ORDER : 1. Since the above titled writ petitions filed by the private universities, involve common issues based on similar facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. However, for brevity, the facts, as narrated in SBCWP No.16431/2018 are taken into consideration. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are self financed Homeopathy colleges and are running various courses in Homeopathy including post graduation courses in Homeopathy. The respondent No.3 had issued NEET, BAMS, BUMS, BHMS, BNYS Counselling 2018 Information Booklet, which provides information about centralized admission to all Government and Private Ayurved / Unani / Homeopathy / Naturopathy and Yoga Colleges for academic session 2018-19 in Bachelor courses of Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy, Naturopathy & Yoga by the BAMS / BUMS/ BHMS / BNYS Admission Board NEET-2018 constituted by the State Government. 2.1 The respondent No.3 later issued programme of counselling on 21.09.2018 for the academic year 2018-19 for admission in Bachelor course of Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy, Yoga and Naturopathy which was followed by another notice dated 03.10.2018, whereby online applications were invited for filling up of NRI seats for the academic session 2018-19. A notice for second round of counselling was issued on 09.10.2018 for filling up of vacant seats for the academic session 2018-19. 2.2 The petitioners, during the said counselling process, came to know that NRI quota seats were not filled and the respondent No.3 was in the process of filling those unfilled seats with general category candidates. The petitioners were later informed that the said procedure is being adopted based on the directions issued by the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (‘AYUSH’), but, the respondent No.3 could only allot 267 students out of 745 students in Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery (‘BHMS’) course. The reason for not filling up of the vacant seats was only because of wrong application of eligibility criteria of NEET qualification. 2.3 The grievance raised in the writ petition is with regard to series of communications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH on various occasions which were addressed to all the State Authorities intimating that admissions in AYUSH undergraduate courses are to be given based on the merit list of NEET only from the academic year 2018-2019. The said communications were sent on 23.01.2017, 26.04.2017, 12.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 14.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018. The said communications were sent on 23.01.2017, 26.04.2017, 12.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 14.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018. Consequently, the State Government issued communications dated 09.08.2018 and 12.10.2018 to NEET 2018 Counseling Board to fill up the vacant seats of NRI quota. Thus, the aforementioned notice dated 03.10.2018 came to be published by the Counseling Board whereby online applications were sought to fill the NRI vacant seats so also it was indicated that the merit list of NEET would be considered for the same. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the aforementioned communications sent by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH to the State authorities so also the subsequent communications sent by the State Government to the Counseling Board. Further, the communication dated 21.09.2018 sent by Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH to all State Authorities has been challenged whereby the qualification of AIPGET 2018 was mandated to participate in AYUSH PG Courses for the academic year 2018-2019. 2.4 The precise grievance raised in the present bunch of writ petitions is with regard to mandating the qualification of NEET / AIPGET for filling up of vacant seats through administrative / executive instruction by the Union of India. Further, it has been prayed that the colleges be permitted to fill up the vacant seats at their own level. 2.5 The fundamental ground raised in these writ petitions is that while exercising powers under Sections 20 & 33 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act , 1973 (‘the Act of 1973’), the Central Council of Homeopathy has framed Homeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983 (‘Regulations of 1983’) and Regulation 4 (Part-III) thereof provides for eligibility to seek admission in BHMS course. Similarly, Homeopathy (Post Graduate Degree Course) M.D. (Hom.) Regulations, 1989 (‘Regulations of 1989’) were enacted wherein too, Regulation 4 (Part-III) provides for eligibility to seek admission in M.D. (Hom.) course. The said Regulations do not mandate marks obtained in NEET as a basic eligibility criteria to give admission in BHMS/M.D. (Hom.) course and in absence of any such provision, the Ministry of AYUSH could not have imposed such condition by issuing aforementioned communications, which are mere administrative instruction and carry no statutory force. 3. In the present batch of writ petitions, the Union of India has not filed reply despite taking time on numerous occasions. 4. 3. In the present batch of writ petitions, the Union of India has not filed reply despite taking time on numerous occasions. 4. An application in the form of preliminary submissions on behalf of the National Commission for Homeopathy (‘NCH’) came to be filed with the prayer that the present writ petitions be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. Since the issue raised in the said application is with regard to maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to first decide the said application. 5. Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCH, while arguing the application for dismissal of the writ petitions, has made following submissions :- (i) These writ petitions are not maintainable without impleading NCH as a party respondent, as it is a necessary and proper party. Without impleading it as a party respondent, the present writ petitions are not maintainable and are required to be dismissed on this ground alone. (ii) It is settled law that without impleading necessary party in the suit / writ proceedings, no effective decree or order could be passed by the Court. (iii) The Act of 1973 was enacted by the Parliament and extended to all the States. It is stated that no State Act / Rules / Regulations concerning Homeopathy shall prevail over the provisions of the Act of 1973. The Act of 1973 was amended by Homeopathy Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2002, and Central Council of Homeopathy (‘CCH’) was constituted as per the Homeopathy Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2018 by dissolving the then CCH on 18.05.2018. Later, the Board of Governors of CCH was dissolved on 05.07.2021 and the same was replaced by National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (‘the Act of 2020’), which was enacted for monitoring the standards of Homeopathy Education, Medical Assessment and Rating of the Colleges and Institutions and Ethics and Registration for Homeopathy medical practitioners and other residuary matters. The NCH, being a regulatory body and being the authority to supervise the standard of Homeopathy education, must be impleaded as party respondent, therefore, without impleading it as a party respondent, these writ petitions are not maintainable. The NCH, being a regulatory body and being the authority to supervise the standard of Homeopathy education, must be impleaded as party respondent, therefore, without impleading it as a party respondent, these writ petitions are not maintainable. (iv) In view of the Act of 1973 so also in view of the Act of 2020, the petitioners were mandatorily required to implead either Central Council of Homeopathy and / or the National Commission for Homeopathy as a party respondent in the present writ petitions. (v) In this bunch of cases, interim order was passed by the Court and petitioners have admitted the students illegally in their colleges without following the due procedure of law. Certified copy of the interim orders were never served upon CCH / NCH. It is further stated that the Regulations of 1983 so also Regulations of 1989 as amended from time to time provide that no authority or institution shall admit any candidate to the undergraduate / postgraduate course in contravention of the criteria or procedure as laid down by these Regulations in respect of admissions. (vi) NCH has recently come to know about petitioners- colleges, have given admission in an illegal manner and the respective colleges have approached the appropriate forum for getting their grievances redressed. Recently, the students, who were given admissions, have filed separate writ petitions, wherein NCH has been made party. It is only on receiving notice in such writ petitions, the NCH came to know about the writ petitions filed in the year 2018. Based on the above submissions, it is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCH that since the admissions to the students made by the petitioners colleges, right from inception, were illegal, void ab initio and run contrary to the provisions contained under the Act of 1973, Act of 2020, Regulations of 1983 and Regulations of 1989 so also against the verdict of the Apex Court and since the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief on account of non-joinder of CCH / NCH as party in this bunch of matters, therefore, the writ petitions are required to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. 6. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Advocate – cum – Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India has supported the preliminary submissions made by the NCH and has further submitted that the UOI is simply an approval authority, whereas the NCH is the authority, which is directly concerned and is statutorily empowered to regulate and maintain the standard of Homeopathy education in the country and therefore, the NCH is a necessary and proper party. Thus, these writ petitions are required to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while responding to the preliminary submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCH so also by learned Additional Solicitor General, made the following submissions: (i)- The petitioners in the present writ petitions are aggrieved by the communications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH. Since the said communications are under challenge, the NCH is not a necessary and proper party and therefore, even in its absence, the present writ petitions are maintainable. (ii)- By way of the aforementioned communications, condition of giving admission in undergraduate course so also postgraduate course based on NEET / AIPGET score has been mandated, which is under challenge. It is argued that as far as admission in BHMS course is concerned, the same is governed under the Regulations of 1983 and unless appropriate amendment is made in the Regulation itself, such condition cannot be imposed by issuing such administrative / executive order. Therefore, the impugned communications are wholly without jurisdiction. Since the communications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH are under challenge, the