D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition by persons who had aspired to get admission to post-graduate dental course in one of the colleges forming a consortium known as Karnataka Religious and Linguistic Minority professional Colleges' Association, and who had appeared in a written examination held on 19-2-2006 and who had been apprised that their performance had been good enough to secure 5th and 10th rank respectively in such examinations; but who complain that they have been preempted of securing seats in fourth respondent dental college - a college of choice of first petitioner amongst three colleges. e. respondents 2, 3 and 4 who had formed the fifth respondent consortium - notwithstanding high ranking in the examination, as the petitioners were never intimated to attend the counselling wherein they could have chosen a college of their choice for admission to the course. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, the writ petition had been filed by three persons. The second petitioner by filing an application, sought permission to withdraw his petition and accordingly this Court by order dated 1-6-2006, permitted the second petitioner to withdraw his writ petition. ( 3 ) NOTICES had been issued to the respondents. First respondent is Rajiv Gandhi University of health Sciences, second, third and fourth respondents are the colleges forming part of 5th respondent consortium, 6th respondent is the selected candidate, who, it appears, has been admitted to one of the colleges, against whom the petitioners have averred that her ranking was though much lower than the ranking of the petitioners, was given admission. The petitioners by way of a subsequent application sought to implead the Admission Overseeing Committee, CET cell, as a party respondent to the writ petition and the said application has been allowed by a separate order today. This respondent is represented by counsel Ms Nagarathna. Fourth respondent college, in which the petitioners aspired to secure a seat and the fifth respondent-consortium are represented by the senior counsel Sri Ravivarma Kumar. Respondents 2 and 3 are the other two colleges form part of the consortium, though had been individually served, have remained unrepresented. ( 4 ) THIS Court in terms of order dated 27-4-2006, while issuing notice to the respondents, also granted an interim order, directing the respondents to keep a seat vacant in post-graduation dental surgery - Orthodontics or Community Dentistry at the fourth respondent college. ( 4 ) THIS Court in terms of order dated 27-4-2006, while issuing notice to the respondents, also granted an interim order, directing the respondents to keep a seat vacant in post-graduation dental surgery - Orthodontics or Community Dentistry at the fourth respondent college. Thereafter, the matter had come up before this Court on 1-6-2006 and having been adjourned, listed yesterday and having been heard for some time, is again taken up today. ( 5 ) THE matter is heard on merits. I have heard Sri T. P. Rajendrakumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the first petitioner, Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sr. Prashanth, learned Counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents and Ms. B. V. Nagarathna, learned Counsel for the seventh respondent Sr. V. Y. Kumar, entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent. Statement of objections is also filed on behalf of the fourth respondent. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the matter, the same is taken up for disposal, as the matter is sufficiently delayed, particularly having regard to the fact that it is one involving admission to post-graduate dental course for which purpose there are time limit and deadline and the process of admission is required to complete at the earliest. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the parties that the last date for admission to the course as of now is being extended upto 30th june 2006 by the first respondent university and it is in the light of such background and developments, this writ petition is examined. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the parties that the last date for admission to the course as of now is being extended upto 30th june 2006 by the first respondent university and it is in the light of such background and developments, this writ petition is examined. ( 7 ) THE complaint of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the consortium which had conducted the entrance examination for the purpose of evaluating the merit of the aspiring candidates has not at all intimated in a proper manner the date of counselling; that the petitioners were never intimated the date when they were required to attend the counselling for the purpose of choosing the college in which they are seeking admission; that the petitioners came to know much later that the colleges are filling up seats even without going through the proper counselling procedure; that the consortium has not adhered to the requirements of proper counselling for the purpose of admitting students to post-graduate dental course; that they have also not adhered to the ranking which the candidates who had appeared for the entrance test had obtained; that the admission, if already made is in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme court and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the judgments in TMA PAI foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 ; that the admissions presently made denying an opportunity to the petitioners and not in consonance with the ranking obtained by the candidates who had appeared for the common entrance examination conducted by the consortium of three colleges, is clearly not sustainable; that the admissions are more based on other considerations than on merits; that the petitioners are deprived of their legitimate entitlement of securing seats in the post graduate dental course. In these circumstances, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to make admissions to post graduate dental course in accordance with the ranking and the merit and that the first respondent university should be directed to disapprove any admission that has been made by these colleges, which is not in accordance with the merit and the ranking given to the candidates in the common entrance examination conducted by the consortium, and for such other relief. ( 8 ) . ( 8 ) . T. P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the first petitioner submits that the respondent-consortium never notified the petitioner in a proper manner of the date of the counselling; that the respondents though claim that it was notified in the web-site as on 15-4-2006, indicating the counselling to be held on 17-4-2006, it was never to the knowledge of the petitioners; that no common counselling was conducted by the consortium; that no admission has been made to the colleges on the basis of the proper and actual counselling conducted by the consortium and therefore even assuming that the respondents 4 and 5 have conducted counselling and students have been admitted to the course, it is all illegal and requires to be quashed and the consortium of the colleges be directed to conduct a common counselling in a proper manner for all the candidates who had appeared in the entrance examination and according to their ranking as notified and after giving sufficient opportunity to the candidates, the admissions be made. Learned Counsel for the first petitioner also submits that even the news item [a copy of which is produced as Annexure-2 to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, extracting a part of the news item which has appeared in Vijay Times, english daily in its April 15th edition, the relevant portion of which reads as under: meanwhile, the association will conduct counselling for post-graduate medical and dental seats on Saturday and Monday. The counselling will be held at the member institutions itself. Is not an intimation in the true sense in the eye of law, as while it is published on the very day of the counselling, it does not even indicate where and at what time the counselling would be conducted; that it can never be taken as an intimation worthwhile and in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. Is not an intimation in the true sense in the eye of law, as while it is published on the very day of the counselling, it does not even indicate where and at what time the counselling would be conducted; that it can never be taken as an intimation worthwhile and in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. ( 9 ) STATEMENT of objections filed on behalf of the fourth respondent while raises a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioners have deliberately misrepresented the facts to secure an ex parte interim order at the hands of this Court and by making averments that no counseling has been done nor any intimation of the counselling was given, it is stated that there was publicity about the counselling to be held on 17th April, 2006 and based on such information on the web-site of the fourth respondent college, it is claimed that 30 students appeared for the available post graduate dental seats and the result of such counselling was published on 25-4-2006, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 20-4-2006; that there was not only intimation of the counselling but the counselling has also taken place and students admitted for the available seats; that the entire procedure followed is strictly in conformity with the directions that had been issued by the Supreme Court not only in the case of P. A. Inamdar v. State of maharashtra 2005 (5) KLJ 161, but also in consonance with the interim orders dated 17-2-2006 and 20-4-2006, which had come to be passed in a writ petition that had been filed by the fifth respondent-association under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and that writ petition is still at large before the Supreme Court and when the action on the part of these respondents is fully in consonance with and in compliance with such directions of the Supreme Court, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. ( 10 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents has submitted that the writ petition itself is not tenable, as the petitioners though were aware of the developments particularly about the counselling and admission to the college, had not cared to appear for the counselling and cannot at this stage approach this Court for relief; that the petitioners having also suppressed the intimation of counselling cannot now turn around and say that no proper counselling had taken place, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition on this ground alone. ( 11 ) IT is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that there were no procedural irregularities nor illegalities in the counselling but the action taken by the respondent-association and its member colleges has been strictly and fully in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of P. A. Inamdar [supra] and as ordered in the interim orders referred to above; that, no interference is called for at all. ( 12 ) IT is also submitted on behalf of the fourth respondent that the information placed before the court is only as was available with the fourth and fifth respondents and in the absence of any material placed by the second and third respondent colleges who also form part of the association, no decision can be taken at this stage and this Court should await their version also. ( 13 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and respective pleadings. The plea of fourth respondent, as is mentioned in the statement objections averred in para-1, is as under: 1. Before traversing the averments it is also necessary to mention a few facts which the petitioners have deliberately suppressed from this Hon'ble Court. The fifth respondent association has referred the writ petition (civil) 59-2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india, by an order dated 17-2-2006, an interim order was made permitting the said association to go ahead with the entrance examination at their own risk and consequences. A true copy of this ad interim order is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1. Thereafterwards, by a further interim order, the association was also permitted to declare the results of the entrance test. Accordingly, the entrance test was held on 19-2-2006 and the result of the same was declared on 27th February, 2006. A true copy of this ad interim order is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1. Thereafterwards, by a further interim order, the association was also permitted to declare the results of the entrance test. Accordingly, the entrance test was held on 19-2-2006 and the result of the same was declared on 27th February, 2006. Thereafter, the 4th respondent college published a notification on its website informing the candidates successful at the entrance test who appeared for a counselling in the college. A true copy of the notice in this behalf is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2. Pursuance to the said notice as many as 30 students appeared for the counselling on 17-4-2006 and a provisional selection was also made on the same day. However, the result of the counselling was not published on the same day. Thereafter, by an order dated 20th April, 2006, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-3 [sic]. The fact that the entrance tests have been separately held and also the fact that the private minority institutions have already conducted the counselling that was subject to the approval of that court was placed on record and the colleges were directed to publish the result of the counselling, if not already done, on the website of the college. Accordingly, the result was published on 25-4-2006 on the website of the college on 25-4-2006. The 4th respondent produces herewith and marks as ANNEXURE-4 a copy of the extract of the register maintained for counselling the students evidencing the fact that as many as 30 students. In confirmation of their participation in the counselling, they have also attested their signature in the register. Wherever the students did not turn up that has also reflected in the register. As could be seen from the abstract that is the bottom of this document, out of total 103 eligible candidates who appeared for the counselling 30 students appeared and have affixed their signatures at Sl. No. 11 and 19 respectively. A copy of the select list published on the website is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5. Thereafterwards, the selected candidates have also been admitted to the course after payment of fee. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner has also been admitted to the course on 6-5-2006. No. 11 and 19 respectively. A copy of the select list published on the website is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5. Thereafterwards, the selected candidates have also been admitted to the course after payment of fee. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner has also been admitted to the course on 6-5-2006. ( 14 ) THE above averments of the fourth respondent clearly demonstrate that even in terms of the interim order dated 17-2-2006, passed by the Supreme Court in the writ petition filed by the very respondent, the Supreme Court had if at all allowed the petitioner therein to go ahead with the entrance examinations at their own risk and consequences. The precise order of the Supreme court, a extracting the observations in the case of P. A. Inamdar [supra]: . . . 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. 16. Submission of Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth and the fifth respondents is that based on such order, the Supreme Court had permitted the association and its members to have their own procedure and also to have their own method of counselling and not necessarily a common counselling but copy of which is also produced by the fourth respondent as Annexure-1 to their statement of objections, reads as under: heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the State. Petitioner-association would be at liberty to go ahead with the entrance exam at their risk and consequences, but they shall not publish the result. Post on 24-2-2006. ( 15 ) THIS clearly indicates that no deviation is allowed in favour of the petitioner therein and the petitioner is not relived of the rigour of the law and the earlier directions which held the field till then. Post on 24-2-2006. ( 15 ) THIS clearly indicates that no deviation is allowed in favour of the petitioner therein and the petitioner is not relived of the rigour of the law and the earlier directions which held the field till then. A further order has been made on 20-4-2006 by the Supreme Court, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-III to their statement of objections, particularly in the light of the stand taken by the counsel appearing for the State that different associations/consortia should not be allowed to hold their own entrance examinations but there should be only one common entrance examination, which is as under, by at the level of each college also and that the colleges have conducted such counseling at their own level and had admitted students on the basis of merit and if so, the procedure is being fully in consonance with the orders of the Supreme Court and no interference is warranted. ( 16 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it is urged by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay that a complaint was also given to the seventh respondent-overseeing committee and the committee had found that the entire procedure followed by the association is wholly incorrect and it was a total derogation of the procedure that is required to be followed and the so-called intimation to the candidates about the counselling was not properly or effectively given to the candidates; that even the admission procedure which had been scrutinized by the overseeing committee was found to be wanting; that ultimately the committee concluded that no sufficient opportunity had been given to the candidates about the counselling; that no proper or effective counselling was ever conducted; that the selection procedure was not fair and transparent and therefore the college was directed to give a proper intimation of the counselling with minimum four days clear interval and to hold fresh seat selection process etc. , in terms of its order dated 11-5-2006, and if so it is the duty of the respondents to give effect to the same in terms of its order dated 11-5-2006, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-F along with the application filed seeking for impleadment of the overseeing Committee as the 7th respondent to the writ petition. , in terms of its order dated 11-5-2006, and if so it is the duty of the respondents to give effect to the same in terms of its order dated 11-5-2006, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-F along with the application filed seeking for impleadment of the overseeing Committee as the 7th respondent to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order of the committee reads as under: A perusal of the counselling record shows that actually it is not a record regarding seat selection but only a record where the three preferences of the candidate are noted and signatures of the candidates are obtained. Counselling necessarily means the candidate being offered the courses available and the candidate selecting one and he being selected for admission. There is no note in the record against the name of each candidate as to whether he or she has been allotted any subject and selected for admission. At the end of the record there is an abstract, which shows that out of 30 percent, 24 students were selected and 4 students are shown to be not willing. Who are those candidates, who were selected and who were not willing is not shown. Patently the record placed before the committee cannot be said to be counselling record. On 25-4-2006 list of candidates selected is stated to have been published on the web-site and a copy of the same is produced. This also shows that on 17-4-2006 there has been no counselling in the sense seat selection. From the list of candidates selected, it is seen that some candidates holding lower rank than the rank held by the complainants have been selected. It is seen from the list of selected candidates two candidates are shown as SC (GM) and one is shown as Category i (GM ). This being a minority institution there is no question of reservation far SC or OBC and among non-minority candidates selection has to be made onto on the basis of merit. The college had also not notified that they have reserved any seats for SC, ST or OBC. In view of the above facts, it has to be held that the college has not given sufficient notice of counselling date to the candidates and that no counselling in the sense of seat selection has been conducted. The college had also not notified that they have reserved any seats for SC, ST or OBC. In view of the above facts, it has to be held that the college has not given sufficient notice of counselling date to the candidates and that no counselling in the sense of seat selection has been conducted. Though two of the complainants are stated to have been selected, the selection cannot be said to be fair and transparent. The college is directed to give at least 4 days prior notice of date of counselling by publishing in newspaper and also on web-site and to hold fresh seat selection process. ( 17 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior counsel on behalf of fourth and fifth respondent is that the fifth respondent association has to clarify the position before the committee and has sought for review of this order and the matter is still pending. ( 18 ) MS Nagarathna, learned Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent overseeing committee has not only justified the order passed by the committee as on 11-5-2006 but also points out that the counselling in respect of the common entrance examination cannot be held individually by the individual colleges but has to be necessarily one of a common counselling involving all the candidates and at one place and it is the responsibility of the association which has conducted such entrance examinations also to hold counselling and to relegate the candidates to the individual colleges. It is also pointed out that if several colleges start holding counselling at several places that could lead to conflict of dates, which could put the candidates to great inconvenience and if all the colleges decided to do the counselling on the same day, the very object and purpose of counselling will be defeated, as in such an event, merited candidates will not be left with the option of choosing a college of their preference and the procedure can also be manipulated to suit the convenience of the colleges at the cost of the merited candidates. ( 19 ) THE whole object of holding a common entrance test is to ensure that merit is given due recognition and place. Admissions to post graduate dental course are to be necessarily in accordance with the merit of the candidate. ( 19 ) THE whole object of holding a common entrance test is to ensure that merit is given due recognition and place. Admissions to post graduate dental course are to be necessarily in accordance with the merit of the candidate. If the examination is held in common by an association for the purpose of admitting students to various colleges forming part of the association, the counselling cannot be at different places or at the individual colleges, it in fact defeats the very purpose of holding a common entrance examination by the association. Even in terms of the orders and directions issued by the Supreme Court as also the ratio in TMA PAI foundation [supra], P. A. Inamdar [supra] and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of karnataka AIR 2003 SC 3734, the common thread is that the selection shall be by a common yardstick. e. a common entrance test for all aspiring candidates. A common entrance examination necessarily implies that the counselling also should be common and cannot be at individual colleges. It is clearly admitted in the present case that the counselling has not been conducted in common but has been held at the individual college level. If it is so, there was no counselling at all in the eye of law as is required for the purpose of making selection on merit for admission of students to the post graduate dental course. ( 20 ) IRRESPECTIVE of the submission that the selection has already been made by the colleges and admission has also been made, such selection if basically flawed and is not proper selection in the eye of law, such selection cannot be sustained. In fact a proper selection by a proper counselling has never been held nor the candidates properly intimated about the date of such counselling. In the result, the admissions made by the members of the fifth respondent association and its member colleges to post graduate dental course for the academic year 2006-07 is not sustainable and such admissions are quashed. ( 21 ) THIS Court is quite aware of the fact that many students might have been admitted to the course and they have not been arrayed as respondents before this Court and could plead their interest being affected. ( 21 ) THIS Court is quite aware of the fact that many students might have been admitted to the course and they have not been arrayed as respondents before this Court and could plead their interest being affected. As there was no effective or proper counselling in a manner recognized by law, no person can take advantage of the admission if had been made without such counselling. Moreover, as even such persons also get their opportunity in the counselling to be conducted pursuant to this order, they cannot have any grievance as all eligible candidates will be getting equal opportunity in accordance with their ranking at such counselling. The association is directed to put on notice an candidates who have appeared and are successful in the examination that was conducted by it about the counselling to be conducted at a convenient suitable common place allowing sufficient interval for them to attend the counsel. The association to ensure that not only individual notices are sent to the candidates but also give publicity in newspapers and if so desired, also post such information in their web-sites about the date and place of counselling. The candidates should also be intimated as to the other requirements such as credentials that they should present and also what amount they should pay and about any fee that will have to be remitted at the time of counselling and for the purpose of selecting the seat in a college of their choice. ( 22 ) THE association, being aware of the fact that the entire admission procedure should be completed by or before 30th June 2006, may take necessary steps straightaway without any further loss of time and the process should be started by forwarding individual notices to the candidates from Monday, 12th June 2006 onwards, which will give sufficient interval not only for completing the admissions but also will leave some time for the candidates who are desirous to approach the overseeing committee in terms of the order of the Supreme Court and to have their grievances, if any, redressed. ( 23 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Selection already made to the post graduate dental courses by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent-colleges are quashed, by issuing a writ of certiorar. Rule issued and made absolute. ( 23 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Selection already made to the post graduate dental courses by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent-colleges are quashed, by issuing a writ of certiorar. Rule issued and made absolute. In the light of the observations made above, the respondents, particularly the fifth respondent-association and its members, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents colleges, are directed to complete the entire admission process well in advance of the last date stipulated by the first respondent university.