JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.3 stand dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- and security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited at the time of first counselling for the purposes of allotment of a medical college to petitioner. 3. It is submitted that petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the under-graduate programme in year 2022 and was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. It is submitted that at the same time, petitioner was also participating in the counselling pertaining to NIMS University, Jaipur under the general category but prior to conclusion of counselling in Jaipur, F.H. Medical College, Agra was allotted to petitioner in the first counselling. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently on 26.11.2022, petitioner was allotted NIMS University, Jaipur in the second counselling. In the intervening period, petitioner submitted resignation with regard to first counselling vide letter dated 13.11.2022 on the ground that petitioner was dissatisfied with the College allotted and sought refund of the fees already deposited by petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to submit that petitioner is entitled for refund in terms thereof. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner in fact submitted her resignation on 17.11.2022. 7. It is submitted that petitioner's case instead of being covered by paragraph 7(a) of aforesaid Government Order is in fact covered by second Proviso to paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order. 8. 7. It is submitted that petitioner's case instead of being covered by paragraph 7(a) of aforesaid Government Order is in fact covered by second Proviso to paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order. 8. For purposes of adjudication of present dispute, it would be necessary to advert to provisions of paragraph 7 of Government Order dated 21.10.2022, which is as follows:- ^^7- R;kx&i= fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa& vH;FkhZ dks ek= lhV dk vkacVu (Allotment) izos'k ugha ekuk tk;sxkA vkoaVu ds i'pkr~ vH;FkhZ dks lacaf/kr dkyst@uksMy lsaVj ij mifLFkr gksdj izos'k izfdz;k lEiUu djus ds i'pkr gh izos'k ekuk tk;sxkA rRi'pkr~ gh izosf'kr vH;FkhZ izosf'kr lhV ls R;kxi= ns ldsxkA ¼d½ ;fn vH;FkhZ 'kS{kf.kd l= 2022&23 dh izFke dkamflafyx ls vkoafVr gksdj izns'k ds fdlh Hkh esfMdy@Ms.Vy dh lhV ij izos'k izkIr dj ysrk gS rRi'pkr~ vH;FkhZ vky bf.M;k ;k vU; izns'k dh dkmaflfyax ds ek/;e ls fdlh vU; lhV ij vkoaVu çkIr djrk gS vkSj og izns'k dh izFke dkamflfyax ls izosf'kr lhV ls R;kxi= nsuk pkgrk gS ¼R;kxi= ds le; vU; dkamflfyax ls vkoaVu dk izek.k i= izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk½ rks ,sls vH;FkhZ m0iz0 jkT; dh f}rh; dkamflfyax dh PokbZl fQfyax ls nks fnu iwoZ rd ¼mnkgj.kkFkZ ;fn f}rh; pØ dh dkamflfyax fnukad 24-11-2022 ls izkjEHk gksuh gS] rks vH;FkhZ 21-11-2022 dks lka; 04-00 cts rd½ viuh lhV ls R;kxi= ns ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ }kjk tek dh x;h flD;ksfjVh /kujkf'k rFkk f'k{k.k 'kqYd ls fuEukuqlkj dVkSrh djrs gq, 'ks"k /kujkf'k okil dh tk;sxh%& & jktdh; rFkk futh {ks= ds esfMdy@Ms.Vy dkystksa esa izosf'kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh tek f'k{k.k 'kqYd ls 10 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh djrs gq, 'ks"k /kujkf'k rFkk /kjksgj /kujkf'k (Security Money) okil ns; gksxhA & izFke pØ dh dkamflfyax ls vkoaVu ds i'pkr ;fn vH;FkhZ }kjk vkoafVr dkyst esa izos'k ys fy;k tkrk gS rFkk vH;FkhZ dks vky bf.M;k@vU; izns'kksa dh dkamflfyax ls dksbZ Hkh vkoaVu izkIr ugh gksrk gS] fQj Hkh vH;FkhZ O;fDRkxr dkj.kksa ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk ¼f}rh; pØ dh Pokbl fQfyax ls nks fnu igys rd½ ls iwoZ R;kx i= nsrk gS rks ,slh n'kk esa f'k{k.k 'kqYd esa ls 50 izfr'kr dh dVkSrh djrs gq;s 'ks"k /kujkf'k ,oa /kjksgj /kujkf'k (Security Money) okil fd;k tk;xkA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&** 9. A perusal of aforesaid provisions makes it evident that there is provision for refund of fees in case a student participates in the counselling in the first round but subsequently forsakes the seat which has been allotted. While paragraph 7(a) states that such resignation from the College allotted in the first counselling is permissible subject to a student being allocated a Medical College in the second counselling but such a fact is required to be indicated specifically in the resignation letter and by annexing a certificate regarding his allotment made in the second counselling. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, although it has been couched in mandatory terms that at the time of resignation from allotment made in first counseling, reasons thereof and annexing of certificate pertaining to allotment in the second counselling has been made but in view of the beneficial provision pertaining to refund of fees, such a mandatory condition can be read down to be directory in nature particularly in case where the student subsequently also indicates allotment of a seat in the second counselling and indicates reasons for forsaking the allotment made in the first counselling. The reason for reading down aforesaid condition although couched in mandatory terms, is quite evident that fees is deposited as a consideration for studies imparted by a College. In case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. It is the opinion of this Court, that fees deposited by a student is as a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student. This is more so, as in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop up rounds of counselling have taken place. 11. In the present case, it is quite evident from resignation letters submitted by petitioner either on 13.11.2022 or 17.11.2022 that reasons for resigning the allotment made in first counselling have been clearly indicated by petitioner. It is also evident that at the time of resignation, allotment as per the second counselling had not been made, which was subsequently done on 26.11.2022 and has been brought on record as annexure-7 to writ petition. 12. It is also evident that at the time of resignation, allotment as per the second counselling had not been made, which was subsequently done on 26.11.2022 and has been brought on record as annexure-7 to writ petition. 12. The opposite parties have not denied the fact that petitioner has in fact been allotted a Medical College in her home state in the second round of counselling. The reason therefore for resigning from allotment made in the first counseling is evident as is the fact that petitioner has definitely been allotted a Medical College in the second counselling. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, conditions indicated in paragraph 7(a) are therefore substantially complied with. It is also the opinion of this Court that provisions of paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 have been specifically inserted so as not to permit unjust enrichment by a College for retaining fees without imparting studies to a student. 14. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 upon second proviso to paragraph 7(a) is concerned, it is evident that the same will be inapplicable in the present case since it pertains to those situation where a student has not been provided any seat allocation even in second counselling. 15. In view of discussions made herein above, it is evident that case of petitioner is covered under paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022. 16. Therefore, a writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite party no.2 to refund the permissible amount as per 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. 17. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.