IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.11.2009. M/s Sudha Rustogi College of Dental Sciences & Research. --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is a dental college, established under the Dental Colleges of India Act, imparting BDS course. The petitioner was granted recognition/permission by the Govt. of India to commence the course with 100 students for the Academic Session, 2003-04. The admissions were to be completed before 30.9.2003 as per the guidelines of Govt. of India in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhu Singh Vs. M.C.I reported as 2002 (7) SCC 258. The respondent no.4-university also granted affiliation to the college for the aforesaid session for the sanctioned intake capacity of 100 students. Since the petitioner was a college established in private sector, 50 seats out of 100 were to be proided by the respondent no.4-university on the basis of the counselling and merit in PMET, whereas 50 seats were to be filled up by the petitioner under the management quota through the Admission Committee, constituted for the purpose. Respondent no.4 held 1st counselling on 3.7.2003, however, at the relevant time the petitioner had no permission from the Govt. of India nor affiliation from the respondent no.4-university and thus no student could be allocated in the said counselling. However, by the time 2nd counselling was CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -2- to take place on 30.9.2003 the petitioner had the requisite permission and the affiliation. Based upon the permission/affiliation, 50 students were allotted to the petitioner by the respondent no.4-university on the basis of centralized counselling. The college also conducted counselling for remaining 50 seats to be filled up against the management quota and admissions in all the 50 seats of management quota were made on 30.9.2003 itself. It so happened that out of the 50 candidates allocated by the respondent no.4-university against the Govt./university quota only 42 students joined and deposited their fee within the prescribed time and 8 seats remained vacant. The petitioner-college admitted students against these 8 vacant seats at its own level. After making admissions against the 8 unfilled vacancies of Govt./university quota the petitioner vide its communication dated 30.10.2003 informed the university. It is stated that the petitioner received a FAX on 11.11.2003 from the respondent-Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak to attend counselling on 13.11.2003 at PGIMS, Rohtak for filling up of vacant seats of MBBS/BDS courses for the session 2003. Similar communications were addressed to some other colleges as well. They were required to produce the record of the students admitted both against the State and management quota. The petitioner vide its communication of the same date informed the respondent no.4-university that no seat is available in management or Govt. quota same having been filled up on 30.9.2003 in which information is already sent vide letter dated 30.10.2003. It was however, communicated that the representative of the petitioner will attend the counselling on the specified date. It so happened that 7 students were selected for admission to the petitioner-college by Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak as communicated to the petitioner vide letter CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -3- dated 14.11.2003. The petitioner, however did not offer admission to these students, who were allocated to it on the basis of the counselling held on 13.11.2003. On the refusal of the petitioner, to offer admission, the university informed the petitioner-college vide its FAX dated 15.11.2003 to admit the students failing which strict action will be taken. As is evident from Annexure P-11, it appears that fearing action at the ends of the university, the petitioner decided to provisionally admit the students and they were given provisional admission on 18.11.2003 and sent an intimation to the Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak. Since only 6 students reported, admissions were granted to 6 students. It is alleged by the petitioner that after seeking advice the petitioner cancelled the admission of 6 students, who were provisionally admitted at the instance of PGIMS, Rohtak and referred them back to the university by returning their fee and documents etc. The students, whose admission was cancelled by the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.2003 filed CWP No. 19605 of 2003 in this Court, challenging the order of cancellation of their admission. This Court vide its order dted 17.2.2004 passed the following interim order:- “ Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As a purely interim measure and without affecting the rights of the parties, we direct respondent no.3 to allow the petitioners to prosecute studies in BDS Course on a purely provisional basis.” All the students admitted by the petitioner and those who were admitted through the Court order continued their studies and on the strength of various interim orders appeared in the examinations and completed the course. The aforesaid writ petition was taken up for consideration on CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -4- 9.7.2009. During the course of hearing, respondent no.2 Dental Council of India through C.M. Application No.12325 of 2005 placed on record minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee of respondent no.2, held on 7.7.2009, whereby the petitioner has been asked to surrender seats from the management quota to the Govt. of Haryana/university during the next Academic Session 2010-2011 to the extent of excess admissions made by over and above the permitted intake capacity during the session 2003-04. Copy of these minutes is placed on record as Annexure P-13, which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while challenging the aforesaid order has justified the admissions by the college at its own level against the Govt./university quota of unfilled seats by taking refuge under the clauses 4 and 7 of Chapter VIII of the prospectus, issued by the respondent no.4-university. The relevant clauses are reproduced hereunder:- “ 4. As desired by the Medical Council of India in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the admission in all the institutions will be completed on 30th September of the year of the admission. xxx xxx xxx 7. Seats under Management quota, percentage of which will be notified later on, unfilled seats through two rounds of counselling and drop out vacancies shall be filled up by the management of individual institutions at their own level by adopting merits system amongst the applicants to the institutions.” CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -5- Interpreting aforesaid stipulations in the prospectus, it is argued that every institution is bound to complete the process of admission by 30th of September every year and no admission is permissible thereafter. The last counselling was held by the university on the 30th of September itself and since the 8 students, allocated to the petitioner did not join, it was open and justified for the petitioner-college to fill up those unfilled vacancies in view of the clause 7 of the prospectus, quoted herein above. While referring to clause 7 it is argued that under this clause unfilled and drop out vacancies can be filled up by the management of the institutes at their own level. I have carefully examined the aforesaid two clauses of the prospectus. Clause 4 only deals with the cut off date for making admissions to the course in question and nothing beyond that. Clause 7 deals with the seats under management quota and a reference to unfilled and dropped out vacancies in this clause is only to the seats under management quota and not to the unfilled/drop out vacancies of the State/university quota. The significant words/expressions used in this clause are “ seats under management quota” and “by adopting merit system amongst the applicants to the Institutions.”. Since the clause has reference only to the management quota, nothing more can be read into it. The last expression used in the clause relates to merit system amongst the applicants to the institutions means only out of the applicants, who had applied directly to the institution. It is admitted factual and legal position that in so far as the State/university quota is concerned, the concerned college-institute has no authority or right to invite applications and the applications are invited by the university through its advertisement/prospectus and admissions are based on centralized counselling. The institution is entitled to invite applications CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -6- only in respect to the management quota and thus to argue that the clause 7 envisage unfilled/drop out vacancies out of State/university quota as well is totally out of context and such argument cannot be accepted. Mr. Patwalia has further argued on the basis of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Singh Vs. M.C.I reported as 2002 (7) SCC 258. In the aforesaid judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court issued following directions:- “ 23. There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. In conclusion. (i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education. (ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions. (iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year; (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission; (v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counselling and the like have to be completed within the specified time; (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed; (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by the MCI.” CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -7- These directions in no way even remotely suggest that the college or the institution is entitled to fill up the unfilled/drop out vacancies at its own level relating to the Govt./university quota. There is not even a whisper about this aspect in this judgement, rather the judgement suggests that if, there is any deviation by the institution concerned, action can be taken against it. Having failed to convass his point of view, Mr. Patwalia has further placed reliance upon a subsequent judgement in Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India, 2005 (1) SCT. Relevant extract dealing with the issue is quoted hereunder:- “The time schedule for completion of the admission process for medical and dental courses is as under:- Schedule for admission. First MBBS/BDS Course Postgraduate Courses Super Speciality Course Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in 2nd round of counselling or from the waiting list Commenceme nt of academic session: Last date upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason: All India quota 22nd August (seats vacant after this date will be surrendered back to the states/colleges. Between 01 st August to 31 st August. 30th September State quota 30th August. All India Quota State Quota After 7th April, vacant seats will stand surrende red back to the states/col leges. 2nd May 31st may Not Applicable. Not Applicable. 1st August 30th September CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -8- From the perusal of para 9 of the aforesaid judgement it is abundantly clear that the time schedule mentioned in this para relates to admissions for MBBS and BDS courses. The stipulation in column 2 of the schedule which deals with the vacant seats provides that after 22nd/30th August, vacant seats will stand surrendered back to the State/colleges. It is accordingly argued that after last date for admissions, the vacant seats are to be filled in by college. This argument is totally misplaced and fallacious. In the aforesaid schedule the cut off date for counselling is 22nd/30th August whereas for admission to MBBS/BDS the cut off date is 30th of September. The schedule specifically mentions that after the cut off date vacant seats will stand surrendered back to the State/college which means to the respective source of the quota. In case of the Govt. quota the vacant seat will revert back to the State and in case of management quota to the management. All vacant seats do not fall in the lap of management as is sought to be argued. This judgement in no way can come to the rescue of the petitioner, rather it establishes the stand of the respondents. It is also relevant to note that the action taken by the respondents is pursuant to the directions issued in the aforesaid judgement. Besides providing the procedure and fixing the time schedule for declaration of result at 10+2 level to making of admissions at various levels. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued following directions:- “ 11. If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year.” CWP. No. 14275 of 2009 -9- The respondent has taken action under the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further contended by Mr. Patwalia that set off for excess admissions could only be in next academic session and not after lapse of four to five years. In this regard it may be noted that the students forwarded by university and initially admitted by college and later ousted filed CWP No. 19605 of 2003 in this Court. This petition is pending till 2009. Hence, there is no delay in initiating action. For the above reasons, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity legal or factual. No interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.11.2009 lucky Whether to be reported to the Reporters? Yes.