ORDER : 1. The instant application has been filed for the grant of following reliefs: “It is therefore humbly prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the order dated 10.1.2020 passed in the present petition may be recalled and modified to the extent that the admissions of the students who have already been admitted to their respective courses by virtue of the said interim order may be protected in light of the subsequent directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 2. The applicant/petitioner has filed this application for recalling order dated 10.1.2020, passed in CMP No. 14645 of 2019 and for seeking necessary directions in view of the subsequent developments in the interest of justice. 3. During the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner moved an application for interim directions bearing CMP No. 14645 of 2019, seeking following reliefs: (i) Pending final adjudication of the present petition the respondent Authorities may be directed to conduct the third round of counselling forthwith; (ii) In case of any seats still remaining vacant after the third round of counselling the petitioner institution may kindly be allowed to fill the remaining vacant seats from amongst candidates eligible as per NCTE regulations in consonance with the judgment dated 20.9.2010 of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2010 and commence the current academic session without further delay subject to the outcome of the present petition; (iii) The applicant/petitioner institutes may be allowed to fill up management quota up to the extent 20% to 40% of the sanctioned seat strength of each institute and such admissions may be allowed to be made from any source and not insisting upon qualifying the entrance test for such candidates being considered against management quota in peculiar situation, subject however, that such candidates possess essential qualifications as prescribed by NCTE Norms. 4. The application came up for consideration before this Court on 10.1.2022 when the following order came to be passed: “Heard. 4. The application came up for consideration before this Court on 10.1.2022 when the following order came to be passed: “Heard. This application has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) Pending final adjudication of the present petition the respondent Authorities may be directed to conduct the third round of counseling forthwith; (ii) In case of any seats still remaining vacant after the third round of counseling the petitioner Institutions may kindly be allowed to fill the remaining vacant seats from amongst candidates eligible as per NCTE regulations in consonance with the judgment dated 20.9.2010 of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2010 and commence the current academic session without further delay subject to the outcome of the present petition; (iii) The applicant/petitioner Institutes may be allowed to fill up management quota up to the extent 20% to 40% of the sanctioned seat strength of each Institute and such admissions may be allowed to be made from any source and not insisting upon qualifying the entrance test for such candidates being considered against management quota, in peculiar situation, subject however, that such candidates possess essential qualifications as prescribed by NCTE Norms. 2. It appears that earlier in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2019, titled H.P. B.ED. College Association and Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr. decided on 20.9.2010 (Annexure P5) has passed the following directions: “The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the admissions are made in respect of vacant seats and since despite all efforts taken by the University, there are no candidates, there may not be further restriction in terms of the prospectus in the matter of admission in the college. The learned standing counsel for the University vehemently contends that the admission can be made only in terms of the prospectus and whatever restriction imposed in the prospectus should be followed by the College concerned as well. We are afraid that the stand taken by the University cannot be appreciated. Once admission has been closed in terms of the prospectus and since the efforts taken by the University itself for filling-up the vacant seats not yielding any fruits and still seats remaining vacant, there is no point in putting any rigor or restriction in the matter of admission. Once admission has been closed in terms of the prospectus and since the efforts taken by the University itself for filling-up the vacant seats not yielding any fruits and still seats remaining vacant, there is no point in putting any rigor or restriction in the matter of admission. This does not mean that Institutions should not comply with statutory requirements in terms of the qualification and age. Hence, it will be open, in the above circumstances to make admission to any slot subject to the fulfillment of the statutory condition regarding qualifying and age. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows: It will be open to the petitioners to admit any student in respect of the seats subject to the candidate fulfilling the required qualifications and age limit. However, we make it clear that above process shall be completed on or before 8.10.2010, since it is submitted that even if the students start the first day on 8.10.2010, they will be in a position to complete the required number of teaching days prior to their examination. The matter will be duly processed by the concerned College as well as the University. As soon as the admission is made, the matter will be duly intimated by the College concerned to the University. At any rate, we further make it clear that the intimation shall be given to the University on or before 20.10.2010 and it will be certainly open to the University to verify the application forms of the students to satisfy as to whether the students have fulfilled the requirements in terms of their qualification and age limit.” 