JUDGMENT S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. This order of ours shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15670 of 2005 and 16053 of 2005, as common questions of facts and law arise in these petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from CWP No. 15670 of 2005. 2. The students are a nation’s wealth. It is therefore the foremost duty of every citizen to ensure that students are not wronged, and they get what is due to them. The petitioners in these cases are students who worked hard. They competed with their rivals by appearing in a competitive examination. They secured merit positions which should have ensured them admission to one or the other of the courses they had vied for but they failed to get admission in the field of their choice, which they keenly desired and fought for. They have been driven to this Court to claim their hard earned rights. By that time, it was too late, to harvest the gain of their victory in the competitive process. This is how their story is disclosed by the facts of the case, which has come before us, for decision. 3. The petitioners desired to be doctors. After passing the +2 examination, they appeared in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test- 2005 (in short PMET 2005), conducted by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot - respondent No.2 (in short the University), on 5.6.2005. The said examination was scrapped by the State of Punjab-respondent No.1 on account of leakage of question papers. The second PMET 2005 was conducted by the Guru Nanak Dev University on 30.6.2005. The result thereof was declared on 2.7.2005. Some of the candidates who took the PMET- 2005 alongwith the petitioners, found that their performance had not been properly assessed. They, therefore, filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the process adopted by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, in evaluating their answer sheets. This Court decided the said cases on 8.8.2005 wherein the main order was passed in the case titled Saumil Garg and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 10272 of 2005). 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, as per the predetermined schedule, counselling for purposes of admission to the MBBS and BDS courses, was to be conducted from 20.7.2005 to 24.7.2005 on the basis of the result of the PMET- 2005 dated 2.7.2005. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, as per the predetermined schedule, counselling for purposes of admission to the MBBS and BDS courses, was to be conducted from 20.7.2005 to 24.7.2005 on the basis of the result of the PMET- 2005 dated 2.7.2005. The process of counselling was, however, stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2005. This Court vide order dated 8.8.2005, accepted the writ petitions, wherein the evaluation of answer sheets was challenged, and directed that fresh key answers be prepared and the answer books be reassessed on that basis and the revised result of 2nd PMET 2005 be declared by 19.8.2005. 5. The Guru Nanak Dev University, one of the respondents in the said writ petitions filed an appeal against the judgment rendered by this Court in Saumil Garg’s case (supra). That appeal came to be disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.8.2005 with some modifications. The Hon’ble Apex Court required the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, to declare the PMET-2005 result within two days (i.e. upto 26.8.2005). The said result was, however, declared on 29.8.2005. It was also averred in the writ petition, and admitted by the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (in short the CMC), in the written statement that the result of PMET-2005 was declared on 29.8.2005. Thereafter the applications were invited by 4.9.2005 by the University for admissions to be made on the basis of merit determined by the PMET-2005. 6. Since the process of admission was to be completed before 30.9.2005, the process of counselling was started by the University without delay. The first counselling was held from 9.9.2005 to 11.9.2005 and the first instalment of 7 candidates of General Category for admission to the MBBS course against State quota seats was sent to the CMC by the University vide their letter dated 10.9.2005. Names of four other candidates i.e. one from the handicapped category and three from the Schedules Caste category, were sent thereafter on 11.9.2005. A comprehensive letter of all the 11 candidates was sent to the CMC by the University on 15.9.2005 . Admission was declined to these 11 candidates, which is clearly depicted from para 6 of the written statement filed by the CMC. It reads as under :- “6. A comprehensive letter of all the 11 candidates was sent to the CMC by the University on 15.9.2005 . Admission was declined to these 11 candidates, which is clearly depicted from para 6 of the written statement filed by the CMC. It reads as under :- “6. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that it is correct that a list was sent by the University to the College on 10.9.2005. It contain names of seven candidates. Another list was sent on 11.9.2005 which contain a list of 11 candidates. However, the college was of the consisted stand that after 30.8.2005 no list could be sent by the University and hence those students were intimated of the legal position. The fact whether they complained to the University or not cannot be replied to for want of knowledge.” 7. The second process of counselling was conducted by the University on 24.9.2005, during which the petitioners were selected for admission to the MBBS course at the CMC. In compliance with the directions of the University, they deposited their fee on 26.9.2005 and appeared before the CMC authorities on 27.9.2005 at 9 a.m. Admission was, however, denied to the petitioners by the CMC. 8. It is not in dispute that there were 50 seats of MBBS with the CMC in the year 2005-06. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697, the management quota was limited upto 50% and remaining quota of 50% was to be filled by the State. However, in the writ petition (Civil) No. 357 of 2004 filed by the CMC the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 1.6.2005 on the application filed by the CMC, by which the management quota of the CMC was increased to 75% while the State quota was reduced to 25%. As a result of this interim direction, out of 50 MBBS seats in CMC, 12.5 seats came to the share of the State quota, while 37.5 seats came to the share of the management. As a result of this interim direction, out of 50 MBBS seats in CMC, 12.5 seats came to the share of the State quota, while 37.5 seats came to the share of the management. However, the University vide their letter dated 17.7.2005 (Annexure R-2/8) addressed to the CMC demanded 13 seats but the CMC vide their letter dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure R-2/10), requested the University that this time they would select 38 students as against 75% seats, leaving 12 seats for the State quota. The CMC undertook that one seat will be filled by rotation, which would be filled by the College and the Government, alternatively. Accordingly the CMC assured the University, that the Government would be entitled to admit 13 students during the next academic session provided that the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court remained operative. Therefore, the net result was, that 12 seats of MBBS course were to be filled by the State and 38 seats were to be filled by the management i.e. the CMC. 9. But, as stated above, the candidates recommended by the University for MBBS course against the 12 seats of the State quota, were not accepted by the CMC. The CMC declined to accept the candidates who were recommended by the University after the first counselling, as also those recommended after the second counselling. It actually transpires that the CMC filled the 12 seats, meant to be filled from the State quota, out of the selection process conducted by the CMC itself through a process of counselling held on 26/27.9.2005. Hence the present petition at the hands of candidates recommended by the University (after the second process of counselling held on 24.9.2005) for admission to the MBBS course at the CMC. 10. The CMC filed a detailed written statement and contested the case. As a first preliminary objection, it was pleaded that the candidates selected by the CMC, out of their own merit list were not impleaded and therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. However, this objection was removed as those candidates selected by the CMC out of their own merit list, against the State quota seats, were made parties, vide this Court’s order dated 7.10.2005. Therefore, that objection no longer survived. 11. However, this objection was removed as those candidates selected by the CMC out of their own merit list, against the State quota seats, were made parties, vide this Court’s order dated 7.10.2005. Therefore, that objection no longer survived. 11. The other plea taken by the CMC was that the seats against which the petitioners were seeking admission, were already filled up by the answering respondent by the time, the petitioners appeared in the CMC on 27.9.2005. 12. The main plea of the CMC was taken in preliminary objection No.2, which reads as under :- “That notwithstanding what has been submitted here in above it is further stated that answering respondent submits that in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case reported as 2005(2) SLR 18, answering respondent would be following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the answering respondent accepts any candidate which is recommended by the Government in violation of the time schedule prescribed in the said judgment and after 30.8.2005 of this academic year it would result in the answering respondent disobeying the judgment. The time schedule has been reproduced in detail in para 11 of the said judgment.” 