ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the communications dated 13/3/2020 (Annex. 8 to 19) issued by the then Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India, whereby, the representations made by the petitioners dated 17/2/2020 seeking increase in the allotted seats for various Post Graduate Courses have been rejected and seeking a direction to the respondents to allot 96 seats in all qua 12 departments as per its eligibility and application dated 29/5/2019. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a registered Trust and petitioner no.2 is a private medical college run by the petitioner no.1 since the year 2014. Applications vide public notice dated 21/2/2019 (Annex.1) were invited for starting/increasing seats in Post Graduate Courses (Broad Specialty) under Section 10 (A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said public notice dated 21/2/2019, the petitioner no.2 – College submitted applications on 29/5/2019 for grant of permission to open new and higher courses of study in 12 different specialties as under: “1. M.S. in General Surgery (with 19 seats); 2. M.D. in Radio Diagnosis (with 10 seats); 3. M.D. in Pediatrics (with 11 seats); 4. M.D. in General Medicine (with 19 seats); 5. M.S. in Orthopedics (with 11 seats); 6. M.S. in Obstetrics & Gynecology (with 11 seats); 7. M.D. in Anesthesiology (with 10 seats); 8. M.S. in Otorhinolaryngology (with 5 seats); 9. M.D. in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy (with 5 seats); 10. M.S. in Ophthalmology (with 5 seats); 11. M.D. in Psychiatry (with 5 seats) and 12. M.D. in Respiratory Medicine (with 5 seats).” 3. The petitioner college was subjected to inspection for examining the capacity for starting the Post Graduate Courses applied by it. Vide communication dated 8/1/2020, the Principal of the College was directed to appear before the then respondent no.2 on 13/1/2020 to furnish explanation regarding appointment of 05 faculty members as referred to in the communication. In response thereto, the authorized representative of the petitioner college appeared and submitted its explanation on 13/1/2020. After providing personal hearing to the representative of the petitioner college, the then respondent no.2 issued separate communications dated 11/2/2020 (Annex.5) and granted permission for admission to 12 different Post Graduate Course for specific number of seats. In response thereto, the authorized representative of the petitioner college appeared and submitted its explanation on 13/1/2020. After providing personal hearing to the representative of the petitioner college, the then respondent no.2 issued separate communications dated 11/2/2020 (Annex.5) and granted permission for admission to 12 different Post Graduate Course for specific number of seats. The course-wise seats as under were allotted: Name of the courses Seats allotted M.S. in General Surgery 5 seats M.D. in Radio Diagnosis 4 seats M.D. in Pediatrics 4 seats M.D. in General Medicine 10 seats M.S. in Orthopedics 5 seats M.S. in Obstetrics & Gynecology 3 seats M.S. in Otorhinolaryngology 3 seats M.D. in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy 1 seats M.S. in Ophthalmology 2 seats M.D. in Psychiatry 2 seats M.D. in Respiratory Medicine 2 seats M.D. in Anesthesiology 6 seats 4. Being aggrieved of the action of then respondent no. 2 in sanctioning less number of seats for various Post Graduate Courses, the petitioner college submitted representations before the respondent no.2 on 17/2/2020 (Annex.6) and prayed for increase in the seats allotted for various Post Graduate Courses. 5. The petitioners whereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 380/2020, wherein, on 28/2/2020 the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the then respondent no.2 to decide the representations dated 17/2/2020 made by the petitioners within a period of two weeks. 6. Pursuant to the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the then respondent no. 2 decided the representations of the petitioner college dated 17/2/2020 (Annex.6) on 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) and rejected the prayer for allotting higher number of seats in various Post Graduate Courses and reiterated its decision of allowing the petitioner college to admit specific number of students in various Post Graduate Courses as approved by its communications dated 11/2/2020 (Annex.5). The petitioner again filed Writ Petition (Civil) no.550/2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be disposed of as withdrawn in order to approach the High Court. Whereafter, the petition was presented before this Court, wherein, initially a reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 was filed. 7. On 17/8/2020, a coordinate bench of this Court allowed the interim stay application and directed as under: “In view of the above discussion, this interim stay application is allowed. Whereafter, the petition was presented before this Court, wherein, initially a reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 was filed. 