Judgment ( 1. ) THESE petitions are filed complaining of demands for capitation fee/ unauthorised fees/bank guarantee etc. by "sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Medical College and Hospital", Indore. It is alleged that though the petitioners applied to the said College well within time and their marks entitled them for admission (as compared to the marks secured by the candidates who were admitted), they were not selected/admitted for the academic year 2004-2005. It is further alleged that the College has selected students not on merit, but on irrelevant criteria, obviously with reference to illegal/ unauthorised demands i. e. capitation fee/unauthorised fees and deposits, bank guarantee etc. Some of the petitioners were granted admission but subsequently removed from the rolls on the ground that they did not meet certain illegal demands made by the College. Therefore, they have filed these petitions seeking several reliefs. The reliefs sought include : (a) a direction to the State Government and the Director of Medical Education to supervise the admission procedure to ensure that no illegality is committed and to ensure that the Private Medical Colleges adopt a transparent method of selection based on merit in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court; (b) a direction to the college to admit them to the medical course; (c) a direction to the college to make admissions only on the basis of merit; (d) a direction to the college to refund to the students, all amounts illegally collected. ( 2. ) THOUGH the reliefs sought were in general in regard to all private Medical Colleges in the State of M. P. , ultimately petitioners grievances were restricted to only one College namely Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Medical College and Hospital, Indore (for short the College ). Therefore, this order is restricted to that Institution alone. ( 3. ) WE issued several interim orders in these cases directing inquiry and verification of the records of the College. By order dated 27. 10. 2004 (passed in W. P. No. 3834/2004) we noted that the procedure adopted by the College was contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and that determination of merit was neither by conducting any examinations nor on the basis of the marks secured in the qualifying examinations. We had observed : "9. By order dated 27. 10. 2004 (passed in W. P. No. 3834/2004) we noted that the procedure adopted by the College was contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court and that determination of merit was neither by conducting any examinations nor on the basis of the marks secured in the qualifying examinations. We had observed : "9. It is also seen from the report that instead of merit as per the marks obtained in the C. B. S. E. or equivalent Board examinations being the sole criterian, the College has virtually subverted the merit. It is stated by the learned counsel for the College that comparative merit was assessed on the basis of a merit list prepared by assigning 60 out of 100 marks for the C. B. S. E. marks (or equivalent Board examinations), the remaining 40 marks being assigned for other factors, that is oral test, weightage to candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC, weightage for those willing to serve in Tribal Areas of the State and in institutions associated with the College. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent stated that these interviews were held on 28th, 29th and 30th August, 2004 for admissions. 10. In regard to our query as to whether all the applicants who had submitted their applications were intimated about the cancellation of the examination and holding of an oral interview, it was said that no such intimation was sent. It is stated that whoever appeared on 28th, 29th and 30th August, 2004 were subjected to a oral test (interview) instead of written-test. The procedure of selecting students by assigning 40% (for oral test, willingness to serve in sister institutions of fourth respondent College etc.) was not published or made known to students. The Brochure/prospectus also does not refer to adopting of such procedure. It is also stated that as the intake was 100 seats and management quota seats were 50, a list of 50 selected candidates was prepared with 25 candidates on a wait list and was displayed on the notice board on 6. 9. 2004 and the letters were sent only to the selected candidates on 6. 9. 2004. 13. The petitioners were admitted to the fourth respondent College against Government quota and they have paid the prescribed tuition fee of Rs. 1,65 lacs. But in addition, a demand has been made for a bank guarantee for Rs. 9. 2004 and the letters were sent only to the selected candidates on 6. 9. 2004. 13. The petitioners were admitted to the fourth respondent College against Government quota and they have paid the prescribed tuition fee of Rs. 1,65 lacs. But in addition, a demand has been made for a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lacs, for a joint Fixed Deposit (in the names of College and student) for Rs. 2. 50 lacs and a personal bond. As the students explained that they were not in a position to meet the unauthorised demands, after permitting the students to attend the classes for nearly 20 days, letters, were sent by the institution on 22. 9. 2004 to the parents of the students stating that the student can not attend the classes from 21. 9. 2004 for non-furnishing of the bank guarantee and joint F. D. , and calling upon the parents to personally visit the College on 24. 9. 2004. Subsequently on 28. 9. 2004 on the ground of non-compliance with fee requirements, the admissions have been cancelled. Immediately the seats were filled by admitting students not having merit. 16. Admittedly, the students have paid the fees of Rs. 1. 65 lacs for one year as fixed by the. Committee. At that rate, the fee for the remaining period would at best be around rupees six lacs and not rupees ten lacs. There is, therefore, no justification in requiring the students to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lacs and a joint FD for Rs. 2. 5 lacs in addition to personal bonds. Prima-facie there is evidence that the legally admitted students are virtually forced to leave the institution on grounds prepared to remove the students so that the seats can be given to more "willing" students. 17. The private College managements cannot demand or collect any amount in addition to the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee either in regard to Government allotted students or students admitted by the management. 18. There are thus prima-facie irregularities and violations of the orders of the Supreme Court both in regard to procedure of admissions and demand for fees. We make it clear that we are not giving any final findings on the allegations made by the students or denials thereof by the College. 