Judgment :- A.P. Shah, C.J. 1. Admit Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing. 2. All these Petitions filed in public interest relate to the admissions to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2007-2008. The petitioners are seeking for the issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that Clause 6 of the Prospectus for the MBBS and BDs Admissions 2007-2008 issued by the second respondent as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and to declare as ineligible all the candidates who are undergoing MBBS, BDS, B. Pharmacy, B.Sc. (Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS, BHMS, Engineering, Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. in the previous years to apply or being considered for the MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2007-2008. 3. The Tamil Nadu State Legislature has passed Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Act 3 of 2007) to provide for admissions to professional degree courses such as Engineering, Medicine. Dental, Agricultural and other allied courses on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations. Prior to Act 3 of 2007 the admission to the professional educational institutions was on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations and the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test. 4. The petitioners have completed their +2 examinations in 2007 and applied for admission to MBBS and BDS Courses. All their Petitions are based on the allegations which are more or less similar and briefly their case is that the prospectus for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for all the previous academic years clearly provided that the students who are undergoing various professional courses such as MBBS, BDS, B. Pharmacy, B.Sc. (Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS. BUMS, Engineering. Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. are not eligible to apply for MBBS and BDS courses. The object of the above clause is to prevent the candidates who have already joined any professional course from discontinuing that course and get admission into MBBS and BDS courses, thereby leading to wastage of seats. (Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS. BUMS, Engineering. Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. are not eligible to apply for MBBS and BDS courses. The object of the above clause is to prevent the candidates who have already joined any professional course from discontinuing that course and get admission into MBBS and BDS courses, thereby leading to wastage of seats. However, the prospectus for MBBS and BDS courses for the current academic year viz., 2007-2008 inter alia provided that only those who are undergoing MBBS and BDS courses in Government colleges and those who have not discontinued the said courses are now eligible to apply and get them admitted in MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2007-2008. More than 1 500 students who have passed higher Secondary Course during the previous academic years ranging from 2000 to 2006 have applied for admission during the current academic year 2007-2008 and nearly 400 students who have already got admitted in the other professional courses and are undergoing their courses, and who were not permitted to apply or MBBS and BDS courses during the previous academic years have been made eligible to apply now. The petitioners contend that the deletion of professional courses like B. Pharmacy, B.Sc. (Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS, BUMS, Engineering, Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. from Clause 6(a)(ii) of the prospectus for the academic year 2007-2008 is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. It is totally unfair to permit the students of the previous academic years NA. ho have already got admitted in any of the above mentioned professional course, to apply for the MBBS and BDS courses to the students of the current academic year. It is pointed out that in the prospectus for the previous academic year it was specifically provided in Clause (9) that an option once exercised during counseling will be final and individual requests for transfer of college or change of course will not be entertained after counseling is over. However, as per the new procedure, the students who have written their qualifying examinations during the previous academic years, and who have got qualified admissions in various professional courses, have been permitted to apply for admission into MBBS and BDS courses. 5. We have heard Mrs. Nalini Chidamabaram, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 5. We have heard Mrs. Nalini Chidamabaram, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. Before adverting to the submissions made at the Bar, we may refer to the relevant Clause viz., Clause 6 of the prospectus for MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2006-2007 as well as 2007-2008. The prospectus for the academic year 2006-2007 inter cilia provides as follows: "6. The following categories of candidates are not eligible to apply to Medical/Dental Course.--- .(i) candidates who have passed the H.Sc. in the Vocational Stream. .(ii) those candidates who are presently undergoing any of the professional courses such as MBB, BDS, B. Pharmacy, B.Sc.(Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS, BHMS, Engineering, Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc., and those candidates who have discontinued on any grounds the professional courses mentioned leading to a waste of seat." The prospectus for the academic year 2007-2008 runs as follows: "6(a) The following categories of candidates are not eligible to apply to Medical/Dental Course.- .(i) candidates who have passed the H.Sc in the Vocational Stream. .(ii) those candidates who are presently undergoing MBBS/BDS in Government Medical and Dental Colleges and those candidates who have discontinued on any grounds the above mentioned course after six months from the date of joining the course." 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the deletion of professional courses like B. Pharmacy, B.Sc.(Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS, BHMS, Engineering, Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. from Clause 6(a)(ii) of the prospectus 2007-2008 is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. The comprehensive restrictive policy in the previous year is based on public policy of not allowing any student to render any professional course seat get wasted on account of the student discontinuing the course to join MBBS/BDS course in the next academic year. This year the restriction having been removed, the students who joined other professional courses in earlier years are discontinuing their courses to join MBBS/BDS course in the present academic year. This would ultimately lead to large scale wastage of professional course seats. The respondents are under an obligation to treat all candidates who are undergoing these courses in the previous year as ineligible to apply for MBBS and BDS courses for the current academic year. This would ultimately lead to large scale wastage of professional course seats. The respondents are under an obligation to treat all candidates who are undergoing these courses in the previous year as ineligible to apply for MBBS and BDS courses for the current academic year. The deletion of a large number of courses which invited disqualification in the previous year from the present prospectus is thus arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Suganthi, K. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1984 WLR 249, wherein while upholding the validity of a similar clause viz., Clause 7(1) of the prospectus, the Division Bench observed as follows: (WLR p.251) "Selection of best candidates for admission to available seats in different category in professional colleges with an eye to restrict the number on some reasonable basis since the colleges cannot hold beyond a particular number of students, is a power given to the authorities after evolving certain policies for the selection. One such policy in present case is to deny admission to those students who have already got into the professional colleges mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the prospectus and had undergone six months course (first semester). Such a policy, in our opinion, is reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved viz., manning all the colleges run by the Government efficiently and in distributing the seats available equitably. If a candidate studying in an Engineering College, which course also got only a limited number of seats and for which also there is competition, and after writing the first semester, is allowed to compete for a seat in the medical college, it will definitely deprive the candidates who have come in for the first time for selection to the medical course. A candidate who has already secured a seat in a professional college stands on a different category and that candidates chances of becoming a graduate in that professional college is a _quit accompli. Considering the limited number of seats in various professional colleges, the Government thought it fit to lay down a policy as mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the prospectus. Considering the limited number of seats in various professional colleges, the Government thought it fit to lay down a policy as mentioned in Clause 7(1) of the prospectus. Further, if a candidate who has got a seat in the engineering college deserts it, for the admission which he gets in another professional college such as medical college, the seat in that particular Engineering College will go as a waste. The wisdom of the Government thought it necessary to bring in such a policy, which has a nexus in our opinion for the object to be achieved. By this policy there will be equitable distribution of limited seats available in all the professional colleges manned by the State after determining the merit of the candidates eligible to appear for such a selection." (emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to our notice a decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in the case of Komal K. Chitnis v. Director; Medical Education and Research, Bombay, AIR 1995 Born. 1, in which the validity of Rules 3.0 and 3.1 for selection of MBBS and BDS courses was in issue. The Full Bench held that the examination of a particular Board or University irrespective of the fact as to whether which year the candidate has passed the same is always treated on par for all purposes. Therefore, the students passing the same examination in different years cannot be constituted as different classes merely by virtue of the fact that they have given the same examination in different years. The Bench, however, held that so far as the students who have not only passed their qualifying examination in the previous years but also who have been selected for a scat for a medical course and who have availed of the said seat and in fact completed such period of tuition, if they abandoned the seat, the seat would lapse, and such class of students would definitely form a separate and distinct class, which class cannot be permitted to be eligible for the admission to the medical courses again during the subsequent years. The Bench observed: (AIR pp.10 &11) "25. The Bench observed: (AIR pp.10 &11) "25. According to us, the students who have not only passed the qualifying examinations in the previous years but also were allotted seats for medical courses in the previous years and who have availed of those seats; and in fact completed such period of course, that in the event of their abandoning or discontinuing that course, the seats which they occupied in the previous year would be totally wasted for the entire remaining period of the course, as the same would lapse. would form a distinct class by themselves. We are of the clear opinion that the main object of the rules for admission to the courses like medical courses, where availability of the seats is extremely meager in comparison to the number of aspirates; is not only that merit and merit alone should be considered but also that distribution of such scarce, valuable and much sought-after seats is made in an absolute and just and fair manner. Treating equally, classes which are dissimilar or unequal in the context of the object to be achieved, also offends equality clause. Considered in this light, we have no manner of doubt that holding that any person belonging to this class as an eligible candidate under R.3. 1 of the rules for admission to Medical, Dental courses for the year 1994-95 would expose the said rule to invalidity on the ground of breach of provisions of Article 14. When these students obtained the admission and accepted the seats allotted to them and when they have completed one year of their course, they have already deprived some other eligible students waiting in the queue in the previous years. If such students discontinue the course by getting admission in the current year not only they waste their own one-year of academic career but it results into huge loss ultimately to the Society inasmuch as their seats lapse and are totally wasted. Such a student if held eligible for the current year would additionally displace some other eligible candidate even during the current year. It is also relevant to notice that even under rules for admission to Medical, Dental, Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and Unani courses for the academic year 1993-94, it was provided under Rule 10, Special Note that (i) no shift