@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
H.L Gokhale, J.@mdashThe petitioner herein is a Society of Parents of Medical Students registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No. 1 to the petition is Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Admission Regulatory Committee) constituted by respondent No. 3 - State of Maharashtra under the direction of the Apex Court in
2. Prayer (b) of this petition seeks a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to direct respondent No. 4 to hold admissions in a Centralised manner. Interim prayer (b-i) prays that in the event of respondent No. 4 refusing to conduct a Common Entrance Test (GET) and Centralised Admission Process (CAP), respondent No. 2 be directed to hold the same for the Academic year 2005-2006.
3. The petitioners submit that though the judgment of the Apex Court accepted the autonomy of Private Medical Colleges in
4. The petitioner submits that many of the Private Medical Colleges are indulging into irregularities in the matter of admission of students. The petitioner is concerned with the Common Entrance Test as well as Centralised Admission Process for these Private Medical Colleges. As far as Common Entrance Test of the Private Medical Colleges is concerned, it has already been held by respondent No. 4 as permitted by the Apex Court. That examination has been held on 1st May, 2005. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Administrative Officer of respondent No. 4 and in para 10 thereof, it has been stated that the results will be declared on or before 15th June, 2005 and the final merit list will be prepared on or before 30th June, 2005. As far as the prayer to direct respondent No. 4 to hold Common Entrance Test is concerned, the same is not required to be pressed.
5. Then comes the question of holding a Centralised Admission Process. The petition points out various irregularities which have been detected, particularly during the last year, in the matter of admission of students in the absence of Centralised Admission Process. Thus, (a) firstly it is pointed out that these colleges are situated at different places throughout the State of Maharashtra right from Mumbai, which is in the north-west part of the State, to Kolhapur which is to the south-west at a distance of about 400 kms. to Nagpur in far east which is again at a distance of about 500 kms. The students are required to go from place to place. Many of the colleges do-not have their website displaying their merit list and the students have to go to individual colleges to find out whether their names appear in the merit list; (b) on approaching many of the colleges, it is seen that they refuse to furnish more than one admission form and direct the students to get the same xeroxed. The students have multiple choices and at every place, it is not possible for them to pay the huge fees which are required and also to deposit the original mark lists which are often insisted by these colleges. In the event a student getting admission in some other college, it becomes difficult to retrieve the documents and the management create difficulties in returning the fees; (c) on the top of it, in many of the colleges the merit lists are not displayed either on the notice board or on the website. Even on personal visit, one has to go on making inquiries and students are made to wait leading to wastage of precious time when they could apply to some other colleges as well; (d) as far as malpractices of the colleges are concerned, a specific instance of respondent No. 5 College is pointed out in para 5(d) of the petition giving detailed particulars. It is pointed out that the first round of admission in this college started on 25th August, 2004 and it went on regularly till 7th September, 2004. The last student was admitted with 168 marks. Seven seats remained vacant. Only one of them was filled on 28th September, 2004 and four seats were filled on 30th September, 2004. Five more seats become available due to cancellation. All these nine seats were given to students who had the following marks : 162, 160, 150, 148, 146, 144, 139, 137 and 135. It is further pointed out that 1876 students had applied for these 35 seats in this college though some 1300 students, which are between 168 and 134 marks, could not seek admission, but those with lesser marks were given admission for obvious reasons. The lists of admitted students under the management quota as disclosed by the colleges and those who had applied etc. are annexed to the petition; (e) on receiving complaints in respect of Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation Medical College, Ahmednagar that some 6 students were admitted with lesser marks, the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti directed that students with higher marks be admitted in their place. The college refused to accept that order and challenged the decision of the Committee by contending that it had no power to issue any such direction. That Writ Petition (L) No. 2871 of 2004 is pending.
6. In view of many such irregularities, it is pointed out that the then Pravesh Niyantran Samiti under the chairmanship of Hon''ble Shri Justice B. V. Chavan (Retd.) observed in its report to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drug Department dated 29/30th October, 2004 as follows :
"Having worked on the present system of admission this Samiti has come to the conclusion that for the next Academic year, Centralised Admission Process - even for the management quota is a must if hardships are to be avoided to the aspiring students and indirectly to their parents. Even some of the medical colleges, who have charity at their heart, subscribe to this view. Copy of letter received from Tatya Saheb Kore Medical and Dental College, Kolhapur is attached herewith for information (Annexure-5)."
