ORDER : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.8683/2023 & 9023/2023, while treating the same as a lead case. 2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: S.B.C.W.P No.8683/2023 (preferred by students): “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i) That the respondent no.2 to 4 may kindly be directed to give admission to the petitioners in the AHDP Course in session 2022-23. ii) That the admission by the institution on the vacant seat may be validated in the AHDP Course in session 2022-23. iii) Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” S.B.C.W.P No. 9023/2023 (preferred by College): “In view of the facts narrated, grounds raised the humble petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court is graciously pleased to allow the writ petition and: (a) The letter dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure 11) may kindly be quashed and respondents may be directed to enrol the 7 students (Annexure 7) alongwith all consequential benefits. (b) pass any such other/further orders which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience; and” 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that respondents no. 2 to 4 have issued an advertisement for admission in Two Years Animal Husbandry Diploma Program (AHDP) for the academic session 2022-2023, whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates. After completion of the process, the private colleges gave the admission, additionally, in place of those candidates, who have not joined the Course, till last date of joining, or those who have left the college, being not interested in pursuing the Course. The petitioners took admission in the Course in question and are continuously attending the classes. 3.1. After completion of the process, the private colleges gave the admission, additionally, in place of those candidates, who have not joined the Course, till last date of joining, or those who have left the college, being not interested in pursuing the Course. The petitioners took admission in the Course in question and are continuously attending the classes. 3.1. The respondent no.3-Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Science, Bikaner, has issued directions on 16.06.2023 pertaining to enrollment of students in the Course; whereupon, the process was to be conducted online from 21.06.20203 to 15.07.2023. The respondent no.3 also issued a list of User(s) and Id(s) as well as Password(s) of the students to the respondent no.5-College, wherein the names of the petitioners were not shown, because the petitioners were given admission against vacant seats, and as per respondent no.5, the said list was pertaining to those students, who have been given admission through counselling. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (students) submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the management seats or the State seats, and that, the concerned College was under an obligation to make the petitioners aware about the same; thus, as per learned counsel, the petitioners (students) cannot be made to suffer for the fault on the part of the concerned College. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue in question, upon being raised by way of preferring a Writ Petition, has already been settled by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Kiran Kasniya Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.C.W.P. No. 4354/2020, decided on 29.06.2020), wherein the Hon’ble Court has validated the admission of the student concerned in the Course in question against the vacant seat, after second counselling, and therefore, the present petitioners (students) also, being similarly situated, are lawfully entitled for validation of their admissions in the Course in question. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent no.2 and 4 have framed and prescribed a common rule for admission of the students against vacant seats to be filled up by the colleges concerned, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents in not enrolling the petitioners is highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent no.2 and 4 have framed and prescribed a common rule for admission of the students against vacant seats to be filled up by the colleges concerned, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents in not enrolling the petitioners is highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. 4.3 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners (students), submitted that the petitioners were given admission by the concerned Colleges without any authority and beyond the sanctioned quota, and therefore, such students, including the present petitioners are not entitled for validation and regularization of their admissions. 4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were admitted against the State quota seats without any specific direction of the respondent, and therefore, their admissions in the Course in question cannot be regularized. 5. In the Writ Petition No. 9023/2023, the petitioner-College is affiliated with respondent-Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Science, in regard to the Course in question, with total 50 seats. The respondent issued the advertisement for admission in the course in question, whereafter the respondent issued a letter dated 06.02.2023 for 1st round of counselling, whereupon 22 students were admitted in the College to pursue the Course in question. 5.1 In second round of counselling, total 12 students were admitted in the Course in question. The petitioner-College was required to fill remaining 8 seats under the State quota, as per the advertisement. 5.2 The petitioner-College, as per the previous year’s guidelines and directions, filled the seats under the State quota in the Course in question and duly sent the details of such students to the authority concerned. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter dated 16.06.2023 regarding the enrolment of the students and also issued a list of the students for allotment of User Id and Password, only in relation to those students who were admitted through counselling (and not those students who were admitted by petitioner-College under the State quota beyond the limit). 5.3. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter dated 16.06.2023 regarding the enrolment of the students and also issued a list of the students for allotment of User Id and Password, only in relation to those students who were admitted through counselling (and not those students who were admitted by petitioner-College under the State quota beyond the limit). 