Point of Law; Prescribing a minimum percentile for admission to the Under Graduate Courses for the year 2019-2020 was vehemently defended by the Central Council and the Union of India by submitting that the minimum standards cannot be lowered even for the AYUSH Courses. We agree. Doctors who are qualified in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy streams also treat patients and the lack of minimum standards of education would result in halfbaked doctors being turned out of professional Colleges. Non-availability of eligible candidates for admission to AYUSH Under Graduate Courses cannot be reason to lower the standards prescribes by the Central Council for admission. However, in view of the admission of a large number of students to the AYUSH under-graduate Courses for the year 2019-2020 on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, we direct that the students may be permitted to continue provided that they were admitted prior to the last date of admission i.e. 15th October, 2019. The said direction is also applicable to students admitted to Post-Graduate Courses before 31st October, 2019. This is one-time exercise which is permitted in view of the peculiar circumstances. Therefore, this order shall not be treated as a precedent

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein, by way of this petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus to declare the communications dated 24-25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020 as bad, illegal, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

*The petitioner, a student, appeared for his Higher Secondary Education Examination in the month of March, 2019 and secured 43.90 percentile marks. Since he intended to prosecute further studies in the field of Ayurveda Medicine, the petitioner appeared for NEET in 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 216 out of 720 marks. The case of the petitioner is that he secured admission in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) on the All India Quota of 15% of the seats. The petitioner was called for counseling on 3.7.2019 and the respondent No. 2 College was the College allotted to the petitioner as per his own choice. According to All India Quota ranking, an admission letter was issued on 11.7.2019 and accordingly the petitioner had paid his fees. The case of the petitioner is that he is in the College for the last 10 months.

*On 25.2.2020, the respondent No.1 – Gujarat Ayurveda University issued a communication to the respondent No.2 College informing the College that the petitioner is not qualified to be enrolled in the BAMS Course. The remark in the communication indicated that petitioner had secured 214 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology(PCB). Subsequent communication dated 14.3.2020 was addressed to the petitioner that he must collect his fees as his admission has been cancelled by the University. This has given rise to the present petition.

3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Nisarg Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner would submit as under:

*According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had secured 69.77 percentile in NEET. He was allotted the respondent College on 3.7.2019. He paid the fees as he had applied on All India Quota of 15%. The admission to the All India Quota is regulated through Central Admission Process. By the impugned communication of 25.2.2020, which was not served on the petitioner, his admission stands cancelled. It was only on 14.3.2020 that the College informed the petitioner. He invited the Court's attention to a communication dated 25.2.2020 and 14.3.2020 to submit that the communications are bad.

4. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court to the required parameters which have to be considered for admission against the All India Quota. Inviting the attention of the Court to the FAQs, he would submit that the counseling was to be done by AYUSH Admissions Central Counseling Committee (AACCC) for minimum 15% All India Quota Seats. The eligibility was on the basis of NEET score. The petitioner had produced the downloaded result of the NEET.

*Mr.Dave would also invite the attention to question 1.20 and submit that as far as the documents required at the time of online counseling is concerned, the question indicated that no documents were required for participating in online allotment process.

* Mr.Dave would submit that it was only through the affidavit-in-reply that it has come forth as stated by the University that the admission given by the College to the petitioner for the year 2019-20 was in violation of provisions of the Gujarat Provisional Medical Education Courses (Regulations of Admission in Under Graduate Courses) Rules, 2017.

* Mr. Dave invited the attention of the Court to the Rules and would submit that the case of the University was that the petitioner had secured less than 50% in HSC. The Rules of 2017 would apply only for Government and Management Seats. The admission to the All India Quota was not governed by the 2017 Rules.

5. Inviting the attention of the Court on the rejoinder filed, Mr.Dave would submit that the petitioner had applied in the All India Quota of NEET for which the Government had allotted 15% of the