Judgment :- By consent of all the parties main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. Since the issue involved in all these cases is one and the same, by the following common order all the cases may be disposed of. 2. Petitioners are self financing educational institutions and admission to various courses are being done as per the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case. In order to understand the cases, I shall refer the facts leading to the filing of W.P. No. 5066/97. The petitioner is a registered Trust and the said trust is running self-financing educational institutions. The object of the Trust is to educate and cater the needs of the Society in educating candidates in different faculties with best facilities and standards. The petitioner is running Trinity Mission Medical Foundation at Madurai in which Bachelor of Physiotheraphy course is conducted with a sanctioned strength of 50 seats pursuant to the recognition and affiliation from the Government and the University. As per the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case, the 3rd respondent/selection committee, Kilpauk Medical College Campus, Chennai-10 can allot 25 candidates in free seat and 17 candidates in payment seat and 8 candidates have to be filled by the Management with the candidates of its own choice. After the cut off date fixed by the Selection Committee if still any seats remain vacant in free seat and payment seat the same is construed to be a lapsed seat and the Management is at liberty to fill up the said seats with candidates of his own choice. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had allotted 24 candidates in the free seat on 26-7-96 and 7 candidates in the payment seat to the petitioners institution out of which 18 candidates in free seat reported and joined the institution and one candidate in payment seat reported to the college. Hence the petitioner Trust informed the Selection Committee vide its letter UT SC 1/96 dated 16-8-96 that 18 candidates in free seat and one candidates in payment seat have reported. Hence the petitioner Trust informed the Selection Committee vide its letter UT SC 1/96 dated 16-8-96 that 18 candidates in free seat and one candidates in payment seat have reported. Thereafter the third respondent again allotted one candidate in free seat on 22-8-96, 2 candidates in free seat on 24-8-96, 4 candidates in free seat on 26-8-96 and one candidate in free seat on 13-9-96 and 6 candidates in payment seat on 22-8-96, 6 candidates in payment seat on 24-8-96, 2 candidates in payment seat on 9-9-96 and 2 candidates in payment seat on 11-9-96, out of which only 6 candidates in free seat have reported and joined the College and the candidates in the payment seat viz., 14 joined and reported to the petitioner Institution. It is further contended that the petitioner in their letter TMMF 96 dated 18-9-96 informed the Selection Committee that 24 candidates in free seat and 15 candidates in payment seat have joined the Institution. 3. It is further contended that after knowing the vacancy position through the petitioner Institution only the 3rd respondent has again allotted one candidate in free seat on 26-9-96 and 2 candidates in free seat on 28-9-96 and 2 candidates in free seat on 14-10-96 and one candidate in free seat on 16-10-96 and 6 candidates in free seat on 24-10-96. None of the candidates joined allotted by Selection Committee in between 26-9-965 and 24-10-96. Thereafter, the petitioner again sent a letter vide UT. TMMF 96 dated 24-10-96 that only 23 candidates in free seat joined and reported as on 24-10-96 (as one candidate who joined earlier also left for some other course) and 16 candidates in payment seat have joined. Again on 30-10-96 a telegram was sent by the petitioner informing the number of seats filled up and the balance of seat remaining unfilled. Again on 31-10-96 one candidate left in payment category bring the total to 15 candidates in payment seat allotted by the 3rd respondent the candidates who joined the course which was also informed by the petitioner on 31-10-96 vide its letter UT TMF 96 dated 31-10-96. 4. It is further contended that the petitioner has been informing promptly on each occasion even without a delay of one day the position of vacancy in free seat and payment sent to the third respondent. 4. It is further contended that the petitioner has been informing promptly on each occasion even without a delay of one day the position of vacancy in free seat and payment sent to the third respondent. The 3rd respondent had been allotting the candidates only after knowing the vacant position as can be seen from the records. In such circumstances, the reason given in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further, it is contended that the respondents have not given any opportunity before accepting the Selection Committee report. As per the decision of the Selection Committee, no candidate should be admitted in the place of 3 drop out candidates of Government allotment. Further, it states that the petitioner must identify and send the names of ten eligible candidates out of 13 candidates for registration. The petitioner is aggrieved against the reduced intake of three students for the academic year 1996-97 of B.P.T. course by the University and is challenging the same by way of the present writ petition. 5. Almost identical averments have been made in other writ petitions also, more particularly the petitioners specifically affirmed that all of them have informed the vacancy position to the respondents then and there and they have admitted candidates only after expiry of the cut off date as permitted by the Government in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court. Hence there is no need to refer the facts in other cases. 6. On behalf of the first and second respondents, namely, Dr. M.G.R. University and the Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. University, counter-affidavit has been filed in some of the cases. They have taken almost same defence in all the counter-affidavits. For the convenience I shall refer the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 5230 of 97. It is contended that the petitioner Institutions have allotted candidates in free seat as well as payment seat without informing the correct vacancy position to the Selection Committee or to the University. They received a communication from the Selection Committee stating that the vacancy position was not received from the respective Institutions. The Selection Committee also informed the University that those institutions will not be permitted to fill up the vacancies against the drop outs. They received a communication from the Selection Committee stating that the vacancy position was not received from the respective Institutions. The Selection Committee also informed the University that those institutions will not be permitted to fill up the vacancies against the drop outs. With regard to Sub-Committee it is submitted that the same was appointed by the Governing Council of the University and the Committee consists of the Secretary, Selection Committee, Controller of Examinations of the respondent University and Thiru Chinnaswamy, a Governing Council Member. The matter of allotment of candidates to the petitioner Institution and the particulars of number of candidates admitted by the College were placed before the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee has observed that the Selection Committee did not receive the vacancy position in respect of the college in time to allot candidates from the waiting list before the cut off date. In those circumstances the Sub-Committee has resolved that the college should not be permitted to fill up the vacancies against the 11 drop out candidates. The college can admit the Management quota only. Then thereafter the Governing council of University resolved among other things "to accept the recommendations of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Governing council for the purpose of scrutinising and approving the list of registration of candidates for 1996-97 session."It was also resolved further that" the candidates of those institutions who are not in conformity with the selection list sent by the Selection Committee need not be registered." * Since the admission made by the petitioner institution in respect of seats specially reserved for free seat and payment seat, the respondents have sent the impugned orders in all the cases. With these averments the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Almost similar contentions were raised by respondents 1 and 2 other cases also, hence I am not referring the same once again. 7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mrs. B. Saraswathi, learned counsel for petitioners in W.Ps. Nos. 5066, 5172 to 5174, 5230 and 6556 of 97, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 5202 of 97, Mr. S. Jacob Rajan Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4982 of 97, Mr. M. Vellaisamy, learned counsel for Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and Mr. D. Murugesan for Selection Committee. 8. Nos. 5066, 5172 to 5174, 5230 and 6556 of 97, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 5202 of 97, Mr. S. Jacob Rajan Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4982 of 97, Mr. M. Vellaisamy, learned counsel for Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and Mr. D. Murugesan for Selection Committee. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioners are running self-financing Institutions and the admission to the said Institution is as per the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case. These Institutions were permitted to admit certain number of students under free seat, payment seat and management seat. These Institutions are imparting courses like physiotheraphy, Nursing etc. As per the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in the above said Unnikrishnan's case, these Institutions have to admit the list sent by the Selection Committee has also fixed a cut off date and after expiry of the cut off date after intimation to the respondents regarding the vacancy position, it is open to the petitioner Institutions to fill up the lapsed seats on their own choice. 9. It is also not disputed that the Government have permitted all these Institutions and as per the permission given by the Government, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University has granted provisional application to start first year courses in B. Pharmacy, B.Sc., Nursing etc. 10. According to the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in the Unnikrishnan's case Government will prepare a list of students to all professional Colleges in the State both Government and private strictly according to merit. After allotment of candidates to the Government colleges were over, allotment of candidates to private medical/dental/para-medical colleges should be done from the same merit list. The Management cannot enjoy any right in selecting or admitting students to their Institutions except for the seats set apart under N.R.I. fixed by the Supreme Court for the year 1994-95. The Government has fixed the cut off date as 31-10-1996 for completion of selection and allotment of candidates to first year M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.Pharm, B.Sc. (N), B.P.T., and S.O.T. courses for 1996-97. The Government in their letter dated 7-10-96. Health and Family Welfare Department made it clear that any seat remaining unallotted or unfilled thereafter shall be allowed to be filled by the Institutions themselves. (N), B.P.T., and S.O.T. courses for 1996-97. The Government in their letter dated 7-10-96. Health and Family Welfare Department made it clear that any seat remaining unallotted or unfilled thereafter shall be allowed to be filled by the Institutions themselves. In other words, if any seat reserved for "free seat" and "payment seat" are not filled up within 31-10-96 as per the above referred letter, it is open to the Institutions to fill them up by themselves. In all these cases it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have fulfilled the directions issued by the Selection Committee and they also informed the vacancy position till the expiry of the cut off day. As a matter of fact, in the sworn affidavit in many places they asserted the various communications sent by them to the respondents and Selection Committee to show that the respondents were informed with regard to vacancy position in the free seat and