5.3. The petitioner-College submitted a representation for enrollment of the said students; the respondent vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 rejected the representation on the ground that it is not permissible to fill the seats pertaining to the Course in question, for the academic session 2022-23 under the State quota, by any College(s) on its own. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Colleges) submitted that the petitioner-College, giving the admission to the students as per the past practice, were required to fill the seats of the Course in question under the State quota after 2nd round of the counselling. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-College completed the admission process against the seats of the State quota in April, 2023 and sent the list of such students to the respondent on 01.05.2023; the petitioner-college had also filed a representation, but despite the same, the respondents, in an arbitrary manner, took the impugned action. 6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents in the previous years, vide letters dated 18.03.2021 and 31.03.2022, also allowed the petitioner-College to give admission in the Course in question under the State quota,, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in regard to the academic session in question is not justified in law. 6.3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the manner in which the petitioner-College gave admissions to the students under the State quota for the Course in question, runs contrary to the prescribed conditions, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondent is justified in law. 6.4. It was further submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in the case of Nagfani Institution of Animal Husbandry Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (S.B.C.W.P. No.1364/2023) stayed the further process pertaining to the Course in question, including the counselling pursuant to the advertisement. 6.4. It was further submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in the case of Nagfani Institution of Animal Husbandry Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (S.B.C.W.P. No.1364/2023) stayed the further process pertaining to the Course in question, including the counselling pursuant to the advertisement. 6.5 In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Office of the Registrar, Rajasthan University of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner vide letter dated 02.05.2023 directed the Principal(s) of the concerned AHDP Institute(s) affiliated to the respondent-University not to give any admission under State quota beyond the prescribed limit for the Course in question, while stipulating that, “if any ADHP institute is found involved in making such admissions, they will be fully responsible for this act.”. 6.6. It was also submitted that the petitioner-Colleges without any direction and communication gave the admission to the students in the Course in question, beyond the prescribed quota, which is not permissible. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the issue involved in the all instant petitions is common. The respondents issued an advertisement for admission in the Course in question, whereafter, two rounds of counselling were conducted. After such process, the Colleges gave admissions to the students under the State quota without any written permission. The Colleges also sent the list of those students to the respondent, but the respondent enrolled only those students who were admitted through counselling, and not to those students who were given admission beyond prescribed limit/ quota. 9. This Court further observes that 85% seats were to be filled against the State quota through counselling only, while the remaining 15% management quota seats were to be filled by the concerned Colleges, and therefore, once the allocation of the seats was prescribed, the Colleges cannot breach such quota without any prior permission. 10. This Court also observes that after two rounds of counselling pertaining to the Course in question, still the seats are lying vacant under the State quota; the Colleges itself started giving admissions to the students in the Course in question without any communication or any permission of the respondent-University. 11. 10. This Court also observes that after two rounds of counselling pertaining to the Course in question, still the seats are lying vacant under the State quota; the Colleges itself started giving admissions to the students in the Course in question without any communication or any permission of the respondent-University. 11. This Court further observes that the Office of the Registrar, Rajasthan University of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner vide letter dated 02.05.2023 directed the Principal(s) of the concerned AHDP Institute(s) affiliated to the respondent-University not to give admission to any student under the State quota in the Course in question, beyond the prescribed limit/quota, with the stipulation that, “if any ADHP institute is found involved in making such admissions, they will be fully responsible for this act.”. 12. In the present adjudication, this Court has also kept into consideration the fact that on an earlier occasion also, one time relaxation has been granted by the respondents, in grant of admissions by the institutions in the 85% Quota of State beyond the State counselling. 13. In view of the above, it is directed that in case the respondents conduct any further counselling, as per the policy, within 60 days from today, and after such counselling, any seat(s), under the State quota of 85% and Management quota of 15%, is found vacant, the respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioners (students), against such vacant seat(s), strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that the respondents shall be free to initiate any lawful action against the petitioners (Colleges) for grant of illegal admissions, if so warranted. Until such consideration and consequent permission is granted by the respondents, no student shall have a right to pursue the Course and their admissions will remain null and void (illegal.). 14. The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.