ORDER : 1. This Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 had issued notice to the respondents and looking to the urgency, permitted the petitioners to supply the additional copy to learned counsel regularly appearing for the respondents. The matter was fixed for today, as it was stated that the allocation of seats in the stray vacancy round of counselling was scheduled uptill 28.11.2025. 2. Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel puts in appearance for respondent no.2, who is the main contesting party in the case in hand and prays for some time to file reply. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleads urgency considering the fact that the petition would be rendered infructuous in case the students, as prayed for are not allowed to pursue the course as the counselling for the stray vacancy round is to be scheduled uptill 28.11.2025. 4. Heard the matter on merit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioner-institution was issued the NOC by the State Government vide order dated 15.06.2009 for intake of 50 students for BAMS course. He further refers to the affiliation issued by the Rajasthan Ayurvedic University on 30.05.2009, which was initially for 40 seats, however, subsequently, the same was extended to 50 seats. He further asserts that they had submitted an application for enhancement of seats way back in the year 2016 by way of correspondence dated 06.07.2016, however, nothing was done and therefore S.B. Civil Writ No. 14369/2016 (Gandhi Udhyog Shikshak Prashikhan Sansthan Samiti v. State & Ors.) was filed, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2016, while directing the respondents to take a decision upon the application of present petitioners for enhancement of seats for BAMS course from 50 seats to 60 seats. He further submits that post inspection, as per the then existing regulations of year 2016, and as per the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, the conditional permission was granted to the petitioner-institution by the respondent-National Commission for Indian System of Medicine on 21.12.2022 for undertaking the course in question with an annual intake of 50 seats as per Section 28 of the Act of 2020. 6. 6. He further asserts that since the issue with regard to NOC was not being decided, the institution was again constraint to file S.B. Writ Petition No. 14234/2024 (Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Ayurvedic College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors.) which came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.02.2025, while directing the respondent-State Government to decide the case of grant of NOC preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Further, respondent nos.1 to 3 were also directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Criminal Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Undergraduate Ayruveda College and attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulations of 2024. He further submits that post direction issued by this Court, finally the NOC was granted by the State Government vide order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure-15) increasing intake capacity from 50 students to 60 students for the BAMS course. He further asserts that thereafter, an application was submitted before the respondent-University and the respondent-University has also granted the affiliation for the enhanced seats vide order dated 17.10.2025. 7. It has been averred that after getting the NOC as well as the affiliation, an application was submitted before the respondent- Commission for issuance of sanction for taking part in the ongoing counselling, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2025, while asserting that the application was submitted on 01.11.2025 and at that time the process of admission for academic session 2025-26 had been concluded, the application was thus returned to the petitoner-institution in original. 8. He further refers to an inspection report dated 10.07.2025 issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, while emphasizing that post inspection being undertaken as per the Regulation of 2024, the petitioner-institution has been permitted to undertake the course in question for the session 2025/26 with 50 seats. He further refers to the correspondence dated 13.11.2025 issued by the Commission, wherein an advertisement has been issued emphasizing that the counselling for the stray vacancy round shall be undertaken for UG course from 06.11.2025 till 28.11.2025. He thus asserts that the process has not been completed and the councelling process is going on. 9. He further refers to the correspondence dated 13.11.2025 issued by the Commission, wherein an advertisement has been issued emphasizing that the counselling for the stray vacancy round shall be undertaken for UG course from 06.11.2025 till 28.11.2025. He thus asserts that the process has not been completed and the councelling process is going on. 9. Learned counsel further asserts that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners in the delay undertaken by the State Government in issuance of the NOC, as in spite of repeated directions issued, the NOC was not issued. He further submits that as far as the regulations of 2024 is concerned, the minimum seats required for any institution is 60 and not 50 and the enhanced number of seats are 60, 100, 150 etc. He thus asserts that for grant of permission as per Section 29 of the Act of 2020, the minimum criteria is 60 seats and there is no separate criteria for determining the requirement of 50 seats. He thus asserts that if an institution is granted permission for undertaking 50 seats, then the necessary criteria has to be treated as equivalent to 60 seats. He further asserts that the only reason communicated was that the admission process has come to an end whereas, as per the correspondence dated 13.11.2025, the admission process is still in vogue and since the institution is having all the requisite infrastructure, NOC, the permission etc., the institution should not be deprived of taking 10 additional students for the session 2025/26 for the BAMS course. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents emphasizes that the admission process has started long back and the last date for submitting of the application was 18.08.2025 and thereafter there was no extension granted for filing of the application. He further submits that against the order impugned, the petitioners are having an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Sections 9 (vi) and 29 of the Act of 2020. He further submits that there is no permission under Section 29 for enhancement of seats as of now and, therefore, the petitioner-institution cannot be permitted to take part in the counselling. He also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine & Anr. v. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital & Ors. He also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine & Anr. v. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. SLP (c) No. 22691/2024 to emphasize that interim orders provisionally permiting any institution in ongoing counselling should not be passed. He also relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in P.C. Kesavan Kuttynayar v. Harish Bhalla & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 490 to emphasize that interim orders cannot be passed on compassionate grounds. 11. I have considered the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. So far as the judgment in National Commission (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to allotting of students to an institution not having the requisite NOC and by way of interim order, NOC for students was provisionally issued by the High Court concerned and, therefore, the facts of the case are entirely different and the same are not applicable in the case in hand as in the present case NOC as well as affiliation have already been issued in the favour of the petitioner-institution. So far as the judgment in the case of P.C. Kesavan (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to passing of interim orders of enhancement of seats on compassionate grounds, which too, is not applicable in the case in hand as the requisite NOC and the affiliation are already available to the petitioner institution and the rejection is simply on the ground of counselling process coming to an end. 12. As far as the ground of alternative remedy is concerned, the counsel for the respondent has not been able to show that the same is an efficacious remedy, as also he has been unable to point out any provision wherein the appellate authority can grant interim orders as prayed for by the petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, the availability of an alternative remedy cannot be an embargo on entertaining the writ petition in question, when the only issue to be adjudicated is as to whether, in spite of holding of stray vacancy round, the petitioner can be denied participation in the same only on the ground of delay on the part of the State Government in issuing the NOC. 13. 13. Having considered the arguments raised by both the sides as well as the record of the case, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner-institution is having the entire requisite for undertaking the course in question with an intake of 60 seats (the minimum intake as provided under the Regulations of 2024) as also considering the fact that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner-institution in non-grant of the NOC by the State Government, and since the requisite NOC has now been granted by the State Government and the affiliation for the enhancement of seats also has been issued by the University in question, the petitioner-institution cannot be denied the grant of additional 10 students as the counselling process is still going on. Though the last date for submission of the application was 18.08.2025 as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, however, since it is a case of enhancement of seats and not a case of application being filed by a new institution and, more particularly, when the counselling process is still going on, there is no justification to deny the petitioner the benefit of getting the additional seats in the stray counselling round as the counselling is being held for stray vacancy round on 28.11.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent-Commission as well as Counselling Board to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling for the stray vacancy rounds and allot the students while treating the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution as 60 seats. 14. List the matter after four weeks. Reply be filed till then.