13. From these pleadings, therefore, it is very clear that for its solitary defence, the CMC had taken shelter of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Mridul Dhar (minor) and another v. Union of India and others (2005) 2 SCC 65. In this behalf it was submitted that the time schedule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was mandatory. The same had not been followed by the State, and by the University, in selection and recommending candidates to the CMC against the State quota seats. It was pointedly asserted, that the State had no right to recommend any candidate for admission to the CMC, even from the State quota, after 30.8.2005. The contention advanced is, that the State quota stands reverted to the management i.e. to the CMC after 30.8.2005, and accordingly, the management alone had the right to fill the seats which had remained unfilled on 30.8.2005. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no merit in the claim of the petitioners. The CMC, accordingly, sought the dismissal of the civil writ petition. 14. The University (respondent No.2) has filed a short reply. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no merit in the claim of the petitioners. The CMC, accordingly, sought the dismissal of the civil writ petition. 14. The University (respondent No.2) has filed a short reply. It has conceded the claim of the petitioners and have severely criticised the stand of the CMC by pleading as under:- “ (i) That the stand of the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana Society/Christian Medical College, Ludhiana/Christian Dental College, Ludhiana/Christian Nursing College, Ludhiana (hereinafter compendiously referred to as “the CMC”) that they will not accept the students selected for admission to the CMC by the respondent University against the State Quota during counselling held on the basis of the merit of PMET - 2005 would, if allowed to prevail, sound the death-knell of the University regime of affiliation and be completely subversive of all norms of academic discipline that bind affiliated colleges/institutions. It would, in a word and without any exaggeration, mean the end of the University system. (ii) That in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another V. State of Karnataka and others (2003) 6 SCC 697, applicable for the academic session 2005-2006, no private professional institution, aided or unaided, minority or non-minority, can either directly or indirectly appropriate, supplant, usurp or destroy the State Quota for any reason whatsoever. The action and conduct of the CMC in doing so is in complete violation, if not in contempt, of the judgment in Islamic Academy and is a highly reprehensible, malafide attempt to defy the law of the land. (iii) That the judgment of the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar and another v. Union of India and others , (2005) 2 SCC 65, does not constitute an exception to the law laid down in Islamic Academy of Education nor does it operate in derogation thereof. The attempt of the CMC to justify their action and conduct on the strength or anvil of Mridul Dhar is completely and manifestly perverse and misconceived. To use Mridul Dhar to displace Islamic Academy and/or to appropriate supplant, usurp or destroy the State Quota (operated as per the merit of a Common Entrance Test held by the University_ is not only specious in the extreme but transparently disingenuous, there being nothing in the argument to commend except perhaps the sheer audacity of it. To use Mridul Dhar to displace Islamic Academy and/or to appropriate supplant, usurp or destroy the State Quota (operated as per the merit of a Common Entrance Test held by the University_ is not only specious in the extreme but transparently disingenuous, there being nothing in the argument to commend except perhaps the sheer audacity of it. It is obvious as well that, in actual intent and effect, the whole object of the CMC in invoking Mridul Dhar in order to wipe out the State Quota for the Session 2005-2006 is to take retrospective advantage of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & others v. State of Maharastra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537, even though the said judgment has in express terms been made applicable by their Lordships of the Supreme Court only prospectively from the academic Session 2006-2007. (iv) That by their impugned conduct the CMC have also acted blatantly in violation, and in contumacious dis-regard, of the order dated 1.6.2005 of the Apex Court (Annexure R-2/1) in writ petition (Civil) No.357 of 2004, allowing them to fill up 75% of the seats according to their choice from members of the minority community for the Session 2005-2006 and directing that the “balance 25% seats shall be filled up by the candidates allotted by the State on the basis of the merit list prepared by it.” The State of Punjab and the respondent University have acted strictly in conformity with the said order of the Apex Court while the CMC, on whose application the order was passed, have chosen willfully to flout it. Premised ex facie on the judgment in Islamic Academy, this order fixed and delimits the Management/Minority Quota (75%) and the State Quota (25%) in the CMC for the Session 2005-2006 and is pre-emptory and binding on all parties. It admits of no exception and is not contingent upon any qualifying or restricting term or condition. For the CMC to first petition the Apex Court or obtaining the order and then to circumvent and defeat it, enhancing at will their 75% Management/Minority Quota to 100% and obliterating the State Quota altogether, marks the acme of illegality. Such willful arbitrariness on the part of litigants, official or private, is a complete negation of the rule of law. For the CMC to first petition the Apex Court or obtaining the order and then to circumvent and defeat it, enhancing at will their 75% Management/Minority Quota to 100% and obliterating the State Quota altogether, marks the acme of illegality. Such willful arbitrariness on the part of litigants, official or private, is a complete negation of the rule of law. (v) That in any case and without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, all the admissions against the State Quota having been made by the respondent University within the cut-off date of September 30, 2005 (prescribed in the Punjab Government Notification dated April 25, 2005 and published in the Prospectus of PMET-2005 issued by the University), on question of violation of any time-schedule as stipulated by the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar and/or any apex statutory body arises. It is only after the last date for closure of admissions viz. September 30, 2005 that admissions are prohibited and any such admissions if made (after the said date) are illegal and invalid; no such sanction arises or ensues or can be inferred or implied in case of admissions made by or before September 30, 2005. This position in law is only vindicated and reaffirmed, and not contra-indicated, by the fact that all admissions for the present session 2005- 2006 have been made (and could have been made) by the University only after and on the basis of the judgment and order dated 24.8.2005 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 5276-77 of 2005, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others, involving the re-assessment of the result of PMET-2005 on the basis whereof admissions have to be made. If the plea of the CMC is accepted, all admissions made by the University (whether to the CMC or to any other affiliated institution) for the Session 2005-2006 would be illegal due to alleged violation of the time-schedule in Mridul Dhar regardless of the fact that they were allowed to be made by the Apex Court as aforesaid vide its judgment and order dated 24.8.2005. It is obvious that such a plea can be accepted only if complete ignorance of the law (including the law as laid down in Mridul Dhar) is attributed to the Apex Court and its judgment and order dated 24.8.2005 is treated as null and void or as completely redundant.” Hence it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 15. We may first of all deal with the first submission made on behalf of the CMC i.e. that the seats reserved for the State quota were already filled by the time the petitioners presented themselves at the CMC for seeking admission. This, in our view, does not appear to be an entirely correct depiction. The petitioners had deposited their fee in the bank, in the name of the Principal, CMC, Ludhiana on 26.9.2005 (Annexure P-2 collectively), and they had appeared before the concerned authorities at the CMC on 27.9.2005 at 9 a.m., which is established by the documents placed on the record of this case by the CMC itself (Annexure R-3/11). It is therefore clear, that the petitioners had deposited their fee on 26.9.2005 and were present at the CMC on 27.9.2005 at 9 a.m. But, by this time, the CMC had not yet completed the process of selection of the candidates, to fill up the seats reserved for the State quota, from their own merit list. This is clear from their own pleadings. In paragraphs 7 to 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of the CMC, the factual position disclosed, is as under:- “It was actually held on 26.9.2005 at 9.00 A.M. and upto 12.00 P.M. None of the provisionally selected candidates appeared. Accordingly the waiting list candidates were called from 2.00 P.M. onwards. The process takes time. The counselling continued till late afternoon but could not be completed. Each candidate was called as per his merit position and his testimonials checked. Some candidates were absent and after their Roll Numbers were called and for some few minutes they have to be waited for and then some new candidate has to be called. Out of 12 seats, 6 candidates deposited the fee on 26.9.2005 itself. However, by that time the banking hours were over. Accordingly the rest of the students were asked to come at 8.00 A.M. on 27.9.2005. Out of 12 seats, 6 candidates deposited the fee on 26.9.2005 itself. However, by that time the banking hours were over. Accordingly the rest of the students were asked to come at 8.00 A.M. on 27.9.2005. Since the certificates and testimonials of almost all the candidates had already been checked, only the formality of making the Bank Draft and depositing fee remained which was completed on 27.9.2005 after the bank opened. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, some of them approached the college on 27.9.2005 at 9.00 A.M. For those candidates who came the date and time was recorded on the selection slips itself. This was done by the petitioners. Photocopies of these slips are collectively attached as Annexure P/11 to this written statement. By the time petitioners had come the MBBS admissions were over and the seats had been filled up. Therefore, even on this ground the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that the petitioners have deliberately mis-stated the facts in these paragraphs by stating that they came on 26/27-9-2005 whereas the fact is that none of them came on 26-9-2005.” 16. It is clear, therefore, that six candidates out of the list of the CMC, had not deposited their fee on 26.9.2005. These six candidates were asked to come on the next date i.e. on 27.9.2005. These six candidates could complete their papers only after banks opened on 27.9.2005. Bank do not open before 10.00 A.M. (nor it was pleaded by the CMC that candidates from the CMC select list, had presented the required Bank drafts before 10.00 A.M.). It is, therefore, natural to infer that the candidates from the CMC select list would have been in a position to procure the required bank drafts only after 10.00 A.M. These candidates at the earliest may have been in a position to then deposit the documents with the CMC at 10.30 A.M. But admittedly the petitioners, who were candidates of the State quota, had already reached the CMC at 9.00 a.m. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the CMC that by the time the petitioners presented themselves for admission, the respondents had already filled the seats. It appears to us that the CMC is making a false statement to defeat the claim of the petitioners. It appears to us that the CMC is making a false statement to defeat the claim of the petitioners. This stand, now adopted by the CMC, is clearly preposterous, because it cannot be over looked that the CMC, had not accepted the candidature of those included in the first list dispatched by the Baba Farid University. The very fact that the candidates even from the first list had not been accepted, leads to a clear and obvious conclusion, that the CMC had decided not to accept any candidate from the Baba Farid University, to fill up the State quota seats. It had in fact decided to fill up these seats on its own out of the CMC list. 17. Before we proceed further, we may refer to the time schedule laid down by the Medical Council of India (in short ‘the MCI’) in the notification dated 25.2.2004 and as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s judgment (supra) (relating to the State quota seats). It reads as under :- “TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ADMISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Schedule for admission Seats filled up by Seats filled up by the Central Govt. State Governments through All India /institutions. Entrance Examination - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Conduct of entrance examination Declaration of result of qualifying exam/entrance exam First round of counselling/admission Last date for joining the allotted college and course Second round of counselling for allotment of seats from waiting list. Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counseling from the waiting list. Commencement of academic session. Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason. Last date for joining for candidates allotted seats in second round of counseling from the waiting list. Commencement of academic session. Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18. It is not disputed that this time schedule could not be followed, so far as the holding of entrance test, declaration of result of the entrance test, holding of 1st counselling and holding of 2nd counselling are concerned. It is also not in dispute that the candidates seeking admission in MBBS for the year 2005-06 at the CMC against the State quota seats were made available to the CMC much before the expiry of cut off date (30.9.2005). 19. The reasons for not being able to abide by the time schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) are known to every one concerned with the matter. The 1st PMET 2005 was held on 5th June 2005. As there was leakage of question papers, therefore, the said entrance test was cancelled as a whole on 7.6.2005. The 2nd PMET was held on 30.6.2005 and the result thereof, was declared on 2.7.2005. Because of wrong key answers, the merit list prepared on the basis of the 2nd PMET held on 30.6.2005 was challenged in this Court through CWP No.10272 of 2005 (Saumil Garg and others v. State of Punjab and others) and a large bunch of similar writ petitions. This Court directed the preparation of correct key answer vide its judgment dated 8.8.2005. Guru Nanak Dev University which was one of the respondents in that case, filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16952 of 2005. The said petition/appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.8.2005. The answer sheets of candidates who had taken the 2nd PMET, were required to be re-evaluated on the basis of correct key answers in respect of 8 questions. The said petition/appeal was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.8.2005. The answer sheets of candidates who had taken the 2nd PMET, were required to be re-evaluated on the basis of correct key answers in respect of 8 questions. The result of the 2nd PMET was to be declared within two days, and a further period of 72 hours was granted to the candidates to file objections (as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court). Admittedly, the result of 2nd PMET-2005 was declared on 29.8.2005. This was pleaded by the petitioners in para 3 of the writ petition, and was also admitted by the CMC in its reply thereto. 20. The narration of the facts stated above clearly reveals, that the time schedule as laid down in the regulation dated 25.2.2004 issued by the MCI and as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s judgment (supra), could not be observed for admission to the MBBS courses, in so far as the State quota is concerned, as the dates for holding of entrance test (in May) declaration of the result of entrance test (15th June), the date of first round of counselling/admission (17th July) and the date of second round of counselling or allotment of seats from waiting list (25th to 28th August) had already expired, before the result was declared on 29.8.2005, and therefore, the observance of these dates was not at all possible by any stretch of imagination. 21. This Court while deciding the Saumil Garg’s case (supra) on 8.8.2005 was aware of the time schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s judgment, and that is why, it was observed by this Court in para 25 of the judgment that admissions to the MBBS course are to be finalised in conformity with the last date stipulated in the Medical Council of India’s case (supra). This Court had, therefore, directed the authorities to fix the counselling schedule accordingly. This Court had, therefore, directed the authorities to fix the counselling schedule accordingly. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to notice the time schedule for admission to medical/professional colleges, and for that reason, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe on page 6 of the judgment dated 24.8.2005 in Guru Nanak Dev University’s case (supra) as under :- “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the stage of the admissions and the fact that the medical courses are supposed to commence on 1st August every year and the last date of admissions for stray seats under all circumstances is 30th September, we do not think appropriate that all the 200 questions deserve to be referred for determining as to what are the correct key answers. At this stage, it would also not be appropriate to refer to the opinions given by other professors in these matters as to correctness of key answers.” 22. Even the CMC was aware about the leakage of the paper in 1st PMET examination, the conduct of 2nd PMET examination, the filing of the writ petition against the 2nd PMET examination, judgment of this Court and the final judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24.8.2005. This is clear from its pleadings (para 1(ii) of the preliminary objections), which read as under :- “ In this view of the matter answering respondent had been repeatedly sending letters to the State Government requesting the State Government to make the recommendations strictly as per the schedule given in Mridul Dhar’s case. Answering respondent is aware that on account of the fact that PMET result was leaked in the first instance and thereafter there was litigation subsequently in the State of Punjab, the schedule has not been adhered to in the Government Colleges and in some private Institutions.” 23. No doubt the time schedule laid down by the MCI through its notification dated 25.2.2004, was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra), and is binding, but the intention of the MCI from sub- regulation 6 of this notification appears to be that the time schedule was laid down to achieve its ultimate objective i.e. to close admissions before 30.9.2005. The first paragraph of sub-regulation 6, clearly lays down that the Universities and the other authorities concerned shall organise admission process in such a way that teaching in first semester starts by 1st August each year. To execute this intention, the time schedule was laid down for all the processory steps and, therefore, it was provided in the second part of this sub-regulation that for this purpose they shall follow the time schedule indicated in Appendix E. 24. Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment was pleased to direct the Government, Universities, colleges, other bodies and authorities in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) to follow the time schedule for admissions to the professional colleges including Medical colleges. The consequences for defaulting were also laid down in paragraph 35(15) of this judgment as under :- “15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.” 25. It means, therefore, that if the time schedule is violated by any of such persons/bodies/authorities, they shall be personally liable to the extent that they would be liable for penal consequences. But it is nowhere held in the judgment that because of a violation in the time schedule, the seats reserved for the State quota would be diverted from the State quota to the management quota, or from management quota to the State quota, or that the whole entrance test itself will be vitiated. It is also not possible to draw such an inference from the judgment in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra). 26. But so far as the 30th September i.e. the last date for admission is concerned, that was made mandatory by the MCI in sub- regulation (6A) notified on 25.2.2004 by providing that there shall be no admission of students in respect of any academic session after 30th September under any circumstances. The Universities shall not register any student admitted beyond the said date. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCI v. Madhu Singh and others (2002) 7 SCC 258, laid down as a mandate that no admission should be made midstream i.e. beyond 30th September of each year and the said mandate was re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra). Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCI v. Madhu Singh and others (2002) 7 SCC 258, laid down as a mandate that no admission should be made midstream i.e. beyond 30th September of each year and the said mandate was re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra). It means, therefore, that the time schedule was required to be followed but violation of the time schedule regarding the processory steps as laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case had penal consequences for those responsible for violating the same. But it was nowhere provided that the non-observance of the time schedule for processory steps would amount to converting the seats allocated to the State quota into the management quota seats, as has been sought to be interpreted by the CMC. The object of the CMC, which it has pursued for a number of years, has been, to fill up all the seats on the basis of its own selection process. The CMC, was of the opinion that it had a good excuse, for once, to enforce its objective, and therefore, lost no time to do so. Rather, it needs to be emphasised that in Mridul Dhar’s judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the State quota and management quota must remain apart from each other and none should exceed its quota. We may reproduce paragraph 32 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “32. Having regard to the professional course, it deserves to be emphasised that all concerned including Government, State and Central both, MCI/DCI, colleges - new or old, students, Boards, universities, examining authorities, etc. are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for there should not be midstream admissions; admissions should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota of anyone, whether State or management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to the next academic year is also not permissible.” 27. It means therefore, that there was a clear direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that admission should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity, or in excess of any quota, whether State or management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to the next academic year is also not permissible.” 27. It means therefore, that there was a clear direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that admission should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity, or in excess of any quota, whether State or management. But it causes us concern to note that the CMC has carefully noticed the time schedule in the judgment of Mridul Dhar’s case, but has intentionally ignored the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same judgment that the admission should not be “in excess of quota of any one, whether State or management”. We fail to understand, how the seats of State quota stand converted to the management quota against the specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s judgment, which judgment has been made the basis by the CMC to deny admission to the rightful candidates against the State quota seats. 28. It will be unfair to the learned counsel for the CMC if we do not mention that during the arguments, our attention was drawn to the prospectus of the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET 2005), published by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences for admission to the MBBS classes 2005. Reference was made to Clause 7.4 ( c) which reads as under :- “7.4 ( c) The Management Quota seats would be filled up by a Committee headed by the Principal of the Institute concerned and comprising of the representative each of the Government and the University, strictly on the basis of merit in the PMET-2005 or on the basis of the test conducted by the institute in allowed by the Admission Supervision Committee. The Principals of the concerned institutes will request the Government and the University well in advance for nominating their representatives. Government quota seats remaining vacant will be transferred to management Quota and vice-versa.” 29. On the basis of Clause 7.4 ( C), it was submitted by the learned counsel for the CMC, that the Government quota seats remaining vacant, were liable to be transferred to the management quota and accordingly, these have been converted to the Management quota. This submission does not appeal to us. On the basis of Clause 7.4 ( C), it was submitted by the learned counsel for the CMC, that the Government quota seats remaining vacant, were liable to be transferred to the management quota and accordingly, these have been converted to the Management quota. This submission does not appeal to us. Firstly, this clause has nowhere been relied upon by the CMC for appropriating the seats of Government quota, either in its correspondence with the University or in the pleadings made in the written statement. Therefore, it is not the case of the CMC that they have converted the seats of Government quota into the seats of management quota on the basis of this clause of the prospectus. They have merely relied upon the plea in the correspondence, as also in the pleadings that since the time schedule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case has been violated and since no recommendations had been made by the University for filling up the State quota seats upto 30.8.2005, therefore, the seats of Government quota automatically stood doled out into the kitty of the management. 30. Otherwise also, this clause in the prospectus, does not authorise the management to convert the seats of Government quota into the seats of management quota. The words have been used “will be transferred” and not the words shall stand transferred. It means, therefore, that an order was required to be passed for transferring the Government quota seats into the share of the management quota. It is not the case of the CMC that it made a request to the Government for the transfer of these seats to its own quota . It is also not the case of the CMC that it has been granted authorisation for such transfer. The reason for us to construe the Clause 7.4 (c) in the manner expressed above flows from the effort to construe the provision of the aforesaid clause harmoniously with the determination of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 32 of the judgment in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra). In the aforesaid view of the matter, the only eventuality when such transfer may be permitted from one quota to the other, is when it is not possible at all to fill up the available seats from its prescribed source. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the only eventuality when such transfer may be permitted from one quota to the other, is when it is not possible at all to fill up the available seats from its prescribed source. But if that situation has not arisen, in our view, any act of transfer of seats from one source to another will violate the legal position declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, there is no specific date as to when this clause shall become applicable. It is nowhere mentioned in this clause, that it shall be automatically operational after the expiry of 30th or 31st August, whereafter the seats of Government quota will without any further determination stand transferred to the management quota. This clause in the prospectus, therefore, does not advance the case of the CMC. 31. Coming back to the time schedule, it may be noticed from the correspondence of the CMC with the University and with the State Government, that the CMC has been insisting upon them to produce an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, clarifying the effect of non-observance of the time schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case. If such a clarification was required, the same ought to have been obtained by the CMC itself from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This view of ours flows from the fact that the CMC has itself been in litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was allowed to fill up 75% of the seats from out of its own selection process, whereas, 25% of the seats at the CMC were to be filled out as State quota seats. For any deviation the CMC should have itself sought a clarification. It appears to us that this was made only an excuse by the CMC to eliminate the State quota and to convert it into the management quota. If the CMC had an honest intention, it would have understood that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University’s case (supra) dated 24.8.2005 indirectly permitted deviation in the observance of the time schedule relating to the processory steps in the facts and circumstances of this case which were exceptional in nature. If the CMC had an honest intention, it would have understood that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University’s case (supra) dated 24.8.2005 indirectly permitted deviation in the observance of the time schedule relating to the processory steps in the facts and circumstances of this case which were exceptional in nature. The consequential declaration of result of the 2nd PMET on 29.8.2005 in the case of the petitioners, was itself a clarification for the implied non- observance of the time schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case in the facts and circumstances of this case. The non-observance of the time schedule relating to the declaration of the result of the 2nd PMET, the date of the first counselling, and the date of the second counselling, has been altered in exceptional circumstances beyond anyone’s control. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had specifically made reference to the time schedule in the judgment of Guru Nanak Dev University’s case (page 6) as has been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. Impliedly, therefore, the non-observance of the time-schedule as laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case relating to the processory steps for finalising the process of admission before 30.9.2005 stood relaxed in the special intervening circumstances. 32. The result of 2nd PMET-2005 itself was declared on 29.8.2005, therefore, the cry of the CMC that since the counselling was not conducted as per the time schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case i.e. first counselling by 15th July and 2nd counselling between 25th to 28th August 2005, and that candidates to fill up the State quota seats were not made available to them by 30th August 2005, emerges from a clear oversight of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University’s case (supra) decided on 24.8.2005. It seems strange, that the CMC, turned a blind eye to the fact that the result of the 2nd PMET was declared on 29.8.2005, on the express directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above (decided on 24.8.2005), specially when the CMC in its pleadings claims to be aware of the same. Unfortunately, the instant action of the CMC to fill up the seats reserved for the State quota, from out of its own selection process, seems to us, to be motivated, and with the ulterior design to grab the seats of the State quota. Unfortunately, the instant action of the CMC to fill up the seats reserved for the State quota, from out of its own selection process, seems to us, to be motivated, and with the ulterior design to grab the seats of the State quota. It appears that the CMC was exploiting the situation, and this intention is clear from its letter dated 2.9.2005 (Annexure R- 3/4), sent by the CMC to the University and also to the Admission Supervision Committee. We consider it necessary to reproduce the letter. It reads as under :- “ Sub: Filling of seats against stray vacancies for consequential admissions as per MCI Schedule. Respected Sir/s, The last date for second counselling as fixed by the Medical Council of India for admissions to various courses and as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mridul Dhar’s case expired on 30thAugust 2005. As the State Government failed to provide candidates on or before 30th August, the colleges of the CMCL Society are left with no option but to comply with the schedule defined by the MCI in the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This is to inform you that in compliance of the above said schedule, CMC Ludhiana is admitting the students against 25% vacancies in MBBS, BDS, Bsc Nursing Courses as per their merit in the entrance test conducted by CMC Ludhiana. It is highlighted that the college/s of CMC Ludhiana were the only college/s in the State of Punjab to have completed the admissions to 75% seats from the minority applicants as per their merit within the time schedule as defined by MCI. The State Govt having received an order for counselling and admissions on 24.8.2005, failed to send any students till 30th August 2005. Filling of vacancies under the consequential admissions by CMC Ludhiana is in accordance with the MCI Schedule and also in accordance with the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.5041 of 2005 arising out of SLP ( C0 No.9932 of 2004 in case of PA Inamdar and other & others V. State of Maharashtra and others . The present admission process under consequential admissions does not disturb or affect any candidate of the state as there have been no candidates sent by the state to the college so far and the counselling which was to happen before 30th August is yet to be announced for CMC Ludhiana. The completed list of all admitted candidates (75% as regular and 25% as consequential) will be forwarded to the university for registration as per rules. You are therefore requested not to counsel/send any students to the colleges of CMCL Society as the same will be in violation of the orders of the apex court.” 33. Despite the letter extracted above, the Government vide its letter dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure R-2/15) made it clear to the CMC that the CMC should make admissions “as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders dated 1.6.2005 in IA No.3 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.(s) 357 of 2005 titled Christian Medical College Ludhiana Soc. & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors .”. It means, therefore, that it was made clear to the CMC that as per this order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the CMC could not fill up more than 75% seats from out of the management quota, and the remaining 25% seats were to be filled by the State/University out of the PMET merit list against the State quota seats. Not only that, the matter was not left in doubt by the Government, when it addressed a letter dated 16.9.2005 to the University and also to the CMC (Annexure R-2/19). It would be helpful to reproduce the said letter. It reads as under :- “ Subject : Admissions in respect of government quota seats in Christian Medical/Dental/Nursing College, Ludhiana. - - - Admissions in respect of government quota seats in Christian Medical / Dental/Nursing College have been made as per Hon’ble Supreme Court orders dated June 1, 2005 in IA No.3 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.(s) 357 of 2004 titled Christian Medical College Ludhiana Soc and Ors. v. State of Punjab and others to the effect that :- “75% of the seats can be filled up by the petitioner institution according to its choice subject to the observance of merit from among the candidates belonging to the minority community. Balance 25% seats shall be filled up by the candidates allotted by the State on the basis of the merit list prepared by it.” 2. Balance 25% seats shall be filled up by the candidates allotted by the State on the basis of the merit list prepared by it.” 2. In view of the peculiar circumstances arising out of cancellation of first PMET-2005 conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, and litigation arising out of disputes relating to second PMET-2005 conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University, the admission process in Punjab is being uniformly carried out in compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgment dated August 24, 2005 in Civil Appeal No.5276 of 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C ) No.16952/2005). The claim of CMC/CDC/CNC treating itself an exception to the due process of admission in the state is wholly misconceived and untenable. 3. The reported move of the C.M.C. in attempting to fill up the prescribed government quota seats by converting the same to Management/Minority Quota is void ab initio. C.M.C./CDC/CNC shall be squarely responsible for all consequences of its deliberate move to usurp the prescribed government quota as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and obstruct the admission of the rightfully selected candidates in the prescribed government quota as communicated by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. 4. In case the C.M.C./CDC/CNC does not accept the government quota students selected by the University, with a view to save such students from harassment, the provisionally selected students are allowed to submit the fee in the form of bank drafts drawn in favour of the Principal of the concerned C.M.C. Institution to the Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences till 19.9.2005 (5-00 P.M.). The University may acknowledge its receipt and forward the bank drafts to the CMC/CDC/CNC. Such students shall be registered by the university as bona fide students of the government quota in the C.M.C./CDC/CNC institutions at Ludhiana.” 34. Even Baba Farid university had made it clear to the CMC, that the CMC should not grab the State quota seats, by writing letter dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure R-2/26). It reads as under :- “ I would like to draw your attention to order dated 1.6.2005 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in I.A. No.3, Writ petition Civil No.357 of 2004 - Christian Medical College, Ludhiana SCC and others v. State of Punjab and others , wherein 25% seats of the total intake of MBBS/BDS/B.Sc. It reads as under :- “ I would like to draw your attention to order dated 1.6.2005 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in I.A. No.3, Writ petition Civil No.357 of 2004 - Christian Medical College, Ludhiana SCC and others v. State of Punjab and others , wherein 25% seats of the total intake of MBBS/BDS/B.Sc. Nursing courses have been allotted to the State and were to be filled up on the basis of PMET - 2005 merit as State quota seats. Consequently, the Government of Punjab has directed this University to fill up these seats from amongst the PMET - 2005 merit. Accordingly, we have selected candidates on PMET - 2005 merit for MBBS/BDS course at your college. Your claim that the University or the government cannot select candidates for your institutions after August 31, 2005 is not tenable, as we did not delay holding of counselling arbitrarily/deliberately. The facts of delay are well known to all the concerned colleges and the candidates and also to the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Apex Court. Due to unavoidable circumstances and pending litigations firstly in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court, the counseling had been delayed. You are, therefore, directed not to harass the provisionally selected candidates at your college and their parents. You are legally bound to admit these candidates at your college in the respective course. The fee as per government orders must be accepted from them. Please note that any type of victimization of the selected candidates on your part will amount to serious consequences. Any admissions if made at your own against Government quota seats will be illegal and in violation of the orders of the Government of Punjab issued vide letter No.5/6/05- 3HBIII/Spl.-5 dated 8.9.2005 and the orders dated 1.6.2005 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in I.A.No.3, Writ Petition Civil No.357 of 2004. Further, it has come to our notice that you have invited candidates from your merit list to appear for interview on the following dates for admission to MBBS/BDS and B.Sc.Nursing courses:- 26.9.2005 - for admission to MBBS course 27.9.2005 - for admission to BDS course. 28.9.2005 - for admission to B.Sc.Nursing course. Since we have selected the candidates against Government quota seats well before the cut-off date i.e. 30th September 2005, you are directed not to admit candidates at your own. 28.9.2005 - for admission to B.Sc.Nursing course. Since we have selected the candidates against Government quota seats well before the cut-off date i.e. 30th September 2005, you are directed not to admit candidates at your own. Candidates selected at your own will not be registered by this University. In the meanwhile, we have collected Demand Drafts drawn in your favour from the candidates selected for your college on account of Government prescribed fee, which are being sent to you separately.” 35. Inspite of this correspondence and advice from the University and from the State Government, the CMC proceeded to wipe out the State quota and executed its ill-planned design to convert the same into the management quota. This clearly reveals the intention of CMC, that it was all out to take the candidates from the management merit list, to fill up the Government quota seats, by totally ignoring the not-possible position in which the State and the University were placed i.e when the result of PMET-2005 itself was declared on 29.8.2005 (after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.8.2005) and it was impossible to provide the list of selected candidates to the CMC by 30.8.2005. 36. In such circumstances, we are reminded of the observations made in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as HUDA and another v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar and another (2005) 1 SCC 191, in which it was held that where the things are impossible, the law does not expect that those things must be done. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :- “5. What is stipulated in clause 4 of the letter dated 30.10.2001 is a communication regarding refusal to accept the allotment. This was done on 28.11.2001. Respondent 1 cannot be put to loss for the closure of the office of HUDA on 1.12.2001 and 2.12.2001 and the postal holiday on 30.11.2001. In fact he had no control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be pressed into service. Apart from the said section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is a general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi ). Apart from the said section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is a general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi ). The underlying object of the principle is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then the act should be considered to have been done within that period if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The reason is that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. (See Hossein Ally v. Donzelle ) Every consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle which underlies Section 10 of the General Clauses Act should be applied in cases where it does not otherwise in terms apply. The principles underlying are (ex non cogit ad impossibillia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus curiae neminem gravabit (the act of court shall prejudice no man)” 37. We are surprised that the CMC is blaming the Government and the University for violating the time schedule, and is patting its own back as a matter of self praise for adhering to the time schedule. It was repeatedly asserted by the CMC, not only in its correspondence with the University and the Government but also in its pleadings that it would only adhere to the time schedule recorded in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reference may be made to the following extract of preliminary objection No.1(ii) of written statement filed by the CMC, which reads as under :- “However, answering respondent is meticulously adhering to the schedule and therefore, the answering respondent submits that strictly construed even the mere holding of the entrance test this year by the State of Punjab was against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the said judgment the entrance test was to be held in the month of May, 2005. However, even the first entrance test was held on 5.6.2005 and the second one on 30.6.2005. As per the said judgment the entrance test was to be held in the month of May, 2005. However, even the first entrance test was held on 5.6.2005 and the second one on 30.6.2005. Results were declared late and the entire schedule has been totally breached. Therefore, the answering respondent had intimated to the State Government that the State Government could not have breached this schedule of Mridul Dhar’s judgment and had forfeited its right therefore to recommend candidates to the answering respondent Institution. At no point of time did the State Government send any list of recommending the candidates in accordance with the time schedule as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case.” 38. However, a perusal of the file in hand reveals, that even the CMC has not adhered to the time-schedule laid down in Mridul Dhar’s case. The CMC itself must be deemed to have violated the time schedule, by its following acts:- 1. As per Mridul Dhar’s case, the MBBS classes were to start between 1.8.2005 and 31.8.2005 but the CMC has pleaded in the written statement that it had started the classes w.e.f. 15.7.2005, thereby it obviously violated the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No doubt, the classes were started earlier than scheduled, but the time schedule was not adhered to as claimed by the CMC. It was to the loss of the candidates who could have been, and were actually admitted later on. 2. Result of the entrance test was to be declared by 15.6.2005, but the CMC declared the result of the non-minority candidates by 15.9.2005, again violating the mandate of the judgment in Mridul Dhar’s case. 3. Counselling was to be conducted by the 17.7.2005 and the 2nd counselling was to be conducted between 25.8.2005 to 28.8.2005, but the CMC conducted the counselling of the non-minority candidates, as per its own showing, on 26.9.2005/27.9.2005, and thereby, again violating the mandate of the judgment. While the State had valid and genuine reasons for which it could not follow the time schedule, the CMC had no excuse to do so. The time schedule of Entrance test, counselling (1st and 2nd), was binding equally on the State and on the CMC. There is no provision in the aforesaid judgment that what is barred for the State, is permissible for the private institutions. The time schedule of Entrance test, counselling (1st and 2nd), was binding equally on the State and on the CMC. There is no provision in the aforesaid judgment that what is barred for the State, is permissible for the private institutions. If, as per the CMC, the State had committed the breach of time schedule, it has also done so. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Gujarat and others 2004 (12) SCC 645. Para 62 reads as under :- “ It is well settled that the judgments of this Court are binding on all the authorities under Article 142 of the Constitution and it is not open to any authority to ignore a binding judgment of this Court on the ground that the full facts had not been placed before this Court and/or the judgment of this Court in the earlier proceedings had only collaterally or incidentally decided the issues raised in the show-cause notices. Such an attempt to belittle the judgments and the orders of this court, to say the least, is plainly perverse and amounts to gross contempt of this Court. We are pained to say that the then Deputy Collector has scant respect for the orders passed by the Apex Court.” 39. Secondly, the CMC adopted double standards, for example, on the one hand the CMC wrote a letter to the University on 2.9.2005 (Annexure R-3/4), and clearly told the University that since the last date for 2nd counselling as fixed by the Medical Council of India (for admission to various courses, and as approved in the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case) had expired on 30.8.2005, and since the candidates were not made available to it, against the State quota seats by 30.8.2005, therefore, the University and the Admission Supervision Committee were “requested not to counsel/send any students to the colleges of CMCL Society, as the same would be in violation of the orders of the Apex Court”. It means therefore, that immediately after the expiry of 30.8.2005, the CMC itself converted the seats of the State quota into the seats of the management quota, as the State had lost its right to fill up any seat for admission to the MBBS course. It means therefore, that immediately after the expiry of 30.8.2005, the CMC itself converted the seats of the State quota into the seats of the management quota, as the State had lost its right to fill up any seat for admission to the MBBS course. But at the same time the CMC wrote a letter dated 29.9.2005 (Annexure R-3/10) to the Government of Punjab and to the University calling upon them that, “in order to provide an opportunity for candidates selected by BFUHS (i.e. the University) through PMET for possibility of conditional admissions against the pending stray vacancies, if any, kindly instruct your candidates to report to the Office of the Registrar, CMC, on 30.9.2005 at 8.30 a.m.” It further wrote in the same letter as under :- “As the admissions from any test are to be done according to merit, kindly send us a merit list of PMET selected and waiting list candidates as per ranks for each course to enable us to consider your candidates for conditional admissions to stray vacancies if any. It is our effort to provide a fair chance to the applicants from the State of Punjab as we do not have any intention of keeping any seat vacant in any of the course.” 40. Now the question which wrangles our mind is that, on 2.9.2005 the CMC concluded that the whole process of admission held by the Government of Punjab/the University has gone wrong for the time schedule having been breached, and therefore, the State had lost the right to recommend candidates to fill up seats of the State quota. How did then the CMC ask the State/the University, on 29.9.2005 i.e. towards the fag end of the last date for admission to send its candidates? After all on the last date also, the candidates were to be sent who were selected by the same process which was called by the CMC as vitiated and which the CMC had rejected earlier vide letter dated 2.9.2005. This brings out the double standards adopted by the CMC in order to grab the seats of State quota to itself. 41. It may be mentioned that the CMC violated the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 1.6.2005 by denying the State and the University the right to fill up 25% of the seats at the CMC earmarked for the Government quota. 41. It may be mentioned that the CMC violated the judgment/order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 1.6.2005 by denying the State and the University the right to fill up 25% of the seats at the CMC earmarked for the Government quota. The CMC was well aware that the management quota at the CMC had been increased by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from 50% to 75% vide order dated 1.6.2005 (passed in I.A. No. 3 in Civil Writ (C) No.357 of 2004 titled Christian Medical College Ludhiana Society and others v. State of Punjab and others ), leaving thereby 25% seats for the State quota. A relevant (operative) extract of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is being reproduced hereunder:- “75% of the seats can be filled up by the petitioner institution according to its choice subject to the observance of merit from among the candidates belonging to the minority community. Balance 25% seats shall be filled up by the candidates allotted by the State on the basis of the merit list prepared by it.” 42. The CMC, therefore, by filling up seats of State quota out of its own selection process had not only violated the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (in which it was specifically laid down in para 32 that the admissions should not be ‘in excess of quota of any one, whether State or management’), but it had also contravened the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 1.6.2005 (passed in IA No. 3 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 357 of 2004), in which it was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that only “75% of the seats can be filled up by the petitioner-institute (CMC) according to its choice subject to the observance of merit from amongst the candidates belonging to the minority community”. It was specifically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order that the “balance 25% of the seats shall be filled up by the candidates recommended by the State on the basis of merit list prepared by it”. Therefore, this specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 25% of the seats shall be filled by the State has also been violated by the CMC. 4. Therefore, this specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that 25% of the seats shall be filled by the State has also been violated by the CMC. 4. The CMC has also ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 537, which was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.8.2005. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had specifically provided that the said judgment would operate prospectively and would be applicable from the academic year 2006-2007. Para 154 of this judgment reads as under :- “ 154. We are also conscious of the fact that admission process in several professional educational institutions has already commenced. Some admissions have been made or are in the process of being made in consonance with the schemes and procedures as approved by Committees and in some cases pursuant to interim directions made by this Court or by the High Courts. This judgment shall not have the effect of disturbing the admissions already made or with regard to which the process has already commenced. The law, as laid down in this judgment,shall be given effect to from the academic year commencing next after the pronouncement of this judgment.” 44. The CMC was aware about this judgment, but it ignored the mandate extracted above by asserting in its letter dated 2.9.2005 (Annexure R-3/4) that “filling of vacancies under the consequential admissions by CMC Ludhiana is in accordance with the MCI Schedule and also in accordance with the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.5041 of 2005 arising out of SLP (c ) No.9932 of 2004 in case of PA Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others .” It means therefore, that the CMC was applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PA Inamdar’s case (supra) from the academic year 2005-2006, which was in clear contravention of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded in para 154 of the judgment laying down that “the law, as laid down in this judgment, shall be given effect to from the academic year commencing next after the pronouncement of this judgment.” It appears, therefore, that the CMC acted with a mala fide intention. 45. 45. No doubt, the CMC being a minority institute enjoys certain rights under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India but those rights and privileges are not unbridled. This issue was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others 2003 (6) SCC 697. It was held in para 121 as under :- “ 121. The right to administer does not include the right to maladminister and the right is not free from regulation. The regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of minority institutions.” 45. Even in the recent judgment of P.A. Inamdar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe (para 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.” It was also observed ( para 122) as under :- “ Apart from the generalised position of law that the right to administer does not include the right to maladminister, an additional source of power to regulate by enacting conditions accompanying affiliation or recognition exists. A balance has to be struck between the two objectives: (i) that of ensuring the standard of excellence of the institution, and (ii) that of preserving the right of the minority to establish and administer its educational institution. Subject to a reconciliation of the two objectives, any regulation accompanying affiliation or recognition must satisfy the triple tests: (i) the test of reasonableness and rationality, (ii) the test that the regulation would be conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it, and (iii) that there is no inroad into the protection conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, that is, by framing the regulation the essential character of the institution being minority educational institution, is not taken away.” 47. It is clear, therefore, that even minority unaided institutions are bound by some regulations. They have to be fair and reasonable. They cannot take the shelter of being minority institution and violate the law blatantly, as has been done by the CMC in this case. 48. It is clear, therefore, that even minority unaided institutions are bound by some regulations. They have to be fair and reasonable. They cannot take the shelter of being minority institution and violate the law blatantly, as has been done by the CMC in this case. 48. Even merit has been thrown to the winds by the CMC by refusing to give admission to the meritorious candidates against the State quota seats. It was pleaded in para 4 of the petition that the petitioners had attained very high position in the PMET-2005. At the time of arguments, it was not denied by the learned counsel for the CMC that petitioner No.1 was even higher in merit than the candidates admitted in the CMC from its own merit list. It is clear, therefore, that merit has been ignored. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed time and again that merit should not be made a causality. Even in P.A. Inamdar’s case (supra), their Lordships have been pleased to observe as under :- “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 singlewindow 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 causality.” 49. But it appears that the CMC in order to consume the State quota seats has not cared for the merit also. 50. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the candidates who have been admitted against the State quota seats by the CMC had been admitted on provisional basis, therefore, their admission be quashed and in their place, admission be given to the petitioners. 51. After a deep thought over this submission, we are unable to accept any part of this submission. So far as the admission of the petitioners is concerned, the legal position has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms that admission after 30.9.2005 is not to be granted under any circumstances. 51. After a deep thought over this submission, we are unable to accept any part of this submission. So far as the admission of the petitioners is concerned, the legal position has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms that admission after 30.9.2005 is not to be granted under any circumstances. This is the cut off date and the law has been clearly enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 258 and this view has been further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra). The same view was followed by this Court in the case of Aman Deep Jaswal v. State of Punjab and others CWP No. 9811 of 2005 decided on 23.9.2005. 52. So far as quashing of the admission granted to the private respondents in the CMC against the Government quota seats is concerned, undoubtedly, their admission is on provisional basis, but nothing has been placed on the file to show if these candidates had played any condemnable role in seeking admission, or that they had connived with the CMC for getting admission to the course under reference. It seems that the private respondents have been given admission by the CMC out of its own merit list prepared on the basis of the entrance test conducted by it. In our view, therefore, it is only the CMC, which is responsible for admitting the private respondents against the seats of Government quota. Therefore, the career of the private respondents, who have been admitted in the CMC against the State quota seats should not be cut down for the fault of CMC. In support of this view of law, reference can be made to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Manish Ujwal and others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others JT 2005 (8) SC 382 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the candidates who have already been admitted on the basis of merit list prepared on the wrong key answer, need not be uprooted. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :- “Though we are of the view that the appellants in particular and student community in general, whether one has approached the court or not, should not suffer on account of demonstrably incorrect key answers but, at the same time, if the admissions already granted as a result of first counselling are disturbed, it is possible that the very commencement of the course may be delayed and the admission process for the courses may go beyond 30th September, 2005, which is the cut-off date, according to the time schedule in the Regulations and as per the law laid down by this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. In this view, we make it clear that fresh evaluation of the papers by feeding correct key answers would not affect the students who have secured admissions as a result of the first counselling on the basis of ranking given with reference to the results already declared.” 53. The candidates already admitted have undergone for more than 3 months in MBBS course. Therefore, it would be unjust to ask them to vacate the seats. In the interest of justice, their admission to the MBBS course in the CMC for the year 2005-06 is protected. 54. It is pleaded by the petitioners in para 11 of the petition that petitioners No. 1, 3 and 4 were granted admission to the BDS course in the first counselling and they had deposited their fee. After their selection in the 2nd counselling for MBBS seats at the CMC, they had surrendered their BDS seats, which have now been occupied by the candidates, who were lower to them in the merit rank. They have been denied admission in the MBBS course by the CMC, and they have also lost their BDS seats. They have deposited their fees for MBBS in favour of CMC (Annexure P-2) and they have been left in the lurch because of the illegal action of the CMC in not admitting them to the MBBS course inspite of their recommendation by the University. Besides loosing the fees, they have also lost their one year. The petitioners are men of merit. Besides loosing the fees, they have also lost their one year. The petitioners are men of merit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been laying much more emphasis that merit has to be recognized and the meritorious candidates ought not be kept out when those lower down in the merit list have been accommodated. But this is exactly what has been done by the CMC. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be compensated and the CMC is liable to compensate them by paying to them an amount of Rs.2 lacs each for the mental torture, economic loss, litigation expenses and because of the loss of a precious year. 55. Further more, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down in Mridul Dhar’s judgment that wherever the management exceeds its quota, it will be liable to surrender equal number of seats in the following year. It was held in para 35 (11) in Mridul Dhar’s judgment (supra) as under :- “11. If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year.” No doubt in the latest judgment in the P.A. Inamdar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to abolish the State quota in minority and non-minority, unaided educational institutions from the academic year 2006-2007, and observed as under :- “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 nonminority 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 education institution status is lost. If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1).” 56. If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1).” 56. In view of the law discussed above, we also hereby direct the CMC to grant the petitioners admission to MBBS course during the academic year 2006-2007, this would be in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case (supra), and not contrary to the law laid down in P.A. Inamdar’s case (supra). Admission of the petitioners would be counted against the management quota seats because the management has intentionally exceeded its quota in the current academic year i.e. 2005-06 and therefore, the admission of these petitioners in the MBBS course in the academic year 2006-2007 would be an answer to the enjoyment of excess quota by the management this year. 57. The CMC has failed to follow the rules and regulations, they have denied admission to the meritorious students, they have read the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar’s case selectively in order to achieve their objective, they have acted contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 1.6.2005, they have applied the judgment of P.A. Inamdar’s case retrospectively (while it was applicable with effect from the academic year 2006-2007). The CMC has acted blatantly in defiance of the law. Therefore, the CMC is also fined with a sum of Rs.2 lacs for adopting a defiant posture and for acting contrary to the rights and duties of the deserving students. 58. We also must express our regret for the MCI. They have only pleaded that the cut off date for admission i.e. 30.9.2005 is mandatory. They have not assisted the Court to give its view point on the facts and circumstances of this case i.e. the affect of non-adherence of the time schedule relating to holding of 1st counselling and 2nd counselling by the State of Punjab in the facts and circumstances of this case. It has also not expressed its viewpoint, whether or not observance of the time schedule relating to these dates amounted to conversion of State quota seats into the management quota seats. It clearly means that the MCI, which is the regulatory body of medical courses, has no clear vision of the subject. The MCI ought to have come out with its viewpoint to meet such like eventualities and, form guidelines for States, Universities and private colleges. 59. It clearly means that the MCI, which is the regulatory body of medical courses, has no clear vision of the subject. The MCI ought to have come out with its viewpoint to meet such like eventualities and, form guidelines for States, Universities and private colleges. 59. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed in the following terms :- 1) The admission of the private respondents to the MBBS course at the CMC for the academic year 2005-06 is protected. 2) The petitioners cannot be granted admission in MBBS classes in the current academic year after 30.9.2005, as their admission would be a midstream admission which has been prohibited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3) The petitioners will be admitted to the MBBS course at the CMC for the academic session 2006-2007 against the management quota seats in terms of the directive contained in para 35 (11) of Mridul Dhar’s judgment, as it has exceeded its quota during the academic year 2005-2006. 4) The CMC would compensate each of the petitioners with an amount of Rs.2 lacs each for the loss of one year, for the mental tension and for economic loss caused to them. 5) The CMC is burdened with the costs of Rs.2 lacs to be deposited with the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, within 3 months from today, for being utilized towards students welfare fund.