Judgment 1. University declaring admission of 40 students made by the petitioner-college, to be invalid. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the State of Punjab advertised holding of PMET-2006 vide notification dated 24.4.2006. The test was to be held on 2.7.2006. The result was to be declared on 7.7.2.006, which was to be followed by counselling from 29.7.2006 to 2.8.2006. 3. According to instructions dated 20.7.2006, Annexure P.10, seats remaining vacant after 10.9.2006 could be filled up by the management up to 30.9.2006 as per criteria laid down in the notification dated 24.4,2006. The petitioner-college was recognised for 60 BDS seats and later on 40 additional seats were approved after inspection by the Dental Council of India. On 22.9.2006, the petitioner wrote a letter to the University for allotting 40 more seats having regard to the fact that 30th September, 2006 was the cut off date for admissions. Again, vide letter dated 28.9.2006, the University was informed that six seats out of 60 seats which had been filled up, had fallen vacant, which were required to be filled up. Reference has also been made to order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in a Writ Petition tiled by the petitioner-college being CWP No. 420 of 2006, to the following effect :- "Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that pursuant to the report given by the Dental Council of India, the Union of India has already taken a decision granting permission to these two colleges and the same has been intimated to the said colleges. The colleges may go ahead with admission of the students and complete the admission process at the earliest in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly." The petitioner-college also published public notice Annexure P. 11 dated 30.9.2006 as under :- "Counselling for vacant NRI, management and Govt. Quota seats (including 40 restored) will be held on 30th September, 2006 from 10.00 am onwards in Desh Bhagat Dental College and Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar." The University vide letter dated 28.9.2006, Annexure P.6 informed the petitioner that counselling for six vacant seats could not be held on 28.9.2006 for want of adequate notice and the same could be held on 30.9.2006. Regarding 40 new seats, it was stated that the petitioner may not till these seats in violation of rules. Regarding 40 new seats, it was stated that the petitioner may not till these seats in violation of rules. The State of Punjab vide letter dated 29.9.2006, Annexure P.7 informed the petitioner that 40 additional seats be filled up through the University the petitioner filled up 38 seats out of 40 on 30.9.2006, though representative of the university refused to participate in the said admissions. On 3.10.2006, the petitioner again asked the University to provide a list of PMT qualified students. The said letter was written, as in some cases, the Honble Supreme Court extended the admission process up to October 15, 2006. The petitioner advertised the seats on 6/7.10.2006 and the advertisement dated 6.10.2006, Annexure P.14 is as under :- "Recognised by DCI and Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot Applications are invited for BDS A few NRI Seats (against extended 40 seats) Candidates must obtain an Eligibility certificate from BFUHS Faridkot Applications on prescribed form must reach the college by 9th Oct. 2006." On 7.11.2006, by impugned letter, the University informed the petitioner- college that admission of 40 students was not valid. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Vice Chancellor which was dismissed on 14.11 2006. The petitioner represented to the State Government who asked the University to approve the admissions vide letter dated 10.4.2007. 4. On 20.4.2007, the university informed the petitioner that the issue was being considered and on 18.5.2007, the University again informed the petitioner that admissions were illegal. 5. Contention raised in the petition is that the college had a right to fill up the vacant seats as per liberty granted by the Honble Supreme Court and even otherwise. The University failed to allocate the students to participate in the counselling and, therefore, the petitioner made admissions after due publicity out of candidates who had appeared in the PMET. Two seats were filled up on 14.10.2006 and in these circumstances, the impugned order refusing to recognise the admissions was illegal. 6. While issuing notice on 15.6.2007, a direction to register the students provisionally and to allow them to appear in annual examination was issued subject to outcome of the writ petition. 7. Two seats were filled up on 14.10.2006 and in these circumstances, the impugned order refusing to recognise the admissions was illegal. 6. While issuing notice on 15.6.2007, a direction to register the students provisionally and to allow them to appear in annual examination was issued subject to outcome of the writ petition. 7. CWP No. 8915 of 2007 has been filed by 11 students of the petitioner- college for the same relief challenging the order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the University refusing to recognise the admissions. The same has also been heard alongwith the present petition and is being disposed of by a separate order. 8. Stand of the University is that the admissions were illegal on account of which Show Cause Notice dated 9.5.2007 Annexure R 2/1 for disaffiliation has also been issued to the petitioner-college. It has also been stated that this Court vide judgment dated 12.9.2003 had earlier imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20 lacs on the petitioner-college for illegal admissions during the Session 2002-03 (Desh Bhagat Dental College and Hospital, Muktsar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2004(1) SCT 121) : [2004(1) SLR 194 (Pb. & Hry.]