurveda Medicine, the petitioner appeared for NEET in 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 216 out of 720 marks. The case of the petitioner is that he secured admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) on the All India Quota of 15% of the seats. The petitioner was called for counseling on 3.7.2019 and the respondent No. 2 College was the College allotted to the petitioner as per his own choice. According to All India Quota ranking, an admission letter was issued on 11.7.2019 and accordingly the petitioner had paid his fees. The case of the petitioner is that he is in the College for the last 10 months. *On 25.2.2020, the respondent No.1 – Gujarat Ayurveda University issued a communication to the respondent No.2 College informing the College that the petitioner is not qualified to be enrolled in the BAMS Course. The remark in the communication indicated that petitioner had secured 214 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology(PCB). Subsequent communication dated 14.3.2020 was addressed to the petitioner that he must collect his fees as his admission has been cancelled by the University. This has given rise to the present petition. 3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Nisarg Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner would submit as under: *According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had secured 69.77 percentile in NEET. He was allotted the respondent College on 3.7.2019. He paid the fees as he had applied on All India Quota of 15%. The admission to the All India Quota is regulated through Central Admission Process. By the impugned communication of 25.2.2020, which was not served on the petitioner, his admission stands cancelled. It was only on 14.3.2020 that the College informed the petitioner. He invited the Court's attention to a communication dated 25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020 to submit that the communications are bad. 4. Mr. By the impugned communication of 25.2.2020, which was not served on the petitioner, his admission stands cancelled. It was only on 14.3.2020 that the College informed the petitioner. He invited the Court's attention to a communication dated 25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020 to submit that the communications are bad. 4. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court to the required parameters which have to be considered for admission against the All India Quota. Inviting the attention of the Court to the FAQs, he would submit that the counseling was to be done by AYUSH Admissions Central Counseling Committee (AACCC) for minimum 15% All India Quota Seats. The eligibility was on the basis of NEET score. The petitioner had produced the downloaded result of the NEET. *Mr.Dave would also invite the attention to question 1.20 and submit that as far as the documents required at the time of online counseling is concerned, the question indicated that no documents were required for participating in online allotment process. * Mr.Dave would submit that it was only through the affidavit-in-reply that it has come forth as stated by the University that the admission given by the College to the petitioner for the year 2019-20 was in violation of provisions of the Gujarat Provisional Medical Education Courses (Regulations of Admission in Under Graduate Courses) Rules, 2017. * Mr. Dave invited the attention of the Court to the Rules and would submit that the case of the University was that the petitioner had secured less than 50% in HSC. The Rules of 2017 would apply only for Government and Management Seats. The admission to the All India Quota was not governed by the 2017 Rules. 5. Inviting the attention of the Court on the rejoinder filed, Mr.Dave would submit that the petitioner had applied in the All India Quota of NEET for which the Government had allotted 15% of the seats. When the Rules of 2017 were framed, there was no All India Quota in respect of Ayurveda College. It was only in the year 2019-20 that this concept was introduced and, therefore, reliance on the rules 2017 does not arise. 6. When the Rules of 2017 were framed, there was no All India Quota in respect of Ayurveda College. It was only in the year 2019-20 that this concept was introduced and, therefore, reliance on the rules 2017 does not arise. 6. Mr.Dave would also submit that the reliance placed by the University on the communication dated 18.6.2019 was misconceived as in-fact the All India Quota was by the Ministry of AYUSH and even when communication dated 3.1.2019 is read, admission is to be based on NEET score. He would, therefore, submit that if the College had made any mistake, which it has not, it was not the petitioner's fault and, therefore, he should not be deprived off the admission that he had secured in BAMS. He relied on the following decisions: A. Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Karnataka University reported in 1986(Suppl) SCC 740 (Para 8 thereof). B. Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur reported in 1981 (1) SCC 399 (Para 17 thereof) . C. Sanatan Gauda v. Behrampur University reported in 1990(3) SCC 23 . 7. Mr.Premal Joshi, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Gujarat Ayurveda University. He made the following submissions: *Mr.Joshi invited the attention of the Court to the mark-sheet of the petitioner of standard 12. He would submit that admittedly the petitioner had secured 43.90% i.e. less than 50% and, therefore, was admittedly ineligible. * Inviting the attention of the Court to the FAQs, Mr.Joshi disputes Mr.Dave's submission that no documents are required. Relying on question 1.21, he would submit that original documents such as mark-sheet of 10+2 etc were required for verification for allotment at the homeopathy College. The College ought to have verified the mark-sheet when it was apparently clear on the examination thereof that the petitioner had secured less than 50% in HSC, as required under the Rules. * He would also rely on the communication dated 18.6.2019 together with 3.1.2019 to submit that it is admittedly clear that the Rules of 2017 would apply to the All India Quota because it specifically provides in (b) of Para 2 of the letter that counseling for admission has been done in accordance with the relevant rules of the State. * Mr. * Mr. Joshi would submit that a list of 25 students including the petitioner of various institutions was produced to justify that it is not only the petitioner who has been singled out but several such cases came to the light of the University and admissions have been cancelled. He would rely on the decision in the case of Sunil Oraon and others v. CBSE and others reported in 2006(13) SCC 673 (Para 23 thereof). 