7. On 17/8/2020, a coordinate bench of this Court allowed the interim stay application and directed as under: “In view of the above discussion, this interim stay application is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to allot the students to the petitioner-college in 12 departments as under:- 1. M.S. in General Surgery (with 19 seats); 2. M.D. in Radio Diagnosis (with 09 seats); 3. M.D. in Pediatrics (with 08 seats); 4. M.D. in General Medicine (with 16 seats); 5. M.S. in Orthopedics (with 07 seats); 6. M.S. in Obstetrics & Gynecology (with 10 seats); 7. M.D. in Anesthesiology (with 07 seats); 8. M.S. in Otorhinolaryngology (with 04 seats); 9. M.D. in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy (with 04 seats); 10. M.S. in Ophthalmology (with 05 seats); 11. M.D. in Psychiatry (with 03 seats) and 12. M.D. in Respiratory Medicine (with 04 seats) Total seats (96 seats). The students already allotted to the petitioner-college, pursuant to the decision dated 11.02.2020, will include the over all allotment of students to the petitioner-college which means that the petitioner-college is entitled to grant admission on only those seats in the various post graduate courses, which have been increased by way of this stay order. The above allotment of seats to the petitioner-college and admissions given on the increased seats shall subject to the decision of this writ petition. The petitioner-college shall intimate the students in advance that their admission in the various post graduate course on increased seats will remain subject to the decision of this writ petition.” 8. The respondent no.2 whereafter, filed a short response affidavit on 8/10/2020, to which a rejoinder was filed on 12/10/2020 by the petitioners. 9. Whereafter, the petition remained pending and on 13/1/2022, another coordinate bench of this Court inter alia ordered as under: “1. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. The respondent no.2 whereafter, filed a short response affidavit on 8/10/2020, to which a rejoinder was filed on 12/10/2020 by the petitioners. 9. Whereafter, the petition remained pending and on 13/1/2022, another coordinate bench of this Court inter alia ordered as under: “1. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting Court’s attention towards the interim order dated 17.08.2020, which was passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition and subsequent order dated 19.08.2020 (clarifying that the interim order dated 17.08.2020 is also applicable qua respondent No.3) submit that the respondent No.4 – Chairman, NEET PG Admission Counselling Board, 2021, who has now been impleaded, is construing the order to be not applicable for present counselling because the interim order dated 17.08.2020 makes reference of Academic Year 2020-21 and also because respondent No.4 was not a party when the interim order dated 17.08.2020 was passed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and interim order dated 17.08.2020, it is clear that basic issue is eligibility of petitioner – Institution to carry on the course, irrespective of the year. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the order dated 17.08.2020 shall be applicable for the Academic Year 2021-22 as well and the respondent No.4, who is a substitute of respondent No.3 will be bound by the interim order dated 17.08.2020. 3. For the sake of clarity, it is hereby ordered that the respondent No.4 shall allot 96 students to the petitioners institutions/colleges as mentioned in page No.12 of the interim order dated 17.08.2020.” 10. Aggrieved of the order dated 13/1/2022, the respondent no.2 approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, though the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 18/2/2022, the High Court was inter alia directed to hear the petition expeditiously. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the impugned communications dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for allotting higher number of seats in 12 Post Graduate Courses is absolutely illegal. 12. Submissions have been made that enhancement of seats has been refused based on the reason that age of certain faculty/faculties was between 67 to 70 years, they have served for short duration, had frequent changes in jobs and had gap in service and that the clinical material was not as per the Circular dated 30/11/2009. 13. 12. Submissions have been made that enhancement of seats has been refused based on the reason that age of certain faculty/faculties was between 67 to 70 years, they have served for short duration, had frequent changes in jobs and had gap in service and that the clinical material was not as per the Circular dated 30/11/2009. 13. Submissions have been made that the orders have been passed by indicating omnibus reasons, however, the respondents have not referred to any Rules or Regulations in the orders impugned to support such refusal and a bald statement has been made that enhancement sought does not fall within the norms of the respondent MCI. 14. It is submitted that in terms of the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institution Regulations, 1998, the maximum age limit up to which a person can be appointed or granted extension or reemployed in service has been indicated as 70 years. However, without indicating any basis for rejecting the faculty/faculties, who were aged 67-70 years by excluding the said faculties, enhancement of seats has been declined, which is wholly unjustified. 