ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Harsh Parekh for the petitioners, learned Sr. Advocate Mrs.Manisha Lavkumar appearing with learned Advocate Mr.K. M. Antani for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr.Harshit Shukla for respondent No.2. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “18.[a] That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Admission Committee for Professional Post-graduate Medical Educational Courses, Respondent No.1 herein, to follow the mandate of the Gujarat Professional Post-graduate Ayurved and Homoeopathy Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission) Rules, 2018 – at Annexure-A, and thereupon be pleased to permit the petitioners to be admitted to vacant seats in the order of their merit. [b] That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to be admitted on available vacant seats on provisional basis on such terms and conditions that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. [c] That this Honourable Court be pleased to pass any such other order as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioners is that vide an order dated 13.12.2023, whereby this Court had directed the Admission Committee to hold a stray vacancy round for filling up vacancies in PG – Ayurved and Homeopathy, the petitioners have been prevented from participating and whereas the petitioners have approached this Court inter alia submitting that even after the stray vacancy round had been conducted, there are approximately 124 vacancies remaining in PG – Ayurved and whereas the petitioners request this Court to direct the Admission Committee to grant admission to the petitioners in the said vacancies. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, it would appear that this Court vide an order dated 13.12.2023 in Special Civil Application No.19497 of 2023 had inter alia directed for conducting a stray vacancy counseling round for PG – Ayurved and Homeopathy, more particularly noticing that the guidelines of the Central Government do not envisage a framework and schedule for filling up the vacant seats after the 4th round of counseling. This Court had also noticed that about 40% of the PG seats would remain vacant on account of the vacuum which has arisen since the guidelines envisage admissions only through online mode and whereas the regulations of the State of Gujarat envisage admissions through offline mode, and whereas while guidelines of the Central Government had a primacy, yet on account of the modality not being specified for filling up of the stray vacancy round, 1/3rd vacancies would remain unfilled. It is the case of the petitioners that the directions inter alia envisage that the applications would be called from candidates, who have qualified as per the AIA-PGET criteria and have noted herein before not applied to the Admission Committee for admission to the PG Courses. It would further appear that while the petitioners have qualified AIA-PGET, yet on account of the fact that the petitioners had applied for admission to the Admission Committee and since the petitioners had not exercised their choices for all the available vacancies, therefore, the petitioners are now though eligible dis-entitled for applying. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are all qualified students having cleared AIA-PGET. It is submitted that as of now, there are 37 seats, which are vacant after the counseling which had been conducted as per the order of this Court. It is submitted that merely on account of the fact that the petitioners’ names figured in the merit list and while the petitioners had refused admission in courses in colleges other than their choice and for such reason only, the petitioners may not be permitted to seek admission in the seats in question. It is submitted that the present is an exceptional situation where this Court may interfere. 5.1. Learned Advocate Mr.Parekh would further draw the attention of this Court to decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.2785 of 2023, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed a decision of this Court in like circumstances, albeit in UG Courses. Leaned Advocate would submit that this Court in SCA No.19485 of 2023 had issued certain directions vide order dated 30.11.2023, which was the last date for granting admissions and whereas this Court had extended the cut-off date for a limited period. Leaned Advocate would submit that this Court in SCA No.19485 of 2023 had issued certain directions vide order dated 30.11.2023, which was the last date for granting admissions and whereas this Court had extended the cut-off date for a limited period. It is submitted that while the order had been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and whereas while the Division Bench had stayed the order of this Court, the order of the Division Bench had been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court and whereas the order of this Court had been confirmed. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had reiterated the law that in exceptional circumstances, this Court would be empowered to extend the last date of admission. Leaned Advocate would further in this regard rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2020) 17 SCC 465 , which had been quoted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred to herein above. Learned Advocate would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court had inter alia upheld the right of the Court to extend the admission process in medical courses in favour of a candidate/student, who has approached this Court at the earliest without any delay and without any fault attributable to the candidate/ student. Learned Advocate would submit that while the Hon’ble Apex Court had clarified that the directions pertain to admission in MBBS and not in PG medical courses, yet the principle would also be applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, learned Advocate would request this Court to allow the present petition. 6. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Admission Committee as well as of the learned Advocate for the Central Government being that the order of this Court dated 13.12.2023 was in extraordinary circumstances, i.e. the Court had noticed that there was some vacuum on account of the guidelines of the Central Government not specifying the modality for conducting a stray vacancy round and whereas this Court had also noticed that a large number of vacancies would remain vacant and hence, keeping in mind the cut-off date i.e. 16.12.2023, this Court had directed the Admissions Committee to conduct the counseling by calling eligible candidates, excluding candidates of the present category. It is submitted that the directions have been complied with by the cut-off date and time which had also been reiterated by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners were excluded as a category and whereas the said fact was known to the petitioners on the very day i.e. on 13.12.2023, whereas the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition on 18.12.2023 after the cut-off date. It is submitted that the admissions being over and the cut-off date being adhered to and the directions being passed having been complied with, more particularly directions being passed considering the extraordinary situation, now this Court may not reopen the admission process and direct the Admission Committee to consider the case of the petitioners or the candidates of the like category. 