Judgment :- (Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writs of appropriate nature as stated therein.) K. Chandru, J. 1. Oversight Committee's order under challenge: 1.1. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.33512 of 2006 and 34740 of 2006, viz., Dr.Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust, represented by its Trustee, which is running the Chettinad Hospitals and Research Institute (for short, 'CHARI') at Padur, Kancheepuram District, and P.S.G. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (for short, 'PSGIMSR') which is running the Medical College at Coimbatore respectively, have formed an Association called Tamil Nadu Private Medical Colleges' Association (for short, 'Association') and sought permission from the Permanent Committee for the Common Entrance Test for Private Professional Colleges in Tamil Nadu (for short, 'Justice Subramani Committee') constituted by the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court made in Islamic Academy case for approving their admission procedure for MBBS Course for the academic year 2006 – 2007. 1.2. Justice Subramani Committee, after several rounds of discussion and consultations, approved the admission procedure adopted by these two Colleges and also recognised the Tamil Nadu Private Medical Colleges' Association as an Association to conduct the Common Entrance Test (for short, 'CET'). The Committee by its order dated 10.6.2006 gave detailed guidelines and also fixed the time schedule for conducting the examination. The Schedule appended to the order is extracted below: “SCHEDULE . Issue of application forms – From 21.6.2006 . Last date for submitting the application – 5.7.2006 . Entrance examination – 14.7.2006 . Centres of Examination – Chennai and Coimbatore. At Chennai: 1. Rajah Muthiah Hall 2. Rani Meyyammai Hall, Dr. Ruckmani Lakshmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai. At Coimbatore: PSG Institute of Medical Science and Research, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. . Results to be published along with rank list –24.7.2006. (Copy of rank list to be submitted to the Committee simultaneously). . Counselling – From 26.7.2006 at Chennai. Location will be informed to the candidates individually with notice to the Committee sufficiently earlier after giving due publicity. . Admission will be closed on or before 31.7.2006 . For filling up of NRI seats – till 15.9.2006. (Copy of rank list to be submitted to the Committee simultaneously). . Counselling – From 26.7.2006 at Chennai. Location will be informed to the candidates individually with notice to the Committee sufficiently earlier after giving due publicity. . Admission will be closed on or before 31.7.2006 . For filling up of NRI seats – till 15.9.2006. To fill up seats if any due to non filing of NRI seats, to be completed on or before 30.9.2006.” While the Committee in paragraph 18 of the order gave a direction that the admission should be made on the basis of the rank list prepared by the centralised counseling by following the single window system of admission, it was also stated that the Association agency will call the candidates in the order of merit and fill up the seats in the participating Colleges on the basis of the options exercised by the students during the process of counselling. 1.3. Subsequently, another College, viz., Sree Mookambikai Institute of Medical Science, Kanyakumari District, got itself included in the Association and opted for the CET even though it was the only minority run College in the State. Pursuant to the approval, a prospectus was issued by the Association indicating the intention to conduct the examination on 14.7.2006. It was stated that the examination will be conducted in two centres in the State, viz., at Chennai and Coimbatore and nowhere it is stated that candidates should exercise their option for getting admitted in either of the two colleges in case they are successfully ranked in the selection list. However, in the application, a column was given providing option in the three Colleges but at no point of time, it was stated that admission will be made only on the basis of the option exercised by the candidates. Even though the said examination was conducted as per the time schedule, the results were not published on 24.7.2006 and the rank list was not submitted to the Committee on time. 1.4. In the prospectus issued by the Association, it was mentioned that CHARI will have 150 seats and in respect of PSGIMSR, only 100 seats was mentioned. But it was indicated that apart from the NRIs of 15%, the other seats will be filled up through CET and communal roster will also be followed. 1.4. In the prospectus issued by the Association, it was mentioned that CHARI will have 150 seats and in respect of PSGIMSR, only 100 seats was mentioned. But it was indicated that apart from the NRIs of 15%, the other seats will be filled up through CET and communal roster will also be followed. However, while these proceedings were going on, on the initiative taken by the State of Tamil Nadu, these two private Medical Colleges agreed to have some seat sharing arrangement with the Government and gave a consent to surrender 65% of the seats being the two non-minority Colleges for the academic year 2006 – 2007. May be with this understanding, the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.129 Health and Family Welfare (MCA1) Department dated 26.7.2006 prescribing the admission procedure along with apportionment of the seats for the Government and unaided Colleges. 1.5. In that order, in paragraph 3(c), the Government indicated that for filling up of the seats retained by the Managements, single window system will not be insisted upon. Excepting for the conditions indicated in paragraph 3, the Government stated that the orders issued by the Committee in respect of the other conditions as laid down by the Committee, will have to be followed. It was ostensibly for this reason, the Association and three of its member Colleges were waiting and did not publish the results as directed by the committee and it took considerable time for them to publish the results. The results were finally published in the website on 18.8.2006 and the rank list was published on 28.8.2006 and copy was also sent to Justice Subramani Committee. 1.6. It was stated by the CHARI that they have received 150 applications for 30 seats to be filled up by them and they have unilaterally segregated the applications for the purpose of granting admission and provisional selection list was submitted by them to the Committee. However, the Committee, by order dated 07.9.2006, wrote to them which is as follows: “It is true as per Government order, single window system has been dispensed with for this academic year, but as stated by the Committee in earlier letters, merit shall not be bypassed. The Government order while stating single window system need not be followed, has also stated that all other conditions imposed by the Committee’s order are to be fulfilled. The Government order while stating single window system need not be followed, has also stated that all other conditions imposed by the Committee’s order are to be fulfilled. You have selected candidates on the basis of options exercised by the candidates, but at the same time bypassing merit. Many meritorious candidates were bypassed on the ground that they have opted for a particular college. Once single window system is not insisted upon, it follows that the right of option of the candidate is also taken away. That principle has not been adopted. Before publishing the select list, you should have atleast given notice to the candidates who have been superceded and who are more meritorious than the candidates selected. A notice asking them whether they are prepared to join in other colleges, before making provisional selection would have satisfied both the merit and option. The provisional list submitted by you is not in accordance with the Government order or in accordance with the Committee’s order. You are well aware that for professional courses merit is the basis for admission especially when one test is conducted for all the colleges altogether. The Committee would have accepted the provisional list provided the selection was conducted by individual colleges. Once there is a common entrance test and a common rank list there is no scope for three selection list. Much importance is given by individual colleges in view of the option exercised by the candidates. Once there is a common entrance test, individual colleges cannot bifurcate the merit list according to their own choice. Again merit cannot be bypassed and less meritorious candidate cannot be selected only on the basis of option. Member colleges of your association has prepared this provisional list only to the advantage of the colleges and not for the benefit of candidates.” 1.7. By stating so, the Committee refused to grant approval to the provisional list. Further, by an order dated 08.9.2006, the Committee informed the Association that the it was kept completely dark about the admission procedure and the Association though informed the Committee that the selection list will be on common merit list and not college wise merit, as per the prospectus issued, the same was not done. It also directed the Association to have a fresh selection list on the basis of the rank list already published and sent the same for approval by the Committee. It also directed the Association to have a fresh selection list on the basis of the rank list already published and sent the same for approval by the Committee. 1.8. The Committee, however, sent a further letter dated 11.9.2006 stating that the Committee is not insisting either on the centralised counselling or on single window system but it only insists on merit based admission. Aggrieved by the said order, the two Colleges, viz., CHARI and PSGIMSR, have filed these two petitions as stated above and approached this Court for grant of stay of the order passed by the Committee. 1.9. A learned single Judge of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.33512 of 2006 by order dated 15.9.2006, granted interim stay of the Committee's order with detailed reasoning in respect of CHARI and directed the parties to file reply statements. In respect of PSGIMSR, another learned Judge, following the earlier order, granted interim stay by order dated 20.9.2006 in M.P.No.2 of 2006 in W.P.No.34740 of 2006. Taking advantage of the interim order obtained by them, these two Colleges have filled up their seats by selecting candidates on the basis of the alleged option exercised by the candidates in respect of these two Colleges. 2. Case of the unsuccessful students: 2.1. At this stage, some students came to this Court including minor R.Shyamala, the petitioner in W.P.No.34902 of 2006, stating that even though she was meritorious, her case was not considered by these two Colleges and she sought for a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 in that writ petition to conclude the selection and admission of the students in the Management quota in MBBS Course for the year 2006 – 2007 by conducting counselling uninfluenced by the preference clause and purely on merits following the rule of reservation. 2.2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 25.9.2006, dismissed the petition for interim order as this Court had already granted stay of the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee on 15.9.2006. It is against this interim order, minor Shyamala preferred writ appeal being W.A.No.1269 of 2006 and the matter came up before this Bench. 2.2. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 25.9.2006, dismissed the petition for interim order as this Court had already granted stay of the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee on 15.9.2006. It is against this interim order, minor Shyamala preferred writ appeal being W.A.No.1269 of 2006 and the matter came up before this Bench. As the two interim orders passed by the learned Judges were followed while declining the interim relief claimed by the appellant (Minor Shyamala) in the appeal, this Court, in view of the urgency and importance of the issue, directed all the writ petitions to be posted along with this writ appeal to be heard so that a common order can be passed. 2.3. In Writ Appeal Nos.1253 of 2006 and 1269 of 2006 and four other writ petitions, which came up before this Court, this Court on 28.9.2006 passed the following order: “2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners/students are likely to be deprived of their admission to the medical colleges solely on the ground that they have not given their first preference to either of the two colleges or not given the second preference, we direct the P.S.G. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research as well as Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute to consider the applications made by the petitioners/students as per their merit irrespective of the manner in which they have exercised their preference and no candidate, who has secured less marks than the petitioners/students, shall be admitted. The petitioners/students are directed to approach the colleges/management by 29.9.2006.” 2.4. As the last date was coming to a close, it became necessary to pass the said order in respect of those four writ petitions. Later on, it transpired that on 29.9.2006, out of the four petitioners, three of them got admitted and in case of one minor C.RajPrakash (petitioner in W.P.No.35471 of 2006), it was informed to this Court that he was unnecessarily being denied admission. Even though, it was vacation for this Court, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a special sitting of the Court held on 30.9.2006 so as to verify the allegations made by the said petitioner. Even though, it was vacation for this Court, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a special sitting of the Court held on 30.9.2006 so as to verify the allegations made by the said petitioner. After hearing some arguments, this Court on 30.9.2006 at 4.00 PM recorded that the said candidate was given admission and gave quietus to the interim order passed already. 2.5. It was thereafter, several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court by the unsuccessful candidates even though the admission for the year 2006 – 2007 was over by 30.9.2006. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.37743 and 37745 of 2006 came to be filed by minor Tamilselvi and minor N.Preethi on the ground that they were informed by the CHARI by a telegram dated 29.9.2006 to appear on 30.9.2006 and inspite of their being present on 30.9.2006, they were denied admission unjustly and less meritorious candidates have been admitted. Minor K.C.Tamilselvi belongs to Scheduled Caste and she had obtained 224.45 marks figuring 338 in the rank list published by the Association. She had also impleaded the fifth respondent, by name, S.Varalakshmi, who, according to her, secured less marks. In the same way, minor N.Preethi, the petitioner in W.P.No.37745 of 2006, who also belonged to Scheduled Caste, had secured 225.61 marks figuring as 337th rank in the rank list whereas S.Varalakshmi, who was impleaded as fifth respondent, had secured only 213.22 marks and she was placed as 407th rank and was given admission overlooking the meritorious claims of these two persons. 2.6. Minor Kassey David Ratan, the petitioner in W.P.No.39325 of 2006, states that he belongs to Backward Community and he had secured 233.45 marks and 293rd rank in the rank list. According to him, he received a telegram from the CHARI on 30.9.2006 at 1.05 pm and yet, he was in Hyderabad and the telegram was deliberately booked very late. He states that thereafter he took the Indian Airlines flight from Hyderabad to Madras and though the flight was to land at 4.15 pm, due to delay of two hours, it landed only at 7.30 pm. He states that thereafter he took the Indian Airlines flight from Hyderabad to Madras and though the flight was to land at 4.15 pm, due to delay of two hours, it landed only at 7.30 pm. After getting the telegram, he informed his brother one Dr.Victor Babu Kassay, working as Scientist at CLRI, Chennai, to go to the College and remit the fees and even though his brother and sister-in-law went to the College to tender the fees, they refused to receive the same stating that the fees will not be received without the presence of the candidate. Thereafter, when he reached the College, he was demanded extra amount of Rs.5 lakhs and he was asked to come on 01.10.2006. But the same thing was repeated on 01.10.2006 also denying admission unjustly. In respect of these allegations, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Institution denied the same orally and no counter affidavit has been filed so far. 2.7. At the time of admitting these petitions, one of us (Justice K.Chandru) sitting singly, by order dated 05.10.2006, directed the CHARI to produce certain documents and the relevant portion of the order is extracted below: “interim direction to produce ... (i) marks obtained by various candidates who have been admitted for I year MBBS Course, 2006 – 07 under S.C. Quota in the 3rd respondent college and (ii) Dates and time of admission including Receipt Numbers issued to all the candidates admitted for I year MBBS Course, 2006 – 2007 under S.C. quota in the 3rd respondent college ...” 