Judgment : In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to declare that he has passed the MDS course with effect from the 1st supplementary examination i. e. September, 2004, so as to enable him to get his seniority and promotion thereon. 2. Thebrief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (i) Petitioner passed BDS course and applied for MDS course in the academic year 2001-2002 in terms of the prospectus issued by the respondent. Petitioner was ranked 18th among the applicants for MDS course and he was wait listed for the speciality course in Oralpathology in the Government Dental College, wherein only seven seats were available for non-service candidates. (ii) Petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 9403 and 9404 of 2001 before the High Court of Madras for allotment of seats in the Government Dental College according to his merit against one of 18 additional seats, available by reasons of the deemed approval of the Central Government. The Principal Bench at Madras passed in interim order to conduct second counselling and thus, the petitioner was given a seat in the MDS Oralpathology course. According to the petitioner, the said procedure of admitting candidates in the additional seats were followed in the proceeding years from 1997-98 to 2000-2001. Hence the petitioner joined in the course on 10.6.2001. (iii) It is the further case of the petitioner that he had filed second writ petition with a prayer to allot a seat according to his merit in one of the self-financing colleges, as otherwise, he will be deprived of the seat in the event of any adverse result in the other writ petition. On 8.5.2001, the Principal Seat at Madras ordered to grant provisional admission to the petitioner in any one of the self-financing college, excluding two of such colleges, which challenged the Government Order dated 18.9.1996 directing to fill up 50% of the seats. Petitioner was called for counselling along with others, but the seats were not sanctioned afterwards. (iv) According to the petitioner, he got impleaded in W.A.No.550 of 1997 and applied for vacating the stay obtained by two self-financing colleges directing to fill up 50% seats with Government allotted candidates. Petitioner was called for counselling along with others, but the seats were not sanctioned afterwards. (iv) According to the petitioner, he got impleaded in W.A.No.550 of 1997 and applied for vacating the stay obtained by two self-financing colleges directing to fill up 50% seats with Government allotted candidates. The appeal was dismissed on 20.12.2001 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras and the power of the Government was upheld in respect of the allotment of students to the post graduate, dental course. Ultimately in the above referred judgment it was observed that the students including the petitioner, who have already got admission in the Government Dental College, need not be allotted seats in the self-financing colleges. (v) It is the grievance of the petitioner, the candidates with 60th and 70th ranks were admitted in the Private Dental Colleges in good speciality courses, whereas the petitioner with 18th rank was put into non-recognised category in the Government Dental College. Petitioner had completed three years MDS Course in the Government Dental College and passed Part-I examination and there is no examination for the second year. Petitioner paid the examination fee for the final year part-II examination. However, the second respondent refused to permit the petitioner to takeup the final year part-III examination to commence on 18th March, 2004. Petitioner was allowed to write the examination by virtue of the interim order passed by the Madras High Court along with other candidates on 18.3.2004 and the results were withheld. (vi) The State Government submitted proposals for the increase of seats and ultimately the Central Government and Dental Council of India ratified creation of additional seats to the Government Dental College, Chennai by order dated 23.12.2005. “No. V. 12017/39/97-PMS(DE) Government of India Ministry of Health and F.W. Department of Health (PMS Section ) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2005. Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009. Subject : The Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai - Admission made in excess of the approved capacity in 7 Specialities of MDS Course in the dental College between 1997 and 2001. Sir, In supersession of this Ministrys letter of even no. Dated 21.12.2005 and in continuation of this Ministrys letter of even no. dated 22.12.2005 on the subject matter. Sir, In supersession of this Ministrys letter of even no. Dated 21.12.2005 and in continuation of this Ministrys letter of even no. dated 22.12.2005 on the subject matter. I am desired to convey the following decision of the Central Government on the request contained in your letter No.5652/MCAI/2000-35, dated 21.7.205 on the above subject. 2. The request of the State Government was considered by the Central Government in the light of the observations made by the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in its interim order passed on 17.3.2004 in W.A.No.2003 and 1231 of 2003 and it was decided to accede to the request of the Government of Tamil Nadu to regularise the 90 students admitted in excess of the approved capacity in the following 7 Specialities of MDS Course during the period between 1997 and 2001 in Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, subject to the condition that the college authorities will surrender 2 seats per year from the approved intake capacity on rotational basis from different Specialities of MDS Course until all the excess admissions are neutralised: 1. Prosthodontics 2. Periodontics 3. Orhedontics 4. Oral Surgery 5. Oral Pathology 6. Cons. Dentistry 7. Oral Medicine 3. It has further been decided to advise the concerned authorities to ensure that such mistakes in the matter of admission to MDS course are not committed in the future in Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai and fix responsibility for the mistake already committed in the matter. 4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority. Yours faithfully, (Aastha S. Khatwani) Director (ASK)” After the ratification of admission by the Central Government, the results were published, in which the petitioner failed in the theory examination, with a shortfall of ten marks. Petitioner appeared for the supplementary examination held in March, 2006 and passed the same with first class marks. In these circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above referred prayer. 3. Petitioner appeared for the supplementary examination held in March, 2006 and passed the same with first class marks. In these circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above referred prayer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that only because of the delay in publication of the results for the examinations held in March, 2004, petitioner was compelled to take examination in March, 2006 and had the results been published in April 2004, petitioner would have appeared for the failed subject in September, 2004 itself and therefore the petitioner is justified in claiming that he is to be treated as passed in September, 2004 itself. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the fact remains that the petitioner passed the examination only during March, 2006 and the benefit of pass in the examination can be given only from the date of passing the examination and that the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition for the relief sought for. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents. 6. Thepoint in issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to get degree from September, 2004, for the examination he passed during March, 2006. 7. Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act 1987, reads as under, “5. 6. Thepoint in issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to get degree from September, 2004, for the examination he passed during March, 2006. 7. Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, Act 1987, reads as under, “5. The University shall have the following powers, namely : (1) to hold examinations and to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions on any person who:- “(a) shall have pursued an approved course of study or training in a college or University laboratory or an approved institution unless exempted therefrom in the manner prescribed by the statutes and shall have passed the examinations prescribed by the University; or (b) shall have carried on research under conditions prescribed by the statutes; (2) to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who shall have pursued an approved course of study, training or research in an autonomous college.” (Emphasis supplied) From the said provision of the Act, it is seen that the petitioner having failed in one subject and passed the subject only in the examination held during March 2006, he cannot claim retrospective pass and the same is contrary to the statutes and well recognised principle that a person can be conferred degree only from the date of passing the degree and not prior to that. 8. There is no dispute with regard to securing of pass marks by the petitioner in the subject in March, 2006 examination. The statement of marks given by the University on 29.4.2006 contains the month and year of pass of the examination as March, 2006. The reason for the delay in publication of the results may be on the part of the respondents, particularly respondents 1 and 4 i. e. without prior approval of the Dental Council of India and Central Government, the seats were increased. Petitioner is also particularly responsible for getting himself admitted in the Government Dental College by filing writ petition seeking admission in the Dental College, in the seat over and above the sanctioned strength, pursuant to the interim order obtained from this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed (W.P.No.9404 of 2001) by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 22.4.2003. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said order read as follows : “15. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed (W.P.No.9404 of 2001) by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 22.4.2003. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said order read as follows : “15. While the concern of the petitioner for legalities is to be appreciated, his efforts at trying to secure admission in several colleges at the same time cannot be appreciated. He was an aspirant for the M.D.S. Course, he had persuaded the Court to direct the Government Medical College to increase the strength, and had agreed to join that course at his risk in one of the seats so enhanced pursuant to the order issued by the Court. At the same time he has been trying to ride another horse by maintaining a claim for admission in a self financing college. He cannot, even while he was a student of the Government Dental College, assert a right to join a self financing college against a seat which the self-financing college was required to make available to person allotted by the Selection Committee. It is not in dispute that as on 25.7.2001 and shortly thereafter, the seat that the petitioner wanted for Orthodontics in the college chosen by him was not available. Thus, the denial of admission to him on that date cannot be faulted. 16. It is most unfortunate that the Government has not been monitoring as efficiently as it should, the litigation that has gone on in the cases concerning admission to Dental Colleges, and the increase in the number of seats in such colleges. This Court had occasion to severely criticise the conduct of the Government in the judgment in W.P. No.9403 of 1991 etc. dated 22.10.2002, delivered by one of us earlier speaking for the Bench, wherein the Court had directed the Chief Secretary to the State Government to initiate an enquiry in this regard. Whether or not such enquiry was initiated and the result of any such enquiry, if one had been instituted, has so far not been made known to the Court. 17. There may or may not be something in the criticism made by the counsel that the Government was itself hand in glove with the management of self financing colleges. The Bench in its order of 22.10.2002 made in W.P.Nos. 9403 of 1991 etc. 17. There may or may not be something in the criticism made by the counsel that the Government was itself hand in glove with the management of self financing colleges. The Bench in its order of 22.10.2002 made in W.P.Nos. 9403 of 1991 etc. had noted the possible collusion between the Government and the petitioners therein in allowing an interim order wholly unwarranted on facts, to remain in force for several academic years. 18. That conduct of the Government, however, does not result in any additional right being conferred on the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.” The above order has become final and only because of the ratification given by the Central Government through notification dated 23.12.2005, passed pursuant to the interim order passed in W.A.No. 2003 and 1231 of 2003 dated 17.3.2004 and also due to the action taken by respondents 1 and 4, the results of the students, who were admitted over and above the sanctioned strength, were declared. Therefore the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 4 are equally responsible for the plight of the petitioner as held by the Division bench in its order dated 22.4.2003 in W.P.No.9404 of 2001. Petitioner having passed the examination after appearing in the arrear examination held in March, 2006, he cannot seek for a declaration that he should be declared as passed from September, 2004 and the same is contrary to the University regulations and also the mark statement issued by the University. 9. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.