8. In rejoinder, Mr.Dave would submit that it is not right for Mr. Joshi to rely on a communication dated 3.1.2019 [clause 2(b)] thereof because on the contrary it only talks for counseling for all admissions and not specific talk on the applicability of Rules, 2017 to the All India Quota. 9. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for Union of India – respondent No.3. He has filed his written submissions. In a nut shell, his submissions read as under: *The Indian Medical Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2019 were notified on 18.6.2019. These regulations are applicable to the students who shall be admitted to the Bachelor of Ayurveda (Medicine and Surgery). Relevant extract of the Rules as under: “1. Short title, commencement and application. –(1) These regulations may be called the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2019. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. (3) These regulations shall apply to students who shall be admitted for B.A.M.S., B.S.M.S. and B.U.M.S from the commencement of the academic session (2019-2020).” “2. In the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Regulations, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said regulations) in Schedule-I, for regulation 2, the following regulation shall be substituted, namely:- “2. Eligibility for Admission. - The eligibility to seek admission in Bachelor of Ayurveda education shall be as under:- (a) The candidate must have passed intermediate (10+2) or its equivalent examination recognised by the concerned State Government and Education Board with the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained minimum of fifty per cent. marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the aforesaid qualifying examination in the case of general category and forty per cent. Marks in the case of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the aforesaid qualifying examination in the case of general category and forty per cent. Marks in the case of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (b) In respect of persons with disability candidate specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), the minimum qualifying marks in the said qualifying examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology shall be forty-five per cent. in the case of general category and forty per cent. in the case of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (c) No candidate shall be admitted to B.A.M.S Degree Course unless he has attained the age of seventeen years on or before the 31st December of the year of his admission in the first year of the Course and not more than of twenty-five years on or before the 31st December of the year of admission in the first year of the Course: Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed by five years in the case of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and physically handicapped candidates. (d) (i) There shall be a uniform entrance examination for all medical institutions at the under-graduate level, namely the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to under-graduate-Course in each academic year and shall be conducted by an authority designated by the Central Government. (ii) In order to be eligible for admission to undergraduate Course for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in the ‘National Eligibility Entrance Test for undergraduate Course’ held for the said academic year: Provided that in respect of- (A) candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile; (B) candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile in the case of general category and 40th percentile in the case of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Explanation.—The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the all India common merit list in the National Eligibility Entrance Test for under-graduate Courses: Provided further that when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks in the National Eligibility Entrance Test, as specified above, held for any academic year for admission to under-graduate Courses, the Central Government in consultation with the Central Council may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to under-graduate Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for that academic year only. (iii) An all-India common merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the National Eligibility Entrance Test and the candidates, within the respective categories, shall be admitted to under-graduate Course from the said merit lists only. (iv) The seat matrix for admission in the Government, Government-aided Institutions and Private Institutions shall be fifteen per cent. for the all-India quota and eighty-five per cent. for the States and Union territories quota. (v) The designated authority for counseling for all admissions to under-graduate Course in all Ayurveda educational institutions in the States and Union territories including institutions established by the State Government, University, Deemed University, Trust, Society, Minority Institution, Corporation or Company shall be the respective State or Union territory in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations of the concerned State