18. There are thus prima-facie irregularities and violations of the orders of the Supreme Court both in regard to procedure of admissions and demand for fees. We make it clear that we are not giving any final findings on the allegations made by the students or denials thereof by the College. It is open to the College to satisfy the authorities concerned or this Court about the acompliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. " In the circumstances, we direct as follows : " (i) The fourth respondent to disclose the complete admission procedure, and the particulars of admission, the fee demanded and received. The fourth respondent College is also directed to file list of all the students who took applications with their respective marks and the merit list that was prepared in regard to them and the final admission list and particulars of the students admitted after cancelling the regular admissions. (ii) The Director of Medical Education, M. P. and the Medical Council of India, to verify whether there are any irregularities in admissions or demand for fees. If there are any violations, they are at liberty to take action. (iii) If any admissions are illegally cancelled, steps to be taken to provide relief to such students. " 4. Thereafter, the Director of Medical Education went into the matter in detail and submitted a report concluding that the Institute had made admissions in an illegal and arbitrary manner under the management quota and had also illegally and unreasonably denied admission to students under the State quota. The conclusions of the Director of Medical Education in his detailed report dated 9. 12. 2004 were : (a) There are irregularities in admissions, as merit of 10+2 has definitely suffered. (b) Institution has compelled the candidates/parents to spend more money in the form of Bank guarantee/fixed deposit. (c) Cancelling admissions of State Quota candidates and filling these seats-- by management quota is illegal. ( 4. ) THE College denied any irregularities and contended that it: had acted in a bonafide manner. However, realising that its stand may not stand legal scrutiny, the College filed an Affidavit dated 24. 3. 2005 (of Dr. (c) Cancelling admissions of State Quota candidates and filling these seats-- by management quota is illegal. ( 4. ) THE College denied any irregularities and contended that it: had acted in a bonafide manner. However, realising that its stand may not stand legal scrutiny, the College filed an Affidavit dated 24. 3. 2005 (of Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Chairman of the Institute) agreeing that the State may investigate the matter and the number of admissions which are found to be irregularly made for the academic year 2004-05 shall stand surrendered from the next years management quota to the State Government quota for being filled by them and that the management quota for 2005-2006 shall stand reduced correspondingly. In view of it, we directed the Director of Medical Education to find out and submit a report as to the number of illegal/irregular admissions made by the college so that they could be surrendered by the college. ( 5. ) THEREAFTER, the Director of Medical Education submitted a further report dated 19. 4. 2005, wherein he concluded that 43 students were admitted in an unauthorised manner under the management quota and 7 students were illegally denied admission or were illegally cancelled admissions in the State Quota and filled by management with other students. Thus, total number of seats admitted in illegal manner were found to be 50 for the year 2004-2005. It may be mentioned that permitted in-take (capacity) of the College is 100 students per year. ( 6. ) THE College tried to contend that the finding arrived at by the Director of Medical Education that the seats to be surrendered should be 50 may not be correct and seats to be surrendered may be restricted to 25. However, after the matter was argued for sometime, the learned Senior Counsel for the College Shri Rajendra Tiwari agreed to abide by the decision of the Director of Medical Education in regard to number of seats, to avoid any further controversy and investigations and also to put an end several litigations. However, after the matter was argued for sometime, the learned Senior Counsel for the College Shri Rajendra Tiwari agreed to abide by the decision of the Director of Medical Education in regard to number of seats, to avoid any further controversy and investigations and also to put an end several litigations. In view of the fact that the College has fairly conceded that the entire 50 Management Quota seats for the academic year 2005-06, will be surrendered to the State Government for admission under the State Quota to set-off the effect of the irregular admissions in the previous academic year 2004-05 and the assurance of the College that It will proceed strictly as per the decisions of the Supreme Court or any law that may be made in regard to future admission we find it unnecessary to go into the matter in further detail as to the action that should be taken in respect of the irregularities in the admissions for the year 2004-05. Learned counsel for the State Government and Director of Medical Education submitted that for the year 2005-06, the State Government will allot students for all the 100 seats i. e. 50 seats under the State Quota and 50 seats under the Management Quota (surrendered by the Management) in accordance to merit as determined by the Pre-Medical Test. He also stated that the allotments will be made in time, adhering to the schedule/calender fixed by the Medical Council of India. ( 7. ) THE petitioners have been fighting these litigations seeking justice, and pointing out the injustice caused to them. They have also lost one valuable academic year. In the circumstances, it will be unjust to drive them to one more process of PMT or other selection process. The evidence clearly established that they were entitled to admissions when compared to those admitted. Therefore, all the petitioners shall be adjusted and given admission for the year 2005-06 out of 50 Management Quota seats surrendered by the College to the Government. The State shall include the names of the petitioners in the list of students to be allotted to the College for the academic year 2005-06 and only the balance shall be filled by the students who take the P. M. T. of 2005. The State shall include the names of the petitioners in the list of students to be allotted to the College for the academic year 2005-06 and only the balance shall be filled by the students who take the P. M. T. of 2005. It is needless to say that the students will pay fee only in accordance with the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee subject to such modifications/changes that may be ordered by the Supreme Court or by this Court. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners agree that the petitioners will not claim any compensation or other reliefs against the College for the loss of one year and the injustice caused to them, if they are admitted to the MBBS course by the college, by allotment through the State for the academic year 2005-06 by adjustment against the seats surrendered to the Government. ( 9. ) RECORDING the undertakings/submissions by the College, the students and the State Government, these petitions are disposed of subject to the observations above. Parties to bear their respective costs.