The letter of the concerned Dental College is annexed at Annexure-5. This college is joined as respondent No. 6 to this petition. In the said letter dated 21st September, 2004 addressed to the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti and signed by Dr. Shailesh Kore, Vice Chairman of the said College, a request is made for approval of some of the admissions made by the college. Thereafter it is stated as follows :�-
"We have strictly followed the criterias laid down.
I really do feel that a Centralised procedure instead would have been better than all this stress."
7. Reliance is placed on the observations of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy judgment and particularly para 16 of the report of S.C.C. to submit that if merit is to be the basis, then the admission process also ought to be common and if respondent No. 4 is not inclined to do that, the Director of Medical Education ought to hold the process.
8. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mrs. Ranga, Administrative Officer of respondent No. 4, and in para 28 thereof it is specifically stated as follows :-
"28. With reference to paragraph 10 of the petition, I say that this respondent cannot hold a Centralised Admission Process as the same is contrary to and in the teeth of the Supreme Court judgment as set out in T.M.A. Pai Foundation as also in the case of Islamic Academy and, therefore, I say that the said prayer cannot be granted."
9. Ms. Salgaocar-Radia, learned counsel for respondent No, 4, took us through paragraphs 40 to 68 of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, and particularly, emphasised the observations in paragraphs 40, 41, 45, 53, 58 and 68. She submitted that the earlier judgment in the case of
10. As far as respondent No. 2 - Director of Medical Education is concerned, he has accepted that there are grievances against the procedure conducted by the private colleges and in paragraph 2 to 4 of his reply, he has stated that State is willing to conduct GET as well as CAP. In paragraph 4, it is specifically stated that even the 4th respondent Association was also of the view that at least for the first round of these admissions, there should be Centralised Admission Process. He has drawn our attention to Rules 9.3 to 9.10 of the Brochure printed by the 4th respondent for the Academic year 2004-2005.
11. Having noted these submissions and before we proceed further, we must note the relevant observations in the later judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy''s case. The rationale behind the Common Entrance Test by private colleges is spelt out in later part of para 16 of this judgment which reads as follows :-
"In our view what is necessary is a practical approach keeping in mind the need for a merit-based selection. Paragraph 68 provides that admission by the management can be by a common entrance test held by "itself or by the State/University". The words "common entrance test" clearly indicate that each institute cannot hold a separate test. We thus hold that the management could select students of their quota, either on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the State or on the basis of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of a particular type in that Stage e.g. medical, engineering or technical etc. The common entrance test, held by the association, must be for admission to all colleges of that type in the State. The option of choosing, between either of these tests, must be exercised before issuing of prospectus and after intimation to the concerned authority and the Committee set up hereinafter. If any professional college chooses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the association then that college must necessarily admit from the common entrance test conducted by the Stage. After holding the common entrance test and declaration of results the merit list will immediately be placed on the notice-board of all colleges which have chosen to admit as per this test. A copy of the merit list will also be forthwith sent to the concerned authority and the Committee. Selection of students must then be strictly on the basis of merit as per that merit list. Of course, as indicated earlier, minority colleges will be entitled to fill up their quota with their own students on the basis of inter se merit amongst those students. The list of students admitted, along with the rank number obtained by the student, the fees collected and all such particulars and details as may be required by the concerned authority or the Committee must be submitted to them forthwith. The question paper and the answer papers must be preserved for such period as the concerned authority or Committee may indicate. If it is found that any student has been admitted de hors merit, penalty can be imposed on that institute and in appropriate cases recognition/affiliation may also be withdrawn."
12. The guidance for supervision of this GET is seen in the first part of para 19 of this judgment, which is to the following effect:
"19. We now direct that the respective State Governments do appoint a permanent Committee which will ensure that the tests conducted by the association of colleges is fair and transparent. For each State a separate Committee shall be formed. The Committee would be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court. The Judge is to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that Stage. The other member, to be nominated by the Judge, would be a doctor or an engineer of eminence (depending on whether the institution is medical or engineering/technical). The Secretary of the Stage in charge of Medical or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall also be member and act as the Secretary of the Committee. The Committee will be free to nominate/co-opt an independent person of repute in the field of education as well as one of the Vice-Chancellors of the University in that Stage so that the total number of persons on the Committee do not exceed five. The Committee shall have powers to oversee the tests to be conducted by the association. This would include the power to call for the proposed question paper(s), to know the names of the paper-setters and examiners and to check the method adopted to ensure papers are not leaked. The Committee shall supervise and ensure that the test is conducted in a fair and transparent manner."
