CWP No.10361 of 2009 #1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10361 of 2009 Date of Order: 15.7.2009 Association of Private Unaided Medical-Dental Colleges of Punjab ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J Challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is to clauses 7,8 & 9 of the Notification dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P.1) issued by the respondents-State of Punjab. According to the aforesaid clauses, the eligibility and procedure for admission to private un-aided institutions has been regulated. According to clause 7.4 (c), the management quota seats are to be filled up by the Admissions Committee headed by the Principal of the Institute and comprising of one representative each of the Government and the University. The admissions are to be made strictly on the basis of merit in CWP No.10361 of 2009 #2 PMET of the corresponding year. According to Sub Clause (f) of Clause 7.4 of the Notification, the Private Institutions are required to give wide publicity in three leading newspapers one each in English, Hindi and Punjabi before filling up seats and the candidates are required to be given at least 14 days time to apply. The applications are to be received by the Institutions directly and there is prohibition to deny the admission forms to the candidates. In Sub Clause (g) of Clause 7.4, it has further been provided that forms of Management Quota seats are required to be made available on the website of the University enabling the candidates to download the same to apply for the said quota by paying requisite fee in the form of demand draft payable in the name of the Institute, which should reach the Institute by the last date and time fixed. In Sub Clause (B) of Clause 8 of the Notification, Selection Committee for B.D.S Courses has been constituted, which comprises of Senior most Principal of Govt Dental Colleges to be the Chairman, Representative of Baba Farid University not below the rank of Deputy Registrar (Member), Representative of Welfare Department (Member) and Principal of the concerned Institutes (Member). As per clause 9, fee of three of the private unaided institutes has been determined in the Notification dated 3.8.2007. Fee for the Government Quota is Rs.63,250/- in Dental Institutes and for the Management Quota, fee is Rs.2,30,000/-. Separate fee structure has been provided for NRI seats in U.S dollars. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid provisions should be declared illegal because these provisions are against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355. He while placing CWP No.10361 of 2009 #3 reliance on para Nos.53,54 & 55 of the judgment has argued that these clauses run counter to the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court made in the aforesaid paras. He has also submitted that the principles governing admission and its regulation by the State have further been elaborated by another Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled as P.A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537. In that regard, learned counsel while placing reliance on para Nos.132 to 141 has further argued that the government fee of Rs.63,250/- in respect of 50% of government quota is too low whereas in respect of 50% seats for the Management Quota, fee fixed is Rs.2,30,000/-. According to learned counsel, 50% seats allocated to the Government Quota are filled up whereas a number of seats belonging to 50% Management Quota remain vacant on account of lower fees fixed by the Government for its quota. He has emphasized that in the neighboring State of Haryana, fee structure is different. There same fee is charged for Government quota as well as for Management Quota. According to learned counsel, in the State of Punjab, the fee structure is also required to be similar to the one as prevailing in the neighboring state. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the submissions made by him cannot be accepted. Firstly, nothing flows from the various clauses 7,8 & 9 of the impugned notification, which may be regarded as violative of any observations made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in TMA Pai's case (supra) and P.A Inamdar's case (supra). Therefore, we do not feel persuaded to accept the contention that clauses 7,8 & 9 of the Notification dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P.1) suffers from any illegality CWP No.10361 of 2009 #4 warranting interference of this Court. In so far as the argument with regard to fee structure is concerned, we are again unable to accept the contention. As per his own submission, the fee structure Committee, Punjab has already submitted its report which is pending consideration with State of Punjab. The petitioner should have pursued the remedy with government. The prayer in that regard is totally pre-mature. The fee structure to be devised by the Government has to be in the direction of excellence of education. It is a primary consideration pervading through the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in TMA Pai's case (supra) and P.A Inamdar's case (supra). Moreover, the present petition has been filed by the Association of Private Unaided Medical Dental Colleges of Punjab through its working President Dr. Vikram Sharma. No detail particulars of any of the members or its registration with any of the statutory society has been pointed out. We are not sure whether the petitioner would have locus standi to challenge any of the Notification of the Government particularly when the factual matrix is completely missing. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE July 15, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE