ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners in two batches. The earlier batch of writ petitions were filed in the year 2021 and during the pendency of said writ petitions, orders were passed by the respondent-Rajasthan Para-Medical Council leading to filing of writ petitions being SBCWP No. 1205/2022, 1129/2022 and 1548/2022. 2. As the issues involved in all the writ petitions are same, they are being decided by this common order. However, as the subsequent writ petitions take into consideration the facts of earlier litigation and the orders passed therein, the facts and submissions made in the petitions filed in 2022 are being considered and illustratively the facts of SBCWP No. 1205/2022 Mahendra vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, have been indicated for the purpose of disposal of present writ petitions. 3. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter-alia aggrieved by the office order dated 27.8.2021 (Annex.21), minutes of meeting dated 13.8.2021 and the committee report dated 4.8.2021 (Annex.20) and have sought their quashing with consequential benefits and also sought direction to grant them registration certificates making them eligible for appointment on the post of ECG Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.7.2020. 4. Further relief has been sought against the respondent-Rajasthan Para-Medical Council to accept the registration forms and to revive the registration certificates issued to the petitioners. 5. The issues which arise in these petitions have a bit of chequered history. 6. An advertisement dated 30.7.2020 (Annex.2) was issued by the Selection Board for the post of ECG Technician for the Para Medical Category under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules 1965’). The eligibility inter-alia required Senior Secondary in Science with two years’ Diploma of ECG Technician from the institute recognized by the State Government/Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical Council and registered in Para Medical Council. 7. The advertisement by way of Note further provided that a candidate, on the last date of application, must be registered with the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council (‘the Council’). However, in terms of the decision of the High Court in CWP No. 13299/2017, Manju vs. State of Rajasthan, in case till the last date of application, a candidate is not registered, an application seeking registration before the Council should be filed and certificate of registration should be produced at the time of document verification. 8. However, in terms of the decision of the High Court in CWP No. 13299/2017, Manju vs. State of Rajasthan, in case till the last date of application, a candidate is not registered, an application seeking registration before the Council should be filed and certificate of registration should be produced at the time of document verification. 8. The petitioners applied for registration with the Council inter-alia on the strength of having passed 2 year Diploma course in ECG Technology from Mahatama Gandhi University, Meghalaya (‘the University’) and whereafter, applied pursuant to the advertisement for the post of ECG Technician. 9. It appears that pursuant to the application forms submitted by the petitioners, the Council sent a letter to the University and sought certain information, which was replied on 10.10.2020 inter-alia indicating that the University was established vide Meghalaya Act No. 6 of 2011 and that the paramedical programmes are running since 2011. It is claimed that the petitioners applied to the University for issuance of NOC, which was responded by indicating that as there was no Para-Medical Council in the State of Meghalaya, the NOC cannot be issued. 10. The Selection Board declared the result and called the eligible candidates including the petitioners for document verification. However, the respondent Council rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners for registration and refused to grant registration by order dated 6.1.2021 (Annex.9), resulting in petitioners held ineligible during the course of document verification. 11. Due to non-issuance of registration certificate by the Council, the petitioners filed CWP No. 3054/2021, 3891/2021, 3914/2021, 4104/2021 and 4412/2021, wherein, a coordinate bench of this Court on 16.3.2021 (Annex.12) granted interim order requiring the Council to issue provisional registration certificates to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible, and the Selection Board was directed not to reject the petitioners’ candidature. The Council was directed to decide upon the recognition of ECG Diploma given by the University in terms of Section 32 of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Act, 2008 (‘the Act 2008’) and Regulations, 2014 framed thereunder. 12. The Council issued provisional certificates to the petitioners and preferred special appeal against the interim order dated 16.3.2021, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.10.2021. 13. In terms of the interim order, the requisite was supplied by the University to the Council. 12. The Council issued provisional certificates to the petitioners and preferred special appeal against the interim order dated 16.3.2021, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.10.2021. 13. In terms of the interim order, the requisite was supplied by the University to the Council. The Respondent Council sent communication to the University for verification of documents of petitioners, which was responded by the University by communication dated 14.6.2021 and 16.6.2021 (Annex.18) and reiterated that there is no Para-Medical Council in the State of Meghalaya and the University has been established by an Act of the Government of Meghalaya. 