payment seat. Mrs. Saraswathi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in six writ petitions has placed the Despatch Register to show that those Institutions had sent vacancy position to the respondents then and there. It is the specific contention that only after the expiry of the cut off date namely, 31-10-96 after due intimation, they have filled up the candidates with regard to the lapsed seats at their choice. Likewise, the learned counsel appearing for the other 2 writ petitions also brought to my notice that the petitioners have also intimated the vacancy position to the respondents. In the light of the assertion made by the petitioners' counsel, I have carefully perused the particulars furnished in the affidavit, typed set of papers as well as the Despatch Register produced by Mrs. Saraswathy. Even though the respondents 1 and 2 namely Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and Controller of Examinations, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University denied the above statement in their counter-affidavit, the third respondent namely Selection Committee has not filed any counter-affidavit. The particulars furnished by the petitioners regarding their intimation to the respondents support their version. 11. It is also seen that the Selection Committee had not separately sent by "wait listed candidates" to any of the Institutions who could be admitted by the Management in the event if the selected candidates do not turn up. The particulars furnished by the petitioners regarding their intimation to the respondents support their version. 11. It is also seen that the Selection Committee had not separately sent by "wait listed candidates" to any of the Institutions who could be admitted by the Management in the event if the selected candidates do not turn up. In the absence of any wait listed candidates sent by the Selection Committee when the selected candidates failed to join before 31-10-96 as per the Government letter referred above there is no impediment in filling up those seats (lapsed seats) by the management themselves. As a matter of fact, the above procedure was formulated by the Government only on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court, reported in (T.M.A. Pai's case). 12. Yet another factor in favour of the petitioners is that there is no complaint by any student for not being admitted in the I year B.Pharm.,/Nursing course in spite of their having been selected by the Selection Committee at all. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have asserted that even the Selection Committee has not made any complaint in this regard so far. As stated earlier, in the absence of any separate counter-affidavit by the Selection Committee, the statement made by the petitioner in the affidavit as well as the assertion made by the counsel have to be accepted. 13. Next I have to consider whether the action of the University rejecting the request of the petitioner or sending the impugned order merely on the basis of the report of the Sub-Committee is acceptable. All the petitioners have contended that they were not aware of the proceedings before the Sub-Committee nor they were given any notice either before the decision by the Sub-Committee or by the respondents 1 and 2. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings or deliberations which took place with the Sub-Committee. Before accepting the Committee's report the respondents, more particularly respondents 1 and 2 could have informed the petitioner regarding their proposed action. I am in entire agreement with the contentions that what had happened before the Sub-Committee and the University could have informed the petitioners before accepting the Committee's report to ascertain the correct decision, namely, whether the selected candidates have joined their respective courses before the cut off date. I am in entire agreement with the contentions that what had happened before the Sub-Committee and the University could have informed the petitioners before accepting the Committee's report to ascertain the correct decision, namely, whether the selected candidates have joined their respective courses before the cut off date. I have already mentioned that the petitioners have established that the vacancy position have been informed to the respondents on various occasions and thereafter only they have filled up the lapsed seats on their own choice. Hence, on the ground of violation of natural justice also the impugned order has to be set aside. 14. Even after the expiry of the cut off date, namely, 31-10-96 in spite of the fact that the petitioners have intimated their vacancy position, it was not properly explained why the respondents have not taken action or verified the position immediately and informed the petitioners if there was any doubt. They are not justified in passing the impugned order just on the eve of examination to be conducted. 15. Looking at any angle, I am satisfied that the action of the petitioners in filling up the lapsed seats at their own choice cannot be blamed by the respondents. As per the permission granted by the State Government in their letter dated 7-10-1996 after fulfilling the condition/conditions the petitioner Institutions filled the lapsed seats by themselves. More over, on earlier occasion, this Court has permitted the candidates admitted by the Management in respect of lapsed seats to writ examination. In the absence of any wait listed candidates sent by the Selection Committee and in the absence of any complaint by any of the selected candidates, it is not open to the respondents to refuse register in respect of the candidates admitted by the petitioner Institutions. 16. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are quashed and respondents are directed to register all the candidates sent by the petitioners during the academic year 1996-97 in respect of the courses relating to B.P.T.,/Nursing/Pharmacy if they otherwise satisfy the other conditions if any. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. In view of the above order, the respondents are directed to accept the examination fees for first and second semesters of the candidates covered by the subject-matter of the above writ petitions by two weeks. Petitions allowed.