R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a student of 1st respondent-College and he joined the first year M. B. B. S. course on 30-9-2004 and he paid the tuition fee in terms of Annexure-A. Fourth respondent was selected by Common entrance Test and she did not join college on 30-9-2004, the last date for joining the college. Three students who were selected by the Common entrance Test in respect of this college were withdrawn and their admission was cancelled. The above four seats fell vacant for which the petitioner and other three students were admitted on the same date and they also started attending the college. Petitioner has also paid the necessary fee. Petitioner states that on 27-10-2004, a memo dated 21-10-2004 came to be served on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-E stating therein that the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition in this Court by challenging the action of the management in not admitting her to the college and that his admission stands cancelled as his admissions is in excess of 150 admissions. This Court allowed the petition filed by the fourth respondent. Petitioner is questioning this memo in this petition on various grounds. The essential ground is that the cancellation of the petitioner's admission on the ground of an order by this Court is unsustainable since the petitioner was not a party to the petition filed by the fourth respondent. Even otherwise, the admission of the petitioner cannot be treated as an excess admission. Petitioner has raised several other grounds as well. ( 2 ) NOTICE was issued and the respondents have entered appearance. ( 3 ) FOURTH respondent has filed a very detailed statement of objection. Fourth respondent states that she was selected by Common Entrance test and in terms of the admission she went to the college but she was not provided admission. She filed a writ petition in this Court and the petition filed by her was allowed. Thereafter she was given admission in terms of Annexure-R5 and subsequently in terms of Annexure-R6 she has paid the necessary fee. She is now attending the college and she essentially says that the petitioner cannot get relief in this petition. She filed a writ petition in this Court and the petition filed by her was allowed. Thereafter she was given admission in terms of Annexure-R5 and subsequently in terms of Annexure-R6 she has paid the necessary fee. She is now attending the college and she essentially says that the petitioner cannot get relief in this petition. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT 1 in its statement of objection states that it is unnecessary to traverse the averments made by the petitioner except to explain the position and the circumstances under which the petitioner had come to be admitted to the I year M. B. B. S. Course and the circumstances under which the impugned memo was issued. First respondent states that on non-reporting of the fourth respondent, and there being unfilled vacancies, the college had proceeded to allot the seats to the wait listed candidates who had appeared in COMED-K entrance Test and after grant of admission to such wait listed candidates and in the absence of any other student seeking admission based on his merit, the college in order to avoid wastage of the said seat, offered seat to the petitioner and on admission he is attending to classes. There is no prohibition in either T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Others v State of karnataka and Others, as well as in Islamic Academy of Education v state of Karnataka, decided by the Supreme Court to grant admissions to students who have not appeared in the test as is sought to be contended by the authorities of the Common Entrance Test. As long as they have the requisite qualification and as long as the admission process by the institution is transparent and fair, it is well-within the rights of the managements to grant admission and ensure that the infrastructure is not wasted. It is further stated that 89 out of 90 common Entrance Test Cell sent candidates were admitted upto 5 PM of 30-9-2004. It is stated that the college had scheduled the admission for unfilled seats for 30-9-2004 directing the COMED-K ranked students to report and opt for admission after 6 PM of 30-9-2004. It is further stated that 89 out of 90 common Entrance Test Cell sent candidates were admitted upto 5 PM of 30-9-2004. It is stated that the college had scheduled the admission for unfilled seats for 30-9-2004 directing the COMED-K ranked students to report and opt for admission after 6 PM of 30-9-2004. It is further stated that after the admissions to 89 out of 90 seats for which the common Entrance Test Cell had made allotments the three students withdrew their candidates resulting in effectively four vacancies to be allotted to Common Entrance Test ranked and wait list candidates and it is under these circumstances, the first respondent filled those four students against the vacancies and reported it to the authorities of the university and the Justice Venkataraman Committee. The plea of the fourth respondent that she waited upto 7. 30 PM of 30-9-2004 and she was told by the principal that 'she cannot be admitted since the fee remitted by her has not been received by the College from the Common entrance Test Cell' is a blatant lie and is not true. The respondent further states that though the fourth respondent was not entitled for the relief sought for, this Court took a view that in the light of the judgment of this Court in (Poornima Sharma's) case there is deemed admission and she is entitled to the direction that she had sought for. It is stated by the first respondent that the applicability of the decision in Poornima sharma's case was in appropriate as it was in the context of Rules and the law that was then applicable under the J. P. Unni Krishnan and others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. The Supreme Court has held the J. P. Unni Krishnan's case to be bad and unenforceable, and recognised the rights in managements to administer which included the right to make admissions and in these circumstances this Court could not have directed admission of the fourth respondent. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties at great length. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner took me through the material on record to contend that his client is made to suffer for no fault of his. According to the learned Counsel his client could not have been removed and any such removal is unsustainable. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties at great length. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner took me through the material on record to contend that his client is made to suffer for no fault of his. According to the learned Counsel his client could not have been removed and any such removal is unsustainable. He says that the rules of natural justice was not provided to him in the earlier litigation. He otherwise says that in terms on Regulation 17 (6), the college can admit non-CET and non-Government candidate in the given circumstances. ( 7 ) SRI Venugopal Gowda, learned Counsel invites my attention to the material on record to say that the petitioner was neither a candidate selected by CET nor a candidate of COMED-K. The first respondent-College has admitted him on its own. There is no cause of action. Even otherwise, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy, he says that there can be no other mode of admission except through CET or through COMED-K Therefore, he says that any such admission requires to be interfered with by this court. Learned Counsel also invites my attention to the earlier objections filed by the college and says that the earlier statement of objections was silent with regard to the admission of the petitioner at the relevant point of time. It was in those circumstances, the present petitioner was not made a party in the earlier matter. Learned Counsel takes strong objections to the averments made in the earlier objection and the objections raised in this case. He in particular invites my attention to the averments made in para 9 to say that such averments borders contempt of this Court. Learned Counsel elaborately argued to say that the petitioner is not an eligible candidate in the light of the rules governing admission. ( 8 ) SRI B. Manohar, learned Government Advocate says that the management has no right to appoint the petitioner without any authority available in law. ( 9 ) SRI Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent invites my attention to the objections statement and the material on record to explain to this Court as to why the present petitioner could not be made a party to the earlier litigation. ( 9 ) SRI Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent invites my attention to the objections statement and the material on record to explain to this Court as to why the present petitioner could not be made a party to the earlier litigation. Learned Counsel says that the management did not inform this Court in the objections statement with regard to the admission of the present petitioner at the relevant point of time. If that information was available according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner would have been made a party in that case as well. Even otherwise, learned Counsel says that rules of natural justice would depend upon the facts of each case. Assuming that the petitioner is a party to the proceedings, even then in the light of no right available to the petitioner, he cannot continue his studies in the matter. He relies on several judgments in support of his case. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the first respondent explains to me the position in the matter. He strongly relies on Regulation 17 to say that apart from CET/comed-K, an institution has a right to admit a student on merit basis. There is no prohibition as such in these cases. Learned Counsel further says that T. M. A. Pai case has to be read to understand the ruling of the Supreme Court. He invites my attention to the various paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai case. He says that if so read, the finding in Islamic Academy's case would show that there is no prohibition for third admission apart from cet and COMED-K. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, I am of the view that this Court has to consider with regard to eligibility/natural justice/relief in terms of the law governing Professional Colleges for admission. ( 12 ) ELIGIBILITY.-THE Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation's case, has considered with regard to admission to Professional Colleges. The Supreme Court in paras 58, 59 and 60 has ruled as under:"58. For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. ( 12 ) ELIGIBILITY.-THE Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation's case, has considered with regard to admission to Professional Colleges. The Supreme Court in paras 58, 59 and 60 has ruled as under:"58. For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to Judge the merit of the applicant who seeks admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided institutions. 59. Merit is usually determined for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a Common entrance Test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by Government agencies. 60. Education is taught at different levels from primary or professional. It is, therefore, obvious that Government regulations for all levels or types of educational institutions cannot be identical; so also, the extent of control or regulation could be greater vis-a-vis aided institutions". ( 13 ) SUBSEQUENT to this judgment, the Supreme Court again in the case of Islamic Academy of Education, has considered T. M. A. Pai case after hearing the parties framed the following questions in para 6 as under:"1. Whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure ? 2. Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights? 3. Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not, to what extent? and 4. Whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure ? 2. Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights? 3. Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not, to what extent? and 4. Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission?" ( 14 ) WHILE considering point No. 3 with regard to entitlement to fill to the extent of 100% seats, in para 12, the Supreme Court in Islamic academy's case noticed para 68 of the majority judgment of the T. M. A. Pai's case and ruled in para 16 as under:"16. That brings to us to the question as to how the management of both minority and non-minority professional colleges can admit students in the quota allotted to them. Undoubtedly, the majority judgment has kept in mind the said reality that there are a large number of professional colleges which indulge in profiteering and/or charging of capitation fees. It is for this reason that the majority judgment provides that in professional colleges admission must be on the basis of merit. As has been rightly submitted, it is impossible to control profiteering/charging of capitation fees unless it is ensured that admission is on the basis of merit. Also, as has been rightly pointed out, if a student is required to appear at more than one entrance test it would lead to great hardship. The application fees charged by each institute, even though they may be only Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000 for each institute, would impose a heavy burden on the students who will necessarily have to apply to a number of colleges. Further as has been rightly pointed out, students would have to arrange for transport from and to and State at various places if they have to appear for individual tests conducted by each college. If a student has to be for test to each institute it is possible that he/she may not be able to reach, in time, the venue of a test of a particular institute. In our view what is necessary is a practical approach keeping in mind the need for merit based selection. If a student has to be for test to each institute it is possible that he/she may not be able to reach, in time, the venue of a test of a particular institute. In our view what is necessary is a practical approach keeping in mind the need for 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 a Common Entrance Test to be 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 State 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 that 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 State. 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. 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". ( 15 ) IN para 19 an ad hoc committee is also ordered by the Supreme court in the matter. A careful reading of para 16 of the judgment in question it is clear that merit forms the basis of selection in Professional colleges. The Supreme Court has provided a method by State or by an association of all colleges of a particular type. In the case on hand, it is nobody's case that there is no common entrance conducted by the association of all colleges, in fact it is known as COMED-K. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, right of admission can be through test conducted by the CET or by COMED-K. There is no 3rd merit test available in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case on hand. The argument of Sri Naik, learned Counsel that there is no prohibition as such, cannot be accepted in the light of unmistakable law laid down by the Supreme Court in normal circumstances. It is also to be noticed by this Court that the right of management has been crystallised in terms of the COMED-K test. Even after COMED-K no further right is available to the college in the matter of admission. If any such argument is accepted it would result in unnecessary chaos. However, it would depend upon the relevant rules governing such matters. Let me see as to whether any such right is available in the given circumstances. ( 16 ) SRI Naik, learned Counsel invites my attention to notification dated 12-5-2004 to contend that virtually right is available in terms of the notification. The said notification is nothing but promulgation of karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Professional institutions Rules, 2004. The said Rules provide for an entrance test meaning thereby CET. Eligibility for Government seat is prescribed in rule 4. Rule 15 provides for an option for selection of Government seats and management seats. Rule 17 provides for reconciliation meetings. The said rule reads as under:"17. The said Rules provide for an entrance test meaning thereby CET. Eligibility for Government seat is prescribed in rule 4. Rule 15 provides for an option for selection of Government seats and management seats. Rule 17 provides for reconciliation meetings. The said rule reads as under:"17. Reconciliation meetings.-After the closing date for allotment of seats to the courses by the CET Cell, reconciliation meetings regarding the number of unfilled, unallotted seats, shall be held at the CET Cell by the Directorate of Technical Education, directorate of Medical Education, Directorate of India Systems of medicine and Homeopathy, as the case may be with the Special officer, CET Cell and the Principal or Secretary of the institutions. After identifying the vacant seats, if any, notification shall be issued by the concerned Director regarding the vacant seats may thereafter be filled by the institutions, within the date stipulated by the University concerned for admission to the course from the merit list of the CET conducted by the CET Cell or association of Private Professional Colleges as the case may be: provided that the seats that remain after exhausting the merit list of the CET conducted by the CET Cell and Association of private Professional Colleges may be filled by the respective institutions by following a fair and transparent procedure". ( 17 ) NO doubt the Islamic College provides only two types of admission through two types of tests viz. , CET and COMED. The same is in fact subsequently reiterated in 2004 SCC 139 . However, parties are governed by Rules. Rule 17 proviso provides for filling up the seats after exhausting the merit list of CET and the Association of private professional Colleges by the respective institution by following fair and transparent procedure at the time of reconciliation proceedings. To understand the proviso, one has to see the entire rules as such. Rules have been framed in the light of the Apex Court ruling. 2000 professional rules apply to the medical course. Rule 3 provides for academic eligibility. Rule 4 provides for eligibility for Government seats with which we are not concerned as on today. Rule 6 provides for procedure for issue of application for Entrance Test. Rule 9 provides for constitution of Overseeing Committee for overseeing the Common entrance Test conducted by the Association. Rule 3 provides for academic eligibility. Rule 4 provides for eligibility for Government seats with which we are not concerned as on today. Rule 6 provides for procedure for issue of application for Entrance Test. Rule 9 provides for constitution of Overseeing Committee for overseeing the Common entrance Test conducted by the Association. Rule 9 (2) (i) provides for supervision of the test by the Committee with regard to fair and transparent manner. Rule 15 provides for an option for selection of government seat and Management sets in terms of sub-rule (3) of the rules. Sub-rule (12) of Rule 15 provides for casual vacancy round under sub-rules (8), (9) and (10 ). It provides for transfer to the respective colleges after reconciliation meetings. Reconciliation meetings are provided under Rule 17. It provides for reconciliation meetings regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats. A procedure is prescribed. Rule 17 is subject to Rule 15 (12) which would mean that after transfer of unfilled seats, reconciliation meetings are permissible. The first condition is transfer of seats in terms of Rule 15 (12 ). Rule 17 itself provides for procedure as mentioned earlier. It provides for reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats at the CET Cell. It further provides for a notification of the vacant seats after identification. It further provides for filling up within the date stipulated by the University from the merit list of CET or COMED. Thereafter, after further exhausting the merit list, the proviso provides for filling up by professional colleges by following a fair and transparent procedure. A combined reading of all these would show that in terms of the rules notwithstanding Islamic Academy's case, third method of fair and transparent procedure based on merits is permissible subject to rule 17. Hence third method probably cannot be ruled out but it is for reconciliation seats after exhausting of both the merit seats in terms of cet/comed-K. The facts of this case would show that no transfer of seats in terms of rule 15 (12), no reconciliation proceedings/no vacancy notification and that therefore, the college cannot now contend that the third method of merit selection is permissible in this case. The facts of the case do not warrant any third selection even under the proviso in the light of the non-fulfilment of condition in terms of" Rule 15 (12) read with Rule 17. The facts of the case do not warrant any third selection even under the proviso in the light of the non-fulfilment of condition in terms of" Rule 15 (12) read with Rule 17. Therefore it is not possible for this Court to accept that the proviso provides for one more merit selection as argued by Mr. Naik, in the given circumstances. ( 18 ) ADMITTED facts would show that the petitioner was not admitted in terms of the test conducted either by CET or by COMED-K Hence, the petitioner is totally ineligible for admission even as against vacant seats in the case on hand. Therefore Sri Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel is right in his submission that ineligible candidate has no right to maintain a petition for the purpose of a direction in the case on hand. ( 19 ) RULES of Natural Justice.-Mr. Gangireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues before me that the petitioner has suffered rules of natural justice in the light of his not being made a party to the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent. Obviously, the fourth respondent could not make the present petitioner a party in her petition as she had no knowledge of the present petitioner being selected at that point of time. Even the college has not chosen to state before this Court to make the present petitioner a party in the interest of justice. In fact the earlier objection statement is silent with regard to this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the fourth respondent has committed any error whatsoever. Even otherwise, petitioner being a ineligible candidate could not have got any relief. Natural justice has been considered by Courts of law in several judgments. In this connection, it is necessary to notice a judgment of the supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others v b. M. Vijaya Shankar and Others. The Supreme Court in the said case noticed the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled in para 5 as under:". . . . . That the Tribunal ignored a vital distinction that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or absence of any expectation that the hearing shall be afforded". The Supreme Court ruled in para 5 as under:". . . . . That the Tribunal ignored a vital distinction that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or absence of any expectation that the hearing shall be afforded". ( 20 ) I cannot but repeat what the Apex Court has stated in the famous case of Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of mines and Another v Ramjee :"natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no break of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt - that is the conscience of the matter". Even though there is some force in the argument of the petitioner with regard to natural justice, the result would not be any better in the light of no right available to the petitioner in the given circumstances. Hence this case is rejected. ( 21 ) RELIEF.-LASTLY, it is argued by the petitioner before me that certain averments in the objection statement requires my consideration. ( 22 ) INITIALLY, the college did not file any statement of objections. I directed the college to state the circumstance under which the petitioner was admitted. It was in those circumstances the present statement of objections is filed. Petitioner tried to explain the circumstance under which the first respondent has chosen to admit the present petitioner. However, in para 9 of the objection statement the respondents has chosen to say that though the fourth respondent was not entitled for the relief sought for, this Court in the earlier writ petition took a view that in the light of the judgment of this Court in Poornima Sharma's case there is deemed admission and she is entitled to the direction that she had sought for. It is stated that the applicability of the decision in poornima Sharma's case was appropriate as it was in the context of rules and the law that was then applicable under the Unni Krishnan's case. The Supreme Court has held the Unni Krishnan's case to be bad and unenforceable, and recognised the rights in managements to administer which included the right to make admissions. In these circumstances according to the respondents this Court could not have directed the admission of the student therein. (emphasis supplied) a perusal of the said para would show that the college having suffered an adverse order and having not chosen to file an appeal could not have stated so in the statement of objections. I express my displeasure in the matter. ( 23 ) THIS Court cannot but observe that there is a great demand for professional colleges on account of heavy competition in education field. Students get admitted without knowing the rules and the laws governing the matter on account of paucity of time. Petitioner unfortunately has suffered on account of admission made by the first respondent. Petitioner cannot get any relief in this petition in the light of his ineligibility in terms of this order. Therefore, no direction as such can be issued by this Court. However, this Court reserves liberty to the petitioner to workout any other remedy if he so chooses, with regard to his suffering a wrong at the hands of the first respondent for incorrect admission in accordance with law. However, I deem it proper to award costs in this petition. ( 24 ) IN the result, this petition stands dismissed. On the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it proper to direct the first respondent to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .