Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 19.6.2007, Annexure P. 1, whereby the petitioners were informed by the College-respondent No. 3 that their admissions had been cancelled by the University. 2. Facts stated on behalf of the petitioners are that they appeared in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET)-2006 for admission to BDS but were not successful in getting admissions in the centralised counselling. Thereafter on 28.9.2006 they applied for admission to respondent No. 3 National Dental College and Hospital, Gulabgarh, Derrabassi and appeared before the Selection Committee. They are placed in the waiting list, which was duly signed by the representative of the University. On the basis of the said waiting list, the petitioners were given admission on 30.9.2006. On 19.6.2007, the petitioners were informed that their Roll Numbers had not been issued by the University on the ground that their admissions were cancelled. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that admissions of the petitioners were in pursuance of advertisement issued on 30.9.2006, Annexure R-2/1, which was a fraud on law, making mockery of merit and transparency. Large number of candidates who had qualified PMET-2006 and scored far higher marks than the petitioners, were available but without giving any opportunity to meritorious candidates, respondent No. 3 College gave admissions to the petitioners on a false pretext that candidates with higher merit were not available. The admissions of the petitioners being lacking in merit and transparency, were void. It has been further stated as under : "The six students in question in the present case secured the following marks in PMET-06 :- 1. Charu Sood 460) 2. Jasleen Kaur 223) 3. Nisha Chhabra 352)Less than 50% 4. Pallavi Joshi 312) 5. Sukhvir Kaur 288) 6. Sukhmeet Kaur 288) Five out of the six candidates above have secured less than 50% marks in PMET-06 and are out rightly in eligible for admission. As a matter of fact, the marks secured by these 5 candidates are appallingly low (three of them having got less than 300 marks). In so far as the sixth candidate, Ms. Sukhmeet Kaur 288) Five out of the six candidates above have secured less than 50% marks in PMET-06 and are out rightly in eligible for admission. As a matter of fact, the marks secured by these 5 candidates are appallingly low (three of them having got less than 300 marks). In so far as the sixth candidate, Ms. Charu Sood who has secured 460 marks is concerned, the merit list/waiting list prepared by the University contains as many as 131 candidates who have obtained between 483 and 464 marks (both 483 and 464 included, apart from 26 candidates who had all secured 484 marks (the last candidate submitted by the University having obtained 484 marks). No merit list beyond or below 464 marks was prepared by the University. All the six admissions made by the College, are, therefore, clearly and wholly illegal and fraudulent and in gross violation of the principle of merit. Four out of these 6 admissions were made on 30.9.2006, pursuant to a same day advertisement carried on 30.9.2006 itself. As stated above such advertisements are nothing but fraud writ large. The advertisement for admissions made on 28.9.2006 was published on 17.9.2006 but the principle of merit remains a glaring casualty (as detailed above). The University nominee rightly did not sign the proceedings of the Selection Committee for this reason. As for the admissions made on 30.9.2006, no question of the participation of the University in the selection arose because of the same day advertisements. The profit made by the College from such fraudulent admissions is a matter of enquiry. 4. That it is important to state that the advertisement Annexure R 2/1 nowhere mentions the number of vacant seats for which the said counselling was scheduled, which fact itself demonstrates the lack of bona fides and/or transparency of the college in conducting the counselling. The University was informed about the vacation of four seats on 29.9.2006. The college was bound to seek fresh applications for these four seats but it did not. Further, it is submitted that in response to the Universitys letter dated 11.12.2006 and 22.12.2006 (Annexure R 2/3) (Colly), the College vide its letter dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure R 2/4) supplied the details of the students who had left the College on or before 29.9.2006 which led to the counselling dated 28.9.2006 and 30.9.2006 and the admissions of the petitioners which are in question. Tile letter Annexure R 2/4 shows that two seats fell vacant on 17th and 19th September 2006 and the remaining four on 29th September, 2006 which is contrary to the information given by the students and/or their guardians. The copies of the proformas furnished by the students and/or their guardians including their remarks/comments on the said proformas, is attached as Annexure R 2/5 (Colly). They expose the untruth sought to be propagated by the college. A bare perusal of the said proformas shows that of the six seats for which counselling was conducted on 29.9.2006 and 30.9.2006, four fell vacant in the month of August 2006 because of non-joining by the three candidates (Shawinder Kaur, Hemangi Kaur and Sheweta Kataria) and one seat being surrendered by Ms. Amandeep Kaur on 17.8.2006 who were selected in the first counselling. The remaining two seats fell vacant on 4.9.2006 because the candidates (Harpreet Kaur and Navjot Kaur) got admission in Shri Guru Ram Dass Institute, Amritsar. These six vacant seats should have been offered to the meritorious candidates in the second counselling held on 7.9.2006 but the college, for the reasons best known to it, deliberately did not disclose these vacant seats to the University. 5. That further, it is submitted that, as is evident from the proformas of the candidates, the college was charging fee to the extent of Rs. 77,500/- to 85,000/- which is more than the fee. Rs. 55,000/- prescribed by the Government." The advertisement dated 30.9.2006 reads as under : "National Dental College and Hospital Gulabgarh Road, DeraBassi. Admission BDS 2006-07 Management Quota. A few left over seats are available in the Management Quota. These seats will be filled up from the PMET Merit List, PMET appeared or from 10+2 on 30.9.2006 at 10 A.M. accordingly. Candidates are required to appear in the counselling in the office of Principal at 1000 Hrs. Principal" We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners having appeared before the Selection Committee on 28.9.2006 and more meritorious students not being available, their admissions were valid and they having already spent one year and having been allowed to appear in the exam under interim orders of this Court dated 21.6.2007, the University having not raised an objection at the earliest, their admissions were not liable to be cancelled. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the University referred to several circumstances to show that the admissions were void and lacking in bona fides to which the petitioners are also party and in such circumstances, irrespective of their having studied for one year or appeared in exam, they could not be allowed to continue. He, inter alia, referred to following circumstances : (i) Several candidates with higher marks were available; (ii) The last candidate admitted had 484 (iii) Number of vacant seats were not specified in the advertisement. The University was informed only on 29.9.2006 about vacancies or seats of which no separate advertisement was issued. (iv) There was disparity in the details of dates of vacancies supplied by the College and the dates given by the students. The proceedings of the counselling held on 30.9.2006 were never sent to the University. 8. In the reply filed on behalf of the College, it has been stated that out of 100 students admitted in the year 2006, two left the college. The college conducted counselling in the presence of representatives of the University on 28.9.2006. The advertisement was given on 17.9.2006. Two students were admitted on 28.9.2006 and remaining were put in the waiting list. Out of the waiting list, admissions were made on 30.9.2006. They were most meritorious of the available students. Admissions were permissible in terms of Clause 19 of the prospectus providing that if seats still remain vacant, admissions can be made by giving preference to candidates who appeared in PMET. 9. We may mention that there has been no participation of the State and the Dental Council of India either by filing of reply or by way of making any submission. 10. Following question arise for consideration : (A) Whether admission of the petitioners was fair, transparent and on merit ? (B) Whether cancellation of admission of the petitioners was justified ? (C) Whether there is failure of regulatory mechanism of the State and the Dental Council of India and if so, what further steps are required ? Re : (A) 11. It needs to be hardly mentioned that admissions to medical education or other higher education courses has to be in a fair, transparent manner, solely on the basis of merit. This principle has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3226. Re : (A) 11. It needs to be hardly mentioned that admissions to medical education or other higher education courses has to be in a fair, transparent manner, solely on the basis of merit. This principle has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3226. Such admissions have to be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. There has been every effort to violate the mandate of Article 14 by those who wish to exploit the situation for profit or other considerations. To over come such a situation, several directions have been issued by the Honble Supreme Court for the purpose of enforcing the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution, e.g. : (a) To hold admissions purely on merit even in unaided institutions (Para 131, 143 in the judgment of P.A. Inamdar (supra)). (b) Approval of counselling scheme providing for allotments of seats on merit on the basis of entrance examination, notifying vacancy position due to non-joining of candidates, allotting seats in first round and holding of second round of counselling (Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services, AIR 1994 SC 1448) (c) Endless counselling could not be allowed even if seats remain vacant (Supreet Batra v. Union of India, (2003)3 SCC 370). (d) Laying down schedule fixing the time period during which the admissions should take place (Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002)7 SCC 258, Mridul Dhar. v. Union of India, (2005)2 SCC 65) . (e) Holding of entrance examination should be fair and transparent by giving advance notice of the date on which the entrance test will be held with a direction to Dental Council and other authorities to see that irregularities are not committed in the matter of admissions (Romil B. Shah (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat, (2006)6 SCC 268). (f) Admissions made without merit ought to be quashed for upholding of purity of academic processes, without any sympathy or lenient view. (Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 188). (g) Not allowing invocation of equitable principle of promissory estoppel which is inequitable if the candidate is a party to the illegal admission. (Central Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, AIR 2003 SC 240). 12. (Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 188). (g) Not allowing invocation of equitable principle of promissory estoppel which is inequitable if the candidate is a party to the illegal admission. (Central Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, AIR 2003 SC 240). 12. Admissions in the present case cannot be held to be transparent since no opportunity was available for meritorious candidates to seek admission. 13. Language of advertisement clearly projects that the seats to be filled up are management seats which imply that the same could be filled up at the discretion of the management without reference to the merit. No time frame or procedure for selection has been indicated. 14. As against the format of advertisement given by the College, the format of advertisement in the prospectus in para 1.3 may be referred : "1.3 Selection of the candidates to any institution shall not be made out of any other source, or in any manner other than inter se merit of the candidates in the PMET-2006 merit list for test based admissions to the management/minority quota seats. However, for the minority quota, the inter se merit of the candidates of the concerned minority only, shall be considered and there shall be no sub-reservation/quota for any sub category for these seats. There shall be no overlapping or bye-passing of inter se merit of candidates seeking admission to the seats in the management/minority quota except the foreign Indian Students (NRI) quota seats. There shall be constitutional reservation within the Government quota seats in all the private institutions. The reserve category candidate shall have the right to get admission in general category seats as per their merit and candidates so selected shall not be counted towards admission in the reserve category." In para 3, Scheme for conduct of PMET has been given, specifying the date, time, content, place and course of the test. In Romil B. Shah (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed : "4. In Romil B. Shah (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed : "4. On a close scrutiny of the various dates as also the way in which the entrance examination was conducted, we affirm the view held by the Division Bench that the entrance examination was not fair and transparent it is high time that the Dental Council of India as well as the Medical Council of India may fix in advance the approximate Sates during which the entrance examination is to be held by various colleges. When there is an outer limit fixed for the final admission of the students to various courses, the Dental Council, the Medical Council and the All India Council for Technical Education and such other authorities, which are regulating the admission of students in various colleges, shall be careful in seeing that irregularities are not committed in the matter of admissions. These institutions can fix in advance the dates of advertisement, availability of application forms as also final receipt of application forms. For the purpose of conducting the entrance examination, some approximate dates could be fixed giving sufficient time to the colleges to regulate the admissions. As the students have to compete in more than one examination to secure admission in one of the colleges, sufficient opportunity should be given to the colleges to fix the date of entrance examination. If this regulatory mechanism is provided for, there can be a final date for admission to each college." 15. The admissions could have been made out of the waiting list of candidates who had scored higher marks in the PMET already conducted. Thus, in the present case, the publication does not meet the requirement of fairness and transparency. We, thus, hold that the admissions of the petitioners cannot be held to be fair, transparent or on merit. Re : (B) 16. Even though, we have held the admissions made by the respondent No. 3, College not to be transparent, fair or strictly by merit, we do not find any steps having been taken immediately, which was the mandatory duty of the State/the University/the Dental Council set up under the Dentists Act, 1948. In these circumstances, cancellation of admissions after one year without complying with principles of natural justice cannot be held to be justified. 17. In these circumstances, cancellation of admissions after one year without complying with principles of natural justice cannot be held to be justified. 17. Even though, in the written statement, it has been stated that the University representative did not sign the minutes of 30.9.1996, it has not been explained as to what further steps were taken even after knowing that the admissions were not by merit but for other considerations. The impugned order was passed nine months after the admissions, without complying with the principles of natural justice by giving any hearing to the affected parties or by passing a speaking order. Even written statement has been filed almost three months after interim order was granted by this Court. No action has been taken against the College. The functioning of University, thus, clearly lacks efficiency or dedication on the part of the concerned authorities. Thus, even though, admissions lacked transparency or merit, no timely action having been taken, the impugned order, having been passed without complying with principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. The respondents will be free to proceed further afresh in accordance with law against the concerned college, if so advised. Re : (C) 18. There is failure of the regulatory mechanism of making admissions by individual colleges. Such colleges have been given permission to make admissions without being required to strictly follow the waiting list prepared in the centralised counselling. There is no mechanism of immediate action. For this purpose, an appropriate mechanism is a mandatory responsibility of the State. 19. There is clear need to check commercialisation and promote excellence in education by making merit the sole criteria. Ignoring merit is contrary to the constitutional values, as enshrined in the Preamble, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. Some of the effects of commercialisation clearly will be commercialisation of the profession and frustration amongst meritorious students. Effects of ignoring merit have been noticed at length in the opinion of Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724 , paras 194 to 216. Strong regulatory mechanism is required to be adopted to prevent profiteering as the main object of imparting higher education. The object of the policy cannot solely be to enable seats to be filled up so that profit does not suffer but to enable merit alone to be promoted. 20. Strong regulatory mechanism is required to be adopted to prevent profiteering as the main object of imparting higher education. The object of the policy cannot solely be to enable seats to be filled up so that profit does not suffer but to enable merit alone to be promoted. 20. In view of above, while we set aside cancellation of admissions with liberty to the respondents to take any further action against the concerned college afresh, we direct the State as well as the Dental Council of India to evolve appropriate mechanism to ensure that no admissions are made otherwise than by way of merit determined in the entrance test and if such admissions take place, remedial action is taken forthwith. Let an affidavit be filed in this regard within three months. 21. Since the individual case stands disposed of, to consider the issue of public interest in ensuring performance of constitutional/statutory duty of the State and the Dental Council, the matter may be put up for further consideration on January 28, 2008.