ORDER : 1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8604/2024) invited Court’s attention towards various orders which the State Government has passed, permitting the petitioner– Institution and other Institutions to give admissions in the Animal Husbandry Diploma Course (hereinafter referred to as ‘AHDP’) and submitted that considering the past practice of the State, the petitioner– Institutions have/students were given admission on the vacant seats which remained unfilled after the counselling undertaken by the respondent – Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’). 2. While informing that admissions to the students were given in the month of February, 2024, learned counsel submitted that though the list of students who have been admitted in the AHDP course had been forwarded by the respective colleges to the respondent – University, but the respondent – University did not enroll the students deviating from its past practice. He contended that on account of approach of the respondents rights of the students who have taken education under the subject course have been put to risk. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner– Institutions/students had legitimate expectation of getting approval, may be post-facto, as was being done in previous years and also submitted that the students who have been bonafidely given admission will be deprived of their right to pursue the course and will not only waste their precious year, but also suffer huge financial burden. He prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) By appropriate writ/order or direction, Direct the respondents to immediately open the enrollment portal for the students of the petitioner institution admitted against vacant seats. (ii) Allow the students of the petitioner institution admitted against vacant seats to enroll and appear in the examination scheduled for 20.05.2024. (iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. He referred to a number of orders passed by the respondents (annexed with the additional affidavit) and submitted that for the years 2020-21, 2021-22 and even for 2022-23 the admissions granted to the colleges at their level have been regularized. He also relied upon the corresponding observation made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 29.06.2020 in the case of Kiran Kasniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. He also relied upon the corresponding observation made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 29.06.2020 in the case of Kiran Kasniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020), decided on 29.06.2020 in order to buttress his stand that the respondents have been regularizing the admissions of the students who are/were given admission on the vacant seats after second counselling is over. 5. He pointed out in the same line that an order dated 02.07.2024 has been issued by the State Government and permission has been accorded to give admission to the students on the vacant seats for academic session 2023-24 but the said order was later on withdrawn on 21.08.2024. 6. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons for which the order dated 02.07.2024 has been withdrawn as indicated in the order of 21.08.2024 is, that according to the State Government, the students would not be able to complete the bench mark of 75% attendance. He argued that the students were given admission by the petitioner-colleges (on the basis of past practice) in the month of February, 2024 and therefore, they have completed 75% attendance. He thus, prayed that their admissions be ordered to be regularized and the respondents be directed to enrol the students who have been given admission. 7. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent– University submitted that the petitioner– Institutions/students have been irregularly granted admissions, inasmuch as after promulgation of Policy of 2022, none of the Institutions could give admission to the students once the counselling is over. 8. Mr. Maheshwari highlighted that since there was no embargo on giving admissions after the second round of counselling in the policies which were prevailing prior to the publication of Policy of 2022, the Institutions used to be given admissions and the State also had been granting approval or post-facto approval, but since policy of 2022 contains a clear embargo, neither the admission granted to students can be said to be in accordance with law nor can a direction be issued to the respondent – University to enrol the students who have been given admission. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that true it is that, vide order dated 02.07.2024, the Institutions were allowed to give admission on the seats which have remained unfilled, but immediately on realising that students who would have been given admission after 02.07.2024 will not be able to complete the requisite 75% attendance, the same was withdrawn. He vehemently argued that as the admissions were given illegally, no indulgence be granted. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Before taking any view of the matter, the Court would like to bring on record the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aasuddeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8677/2023 and other connected petitions, decided on 10.08.2023) and the order of Division Bench in the case of Rajasthan College of Animal Husbandry Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.674/2023 and other connected appeal, decided on 02.09.2023), which have a necessary bearing on the case. 12. During the course of arguments, Mr. Maheshwari had shown an order dated 25.10.2023 issued by the Registrar of the University and submitted that as a one time measure, the admissions so given by the colleges have been regularised with a clear stipulation that no indulgence shall be granted in future, but regardless of said order, the colleges have granted admission. 13. In response to such stand, Mr. Kotwani interjected and argued that firstly, those admissions were covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Aasuddeen (supra) and the same involved different facts and secondly, that this order was never sent to the petitioner-Institutions. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents could not bring any plausible reason for which the admissions of the students, which were given at the college level on the vacant seats were regularized, as is given in communication dated 06.10.2023 (page No.123). 15. The Joint Secretary of the State Government present personally could not satisfy the Court as to what prevailed in the mind of the State to pass order dated 02.07.2024 and allow the colleges to admit students on the seats which have remained vacant for academic year 2023-24, ignoring the clear position of facts. 16. 15. The Joint Secretary of the State Government present personally could not satisfy the Court as to what prevailed in the mind of the State to pass order dated 02.07.2024 and allow the colleges to admit students on the seats which have remained vacant for academic year 2023-24, ignoring the clear position of facts. 