ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, alongwith Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 5 as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6. 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.01.2023, Dr. Vishnu Dutt, Director, Medical Education, Raipur, and Dr. Vinod Tandon, Demonstrator, Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, are also present. 3. The petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) – 2022 and secured 175 marks out of 720. The petitioner took part in the counselling process and a provisional allotment letter was issued to him on 03.11.2022 allotting a seat in MBBS course in Government Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, in Physically Handicapped (PH) quota. On 05.11.2022, the petitioner appeared before the Counselling Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, where he was found to be eligible for admission. However, on the next date, he was informed that the physical disability certificate submitted by him was not in the prescribed proforma and that the same had not been issued by the Chhattisgarh State Medical Board, as required under the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa, Dant Chikitsa Evam Bhautik Chikitsa (Physiotherapy) Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (for short, the Rules of 2018). He was accordingly directed to submit physical disability certificate by 08.11.2022. The petitioner approached the State Medical Board and requested for his physical examination and also to issue physical disability certificate. The petitioner was not examined without assigning any reason as a result of which, the petitioner could not secure admission in Government Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur. 4. It is an admitted position that left leg of the petitioner is amputated below the knee. 5. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier in WPC No. 5207/2022 and this Court, by order passed on 02.12.2022 had disposed of the said writ petition as follows : “9. 4. It is an admitted position that left leg of the petitioner is amputated below the knee. 5. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier in WPC No. 5207/2022 and this Court, by order passed on 02.12.2022 had disposed of the said writ petition as follows : “9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering further the permanent disability of the petitioner to the extent of 50% as reflected from the said certificate (Annexure P-8), we are inclined to direct the petitioner to appear before the Chhattisgarh State Medical Board for his physical examination within a period of two days from today and, the said authority, in turn, shall issue certificate after his due examination and, in the meanwhile, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the second round of counselling and/or mop-up round for securing his admission. It is, however, made it clear that his admission, if any, shall be subject to production of the petitioner's disability certificate as required under the Rules of 2018 before the appropriate authority.” 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner approached the State Medical Board and a certificate was issued by the State Medical Board on 04.12.2022 certifying that “left below knee amputation” was found and the extent of disability is 70%. 7. Rule 5(2)(a) of the Rules of 2018 provides that priority would be given for admission to the candidates suffering from locomotor disability within the range of 50-70% and in absence of any such candidate, seats meant for the PH quota would be filled up from candidates suffering disability within the range of 40-50%. Thus, there is in no manner of doubt that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the MBBS course. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to participate in the second round of counselling and that the authorities informed the petitioner that his candidature would be considered in the mop-up round. 9. Notification for mop-up round was issued on 06.12.2022 indicating that the starting date of filling up of form is 07.12.2022 and the last date of submission of form is 12.12.2022. The petitioner had submitted his application for allotment of seat in the mop-up round on 11.12.2022. 10. 9. Notification for mop-up round was issued on 06.12.2022 indicating that the starting date of filling up of form is 07.12.2022 and the last date of submission of form is 12.12.2022. The petitioner had submitted his application for allotment of seat in the mop-up round on 11.12.2022. 10. It transpired during the mop-up round that as some of the seats in Government Colleges reserved under PH quota were not filled, at the time of issuance of notification of the mop-up round, such seats of the PH quota were converted into unreserved seats. 11. It is in the aforesaid background that the present writ petition was filed praying for a direction to grant admission to the petitioner as per the allotment letter dated 03.11.2022. 12. Mr. Shrivastava submits that the respondent/State authorities committed manifest illegality in converting the seats from PH quota to unreserved category on the purported ground that no such candidate in PH quota was available. He submits that in the attending facts and circumstances, when the petitioner was entitled to a seat in the MBBS course, the respondent authorities may be directed to admit the petitioner, if necessary, either by directing the respondent authorities to increase a seat for admission of the petitioner for this session or directing the authorities to admit the petitioner in the same college for the next session in the MBBS course. 13. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that in the first round of counselling, with the petitioner being disqualified, there was no other candidate in the PH quota and therefore, in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2018, PH seats were converted to unreserved category and therefore, there is no illegality in the same. It is submitted by him that such conversion of PH quota to unreserved category had taken place on 26.11.2022 and accordingly, the allotment list for the second round of counselling was notified. 14. Having regard to the submissions advanced on 12.01.2023 to the effect that 8 seats of the All India Quota (AIQ) had not been filled up, this Court required the Central Government to inform this Court with regard to the steps taken or contemplated with regard to the aforesaid 8 vacant seats. 15. On instructions, Mr. 14. Having regard to the submissions advanced on 12.01.2023 to the effect that 8 seats of the All India Quota (AIQ) had not been filled up, this Court required the Central Government to inform this Court with regard to the steps taken or contemplated with regard to the aforesaid 8 vacant seats. 15. On instructions, Mr. Mishra submits that since the last date of admission was over on 21.12.2022, no further list would be sent for filling up the 8 vacant seats of AIQ. 16. Though Mr. Mishra submits that the last date of admission was over on 21.12.2022, both Mr. Pali and Mr. Marhas submit that the date was extended to 29.12.2022, and thus, 29.12.2022 was the last date for admission to the MBBS course. 17. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 18. That the petitioner was initially held to be eligible for admission to the MBBS course and that in fact, he was allotted a seat in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Government College, Raipur, on 03.11.2022, under PH quota, is not in dispute. 19. That the petitioner suffers from 70% disability as his left leg is amputated below the knee joint, is also not in dispute. By the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in WPC No. 5207/2022, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to participate in the second round of counselling and in the mop-up round for securing admission. That such direction was in respect of the PH quota was evident in view of subsequent direction wherein it was stated that the admission of the petitioner, if any, would be subject to production of a disability certificate as required under the Rules of 2018. 20. Although the seats were converted from PH quota to unreserved category on 26.11.2022, the aforesaid aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court when this Court had passed the order dated 02.12.2022 in WPC No. 5207/2022. It is also necessary to state that in WPC No. 5207/2022, a return was filed by the State on 29.11.2022 without at all adverting to this vital aspect of the matter. That it is a non-disclosure of material fact is only an under-statement. This Court deprecates such action on the part of the State respondents. It is also necessary to state that in WPC No. 5207/2022, a return was filed by the State on 29.11.2022 without at all adverting to this vital aspect of the matter. That it is a non-disclosure of material fact is only an under-statement. This Court deprecates such action on the part of the State respondents. If the aforesaid aspect was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court could have moulded the relief in an appropriate manner. 21. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 , 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. The observations made in S. Krishna Sardha (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 30thSeptember, 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.” 22. As the petitioner, in our considered opinion, has been unjustifiably deprived of securing admission in MBBS course, we are of the view that the decision rendered in S. Krishna Sardha (supra) is applicable in the instant case. 23. Since 8 seats of AIQ is not going to be filled up, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to admit the petitioner in the MBBS course in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur, for the academic session 2022-2023 against one of said 8 vacant seats of AIQ at the earliest. 24. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs.