Judgment:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. OWP No. 746 OF 200.Institute of Dental Sciences Sehora Petitioners University of Jammu and ors. Respondent !Mr. K.S. Johal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shahla Rafiqi, Advocate ^Mr. Sunil Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raj Kamal Gupta, Advocate Mr. W.S. Nargal, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date:
16. 11.2012 :
:
1. The Government of India on 22nd September, 2006 on recommendation of Dental Council of India, issued a Letter of Intent to Trikuta Charitable Trust, Jammu for establishment of new Dental College under name and style of Institute of Dental Sciences at Sehora, Jammu, with an annual intake capacity of hundred students in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course subject to the conditions laid down therein. One of the conditions subject to which the Letter of Intent issued was granted, was that admission for Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the proposed Dental College would be made only after receipt of formal permission, from the Central Government, to that effect the permission was to be granted only after the Trust accepted the conditions subject to which Letter of Intent was granted and furnished the requisite Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG).
2. The Trust conveyed its acceptance of the terms and conditions laid down in Letter of Intent vide its communication dated 26th September, 2006. The Government of India, accordingly, vide letter dated 28th September, 2006 conveyed formal permission to the Trust under Section 10-A (4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 to establish a new Dental College, under name and style of Institute of Dental Sciences with intake capacity of one hundred students, at Sehora, Jammu, for the academic session 2006-2007. The permission was to be valid only for one year, restricted to one batch of hundred students for the session 2006-2007. The process of admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery in the College in terms of Communication dated 28th September, 2006, was to be completed by 30th September, 2006. The Trust was reminded that admissions made in contravention of the stipulations set out in the Communication dated 28th September, 2006, would be treated as irregular and action under Section 10-B of the Act initiated against the Trust. The Government of India vide its communication dated 10th October, 2006 extended the deadline for completing the admission process from 30th September, 2006 to 15th October, 2006. The extension was granted after some Educational Institutions approached the Supreme Court with petitions voicing their grievances as regards timeframe within which they were to complete admission process and the Supreme Court on 30th September, 2006 permitted the Institutions to complete the admission process by 15th October, 2006.
3. The Board of Professional Entrance Examination, Jammu and Kashmir vide Notice No. BPEE/PS/06/466 dated 03.10.2006 published in local daily on 05.10.2006, invited applications from candidates, who had appeared in Common Entrance Test, 2006 for admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the petitioner-Institute, Jammu by 8th October, 2006.
4. The Trust on its part, while announcing establishment of Institute of Dental Sciences at Jammu and approval accorded by the Central Government to setting up of the Institute with intake capacity of 100 students for Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course, invited applications from the eligible candidates for admission to the 50 Bachelor of Dental Surgery seats under Management/NRI/Foreigner to reach it by 7th October, 2006. The Trust in its notification dated 2nd October 2006 made it clear that the candidates against rest of the seats i.e. 50 seats, would be recommended by the Board. It also signified its intention to place the merit list based on marks in qualifying examination on the College Notice Board at 9 AM on 8th October, 2006. The interview and counseling was to be conducted on 9th October, 2006 and list of admitted candidates to be notified on 11th October, 2006. The wait list was to be notified on 13th October, 2006, unless all the seats were filled up and, the wait list candidates called for interview and counseling on 14th October, 2006. The whole process was to be completed on 15th October, 2006.
5. The Board of Professional Entrance Examination forwarded a list of 65 candidates (40 candidates+25 candidates in waiting list) who had appeared in Common Entrance Test of 2006, and in response to Boards notification dated 7.10.2006 had applied for payment seats to the petitioner Institute for their admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course in the Institute. However, only 12 of the 40 candidates appearing in the list forwarded, by the Board turned up for their admission. The Trust, accordingly, on its own admitted eighty eight candidates including sixty candidates from NRI/Management quota and twenty eight candidates from the waiting list issued by the Board of Professional Entrance Examination. The students admitted by the Board, according to the petitioner institute were selected from amongst 400 (four hundred) candidates, who responded to the Advertisement Notice dated 03.10.2006 issued by the Trust.
6. The Principal of the petitioner-Institute on 24th November, 2006, addressed a communication to the Controller of Examinations, University of Jammu requesting him to accept the Registration Returns of 100 candidates admitted by the College to Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course, Session 2006-2007 and the Registration Fee of Rs.23, 420/- (Rupees twenty three thousand four hundred and twenty only) payable by the candidates under university statute. The University of Jammu did not take any action on the request made by the Principal. The university vide its Communication No. Regn./07/3543 dated 20th March, 2007 asked the Principal of the petitioner-Institute to furnish selection list of students admitted in the College and in support thereof documents duly signed by the Admission Committee. The needful was done and the matter vide Communication dated 20.03.2007 was sent to the Assistant Registrar (Regn.) - University of Jammu along with the list of 88(eighty eight) candidates admitted by the petitioner - Institute on its own and 12 (twelve) candidates admitted on recommendation of Board of Professional Entrance Examination.
7. The Assistant Registrar (Regn.) vide his Communication No.3802/Regn./07 dated 22nd August, 2007 refused to register the 88 (eighty eight) candidates admitted by the petitioner-Institute on its own, on the ground that the students were admitted without conducting any Entrance Examination and no permission was sought from the University of Jammu or from the Board of Professional Entrance Examination before making the admissions.
8. The petitioner-Institute questions the Communication No. 3802/Regn./07 dated 22nd August, 2007 on the grounds set out in the petition. The main plank of the petitioners case is that the admissions were made in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and the matter reported to University as early as on 24th November, 2006 without any response from University. The respondent- University is said to have slept over the matter for next three months and refused to register students, only a little less than a year, after their admission was finalized. It is pleaded that 28 (twenty eight) students admitted by the Institute were from the list of 40 (forty) students forwarded by the Board of Professional Entrance Examination and rest of the students were admitted on the basis of their merit in qualifying examination. It is further pleaded that the University had not put any condition like one spelt out in the impugned Communication while granting affiliation to the petitioner-Institute and the University, resultantly, was estopped from denying registration to the students admitted. It is also pleaded that as there is only one Board namely State Board of School Education that conducts the qualifying examination of 10+2 and the admission in terms of Dental Council of India Regulations was to be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination. The petitioner-Institute insists that as it admitted the students in accordance with the directions of the Central Government as also the Apex Court, the respondent University was under an obligation to register the students admitted.
9. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition point out that affiliation granted by the respondent-University vide its Communication dated 6th July, 2006 was only provisional in character and subject to approval from Dental Council of India. It is pleaded that in terms of the Dental Council of India Regulations, the admission by minority and non- minority Educational Institutions is to be made on the basis of Competitive Entrance Examination and that the petitioner- Institution had adopted, a unique method of admission ignoring the Dental Council of India Regulations and law laid down in P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537.It is denied that the petitioner-Institute filled up forty seats from the list forwarded by Board of Professional Entrance Examination. The Board of Professional Entrance Examination, according to the respondent-University, forwarded list of 40 candidates to the petitioner-Institute along with a list of 25 candidates in waiting list and the petitioner-Institute admitted only twelve candidates from the said list, while the remaining eighty eight candidates were admitted by the Institute on its own claiming to have made, said admission on the basis of merit in qualifying Examination.
10. The respondents deny that there was any delay on their part in taking decision in the matter. The respondents insist that the admission was granted by the petitioner-Institute contrary to the Supreme Court Judgment, Dental Council of India Regulations, the Jammu and Kashmir Private Medical Education Institutions (Selection and Admission) Rules, 1996 it is denied that respondent-University was under any obligation to accord Registration to the students so enrolled for the academic Session 2006-2007.
11. The Controller of Examinati0n, University of Jammu respondent no.3 in the petition, in supplementary affidavit filed on 13th September, 2007, has taken the stand that admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery in the petitioner- Institute was to be made having regard to the Dental Council of India Regulations Clauses b and c as more than one Boards, i.e. State Board of School Education and Central Board of School Education conduct qualifying examination (10+2 examination) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in order to attain the uniformity in standards, an Entrance Test was required to be conducted by the petitioner-Institute. It is denied that the petitioner-Institute was constrained to make the admission without conducting the Entrance Test because of paucity of time as the petitioner-Institute had on 2nd October, 2006 itself made up its mind not to conduct the Entrance Test and make admissions on the basis of marks in qualifying examination as was evident from its Notice published on 3rd October, 2006 inviting applications from the candidates for the available BDS Course seats. The petitioner-Institute, according to respondent no.3, had no justification in admitting eighty eight candidates on its own without conducting Entrance Test. The University, it is pointed out, cannot be a party to the irregularity committed by the petitioner-Institute while admitting the students without an Entrance Test. The expenditure incurred by the promoters of the petitioner-Institute, according to the respondents, cannot justify violation of the rules and regulations or mandate of Supreme Court judgment.
12. The Principal of the petitioner-Institute in his rejoinder after reiterating the sequence of events detailed in the writ petition insists that the Common Entrance Test in terms of Dental Council of India Regulations was mandatory only in case of an Institution of All India Character and not in case of institution/college like the petitioner-Institute. The petitioner-Institute, it is insisted, does not satisfy any of the characteristics of an Institution of All India Character. It is further pleaded that as other institutions including Government Dental Colleges in the State had completed admission by the time, the petitioner- Institute was permitted by the Central Government to admit the students and the petitioner-Institute at the time it granted admissions was the only Institute going for admission, therefore, it was not possible to conduct a Common Entrance Test that in terms of Dental Council of India Regulations it was permissible to grant admission on the basis of the marks in the qualifying examination. The rejoinder further details the outcome of meetings held by the representatives of the petitioner- Institute with the Board of Professional Entrance Examination Authorities, and insists that the candidates from the State quota were admitted on the basis of merit in the qualifying examination. The admitted students, according to the rejoinder, have already completed the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course as also a substantial part of their internship implying thereby that it would be disastrous for their academic career in case the registration is refused to them.
13. I have gone through the pleadings as well as the Record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. The controversy involved in the present petition makes it necessary to visit part of the Dental Council of India Regulations dealing with the selection of students for BDS Course. The relevant part titled as Selection of Students reads as under: Selection of Students: The selection of students to a Dental College should be based solely on merit of the candidate and for determination of merit, the following criteria be adopted uniformity throughout the country: (a) In State, having only one Dental College and one University/ Board/ Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination, the marks obtained in such qualifying examination be taken into consideration, exception being MBBS degree holders. (b) In State, having more than one University/ Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination( or where there are more than one Dental College under the administrative/control of one authority), a competitive entrance examination may be held so as to achieve in uniform evaluation due to the variation of the standard of qualifying examinations conducted by different agencies. (c) A competitive entrance examination is absolutely necessary in the case of institutions of all India character. (d) To be eligible for selection through competitive entrance examination a candidate must have passed any of the qualifying examination as under the head note Admission to B.D.S. Course (above). Provided that a candidate who has appeared in a qualifying examination, the result of which has not been declared may be provisionally allowed to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of his selection for admission to dental course, he shall not be admitted thereto unless in the meanwhile has passed the qualifying examination.
15. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondent university that in terms of Dental Council of India Regulations read with notification issued by the petitioner Institute on 3rd October, 2006, 50 seats out of intake capacity of the petitioner Institute were to be filled up from amongst the candidates recommended by the Board of Professional Entrance Examination (for short BOPEE) and rest of the seats i.e. 50 seats were to be filled up by the petitioner institute by conducting a competitive entrance examination. It is argued that the petitioner institute by admitting 88 out of 100 students on its own without conducting any common entrance examination has violated the Dental Council of India Regulations. The petitioner Institute, according to learned counsel for the respondent university, has not only filled up the quota that by its own admission was set apart for BOPEE candidates, but also filled up its quota without adhering to the requirements of the Dental Council of India Regulations. The petitioner Institute, it is pointed out, filled up the seats under BOPEE quota on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination and adopted same mechanism for filling up 38 seats set apart for the candidates who had appeared in Common Entrance Test conducted by the BOPEE. The admissions made by the petitioner institute against the said backdrop are assailed as violative of Dental Council of India Regulations and, therefore, non-est in the eye of law. The students enrolled by the petitioner institute in disregard of Dental Council of India Regulations, according to learned counsel for the respondent university, are not entitled to registration by the respondent university and award of Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree by the university. The argument advanced by the Counsel for the respondent university is repelled by learned counsel for the petitioner institute as also by learned counsel for students admitted by the institute on the grounds that non-adherence, if any, to the Dental Council of India Regulations is attributable to the delay in grant of letter of intent and grant of permission in terms of section 10-A (4) of the Dentists Amendment Act 1993. It is pointed out that the permission was granted on 28th September, 2006 and the admission initially directed to be completed by 30th September, 2006 later extended to 15th October, 2006. It is argued that because of the short time gap between the grant of permission and last date for making admissions it was not possible for the petitioner institute to hold competitive entrance examination and the petitioner institute instead as per the approved practice made admission on the basis of merit in qualifying examination. It is argued that even in terms of Dental Council of India Regulations, it was not compulsory for the petitioner institute to hold a competitive entrance examination as the aspirants for available seats had qualified from a single Board. According to learned counsel even where the qualifying examination is passed through more than one Boards/Universities, the requirement of competitive entrance examination is only optional and not compulsory. The framers of the Regulations, it is pointed out, have identified institutions of All India Character as the only institutions where admissions against management, etc. quota are to be made on the basis of merit in competitive entrance examination and that as the petitioner institute is not an Institution of All India Character, Para (c) of Selection of Students was not attracted in case of the petitioner Institute. The petitioner Institute, according to the learned counsel, was constrained to make admissions against the seats set apart for BOPEE candidates as 31 out of 40 candidates recommended by the BOPEE and 22 out 25 candidates in of the waiting list did not turn up and accept the admission in the petitioner Institute.
16. The medical profession, as pointed out by the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2003) 6 SCC 69.is a noble profession and to acquire excellence it demands a very high caliber and requirement to treat merit alone as the basis for the selection for admission to a Medical College. In the words of Supreme Court to maintain high standard of education as also uniformity of standard, the right to select the candidates for professional course cannot be left to the discretion of the Management of a professional college. The effort, as observed in aforesaid case, must be to find out one single standard, for all the institutions admitting candidates for the course, that enables them to join the medical profession.
17. It needs no emphasis that once it is left to the total discretion of Management of an Institute, aided or un- aided, minority or non-minority, to make admissions at its level, there is every chance that greed may overtake the objectivity and the Management of professional Institute may resort to profiteering at the cost of the merit. The candidates passing out from such professional Institute, in said background, would not be well equipped to do justice to their profession and serve public at large.
18. The Apex Court in number of judgments on the subject has emphasized the need to make admission to professional institutions merit based. In Islamic Academy of Education case (supra), the Court emphasizing practical approach and need for merit based test, held that the admission in private colleges can be made by a Common entrance test held by the institution itself or by the State/University. In case of admission otherwise than on the basis of Common Entrance Test conducted by the State/University, the entrance test is not to be left to a single Institution, and where more than one Institutions impart similar professional course, the test is to be a Common Entrance Test for the admission to all such institutions so that uniform standards in admission are maintained. An institution not joining other such institutions in conducting the common entrance test cannot be allowed to plough its own furrow, but has to rely exclusively on common entrance test conducted by the State or the University.
19. The Supreme Court in P A Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 53.reiterating law laid down in Islamic Academy of Education case, held that the admission procedure fallowed by the similarly situated institutions must satisfy the triple test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. It would be advantageous to extract the following from the aforesaid judgment. There is nothing wrong in an entrance test being held for one group of institutions imparting the same or similar education. Such institutions situated in one State or in more than one States may join together and hold a common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Or the State may itself or through an agency arrange for the holding of such test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and preventing mal-administration. The admission procedure so adopted by a private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated herein above, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. Out of such common merit list, the successful candidates can be identified and chosen for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting the common entrance test (CET for short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and expertise in the matter. This would better ensure the fulfillment of the twin objects of transparency and merit. CET is necessary in the interest of achieving the said objectives and also for saving the student community from harassment and exploitation. Holding of such common entrance test followed by centralized counseling or, in other words, a single- window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to admit students of their choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of the list of successful candidates prepared at CET without altering the order of merit inter se of the students so chosen. 20. The Dental Council of India Regulations framed with the previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory in character and warrant adherence in letter and spirit. The Regulations can for no reason be treated as advisory or recommendatory in character and are to be adhered to, to achieve highest standards in medical education.
21. The petitioner Institute, in the said background, while making the selection of students for academic season 2006-2007 had to adhere to the process laid down for Selection of Students in Dental Council of India Regulations. In the state of Jammu and Kashmir the students aspiring for professional course including BDS course pass the qualifying examination from Jammu and Kashmir School Board of School Education as well as the Central Board of Secondary School Examination. The admission of the students by the petitioner Institute therefore did not fall within the ambit of sub-clause (a) of Selection of Students and did not leave room for making selection on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. On the other hand sub-clause (b) of the Selection of Students part of the Dental Council of India Regulations was attracted and the petitioner institute required to hold a Competitive Entrance Examination to achieve the uniform evaluation and make admission on the basis of such examination.
22. The argument advanced by Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior advocate, that as the petitioner Institute is not an institution of national character, it was not under an obligation to make admissions on the basis of combined entrance examination, is bereft of any merit. Only because an extra emphasis is laid by the Dental Council of India Regulations in sub-clause (c) of selection of students on requirement of common entrance test in case of an Institute of national importance, does not lead to the conclusion that such an examination is to be ignored by an institute where qualifying examination is conducted by more than one Universities/Boards. An agreement with argument advanced by Mr. Sethi, senior advocate, would render clause (b) of Selection of Students redundant and inconsequential. When Dental Council of India Regulations on the subject are read conjointly as a whole it becomes abundantly clear that wherever the aspirants for admission to a Dental College/Institute pass qualifying examination from more than one Universities/Boards, it is necessary for such College/Institution to conduct Common Entrance Examination and make admission on the basis of such examination to attain uniformity in the standards observed for making the admission.
23. The case set up by the petitioner institute that it was prevented by paucity of time from taking Common Entrance Examination contemplated by Dental Council of India Regulations does not sound convincing. The facts and events set out elsewhere in the present judgment would reveal that the petitioner Institute had more than two weeks at its disposal to conduct the examination. Though more than two weeks period would have made it easier for the petitioner Institute to conduct the examination, yet the period made available i.e. 2 weeks in no case was too short to make it impracticable to conduct the Common Entrance Examination. The petitioner Institute on the other hand, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Nargal, learned counsel for the respondent university, had made up its mind not to conduct the Common Entrance Examination on the day first. It signified its intention in the notice published on 3rd October 2006 itself that it did not propose to hold Common Entrance Examination and instead would make admission on the basis of merit in the qualifying examination. The petitioner Institute accordingly, as claimed by it, made admissions on the basis of merit in qualifying examination. However, it has not made available record so as to indicate whether merit in qualifying examination was respected and adhered to while making the admissions. A perusal of the list of the students admitted reveals that out of 88 candidates 32 had less than 60 per cent marks in 10+2 and 19 candidates even less than 55 per cent marks. However, it is too late in the day to go to the said aspect of the matter. Be that as it may, the petitioner institute obviously admitted students for BDS courses session 2006 in utter disregard of Dental Council of India Regulations.
24. It is admitted case of petitioner institute that out of sanctioned intake capacity of 100 seats it was to make admission against 50 seats and for the rest of the seats the admission was to be made on the recommendations of BOPEE having regard to the merit of the candidates in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the BOPEE. The petitioner institute did not only make admissions in violation of Dental Council of India Regulations as regards its quota but exceeded its quota and made admission against the BOPEE quota (50 seats set apart for BOPPEE selected candidates) on the basis of merit in the qualifying examination. The petitioner institute lacked authority to make admissions against quota set apart for BOPEE selected candidates. In case the candidates recommended by the BOPEE or some of them did not turn up to accept the admission, the seats were to be left vacant/unfilled, or BOPEE requested to furnish the second/supplementary list of the candidates. The petitioner Institute again over stepped its authority, exceeded its quota and observed Dental Council of India Regulations in breech.
25. Viewed thus, the admission of 88 out of 100 candidates made by the petitioner institute in violation of the Dental Council of India Regulations as also directions embodied in various authoritative pronouncements on the subject is illegal and liable to be set aside.
26. The question that calls for an answer is as to whether the candidates admitted 6 years back after having completed their 5-year BDS courses and internship should be de- seated and their admissions cancelled. The act of legitimizing admissions made in violation of rule/statute has been deprecated in number of cases by the Supreme Court and superior courts of the country. We may begin with the following observations made by the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Parminder Kr Bansal and another (1993) 4 SCC 40.(AIR 199.SC 2412). We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill- conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensure from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders can not be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions. 27. The principle was echoed in CBSE and another Vs P Sunil Kumar and others (1998) 5 SCC 377.(AIR 1998.SC 2235.The court in Abhyudya Sanstha Vs Union of India (2011) AIR SC 235.observed: However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularizing the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the court directed as under; We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government etc, shall be eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affiliating body. If the degree has already been awarded to any such student, the same shall not be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever. 28. However, in the present case all the stakeholders involved in grant of permission to the petitioner Institute to make admissions in academic season 2006 as also in the process of admission thereafter, with only exception of the students enrolled, were equally responsible for flouting the Dental Council of India Regulations.