14. However, the Council in its meeting dated 13.8.2021 (Annex.20) based on the committee report, decided to cancel the provisional registration of the petitioners and passed a formal order on 27.8.2021 (Annex.21) in this regard. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the Council in rejecting the application for registration/cancelling the provisional certificates issued to the petitioners is wholly unjustified. 16. Submissions have been made that the Council has based its decision on the committee report (part of Annex.20), wherein, the committee indicated that vide communication dated 31.3.2021 the University and the Meghalaya Government were required to produce the documents, however, no response was received, therefore, it was apparent that the ECG course does not fall under Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations and that the course was being conducted by the private University on its own level. The committee recommended that in terms of Section 32 of the Act, 2008, the Council has power to grant recognition and, therefore, it would be appropriate to determine the same in general meeting of the Council. 17. It is submitted that the entire approach of the Council in determining the issue is faulty inasmuch as the Diploma granted to the petitioners have been duly verified by the University and the reliance placed by the respondents on Section 32 of the Act, 2008 and Regulation 42 of the Regulation, 2014 is wholly misplaced in the context of present cases and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 18. 18. Submissions have been made that Mahatama Gandhi University has been established under the Act of State of Meghalaya and in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.L. Asawa vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1982 SC 933 , as the course was being conducted by the University under the provisions of the Act, there was no necessity to further seek its recognition, besides the fact that no Para-Medical Council exists in the State of Meghalaya so as to grant NOC as required by the respondents. 19. Submissions have been made that this Court in the earlier round of litigation, wherein, the order dated 16.3.2021 (Annex.12) was passed, had prima facie come to the conclusion that the University under the Act was permitted to carry out the course mentioned in the Preamble and Section 6 of the Act and that the scope of inquiry under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 is limited where the Council is required to ensure as to whether the course conducted by the University or institution from which a candidate has obtained diploma or degree conforms to the requisite yardsticks set for expertise or knowledge, however, no fishing or roving inquiry about the University or Institution is permissible. The Court also came to the conclusion that the approach of the respondents was unsustainable and, therefore, passed the directions. 20. However, the respondents despite getting the requisite information about the decree etc. of the petitioners, has chosen to wrongly indicate about the non-supply of requisite information and has passed the orders which are wholly unjustified and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the Council made vehement submissions that the writ petitions were not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have remedy of filing appeal against the orders impugned. 22. Reliance has been placed on Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 782 and Union of India vs. Shri Kant Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 773 . 23. Learned counsel with reference to several judgments made submissions that in academic matters the Courts must be slow to interfere as it is the academic body, which is well equipped to deal with the subject matters and, therefore, the Court should not interfere with the matter. 24. 23. Learned counsel with reference to several judgments made submissions that in academic matters the Courts must be slow to interfere as it is the academic body, which is well equipped to deal with the subject matters and, therefore, the Court should not interfere with the matter. 24. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Krishna Priya Ganguly vs. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307 , A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society vs. Govt. of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667 , Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University, 1986 Supp. SCC 740, Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 and Medical Council of India vs. Society for Advancement of Environmental Science, (2016) 7 SCC 590 . 25. Learned counsel with reference to provisions of Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 made submissions that the eligibility for registration requires that the Para-Medical course from any institution/Government Body outside the territories of Rajasthan should be recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Central Government, which aspect is missing in the present case and, therefore, the respondent Council was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. 26. It was also submitted that under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 the Council has to be satisfied regarding the qualification granted by an authority outside the territories of State that it affords a sufficient guarantee of the requisite skill and knowledge and, therefore, the decision by the respondent Council does not call for any interference. 27. Reliance was placed on Lohade Ram Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2012 (3) WLC 214 , Gand Mal Dhakar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 955/2011 decided on 17.2.2017, Rajasthan Para Medical Council vs. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 629/2018 decided on 25.5.2018. 28. Learned counsel for the State made vehement submissions that the recruitments are being delayed because of inter se dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Council, which is against the interest of general public at large. An attempt has been made to indicate that those not registered with the respondent Council on the last date of application are not eligible for appointment. 29. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. An attempt has been made to indicate that those not registered with the respondent Council on the last date of application are not eligible for appointment. 29. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The entire issue as involved in the present petitions centers around the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, 2008 and Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, which read as under: “32. Qualification granted outside the territories to which this Act extends - The Council, if it is satisfied that any qualification in Para-Medical subjects granted by an authority outside the territories of the State of Rajasthan affords a sufficient guarantee of the requisite skill and knowledge, may declare such qualification to be recognized qualification for the purpose of this Act, and may for reasons appearing to it sufficient at any time declare that such qualification shall be deemed, subject to such additional conditions, if any, as may be specified by the Council, to be recognized only when granted before or after a specified date: Provided that no person, other than a citizen of India, possessing such qualification shall be deemed to be qualified for registration under this Act unless by the law and practice of the State or Country, in which the qualification is granted, persons of Indian origin holding such qualification are permitted to enter and practice as Para-Medical profession.” (Emphasis added) “42. Eligibility for registration - The following persons shall be eligible for registration: (i) who has obtained certificate of a Para-Medical course from any Government body or private body permitted by the Government for the purpose who has run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations. (ii) who has passed the Para-Medical course from any institution recognized by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. (iii) who has passed the Para-Medical course from any institution/Government body, outside the territories of Rajasthan, recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Central Government. (iv) who has passed the Para-Medical course, from any institution, outside the territories of India, recognized for the purpose by the Government of the country concerned and verified by Government of India.” (Emphasis added) 30. (iv) who has passed the Para-Medical course, from any institution, outside the territories of India, recognized for the purpose by the Government of the country concerned and verified by Government of India.” (Emphasis added) 30. Further it is not in dispute that the Diploma issued to the petitioners have been issued by the University established by the Meghalaya Act No. 6 of 2011, which gazette has been filed by the respondent no. 5-University as Annex.R/5/1. The Preamble of the University Act inter-alia provides for establishing and incorporating a University with emphasis on providing high quality and industry relevant education in the areas inter-alia of Para Medical through regular and distance education mode. Further Section 6 of the University Act dealing with the objectives of the University also inter-alia provides that the University has been established to provide Instruction, Teaching and Research in various branches and specialized fields of Vocational Education. It is also not in dispute that there is no Para-Medical Council in the State of Meghalaya. 31. When the petitioners applied for grant of registration with the respondent Council, the applications filed by the petitioners were rejected on 6.1.2021 (Annex.9) inter-alia by indicating as under: ^^mDr Øe esa ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk ÁLrqr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus ij Kkr gqvk gS fd vkids }kjk fMIyksek bu bZŒlhŒthŒ VsDuksykth dkslZ dk Áf'k{k.k egkRek xka/kh fo'ofo|ky;] es?kky; ls ÁkIr fd;k x;k gSA vkids fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk ÁLrqr nLrkostksa esa ;g dgha Hkh lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd egkRek xka/kh fo'ofo|ky;] es?kky; dks es?kky; ljdkj ;k dsUæ ljdkj ds }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe Áf'k{k.k Ánku djus gsrq vuqer@vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gksA vr% vkids fo'ofo|ky; dks es?kky; ljdkj@dsUæ ljdkj ls iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe lapkyu dh vuqefr ugha gksus ds dkj.k jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds vf/kfu;e 2008 ds fofu;e 2014 ds fu;e dh /kkjk 42¼3½ ds Áko/kkukUrxZr vkidk iath;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% fu;ekuqlkj vkidk iath;u vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 32. A perusal of the above reasoning would indicate that the Council for lack of permission to the University from Govt. of Meghalaya or the Central Government to conduct training in Para- Medical course, invoking the provisions of Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, rejected the applications. 33. A perusal of the Regulation quoted hereinbefore would reveal that the eligibility for registration inter-alia requires that the paramedical course should have been passed by the candidate from any Institution/Govt. of Meghalaya or the Central Government to conduct training in Para- Medical course, invoking the provisions of Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, rejected the applications. 