JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. These matters come up for consideration of application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by respondent No. 1 for vacating the interim order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court. 2. It may be noted that when 4 writ petitions out of the present batch of writ petitions came for motion hearing before this Court on 25.11.2021, the matters were ordered to be listed on 01.12.2021 while reflecting name of Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan in the cause-list. 3. Meanwhile, various other writ petitions came to be filed and all these petitions were tagged and heard for interim relief on 14.12.2021. Upon considering the petitioners' contention that the respondents have permitted Maharana Pratap University as well as other state run universities to conduct counselling for their vacant seats, without affording such opportunity to the private institutions/colleges including the petitioners, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to conduct one additional counselling, permitting all the remaining Institutions including private institutions to participate for their vacant/remaining seats. The order was also passed because the Court felt that keeping 2212 seats vacant out of total 7712 seats would be to nobody's advantage. 4. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel putting in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1-Coordinator JET/Pre- PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination-2021, at the outset pointed out that the interim order dated 14.12.2021 was passed only after considering the submissions of the State Government and the answering respondent-Coordinator and the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner (SKRAU) who were necessary parties, were not heard, due to which all the requisite and correct facts and law could not be brought to the notice of the Court and hence, the interim order came to be passed as the State could not give proper assistance/response. Without raising any grievance against the learned Addl. Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent-State, it was respectfully submitted that as learned AAG did not receive any instructions from the Coordinator/SKRAU, he was not in a position to satisfy the Court about the ground realities. 5. Mr. Without raising any grievance against the learned Addl. Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent-State, it was respectfully submitted that as learned AAG did not receive any instructions from the Coordinator/SKRAU, he was not in a position to satisfy the Court about the ground realities. 5. Mr. Maheshwari then submitted that as per the general guidelines issued for Joint Entrance Test (JET) 2021, the candidates were required to fill online application forms after entrance examinations, whereafter the counselling was to take place as per the following Schedule: Schedule Date Day Option form open 19 October 2021 Tuesday Last date of payment and editing 21 October 2021 Thursday 1st seat allotment list 23 October 2021 Saturday Online acceptance 24 October 2021 Sunday Reporting in the allotted college 25 October 2021 Monday 2nd seat allotment list 26 October 2021 Tuesday Online acceptance 27 October 2021 Wednesday Reporting in the allotted college 28 October 2021 Thursday If seats are vacant after reporting in the respective colleges on 28th October 2021 and the option of the candidates remains available, the 3rd final seat allotment list will be displayed on 29th October 2021: 3rd final seat allotment list 29 October 2021 Friday Online acceptance 30 October 2021 Saturday Reporting in the allotted college 1 November 2021 Monday 6. It was pointed out that as per the guidelines issued by the Coordinator, third round of counselling or spot/final counselling took place between 18.10.2021 to 21.10.2021. 7. While taking the Court through the guidelines aforesaid and relevant para-10 and 11, learned counsel submitted that spot/final counselling was the last option available to the candidates, whereafter the process of admission has closed on 01.11.2021. He argued that after third round of counselling or spot/final counselling, if a candidate does not report or does not get admission in the college of his choice and/or some seats of University/college remain vacant, neither can the Coordinator be blamed nor can a direction to conduct another counselling be issued. 8. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the data given in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and submitted that a total of 72% seats have been filled as against 66.08% for the previous year, when the Agricultural University, Kota was Coordinator. 8. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the data given in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and submitted that a total of 72% seats have been filled as against 66.08% for the previous year, when the Agricultural University, Kota was Coordinator. Taking the Court through the information provided in the tabular form in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, learned counsel argued that it has been a trend that students are more inclined towards the government Universities/constituent colleges and affiliated colleges instead of private universities for obvious reasons. He nevertheless submitted that seats filled up in the private Universities/colleges in the year 2020 were 4648 (25.8%), whereas 5102 (34.5%) seats have been filled in this academic year (2021-22). 9. While emphasising that the admission process has to come to an end at some point of time, learned counsel submitted that the indulgence cannot be granted to the petitioners, who after taking part in the counselling and in spite of allotment of colleges, have chosen not to accept admission for their own reasons. 