presence of NCH in deciding such controversy was not at all needed and therefore, the petitioners rightly did not choose to implead NCH as party respondent. (iii)- When the impugned communications dated 12.02.2018 and 21.02.2018 were issued, as a matter of fact, Central Council of Indian Medicine (‘CCIM’) was of the same view as the petitioners which is apparent from the communication dated 05.03.2018, wherein it has specifically been recorded and Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH has been informed that for making NEET score mandatory for giving admission, necessary regulations are required to be amended and without amending the regulations, such condition cannot be imposed. (iv)- While referring to the said communication, it is contended that the CCIM rather supported the stand of the petitioners and that being so, the presence of NCH was not quite necessary. Even otherwise, it is for the UOI to justify its competence in issuing the impugned communication. That is the precise issue, which requires consideration before this Court, therefore, the preliminary submission of non-maintainability of the present writ petitions is required to be rejected at the threshold. As far as the submissions made by learned ASG with regard to maintainability of writ petitions are concerned, it is submitted that the UOI has not filed reply to the writ petitions, therefore, in absence of any pleadings the petitioners had no occasion to address such objections. Even otherwise, the stand of learned ASG is rather supporting the stand of writ petitioners as learned ASG submitted that UOI is formal approving authority and NCH is the main authority to monitor the standard of Homeopathy education, therefore, the UOI had no authority to issue impugned communications. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application filed by the NCH and perused the material available on record. 9. It is to be noted that though the UOI has supported the application submitted by the NCH, however, no reply to the writ petition has been filed raising such objection nor there are any pleadings on merit of the writ petitions. 10. At inception a request was of course made by learned ASG that they require some time to file reply. However, considering the fact that on earlier occasions time had been sought repeatedly, the matter was posted for final disposal. The order was passed in the presence of counsel appearing on behalf of the UOI. Even after the matter was posted for final disposal and listed on numerous occasions, the UOI did not choose to file a reply. 11. The precise grievance raised in the present writ petitions is on account of the impugned communications, which were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH. By the said communications, it has been informed to all the State Authorities to give admission in AYUSH undergraduate courses and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2018-19 only on the basis of merit list of NEET and AIPGET, respectively. By the said communications, it has been informed to all the State Authorities to give admission in AYUSH undergraduate courses and postgraduate courses for the academic year 2018-19 only on the basis of merit list of NEET and AIPGET, respectively. 11.1 One of the fundamental ground raised in the present writ petitions is that in absence of any statutory competence, the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH could not introduce / amend the admission criteria. The admissions in AYUSH undergraduate and postgraduate courses are governed by the Regulations of 1983 and Regulations of 1989, which provide for the eligibility criteria for granting admission. Unless the said eligibility criteria is amended by making necessary amendment in the Regulations, the UOI by such administrative instructions cannot amend the eligibility criteria. Considering the fundamental ground raised in the writ petition, the core issue which requires adjudication in the present writ petitions is with regard to the competence of the UOI in issuing the impugned communications. That being so, what is to be seen is as to whether for deciding the validity of the impugned communications, the presence of NCH is required or not. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCH has argued that the Council is directly concerned with the standard of Homeopathy education, and is also directly concerned with the introduction of any such condition so as to have best talent from the pool. He might be right in contending that the NCH being a regulatory body is directly concerned with the standard of Homeopathy education, but the issue in the present writ petitions is not with regard to whether introduction of NEET is necessary or not. The issue is whether in absence of amending regulation, such eligibility could have been introduced. That being so, the presence of NCH is not required as it is for the UOI to defend and establish its competency in imposing such condition without making amendment in the regulation. 13. There is another aspect which requires consideration i.e. when two of the impugned communications dated 12.02.2018 and 21.02.2018 were issued, the mistake was realized by the CCIM and for this precise reason, a communication dated 05.03.2018 was made to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, wherein it was specifically highlighted that even while making NEET as mandatory criteria, amendment was made in Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. That being so, the necessary amendments are required to be made in the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations of 2016. Not only this, reference to the earlier communications dated 22.02.2017, 01.03.2017, 06.03.2017 and 19.04.2017 was also made while stating that elaborate and exhaustive discussion was made and it was conveyed that there was requirement of amending the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2016 for Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani under Section 22 of the IMCC Act and therefore, without amending such Regulation, introduction of NEET would adversely affect the aspirants of Indian Systems of Medicine graduate course, especially those from the rural areas, under privileged and economically weak backgrounds would continue to grope in the dark. 13.1 Considering the concern shown by the CCIM, it was required from the Government of India to have made amendment before introducing such conditions. As a matter of fact, this communication rather indicates that the CCIM was of the same view as has been expressed by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. It further strengthens the argument of the petitioners that NCH was not required as a necessary party in the writ petitions as CCIM was also not in favour of introducing such eligibility criteria without amending the Regulations. 14. It is also to be noted that the NCH has submitted preliminary submissions without it being a party in the present writ petitions. 15. In view of the discussion made above, the preliminary submissions as raised by the applicant are required to be rejected. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the present writ petitions challenging the validity of the impugned communications specified in para no.2.3 of this order has raised the following grounds:- (i)- firstly, the eligibility condition could not be changed by issuing an administrative/executive instruction; (ii)- secondly, the new eligibility condition cannot be laid without making amendment in the Regulations; (iii)- thirdly, one of the impugned communications dated 12.02.2018 is already quashed and set-aside by the Patna High Court in Vihar Private Unani Medical Colleges & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16541/2018), decided on 10.10.2018 (iv)- fourthly, Apex Court in Ebtesham Khatoon Vs. UOI & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16541/2018), decided on 10.10.2018 (iv)- fourthly, Apex Court in Ebtesham Khatoon Vs. UOI & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal No.6658/2020), decided on 12.02.2025 while considering identical issue has permitted the students to continue with their course despite noting the fact that they were admitted without fulfilling NEET criteria; (v)- fifthly, the case of the present petitioners is on much better footing than what was under consideration before the Apex Court. In the present case, the students, who were given admission in the academic session 2018-19, have already completed their five years course so also the mandatory internship subsequent to graduation, whereas the students, whose admissions were under consideration before the Apex Court, had not graduated as their results were not declared; (vi)- sixthly, CCIM has also clearly recommended that such eligibility criteria should be introduced only after necessary amendment in the Regulations. 17. While countering these submissions, learned ASG has argued that - (i)- For betterment and for improving standard of the medical education, the Government of India has made NEET mandatory and the Government of India is competent to do so. (ii)- The factum of the eligibility criteria being introduced by impugned administrative communications without amending the Regulation is not disputed, however, it is argued by learned Additional Solicitor General that the eligibility criteria even if introduced without amending Regulation, till the decision to do so, cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner as the UOI has taken such decision considering the nature of the courses and more so, considering that the students after obtaining such degree would be assigned to treat human beings and therefore, the standard and quality could not be compromised at any cost. (iii)- The judgment passed by the Patna High Court would not in any manner come in the way in examining the issue in question by this Court and therefore, the observation / finding given by the Patna High Court, which is only having persuasive value, would not in any manner come in the way for this Court to re-examine the issue. (iv)- As far as the judgment rendered by the Apex Court is concerned, the same was issued while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and does not elaborately deal with the issue as raised in the present writ petitions and therefore, the petitioners cannot get any support from the judgment passed by the Apex Court. (v) It is also argued that the issue with regard to the requirement of NEET qualification while giving admission is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court is seized of the matter and would be considering as to whether the NEET qualification could be mandated and this being the precise question in the present writ petitions, it would be appropriate to defer the present hearing till the issue is finally decided by the Apex Court. It is prayed in the alternate, the present writ petitions being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the main writ petitions and perused the material available on record. 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of NCH so also learned ASG have fairly conceded that the issue which is pending before the Apex Court is with regard to amended regulation and deals with the admissions, which were given after academic year 2018-19. 