ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a classic case where merit is discarded with impunity by the respondent-Colleges while selecting students for the study of MBBS course despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court declaring time and again that merit and merit alone should be the basis of selection for the candidates. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as under:petitioner had appeared for Common Entrance Test conducted by the 3rd respondent (COMED. K) for admission of MBBS course for the Academic year 2004-05 and had secured rank No. 3545. Thereafter, she made applications to respondent-Colleges 4 to 9 for allotment of medical seat in those Colleges. Since none of the Colleges responded to her request, she has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a common counselling as conducted by the Entrance Test Cell established by the State Government. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed an application. A. No. 1/04 for a direction to the second respondent to call for records from respondents 4 to 9 Colleges in respect of admission made by them and in the event of any student who has secured lesser merit than the petitioner have been admitted in any of the respondents 4 to 9 Colleges, to inform the Court about the same and for a direction to one of the respondent-Colleges to admit her in place of any students being admitted in any of the respondent-Colleges having lesser merit. Petitioner has filed a memo not pressing the petition against respondent No. 6 as it is a Minority Institution and she has not taken the test conducted by it. By an order dated 7. 6. 2005, the petition was dismissed against respondent No. 6. ( 4 ) THE last date for admission to MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2004-05 was 30. 9. 2004. Perhaps, the Colleges were under the impression that since the last date for admission to the mbbs Course has expired during the pendency of the writ petition, the petition will be dismissed as infructuous. None of the Colleges filed objections to the writ petition except respondents 4 and 7. By an interim order dated 12. 4. 9. 2004. Perhaps, the Colleges were under the impression that since the last date for admission to the mbbs Course has expired during the pendency of the writ petition, the petition will be dismissed as infructuous. None of the Colleges filed objections to the writ petition except respondents 4 and 7. By an interim order dated 12. 4. 2005 the Colleges were directed to submit their records relating to the admission made by them in their Management Quota with the respective ranks of the students admitted to the MBBS Course for the Academic Session 2004-05 to the Committee for Overseeing the Admission for Private Professional colleges (for short 'overseeing Committee') so that it can look into the matter and furnish a report. Thereafter the Colleges who had not filed objections earlier have filed their objections. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed its objections contending that the question relating to centralized admission is pending before the Apex Court in SLP (CC)5720/2005 for the Academic year 2004-05. It is further stated that the petitioner is highly belated. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in its objections have stated that it has permitted the candidates to select a medical/dental/engineering seat in accordance with their merit. It is denied that the petitioner has applied for a seat in the said Colleges. It is contended that if the petitioner was interested in getting admitted to the said College, she ought to have followed the developments in the institution. The admission was completed on 30. 9. 2004. The respondent has sent intimation to the students at Sl. No. 1 to 20 by speed post stating that the students who are interested in the said Institution, to attend the counselling on 27. 9. 2004. Thereafter intimation was sent to the applicants at Sl. No. 21 to 40 through telegram on 27. 9. 2004 to attend the counselling on 29. 9. 2004. Since the petitioner did not attend the counselling, no seat was allotted to her. ( 7 ) THE 5th respondent has filed its objections contending that it has given advertisement on 19. 6. 2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to the said course. It has received 459 applications in response to the said advertisement. In the meantime, its name was deleted from seat matrix by order dated 7. 7. 2004. ( 7 ) THE 5th respondent has filed its objections contending that it has given advertisement on 19. 6. 2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to the said course. It has received 459 applications in response to the said advertisement. In the meantime, its name was deleted from seat matrix by order dated 7. 7. 2004. In view of the said cancellation, the College did not take any steps to admit any students to the College. The College was inspected by the mci in the 2nd week of September 2004 and thereafter they received a letter dated 22. 9. 2004 whereby the College was permitted to admit 100 students. In view of the short time available for the College to admit students, it had issued telegram on 25. 9. 2004 to the students from Sl. No. 51-100 asking them to come to the College and get admitted. There was no response to the said telegram. Thereafter telegram was sent on 27. 9. 2004 to the students from Sl. No. 101-150 calling upon them to come to the College and get admitted. Again there was no response. Thereafter, the college put up a notice in its Notice board inviting all the eligible students both from CET List and from COMED. K list for being admitted to the College. The College admitted those students who had approached them for admission to the course. The petitioner did not come to the college seeking admission to the course at any time. ( 8 ) THE 7th respondent has filed its objections contending that the petitioner has not filed application in the prescribed form nor has she requested the College for supply of the application form. Hence, her request was not considered. The College has denied that it has made selection arbitrarily under the umbrella of COMED. K and merit has become causality. It is contended that the respondent has followed the criteria of merit while selecting the students for admission to the course. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 has filed its objections contending that majority of the students who had applied to the College for admission have not approached the College at any point of time between 24. 9. 2004 and 30. 9. 2004 seeking admission. The College has filled the seats under the management quota from the campus and among them who are more meritorious. 