3. A coordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No. 10419 of 2019, in CWP No. 2664 of 2019, titled Abhilashi Ayurvedic College and Research Institute vs. Union of India and others, decided on 27.11.2019, in identical circumstances, after relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts of Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana and also placing reliance on certain directions of Hon’ble High Courts of Uttrakhand, Allahabad and Rajasthan, have permitted the institutes to carryout the admissions, subject to the candidates’ possessing essential qualifications, as prescribed under the norms. However, when similar issue came up before this Court in CWP No. 7688 of 2013 in case titled H-Private Universities Management Association (HPUMA) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 23.7.2014, this Court did not accede to the request of the institutions for permitting them to carryout admissions at their own level and it was observed that as under: “It is in this background that this Court is required to consider as to whether the CET in this case violates the freedom of the institutions under Article 19 (1) (g) or whether such regulatory control is permissible. It is not disputed that the CET prescribes a fair equitable standard for judging the merit of the students. The only difficulty which the petitioners express is that in this regulatory process, the seats in their respective colleges are lying vacant due to non-availability of the students because it is claimed that the total number of sanctioned seats for B. Tech courses in the country (government as well as private including IIT and NITs) is 65 lakh : 20 thousand, total number of All India applicants for JEE Test 2014 is 13 lakh : 67 thousand, total number of sanctioned seats for B Tech courses in Himachal (Government and HPU) is 540 and 120 respectively, total number of sanctioned seats for B Tech Courses in Himachal (Private Institutions) is 7680 in Private Engineering Colleges and 7820 in Private Universities, total approx. 15,000 and admissions made in B Tech Courses in Himachal (Private Colleges like petitioners) year 201213 through JEE 1049, year 201314 through JEE 429 and year 201415 less than 500 students have registered themselves with H.P. Technical University for admission in institutions in the State of H.P. i.e. Government B Tech Courses offering Colleges and Private B Tech Courses offering Colleges out of which also many may finally not opt for the seats available in Himachal. Therefore, in this background, it is pleaded that the petitioners cannot be asked to perform the impossible and, therefore, should be permitted to devise a merit based process themselves rather than permitting the State to impose its determination of merit. This according to the petitioners in fact amounts to an unreasonable interference in its right to administer the institutions. 23. Therefore, in this background, it is pleaded that the petitioners cannot be asked to perform the impossible and, therefore, should be permitted to devise a merit based process themselves rather than permitting the State to impose its determination of merit. This according to the petitioners in fact amounts to an unreasonable interference in its right to administer the institutions. 23. The State has power to regulate academic excellence particularly in matters of admissions to the institutions and, therefore, is competent to prescribe merit based admission processes for creating uniform admission process through CET. Any prayer for seeking dilution or even questioning the authority of the State to act an regulator is totally ill-founded in view of the various judicial pronouncements, particularly in Visveswaraiah Technological University (supra) and reiterated in Mahatma Gandhi University (supra). 24. The learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously argued that the complete answer to the proposition involved in the case has been answered in its favour vide recent decision in Christian Medical College (supra) and, therefore, the petitions ought to be allowed as prayed for. He particularly relied upon the following observations: “....... However, in cases of unaided institutions, the position is that except for laying down standards for maintaining the excellence of education, the right to admit students into the different courses could not be interfered with. In the case of aided minority institutions, it has been held that the authority giving aid has the right to insist upon the admission of a certain percentage of students not belonging to the minority community, so as to maintain the balance of Article 19 (2) and Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. Even with regard to unaided minority institutions, the view is that while the majority of students to be admitted should be from the minority community concerned, a certain percentage of students from other communities should also be admitted to maintain the secular character of education in the country in what has been described as a “sprinkling effect.” 25. The aforesaid observations cannot be read out of context because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case was dealing with the validity of regulations framed by the MCI which mandated the Combined Entrance Test (CET) for all medical colleges i.e. aided as well as unaided. The aforesaid observations cannot be read out of context because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case was dealing with the validity of regulations framed by the MCI which mandated the Combined Entrance Test (CET) for all medical colleges i.e. aided as well as unaided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was primarily concerned with a situation where the parent enactment did not provide for or enable such regulation to be framed and in this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such regulations were not permissible and that any regulation which had the effect of takeover of seats, or reserving some part of unaided college’s intake, would be an impermissible nationalization. This is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case. 26. Unlike in Christian Medical College, where the rights of minorities were involved, the present case is confined to the applicability to the scope and ambit of Article 19 (1) (g) and for this purpose, we have to fall back to the law laid down by the larger Bench decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Islamic Academy and P.A. Inamdar which have recognized the State’s power to direct a joint entrance examination, so long as it does not nationalize the intake “and result in imposition of a reservation policy”. The equity and excellence in academic institutions have to be maintained and what better way can it be maintained than by ensuring that each students competes in the same examination i.e. CET so as to ensure that in terms of the access to education (equity) and merit of students (excellence) a common platform is that for admissions in to professional colleges.” 