IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.53915/2016(EDN-MED-ADM) BETWEEN:
MR.AOUSAF HUSSAIN S/O DR.P.V.HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/O.PUTHALAM, POST ANDROTH ISLAND LAKSHADWEEP LAKSHADWEEP-682 551 PRESENTLY R/O.KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ROOM No.110 MENS HOSTEL, DARALEKATTE MANGALURU-575 018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4. KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, DARALEKATTE MANGALURU-575 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 5. UNIASA ZAINAB D/O SYED TANVEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/O.NO.42, NANDI DURGA ROAD NEAR 119 BUS STOP, S.S.ENCLAVE MARAPPA GARDEN BENGALURU-560 046 6. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 17.10.16) 7. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR -8 DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077 REP. BY SECRETARY (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 24.10.16) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R6; SRI A.V.NISHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI S.A.H.RAZVI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE MBBS COURSE AND QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD.7.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS CONCERNING TO R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.10.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R 1. This petition is presented by a first year medical student, in Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangaluru (fourth respondent – ‘college’ for short) inter alia, with a prayer to quash the communication dated 9.10.2016 (Annexure-D) from his college and to permit him to continue his course.
2. Briefly stated the facts are, petitioner appeared and secured 13921st rank in NEET 2016 Examination.
3. A candidate, by name Mohmmed Shoiab Aamer, who was allotted a seat by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA for short), did not report to the college as on 29.9.2016. On 30.9.2016, the college announced the unfilled seats in the website calling upon the eligible candidates to apply. In response thereto, petitioner submitted his application, and he was given admission by the college after receiving necessary fees.
4. The college, submitted the list of candidates to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (6th respondent - for short ‘University’), on 30.9.2016.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 6.10.2016, in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).76/2015 (Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others) extended time to fill up unfilled Government Quota seats till 7.10.2016.
6. By a communication dated 7.10.2016 (Annexure-A), the Director of Medical Education instructed the medical colleges to keep their offices open on 8.10.2016 till 5 p.m., to facilitate admission of the CET quota students in their respective colleges, and to upload the list of candidates on the websites of University and the Medical Council of India.
7. On 7.10.2016, the Karnataka Examination Authority, allotted a seat to a candidate by name Ms.Unaisa Zainab. The Director of Medical Education, in furtherance of previous telephonic communications, by his email dated 9.10.2016, directed the college, to admit Ms.Unaisa Zainab by 10.10.2016 after discharging the petitioner from the roll of the college. In compliance thereof, college discharged the petitioner on 10.10.2016. However, by the impugned communication dated 9.10.2016 (Annexure-D), the college had already informed the petitioner about the instructions received from the Director of medical Education to discharge him. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
8. We have heard Shri K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sridhar N.Hegde, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2, Shri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 6, Shri A.V.Nishanth, learned Counsel for respondent No.4, Shri S.A.H.Razvi, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Shri N.Khetty, learned Counsel for respondent No.7. We have carefully considered their submissions and perused the records.
9. Point for consideration:
In the conspectus of aforementioned facts, the point that arises for our consideration is, whether the petitioner’s admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course is lawful?
10. Incontrovertible facts of this case are, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Ranjan (supra), the last date for admission to I year MBBS course was 7.10.2016. It was conceded during the hearing that, the college is bound by the said order. The tenor of Director’s email dated 9.10.2016, gives an impression that, at the first instance, the college did not admit the candidate, Ms.Unaisa Zainab who was allotted a Government seat on 7.10.2016. Therefore, the Director of Medical Education had to give strict instructions to admit Ms.Unaisa Zainab, by discharging petitioner. Resultantly, petitioner was discharged on 10.10.2016. The college, has confirmed petitioner’s discharge, in it’s email dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-D1), sent to the ‘Supreme Court Mandated Overseeing Committee on MCI’, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, the Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Karnataka, the MCI and the University.
11. On 17.10.2016, based on the submissions made at the bar, this Court, directed the Karnataka Examination Authority to enquire about the student, who had not reported as on 30.9.2016.