6.1. Learned Sr. Advocate Mrs.Shah would further submit that as such, even in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.2787 of 2023, while noticing that there was an extraordinary situation and also noticing that there would be vacant seats, yet the Hon’ble Apex Court had not extended the admission process. Learned Sr. Advocate would further submit that in the decision of S. Krishna Sradha (supra) while observing that extension could be granted in exceptional circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court had excluded PG Medical Courses from the ambit of the said observations. Learned Sr. Advocate would, therefore, submit that the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioners. Learned Sr. Advocate would reiterate that since the application itself was preferred after the cut-off date and whereas even otherwise in normal course also since the petitioners would not be entitled for admission, therefore, this Court may not exercise discretion and extend the last date for admission while considering the grievance of the present petitioners. 7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 8. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether there is an exceptional circumstance, which would permit this Court to extend the admission process. In this regard, at the outset, this Court would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), relied upon by both the learned Advocates. 8. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether there is an exceptional circumstance, which would permit this Court to extend the admission process. In this regard, at the outset, this Court would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), relied upon by both the learned Advocates. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision, while holding that in exceptional circumstance, the Court would be empowered to extend the time schedule to do complete justice, yet the Hon’ble Apex Court had not brought the PG Medical Course under the ambit of the said decision. While it is true that the Hon’ble Apex Court has not specifically excluded PG Medical Course from being extended even in exceptional circumstances, yet the fact remains that there is no decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court whereby even in exceptional circumstances, the Court would be empowered to direct granting of admission even beyond the last date of admission. 9. Furthermore, to this Court, it would appear that the petitioners were in fact aggrieved by the directions issued at Paragraph 13(ii) of the order dated 13.12.2023 and whereas essentially the present petitioners are seeking for a review of the above order insofar as the present petitioners are prevented from applying. In the considered opinion of this Court, right course for the petitioners was to have challenged the order in question before the Hon’ble Division Bench having not done so, under the guise of the petition, the petitioners are seeking review of the order in question also would not be countenanced by this Court. 10. Again to this Court, it would appear that accepting the prayers of the petitioners would result in another round of admission, counseling by the Admission Committee would be required. That the petitioners belong to a particular category and whereas there is no submission made that the petitioners are the only students in that category. Thus, in an event of this Court holding that the students like the petitioners were entitled for admissions, then it would entail stretching the admission process much beyond the cut-off date, and whereas there does not appear to be any exceptional circumstance for the same. 11. Thus, in an event of this Court holding that the students like the petitioners were entitled for admissions, then it would entail stretching the admission process much beyond the cut-off date, and whereas there does not appear to be any exceptional circumstance for the same. 11. Insofar as the submissions with regard to exceptional circumstances, it requires to be mentioned here that the admission process for PG – Ayurved and Homeopathy Medical courses in State of Gujarat is regulated by the Gujarat Professional PG Ayurved and Homeopathy Medial Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission) Rules, 2018. Rule 11 specifies the admission process and whereas Rule 11(1)(viii) states about the allotment of seats as per the offline procedure. It requires to be mentioned here that it was with regard to no provision being made in the guidelines promulgated by the Central Government as regards off line procedure that the Court had passed the order dated 13.12.2023 in SCA No.19497 of 2023. The above sub-rule reads thus:- “11(1)(viii) The Admission Committee shall decide to allot seats as per off-line procedure. In case, where considerable number of seats fall vacant, and it appears to the Admission Committee to fill the vacant seats, it may conduct the admission process for readjustment (reshuffling). In such readjustment (reshuffling) of seats, the candidate who opts to participate in reshuffling process, shall be considered for such admission. The candidates shall not be offered admission on the seats available to him in previous allotment process. If the candidate gets new admission on the basis of merit, then his earlier admission shall be treated as cancelled.” 12. It would appear that in normal circumstances, i.e. in case there was no intervening guidelines by the Central Government and the Admission Committee was empowered to conduct the offline procedure for admission, then also candidates like the present petitioners would not be entitled for admission, more particularly since the sub-rule inter alia states that such candidates, who have not availed of available seats in the previous allotment process shall not be offered admissions. To this Court, it would appear that the directions at paragraph 13(ii) which reads as under, “(ii) The advertisement shall call for applications from candidates who have qualified as per AIA-PGET criteria who have herein before not applied to the Admission Committee for admission to PG Courses.” though stated differently, but the resultant effect is that such candidates who have applied and who have, like the petitioners, not availed of the seats in the available category have been prevented from applying for admission. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the order in question i.e. 13.12.2023 was with regard to the Court laying down the procedure, in absence of any procedure envisaged in the guidelines of the Central Government, more particularly no procedure envisaged as regards conducting of offline admission process, and since even in the offline admission process, the candidates like the present petitioners would not be entitled to apply and further considering the fact that the petitioners have approached this Court after cut off date since the Court does not find any exceptional circumstances in the present case, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the present petitions stand disposed of as rejected.