15. Submissions have been made that MCI itself in 5 departments of the petitioner college has accepted teachers, who were aged above 67 years i.e. Dr. A.P.Gupta, Dr. D.P.Agarwal, Dr. J.C.Sharma, Dr. Rajendra Gorwara and Dr. Virendra Singh Lodha and, therefore, picking up few teachers only based on their age between 67-70 years, and declining allotment of particular number of seats on the same reason is not justified. It is submitted that all the teachers above 67 years and below 70 years of age should have been considered and seats should have been allotted based on the available faculties, rejection thereof deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. The other grounds for declining to accept the faculties for the purpose of allotment of seats being short duration of service/frequent change in jobs/gap in service are also illogical and not supported by any rules/regulations for the purpose of declining allotment of seats based on the available faculties. It is submitted that it is only after the petitioners made application for Post Graduate seats and the number of faculties required was higher in view of the units of different departments having some units of 40 beds, the faculties were recruited/newly appointed and on that count it cannot be said that the faculties were employed for short duration. It is submitted that it is only after the petitioners made application for Post Graduate seats and the number of faculties required was higher in view of the units of different departments having some units of 40 beds, the faculties were recruited/newly appointed and on that count it cannot be said that the faculties were employed for short duration. It was also emphasized that merely on account of frequent change in jobs by the faculty, the same could not have been taken as disqualification for the teachers for the purpose of counting them for allotment of seats in Post Graduate Courses, besides the fact that the respondents have failed to point out any co-relation on account of such frequent change in jobs by the faculty. 17. Similar submissions were made with regard to gap in service for the faculties in question i.e. lack of any restriction in the Rules and Regulations disqualifying them for the purpose of allotment of seats. 18. With regard to the aspect of clinical material being not as per the Circular dated 30/11/2009, it was submitted that the available clinical material is as per the Circular dated 30/11/2009 and no adverse remark was made/deficiency in clinical material was pointed out by the assessor and no remarks in any of the Post Graduate Course assessment report was made. Further the clinical material was duly verified by the assessor and was found to be adequate and same fulfilled the requirement of the Circular dated 30/11/2009. The petitioners have produced copies of the assessment report of respective department of Post Graduate Course running into over 550 pages as Annex.21. 19. Learned counsel also made submissions that it is only after passing of the order dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19), the petitioners came to know about the two complaints made against the college regarding working of fake faculty during inspection and faculty involved in private practice, which complaints have been annexed as Annex.R/2/3 and R/2/4 by the respondents. Submissions have been made that the respondents never sought any clarification or justification from the petitioner college regarding the complaints. Submissions have been made that the respondents never sought any clarification or justification from the petitioner college regarding the complaints. It is submitted that out of 08 faculties complained, 04 faculties were accepted for the purpose of allotment of seats by the respondents, two faculties never appeared at the time of inspection and were never employed by the petitioner institution and as 01 alleged faculty is Assistant Professor, he was not eligible for allotment of Post Graduate seat. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the Court through the branch-wise explanation regarding the petitioner institution in terms of the criteria laid down by the Rules & Regulations specified by the MCI and reiterated that denial of allotment of seats is based on rejecting the faculties on baseless grounds and ignoring the assessor’s report regarding the availability of clinical material, which is categoric, without indicating any reason for rejecting the same and only referring to the Circular of 2009. 21. It was submitted that as the college complies with all the guidelines and norms set up by MCI in its various Regulations/Circulars, it is eligible for 96 Post Graduate seats in total and, therefore, the petition be allowed and orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 made submissions denying the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 23. It was submitted that pursuant to the regular inspection by the assessors of the respondent between 2/8/2019 to 15/10/2019 certain complaints were received with regard to fake faculty and it was found that the complaints were correct, number of faculties were above 67 years of age and few of them were either nearing 70 years of age or were likely to cross 70 years, as such, the petitioner institution was called upon to submit its explanation. During the course of hearing on 13/1/2020 the authorities conveyed to the authorized representative that the faculties aged between 67 – 70 years of age will not be counted for the purpose of assigning students to the institution. Further, the faculties were newly appointed, who had in the past frequently changed the colleges/institutions, the order dated 11/2/2020 allotting seats was passed, to which the institution was entitled, based on the available eligible faculties. Further, the faculties were newly appointed, who had in the past frequently changed the colleges/institutions, the order dated 11/2/2020 allotting seats was passed, to which the institution was entitled, based on the available eligible faculties. In terms of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the representations regarding 12 departments were decided on 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) with reference to the available eligible faculties in terms of the objections about their age bracket and other aspects and after applying the teacher students ratio, seats were allotted. 24. Further submissions have been made that though while passing the interim order dated 17/8/2020, it was submitted that some of the faculty members have completed 70 years and new faculties will be engaged, however, the respondent has not been apprised of the new faculties so engaged in place of the retired faculties. 25. Seeking to justify the requirement of teachers below the age of 67 years, reference was made to Regulation 14 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (‘the Regulations, 2000’). It is submitted that clause 14 dealing with the Examinations inter alia under Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)/Master of Surgery (M.S.) provides that M.D./M.S. examinations in any subject shall consist of Thesis and for Thesis it has been indicated that every candidate shall carry out work on an assigned research project under the guidance of a recognized Post Graduate Teacher, the result of which shall be written up and submitted in the form of a Thesis. 26. It is claimed that the stipulation in the Regulation regarding carrying out the work under the guidance of ‘a recognized Post Graduate Teacher’ essentially means that the entire Thesis must be completed under one single Post Graduate Teacher and in that view of the matter a faculty more than 67 years of age has not been reckoned for the purpose of granting students. 27. Further submissions have been made that sanctioned intake of Post Graduate Course, apart from other statutory requirements, mainly depend upon the clinical material i.e. number of in & out patients, number of clinical tests or examination as well as number of available Post Graduate Teachers. 27. Further submissions have been made that sanctioned intake of Post Graduate Course, apart from other statutory requirements, mainly depend upon the clinical material i.e. number of in & out patients, number of clinical tests or examination as well as number of available Post Graduate Teachers. However, as the petitioner college was found to be deficient in the above parameters, sanctioned intake granted was reduced as compared to the number of seats applied and subject-wise reasoned orders dated 13/3/2020 were passed and that if the petitioner college is allowed to continue with the number of strength applied by them, the same will only compromise the teaching of Post Graduate Courses. 28. Learned counsel referring to the contents of Annex.8 to 19 reiterated the submissions that the seats allotted are based on the available faculties and clinical material and, therefore, the orders impugned do not call for any interference and the petition deserves dismissal. 29. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 30. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner institution applied for certain number of seats in 12 Post Graduate Courses. After inspection, by orders dated 11/2/2020 (Annex.5) out of seats applied, permission was granted for limited seats per course. The petitioner institution filed applications seeking review of allotment of Post Graduate seats on 17/2/2020 (Annex.6), which representations after the directions were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to be decided by order dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) i.e. dealing with all the 12 different Post Graduate Courses. 31. A perusal of the orders dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) indicates that the same have been passed in an omnibus manner, wherein, after referring to the applications made for particular Post Graduate Course, reference has been made to two complaints received and it is claimed that based on the consideration of assessment report and complaints, explanation was sought on 1/8/2020 regarding certain faculties, 05 in number, which was responded on 13/1/2020 and a decision was taken that ‘only those faculty i.e. who are found to have been served the college for sufficient time should be considered for allotment of Post Graduate seats’, whereafter, reference was made to the faculties, who were employed for a short period and reference has been made to MCI Regulations, 2009 followed by the decision to restrict the number of students to be allotted. Whereafter, referring to the representations made by the petitioner institution dated 17/2/2020, it was concluded that the representations deserve rejection. It would be appropriate to quote the decision arrived at by the respondent no.2 on the representations of the petitioner qua most of the Post Graduate Courses, which as noticed are omnibus and reads as under: “3. The representation dated 17.2.2020 has been examined in the light of above said Council circular, notification dated 05.4.2019 and above stated facts. 4. The Board of Governors noted that the college had applied for 10 seats per year, but with available eligible faculty of 02 Professors were eligible for annual intake of 04 students as per norms. In view of the available faculty the increase in seats as sought for by the College vide its representation dated 17.2.2020, was not in accordance with the Council norms. 5. The Board of Governors, after taking into consideration the Assessment Report, oral submissions made by the representative of the College during the hearing on 13.01.2020 and written representation dated 17.02.2020, concluded that the College had failed to offer a credible explanation that could justify its claim for increase in intake capacity in starting of MD (Radio-diagnosis) course from 04 (Four) granted on 26.02.2020 to 10 seats for the academic year 2020-21. Therefore, the Board of Governors decided that the representation submitted by Pacific Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur seeking an increase in intake capacity in MD (Radio-diagnosis) course from 4 seats already granted to 10 seats is not maintainable. Accordingly, the representation dated 17.02.2020 stands disapproved.” 32. For the other few courses which required clinical workload like M.S. (General Surgery) as well, the following omnibus observations have been made with changes mutatis mutandis : “3. The representation dated 17.2.2020 has been examined in the light of above said Council circular, notification dated 05.4.2019 and above stated facts. 4. The Board of Governors noted that the college had applied for 19 seats per year. The available eligible faculty and clinical workload as stated above was just sufficient for an annual intake of 05 students. In view of the available faculty and workload the increase in seats as sought for by the College vide its representation dated 17.2.2020 was not in accordance with the parameters specified in MCI Circular No.23(1)2009-Med./53040 dt. 30.11.2019. The available eligible faculty and clinical workload as stated above was just sufficient for an annual intake of 05 students. In view of the available faculty and workload the increase in seats as sought for by the College vide its representation dated 17.2.2020 was not in accordance with the parameters specified in MCI Circular No.23(1)2009-Med./53040 dt. 30.11.2019. Clinical workload and availability of patient is very much essential for ensuring that the students who are admitted in a course are properly trained and have sufficient learning material available to them. 5. The Board of Governors, after taking into consideration the Assessment Report, oral submissions made by the representative of the College during the hearing on 13.01.20 and written representation dated 17.02.2020, concluded that the College had failed to offer a credible explanation that could justify its claim for increase in intake capacity in MS (General Surgery) course from 05 (five) granted on 26.02.2020 to 19 seats for the academic year 2020-21. Therefore, the Board of Governors decided that the representation submitted by Pacific Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur seeking an increase in intake capacity in MS (General Surgery) course from 05 already granted to 19 seats is not maintainable. Accordingly, the representation dated 17.02.2020 stands disapproved.” 33. From the nature of observations made in the orders dated 17/2/2020 (Annex.8 to 19), as quoted hereinbefore, it is apparent that the respondents have merely reiterated its stand and without dealing with the submissions made by the petitioners seeking to question the allotment of lesser number of seats, have rejected the representations. 