ORDER
Somasundaram, J.
1. These writ petitions are filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to allot seats for the petitioners for the first year M.B.B.S., Course for the academic year 1991-92 in pursuance to the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 dated 29.10.1991. As the point involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the respondents are referred to in this order as per their nomenclature given in W.P. No. 4048 of 1992.
2. To understand the point involved in these writ petitions, it is sufficient if we notice the facts averred in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 4048 of 1992, which are to the following effect; The petitioners are aspirants for admission to the first year M.B.B.S., Course of study of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for the academic year 1991-92. They all studied higher secondary courses (plus two courses). In G.O.Ms. No. 381, Education, dated 20.2.1980 read with G.L. No. 63484/1V/80-2, Education, dated 30.12.1980, the Government issued orders that private candidates appearing for higher secondary examination should not be allowed to re-appear in the subjects which they have already passed. Subsequently, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1457, Education Department, dated 7.10.1989 directed that the candidates who studied higher secondary courses be allowed to improve the if performance in the subjects in which they have passed in the higher secondary courses examination two times and the higher marks obtained in each subject will be the qualifying mark in the higher secondary course. The petitioners appeared for regular appearance of the higher secondary course examination in March, 1990 and on the basis of G.O. No. 1457, dated 7.10.1989, they also appeared in September, 1991. and in March, 1992. When the applications were called for the year 1991-92 Entrance Examinations for Medicine, the petitioners applied on the basis of the higher marks obtained after the two improvement examinations taken by, them. The prospectus for the admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B. Pharm Courses, issued by the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu for 1991-92 stated that the improvement marks obtained in the first appearance only in the qualifying examination will be considered for selection. The prospectus referred above was issued by the Government Medical College in Tamil Nadu on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 811, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 3.6.1991, staling that only the first improvement mark will be taken into consideration for medical selection. In those circumstances, the petitioners and other filed W.P.No. 9489 of 1991 etc., batch challenging G.d.Ms. No. 811, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 3.6.1991. The above batch of writ petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. As against the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioners and others filed W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 29.10.1991, while allowing the W.A. No. 1004/91 etc., batch held as follows:
It is thus clear that the impugned Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 811, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 3.6.1991, which has got a tendency of entering into the field occupied by Section 35 read with Section 43 and Section 44 of the Act 37 of 1987, is ultra vires the Act and beyond the executive power of the State Government. The same for the said reason is fit to be quashed. It is obvious that the conditions to the said effect in the prospectus for medical selection are invalid for the said reasons and are also liable to be quashed.
However, since Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 4048 of 1992 was not a party to the above writ appeals, the appellants in the writ appeals were permitted by the Division Bench to represent their case to the competent university body or authority. The Division Bench further held that if the students who obtained lesser marks than the petitioners who were appellants in the writ appeals, have been admitted, the competent university or authority shall be obliged to consider the petitioner's case for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the year 1991-92. Thereafter, on 11.11.1991, the petitioners made the representation to the 4th respondent university praying for allotment of seats in medical course since the marks obtained by them are more than cut-off marks. Copies of the representations were also sent to the Director of Medical Education, Co-ordination Committee, The Secretary, Health Department and also to the Chancellor of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. University. Since no reply was received from the 4th respondent, the petitioners sent a registered letter through their advocate on 11.12.1991 to consider their applications as per the pronouncement of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 batch and to allot seats for the first year M.B.B.S. Course in the year 1991-92. Then the petitioners also filed W.P. No. 17663 of 1991 before this Court to issue a writ at mandamus directing the 4th respondent university to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 11.11.1991 and to allot seats for the academic year 1991-92 as per the directions of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch. The above writ petition was admitted on 17.12.1991. In the meantime, the petitioners received a communication from the 4th respondent University on 19.12.1991 as a reply to the petitioner's representations stating as follows:
I am by direction to state that all the Medical Colleges/Institutions affiliated to this University are under the Management of the Government/Private Trust/Societies and responsibility of admitting students to the medical courses of studies rests with the management of the respective colleges/Institutions. Hence your representation seeking admission to I-M.B.B.S. course in pursuance to the orders of the High Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., has been forwarded to the Government, of Tamil Nadu which is the management of the Government Medical Colleges for action in accordance with law.