of students from one course to another or from one college to another college is permissible. It is also relevant to notice that even under rules for admission to Medical, Dental, Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and Unani courses for the academic year 1993-94, it was provided under Rule 10, Special Note that (i) no shift of students from one course to another or from one college to another college is permissible. Request for mutual transfer/change will not be entertained and (ii) candidates seeking admission to private colleges should indicate in the Application form the choice for "Free Seats" and "Payment Seats". Choice once exercised will be considered as final and no change thereafter wilt be entertained. Even under rules for die academic year 1994-95 Rule 6.03 provides that having exercised his choice as per his merit order, one ceases to be an applicant and becomes a selected candidate. Such a selected candidate will not be considered for any free set thereafter. In view of these rules, it is clear that no candidate who had exercised his choice and accepted the seat allotted to him in the year 1993 could have changed the course or the college. On this count also, the candidates or the students belonging to aforesaid class, as we have indicated, cannot be held to be eligible for admission to the medical course for the academic year 1994-95 inasmuch as they cannot be permitted to do indirectly what they could not have done directly. Looked from any angle, we are clearly of the opinion that holding any student who belongs to such class of students, eligible afresh for admission to the medical courses is not only extremely unfair and unjust to other eligible students who had competed with him and failed in the previous years but also to other eligible student for the current year. 26. On consideration of the entire matter we are of the opinion that Rule 3. 1 of the rules for admission to the Medical, Dental courses 1994-95 has to be read down by excluding any applicant who having assed the qualifying examination in the previous years has been allotted a seat in any course and who after availing of the said seat has completed such period of course as would result into lapsing of the said seat; in the event of such applicant vacating or abandoning the said seat. Save and except this class, everyone who has passed the qualifying examination as provided in Rule 3. Save and except this class, everyone who has passed the qualifying examination as provided in Rule 3. 1 irrespective of the year in which he has passed the same shall be eligible for the purposes of Rule 3. 1 and even the candidate satisfying this eligibility has obviously and necessarily to satisfy all the other relevant years for ultimate selection." 8. We find considerable substance in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In our view, the students who have already applied and admitted in different professional courses in previous academic years cannot be allowed to compete with the fresh come outs for admission into MBBS and BDS courses for the current academic year. It is well known that the Government is spending lakhs of rupees for these students and if a student leaves the course in the entire amount becomes waste. The provision in the previous year prospectuses disqualifying the candidates who have already taken admission in professional courses is really in public interest in the sense that it prevents public money get wasted. By permitting such students to discontinue their studies in midway, the students already admitted not only causes loss to the public exchequer but also deprives other meritorious candidates for admission to the said courses. More over, under the admission rules for the previous academic years choice exercised was considered as final and no change was thereafter could be entertained. Even the prospectus for the year 2007-2008 provides that if the candidate discontinues the course after six months of joining in Government Medical/Dental Colleges he/she is not eligible to apply for MBBS/BDS Courses in Government Colleges, for two years from the date of discontinuance. In view of these rules, it is clear that no candidate who had exercised a choice and accepted a seat allotted to him in the previous year cannot change his course or college. On this account also the students belonging to the above said courses cannot be held to be eligible for admission to the MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2007-2008. They cannot be permitted to do indirectly what they could not have done directly. It is also brought to our notice that even for the academic year 2007-2008 Clause 6(ii) has been continued in respect of all the professional courses except MBBS and BDS courses. They cannot be permitted to do indirectly what they could not have done directly. It is also brought to our notice that even for the academic year 2007-2008 Clause 6(ii) has been continued in respect of all the professional courses except MBBS and BDS courses. On consideration of the entire matter we are of the opinion that it is impossible to sustain the decision of the respondents to delete various professional courses other than MBBS and BDS courses from Clause 6(a)(ii) of the prospectus for the academic year 2007-2008. 9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents in all fairness and on instructions submitted that it is not possible to support the impugned Clause 6(a)(ii) of the prospectus for the academic year 2007-2008 and the following categories of candidates will not be eligible to apply for MBBS and BDS courses. (emphasis supplied) "The candidates who are presently undergoing any of the professional courses such as MBBS, BDS, B. Pharmacy, B.Sc. (Nursing), BPT, BOT, BSMS, BHMS, Engineering, Law, Agriculture, Veterinary, etc. and those candidates who have discontinued on any grounds, the professional courses mentioned, leading to waste of a seat". 10. In the light of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. In view of the undertaking, it is made clear that the Admission Committee will enforce the aforesaid statement scrupulously for this academic year 2007-2008 and the admissions will be granted accordingly. We are informed that in view of the modified rule, many students have discontinued their old courses and even obtained the transfer certificates. It is made clear that in case such a student is held to be ineligible in view of the aforesaid bar, he/she shall be allowed to be continued in their respective courses, for which he/she has already admitted. The Selection Committee, during counseling, shall ascertain whether the applicant had already joined the professional course and whether he/she is ineligible by virtue of the aforesaid bar. No costs. Consequently, all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.