ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi and Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 and Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) – 2021, which was held on 12.09.2021. Having scored 193 marks out of 720 marks, she secured All India Rank of 5,79,608 and Other Backward Class (OBC) category rank of 2,47,315. 3. In the first round of counselling process, the petitioner was allotted a seat for admission in Rungta College of Dental Sciences & Research, Bhilai for the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) programme under OBC category (Non-Creamy Layer). 4. The petitioner, accordingly, had taken admission and is presently pursuing her BDS course. 5. A notification dated 05.02.2022 was issued for second round of counselling, wherein it was indicated that the candidates desirous of participating in the second round of counselling for upgradation, must register and deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- on or before 14.02.2022. 6. The petitioner had registered for the second round of counselling by paying amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner, at the time of registering for second round of counselling, while mentioning the names of other colleges, had also included the very same college in which she was pursuing BDS course. 7. The petitioner could not secure admission because of her merit position in the second round of counselling in the medical colleges for the MBBS course but was again allotted Rungta College of Dental Sciences & Research. 8. On 31.03.2022, a notification for mop-up round for MBBS programme was published on the website of the Chhattisgarh Directorate of Medical Education. 9. According to the petitioner, though eligible, her name was not reflected in the list of candidates for the mop-up round. For the mop-up round, two lists were published: one on 01.04.2022 and the other revised list on 02.04.2022. 10. According to the petitioner, she approached the authorities imploring that her name should be added in the list for candidates for mop-up round but the mop-up round was conducted without enlisting her name. However, she was given an assurance that she will be eligible for the stray round. 11. 10. According to the petitioner, she approached the authorities imploring that her name should be added in the list for candidates for mop-up round but the mop-up round was conducted without enlisting her name. However, she was given an assurance that she will be eligible for the stray round. 11. In the notification issued for stray round on 07.04.2022 also, wherein list of eligible candidates was published, the name of the petitioner did not figure. It is in that circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ, order or directions directing to quash the stray round allotment list (ANNEXURE P-1) dated 07.04.2022 with the order to publish a new duly checked stray round list. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the Mop-up/Stray rounds of counselling of Private Colleges. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 12. It is also stated by the petitioner in a representation dated 05.04.2022 that because of her ill-health, she could not check the website from 31.03.2022 to 03.04.2022. 13. During the course of the proceeding, Dr. Jitendra Tiwari, Senior Member, Counselling Committee along with Dr. Prateek Pradhan were present before this Court. 14. Mr. Jitendra Pali has submitted that a notification was issued on 01.04.2022 indicating that a mop-up round will be conducted on 03.04.2022 in the conference hall of Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur. It was also indicated that any objector can appear in person and that the objection will be resolved on the spot by the Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHIPS) team in respect of the list provided for the private colleges. But the petitioner did not appear to raise her objection regarding non-inclusion of her name. He has further submitted that though the CHIPS had, subsequently, through an e-mail dated 08.04.2022 to the Directorate of Medical Education, informed to include the name of the petitioner for the stray round, the name of the petitioner could not be included as the list for stray round was already published. He submits that on 08.04.2022 itself, scrutiny of the applicants for the stray round had taken place. 15. Mr. He submits that on 08.04.2022 itself, scrutiny of the applicants for the stray round had taken place. 15. Mr. Pali, however, fairly submits that name of the petitioner ought to have figured in the list for mop-up round but somehow, her name was not included in the list for admission in private medical colleges. 16. On a query of the Court, Dr. Jitendra Tiwari has stated that in the stray round, 10 candidates were admitted, out of which five candidates had secured marks less than the petitioner. 17. It is an admitted position that name of the petitioner should have been reflected in the mop-up round. It is also an admitted position that the candidates securing much lower marks, at least in the stray round, had been admitted in different medical colleges. 18. It may be that due to illness, the petitioner overlooked the notification dated 01.04.2022 by which an opportunity was granted to the candidates to raise objection with regard to any error in the list for mop-up round. What, however, cannot be ignored is the fact that on 05.04.2022, the petitioner had submitted a letter raising an objection with regard to non-inclusion of her name for the mop-up round. When the submission of the aforesaid letter is not disputed, it was expected that appropriate action would be taken by the authorities entrusted with the responsibility to conduct the counselling process by way of ensuring that her name is included in the stray round so that a student did not lose the opportunity of admission in a medical college. Apparently, nothing was done. 19. Mr. Rastogi has placed reliance in a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the nature of reliefs that can be granted to a student after the last date of admission, in case it was found that the said candidate was denied admission illegally. 20. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, Mr. 20. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, Mr. Rastogi contends that when evidently, the petitioner had been denied admission in view of wrong committed by the authorities, this Court may exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the authorities to admit the petitioner in one of the private medical colleges by increasing a seat for MBBS course. 21. Mr. Marhas submits that a meritorious student ought not to be deprived of admission because of the fault of the authorities and that in the attending facts and circumstance, the judgment rendered in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) is squarely applicable in this case. 22. At this juncture, Mr. Pali submits that in Raipur Institute of Medical Sciences, four candidates scoring lesser marks than the petitioner had been admitted and the petitioner may be allowed to be admitted in the Raipur Institute of Medical Sciences college by increasing one seat. 23. Ms. Anmol Sharma endorses the submission of Mr. Marhas. 24. The observations made in the S. Krishna Sradha (supra) are as follows: “13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: 13.1 That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the concerned court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. 13.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed – 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled. 13.3 In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota. 13.4 Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year. 13.5 It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to admission in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with postgraduate medical course.” 25. As the petitioner had been deprived of securing admission in MBBS course because of fault of the authorities in not including her name in the list for mop-up round as well as in the stray round, we are of the opinion that the decision rendered in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) is applicable in the instant case and as such, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to admit the petitioner in MBBS course in Raipur Institute of Medical Sciences in the academic year 2021-22 by increasing a seat for such course, at the earliest. 26. Mr. 26. Mr. Marhas submits that the State authorities are required to address a letter to respondent No. 5 for increasing a seat, so that necessary recommendation may be made by respondent No. 5 to the Central Government for increase of a seat. 27. The State Government is directed to take appropriate action so that one seat is increased, at the earliest, for admission of the petitioner. 28. Since it is a matter pertaining to admission in a medical college, it is expected that all formalities for increase of a seat shall be complied with by all concerned within a period of two weeks from today. 29. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. No cost.