Thereafter some of the petitioners filed contempt petitions in 24/92, 72/92 and 73/92 against the Vice-Chancellor of the 4th respondent University and notice was ordered by the Division Bench of this Court in the contempt applications to the. Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University. The Vice-Chancellor of the 4th respondent University filed a counter in the contempt applications. In the said counter filed by the 4th respondent University, it has taken the stand that all the medical colleges affiliated to the university are under the management of the Government and Private Trusts/Societies and the admission of students for the first year M.B.B.S. course rests with the management of the said colleges and that the university is not making any admission of students to the medical courses in any college. In view of the counter filed by the 4th respondent university, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the contempt petitions on 6.3.1992 observing that if there is any grievance to the petitioners, they may agitate the same in appropriate proceedings. In the above circumstances, in view of the fact that the allotment of seats to the first year M.B.B.S. Course are to be made by the Government, the petitioners filed the present W.P. No. 4048 of 1992 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot seats to the petitioners for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1991-92. The other writ petitions were also filed under similar circumstances seeking similar relief.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a common counter affidavit in all these writ petitions contending that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. It is further contended that in all these cases, the respective petitioners seek for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit them in the medical courses for the year 1991-92 and in as much as the said academic year is over, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In para 5 of the counter affidavit the respondents 1 to 3 further contended as follows:
Based on the judgment, the writ appellants approached the University, As the University does not own any medical colleges, forwarded their application to Government for necessary action. Since the judgment of the Division Bench had taken away the power of selection of candidates for admission to First year M.B.B.S. course, the Government was not also in a position to do anything on this.
4. The 4th respondent university filed a common counter affidavit contending that since the 4th respondent university does not own any medical college or institution and all the medical colleges Institutions affiliated to the 4th respondent university are under the management of the Government/Private trust/society and the admission of students are dealt with by the management of the respective colleges, the university is not making admission of students to the medical courses in any medical college. The 4th respondent in the counter affidavit further contended that as the 4th respondent university is not running any medical college, the selection and admission of students to medical colleges do not come in its purview
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases vehemently contended that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch while declaring the G.O.Ms. No. 811, Health and Family Welfare, dated 3.6.1991 is ultra vires the Act 37 of 1987 and quashing the said G.O. permitted the petitioners to represent their case to the competent university body or authority; that the Division Bench further held that in case it is found that the petitioners are otherwise qualified and students who obtained lesser marks than the petitioners have been admitted to the M.B.B.S. course 1991-92, the Competent university body or authority shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioners for admission; and that in view of the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch the marks obtained by the petitioners in the second improvement examination must be taken into consideration and if so taken into account, the marks obtained by the petitioners are above the cut-off marks fixed for selection for the M.B.B.S. course for the year 1991-92. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that in as much as the respondents 1 to 3 are parties to the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 batch, they cannot take the stand that the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch is not binding on them, particularly when the 4th respondent University had forwarded the representations of the petitioners to the 1st respondents and when the 4th respondent is also willing to approve the increased number of seats to accommodate the petitioners in the first year M.B.B.S. course. The learned Counsel for the petitioners again submitted that even though the academic year 1991-92 is over, in view of the fact that the petitioners were wrongly denied admission to the M.B.B.S. course for 1991-92, by applying the invalid G.O.Ms. No. 811 and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch which has become final, the respondents should be directed to admit the petitioners to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the current academic year 1992-93, if necessary by increasing the number of seats. There is merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 1004 of 1992 batch speaking through Mishra, J., while quashing G.O.Ms. No. 811, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 3.6.1991 and the conditions in the prospectus for medical selection for the year 1991-92 as ultra vires of the Act 37 of 1987 issued the following directions,
In the instant case, however, we are not in a position to issue any mandamus or direction to the University for, the University is not a party respondent in the writ petitions or the appeals. It will, however, be open to the writ petitioners/appellants to represent their case before the competent university Body of Authority and in case it is found that they are otherwise qualified and students who obtained lesser marks than the writ petitioners/appellants have been admitted (inclusive of the improvement marks of the petitioners/appellants) they shall be obliged to consider their case for admission.
The judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 batch was delivered on 29.10.1991. On 11.11.1991, the petitioners made the representations to the 4th respondent University and prayed for allotment of scats in the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1991-92, as they have obtained more than the cut-off marks. The copies of the representations were also sent to the Director of Medical Education, Co-ordination Committee, the Secretary, Health Department who are respondents 1 to 3 in W.A. No. 4048 of 1992. On 11.12.1991, the petitioners also sent a registered letter through their advocate to the 4th respondent university requesting the 4th respondent to consider their representations as per the bench judgment and allot seats for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1991-92. On 19.12.1991, the 4th respondent sent a reply to the petitioners' representation stating that their representations seeking admission to first year M.B.B.S. course have been forwarded to the Government of Tamil Nadu. On 10.2.1992, the 4th respondent University had also passed a resolution to the following effect:
Resolved to inform the Government as follows:This University does not own any Medical College or Institution. All the Medical Colleges/Institutions affiliated to this University are under the management of the Government/Private Trust/Societies and the responsibility of admitting of students to the medical courses of studies rests with the management of the respective colleges/institutions. The provisions in the Statutes/regulations prescribed by the University regarding admission of student to Medical courses under the powers vested by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Madras Act, 1987 (Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1987) have to be followed by the managements of the medical colleges/institutions. The regulations of this University in this regard prescribe only the minimum eligibility for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, which is checked by the University at the time of registration of the candidate with the University for the respective courses. The University is not making admission of students to Medical courses of students in any college. Hence all the representations received from the Writ Appellant and others in pursuance to the orders of the High Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., may be forwarded to the Government for disposal and a reply given to the petitioners, on the above lines.
Thereafter, some of the petitioners filed Contempt Petitions No. 24 of 1992 etc. before the Division Bench. It is useful here to refer certain averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent University in the Contempt Petition No. 24 of 1992 etc. In para 3 of the counter affidavit filed in the contempt petition the 4th respondent has stated that after receiving the representation from the petitioners, the University had written to the Government on 5.12.1991 to instruct the Director of the Medical Education, the second respondent herein to withheld the admission of candidates from the waiting list to the first year M.B.B.S. course for 1991-92 until further reference from the medical University in this regard. The Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University in paras. 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit in the contempt petitions has further stated as follows:
The particulars regarding petitioners/appellants and Ors. in pursuance to the orders of the High Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., had been sent to the Government for necessary action and it has also been mentioned in that letter that if the writ appellants are eligible for admission to the Medical Course with reference to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the University and secured the aggregate marks above the level of cut off marks and if candidates who had secured lesser marks than these writ appellants had been admitted to the course in the process of selection by the Section Committee under the control of Director of Medical Education, the writ appellants who have got favourable orders from the High Court may be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course provided the Order of High Court are not agitated upon by the Government in the appellate Court The Director of Medical Education has to apply to this University, after obtaining sanction of the Government for regularising the excess admissions if any. The Government has also been requested to intimate the follow up action taken by the Government in this regard. The action taken by the University in this regard was intimated to the individuals separately. The Secretary, Selection Committee for M.B.B.S. course, Madras in his letter dated 14.2.1992 has now sent the details called for in this University's letter dated 27.11.1991 and 5.12.1991.