3. Case of the Private College: 3.1. A common counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the fourth respondent denying the allegations made by these two writ petitioners. Though it was admitted that these two candidates were invited for admission by telegram dated 29.9.2006 and they came to the Institution on the said date, it was stated that they had never tendered to pay any amount towards the fee, which is fixed at Rs.4,20,000/-. According to the fourth respondent, in case of minor Tamilselvi, she did not make any offer of payment and in respect of minor Preethi, she had offered to pay only Rs.30,000/- and since they did not fulfill the conditions, their seats were allotted to some other candidates. 3.2. According to the fourth respondent, in case of minor Tamilselvi, she did not make any offer of payment and in respect of minor Preethi, she had offered to pay only Rs.30,000/- and since they did not fulfill the conditions, their seats were allotted to some other candidates. 3.2. Under these circumstances, we will have to see whether the two Colleges, viz., CHARI and PSGIMSR are entitled to succeed in quashing the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee and even if they succeed in setting aside the order passed by the Committee, whether the candidates / petitioners in these writ petitions are entitled to get MBBS seat in terms of the averments made by them. 3.3. We have heard the arguments of Mr.K.Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.Sathish Parasaran, appearing for CHARI and Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel leading M/s D.Balaraman and G.Ramanujam, appearing for PSGIMSR, Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel leading M/s Kandavadivel Doraisamy, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.37743 and 37745 of 2006 and Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel leading M/s S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1269 of 2006 (petitioner in W.P.No.34902 of 2006) and for the petitioner in W.P.No.39325 of 2006 as well as Mr.M.Sekar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) representing the State and have perused the records. 4. Stand of the State on its G.O. on Admission: 4.1. With reference to the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.129 Health and Family Welfare (MCA1) Department dated 26.7.2006, Mr.M.Sekar, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the State has got power to regulate the admission procedure and the G.O. is only a culmination of earlier order passed by this Court and the same is referred to in the reference potion of the G.O. 4.2. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 [P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others] in paragraph 132, has held as follows: "132. Our answer to the first question is that neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. State of Maharashtra and Others] in paragraph 132, has held as follows: "132. Our answer to the first question is that neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost. If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1)." 4.3. In paragraphs 136 to 138 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "136. ...... There is nothing wrong in an entrance test being held for one group of institutions imparting same or similar education. Such institutions situated in one State or in more than one State may join together and hold a common entrance test or the State may itself or through an agency arrange for holding of such test. Out of such common merit list the successful candidates can be identified and chosen for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting the common entrance test (“CET” for short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and expertise in the matter. This would better ensure the fulfillment of twin objects of transparency and merit. CET is necessary in the interest of achieving the said objectives and also for saving the student community from harassment and exploitation. Holding of such common entrance test followed by centralised counselling or, in other words, single-window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to admit students of their choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of the list of successful candidates prepared at CET without altering the order of merit inter se of the students so chosen. 137. Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. 137. Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The same principle applies to non-minority unaided institutions. ........... 138. It needs to be specifically stated that having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit, achieve excellence and curb malpractices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single-window procedure. Such a procedure, to a large extent, can secure grant of merit-based admissions on a transparent basis. Till regulations are framed, the Admission Committees can oversee admissions so as to ensure that merit is not the casualty." 4.4. The learned Special Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court several attempts made by the State to negotiate with these three private Medical Colleges and it had secured 65% seats to be filled in by the single window system. Those seats will be filled up as per the marks obtained in the Tamil Nadu Professional Colleges Entrance Examination (TNPCEE) conducted by the Anna University. Even though the Colleges were under no obligation to surrender any seat, as per P.A. Inamdar's Case, (cited supra), the State was able to convince the Managements to agree to voluntarily giver up 65% of the seats to be filled up by the test conducted by the Anna University. The students were admitted under the said quota based on merits and have superior claims over the other candidates, who are before this Court. In no case it can be said that the candidates who got admission in that quota are having lesser marks than the candidates, who are before this Court. In fact, it was only when they were unable to get admission under the State quota, they have gone before the Private Medical Colleges. 