9. 2004 and 30. 9. 2004 seeking admission. The College has filled the seats under the management quota from the campus and among them who are more meritorious. It is further contended that the petitioner has not approached the College seeking admission in time. e. between 24. 9. 2004 and 30. 9. 2004. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 9 has filed its objections contending that having regard to the time schedule to admit the students, no intimation regarding counselling was issued to the students. Petitioner was not intimated because her application was not in proper form. ( 11 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submits that merely because the last date for admission was over on 30. 9. 2004, the petitioner does not become infructuous. It is contended that that all the Colleges have admitted the students with lesser merit when compared to the petitioner. Merely because the last day for admission is over, the petition cannot be dismissed on that ground. It is further submitted that the central counselling is only solution for the problems created by the Colleges. Learned counsel for the colleges have reiterated what has been stated in their counter. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the rival contention of the parties, the questions that arise for consideration are whether the central counselling has to be ordered in order to give priority to merit and whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed merely because the last date for admission for the academic year 2004-05 has expired during the pendency of the petition. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that a matter relating to centralised counselling is pending before the apex Court. He has produced a copy of the order in SLP (e) CC No. 5720 of 2005 and other connected matter dated 13. 5. 2005 wherein the Apex Court while issuing notice has stayed the order of the High Court of Bombay directing centralised admission. In view of the same I do not think it is appropriate to consider the first question in this petition. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured 3545th rank in COMED. K. Immediately thereafter she has applied to respondent-Colleges for allotment of a seat. In view of the same I do not think it is appropriate to consider the first question in this petition. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured 3545th rank in COMED. K. Immediately thereafter she has applied to respondent-Colleges for allotment of a seat. She has sent applications by registered post acknowledgment due to the Colleges and the Colleges have acknowledged the receipt of the same. She has also sent a copy of her application to respondent no. 2 the overseeing Committee which is not in dispute. Some of the Colleges have denied having received the application and some of the Colleges have taken a stand that the application was not in the prescribed Form and some of them have said that the petitioner was not present during the counselling. Having regard to the material on record, I hold that the petitioner has sent applications to the respondent-Colleges and the respondent-Colleges have received the applications. No material is produced by any of the Colleges to show that the petitioner was asked to attend the Counselling. No material is produced to show that application forms have been prescribed according to any rules. The Overseeing Committee has produced the COMED. K rank list of each of the Colleges. The Colleges do not dispute the correctness of the rank list furnished by the Overseeing Committee to the Court. It reveals that the most of the students admitted by Colleges are below the rank of the petitioner in their management quota. The colleges have not produced any materials such as records relating to admissions made by them to justify their claim that seats have been allotted in the management quota in the order of merit and that transparent procedure has been followed for the said purpose. The Colleges have given lame excuses for not admitting the Petitioner to their Colleges. In the result, merit has become casualty. ( 15 ) AN 11 (eleven) Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , AIR2003 SC 355 , 2003 (51 ) BLJR158 , JT2002 (9 )SC 1 , 2003 (1 )Karlj1 , (2002 )8 SCC481 , (2002 )3 UPLBEC2817 has held that for admission into any professional course merit should be the only criteria. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , AIR2003 SC 355 , 2003 (51 ) BLJR158 , JT2002 (9 )SC 1 , 2003 (1 )Karlj1 , (2002 )8 SCC481 , (2002 )3 UPLBEC2817 has held that for admission into any professional course merit should be the only criteria. It has been held as follows: "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". ( 16 ) AGAIN, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , AIR2003 SC 3724 , 2003 (5 )ALD1 (SC ), 2003 (4 )AWC3119 (SC ), 2003 (3 )CTC719 , 2004 (1 )Karlj1 , 2003 (6 )SCALE325 , (2003 )6 SCC697 , (2003 )3 UPLBEC2424 selection of the students must be strictly on the basis of the merit as per the merit list. The Court has held that each Institute cannot hold a separate test. The management could select that students of their quota either on the basis of common entrance test conducted by the State or common entrance test conducted by an association of all Colleges of a particular type in the State. It has been further held as follows: ". . . Technical profession in general and medical profession in particular in all countries and in all ages has been considered to be a noble profession. To acquire excellence, these professions demand a very high calibre, which criterion can be satisfied only by the meritorious students. If we want to achieve a very high standard which would be comparable to the standard of the developed countries, then merit and merit alone should be the basis of selection for the candidates. To acquire excellence, these professions demand a very high calibre, which criterion can be satisfied only by the meritorious students. If we want to achieve a very high standard which would be comparable to the standard of the developed countries, then merit and merit alone should be the basis of selection for the candidates. Secondly, not only to maintain high standard of education, but also to maintain uniformity of standard, the right of selection of candidates for any professional course cannot be left to the discretion of any individual management. Efforts must be made to find out one single standard for all the institutions". ( 17 ) MATERIAL on record clearly establishes that the Colleges have not admitted the students on merit. The procedure followed by he Colleges in this regard is not transparent, defeating the purpose