The 4th respondent University both in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt petition as well as in the common counter affidavit filed in these writ petitions has taken the stand that all the medical colleges affiliated to the 4th respondent University are in the management of the Government and private trusts/Societies and the University is nothing to do with the admission of students for the first year M.B.B.S. course in the medical colleges. In these circumstances, the 4th respondent has taken all the reasonable steps to see that the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 batch is complied with, on 19.12.1991, the 4th respondent has also sent a reply to the petitioners informing them the actual position and also informing the petitioners that their representations have been forwarded to the Government for disposal. Again on 10.2.1991 the 4th respondent University had also passed a resolution of forward the representations of the petitioners to the Government. Again on 19.12.1991 the Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University addressed a D.O. Letter No. 31734/AC-II (1/91) to the first respondent and para 5 of the said D.O. Letter reads thus:
In these circumstances, particulars regarding petitioners/appellants and others in pursuance to the orders of the High Court in W.A No. 1004 of 1991 etc., are forwarded to the Government for necessary action. (Vide Annexure). If the writ appellants are eligible for admission to the Medical Course with reference to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the University and secured the aggregate marks above the level of cut off marks and if candidates who had secured lesser marks than these writ appellants, have been admitted to the courses in the process of selection by the Selection Committee under the control of the Director of Medical Education, the writ appellants who have got favourable orders from the High Court may be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course and allocated to the Medical Colleges wherever possible provided the orders of High Court are not agitated upon by the Government in the appellate court. The Director of Medical Education has to apply to this University, after obtaining sanction of the Government, for regularising the excess admissions if any. The follow-up action taken by the Government maybe intimated to this University.
Para 5 of the D.O. letter referred above clearly shows that the Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent University has recommended to the first respondent the case of the petitioners for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course. In the said D.O. letter, it is also stated that the Director of Medical Education has to apply to the University, after obtaining sanction of the Government, for regularising the excess admissions if any. In view of the above stand taken by the 4th respondent University, we have to examine the question whether the respondents 1 to 3 are justified in taking the stand in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the Government is not. in a position to do anything in the matter of admitting the petitioners to the M.B.B.S. course for 1991-92 on the ground that the judgment of the Division Bench W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., had taken away its power of selection of candidates for admission to first year M.B.B.S. course. I may straight away say that the respondents 1 to 3 are not at all justified in taking such a stand. I have extracted the relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch in the earlier portion of this order. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch. There is nothing in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court to show that it has taken away the power of the Government admit students to M.B.B.S. course. All that the Division Bench has stated in the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc, batch is that G.O. No. 811, dated 3.6.1991 is ultra vires of Act 37 of 1987 and that it is invalid and consequently quashed the said G.O. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1992 etc., batch has taken away the power of the Government to admit the students to M.B.B.S. course. It is seen from the common counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in these writ petitions and also from the resolution of the 4th respondent University dated 10.2.1992 that all the Medical Colleges/Institutions affiliated to the 4th respondent University are under the management of the Government/Private Trusts/Societies and that the responsibility of admitting the students to the medical courses rests with the management of the respective colleges/institutions. This position is not denied by the respondents 1 to 3 either in the counter affidavit or even before me, in the course of arguments. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that all medical colleges are under the management of the Government/Private Trust/ Societies and that the responsibility of admitting the students to the medical courses rests with the Government. This position was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court when it disposed of W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch either at the time when the Division Bench pronounced the judgment in the W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch or immediately thereafter. If it had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the 4th respondent has nothing to do with the admission to the medical courses and only the Government is entrusted with the responsibility of admitting students to the medical courses, I am inclined to think that the Division Bench would have certainly granted reliefs to the petitioners in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 batch itself. For some reason or other, the real position with regard to the management of the medical colleges was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when it disposed of the writ appeals in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., Batch.