19.1 In view of the above, as far as the controversy, which is said to be pending before the Apex Court is concerned, that is undisputedly with regard to the amended regulation and as such, pendency of such SLP before the Apex Court does not, in any manner, come in the way for deciding the present writ petitions, wherein the admissions are prior to the amendment in the Regulation i.e. academic year 2018-19. 19.2 The judgment passed by the Patna High Court, wherein one of the impugned communications dated 12.02.2018 has been quashed and set-aside, has attained finality as no subsequent challenge has been given to it and as such, the impugned communication dated 12.02.2018 already stands quashed. The Patna High Court has also observed that without amending the relevant Regulations, such eligibility criteria could not have been amended by executive instructions. The Patna High Court has also observed that without amending the relevant Regulations, such eligibility criteria could not have been amended by executive instructions. The judgment passed by the Patna High Court may be only having persuasive value while dealing the present writ petitions, but this Court cannot ignore the fact that one of the impugned communications challenged in the present writ petitions has already been quashed and set-aside. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court has attained finality as no subsequent challenge has been made. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of UOI and for NCH and that being so, the finding given by the Patna High Court so also the conclusion cannot be overlooked. 19.3 The Apex Court, while dealing with the similar controversy, has allowed the students therein to pursue their courses despite noting the fact that they were not NEET qualified and has further observed that withholding the results so also degree of such students would cause them hardship. 19.4 In the present bunch of petitions, the petitioner-Colleges are before this Court challenging the decision of UOI to mandate NEET score and AIPGET score as an eligibility criteria to admit candidates in AYUSH undergraduate courses and postgraduate courses, respectively, more specifically BAMS, BHMS and M.D. (Hom.) courses. It is pertinent to note here that this Court is not examining the validity of introduction of NEET/AIPGET, rather the only concern is with regard to the competence of the UOI in issuing the impugned communications. In other words, this Court has to examine whether the UOI had the authority/power to issue such direction to the State authorities to mandatorily admit candidates upon qualifying NEET/AIPGET, as the case may be. That being so, the contentions of learned ASG substantiating the introduction of NEET do not carry much weight to adjudicate the issue in the present writ petitions. 20. Before considering the competency of UOI in issuing the impugned communications, it would be appropriate to refer the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of Pharmacy Council of India vs. Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Ors. AIR 2022 SC 4321 , paras 7, 9, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 48, 55, 56 & 57 are reproduced as under :- “7. AIR 2022 SC 4321 , paras 7, 9, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 48, 55, 56 & 57 are reproduced as under :- “7. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the decision was taken by the Appellant-PCI after a subcommittee of experts was appointed to study the issue. It is submitted that after the sub-committee recommended moratorium in view of mushrooming growth of pharmacy colleges, the Central Council of the Appellant-PCI, after taking into consideration all these aspects, recommended a moratorium. He submits that this was done in order to prevent a situation which would lead to uncontrolled growth of pharmacy colleges, resultantly producing many pharmacists, who will be without any employment. It is submitted that these factors have not been taken into consideration by the High Courts in the impugned judgments. 9. Shri Maninder Singh further submitted that the power to regulate would also include a power to prohibit. He relies on the judgments of this Court in the case of Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. : AIR 1954 SC 634 and in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and Ors. : (2019) 2 SCC 104 in this regard. 34. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the Constitution Bench, consisting of 11 Judges, of this Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra): “18. With regard to the establishment of educational institutions, three articles of the Constitution come into play. Article 19(1)(g) gives the right to all the citizens to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business; this right is subject to restrictions that may be placed Under Article 19(6). Article 26 gives the right to every religious denomination to establish and maintain an institution for religious purposes, which would include an educational institution. Article 19(1) (g) and Article 26, therefore, confer rights on all citizens and religious denominations to establish and maintain educational institutions....” 37. It could thus be seen that the Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) holds that the State would be entitled to impose restrictions and make Regulations both in terms of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30 of the Constitution of India for maintaining excellence in the standard of education. It has been held that regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. It has been held that regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. 