for which the entrance test was conducted by the COMED-K. Needless to say that to acquire excellence in any technical profession, particularly medical profession which demands very high calibre which can be satisfied only be meritorious students. Therefore, 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. It is opposite to quote here the preliminary observation made by justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathews and Ors. , AIR 1980 SC 1230 which is as under: ". . . If higher education bids farewell to national vision and equal opportunity the two fundamental criticisms levelled before us in these cases what hope is there for Constitutionalism save surrender to provincialism and lobby power, leaving the fortunes of students of advanced learning to litigative astrology annually". ( 18 ) IT cannot be disputed that Petitioner was illegally denied a seat to the course in question by the Colleges. Now the question is merely because the last date for admission to the Academic year 2004-05 has expired during the pendency of the writ petition whether a suitable order can be made directing one of the Colleges to admit the petitioner to the MBBS Course, for the current academic year. ( 19 ) IN Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. ( 19 ) IN Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. , AIR1983 sc 1199 , 1983 (2 )SCALE336 , (1984 )1 SCC160 the Apex Court was considering the case of an eligible candidate who was not admitted by the Institution concerned. It has been held that he was eligible for admission in the subject of General Medicine -MD Degree in the year 1981 according to qualifications and other requirement set out in the advertisement. It is further held that, though the sands to time have run out which is ineveitable in judicial process, the candidate was directed to be admitted to the current academic year for the course in question. It is held as follows: ". . . The petitioner was eligible for admission in the subject of General Medicines for M. D. Degree in the year 1981 according to qualifications and other requirement set out in the advertisement. The sands of time have run out which is inevitable in judicial process. What relief can the Court grant to person unjustifiably refused admission. Post-Graduate qualification in medical discipline is highly coveted. We must therefore find a fresh answer. Mr. Altaf Ahmed told us that the new academic year is to commence sometime in September. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be admitted in the subject of General Medicine for m. D. degree without any further test or selection during the current academic year which will commence not later than middle of September, 1983. We dispose of the petition accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs". (Emphasis Supplied) ( 20 ) IN State of Punjab v. Bhagwant Singh and Ors. , AIR1985 SC 981 , 1985 (1 ) SCALE998 , 1985 Supp (1 )SCC102 , 1985 (17 )UJ685 (SC ) the Supreme Court was considering the admission of a candidate for admission to MBBS Course in sports quota. The candidate sought admission in the said quota for the academic year 1982-83 which was refused by the authorities concerned. The Apex Court found that the candidate was illegally denied a seat in sports quota. He was directed to be admitted to the said course commencing from July/august 1985. ( 21 ) AS noticed above, it is clear that the petitioner was illegally denied a seat in the respondent-Colleges. The Apex Court found that the candidate was illegally denied a seat in sports quota. He was directed to be admitted to the said course commencing from July/august 1985. ( 21 ) AS noticed above, it is clear that the petitioner was illegally denied a seat in the respondent-Colleges. Even if the time for admission has expires in judicial process, a students who has been illegally denied admission should be admitted for the current academic year without a further test. The petition does not become infructuous on account of passage of time. ( 22 ) AT this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-Colleges submit that they are agreeable to admit the petitioner in any one of the College of her choice, during the current academic year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the petitioner is willing to join the 9th Respondent College. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the 9th respondent-College submits that the 9th respondent will admit the petitioner to MBBS course for the academic year 2005-06 in its management quota on payment of the fees as fixed by the competent authorities. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. ( 24 ) IT is to be stated here that the Colleges concerned are discarding merit while admitting the students in their management quota with impunity. The Apex Court in TMA Pai's case and in islamic Academy Case, has held that merit and merit alone is the criteria for admission of the students to the Course. Despite the pronouncement of the Apex Court, the Colleges are not admitting the students in the order of merit. The conduct of the Colleges in not admitting the students in the order of merit is prejudicial to the interest of education. The Apex Court in islamic Academy case has held that if it is found that any students has been admitted dehors merit, penalty can be imposed on that institute and in appropriate cases, recognition/affiliation can also be withdrawn. The respondent-Colleges are affiliated to 10th respondent-University. Section 48 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 provides for withdrawal of affiliation if the College fails to observe any of the conditions of affiliation, or if the colleges is conducting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of education. The respondent-Colleges are affiliated to 10th respondent-University. Section 48 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 provides for withdrawal of affiliation if the College fails to observe any of the conditions of affiliation, or if the colleges is conducting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of education. There is no reason why the university should be silent spectator for all the illegalities committed by its affiliated Colleges. The University is bound to discharge its statutory obligations in accordance with law. ( 25 ) IN the result I pass the following order: I direct the 9th respondent-College to admit the petitioner to First Year MBBS Course for the academic year 2005-2006 as undertaken by it on payment of fees as fixed by the competent authorities. ii) I direct the 10th respondent-University to initiate action against respondents 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.