7. It must be remembered that respondents 1 to 3 are parties to writ appeals in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch and that the said judgment of the Division Bench has become final, and it is binding on the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondents 1 to 3 also to see that the directions given by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch are complied with, particularly when the 4th respondent university had forwarded the representations of the petitioners to the first respondent and when the 4th respondent is also willing to grant permission for increasing the number of seats in the medical colleges to accommodate the petitioners. The direction issued by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch is that it is open to the petitioners to represent their case before the competent university body or authority and in case it is found that the petitioners otherwise qualified and the students who obtained lesser marks than the petitioners have been admitted in the medical course for the year 1991-92, the competent university body or authority shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioners for admission. The direction given by this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc, batch to the petitioners is to approach the competent University body or the competent authority. From the materials on record, it transpires that the competent authority to deals with the question of admission to M.B.B.S. course is the Government. When the petitioners sent representations to the 4th respondent, they sent copies of the representations to the respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent passed a resolution dated 10.2.1992 stating that the representations received from the petitioners in pursuance to the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch may be forwarded to the Government for disposal. On 19.12.1991, the Vice-Chancellor of the 4th respondent University also wrote a D.O. letter to the first respondent stating that the particulars regarding the petitioners in pursuance of the judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch have been forwarded to the Government for necessary action. Thus, when the representations of the petitioners were placed before the first respondent by the 4th respondent, the Government being the competent authority to admit the students to M.B.B.S. course, ought to have respected the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch particularly when the Government represented by respondents 1 to 3 are parties to the said judgment, in the writ appeals. In these circumstances, the respondents ought to have granted relief to the petitioners particularly when the respondents l to 3 by applying the invalid G.O.811 have denied the petitioners admission to the M.B.B.S. course. It is not the case of the respondents that the marks obtained by the petitioners is less than the cut-off marks prescribed for medical admission in the year 1991-92.
8. Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended in the first place that these writ petitions relate to admission to M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1991-92 and that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. There is no substance in this contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The various proceedings initiated by the petitioners from 24.6.1991, namely from the time when the prospectus from medical admission for 1991-92 was issued, by filing writ petitions and writ appeals referred to above and the representations made by the petitioners to the respondents will clearly go to show that the petitioners are diligently prosecuting the matter throughout and it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of latches.
9. The next contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that in all these cases the petitioners seek for the issue of writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to admit them in the medical courses for the year 1991-92 and in as much as the said academic year 1991-92 is over the writ petitions has become infructuous and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. It must be remembered the matter is pending before this Court from 1991. On 8.8.1991, the writ petitions ' were filed by the petitioners challenging the G.O.Ms. No. 811. When the writ petitions were dismissed, they filed W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch. On 29.10.1991 the writ appeals were allowed. Again on 17.12.1991 first of these W.P. No. 17663 of 1991 has been filed and thereafter the other writ petitions have been filed in February and March, 1992, and they are pending before this Court since then. The 4th respondent filed a counter in these writ petitions in March 1992, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit in this batch of writ petitions only on 17.8.1992 and only thereafter the respondents 1 to 3 were ready to get on with these writ petitions. On 16.4.1992 as the present writ petitions could not be disposed of immediately, the learned single Judge of this Court in W.M.P. No. 189 of 1992 etc., batch directed the respondents to keep seats reserved for the petitioners in the first M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1991-92. From the above facts, it is clear that this matter is pending before this Court from 8.8.1991 and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay in disposing of the writ petitions. The maxim is an act of court shall prejudice no man (actus curiae neminem gravabit). Therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied the relief of the ground that of the academic year 1991-92 is over, particularly when they are in no way responsible for the delay. Further, it is not denied by the respondents that the marks obtained by the petitioners in all these cases are above the cut-off marks fixed for medical admission for the year 1991-92. Again the technical plea of latches and the plea that the academic year 1991-92 is over are not available to the respondents to defeat the rights of the petitioners to get admission to the medical course in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshaw International : 1979(4)ELT396(SC) . In view of the above discussions, it has to be held that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to comply with the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch and admit the petitioners to the first year M.B.B.S. course.
10. Now, let us examine what is the nature of relief that can be granted to the petitioners who are 19 in number, in exercise of the writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. As pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education v. G. Gunaraj 1991 Writ L.R. 94, this Court while exercising the writ powers, is not scuttled down to the exact prayer projected in the writ petition. The Division Bench further observed as follows:
This Court can always take note of subsequent events for the purpose of giving complete, effective and appropriate reliefs to the parties. The facts exposed and the points involved and resolved, can certainly guide the court to give the appropriate reliefs to the parties. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is invoked only in furtherance of justice.
