IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.24158 of 2010 and 23216 to 23218 of 2010 and connected MPs. S.Anagha ..Petitioner in W.P.No.24158/2010 A.V.Arun Seshadri ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23216/2010 S.Karthigaiyan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23217/2010 V.Hari ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23218/2010 Vs. 1.Government of Pondicherry rep. by its Secretary, Pondicherry 2.Director of Medical Services Government of Pondicherry 3.Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) rep. by its Pondicherry Engineering College Campus, Puducherry-605 014 ..Respondents in W.P.No.24158/2010 4.The Chairman/Convenor Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) Pondicherry Engineering College Campus Puducherry-605 014 5.The Dean, Vinayaka Mission's Medical College, Karaikal ..Respondents in W.P.No.23216 to 23218/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.24158/2010: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to allot a seat to the petitioner either in the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry or the Government Medical College, Kozhikode. Prayer in W.P.23216 to 23218 /2010: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to give effect to the merit selection of the first respondent's provisionally selecting/alloting in favour of the petitioner for undergoing the first year M.B.B.S., course offered by it for the academic year 2010-2011 by accepting the prescribed fee and to allow the petitioner to continue and complete his MBBS course. For Petitioner in W.P.No.24158/2010 :: Ms.Asha for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates. For petitioner in W.P.23216 to 23218/2010 :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar For respondents :: in W.P.24158/2010 for R1 to R3 :: Mr.E.Vijay Anand For respondents in W.P.23216 to 23218/2010 for R1 :: Mr.E.Vijay Anand for R2 :: Mr.Vijay Narayan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.V.Subramaniam C O M M O N O R D E R These four writ petitions were filed by four different candidates who were aspirants for medical college seats for the year 2010-2011. The petitioners though were selected by the Admission Committee, they could not be admitted to the Colleges as the cut off date viz., 30.09.2010 had come in their way. Therefore, the petitioners have moved this court. 2. In the first writ petition, the petitioner had sought for a direction to allot her seat either in the Indira Gandhi Medical College or the Government Medical College at Kozhikode. The case of the petitioner was that in "The Hindu" Newspaper dated 30.09.2010, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ she saw a news item. After seeing the news item, she appeared before the Centralized Selection Committee to consider her claim for vacancy in the Government Medical college. During the counselling, she was allotted a seat in Aarupadai Veedu Medical College and Hospital under the General Quota though she belonged to O.B.C., category. By the allotment letter dated 30.09.2010, she was directed to report to the Office of the College on the very same day and she rushed to the said college. The college was closed on account of certain judgments pronouncement by the Allahabad Full Bench relating to the disputed site in Ayodhya. In view of the closure of the college in the afternoon of 30.09.2010, she again went to the college on 01.10.2010 and requested for her admission. Though, there was instruction to admit students on 01.10.2010, the college did not admit her stating that admissions were closed on 30.09.2010. 3. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner had not made the said college a party in the writ petition. In the absence of the same, the contentions raised by the petitioner that there was oral direction to admit students cannot be verified. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled to get admission even after the cut off date viz., 30.09.2010. 4. The other three writ petitioners who were candidates for medical seat were also allotted seats in Vinayaka Mission Medical College, Karaikal. The contentions raised in those three writ petitions were more or less identical to the first writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they were given allotment letters by the Centralized Admission committee but on 30.09.2010, the colleges were closed on apprehending trouble in the wake of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Allahabad Full Bench. The next day, they were not admitted to join the college. The Centralized Admission Committee also sent a letter to the College stating that their provisional admission can be done on 30.09.2010 and fees can be collected later. But, the colleges were not ready to comply with the said direction. Representations in this regard were sent to CENTAC. The College was not willing to admit them by quoting a MCA directive regarding prohibition of admission beyond the cut off date. 5. On notice from this Court, Vinayaka Mission Medical College has filed a counter affidavit in respect of the three writ petitions. In that counter affidavit dated 25.10.2010, it was averred that these four candidates did not turn up with fees as on 30.09.2010. Hence the question of collecting the fees subsequent to 30.09.2010 will not arise. The college was not at all closed on account of any trouble outside the campus. The pleadings in this regard were contrary to the facts. The admissions were sought after 30.09.2010 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ telegram received from the Collector of Puducherry, was issued after 30.09.2010. Hence, in response to the same, the College had expressed its inability to admit students thereby violating the MCA directives. 6. Though the case pleaded by the petitioners may require sympathetic consideration, but this court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner in the context of series of judgments of the supreme court rendered in this regard. At an earlier point of time, the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India had granted directions to admit such unfortunate candidates. But in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, (which are squarely on the point) there is no scope for any court to shift the cut off date on account of particular personal predilections or situations which were beyond the control. 7. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh reported in 2002 7 SCC 258 that all admissions should be over by 30.09.2009. 8. The Supreme Court, vide its judgment in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla (1994) 1 SCC 175, forewarned the High Courts from giving any directions for creating additional seats which would amount to violating relevant provisions of the Act under which such colleges are functioning. 9. The Supreme Court in MCI v. G.Udhaya Bharathi in Civil Appeal No.4051/2004, the Supreme Court though approved a direction given to admit the student on the subsequent academic year, which view was followed in the subsequent judgment in Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and others ((2005) 12 SCC 626), Harshali D/o Sudamrao Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2005) 13 SCC 464), Al- Karim Educational Trust and another v. Medical Council of India and others (2005) 13 SCC 466, Vijay Jaimini v. Medical Council of India and others (2005) 13 SCC 461, those directions were not any more followed in the subsequent judgment in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65. After prescribing the Time Schedule, it was held that there should not be midstream admissions in excess of the sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota for anyone, whether State or Management. In carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year was also not permissible. 10. In the light of the above legal precedents, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ if the petitioners were able to prove that there was deliberate denial of seats by the colleges concerned, they can always claim damages by filing appropriate petitions before the appropriate forum. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nvsri To 1.The Secretary, Government of Pondicherry Pondicherry 2.Director of Medical Services Government of Pondicherry 3.Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) rep. by its Pondicherry Engineering College Campus, Puducherry-605 014 4.The Chairman/Convenor Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) Pondicherry Engineering College Campus Puducherry-605 014 1 cc To M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, SR.19502 3 ccs To Mr.C.V.Subramnanian, Advocate, SR.19633 1 cc To Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR.19375 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.19583,19582,19504, 19585 W.P.Nos.24158 of 2010 and 23216 to 23218 of 2010 and connected MPs. SR (CO) RH (16.4.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/