or Union territory Government, as the case may be. (vi) The counseling for all admission to B.A.M.S Course for seats under all India quota as well as for all Ayurveda educational institutions established by the Central Government shall be conducted by the authority designated by the Central Government. (vii) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility marks as specified above shall be admitted to under-graduate Course in the said academic year. (viii) No authority or institution shall admit any candidate to the under-graduate Course in contravention of the criteria or procedure as laid down by these regulations in respect of admissions and any candidate admitted in contravention of the said criteria or procedure shall be discharged by the Central Council forthwith. (viii) No authority or institution shall admit any candidate to the under-graduate Course in contravention of the criteria or procedure as laid down by these regulations in respect of admissions and any candidate admitted in contravention of the said criteria or procedure shall be discharged by the Central Council forthwith. (ix) The authority or institution which grants admission to any student in contravention of the aforesaid criteria or procedure shall be liable to face action in terms of the provisions of the Act. (e) For foreign national candidate any other equivalent qualification to be approved by the Central Government may be allowed and clause (d) shall not be applicable for said foreign national candidate.”. 10. Reading of the Rules would indicate that for being eligible for admission, according to Mr.Vyas, a candidate must have obtained minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the aforesaid qualifying examination in a case of General Category candidate. In addition, thereto, as per the Rules, a candidate has to obtain minimum mark of 50 percentile in National Eligibility Entrance Test for Under Graduate Courses. A candidate who fails to obtain the minimum eligibility marks as specified in the Rules cannot be admitted and a student so not be admitted by any institution. *Mr.Vyas, learned ASG relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court to submit that if the institution permitted admission of a student in contravention of the regulations, such admission cannot be regularized. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of MCI v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Science reported in 2016 (11) SCC 530 . Special attention was drawn to para, 30, 31, 31.1 and 31.2. He also relied on a decision in the case of MCI v. MGR Education reported in 2015(4) SCC 580 . * He would therefore submit that the object of the amendment was to induct meritorious students in various Courses including BAMS and certain minimum educational qualification and standards were prescribed. If the student has been admitted de hors such a qualification, it cannot be then said that he would continue to pursue his studies with the College despite he being not qualified. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Federation of Self Financed Ayurveda Colleges Punjab and others (Para 12 thereof) which Mr. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Federation of Self Financed Ayurveda Colleges Punjab and others (Para 12 thereof) which Mr. Vyas has quoted in the Written Submissions. 11. Considering the above submissions at hand, from the facts, what is evident is that reading of the mark sheet of standard 12 of the petitioner would indicate he had secured 43.90% of marks. Admittedly, therefore, in accordance with the rules of 2019, he had secured less than 50% and, therefore was not eligible for admissions to the BAMS Course. Mr. Dave, learned Senior Advocate's harping on the fact that by virtue of letter dated 18.7.2019/3.1.2019 and by virtue of NEET score of 216, it was not the fault of the candidate if he was allotted to the JS Ayurveda Maha Vidhyalaya, the institution which is herein respondent No.2 and that, no fault can be found with the student for having been admitted and allotted to such institution. 12. To draw support, reliance was placed on the inapplicability of the rules of 2017 on the ground that such rules apply only to the Government seats and management seats. Perusal of the FAQs would indicate that they cannot be read in isolation. The frequently asked questions talked about the documents for online counseling. That counseling in accordance with the 2019 rules, as shown by Mr.Vyas in the Written Submissions even for the All India Quota was to be done by the Central Government, by an authority designated by it. What is lost sight by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that FAQ 1.21 would indicate that it became incumbent upon the College to which the petitioner was allotted to verify the documents including mark-sheet of 10+2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the College Ms.Vishwa A. Shastri that the College was completely ignorant and was only an executing authority lacks complete merit. It shows rank irresponsibility on the part of the College in not following the rules which stipulated the eligibility criteria for admission. For the College to say that it was unaware of the rules and was only merely accepting an online allotment made by the Central Council cannot absolve the College of serious lapses or irregularities. 13. Mr.Dave would contend that if it was the lapse of the College, why should the student suffer. For the College to say that it was unaware of the rules and was only merely accepting an online allotment made by the Central Council cannot absolve the College of serious lapses or irregularities. 13. Mr.Dave would contend that if it was the lapse of the College, why should the student suffer. Perusal of the notes and events that unfolded before filing of the petition would indicate that the petitioner was allotted to the College in July, 2019. He paid his fees on 11.7.2019. Aggrieved by the communications dated 25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition which was registered on 2.6.2020, 3 months after the admission was cancelled. It was on 3.6.2020 that the Court issued notice making it returnable on 5.6.2020 without any interim order. The matter was subsequently adjourned from time to time without there being any interim orders passed thereon. The only clarification that the Court made on 2.11.2020 was that if the examination dates are announced, it will be open for the petitioner to move the Court. It appears that the petitioner as submitted by learned advocate Shri Dave attended online classes during the interregnum period though his admission was cancelled by the University and consequently by the College in March, 2020. This would not hold and give any equities in favour of the petitioner. 14. As far as the applicability or inapplicability of the Rules of 2017 is concerned, the submission of Mr.Dave that the rules were not applicable pales into insignificance in view of the amended rules brought on record through written submissions by Mr. Vyas, learned ASG. It was in context of these amended rules that the communication dated 18.7.2019 filed by the University together with the reply needs to be appreciated. In consonance with the rules what was decided was that the counseling should be done for admissions to under graduate Courses through a centralized agency and such counseling should be done in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. Also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, is a statement of similarly situated students which the University opined for removing from the College. A list of 25 such students who either were ineligible or had lesser marks and were faced with the same situation when their admissions were cancelled is placed on record. Also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, is a statement of similarly situated students which the University opined for removing from the College. A list of 25 such students who either were ineligible or had lesser marks and were faced with the same situation when their admissions were cancelled is placed on record. The question is not whether the petitioner was governed by the 2017 rules inasmuch as, whether he was within the Government or management quota. Be that as it may, that he was in All India Quota for being selected for BAMS what glares on the face of the Rules of 2019 is that he did not possess the minimum eligibility criteria of being selected to undertake the Course in BAMS. Citations relied upon by Mr.Vyas in the case of Kalinga (Supra) and MCI v. MGR Education (Supra) are vocal enough to suggest that the benefit cannot go to the students. In a judgment cited by Mr.Joshi in the case of Sunil Oraon (Supra), the court has categorically held that merely because a wrong admission has been given, the Court should not exercise discretion in favour of the student. Having found that student is clearly ineligible and even as per the latest judgment in the case of Union of India v. Self Financed College (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court in para 12 has observed as under, it is categorically clear that the petitioner deserves no discretion in favour of being continued to be permitted to undergo the BAMS Course. “12. Prescribing a minimum percentile for admission to the Under Graduate Courses for the year 2019-2020 was vehemently defended by the Central Council and the Union of India by submitting that the minimum standards cannot be lowered even for the AYUSH Courses. We agree. Doctors who are qualified in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy streams also treat patients and the lack of minimum standards of education would result in halfbaked doctors being turned out of professional Colleges. Non-availability of eligible candidates for admission to AYUSH Under Graduate Courses cannot be reason to lower the standards prescribes by the Central Council for admission. We agree. Doctors who are qualified in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy streams also treat patients and the lack of minimum standards of education would result in halfbaked doctors being turned out of professional Colleges. Non-availability of eligible candidates for admission to AYUSH Under Graduate Courses cannot be reason to lower the standards prescribes by the Central Council for admission. However, in view of the admission of a large number of students to the AYUSH under-graduate Courses for the year 2019-2020 on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, we direct that the students may be permitted to continue provided that they were admitted prior to the last date of admission i.e. 15th October, 2019. The said direction is also applicable to students admitted to Post-Graduate Courses before 31st October, 2019. This is one-time exercise which is permitted in view of the peculiar circumstances. Therefore, this order shall not be treated as a precedent.” 15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The respondent College shall immediately refund the fees as stipulated in the communications impugned in the petition. Much could be said about the recalcitrance and the negligence of the College for which the student has suffered but for the College granting admission in the face of he being ineligible and the petitioner being constrained to approach this Court and particularly when the petitioner continued to pursue his studies albeit online with the respondent No.2 institute and the respondent No.2's stand being that it only was an executing and an implementing authority shows a complete indiscreet response. The petition though is dismissed the respondent No.2 - Institute shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the student because he suffered for no fault of his and it was only because he was allotted to the respondent No.2 that he was admitted to pursue the BAMS Course. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. 17. The Registry is requested to communicate this order through E-mail / Fax.