12. Curiously, the petitioner filed a memo on 17.10.2016 itself, praying disposal of this writ petition as ‘not pressed’. The said memo reads thus:
MEMO “It is submitted that pursuant to communications dated 7.10.2016 and 9.10.2016 issued by Respondent No.2 & 3. The Respondent No.4 institution issued communication dated 9.10.2016 in No.KIMS/ACA/ADM001/2016-17 to the Petitioner informing that he is not permitted to continue the MBBS Course. Thereafter on 13.10.2016 the Respondent No.4 sent email to Respondents 1-3 confirming the admission of 5th Respondent candidate to MBBBS Course and also informed that the Petitioner is discharged as on 10.10.2016 from its institution. During the pending of the above Writ Petition, the Respondent No.4 has issued communication dated 17.10.2016 informing Petitioner that his admission will not be disturbed and he is permitted to continue his course. The copy of the communication dated 17.10.2016 is herewith enclosed for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. In view of letter dated 17.10.2016 issued by Respondent No.4 College, the Petitioner humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to dispose the above Writ Petition as not pressed with liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court if need be in future, in the interest of justice.”
Bengaluru Advocate for petitioner 17.10.2016 13. The college, in it’s defence, has principally urged two contentions in the statement of objections. Firstly, one Ms.Sahana, who was also admitted under the CET quota, had, on 14.10.2016, expressed her desire to discontinue her studies due to her financial incapacity. Secondly, the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Director of Medical Education, had directed the college to refund fee to Ms.Sahana and discharge her from MBBS course; and to permit the petitioner to continue the course. The relevant portion of the statement of objections filed by the college, reads as follows:-
12. ……………. “The Respondent No.1 & 2 on 14.10.2016 through Tele-communication directed the Respondent herein to refund the fee to Ms. Sahana.N and discharge her from MBBS Course and permit the Petitioner to continue the MBBS Course at Respondent institution. The Respondent No.2 herein on 19.10.2016 also sent email communication to Respondent herein to permit the petitioner to continue the course against the CET Candidate Ms.Sahana due to typographical error mentioned as Mr.Sandhya. The Copy of the email communication dated 14.10.2016 along with reply email 19.10.2016 is herewith enclosed as Annexure R17”.
14. We may at once record, that the aforesaid pleading is contrary to the document Annexure–R17 (exchange of emails between the college and the Director of Medical Education), which reads as follows:-
“From : Director Med.Edu, Karantaka dmekarnataka@yahoo.com “Kanachur Dean”
<dean@kanachurims.com>, “Sharanprakash Patil”
<pSharanprakash@yahoo.in>, To : “Sharanprakash Medical”
<psaranprakashmem@gmail.com>, “Sharanprakash Patil”
<sharanprakash.patil@gmail.com, “prsih- edu@karnataka.gov.in”
<prsih-edu@karnataka.gov.in “Secyme-hfw”secyme-hfw@ karnataka.gov.in> Reply to : “dmekarnataka@yahoo.com”
dmekarnataka@yahoo.com Subject : Re: Surrendering of the seat by the candidate allotted by KEA (admission order no.160003452) – reg Date : Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:09:05+0530 To The Dean Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences Mangaluru Sir You are hereby permitted to continue Mr.Aousaf Hussain for MBBS course in place of the CET candidate Ms.Sandhya who has surrendered her seat voluntarily. This is being permitted since the name of the above candidate already figures in the list submitted for approval to RGUHS.
Regards DME Sent from Yahoo Main on Android On Wed, 19 Oct, 2016 at 2:24 p.m., Director Med.Edu, Karantaka <dmekarnataka@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dean Kanachur Med College Pl go ahead & submit the list @ MCI/RGUHS. I have obtained permission from Principal Secretary, Med Edu Dept.
Dr.Sacchidanand DME Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 14 Oct, 2016 at 1:03 p.m., Kanachur Dean <dean@kanachurims.com> wrote:
To The Principal Secretary Higher Education Govt. of Karnataka Room No. 645, 6th Floor M S Building BENGALURU-560 001.
Respected Sir, Sub: Surrendering of the seat by the candidate allotted by KEA (admission order no.160003452) – reg.
Ref: Email dated 14/10/2016 from Ms.Sahana N We wish to bring to your kind notice that a candidate by name Ms. Sahana N. D/o.Mr.Nagarajaiah, allotted through the KEA quota vide allotment admission order no.160003452, CET No BH205, Category 3AG, Rank 2565 dt.30.09.2016, reported at this Institution on 30/09/2016, but has not attended any class till today.
However, Ms.Sahana, N, has sent us an email this morning i.e., dated:14/10/2016, with a copy marked to the Director of Medical Education, stating that she is surrendering the seat allotted to her, as she is unable to pay the annual tuition fees, due to financial problems. Ms.Sahana has also requested us to return the original certificate submitted at the time of reporting.
Already, as per your directions vide DME Karnataka email dated 07/10/2016 & 09/10/2016, we have discharged a ST candidate, in favour of KEA candidate allotted on 07/10/2016.
In view of the circumstances mentioned above, one seat is falling vacant. If you could kindly permit us to fill this vacant seat with the above mentioned, already discharged management quota ST candidate, who appear to have gone to the Court of Law, the problem is also solved.
We hope you will permit us to take further step in this regard by issuing favorable orders immediately, (as today 5.00 PM is the last date for submission of online admission data to MCI) for filling the vacant seat with the management quota and oblige.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, DEAN”
(emphasis supplied) 15. It is clear that, the contents of above emails are undeniably contrary to paragraph No.12 of statement of objections, extracted above. The pleading gives an impression that the authorities had directed the college to continue the petitioner, whereas, the email clearly shows that, it was the college, which has sought ‘favourable orders’ to continue petitioner in place of Ms.Sahana. The college has produced another document (R-18), which is a copy of cancellation letter dated 14.10.2016, written by the College to Ms. Sahana. It contains Ms. Sahana’s signature and her acknowledgement, having received the original documents. Conspicuously, on the very same day, the college has sought permission for petitioner’s continuance in the college. In substance, the college sought to appropriate the seat of Ms. Sahana who has, admittedly, left the college on 14.10.2016.
16. The Karnataka Examination authority, along with its statement of objections, has produced a complaint dated 17.10.2016, submitted by Ms. Sahana’s father alleging forcible expulsion of his daughter from the college. Curiously, on the very same day, namely, 17.10.2016, petitioner filed the aforementioned memo seeking disposal of this writ petition as ‘not pressed’.
17. This Court, by order dated 28.11.2016, refused the interim prayer to continue the petitioner’s admission by recording thus:
“We have heard Mr.K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Farah Fathima, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Vasanth, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 & 6, Mr.Nishanth A.V., learned Counsel for respondent No.4, Mr.N.Khetty, learned Counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr.S.A.H.Razvi, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
It prima-facie appears that for admission in MBBS course initially, the last date for admission was 30th September 2016, but thereafter, the Apex Court extended the date upto 7th October 2016. Out of the total available seats, 38 seats in the respondent No.4- College were allotted to KEA-respondent No.3 for grant of admission on the basis of inter se merit. It is the case of the petitioner that until 30th September 2016, only 37 students reported and therefore, one seat remained vacant over which the admission was granted to him whereas the case of 2nd and 3rd respondents is that the Apex Court extended the period upto 7th October 2016 and as a result thereof, respondent No.3 was entitled to allot the student for admission in its own quota of 38 seats and more particularly, one left out seat over which respondent No.5 has been granted admission. Respondent No.5 is admitted even as per respondent No.4 and therefore, accordingly, it can be said that all the 38 seats were already filled up by 7th October 2016 which was the last cut off date for admission. For the petitioner, no seat was available on 7th October 2016 and hence, prima-facie, it can be said that admission of the petitioner is in excess of the seat available for respondent No.4 college, since all the seats were exhausted.
Mr.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel attempted to contend that the earlier cut off date was 30th September 2016 and therefore, one seat remained vacant on 30th September 2016, over which, respondent No.4 college has granted admission to the petitioner. The same would not get disturbed, because as per him, the Apex Court ordered for extension of time upto 7th October 2016 which is be construed for unfilled seats and not for the seats which were already filled up on 30th September 2016.
It prima-facie appears that when one talks about the seats duly filled in, it has to be read as seat legally filled in and not in any unauthorized manner. If the outer date is extended by the Apex Court upto 7th October 2016 is to be given effect, the respondent No.4 College had no authority to admit the petitioner since the last date of 7th October was not over. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Apex Court is to be interpreted as not to disturb the admission already granted, in our view cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this Court cannot clarify the order of the Apex Court and once one proceeds on the basis that last date extended by the Apex Court is upto 7th October 2016, it has to be read accordingly only and all admissions are to be governed accordingly. The effect of the order of the Apex Court would mean that the admission to be granted by the said last date as per the available quota of the seats which in the present case is with respondent No.3-KEA. In the merit order, respondent No.5 was entitled for admission before the last date and is also accordingly admitted by respondent No.3. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that admission of the petitioner by respondent No.4-college would march over the admission already granted to respondent no.5 by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 and duly accepted by respondent No.4.
The next aspect which may further deserve consideration is available seat of one student Ms.Sahana who was already granted admission on KEA seat by respondent No.3 and she had already paid the fees. Hence, she was already admitted much prior to 30th September 2016 by respondent No.4. So far as the seat of Ms.Sahana is concerned, as per the complaint made by the father of Ms.Sahana to respondent No.3, the Management of respondent No.4- College compelled her to withdraw her admission. In the said complaint it has been stated that there was demand of fees of five to six lakhs every year for which Ms.Sahana had no capacity and therefore, she had to surrender her admission. If the complaint filed to the Directorate of Medical Education- respondent No.2 is found to be genuine, it would be a case of exploitation of student by management of respondent No.4 to extract money in the name of fees or otherwise. Alternatively, it prima-facie appears that there was an attempt to compel the student Ms. Sahana to withdraw and thereby to make one seat available from amongst the quota of KEA which may make room for protecting admission already granted to the petitioner by the Management of respondent No.4. In our prima-facie view, the attempt on the part of respondent no.4 management if considered in the light of complaint made by the student, it can be termed as not only unethical but would also result into demand of more fees and thereby compelling the student to surrender the admission which would also could be against the standards to be maintained by any medical college in the field of education. What could be the consequence which may affect the affiliation granted to respondent No.4 as approved medical college is an aspect which may depend upon the out come of the enquiry by the appropriate authority. Therefore, we do not propose to make any concluding observations. But suffice it to state that considering the facts and circumstances that the student who was already admitted has made serious complaint against the management of respondent No.4-college for demanding of more amount of fees than the prescribed for KEA student, resultantly, compelling the student to surrender her admission. Hence, it would call for holding an enquiry and investigation by the competent authority and it is only after the report is submitted, it will have to be decided as to whether any action is called for or not. As per the provisions of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, since the competent authority is Fee Regulatory Committee, we find that the aspects of holding of enquiry and the recommendation of the committee, if any, can be assigned to the Fee Regulatory Committee for the present. All other aspects relating thereto shall further be considered after the decision and recommendation of Fee Regulatory Committee.
Apart from the above, it is further prima-facie appears that the Apex Court had already fixed the last date as 7th October 2016 and even if the surrendering of the seat by Ms.Sahana is considered as genuine, the same was on 14th October 2016 i.e. much after the last date for admission was over.
Under the circumstances, it is not open to respondent No.4-college to request respondent No.2 to consider the seat of Ms. Sahana to be utilized for maintaining the admission of the petitioner, nor it was open to respondent No.2 to permit the use of seat of Ms. Sahana for maintaining the admission of the petitioner. If such admission is permitted, it may result into breach of order of the Apex Court, by which the last date was fixed as 7th October 2016, whereas the seat of Ms. Sahana could be said as falling vacant only on 14th October 2016.