. The candidates admitted did not have merit. One of the candidates Zennia Gupta scored minus 120 marks and her rank was 9817 out of total 9819 candidates who appeared 25 other candidates had failed to qualify PMET 2006 by scoring less than 50% marks. Eight candidates had passed the PMET. Out of four SC category candidates, only one qualifies. PMET by scoring 40% marks. Out of two candidates in BC category, only one had scored more than 40% marks and number of candidates who had qualified PMET and had scored higher marks were available but they were ignored. The advertisement of the college dated 30.9.2006 could not be held to meet the standards of transparency as the same could not be held to be adequate notice to all the eligible candidates. The permission to make admissions by the State Government vide letter dated 29.9.2006, Annexure P. 7 was only to make admissions through the University. Since the University could not make transparent and merit-based admissions in short time, intimation having been received on 29.9.2006 and last date for admissions being 30.9.2006, the University did not make any admissions. Moreover, admissions were not made by the College on 30.9.2006 as claimed. Since the University could not make transparent and merit-based admissions in short time, intimation having been received on 29.9.2006 and last date for admissions being 30.9.2006, the University did not make any admissions. Moreover, admissions were not made by the College on 30.9.2006 as claimed. On 30.9.2006, a list of 20 candidates was prepared and only seven candidates was given admissions. The list is Annexure 112/7. Minutes Annexures R2/8 were signed jointly by College and University representatives. In the list of 40 candidates given admission, Annexure R 2/2, 34 candidates were lower in merit to the candidates in Annexure R 2/7. Excluding the absent candidates, tour candidates-who were available as per list Annexure R 2/7, were higher in merit but only one of them Harpreet Kaur was given admission as per list Annexure R 2/2. Other three were left out. Harpreet Kaur had not attended counselling as per Annexure R 2/7. The petitioner college wrote a letter to the University on 30.9.2006 seeking list of qualified candidates which was inconsistent with their claim of having made admissions on that date. The petitioner college again sent a request on 3.10.2006 which showed that the seats had not been filled up on 30.9.2006. The petitioner gave advertisements dated 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 notifying vacancies against extended 40 seats. Further advertisement dated 13.10.2006 was given in "Indian Express" and "Desh Sewak" to the following effect : "Counselling for a few vacant NRI, Management and Govt. Quota seats against the restored 40 seats will be held on 14th October 2006 from 10.00 am onwards in Desh Bhagat Dental College and Hospital, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar, out of the candidates who have already applied to the College in response to the advertisement dated 6th October, 2006 and 7th October, 2006 in The Tribune, Indian Express and Punjab Kesari." The above advertisement shows that vacant seats were not tilled up on 30.9.2006 but much later. The advertisement mentioned NRI, Management and Govt. quota seats which meant more than three seats. Exact number was deliberately not specified. 9. The advertisement mentioned NRI, Management and Govt. quota seats which meant more than three seats. Exact number was deliberately not specified. 9. In short, the stand in the reply is that liberty given by the Honble Supreme Court for making admissions did not permit compromising of merit or transparency and having regard to the merit of the students admitted and lack of publicity and transparency and also the fact that the candidates were not admitted on 30.9.2006 which was the cut off date as claimed and as shown by subsequent advertisements, the admissions were fraudulent and Institution making admissions after the cut off date is also liable for action. 10. On the last date, we had asked learned counsel for the College to ascertain whether transaction of receipt of fee from the candidates was recorded in the Bank. Learned counsel after taking instructions stated that the fee was received in cash. He explained that since admissions were made in the evening, the Bank had closed. He did not specify when the transaction was recorded in the bank. 11. Learned counsel for the University also furnished the Gazette containing results of PMET-2006 and he also gave the ranking of 40 candidates admitted, which is as under :- "Rank General Candidates 1. 1825 2. 2194 3. 2440 4. 2560 5. 2560 6. 2560 7. 2704 8. 2783 9. 2926 10. 3012 11. 3012 12. 3105 13. 3374 14. 3784 15. 3802 16. 5041 17. 5429 18. 5740 19. 6415 20. 6600 21. 6600 22. 6600 23. 6891 24. 7299 25. 7624 26. 7643 27. 8036 28. 8036 29. 8632 30. 8659 31. 8659 32. 9480 33. 9544 34. 9817 Backward Class Candidates 1. 3705/231 2. 5044/323" 12. We have considered the rival submissions and pursed the record. Following question arise for consideration : (1) Whether admissions made by the petitioner-College were fair, transparent and on merit ? (ii) Whether cancellation of admissions made by the petitioner- College was justified ? Re : (i) While considering an identical issue in similar fact situation in CWP. No. 9495 of 2007, 2007(6) SLR 398 (Sukhmeet Kaur Deol and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 10.10.2007, it was observed : "It needs to be hardly mentioned that admissions to medical education or other higher education courses have to be in a fair, transparent manner, solely on the basis of merit. No. 9495 of 2007, 2007(6) SLR 398 (Sukhmeet Kaur Deol and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on 10.10.2007, it was observed : "It needs to be hardly mentioned that admissions to medical education or other higher education courses have 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 : [2005(5) SLR 409 (SC]. 