10. It was also pointed out that in some of the cases, the petitioners have come with lame excuses of having poor internet connectivity or lack of financial resources to deposit the fees. Mr. Maheshwari submitted that the direction to conduct additional counselling given by the Court vide its order dated 14.12.2021 is not in the fitness of the things, particularly when the admission process had long been over and the studies in the first semester have not only commenced, but are on the verge of completion. He submitted with a sense of achievement that so far as the respondent University is concerned, practical examinations of the first semester are over and two papers of theory have also been held and, therefore, no admission should be ordered to be given at such a belated stage. 11. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the fact that studies have commenced cannot be a ground available to the respondent-Coordinator, particularly when it is his fault rather rigidity, due to which the additional counselling has not been held in spite of the directions given by this Court on 14.12.2021. 11. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the fact that studies have commenced cannot be a ground available to the respondent-Coordinator, particularly when it is his fault rather rigidity, due to which the additional counselling has not been held in spite of the directions given by this Court on 14.12.2021. He argued that the Coordinator, who has refused to carry out the directions of the Court cannot be permitted to plead delay, because he is the person responsible for the same. He added had he carried out the mandate of the interim order dated 14.12.2021, things would have been entirely different. 12. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the notification issued by Maharana Pratap University and raised a grievance that if the government universities can be permitted to conduct the counselling on their own, how can the petitioners be deprived of such an opportunity. 13. He submitted that 15% seats in the universities and affiliated colleges are reserved to be filled by Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) and according to the brochure, issued by the ICAR, the last date of admission was 15.01.2022. His argument has been that if 15% students in each college have got admission after 15.01.2022 and if they are allowed to pursue their course in the first semester then, what can be the reason to deprive the petitioners. He added that if the universities would hold examination for those candidates (getting admission through ICAR), why can't the petitioners be given admission in the colleges of their choice, where the seats are still lying vacant. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through various provisions of the online counselling guidelines issued by ICAR and argued that Coordinator is unnecessarily creating hurdles by putting forth reasons to avoid conducting another counselling. He argued that respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot oppose additional counselling, when there is no objection from the State and when the petitioners (students) and the Colleges (petitioners in SBCWP No. 16886/2021) are willing to get/give admission respectively. 15. Mr. Vineet Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (in SBCWP No. 16886/2021) submitted that identical situation arose last year as well, when a group of writ petitions led by SBCWP No. 1394/2019 came up before this Court and the Court directed the respondents to conduct one additional counselling subject to payment of rupees two lacs. 15. Mr. Vineet Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (in SBCWP No. 16886/2021) submitted that identical situation arose last year as well, when a group of writ petitions led by SBCWP No. 1394/2019 came up before this Court and the Court directed the respondents to conduct one additional counselling subject to payment of rupees two lacs. He submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount as deemed appropriate by this Court to the counselling board and they be directed to conduct additional counselling. 16. As the arguments on stay vacation application were substantially the same, with the consent of the parties, these matters were finally heard. 17. A perusal of the record, including interim order dated 14.12.2021 leaves no doubt that the notices were not issued to the Coordinator and SKRAU University, which has conducted JET-2021. It so happened that a copy of the writ petition was ordered to be supplied to Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Addl. Advocate General, who usually appears on behalf of the State. It did not occur to the Court that learned AAG was not representing the Coordinator, a necessary party. The interim order thus, came to be passed ex-parte so far as respondent-Coordinator is concerned. 18. The fact, which persuaded the Court to pass interim order on 14.12.2021 was, that Maharana Pratap University had been permitted to conduct counselling for their remaining seats and no such opportunity was afforded to the private institutions/colleges (as is evident from para-1 of the interim order). The Court was given to believe that the same was done at the instance of the respondents. But the facts as emerged are quite different. 19. Having gone through the contents of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and after considering the submissions made by Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari and having regard to the detailed schedule published by JET Coordinator, duly encapsulated in the general guidelines, this Court is of the considered view that once final/spot counselling has taken place in terms of para-12 of the guidelines, there is no scope for any other counselling. 20. The fact that 2212 seats have remained vacant cannot by itself be a reason to direct the respondent-Coordinator to conduct a fresh counselling. 