41. It is thus clear that though there is a fundamental right to establish educational institutions, the same can be subject to reasonable restrictions, which are found necessary in the general public interest. However, the question that requires to be answered is as to whether the same can be done by executive instructions or not. 42. The question is directly answered by this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Ors. : (2006) 2 SCC 545 in paragraph 69, which reads thus: “69. The right to manage an institution is also a right to property. In view of a decision of an eleven-Judge Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] establishment and management of an educational institution has been held to be a part of fundamental right being a right of occupation as envisaged Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. A citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. The requirement of law for the purpose of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. Such a law, it is trite, must be one enacted by the legislature.” [Emphasis supplied] 43. It could thus be seen that this Court has categorically held that a citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. It has further been held that the requirement of law for the purpose of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. It has been held that such a law must be one enacted by the legislature. 48. It could thus be seen that the Constitution Bench holds that even an Executive cannot do something to infringe the rights of the citizens by an executive action, though the State Legislature has legislative competence to legislate on the subject. 55. It has been held that such a law must be one enacted by the legislature. 48. It could thus be seen that the Constitution Bench holds that even an Executive cannot do something to infringe the rights of the citizens by an executive action, though the State Legislature has legislative competence to legislate on the subject. 55. Since we have held that the Resolutions/communications dated 17th July 2019 and 9th September 2019 of the Central Council of the Appellant-PCI, which are in the nature of executive instructions, could not impose restrictions on the fundamental right to establish educational institutions Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, we do not find it necessary to consider the submissions advanced on other issues. We find that the Resolutions/communications dated 17th July 2019 and 9th September 2019 of the Central Council of the Appellant-PCI are liable to be struck down on this short ground. 56. Before parting, we may observe that there could indeed be a necessity to impose certain restrictions so as to prevent mushrooming growth of pharmacy colleges. Such restrictions may be in the larger general public interest. However, if that has to be done, it has to be done strictly in accordance with law. If and when such restrictions are imposed by an Authority competent to do so, the validity of the same can always be scrutinized on the touchstone of law. We, therefore, refrain from considering the rival submissions made on that behalf. 57. It is further to be noted that the applications seeking approval for D. Pharm and B. Pharm courses are required to be accompanied by a "No Objection Certificate" ("NOC") from the State Government and consent of affiliation from the affiliating bodies. While scrutinizing such applications, the Council can always take into consideration various factors before deciding to allow or reject such applications. Merely because an institution has a right to establish an educational institution does not mean that such an application has to be allowed. In a particular area, if there are more than sufficient number of institutions already existing, the Central Council can always take into consideration as to whether it is necessary or not to increase the number of institutions in such an area. However, a blanket prohibition on the establishment of pharmacy colleges cannot be imposed by an executive resolution.” 21. In a particular area, if there are more than sufficient number of institutions already existing, the Central Council can always take into consideration as to whether it is necessary or not to increase the number of institutions in such an area. However, a blanket prohibition on the establishment of pharmacy colleges cannot be imposed by an executive resolution.” 21. The issue in the present case is quite similar to the issue which was under consideration in the case of Pharmacy Council of India (supra) . What has been observed by Apex Court is that by executive instructions the fundamental right cannot be taken away. If at all any condition is to be introduced or imposed it has to be through appropriate legislation. In the present case too, the UOI by executive instruction seeks to introduce an eligibility criteria without amending the Regulations which are statutory in nature. That being so, the UOI could not have introduced new eligibility criteria for giving admission to BAMS, BHMS and M.D. (Hom.) course by introducing NEET/AIPGET qualification as mandatory requirement for taking admission. 22. So far as submission made by learned ASG with regard to the maintenance of standard of education is concerned, this Court agrees with the contention that the graduates of AYUSH courses would treat human beings thereby requiring maintenance of high standard and quality of education. However, simultaneously, it is pertinent to note that the students who have been admitted without qualifying NEET/AIPGET have pursued the same course as those candidates who qualified NEET/AIPGET and have graduated with the same degree as those who were admitted upon qualifying NEET/AIPGET. Thus, the factum of them studying the prescribed curriculum and obtaining the requisite degrees, cannot be denied. Hence, the argument raised by the learned ASG raising concern over quality of education of graduates without qualifying NEET, at this stage, is not tenable. 22.1 It is further noted that the petitioner-Colleges proceeded to admit students for the respective courses after interim orders were passed by this Court in respective writ petitions. True it is that the admissions remained subject to outcome of the writ petitions, however, much water has flown since then. 22.1 It is further noted that the petitioner-Colleges proceeded to admit students for the respective courses after interim orders were passed by this Court in respective writ petitions. True it is that the admissions remained subject to outcome of the writ petitions, however, much water has flown since then. Thus, for the said reason too, the contention of learned ASG does not hold good so also considering the fact, as mentioned in preceding paras, this Court is not delving into the validity of introduction of NEET criteria rather is only concerned with the mode through which the same has been introduced by the UOI vide the impugned communications. 23. So far as the order of the Apex Court, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, therein the result of the students was not declared and the same was ordered to be declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebtesham Khatoon (supra) vide order dated 12.02.2025. However, in the present case, the students were admitted after interim orders been passed by this Court and they obtained their degrees upon completion of their course. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the students have also indeed completed their mandatory internship post the graduation. Thus, the case of the students herein is at better footing than those present before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Be that as it may, herein the Court is only concerned with the impugned communications issued by the UOI addressed to all the State Authorities whereby it has been directed that only NEET/AIPGET qualified candidates be admitted in the respective courses. 24. Learned counsel appearing for UOI has, as noted in the preceding paras, not filed reply to the writ petition, thus, this Court has considered the oral submissions made during the course of arguments. While attempting to substantiate the competence of the UOI in issuing the impugned communications, the sole contention raised is that the UOI is competent to do so in order to maintain quality of doctors who would treat human beings. It has nowhere been reflected as to whether such authority is derived through any legislation or guidelines, interestingly, action is said to be justified being non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. It has nowhere been reflected as to whether such authority is derived through any legislation or guidelines, interestingly, action is said to be justified being non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory. 24.1 It is pertinent to note that amended regulations have been brought into force in the year 2019 which is after the academic year which is the bone of contention in the present matter. Meaning thereby, prior to 2019, attempt was made vide impugned communications to introduce NEET/AIPGET as a mandatory criteria. It is further noted that the amended regulations, as conceded by learned counsel for UOI, have been challenged and the issue is pending consideration before the Apex Court. Thus, it can be fairly inferred that UOI too realised the necessity to amend the regulations to enforce a pan India common entrance test. 24.2 This Court is of the opinion that the action of UOI in passing the impugned communications is without any legislative backing and through an executive / administrative order, it has tried to bring in a change in admissions process in wide arena of educational institutes without amending the relevant Regulations. It has been held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that executive action cannot override or introduce changes which are embodied in statutory legislation surpassing the procedure of amendment. A similar view has also been taken in the above- quoted judgment in the case of Pharmacy Council of India (supra). 25. Considering the precedent law discussed above so also the discussion made by the Patna High Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that the UOI had no jurisdiction and authority to have amended the eligibility criteria by introducing NEET/AIPGET qualification as mandatory requirement for the purpose of giving admission without amending the relevant regulation. 26. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned communications dated 23.01.2017, 26.04.2017, 12.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 14.05.2018, 05.06.2018, 11.06.2018 and 15.06.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH addressed to all the State Authorities intimating that admissions in AYUSH undergraduate courses are to be given based on the merit list of NEET only from the academic year 2018-2019 so also communication dated 21.09.2018 sent by Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH to all State Authorities whereby the qualification of AIPGET 2018 was mandated to participate in AYUSH PG Courses for the academic year 2018-2019, are quashed and set-aside qua the petitioners, with all consequential benefits to follow. 27. 27. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.