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 overcome 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, eg. :- (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) : [2003(2) SLR 313 (SC]. (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 : [2002(6) SLR 180 (SC], Mridual Dhar v. Union of India, (2005)2 SCC 65) : [2005(2) SLR 18 (SC]. (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) : [2006(5) SLR 140 (SC]. (f) Admissions made without merit ought to be quashed of upholding of purity of academic processes, without any sympathy or lenient view. (Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K., 1995 Supp(1) SCC 188). (f) Admissions made without merit ought to be quashed of 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) : [2003(1) SLR 230 (SC]. Admissions in the present case cannot be held to be transparent since no opportunity was available for meritorious candidates to seek admission. Language of advertisement clearly projects that the seats to be tilled 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. 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 RomiI 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. In RomiI 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 dates 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." 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." xx xx xx xx xx 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 : [2003(5) SLR 1 (SC], paras 194 to 216. 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 : [2003(5) SLR 1 (SC], 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." In the present case, the above reasoning fully applies. Merit and transparency in admissions to professional colleges cannot be compromised. "The admissions in the present case do not meet the said tests. The admissions do not appear to have been made on 30.9.2006, as claimed, in view of advertisements given subsequently including advertisement given on 13.10.2006. Contention that advertisement was only for two vacancies is negatived by the language of the advertisement. Thus, even if the petitioner-college had been permitted to make admissions to 40 seats which were restored, there had to be adequate notice to all concerned candidates. The advertisement issued by the College was required to atleast mention that admissions will be on merit and criteria for determining merit was to be specified. No doubt, the University has not played any positive role in helping the petitioner-college but even then, compromising the merit could not be accepted. The ranking of candidates admitted speaks for itself. The cut off date had to be observed and if in the available time, merit based admissions could not be made, mere passing need to fill up seats could not be the sole consideration for compromising the merit. Thus, we conclude that the admissions were not fair, transparent or on merit. Re : (ii) 13. In view of our finding that admissions were not transparent and on merit, normal rule is to uphold cancellation of admissions. In Sukhmeet Kaur (supra), we set aside cancellation of admissions even after holding that the same were not on merit having regard to delay on the part of the University in taking action. In the present case, there is an additional factor of lack of bonafides by antedating of the admissions. The University has taken prompt action. In Sukhmeet Kaur (supra), we set aside cancellation of admissions even after holding that the same were not on merit having regard to delay on the part of the University in taking action. In the present case, there is an additional factor of lack of bonafides by antedating of the admissions. The University has taken prompt action. It will be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati and others, AIR 1983 SC 580, to the following effect :- "4. Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. Indiscipline in educational institutions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But, the problem which the counts are faced with in these cases is, that it is not until a period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made that the intervention of the Court comes into play. Writ petitions involving a challenge to such admissions are generally taken up by the High Court as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly admitted finish one of two semesters of the course by the time the decision of the High Court is pronounced. A further appeal to this Court consumes still more time, which creates further difficulties in adjusting equities between students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded. inevitable, the Court has to rest content with and academic pronouncement of the true legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul. Once you are in, no one will put you out. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul. Once you are in, no one will put you out. Laws delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions. 5. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly it will have to directed that the names of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institution....." Again in Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, it was observed : "12. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Court s on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Court s of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind were advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself, engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the 1st analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of Respondent No. 6, it Should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think, in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of Respondent 6. We do so, though, however, reluctantly. 14. The hardship to the students is a serious issue but cannot be conclusive. Thus, only such students who were proximate to the merit, could be shown sympathy. We direct the University to constitute a committee which may look into this aspect and approve those students who are proximate to the merit of the last candidate admitted within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. Except for this, we do not find any ground to interfere with the cancellation of admissions. In respect of such other students who are not found to be proximate to the merit of the last candidate admitted, the order of cancellation of admission is upheld. 15. This question is decided accordingly. 16. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Order accordingly.