33. A perusal of the Regulation quoted hereinbefore would reveal that the eligibility for registration inter-alia requires that the paramedical course should have been passed by the candidate from any Institution/Govt. Body outside the territories of Rajasthan recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Central Government. 34. It is not in dispute that there is no mechanism, insofar as the Central Government is concerned, for the purpose of recognition of the ECG Technology course. Insofar as the recognition by the State Government is concerned, the recognition as submitted by learned counsel for the Council is granted by the respective Para- Medical Council of the State and as noticed hereinbefore, admittedly, in the State of Meghalaya, the Para-Medical Council does not exist. The said aspect is fortified from the communication dated 29.10.2021 (Annex.19) written by the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Meghalaya addressed to Registrar, Rajasthan Para-Medical Council, which reads as under: “Subject: In reply of letter dated 31.03.2021 Ref No. P.95/Panjiyan/R.P.Med.C/2021/556 Sir, With reference to your letter dated 31.03.2021, Ref. No. P.95/Panjiyan/ R.P.Med.C/2021/556, it is hereby informed that the Mahatma Gandhi University located in Meghalaya is established by an Act of the Government of Meghalaya. As has been informed earlier to Shri Lekhraj Sharma, under replies to the information sought, the State Paramedical Council has not yet been constituted in the state by the Government of Meghalaya. Any Private University may run the Para Medical Courses and award the degree with the certification and approval of any other Medical Council. We have no objection to any course run by Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya provided all other legalities and conditions made by the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya are fulfilled.” 35. In view of the above specific indication from the State of Meghalaya, though the same has been sent by the Meghalaya Government after the orders impugned have been passed by the respondents, it is apparent that the recognition desired/demanded by the Council from the concerned State Government/Central Government, is rather non-existent in the present cases. 36. In view of the above specific indication from the State of Meghalaya, though the same has been sent by the Meghalaya Government after the orders impugned have been passed by the respondents, it is apparent that the recognition desired/demanded by the Council from the concerned State Government/Central Government, is rather non-existent in the present cases. 36. It may also be noticed that the requirement of Regulation regarding recognition by the concerned State Government can only be enforced where a mechanism for recognition exists in the concerned State and where no such mechanism exists, the fact that by Act of the State an Institution has been created with the object of imparting courses in Para-Medical subjects, the insistence on the part of the Council cannot be countenanced and rejection of the applications by the respondent Council under Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, cannot be sustained. 37. When the coordinate bench of this Court by its order dated 16.3.2021 left it open for the Council to make inquiries under Section 32 of the Act, 2008, what was desired by the Council is contained in its communication dated 31.3.2021 (Annex.17), wherein, the Council by referring to all the applications made by the petitioners, required the Registrar of the University to provide as under: ^^;kfpdk la[;k 4104@2021 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk fnukad 16-03-2021 dks vUrfje vkns'k dh ikyuk esa mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vkids fo'ofo|ky; ls tkjh iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa dh vad&rkfydkvksa ,oa fMxzh@Áksfotuy Áek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij iath;u fd;s tkus gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds }kjk ÁLrqr nLrkost ¼vad&rkfydkvksa ,oa fMxzh@Áksfotuy Áek.k&i=½ layXu dj lR;kiu gsrq vkidks fHktok;sa tk jgs gSA vr% mijksDr vkosndksa ds nLrksotksa dk lR;kiu dj ¼lR;kfir Áfr½ 'kh?kz gh fHktokus dk Je djsaA d`i;k ;g Hkh voxr djkosa fd mDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe fu;fer :i ls Áf'k{k.k ÁkIr fd;k x;k gS ;k nwjLFk f'k{kk ds ek/;e lsA mijksDr vH;FkhZ ds nLrkostksa dk lR;kiu dj 'kh?kz gh lR;kfir Áfr;ka miyC/k djkrs gq, lwpuk fuEu Ák:i esa fHktokus dk Je djkosa] rkfd mDr vkosnd ds iath;u dh fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsa%& S. No. Candidate Name Father’s Name Enrollment No. Roll No. Exam Name Admission Session Passing Year Course Duration Total Marks and Obtained Marks Course Type (Distnace/Regular) Passed with Division layXu% mijksDrkuqlkjA** 38. A perusal of the above communication would reveal that referring to the order dated 16.3.2021, the Council only sought verification of the mark sheets and degree/provisional certificates from the University, which information was duly provided by the University on 14.6.2021 and 16.6.2021 (Annex.18) by providing the list of verified students under the University indicating that the students found in the University records and they have been provided the Para-Medical training in regular mode only and the certificates issued to them are correct. 