JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Both these petitions are filed by student who has sought admission to the B.Ed Course under the Management Quota. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 was granted admission in the subject of science in the Open category of the Management Quota, whereas, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 was granted admission in the category of the Management Quota belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. 2. Pending the petitions, initially, this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.16406 and 16404 of 2018 passed separate orders on 22.10.2018 (Coram: Ms.S.G. Gokani – J.) which read as under: “1. The present petitioner seeks intervention of this Court, since, the order has been passed on 17.10.2018 by the University- respondent No1 not approving her admission in the First Year of the B.Ed. Course with respondent No4. She has, on completion of her B.Sc. Studies, been given admission in the B.Ed. course. She has been given admission in the Management Quota, pursuant to an advertisement published by respondent No3. She belongs to Schedule Tribe category and she is desirous of pursuing her studies of B.Ed. with Mathematics and Science subjects. 2. It is averred in the petition that the examination is commencing from 26th October, 2018 for the First Semester of B.Ed. course and she has is orally intimated that in wake of the subsequent developments, she may not be given the permission to appear in the examination. 3. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, for the petitioner, who has urged that no reason is given by the University- Respondent No1 while making the impugned communication to the petitioner denying admission. She further, has urged that even if, there is any objection with regard to the Management Quota, then also she fulfills the criteria. 4. Let an urgent NOTICE be issued, keeping in mind the ensuing examination, making the same returnable on 24TH OCTOBER, 2018. 5. Since, learned Advocate, Mr. Vin, appears for Respondent No1-University, he shall be served an advance copy. Direct service is permitted, TODAY.” 3. On 25.10.2018, a common order was passed by this Court (Coram: S.H. Vora-J.) which reads as under: “Learned advocate for respondent seeks time to file reply. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 5. Since, learned Advocate, Mr. Vin, appears for Respondent No1-University, he shall be served an advance copy. Direct service is permitted, TODAY.” 3. On 25.10.2018, a common order was passed by this Court (Coram: S.H. Vora-J.) which reads as under: “Learned advocate for respondent seeks time to file reply. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Upon hearing learned advocates at bar and considering the facts of the case, it appears that there is a clear vacancy under Management Quota with respect to Science subject and such vacancy fell on account of surrender of seat of one Ms. Prachi Kamleshbhai Talati. It is a matter of fact that respondent – College accepted fees of 15 students under Management Quota (including present petitioners). In light of this position, present petitions deserve consideration and therefore, pending hearing of the present petitions relief in terms of para-8(B) is granted but on condition that the admission and appearance of the petitioners in the examination shall remain subject to further order that may be passed by this Court after considering the pleadings to be filed by the respondents in the present proceedings. S.O. to 14.12.2018.” 4. Since both these petitions arise out of a common controversy i.e. the order dated 17.10.2018 by which the respondent No.1 – University did not approve their admission to the B.Ed Course, learned counsels Ms.Mamta Vyas for the petitioners, Mr.C.J. Vin for the respondent No.1 – University and Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Chirag Patel for the respondent No.4 confined their arguments and facts on facts of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018. 5. The facts in brief are as under: Prayer in both the petitions were common i.e. to set aside an order of 17.10.2018 passed by the respondent University by which the admission of the petitioners was not approved by the Centralized Admission Committee and accordingly the respondent No.4 College was directed to see that the petitioners discontinued their pursue in the B.Ed course. The case of the petitions is that she completed her B.Sc. An advertisement was issued on 6.4.2018 by the respondent University for admission to the B.Ed Course pursuant to which under the Management Quota, the petitioner applied for pursuing their studies. The case of the petitions is that she completed her B.Sc. An advertisement was issued on 6.4.2018 by the respondent University for admission to the B.Ed Course pursuant to which under the Management Quota, the petitioner applied for pursuing their studies. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 applied for admission under the open category whereas the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 applied for admission under the Scheduled tribe category. Fees were paid. Admissions were granted in September, 2018 and when the ensuing exams of the first semester were due on 21.10.2018, the petitioners were faced with the communication of 17.10.2018 directing that the admission granted by the respondent No.4 be cancelled. It was in these circumstances, the Court was on 22.10.2018 and thereafter 25.10.2018 passed the orders which have been referred to hereinabove. 6. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the interregnum by virtue of the interim orders, the petitioners were permitted to appear and have competed their 1st to 4th semester examinations. The results of the 2nd semester have been declared whereas the results of the 1st, 3rd and 4th semesters have not been declared due to the pendency of the petitions. She would submit that the order of 17.10.2018 was passed when the petitioners were to sit for the first semester examination. The B.Ed. Course the petitioners have already undergone in June, 2020. 7. Mr.C.J. Vin, learned counsel for the respondent University would submit as under: He would submit that the national council for teacher education has by notification dated 28.11.2014 and the relevant Clauses thereunder stipulated a time limit within which the admission process needs to be over. The admission notice was dated 6.4.2018 and the admission process had to be completed by 6.6.2018. He would submit that there was two basic units of 50 students each and in all 100 students. In a class of 100 students, 50 seats were reserved for the Management Quota. The admission was to be given by the centralized admission committee. He would invite the attention of the Court to the notification of the NCTE dated 28.11.2014 stipulating the time limit. In a class of 100 students, 50 seats were reserved for the Management Quota. The admission was to be given by the centralized admission committee. He would invite the attention of the Court to the notification of the NCTE dated 28.11.2014 stipulating the time limit. He would also rely on a communication of the Government through the Commissioner of Higher Education dated 6.8.2008 in support of his submission that if the management makes admissions contrary to the centralized admission committee's recommendation or such admissions are not routed through the committee, such admissions be treated as cancelled. He would submit that the admission process in the present scenario was extended to 18.8.2018, in the interest of seeing that all students as far as possible are accommodated. Admittedly, the College submitted a list on 23.8.2018 showing the name of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.16404 of 2018 and of 16406 of 2018 as not being approved. He would rely on the communication dated 21.7.2008 produced alongwith the additional affidavit filed in subsequent point of time to indicate that the College was informed that the Management Quota will be of 15 seats and each subject seats would not be more than 2 to 3, therefore, based on the merit list of 23.8.2018 produced by the College itself, the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.16404 and 16406 of 2018 were at Sr. Nos.13 and 14 respectively much below the approved merit rank of the subject of science to which admissions were granted to the candidates at Sr. Nos.8, 9 and 11. Admittedly, those 3 were belonging to the science stream and looking to the communication of 21.7.2018 since the allocation of subject was for 2 seats, the petitioners were in excess of the quota of the management and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled than to be accommodated in the B.Ed Course. A subsequent order of withdrawal of recognition dated 21.6.2018 has also been placed on record by the University to contend that now the institution itself is not recognized and, therefore, there is no reason why the petitioners are entitled to the relief of having undergone and being awarded the degree of B.Ed. 8. A subsequent order of withdrawal of recognition dated 21.6.2018 has also been placed on record by the University to contend that now the institution itself is not recognized and, therefore, there is no reason why the petitioners are entitled to the relief of having undergone and being awarded the degree of B.Ed. 8. Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Chirag Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.4 – College would draw the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply and submit that, true it is that, a communication dated 21.7.2018 was issued by the University, he would rely on para 2 of the communication to indicate that though it was a fact that 15% of the seats were entitled to be filled in by the Management Quota, what the communication indicated that the subject wise allocation of minimum of 2 to 3 seats would be a consideration that would be taken care of henceforth. It was not a binding rule and, therefore, nothing amidst has happened for the College to have committed a defalcation so as to render the admissions of the petitioners as cancelled. He would even otherwise submit that if the College was entitled to fill in the Management Quota of 15 seats from the chart sent on 7.8.2008 of 15 seats, what is evident that one Ms.Prachi Talati allocated to the science subject under the Management Quota opted out and went for masters in science. It was under these circumstances that only 7 students were their for science subject and 1 student in maths quota. If the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 was next in line in the merit and to be accommodated in place of Ms.Prachi Talati, only 1 student who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category was to be accommodated and the University would have considered as a special case, as admittedly, even counting the candidate the 15 seats of the Management Quota were not acceded. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties and consciously having read the interim orders passed by this Court on 25.10.2018 and uninfluenced by these orders inasmuch as merely because the petitioners were permitted to appear, in an examination, that itself could not create and equity in their favour. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties and consciously having read the interim orders passed by this Court on 25.10.2018 and uninfluenced by these orders inasmuch as merely because the petitioners were permitted to appear, in an examination, that itself could not create and equity in their favour. However, there are facts which indicate that in indulgence ought to be granted to students, the petitioners, 2 in number, who have undertaken and finished their B.Ed. Course in June, 2020 so that their results which have been withheld for the 1, 3 and 4th semesters are declared and they can pursue their academic pursuits in further for further studies. 10. The following facts warrant discretion to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. On a conjoint reading of the affidavit filed by the University initially and the additional affidavit filed subsequently, what is evident is that though the admission process was, as stipulated by the NCTE Rules, 2014 to be conducted within 60 days and was to end on 6.6.2018, admittedly, the same continued beyond the stipulated period upto 11.8.2018. What is evident from the list of students sent on 7.8.2018 by the College and the second which is annexed by the University in its affidavit-in-reply which is dated 4.8.2018 is that the Management Quota of 15 had not been acceded by the College. Reading the list of 7.8.2018, in conjunction with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4, it is evident that as per the communication dated 21.7.2018, the University had expressed its desire to see that the Management Quota of 15 is not acceded by the Colleges concerned and each subject not more than 2-3 students are admitted under that quota. In the facts of the case, what is evident is in the subject of science, Ms.Prachi Talati figured above of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 and left the College for other higher studies. She was the 3rd in the subject of Science. In the facts of the case, what is evident is in the subject of science, Ms.Prachi Talati figured above of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 and left the College for other higher studies. She was the 3rd in the subject of Science. It was under these circumstances by the letters of 20.8.2018 and September, 2018, that the College requested the University that even according to the letter of 21.7.2018 which was sent by the University stipulating that in each subject not more than 2-3 students be accommodated, with Ms.Prachi Talati having been removed from the list the 3rd subject wise allocattee would be petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018. Admittedly, this submission was, therefore, in accordance with the stipulation prescribed by letter of 21.7.2018. No rule position is pointed out by the University or the management to suggest that there was a rule and, therefore such a rule to be strictly adhered to. What was communicated in terms of the letter of 21.7.2018 was a mere communication requesting the College to adhere to the maximum of 3 management seats in a subject. That takes care of student of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 and, therefore, her admission cannot be said to be in excess of the Management Quota even as per the subject wise allocation required by the communication of the University dated 21.7.2018. That brings us to the candidature of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018. Admittedly, she applied in the Management Quota and reserved seat i.e. the Scheduled Tribe category. Letters are on record written by the management to the University as early as in August, 2018 that as a special case, the candidature of the petitioner of Special Civil Application 16406 of 2018 being in a reserved category, be considered, as it was within the stipulated of maximum of 15 Management Quota seats. No action was taken over a period of two months in the exchange of communications and repeated reminders sent by the management. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 came to know of her fate of her admissions being cancelled only was she was to seat for the semester examination, compelling them to approach this Court and the Court passing an interim order of 25.10.2018. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 came to know of her fate of her admissions being cancelled only was she was to seat for the semester examination, compelling them to approach this Court and the Court passing an interim order of 25.10.2018. Albeit, aware of the fact that the interim order would not give the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 the benefit of an equity in her favour, but looking to the fact that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and has already completed her course during the pendency of this petition in June, 2020, in the interest of justice, it would be fit to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner too, to see that the respondent No.4 - University recognizes her admission and her course being undertaken in the concerned faculty of B.Ed which she has undergone in June, 2020. 11. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be treated to have undergone their B.Ed Course with the respondent University subject to their passing the examinations after the results are declared as if the communication dated 17.10.2018 was not issued. The cancellation of their admissions pursuant to the impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be treated to have rightfully and rightly undertaken the academic sessions of B.Ed and the respondent University shall declare the results of their 1, 3 and 4th semesters and issue degree certificates of the petitioners having undertaken the B.Ed. Courses in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to that extent. No order as to costs. 12. In view of the allowing of the main matters, connected Civil Applications will also not survive and hence, the same stand disposed of. 13. The Registry is requested to communicate this order through E-mail/Fax.