21. Admission can be granted only by and through the Coordinator of Joint Entrance Test and no one else. 20. The fact that 2212 seats have remained vacant cannot by itself be a reason to direct the respondent-Coordinator to conduct a fresh counselling. 21. Admission can be granted only by and through the Coordinator of Joint Entrance Test and no one else. Had the fact been brought to the notice of this Court that the body or the authority responsible for conducting counselling is the SKRAU University or its Coordinator, obviously their view point would also have been taken into account. 22. This Court is convinced with the contentions of the Coordinator that the counselling conducted by Maharana Pratap University was irregular. It could not on its own hold counselling in order to fill up its vacant seats. It is for the State or the competent authority to consider and take action qua such irregular admissions (if any) given by Maharana Pratap University or other universities. But illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated. 23. This Court does not feel persuaded by the argument of the petitioners that the students coming through the ICAR would be joining after 15.01.2022 and if they can be accommodated, how can the petitioners be denied admission. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners cannot equate their cases to that of the students coming from ICAR. 24. Because, all the petitioners had submitted their online application forms for taking part in the JET-2021 and in this process whosoever had appeared in the counselling has been allotted one university/college or the other. It was the petitioners' sweet will, who did not accept the admission in the college allotted or made available to them. A candidate who chooses not to appear in the counselling or subsequent counselling or who despite getting admission chooses not to join, cannot invoke writ jurisdiction and claim admission in a college of his choice, merely because the seats happen to be vacant. 25. It is not a case set up by the petitioners that there was any irregularity or error in the counselling process or that any candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has/have been given admission in the college where they wanted to get admission. 26. According to this Court, the process of admission and counselling is sacrosanct and unless there exist compelling reasons, it cannot be tinkered with. 26. According to this Court, the process of admission and counselling is sacrosanct and unless there exist compelling reasons, it cannot be tinkered with. That apart, the admission process was complete in November, 2021; much time has elapsed and we are now landed in the month of February, 2022. The practical examinations for the first semester have already been held and two theory papers have already been conducted. Maybe, the same is not the situation in some of the colleges or universities, but the undeniable fact is, that substantial part of curriculum must have been covered by now. 27. No sooner had the interim order passed (14.12.2021) than the Coordinator moved stay vacation application. He, therefore, cannot be accused of being arbitrary or otherwise vindictive. 28. The disposal of the application and hearing has taken a considerable time and hence, even if thought appropriate, the order to hold additional counselling cannot now be enforced as the process would take at least two weeks and these two more weeks will swing whatever little equity this Court had (in favour of the petitioners) towards the other end. 29. The petitioners who have chosen not to get admission or who had adopted lackadaisical approach towards their career cannot be granted undue advantage or sympathetical consideration and permitted to disturb the entire process of admission, that too, in the case concerning higher education. 30. Moving on to the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by this Court in the case of SBCS (supra), suffice it to note that the facts involved in that case were starkly different. In the said case, the State had discriminated between the private colleges vis-a-vis private universities. In that case, after all rounds of counselling were over, the State itself had conducted an additional counselling in which though government universities and private universities were allowed to take part in the counselling but the private colleges were kept out of the process. When the private colleges approached, the respondent-state took a stand that a large number of 1064 seats of the private universities were vacant, whereas seats that remained vacant in private colleges were only 72 and hence, private colleges were not included in the additional counselling process. It was in that backdrop and also, in view of the concession given by the respondents, as noticed in Para Nos. It was in that backdrop and also, in view of the concession given by the respondents, as noticed in Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the order, that the Court was persuaded to issue a direction to conduct spot/additional counselling. 31. It is also to be noted that the petitioners therein were the private colleges, whereas in the present bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners are the students, who themselves have remained indolent towards their education. True it is, that one petition has been preferred by three colleges, but in the opinion of this Court, the future of the students and standard of education outweighs the commercial interests of the colleges. 32. In view of the discussion foregoing, all the writ petitions including SBCWP No. 16886/2021 filed by the College are hereby dismissed. 33. Interim order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court stands vacated, stay applications stand dismissed. All interlocutory applications stand disposed of accordingly.