ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent no.2 NEET PG Admission/ Counselling Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Counselling Board’), which has not given admission to the petitioner in Post Graduation Course in subject ‘Forensic Medicines’. 2. Pertinent facts for the present purposes are that the petitioner appeared in NEET PG Examination and staked her claim qua in-service quota fixed for the candidates serving in Government Medical College as Senior Demonstrator. The petitioner stood second in the merit list of Senior Demonstrators. 3. The counselling for the admission in PG Course was fixed by way of Schedule and accordingly, the counselling for Senior Demonstrators was held on 23.11.2024, while counselling for other candidates was held on 28.11.2024. 4. According to the facts asserted, the petitioner was second in merit list of Senior Demonstrator, however, for the subject ‘Forensic Medicines’ she was the first, as the person who was at serial no.1 was from the stream Pathalogy. Therefore, when the petitioner appeared in the counselling, she filled only one option, namely S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur considering that she is the most meritorious candidate and is sure to get admission against one seat in ‘Forensic Medicines’. 5. As per petitioner’s pleadings, when she appeared in the counselling, the Counselling Board orally informed her that since there is only one seat for ‘Forensic Medicines’ at Jodhpur, the same cannot be given to the petitioner. As the events unfolded, the petitioner was not given admission in PG Course at all, when the final list was declared. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 24.03.2017, Hon’ble the Health Minister had made an announcement that Senior Demonstrators shall be given priority in admission in medical colleges in non-clinical and para-clinical seats from the academic Session 2017-18 onwards, of course, if they complete there years’ regular service in such department. And in consonance with the budget speech, an order dated 31.03.2017 came to be issued. 7. Learned counsel submitted that prior to 2017, 50% seats were reserved for in-service candidates, however, the same was done away with and new order has been issued stipulating therein that Senior Demonstrators shall be given priority. 8. And in consonance with the budget speech, an order dated 31.03.2017 came to be issued. 7. Learned counsel submitted that prior to 2017, 50% seats were reserved for in-service candidates, however, the same was done away with and new order has been issued stipulating therein that Senior Demonstrators shall be given priority. 8. Learned counsel argued that the action of the Counselling Board in not according admission to the petitioner in PG Course at Medical College at Jodhpur is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to State’s own policy. He submitted that so far as subject ‘Forensic Medicines’ is concerned, the petitioner was the only meritorious candidate and therefore, the Counselling Board could not have denied her admission in Medical College at Jodhpur. 9. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand relied upon a government order dated 25.11.2014 and submitted that 50% seats are meant for Senior Demonstrators and since there was only one seat for ‘Forensic Medicines’ in Medical College at Jodhpur, it could not be allotted to the petitioner. He argued that the Counselling Board was willing to give admission to the petitioner at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, where total number of seats was 6. He said that sole seat cannot be reserved or given to the Senior Demonstrator. 10. Mr. Rajpurohit tried to explain that since 6 seats are available in Medical College at Jaipur, 3 seats could be allocated to Senior Demonstrators while the same could not be done in Jodhpur, as the quota of 50% seats could not be maintained. 11. In rejoinder, Mr. Mehta submitted that the reliance of the State on the order dated 25.11.2014 is misplaced, inasmuch as, the said order has been withdrawn by the Notification dated 20.03.2017. 12. A photocopy of the Notification dated 20.03.2017 produced by Mr. Mehta is taken on record. 13. Mr. Mehta argued that the order dated 25.11.2014 should be read in context of the position prevailing prior to 2017, when 50% seats were earmarked for Senior Demonstrators. He argued that since fix reservation for Senior Demonstrators no more exists, because of the new policy which has been introduced, priority is required to be given to Senior Demonstrators. The stand of the Counselling Board is clearly unsustainable, he emphasized. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. He argued that since fix reservation for Senior Demonstrators no more exists, because of the new policy which has been introduced, priority is required to be given to Senior Demonstrators. The stand of the Counselling Board is clearly unsustainable, he emphasized. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. A simple look at the order dated 31.03.2017 issued by Medical Education (Gr.I) Department reveals that Senior Demonstrators working with Government shall be given priority in admission in PG seats allotment, if they have completed three years regular service in the department. 16. So far as the expression ‘in the same department’ is concerned, it cannot be construed to mean that since the petitioner was working in government college at Pali, she can be given priority only in Pali. ‘In the same department’ means, the branch or the subject under which a particular candidate was serving. If such argument of Mr. Rajpurohit were to be accepted, then the petitioner could not have been given admission even in Jaipur. 17. Since, the petitioner was serving as Senior Demonstrator, according to this Court, she fulfills the criteria prescribed in the order dated 31.03.2017. The issue, which comes to be examined is, as to whether the petitioner has a preemptory right of getting admission in Medical College at Jodhpur? 18. The order dated 31.03.2017, so also the schedule of counselling published by the respondent no.2 clearly shows that the counselling for in-service Senior Demonstrators was held prior in time (on 23.11.2024), while the counselling for other NEET qualified candidates were held on 28.11.2024. Had there been no intention to give priority to the Senior Demonstrators already working, then there was no reason for the Counselling Board to have separate counselling, that too 5 days ahead of the normal counselling. The expression ‘priority’ is required to be given its natural meaning. 19. The reliance upon the order dated 25.11.2014 placed by the Counselling Board is misplaced and untenable, more particularly when the scheme of fixing 50% seats has been done away with, as is evident from the Notification dated 20.03.2017 issued by the State Government. 20. The order dated 31.03.2017 in no ambiguous terms provide that Senior Demonstrators working in non-clinical and para-clinical department shall be given priority. Such order should be given its natural and due meaning. 21. 20. The order dated 31.03.2017 in no ambiguous terms provide that Senior Demonstrators working in non-clinical and para-clinical department shall be given priority. Such order should be given its natural and due meaning. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that denial of admission to the petitioner at Medical College at Jodhpur for PG Course in subject ‘Forensic Medicines’ is clearly illegal and contrary to the order dated 31.03.2017. 22. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 23. The Counselling Board is directed to accord admission to the petitioner in PG Course in subject ‘Forensic Medicines’ in S.N. Medical College at Jodhpur within a period of seven days from today, of course after taking applicable fee and if she is otherwise eligible. 24. For the purpose aforesaid, it will be required of the Rajasthan Medical Education Society to relieve the petitioner so as to enable her to carry out PG Course at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. 25. In case, any other candidate, has been given admission at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur in the subject ‘Forensic Medicines’, he/she shall be consequently given admission in any other medical college according to his/her own merit and choice. 26. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.