29. In the first place the Centre Government ought not to have granted permission to the Trust on 28th September 2006 to establish the Dental Institute with intake capacity of 100 students in the academic season of 2006-2007 and asked the institute to complete the admissions by 30th September 2006. The Centre Government ought to have realized that in terms of direction given by the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar and another Vs. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 6.and cases that came up before the court thereafter, the deadline for completing admission process was 30th September in a calendar year and that it would be impossible for the petitioner institute to adhere to the guidelines laid down in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka and P A Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra (supra) and other cases while making the admission. The permission for setting up the institute and making admissions ought to have been deferred to the next academic Session 2007-2008. The authorities at the helm of affairs in the concerned ministry of Central Government owe an explanation for delay and also for according permission only two days before deadline for admission was to end. The petitioner Institute is not in any manner least guilty of the breach committed by it. It ought to have deferred the admissions to the next academic year or made good use of the extension granted by Central Government vide its communication dated 10th October, 2006, in making admissions up to 15th October 2006. The petitioner Institute as already observed had time, though it was to proceed on rollercoaster speed, to make admissions in accordance with Dental Council of India Regulations.
30. The students, who responded to the advertisement notice though not completely innocent, are least responsible for late permission granted by the Central Government and irregularity in the admission process committed by the petitioner institute. This court is under a constitutional obligations to secure justice to the justice seekers that come before it and cannot lose sight of the fact that the students enrolled were by and large innocent without any significant role in the irregularity made. It would be unjust and unfair to cancel their admission after they have been on the rolls of the petitioner Institute for six long years and are said to have completed their BDS courses including internship.
31. In Priya Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others (2012) AIR SCW 335.where the petitioners were admitted to MBBS course in MMDC Medical College Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, though they had lesser merit than the minimum prescribed under Medical Council of India Regulations and the methodology and manner adopted in the admission was found neither fair nor transparent, the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the petitioners to complete their professional course subject to payments of a sum or Rs. 5 lakh to the college to be utilized for developing infrastructure in the college.
32. In Mridul Dhar and another Vs. Union of India (Supra) the Supreme Court held that where 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 year.
33. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, the writ petition is allowed and the responded university directed to grant registration to the students respondents 5 to 92 herein, admitted by the petitioner Institute for BDS course in the academic year 2006 so that the students who have successfully completed the course are in a position to obtain their degrees, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions by petitioner institute and respondents 5-92: i) The petitioner institute shall surrender 14 seats from its Management quota in each of the academic years 2013 and 2014 (total 28 seats) to BOPEE so that the admissions against such seats (14 in 2013 and 14 in 2014) are made from the meritorious students who appear in Common Entrance Test to be conducted by BOPEE in 2013-2014. In other words the Management quota of the petitioner Institute would be reduced to 46 seats in 2013 and 2014. ii) The petitioner institute shall deposit an amount of Rs 14,00,000 i.e Rs 50,000 out of the fee collected from each of the 28 candidates admitted by the petitioner Institute, over and above the Management quota, with Jammu and Kashmir Legal Service Authority. The amount so deposited shall be spent by the Authority on organizing legal literacy programmes for schedule caste, schedule tribe and other under-privileged sections of the society in the State as per proposal approved by Executive Chairman, State Legal Service Authority. iii) Respondents 5-92 shall deposit Rs 10,000 each with the Registrar Judicial. The amount shall be given in equal proportion to three institutes namely: (1) Blind School for Boys, Jammu, run by Social Welfare Department, J&K State, (2) Blind School for Girls, Jammu, run by National Federation of Blinds, J&K Chapter, Jammu and (3) Anath School run by Ved Mandhir Committee, Jammu, to be used for improving facilities for visually impaired students enrolled in such institutions. Once the amount of Rs. 14.00 lakhs is deposited by the petitioner Institute with the State Legal Service Authority and an amount of Rs 10,000/- each is likewise deposited by respondents 5 to 92 with the Registrar Judicial, High Court wing Jammu, they i.e. Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee and Registrar Judicial, High Court wing Jammu, shall immediately intimate Registrar, Jammu University so that the direction given in para 33 is complied with and registration granted to respondents 5 to 92. Disposed of. (Hasnain Massodi) Judge Jammu 16/11/2012 M Amin