16. In light of the past practice of the State and the fact that prior to Policy of 2022, there was no embargo on the private Institutions to give admission on their own accord after the counselling was over and also considering that the petitioner– Institutions/students relying upon such past practice and order of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kiran Kasniya (supra), this Court is of the view that the action of the petitioner– Institutions/students can be said to be irregular-may be under a belief, if not legitimate expectation that the State would give post-facto approval. 17. This belief was not misplaced as is evident from the fact that the State itself has later issued an order dated 02.07.2024 and allowed admission on vacant seats for academic session 2023-24. 18. True it is, that the said order has been withdrawn, but under an impression that if the students would be given admissions, they will not be able to complete 75% attendance, completely being oblivious of the fact that about 200 students have been given admission prior to 02.07.2024 and they might have studied and completed 75% attendance. 19. The observation made and direction issued by the co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 10.08.2023, in the case of Aasuddeen (supra) and the observation of the Division Bench in the case of Rajasthan College of Animal Husbandry (supra) in its order dated 02.09.2023 cannot be ignored by the State. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant extract of order dated 10.08.2023 and order dated 02.09.2023. (I) The relevant part of the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8677/2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “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. 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. 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.).” (II) The relevant part of the order dated 02.09.2023 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 674/2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. The State quota fixed by the authorities of the State Government cannot be filled in directly by the institutions without any prior permission of the State. In the present case, since the regular seats available to the appellants were filled in by the appellants after two rounds of counselling, thus, the appellants were under an obligation to seek permission from the State Government before filling in the seats of the State quota. Admittedly, no prior permission was taken by the appellants for filling up the seats of State quota. It has come on record that vide communication dated 02.05.2023 issued by the Registrar, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, the appellants were directed that they should not give admission to any student under the State quota in the course in question beyond the permissible limit and if any admission is granted, the institution will be responsible for that act. Despite that, the appellants have granted admission in the State quota de hors the Rule. Therefore, the admissions granted to the said students cannot be regularized.” 20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and what has been noticed above, all these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner - Institutions to send a list of students admitted in the subject course for the academic session 2023-24 with their up-to-date attendance (as on 05.09.2024) with documentary proofs to the respondent – University within a period of 7 days from today. 21. The respondent – University will satisfy itself about the attendance of each of the students so that in case the State decides to regularize the admissions granted to the students, those petitioners/students who have completed 75% attendance be enrolled and allowed to appear in the ensuing examination. 22. 21. The respondent – University will satisfy itself about the attendance of each of the students so that in case the State decides to regularize the admissions granted to the students, those petitioners/students who have completed 75% attendance be enrolled and allowed to appear in the ensuing examination. 22. The Institutions may file a representation before the State Government giving list of the students who have been given admission after the second round of counselling with a request to regularise the admissions so granted. 23. Having regard to the fact that a large number of students have been given admission and it has been a practice adopted by the State for last so many years (even after coming into force of Policy of 2022), as a one time measure, the State may take a decision on their representation for regularizing the admissions having regard to the future of the students and the amount they have spent on the fee, etc. so also that a period of about a year they have spent in taking up the course. Such direction is deemed imperative, rather expedient in view of the fact that in a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.800/2024 : Amandeep Gujjar Vs. State of Rajasthan), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of interim order dated 17.05.2024 has issued interim order to provisionally enroll many students so as to enable them to appear in the examination which were held on 20.05.2024. 24. In case, a representation is filed by the petitioners or their association as aforesaid before the State Government within a period of 5 days, appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government within a period of 7 days of the receipt of the representation. 25. In case, the State decides to regularize the admission so granted by the petitioner – Institutions, the State shall be free to impose an exemplary cost, apart from what is provided in the provision contained in the policy, so that it works as a deterrent if they chose to give such unauthorised admissions. 26. And if the State decides to reject representation(s) filed by the petitioner-Institutions and holds that the admissions in question are null, then it shall simultaneously direct all the colleges to refund the entire amount (tuition fee, admission fee or any other charges) charged from each of the students. 26. And if the State decides to reject representation(s) filed by the petitioner-Institutions and holds that the admissions in question are null, then it shall simultaneously direct all the colleges to refund the entire amount (tuition fee, admission fee or any other charges) charged from each of the students. If the amount so directed is not refunded within a period of two months, the concerned colleges shall not be allowed to take part in the counselling for future academic sessions. 27. All the writ petitions so also stay applications stand disposed of accordingly. 28. The order instant shall not be a precedent and it shall apply to the academic session 2023-2024 only. 29. It will be required of the State and the respondent – University to ensure that henceforth no student is given admission by any of Institutions at its own, without the permission of the State Government, after the second round of counselling is over – they may take an undertaking to this effect from all the participating colleges.