11. In view of the above position of law, this Court taking note of the events that have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings, can mould and grant appropriate reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled to. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to think that it will be no answer to say that since the academic year 1991-92 is over, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in these writ petitions. Therefore, the proper course open to this Court is to direct the respondents to admit the petitioners to the first M.B.B.S; course for the academic year 1992-93 as it is represented that though the admissions for 92-93 are over, the instructions for the first M.B.B.S. Course have not yet commenced.
12. Equally, it is no answer to say that all the seats fixed for the first M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93 have been filled up. The seats that will be allotted to the petitioners pursuant to the order in these writ petitions for the academic year 1992-93 will be in addition to the normal in-take of the students for the various medical colleges for the academic year. 1992-93. The Supreme Court has made similar directions in cases of admissions to the colleges in the following decisions:
(1) Deepak Saibal v. Punjab University : [1989]1SCR689 , (2) Aja Hasia v. Khalid Mujib : (1981)ILLJ103SC , (3) Vinaj Rampal v. State of J.& K. : AIR1983SC1199 .
It must be also remembered that these are all exceptional cases where this kind of directions have to be given because earlier the petitioners were wrongly denied admission applying the invalid G.O. No. 811. In fact the 4th respondent is inclined to grant permission for increasing the number of seats to accommodate the petitioners.
13. Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the seats cannot be increased for the academic year 1992-93 since the State Government cannot meet additional expenses which will be caused by increasing the number of seats and that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional scats. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. In the fist place, the respondents 1 to 3 have not raised such a plea in the counter affidavit filed in these writ petitions. In Punjab Engineering College v. Sanjay Gulati : [1983]2SCR801 , the Supreme Court frowned upon a similar contention raised before it in the following terms:
It is strange in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admissions contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the... additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified.... The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made.
14. In the present case, admittedly the petitioners who have obtained more makes then the cut off marks for the year 1991-92 were, wrongly denied admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course applying the invalid G.O 811 and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted to the Medical course in the year 1991-92, has to be rectified by directing the respondents to comply with the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch and admit them to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1992-93. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the best solution is to direct the respondent to increase the strength of the seats to accommodate the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions who are 19 in number
15. It must be mentioned that the petitioner in W.P. No. 7435 of 1992 approached this Court for the first time now seeking the issue of writ of mandamus for directing the respondent to admit him in the first year M.B.B.S. course. He has not earlier filed a writ petition or writ appeal as in the case of the other petitioners in this batch. However, it must be pointed out that the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 1()04 of 1991 etc., batch declares that G.O.Ms. No. 811 is invalid and directed the appellants therein to approach the competent authority for necessary relief. Since the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 1004 of 1991 etc., batch declared that G.O.811 is invalid, the petitioner in W.P. No. 7435 of 1992 has also taken advantage of the Division Bench Judgment and submitted representations to the 4th respondent along with the other petitioners requesting the 4th respondent to consider his case for admission to first year M.B.B.S. course on the basis of the marks obtained in the second improvement examination and on the ground that he has obtained marks above the cut-off marks fixed for the year 1991-92. His representation was also forwarded by the 4th respondent to the respondents 1 to 3. In these circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner in W.P. No. 7435 of 1992 also is entitled to get admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1992-93.
16. In the result, there will be a direction in these writ petitions to the respondents to provide seats to the petitioners in all these writ petitions in the first year M.B.B.S, course for the current academic year 1992-93 within two weeks from today, if necessary by increasing the number of seals by 19. The 4th respondent is directed to give the necessary permission for the additional seals to accommodate the petitioners. I don't think it is an impossibility for the respondent; 1 to 3 to increase the seats, since it is represented that in the past seats were increased on the directions issued by this Court. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioners in these writ petitions in the first year M.B.B.S. course for the current academic year 1992-93, within two weeks from today, if necessary by increasing the number of seats by 19. No costs.