Case: State Of Maharashtra  Vs. Dr. D Y Patil Vidyapeeth

General appearing for the Union of India, that the aforesaid reasons given by the High Court in coming to its prima facie conclusion were patently erroneous. On the other hand, Mr. P. Chidambaran and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel, and other learned counsel appearing in the matters, supported the impugned order and also advanced arguments to the effect that the present case had to be tested having regard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Act XXVIII of 2015 which excluded deemed universities.8) We are not reproducing the submissions of counsel for both sides in detail as these questions of law are to be determined by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. We, therefore, do not want to make any comments on the arguments raised by both sides so as not to influence the decision making process of the High Court. However, few comments are required to be made at this stage, which are as follows:(i) Insofar as judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre case is concerned, it does not help the respondent universities at all. On the contrary, it is held by this Court in the said case that the process of admission encompasses not only Centralised Entrance Test (CET), but counselling as well. This is made abundantly clear by the Constitution Bench in its recent order dated September 22, 2016 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey & Ors. (Contempt Petition (C) No. 584 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009) It is amazing that it is the respondents which had taken shelter under the aforesaid judgment in Modern Dental College and Research Centre case, before us this argument was abandoned and the respondents tried to distinguish this judgment, whereas the appellants heavily relied upon the said judgment.The question, however, is as to whether the said judgment is applicable to the deemed universities having regard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Act XXVIII of 2015, which aspect has to be decided by the High Court.(ii) Reliance upon the order dated August 26, 2016 passed by the Kerala High Court is also misconceived as the order passed pertained to private unaided medical institutions and not deemed universities. Since special leave petitions are preferred by the Union of India against the aforementioned order passed by the Kerala High Court, which are yet to be heard, we refrain ourselves from making any further comments.9) We are, however, confronted by a different situation altogether. The central issue highlighted above needs to be considered by the High Court. In the meantime, pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the High Court, the respondent universities, which had invited the successful students from the Merit List drawn on the basis of NEET to register for admission in their respective universities, went ahead with the counselling of those students who applied for admissions to them and a statement was also made at the Bar that even admissions have also been done on the basis of first counselling. So much so, classes have started and those admitted students are attending the course. We were informed that second and further counselling would be needed as many such students admitted in particular courses change their discipline of study and/or get admission in other medical institutions, thereby resulting into vacating the seats occupied by them. Last date for admission in MBBS/BDS courses is September 30, 2016. It was also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that admission was done strictly in accordance with the merit of the successful candidates of NEET who had applied in their respective universities.10) On the other hand, Mr. Diwan had made valiant effort to demonstrate that had there been a centralised counselling, many students who are higher in Merit could have got admission and they are deprived of their admission. It was pointed out that approximately 15,000 students had registered themselves with the State Government for taking admissions in the deemed universities of the State of Maharashtra on the understanding that the State would be conducting the counselling. A chart was submitted to show that had the list been prepared in respect of such students, the scenario would have been totally different in contrast with the admissions given by the respondents. In nutshell, it was contended that admission was given to many students whose ranking is much below in the Merit List and, therefore, admissions given by the deemed universities do not meet the triple test of Fair, Transparent and Non-exploitative. The respondents, on the other hand, countered the aforesaid argument by contending that the list which was prepared by the State Government in respect of the candidates who had registered with them was on the basis of applications received and it may not reflect the desire of such students to take admission in the respondent institutions. It was argued that the fee structure of the respondent universities was much higher than the Government colleges and even private unaided medical institutions and, therefore, those students who are not able to afford the fee may not be serious in getting admissions in their institutions. It was submitted that many of those students who got themselves registered with the State Government may have taken admission in Government colleges and other educational institutions not only of the State of Maharashtra but other such medical institutions spread throughout the country. In nutshell, their submission was that the exercise done by the appellants did not filter the aforesaid factors.11) This Court is conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the interim order passed by the High Court and the effect of the stay order given is that the respondent universities are permitted to do the counselling and admit the students. Having considered the respective submissions, our endeavour is to bring about an equitable solution in the context of the respondents, who are deemed universities and also keeping in mind the developments which have ensued.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8) We are not reproducing the submissions of counsel for both sides in detail as these questions of law are to be determined by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. We, therefore, do not want to make any comments on the arguments raised by both sides so as not to influence the decision making process of the High Court. However, few comments are required to be made at this stage, which are as follows:(i) Insofar as judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre case is concerned, it does not help the respondent universities at all. On the contrary, it is held by this Court in the said case that the process of admission encompasses not only Centralised Entrance Test (CET), but counselling as well. This is made abundantly clear by the Constitution Bench in its recent order dated September 22, 2016 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan ChoukseyOrs. (Contempt Petition (C) No. 584 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009) It is amazing that it is the respondents which had taken shelter under the aforesaid judgment in Modern Dental College and Research Centre case, before us this argument was abandoned and the respondents tried to distinguish this judgment, whereas the appellants heavily relied upon the saidReliance upon the order dated August 26, 2016 passed by the Kerala High Court is also misconceived as the order passed pertained to private unaided medical institutions and not deemed universities. Since special leave petitions are preferred by the Union of India against the aforementioned order passed by the Kerala High Court, which are yet to be heard, we refrain ourselves from making any further comments.9) We are, however, confronted by a different situation altogether. The central issue highlighted above needs to be considered by the High Court. In the meantime, pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the High Court, the respondent universities, which had invited the successful students from the Merit List drawn on the basis of NEET to register for admission in their respective universities, went ahead with the counselling of those students who applied for admissions to them and a statement was also made at the Bar that even admissions have also been done on the basis of first counselling. So much so, classes have started and those admitted students are attending the course. We were informed that second and further counselling would be needed as many such students admitted in particular courses change their discipline of study and/or get admission in other medical institutions, thereby resulting into vacating the seats occupied by them. Last date for admission in MBBS/BDS courses is September 30, 2016. It was also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that admission was done strictly in accordance with the merit of the successful candidates of NEET who had applied in their respectiveThis Court is conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the interim order passed by the High Court and the effect of the stay order given is that the respondent universities are permitted to do the counselling and admit the students. Having considered the respective submissions, our endeavour is to bring about an equitable solution in the context of the respondents, who are deemed universities and also keeping in mind the developments which have ensued.