4. Evidently, there is a conflict in various judgments, more particularly the judgments rendered in CWP No. 5728 of 2010, titled H.P. B.ED. College Association and Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr. (Annexure P5) with that of the judgment rendered by another Bench in CWP No. 7688 of 2013, titled H-Private Universities Management Association (HPUMA) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith CWP No. 840 of 2014, titled Private Technical Institution’s Association Himachal Pradesh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 5. vs. State of H.P. & Anr. (Annexure P5) with that of the judgment rendered by another Bench in CWP No. 7688 of 2013, titled H-Private Universities Management Association (HPUMA) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith CWP No. 840 of 2014, titled Private Technical Institution’s Association Himachal Pradesh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 5. At this stage, we are only concerned about the admissions and there is also an order governing the field passed by the coordinate Bench in CMP No. 10419 of 2019 in CWP No. 2664 of 2019, titled Abhilashi Ayurvedic College and Research Institute vs. Union of India and others, therefore, we deem it proper to adopt the course that has been so taken by the coordinate Bench in Abhilashi Ayurvedic College and Research Institute’s case (supra) and in interim direct that it shall be open to the petitioners-institutes to fill up the unfilled seats, but only from the candidates who possess the essential qualifications, as prescribed by NCTE norms. 6. This order shall not only be subject to the final outcome of the petition and any such further orders, which the appropriate Bench may pass from time to time. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, it will be the sole responsibility of the petitioners-institutes to apprise each and every student about the pendency of the petition and admissions being made, subject to further orders that may be passed in the matter. 8. Needless to say, the same principle will apply to the management seats also. 9. Since there is an apparent conflict between the various judgments rendered by two different Benches of this Court, therefore, the Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the issue. 10. It is made clear that the students, so admitted on the basis of the order passed by this Court, shall not be entitled to claim any equity, much less any right, in the eventuality of admissions are set aside.” 5. Since the petitioner-Institutes were permitted to fill up unfilled seats, but only from the candidates who possessed the essential qualifications, as prescribed by NCTE norms, they proceeded to fill up such seats. 6. Since the petitioner-Institutes were permitted to fill up unfilled seats, but only from the candidates who possessed the essential qualifications, as prescribed by NCTE norms, they proceeded to fill up such seats. 6. Likewise, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMP No. 10419 of 2019 in CWP No. 2664 of 2019, titled as Abhilashi Ayurvedic College and Research Institute vs. Union of India and others” decided on 27.11.2019, in identical circumstances and after placing reliance on the orders passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 23710 of 2019, case titled as, Federation of Pvt. Self Financial Ayurvedic Colleges Association Vs. Union of India decided on 18.12.2019 and order passed by Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 41486 of 2018, case titled as, Karnataka State Ayush Med.Colleges Fed. Versus Union of India decided on 11.12.2020, permitted the institutes to carry out admissions, subject to the candidates’ possessing essential qualifications, as prescribed under the norms. 7. As regards the interim orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court, the same was set aside at the time of final adjudication and the Court dismissed the claim of the petitioners therein and consequently the admissions of the students, which were given on the basis of interim order were held to be illegal and unsustainable vide judgment dated 18.12.2019. 8. The aggrieved parties appealed against the judgment dated 18.12.2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 603 of 2020, which was finally adjudicated on 20.2.2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court partly, but after taking into consideration the number of the students, who had already been admitted to the Courses, based upon interim directions passed by the High Courts, the interest of such students was protected and it was directed that the students be permitted to continue with their courses. 9. Placing reliance on the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Karnataka also disposed of WP No. 41485 of 2018, vide judgment dated 11.12.2020, protecting the admissions of similarly situated students, admitted on the basis of interim orders passed by that Court. 10. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. 9. Placing reliance on the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Karnataka also disposed of WP No. 41485 of 2018, vide judgment dated 11.12.2020, protecting the admissions of similarly situated students, admitted on the basis of interim orders passed by that Court. 10. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocate that the order passed by this Court, whereby students were permitted to be admitted made clear that no equity muchless right would accrue in favour of the students, so admitted on the basis of interim order, was earlier to the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.2.2020. Now that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has itself protected the interest of students who were given admissions on the basis of interim orders of the various high Courts, it would be just, fair and equitable that same indulgence is also shown by this Court in the present case. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the various Courts. 12. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that this Court vide its order dated 10.1.2020 after noticing the conflict of decision in the judgment rendered by this Court, it referred the matter to the Full Bench and till such decision permitted the institutes to fill up the unfilled seats, but only from the students possessing/fulfilling the essential qualification, as prescribed by the NCTE norms. 13. The question before Full Bench was whether the university was authorized to conduct the counseling and allocate the students to B.Ed. Colleges, if seats remain vacant, where the candidates are available otherwise than by counseling. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2010, titled as H.P. B.Ed. College Association and others versus State of H.P. and another had held that there is no point in putting any rigor or restriction in the matter of admission. Colleges, if seats remain vacant, where the candidates are available otherwise than by counseling. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5728 of 2010, titled as H.P. B.Ed. College Association and others versus State of H.P. and another had held that there is no point in putting any rigor or restriction in the matter of admission. However, another Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7688 of 2013, titled as H.P. Private Universities versus State of H.P. and others, in its judgment, authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) held to the contrary as follows: “The equity and excellence in academic institutions have to be maintained and what better way can be maintained than by ensuring that each students competes in the same examination i.e. CET so as to ensure that in terms of the access to education (equity) and merit of students (excellence) a common platform is that for admissions into professional colleges.” 14. The Hon’ble Full Bench, vide its judgment dated 6.4.2022 held the judgment rendered in CWP No. 5728 of 2010 as not laying down good law, whereas the judgment rendered in CWP No. 7688 of 2013 was held to be in tune with the settled proposition of law on the subject and further held to be correctly decided. 15. It is because of the decision of the Full Bench that the admission of the students made on the basis of interim order is in jeopardy as these admissions admittedly had been carried out on the basis of judgment rendered in CWP No. 5728 of 2010, which has now been held to be not laying down the correct law. 16. Having considered the issue minutely, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by Karnataka High Court, the interest of the students who have been admitted pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, needs to be protected. More especially when the students have, on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, pursued more than two years of the courses. Not showing indulgence at this stage will cause extreme hardship to such students, apart from irreperable loss and injury and their entire careers will be at stake. 17. More especially when the students have, on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, pursued more than two years of the courses. Not showing indulgence at this stage will cause extreme hardship to such students, apart from irreperable loss and injury and their entire careers will be at stake. 17. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, We deem it proper to recall para10 of the order dated 10.1.2022 and modify the same to the extent that the students, who have already been admitted to their respective courses by virtue of interim order dated 10.1.2022, are ordered to be protected. Consequently, the application is allowed and the same is disposed of. CWP No. 4113 of 2019 18. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs: (i) That decision No. 2 and Decision No. 3 taking in the impugned meeting dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P4) may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That respondents may be directed to implement judgment dated 20.9.2010 in CWP No. 5278 of 2010 in letter and spirit by applying the same to the admission to the present course of D.EI.Ed. for the current session and in future also; (iii) That the petitioner Institutes may be permitted to fill up the vacant seats remaining after holding of third counselling out of the candidates fulfilling the essential eligibility conditions as prescribed by NCTE, without insisting for qualifying the entrance test held by respondents in peculiar situation; (iv) That petitioner institute may be allowed to fill up to 20% to 40% of the sanctioned seats for the course of D.Ei.Ed. as Management seats subject to fulfilling the essential eligibility conditions as prescribed by NCTE, without insisting for qualifying the entrance test held by respondents in peculiar situation. 19. Since the petition has otherwise served its purpose, therefore the same is disposed of accordingly in view of the orders passed in CMP No. 4734 of 2022, making it once again clear that the admissions of the students, who have been admitted on the basis of interim order dated 10.1.2020, shall remain protected and they shall be allowed to pursue their respective courses without any further hindrance. 20. Further, it is made clear that since this order is being passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 20. Further, it is made clear that since this order is being passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.