As far as the Common Admission Process is concerned, in our view, the following observations appearing in the later part of this para 19 are relevant:-
"The committee shall have the power to permit an institution, which has been established and which has been permitted to adopt its own admission procedure for the last at least 25 years, to adopt its own admission procedure and if the Committee feels that the needs of such an institute are genuine, to admit students of their community, in excess of the quota allotted to them by the State Government. Before exempting any institute or varying in percentage of quota fixed by the State, the State Government must be heard before the Committee. It is clarified that different percentage of quota for students to be admitted by the management in each minority or non-minority unaided professional college(s) shall be separately fixed on the basis of their need by the respective State Governments and in case of any dispute as regards fixation of percentage of quota, it will be open to the management to approach the Committee. It is also clarified that no institute, which has not been established and which has not followed its own admission procedure for the last, at least, 25 years, shall be permitted to apply for or be granted exemption from admitting students in the manner set out hereinabove."
The aforesaid quotation supports the submission of the petitioner for Centralised Admission Process exception being only to those colleges who have been permitted to adopt their own admission procedure for last more than 25 years.
13. In view of what is noted above as well as the relevant quotations from the Islamic Academy judgment, it is clear that the submissions of the petitioner justifying a Centralised Admission Process require consideration. Amongst other supporting material, the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences in Writ Petition No. 9394 of 2003 and other matters, to which one of us (H. L. Gokhale, J.) was a party. The said Academy runs a Medical College and during 2003-2004 it was seen that all the seats from Government quota were filled by this college without any authority by giving admission to students who had extremely low marks. The University was directed not to allow students to take their annual examination. That was an order at the admission stage. At a later point of time, on a representation being made to the State Government, the State Government took a considerate view and, on stringent condition, another Division Bench allowed the students to continue their education while disposing of this petition.
14. All these aspects will have to be gone into. We could have disposed of the petition at this stage itself. However, we are informed that in a matter pending in the Apex Court, some similar questions are also under consideration. Hence, it will be better that the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court are also considered before the petition is finally disposed of. Hence, we issue Rule on this petition and direct that the petition be notified for further direction on 1st August, 2005. It would however be necessary that appropriate interim order ought to be passed. The students cannot be left in the lurch and required to go from Mumbai to Nagpur and to Kolhapur to fill their forms and pay the fees and land into all sorts of difficulties as has been noted earlier.
15. In view of what is noted above, on a query from the Court, it was pointed out by respondent No. 2 that the results of CET to be held by the State Government will be available by 15th June, 2005 and the first round of counselling will be over by 17th July, 2005. The seats, which are advertised by the State Government, are 3660 which are of the colleges run by the State Government, Municipal Corporation and Public Bodies. Half of the seats of the private colleges are also to be filled by the State Government through its CET as per para 21 of the judgment in Islamic Academy. This is accepted by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Association. The number of seats in private colleges are 6500. Thus the State CET is going to be for 3660 + 3250 students. Their first round of counselling will be completed by 17th July, 2005. Since we are told that 90% of the admissions will be over by that time and since in the last year respondent No. 4 Association had also expressed an inclination for a Centralized Admission Process, in our view, it would be proper that the Director of Medical Education holds a Centralized Admission Process of counselling for the 3250 management seats which should be held from 20th July, 2005 onwards. The result of CET of respondent No. 4 and the list is to be finalised by them by 30th June, 2005. The respondent No. 4 shall forward the list thereof to respondent No. 2 by 7th July, 2005. One representative of respondent No. 4 Association may as well remain present at the time of this counselling. It will be for the Directorate to make necessary arrangement in that behalf and to claim reimbursement of expenditure to be incurred by them. The Private Medical Colleges will give admission to the students as per the options exercised by the students and communicated by respondent No. 2 and the representative of respondent No. 4 on a jointly signed list. The respondent No. 2 will frame the timetable for payment of fees for these colleges in consultation with respondent No. 4. However, if respondent No. 4 refuses to co-operate, it will be open to respondent No. 2 to fix it which will be finalised preferably considering the convenience of students and the colleges.
16. Petition be notified for further direction on Monday, 1st August, 2005.