4.5. According to the learned counsel that Justice Subramani Committee, vide its letter dated 11.9.2006, informed the Association that the Committee was not insisting on centralised counselling or on the single window system, but it insists that merit should be the only criteria for admission. Therefore, the argument of some of the learned counsel appearing for the candidates demanding that the surrendered seats should be brought under the Management quota can never be countenanced and the same is rejected. Therefore, the argument of some of the learned counsel appearing for the candidates demanding that the surrendered seats should be brought under the Management quota can never be countenanced and the same is rejected. We find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the State in G.O.Ms.No.129 Health and Family Welfare (MCA1) Department dated 26.7.2006. 5. Submission on behalf of CHARI: 5.1. It is thereafter, Mr.K.Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, submitted that the Court should understand the predicament faced by the private Medical Colleges, where all admissions should be over by 30th September of every year, as per the time schedule prescribed by the Medical Council and accepted by the Supreme Court. He also drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 [Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others]. In paragraph 23 of that judgment, it was observed as follows: 23. There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. 5.2. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 [Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India and Others] wherein the time schedule to the Regulations has been mentioned and the same is extracted below: 5.3. In paragraph 35(4) of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "35. Having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the following directions: ............... ................ ............. ........ ............... ................ ............. ........ 4. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territory and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance with the directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences. 5.4. In the light of the above, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the seats are ultimately not filled up, private Medical Colleges are bound to suffer, especially in the context that they have invested so much on their infrastructure. 5.4. In the light of the above, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the seats are ultimately not filled up, private Medical Colleges are bound to suffer, especially in the context that they have invested so much on their infrastructure. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if W.P.No.33512 of 2006 is allowed, then the entire list will have to be quashed and by that time, the cut-off date prescribed by the Supreme Court will be over and the Colleges will have to go without any admission this year and that will not benefit any one. Further, he submitted that one need not go by the word 'option', and whether the Colleges had given an option or was it a preference in this context. Once they are allowed to make a selection out of the merit list, then there should be a free play in the joints and must be allowed to select candidates feely from out of the merit rank list published by the Consortium of Private Medical Colleges. 5.5. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 [T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka] to emphasise his submission. The relevant passage found in paragraph 65 of the above said judgment is extracted below: "......While an educational institution cannot grant admission on its whims and fancies, and must follow some identifiable or reasonable methodology of admitting the students, any scheme, rule or regulation that does not give the institution the right to reject candidates who might otherwise be qualified according to, say, their performance in an entrance test, would be an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(6), though appropriate guidelines/modalities can be prescribed for holding the entrance test in a fair manner. Even when students are required to be selected on the basis of merit, the ultimate decision to grant admission to the students who have otherwise qualified for the grant of admission must be left with the educational institution concerned. However, when the institution rejects such students, such rejection must not be whimsical or for extraneous reasons. (Emphasis added) 5.6. Even when students are required to be selected on the basis of merit, the ultimate decision to grant admission to the students who have otherwise qualified for the grant of admission must be left with the educational institution concerned. However, when the institution rejects such students, such rejection must not be whimsical or for extraneous reasons. (Emphasis added) 5.6. The learned Senior Counsel also stated that if the Court finds that its understanding with reference to not indicating the option to the candidates in the Prospectus issued by them, the mistake, if any, is only bonafide and they are willing to get themselves corrected if suitable guidelines are issued for admissions to be made in the coming years. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that if the candidates come on the last date and express their difficulty in paying the amount as prescribed by the State, then the college may not be at fault in accepting another candidate with lesser mark but who was willing to pay the amount on the last date itself. This will not be a violation of any rule or guideline since both the candidates are from the same merit list except that in one case, a candidate is not willing to pay the fees fixed by the State, and the other candidates had expressed difficulty about getting the pay order due to closure of Banks on 30.9.2006 or the subsequent day being holiday on account of Sunday. Under these circumstances, the Colleges cannot be found fault with. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the Colleges are forced to accept cheque payments and if the cheques were later found to be returned for want of funds, then the College will be in a piquant situation and also will be faced with the vacant seat not being filled up. 5.7. However, the learned Senior Counsel stated that with reference to the College which he is representing, viz., CHARI, they have taken due note of the direction issued by this Court on 28.9.2006 and have admitted three students and on 30.9.2006 the fourth student was also admitted, even though they had reservations about certain allegations being made against them. However, if the candidates, after coming to know about those cases, endlessly come to this Court and file writ petitions at their sweet will and pleasure, that should not be entertained by this Court. However, if the candidates, after coming to know about those cases, endlessly come to this Court and file writ petitions at their sweet will and pleasure, that should not be entertained by this Court. Just like there is time limit for admission to these Colleges, there must also be time limit for filing writ petitions with prayers of this nature. 5.8. When questioned about the documents not being produced as directed by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel fairly suggested that instead of going into any roving enquiry and should this Court come to any reasonable conclusion, after finding that there was gross injustice in any particular case, the College is willing to abide by the direction issued by this Court. However, on such direction, admission may not be possible for this year and it can be made only in the next academic year, viz., 2007 – 2008. 5.9. Continuing the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Parasaran, Senior Counsel Mr.K.Ranjit Kumar, instructed by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, argued on behalf of the CHARI for the second day. He denied the averments made in the affidavit filed by M/s. Tamilselvi and Preethi in W.P.Nos.37743 and 37745 of 2006 respectively. He submitted that in respect of one candidate, only Rs.30,000/- was offered and in case of the other, no offer of any amount was made and in view of the disputed facts, the benefit of doubt should be given to the College Management and the writ petitions must be dismissed. 5.10. In respect of Minor Kassey David Ratan (petitioner in W.P.No.39325 of 2006), even though the learned Senior Counsel orally denied the averments, he has not chosen to file any counter affidavit rebutting the allegation made by the said candidate. Confronted with the flight tickets and boarding passes produced by the said candidate, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that admissions were over by 5 PM on 30.9.2006 and by the time the said candidate came to the College, it was around 8.30 PM and, therefore, they cannot be held responsible for not granting him admission. Even if this Court grants any admission in respect of these three candidates, viz.,Tamilselvi, Preethi and Minor Kassey David Ratan, that should be done only for the next academic year. Even if this Court grants any admission in respect of these three candidates, viz.,Tamilselvi, Preethi and Minor Kassey David Ratan, that should be done only for the next academic year. Even the said admission can be made only on the basis of the cut-off marks that will be fixed for the next academic year by the Committee and their admissions is not a matter of course. 5.11. However, when asked as to why the interim orders dated 05.10.2006 made in W.P.Nos.37743 and 37745 of 2006 were not complied with, the learned Senior Counsel sought for further time. However, on being persuaded by this Court, he made a fair concession, after getting instructions from the learned counsel on record. The learned Senior Counsel stated that in respect of these three candidates, without raising any further objection and without insisting on any further formalities, his client is willing to consider the admission for the next year in respect of the Institution represented by him, viz., CHARI. 6. Submission on behalf of PSGIMSR: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.D.Balaraman, for the PSGIMSR submitted that in respect of their Institution, there was no challenge with regard to their admission procedure and he has also produced a list of candidates admitted by them under the Management quota showing their marks and also the communal rotation being followed by them. He also stated that if the order of Justice Subramani Committee is set at naught, no useful purpose will be served and this is not going to benefit any one. If there was any confusion with reference to the Prospectus not being clearly indicating that only the opted candidates should be allotted to the respective Colleges, it was entirely a mistake on their part and if any guidelines are given to be followed for the next year, they are willing to abide by the same. He also brought to the notice of this Court the order of the learned single Judge dated 15.9.2006 made in W.P.No.33512 of 2006 where the learned Judge herself has stated that the present arrangement is only for this year and next year, the arrangement will also change and that her order will not be construed as a precedent. In the light of the same, the learned Senior Counsel stated that the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee dated 07.9.2006 must be set aside as not in accordance with law. 7. In the light of the same, the learned Senior Counsel stated that the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee dated 07.9.2006 must be set aside as not in accordance with law. 7. Submission of the students: 7.1. Per contra, Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel, leading Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.37743 and 37745 of 2006 referred to the averments made in the affidavit filed by the candidates. He also stated that the candidates who are having lesser marks have been admitted and admittedly, the two candidates belong to Scheduled Caste and they have scored fairly high marks and this Court, by order dated 28.9.2006, had clearly stated that the candidates who are having lesser marks should not be admitted. In the light of that direction, these two candidates also should be given admission. 