JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, A.C J. (Oral) : The petitioner was a candidate for admission to B.D.S. course in the Session 1997-98 in Himachal Dental College, Sundemagar District Mandi against die payment seats. His grievance in the present petition is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are adopting two criteria for filling in free seats and payment seats in violation of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court of India in Unni Krishanan, State of Andhara Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645 and the directions issued by this Court in CWP. No. l 703 of 1996 titled Manisha Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. The Himachal Pradesh University-respondent No.2 in its reply filed on the affidavit of Shri A.R. Chauhan, Controller of Examinations, has almost admitted the case of the petitioner by stating that since a mistake had crept in the prospectus wherein no mention was made in respect of the payment seats a corrigendum was issued in the press on 28th June, 1997 (Annexure P-l) and common entrance test was conducted for the free seats as well as the payment seats. The University-respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the admission to the payment seats is to be given out of the merit list prepared by it on the basis of common entrance examination. 3. However, the State of Himachal Pradesh in its reply filed on the affidavit of Shri Rattan Singh, Joint Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has opposed this writ petition and has averred that the common entrance test was conducted only for 30 free seats which was notified in the prospectus issued on 29.6.1997. It is also stated that the University is ; not the competent authority and it was never authorised to conduct any test or to undertake admission to 21 payment seats in Himachal Dental College. Sundernagar he is further stated that the merit list of 50 candidates for B.D.S. bourse against 21 payment seats has already been prepared on the basis of 10+2 examination and submitted by Director. Dental Health Services to the Government and admission will be made out of the said list strictly on merit. The petitioner who has obtained only 55% marks, does not figure in ‘the merit list .he last candidate at serial No.50 has obtained 72% marks. 4. Dental Health Services to the Government and admission will be made out of the said list strictly on merit. The petitioner who has obtained only 55% marks, does not figure in ‘the merit list .he last candidate at serial No.50 has obtained 72% marks. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we find substance in this writ petition and it is accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the Supreme court of India in Unni Krishanan vs. Stale of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra) has approved the scheme which is mentioned in paragraphs -210 onward. The relevant observations in para 210(2) are :- "At least, 50% of the seats in every professional college shall be filled by the nominees of the Government or University, as the case may be. hereinafter referred to as "free seats". These students shall be selected on the basis of merit determined on the basis of a common entrance examination where it is held or in the absence of an ent. once exam ination, by such criteria as may be determined by the competent authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be. it is. however, desirable and appropriate to have a common entrance examination for regulation admissions to these colleges/institutions, as is done in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The remaining 50% seats (payment seats) shall be filled by those candidates who are f both free seats and payment scats The only distinction shall be the requirement of higher fee by the payment students. The Management of a professional College shall not be entitled to impose or prescribe any other and further eligibility criteria or condition for admission either to free seats or to payment scats It shall, however, be open to a professional college to provide for reservation of sets for constitutionally permissible affiliating University. Such reservations, if any shall be made and notified to the competent authority and the appropriate authority el least one month prior (o the issuance^ of notification calling for applications for admission to such category of colleges. In such a case, the competent authority shall allow students keeping in view the reservations provided by a college. The rule of merit shall be followed even in such reserved categories." 5. In such a case, the competent authority shall allow students keeping in view the reservations provided by a college. The rule of merit shall be followed even in such reserved categories." 5. Following the ratio of the judgment of Unni Knshanans case (supra;, this Court in the case of Manisha Gupta v. Stale of Himachal Pradesh and others has further directed in Paragraph-12 of its judgment that from the next academic session onwards the procedure prescribed in regulations framed by the Dental Council of India for admission to all scats available in the Private Dental Colleges shall be strictly followed by not only respondents No.4 and 5 but also by respondent No.3. Respondents No.4 and 5 were the Himachal Dental College, Sundernagar and Principal of the said college and respondent No.3 was H.P. University in the said writ petition. 6. So far the norms and guidelines for admission in Dental Colleges are concerned, regulation No.5 prescribes the admission procedure. Clause (b) of regulation No.5 states that only the competent authority shall call for applications for admission to all seats available in private dental colleges along with the applications for admission to Government/university College are similar nature. Clause (d) of regulation 5 prvides that the comment authority shall prepare a list -on the basis of a common entrance examination from amongst the successful candidates where a common entrance examination is held or in absence of an entrance - examination, by such criteria as may be determined ?y the component authority. 7. In view of these regulations it is clear that common entrance test was required to be conducted by the University for free seats as well as for payment scats which has, in fact, been done as admitted in the reply affidavit of the University. The State of Himachal Pradesh is not right in taking die stand that admission to the payment seats is to be made by adopting the criteria on the basis of 10+2 examination as it will be in violation of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishanan s case (supra) as well as the direction of this Court issue in CWP No. 1703 of 1996 titled Manisha Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh and other: 8. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the admission to 21k seats should be made by respondents out of the merit list prepared in the common entrance test conducted by the H.P. University and not from amongst the merit list prepared on the basis of 10+2 examination. Therefore the University respondent No.2 is directed to supply the merit list on the basis of common entrance test within a period of two weeks and admission will be made by respondent No.3 on the basis of said list. -