39. When the inquiry made by the Council after the order dated 16.3.2021 was limited to the verification of the mark sheets and the documents, report of the committee dated 4.8.2021 inter-alia indicating the following appears to be wholly incorrect: ^^bl laca/k esa jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly us iqu% lacaf/kr fo'ofo+|ky; ,oa es?kky; ljdkj ds Mk;jsDVj] fMikZVesUV vkWQ gsYFk ,.M QSfeyh osysQ;j] es?kky; i= Øekad 555@31-03-2021 o 556@31-03-2021 fy[kdj jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds fu;e@fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj iath;u gsrq vko';d ekU;rk@lapkyu ls lacaf/kr nLrkost ÁLrqr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k] ysfdu mDr i=ksa ds laca/k esa fo'ofo|ky; ,oa es?kky; ljdkj }kjk ÁfrmRrj vkt fnukad rd ÁkIr ugha gqvkA bl Ádkj mDr Ádj.k esa Li"V gS fd egkRek xka/kh fo'ofo|ky;] es?kky; }kjk jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds fu;e@fofu;e ds vuq:i pkgh xbZ lwpuk,a vkt fnukad rd ÁkIr ugha gqbZ gSA vr% ;g Li"V gS fd mDr bZŒlhŒthŒ dkslZ jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly fu;e 42¼3½ dh Js.kh esa vkuk Árhr ugha gksrk gSA ;g dkslZ futh fo'ofo|ky; }kjk vius Lrj ij lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gSA** 40. As noticed hereinbefore, pursuant to the communication sent by the Council on 31.3.2021, the University had duly responded by its communications dated 14.6.2021 and 16.6.2021 (Annex.18) verifying the mark sheets and documents, therefore, the indication made that no response ‘from the University’ has been received is factually incorrect. The receipt of the communications (Annex.18) have not been denied by the Council in its response and, therefore, the decision of the committee based on the purported non-receipt of the response also cannot be sustained. 41. The Council in its meeting dated 13.8.2021 has simply approved the committee report, whereafter, the order dated 27.8.2021 (Annex.21) has been issued cancelling the provisional registration of the petitioners. 42. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is more than apparent that the requirement insisted by the Council under Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 is not sustainable. 41. The Council in its meeting dated 13.8.2021 has simply approved the committee report, whereafter, the order dated 27.8.2021 (Annex.21) has been issued cancelling the provisional registration of the petitioners. 42. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is more than apparent that the requirement insisted by the Council under Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 is not sustainable. The inquiry conducted by the Council under Section 32 of the Act of 2008 by issuing communication dated 31.3.3021, after the order dated 16.3.2021 was passed by this Court, was duly responded by the University, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the committee and on assumption that the University has not responded to the communication dated 31.3.2021, the decision has been taken, which has formed the basis for the Council to take decision on 13.8.2021 and consequently cancellation of provisional certificates by order dated 27.8.2021 (Annex.21) also cannot be sustained. 43. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent regarding the issue involved being academic and, therefore, the Court should not interfere, apparently, in the circumstances of the present case, has no basis. As noticed hereinbefore, the only issue involved has been the application of Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 and the manner of inquiry conducted by the respondent Council under Section 32 of the Act, 2008, which cannot be said to be an academic matter, so as to invoke the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding an expert body dealing with the subject matter. 44. The reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Lohade Ram Meena (supra) apparently has no application to the facts of the present cases as the Institution in the said judgment was Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur which is within the State of Rajasthan, whereas, the present Institution is situated outside the State of Rajasthan. Besides the fact that exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 though exists with the Council, in the present cases, the material as considered hereinbefore, clearly shows that the requisites as sought had already been supplied by the University, which have not been considered by the respondent Council. 45. Besides the fact that exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 though exists with the Council, in the present cases, the material as considered hereinbefore, clearly shows that the requisites as sought had already been supplied by the University, which have not been considered by the respondent Council. 45. So far as the issue of availability of alternative remedy is concerned, the appeal under Section 25 of the Act, 2008 lies against the decision of the Registrar to the Council, whereas, in the present cases, the order itself has been passed by the Council. Further, even the appeal under Section 26 from the orders of the Council is confined to orders passed under Section 20(2) and appellate orders under Section 25, under which provision the orders impugned do not fall, as such, the plea of alternative remedy, as raised also has no substance. 46. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions CWP Nos. 1205/2022, 1129/2022 and 1548/2022 filed by the petitioners are allowed. The rejection of petitioners’ applications by order dated 6.1.2021 (Annex.9), the decision of the committee dated 4.8.2021 and consequential order of the Council dated 13.8.2021 (Annex.20) and the order dated 27.8.2021 (Annex.21) cancelling the provisional certificates, passed by the respondent Council are quashed and set aside. The respondent Council is directed to pass appropriate orders for grant of permanent registration to the petitioners in accordance with what has been determined hereinbefore. 47. Needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. 48. The respondent Selection Board/State is directed to take into consideration the registration certificates of the petitioners and accord them appointments, if they fall in merit and are otherwise eligible. 49. The earlier batch of writ petitions being SBCWP No. 3054/2021, 3891/2021, 3914/2021, 4104/2021 and 4412/2021 would also stand disposed of, in view of the directions given hereinbefore.