7.2. When questioned about the cut-off date being 30.9.2006, which is already over, the learned Senior Counsel stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that denial of admission to the candidates was wrong, then admission may be made for the next academic year. The learned Senior Counsel brought to our notice some decisions of the Supreme Court. 7.3. In Civil Appeal No.4051 of 2004 dated 12.7.2004, the writ petitioner contended that though he was more meritorious than the fifth respondent, he was not admitted, but the fifth respondent was. In spite of the fact that the college in question would exceed its sanctioned strength if the writ petitioner is admitted, the High Court directed the college to admit the writ petitioner for the year 2003-2005. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Ruma Pal, J. and Arun Kumar, J. held that the order of the High Court was contrary to the directions given in Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and also resulted in admission beyond the sanctioned strength. The Supreme Court, therefore, gave directions that the writ petitioner should be "granted admission for the academic year 2004 - 2005 without any further counselling, within the permissible intake limit". 7.4. In Civil Appeal NO.2423 of 2005, the affected candidate had a higher ranking than the admitted candidate. The High Court directed creation of a supernumerary seat. The Supreme Court, therefore, gave directions that the writ petitioner should be "granted admission for the academic year 2004 - 2005 without any further counselling, within the permissible intake limit". 7.4. In Civil Appeal NO.2423 of 2005, the affected candidate had a higher ranking than the admitted candidate. The High Court directed creation of a supernumerary seat. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Y.K.Sabharwal, J. (as he then was) and P.P.Naolekar, J. set aside the direction of the High Court and held as follows: "Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we direct that in the Academic year 2005-2006, Dr.Deepa shall be accommodated in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) in Ragas Dental College. We may note that by order dated 14th March, 2005, it was directed that one seat in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) shall not be filled for the Academic Year 2005-2006. The admission granted to Dr.Deepa in the aforesaid college would be out of the Government Quota. The learned counsel appearing for the college has no objection in this regard. We are also of the view that, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, it is the only proper course in order to do substantial justice between the parties without it being treated as a precedent." 7.5. These two decisions were followed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1978 of 2005 dated 31.7.2006 and another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.2282 and 2313 of 2005 dated 23.01.2006 and directions were given to the successful candidates regarding the admissions to be made in the next academic year. 7.6. Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.S.Mani, appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1289 of 2006 (petitioner in W.P.No.34902 of 2006) and W.P.No.39325 of 2006 brought to our notice the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.13832 of 2004 dated 29.7.2004. In that case, while granting stay of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Supreme Court permitted the candidate to be admitted in the College for the next academic year. In that case, while granting stay of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Supreme Court permitted the candidate to be admitted in the College for the next academic year. The learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the plight of the petitioner Kassey David Ratan, who after receipt of the telegram, took the trouble of booking an Air Ticket and rushed to Chennai, only to be told that he will not be admitted by the College though he had the necessary rank and marks for the same. He also drew the attention of this Court that the allegation made by him had not been denied by filing any counter affidavit. 8. Our conclusions: 8.1. In the light of the above submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels, we are of the opinion that the order passed by Justice Subramani Committee, vide order dated 07.9.2006, cannot be quashed on the ground that the students were not given notice earlier so as to give option to various Institutions, and the admission procedure adopted by the Colleges was contrary to merits. 8.2. It is, no doubt, true that the Colleges have not mentioned in the Prospectus that candidates would be considered only on the basis of their options. But this Court cannot totally ignore the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Managements that they have committed a bonafide mistake in not mentioning the same in the Prospectus. Since we are not going into the larger question as to whether candidates were put to inconvenience and suffering, we are confining our orders only for the purpose of admissions to be made this year and we do not express any final opinion on the said matter. 