As such, in view of the aforesaid aspect, though initially memo dated 17.10.2016 was filed by the petitioner to withdraw the petition, subsequently, the said memo is not pressed and the petition is prosecuted by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to pass the following:
ORDER i) Interim prayer of the petitioner to continue the admission with respondent No.4-college is refused.
ii) It is further observed and directed that if the petitioner is desirous to get the refund of the fees, he would be so entitled or may await the final decision in the present petition.
It is also observed and directed that respondents No.2 and 3 shall prepare a compilation of the complaint made by Ms. Sahana, on the basis of the letter dated 17.10.2016 appended with the statement of objection filed by respondent No.3 and shall make a reference to the Fees Regulatory Committee for holding enquiry, after giving opportunity to all the affected parties. Such enquiry as well as the recommendation, if any shall be finalized on or before 07.02.2017 and the report shall be submitted by respondents No.2 and 3 of the said Fees Regulatory Committee on or before 10.02.2017.
Put up on 13.02.2017 for further consideration.”
18. Be that as it may, suffice to record that, the College, State Government, and the Director of Medical Education, collectively, went out of their way to continue petitioner’s admission, in flagrant violation of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
19. Shri K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner’s admission was in accordance with law, inasmuch as he was admitted within the original cut-off date, namely, 30.9.2016, against a clear vacancy, as a Government quota candidate, by name Mohmmad Shoiab Aamer, had failed to report for admission.
20. Shri Khetty, learned Counsel for the MCI, is right in his submission that any admission made beyond 7.10.2016, is contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court and therefore, illegal.
21. The law governing admission to the medical colleges is no more res integra. In the case of Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued unambiguous directions which are in rem. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgement read as follows:-
“46. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned:
x x x 46.6. All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counselling should be the final counselling, as this Court has already held in Neelu Arora v. Union of India [(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third counselling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.
46.7. If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from all-India quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counselling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year.
x x x 47. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including the Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions:
47.1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such institution/State, etc.
47.2. The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these directions or overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant.
47.3. Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default.
47.4. There shall be due channelisation of selection and admission process with full cooperation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government, universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerted action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in this behalf.
47.5. The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college.
47.6. Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counselling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test.
47.7. It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and university to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counselling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective States, immediately after each counselling.
47.8. No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner.
(Emphasis supplied) 22. Indubitably, petitioner was discharged on 10.10.2016 and the college claims to have re-admitted him, as per the instructions of the Director of Medical Education on 14.10.2016, though surprisingly, the Director’s email is dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure-R17). Such instructions/directions are, clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, we unhesitatingly, hold that re-admission of petitioner after 7.10.2016 is illegal and accordingly answer the point for consideration.
23. Shri Shashi Kiran Shetty, also did make a request, to consider saving petitioner’s admission, by issuing necessary directions to the college to surrender one extra seat in the ensuing academic year.
24. The law declared in Priya Gupta (supra), particularly, paragraph 46.7, mandates that all students should join the academic courses by 30th September. In the instant case, the last date stood extended to 7th October as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan (supra). All directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any admission beyond the date stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is patently illegal. Further, even if, there were any scope, the conduct of the petitioner, seeking disposal of this petition as ‘not pressed’, should certainly disentitle him, such relief. We say so because, if this Court, had acceded to his request and dismissed this writ petition as ‘not pressed’, it would have resulted in putting a stamp of approval to the illegality perpetrated by all concerned resulting in petitioner’s continuance, in clear violation of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
25. Therefore, we expressly, decline to accept the request made by Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty.
26. In the light of above discussion, we hold that, there is no error in law, in the communication dated 9.10.2016 (Annexure-D) issued by the College, conveying the instructions sent by the Director of Medical Education to discharge the petitioner from the roll of the college, calling for interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
27. Resultantly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
28. In view of dismissal of this writ petition, interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
29. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE cp*/Yn.