34. Though indications have been made in the orders impugned that the explanation was sought from the petitioner institution on 8/1/2020, based on the consideration of assessment report and the complaints received. A perusal of the notice dated 8/1/2020 (Annex.3) clearly indicates that though a reference was made to various assessment reports, the respondents did not indicate anything/sought any clarification based on the assessment reports and only based on the complaints that the clarification was sought regarding 05 faculties, without referring to the complaints. Therefore, it is apparent that insofar as the assessment reports are concerned, other than the objections about the faculty members, the respondents did not find anything objectionable in the assessment reports so as to seek clarification and/or confront the petitioner institution with the same. 35. Therefore, it is apparent that insofar as the assessment reports are concerned, other than the objections about the faculty members, the respondents did not find anything objectionable in the assessment reports so as to seek clarification and/or confront the petitioner institution with the same. 35. After the explanation was submitted by the petitioner institution on 13/1/2020, in the orders allotting students dated 11/2/2020 no reference was made regarding alleged deficiency qua the number of seats sought by the petitioner institution and only indication made was regarding allotment of particular number of seats. 36. On review, when the orders impugned were passed on 13/3/2020 under the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, for the first time an indication has been made regarding consideration of only those faculties, who have served for sufficient time for allotment of Post Graduate seats and indicated the faculties, who have worked for short period with various institutions. However, again in the orders impugned, though the same was passed under the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court there is no reference whatsoever of the Rules or Regulations, though the entire aspect is governed by specific Rules & Regulations. 37. During the course of submissions, reference has been made to Regulation 14 of the Regulation, 2009 for sustaining the decision regarding not taking into consideration the faculties above the age of 67 years. The requisite provision inter alia reads as under: “Thesis Every candidate shall carry out work on an assigned research project under the guidance of a recognised Post Graduate Teacher, the result of which shall be written up and submitted in the form of a Thesis.” (emphasis added) 38. Reliance placed on the phrase that, assigned research project shall be carried out under the guidance of ‘a recognized Post Graduate Teacher’ would mean that the same should be carried out under one and the same teacher and, therefore, the faculties, who are aged 67 -70 years, despite the upper age limit even for appointment being 70 years, would not be counted for the purpose of allotment of seats, cannot be countenanced. Use of letter ‘a’ as prefix to ‘recognized Post Graduate Teacher’ apparently is only for the purpose of writing correct English and, therefore, letter ‘a’ is only an article and has nothing to do with the requirement of undertaking the assigned research project under the guidance of one single recognized Post Graduate Teacher during the entire Post Graduation. Though, the above aspect may be an ideal condition, however, the same cannot be read as disqualification/ineligibility for the purpose of counting teachers above the age of 67 years for allotment of seats in Post Graduate courses and, as such, the ground sought to be supported by the respondents, though no reference to the said Regulation has been made in the orders impugned, cannot be sustained and is rejected. 39. Coming to the second aspect of rejection of faculties for the purpose of allotment of seats on account of short duration of service/frequent changes in jobs and gap in service, even after elaborate submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, which were prima facie accepted by the Court while passing interim order, no Rule/Regulation seeking to indicate the ineligibility on account of said aspects have been shown/relied on. The respondents are bound by the Regulations framed in this regard including the Regulations of 2000 and on their own cannot invent reasons for the purpose of rejecting the faculties for the purpose of counting them for arriving at the seats to which the institution is entitled. There is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that after making of the application seeking Post Graduation courses, recruitments were made and consequently the faculties recruited would be with the petitioner institution for relatively short duration, which cannot be a reason for rejection. 40. Learned counsel for the respondents despite specific query of the Court did not point out any provision requiring a teacher to be with the institution for a specific period for the purpose of taking into consideration the said teacher for allotment of seat & fairly indicated that though the provision is not there, however, as the decision was taken that those who have worked with the college for sufficient time should be considered for allotment of Post Graduate students is justified. As already indicated, in absence of any statute in this regard excluding the teachers on account of the reasons indicated, the allotment of seats to an institution cannot be denied and as such the plea raised in this regard also cannot be sustained. 41. The other ground raised qua certain specialties regarding lack of clinical workload, as noticed hereinbefore, when the petitioner institution was issued notice dated 8/1/2020 seeking clarification on the application, nothing was indicated, though the assessment reports of respective 12 departments of Post Graduate courses were all available with the respondents, however, the said aspect was indicated in the orders impugned qua certain courses. 42. A perusal of the assessor report in the case of M.S. (General Surgery), filed as Annex.21 (page 499 – 555) in particular and all other departments in general, would make it clear that the assessor had indicated the requisites as adequate, however, in what manner the same was sufficient only for annual intake of students as allotted, has not been indicated, only reference has been made to MCI Circular dated 30/11/2009, which has been reproduced by the petitioners as Annex.22 along with the Tabulation Annex.23 referring the particulars of clinical material of 12 departments with respect to the parameters laid down in the Circular dated 30/11/2009 and which has not been controverted/contradicted. In the orders impugned (Annex.8 to 19), reference has been made to the submissions made by the petitioners about adequacy of the clinical workload, but as indicated no reasons have been assigned for not accepting the same. Therefore, as only general omnibus indications have been made regarding clinical workload being just sufficient for annual intake of students as allotted being wholly cursory and without any further material, the said reason also cannot be sustained. 43. So far as the respondents acting on two complaints received by them pertaining to alleged fake faculties etc. is concerned, the respondents apparently did not confront the petitioners with the said complaints and only based on the allegations made in the complaints, have formulated principles so as to give effect to the substance of allegations made against the petitioners, which action also cannot be justified. The petitioners have attempted to explain the allegations made in the complaints (at pages 475-477 of its rejoinder), which complaints have now been annexed by the respondents along with the reply as Annex.R/2/3 and R/2/4. The petitioners have attempted to explain the allegations made in the complaints (at pages 475-477 of its rejoinder), which complaints have now been annexed by the respondents along with the reply as Annex.R/2/3 and R/2/4. In case, opportunity was provided at the relevant time, the petitioners would have answered the same and may have led to a different conclusion. Be that as it may, as the rejection of allotment of seats is not based on the complaints made, same on its own would have no implication. 44. So far as submissions made regarding engaging new teachers in place of those who have attained the age of superannuation is concerned, the same obviously is a continuous process, the petitioners are bound to replace the faculty on attaining the age of superannuation with recognized faculty and it was/is always open for respondent No.2 to seek/ensure compliance from the petitioners in this regard. The NMC can always conduct inspection in terms of the Regulations for ensuring that the courses are being conducted in accordance with the applicable Rules & Regulations. 45. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is apparent that the orders dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) passed by the respondents on the review sought by the petitioners under the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking to sustain the denial of seats as sought by the petitioners based on the aspect of age of teachers, their short duration of service/frequent change in jobs/gap in service and lack of clinical material as per the Circular dated 30/11/2009, in absence of any Rules & Regulations and/or for lack of any specific particulars about clinical material being deficient, cannot be sustained. The Regulations relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents for the age of faculties being wholly not applicable, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 46. As already noticed by the coordinate bench of this Court, while granting interim order dated 17/8/2020, though the petitioner college had demanded allotment in various Post Graduate courses upto total 106 seats, however, prayer in the writ petition has been restricted to 96 seats in 12 departments for various Post Graduate Courses, which 96 seats have been reproduced hereinbefore. 47. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The orders dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) are quashed and set aside. 47. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The orders dated 13/3/2020 (Annex.8 to 19) are quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders for allotment of seats to the petitioner institution as prayed by it i.e. total 96 seats, students for which have already been allotted under the interim orders passed by the coordinate benches of this Court for the academic years 2020-21 & 2021-22. 48. Needful be done by the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks. 49. The interim orders granted by the coordinate benches of this court on 17/8/2020 and 13/1/2022 are made absolute. 50. No order as to costs.