8.3. We have made our decision only confining to the individual claims made by the candidates before us and in case this Court finds that certain candidates who got higher marks were ignored, then we would have obliged to grant directions in those cases. Even if we set aside the selection on the basis of the order of Justice Subramani Committee, it will not serve any purpose as no candidate will be benefited by such an order and the cut-off date, viz., 30.9.2006, should be kept in mind by all the parties concerned. Even if we set aside the selection on the basis of the order of Justice Subramani Committee, it will not serve any purpose as no candidate will be benefited by such an order and the cut-off date, viz., 30.9.2006, should be kept in mind by all the parties concerned. We find that the action of the two Colleges in question, viz., CHARI and PSGIMSR and their Association in so far as they have not stuck to the time schedule and this has created a lot of heartburn and anxiety on the part of all concerned. 9. Relief: 9.1. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Managements, we propose not to go into any roving enquiry on this matter. We also record the fair concession made by the learned Senior Counsels, viz., Mr.K.Parasaran, and Mr.Ranjit Kumar, on being instructed by Mr.Sathish Parasaran appearing for the CHARI that the three candidates, viz., M/s Tamilselvi, Preethi, Kassey David Ratan will be given admission without raising any further objection in the MBBS Course for the next academic year 2007 – 2008 and finding that the other candidates are not in any manner coming within the zone of consideration, we propose to rest contend with the same. However, we make it clear that in the light of the submissions made by the two learned Senior Counsels that the above said three students will be admitted for the academic year 2007 – 2008 in the Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute and consequently three seats will be reduced from their quota for the next year. We further make it clear that the fee to be paid by these three candidates will be that which may be fixed for the next academic year and no equity will be raised by them in this regard. 9.2. In respect of W.A.No.1269 of 2006, which is filed only against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge, this Court having upheld the order of the learned single Judge, we dismiss the same. In respect of W.P.No.34902 of 2006 filed by Minor Shyamala, this Court finds that there are no merits in the claim made by her for the reasons already stated and the same is also dismissed. 10. Guidelines for admission to next academic year: 10.1. In respect of W.P.No.34902 of 2006 filed by Minor Shyamala, this Court finds that there are no merits in the claim made by her for the reasons already stated and the same is also dismissed. 10. Guidelines for admission to next academic year: 10.1. As requested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the two Colleges, we issue the following guidelines to be followed by the Colleges for admissions to be made next year: a. Time Schedule prescribed by the admission committee/competent authority should be followed and there should be no deviation. b. Whether the Colleges are selecting on the basis of the option/preference to be expressed by the candidate the same should be mentioned in the Prospectus and Applications clearly. c. Deadline for admission after every stage of selection should be given and a waiting list should be prepared and published. d. If any candidate had not joined before the deadline, then automatically the candidate from the waiting list must be informed and admission should be given. e. In order to avoid any delay in intimating the candidate, a daily update must be put in the website of the Colleges regarding the factual position on admission. f. In addition to the same, candidates should be informed either by E-Mail or by SMS about their being asked to come for counselling for admission. A provision should be given in the Application form to get their E-Mail addresses or Mobile Numbers for the purpose of forwarding the message regarding admission in addition to the telegram being sent as of now. g. Since most of the allegations were that the candidates either did not have the lumpsum cash or the Colleges were refusing to receive the payment by cheques, Colleges must make arrangements to have an online transmission of the amounts through wire by the Bank. This will provide safety and security to both sides. The Colleges will carry out these guidelines in addition to any further guidelines that may be issued by the competent authorities who will be in charge of selection for the next academic year. 10.2. This will provide safety and security to both sides. The Colleges will carry out these guidelines in addition to any further guidelines that may be issued by the competent authorities who will be in charge of selection for the next academic year. 10.2. We are also told by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) that already, the Tamil Nadu Legislature has passed the Tamil Nadu Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 for the purpose of regulating the admissions and fee in respect of Professional Colleges and the Act, and is awaiting the assent from the President of India. If that is so, on the Act being brought into force admissions for the next academic year, viz., 2007 – 2008 will be governed by the guidelines issued by the Committee appointed under the said Act and the Committees constituted pursuant to the Islamic Academy Case will be ceased to exist. 11. In the light of the above, W.A.No.1269 of 2006 and W.P.No.34902 of 2006 fails and the same shall stand dismissed. W.P.Nos.33512 and 34740 of 2006 are allowed only to the extent indicated above. W.P.Nos. 37743, 37745 and 39325 of 2006 will stand allowed to the extent of the relief granted above. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.