Judgment :- Heard Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, the learned senior counsel for Mr.M. Govindaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Senior counsel for M/s.Satish Parasaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents, Ms.A.V.Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University, Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, Mr.T.Murugesan, the learned Government Pleader for Puducherry, appearing for the third and sixth respondents, Mr.P.R. Gopinathan, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent, Mr.R.Singaravelan, the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent and Mr. V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 124. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows: 2. The first respondent Institute was established in the year 2005. It was informed that the first respondent had obtained permission from the 4th respondent for running a medical college with an annual intake of 150 students from the academic session 20062007, vide proceedings No.U12021/249/2005-ME (P-II), dated 6. 2006. The sixth respondent had issued proceedings No.27206/H5/2006/Health, dated 17. 2006, addressed to the third respondent with the direction to sponsor 75 students for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute. The selected students were provisionally admitted to the first respondent Institute subject to the affiliation from the Pondicherry University. All the 75 students sponsored by the third respondent had joined the first respondent Institute by 11.09.2006. 3. In spite of the fact that the petitioners had the required attendance for the first year M.B.B.S. Course, they were not issued the hall tickets by the second respondent university for taking the examinations. However, similarly placed persons like the petitioners, who had joined the other medical colleges in Pondicherry, were permitted to write the examinations by issuing of hall tickets and the examination time table. By an order, dated 25. 2007, passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2007, in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents Association of the first respondent college, the petitioners had been permitted to write the examinations, held between 6. 2007 and 12.06.2007, at the Pondicherry University. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have written the theory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, in the counter affidavit, dated 16. 2007 and 12.06.2007, at the Pondicherry University. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have written the theory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, in the counter affidavit, dated 16. 2007, filed by the first respondent in the said writ petition, it was stated that the first respondent Institute had been brought under the ambit of the 9th respondent Institute, namely, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, which is said to be a Deemed University, under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 4. As regards the examinations in respect of the students admitted for the academic year 2006-2007, the first respondent was to approach the Pondicherry University from which the consent of affiliation was obtained or the 9th respondent Deemed University may hold the first year examinations subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India and with the no objection order from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Therefore, the petitioners were under the impression that the first respondent Institute would approach the Pondicherry University for affiliation. However, the first respondent Institute had refused to apply for the necessary permission to undergo the practical examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University, the second respondent herein. By the Notification NO.F.9-47/2005-U.3, dated 6. 2007, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the fifth respondent, had declared the first respondent Institute as a constituent college of the 9th respondent Deemed University. 5. Paragraph-5 of the notification allowed the first respondent Institute as an off-campus centre of the 9th respondent University for the purpose of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, subject to the conditions prescribed in the said notification. Paragraph-7 of the notification had stated that as regards the examination of students already enrolled with SLNIMS for the academic year 2006-07, the SLNIMS may approach the university from which consent for affiliation was obtained by them prior to admitting these students, or the BIHER may hold 1st year examination for the already enrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India are followed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no objection. 6. In paragraph-8 of the notification, it was stated that the declaration was subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No.6 of the endorsement annexed to the said notification. 6. In paragraph-8 of the notification, it was stated that the declaration was subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No.6 of the endorsement annexed to the said notification. In clause (e) of serial No.6 of the endorsement, it is stated that BIHER shall award degrees in respect of the courses run by SLNIMS only to those students who are admitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of the notification. 7. While so, the petitioners had approached the first respondent Institute to conduct the practical examinations, since the petitioners had already written the theory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, the first respondent Institute had refused to take steps to obtain the permission needed for the petitioners to take the practical examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University and it had also compelled the students, by threats and coercion, to sign a registration form for the undergraduate course under the 9th respondent University. The petitioners have been threatened with dire consequences if the matter was pursued further. Even though the students were made to believe that the affiliation had been accorded to the first respondent Institute from the year 2006, it has been done only from the academic year 2007-2008. It is only due to the deliberate non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute, the second respondent University could not grant the necessary affiliation. 8. By a notification published in the Tamil newspaper "Dhinamalar" it was learnt that, by a notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the Central Government, the first respondent Institute was affiliated to Bharath University as its constituent college, from the academic year 2006-2007. However, it was noticed that the notification issued in the Tamil daily was contrary to the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the Central Government. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been requesting that they may be allowed to pursue their medical course in the first respondent Institute, under the Pondicherry University or in any other institution affiliated to the Pondicherry University. At the time when the petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute, for the medical course commencing with the academic year 2006-2007, the first respondent Institute had been affiliated to the Pondicherry University. At the time when the petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute, for the medical course commencing with the academic year 2006-2007, the first respondent Institute had been affiliated to the Pondicherry University. Since the petitioners had been admitted against the seats surrendered to the Government, as per an agreement, the allocation was done only on the basis that the first respondent Institute will continue to be affiliated to the Pondicherry University. Thus, it is not open to the first respondent to direct the students to continue their medical course under the 9th respondent deemed University. 9. The learned Senior counsel Mr. Yashod Vardhan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, had submitted that there is a contradiction between what has been stated in Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and Clause (e) of Serial No.6 of the endorsement annexed to the notification. Therefore, there is a serious apprehension that the 9th respondent University would not be in a position to award the medical degrees to the petitioners as Clause (e) of Serial. No.6 of the endorsement states that the 9th respondent University shall award degrees in respect of the courses, run by SLNIMS only to those students who are admitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of the notification. Since the petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute for the academic year 2006-2007, prior to the date of the notification, the 9th respondent deemed University would not be in a position to award the medical degrees to the petitioners at the end of their medical course. 10. It has been further submitted that by an order of this Court, dated 25. 2007, made in M.P.No.1 of 2007, in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, the petitioners were permitted to write the theory examinations of their first year medical course under the Pondicherry University and the petitioners are having a legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to take the practical examinations also under the Pondicherry University. It is only due to the non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute no affiliation had been granted by the Pondicherry University. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the default committed by the first respondent Institute. It is only due to the non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute no affiliation had been granted by the Pondicherry University. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the default committed by the first respondent Institute. It has also been submitted that the petitioners may not get the continued sponsorship of the Government of Puducherry if they are not continuing their medical course under the Pondicherry University. 11. Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents had submitted that the petitioners constitute only a small group of students out of the 150 students, who were admitted during the academic year 20062007 for undergoing the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute which has now become a constituent of the ninth respondent Deemed University. The relief’s sought for by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and it is an abuse of the process of Court. 12. The learned counsel had further submitted that the first respondent College had started functioning from the academic year 2006-2007 with the approval of the Central Government, on the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India, with an annual intake of 150 students. Since a proposal to bring Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences under the ambit of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, the ninth respondent herein, was pending consideration with the University Grants Commission and the Central Government, the first respondent Institute did not effectively pursue the proposal for the grant of provisional affiliation, for the year 20062007, from the Pondicherry University which had originally granted the consent for affiliation. As the cut-off date for admission for the academic year 2006-2007 was to expire on 30.9.2006, the first respondent, after obtaining orders from this Court, had admitted 75 students under the Management category and 75 students from the Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) at the special request of the Puducherry Government. Thereafter, regular classes for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic year 2006-2007, had started from 10. 2006. 13. The learned counsel had further submitted that by a notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institute was brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University, with effect from the date of the notification. 2006. 13. The learned counsel had further submitted that by a notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institute was brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University, with effect from the date of the notification. However, taking note of the admission of the students without affiliation for 2006-2007, the Central Government had directed that the first respondent may approach the Pondicherry University, from which the consent of the affiliation was obtained, for affiliation or the ninth respondent Deemed University may hold the 1st year examination for the students admitted during the year 2006-2007, subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India. While so, the Pondicherry University had announced that the 1st year examinations for its affiliated Collages would commence from 6. 2007. At that stage, an unrecognized Association called the Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences Parents Association had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent Institute to expedite the process of affiliation with the Pondicherry University and to direct the said University to complete the process of affiliation within a stipulated period. The petitioners had also prayed for permission to write the examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course conducted by the Pondicherry University to be held between 6. 2007 and 16. 2007. By an order, dated 25. 2007, made in M.P.No.1 of 2007, this Court had permitted the students to write the examinations with the direction to withhold the publication of the results. 14. It was further submitted that the Pondicherry University had no authority to hold the examinations for the students of an Institution which had not been affiliated by it and such examinations would have no legal consequence in the light of the law declared by the various Courts of law, including the Supreme Court. Even before the commencement of the examination, the Pondicherry University had rejected the request for affiliation from the first respondent Institute by its communication, dated 15. 2007. 89 students out of 150 students who had joined the Course, as well as the Government of Pondicherry, had contended that the said writ petition was without merits and unsustainable in law. The writ petition in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, was dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 7. 2007. 15. 2007. 89 students out of 150 students who had joined the Course, as well as the Government of Pondicherry, had contended that the said writ petition was without merits and unsustainable in law. The writ petition in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, was dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 7. 2007. 15. It was further submitted that since the Pondicherry University had rejected the request for affiliation made by the first respondent Institute and also for the reason that the first respondent Institute had become a part of the ninth respondent Deemed University, the relief’s sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, it is not open to the petitioners to seek the relief’s based either on the principle of Estoppel or on the principle of Legitimate Expectation as their claims are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. 16. However, the learned counsel had submitted that the ninth respondent Deemed University is willing to conduct both the theory as well as the practical examinations for the petitioners as well as the other students of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007, in spite of the fact that they had already written the examinations conducted by Pondicherry University, based on the orders passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.18654 of 2007. 17. It was further submitted that the ninth respondent Deemed University is also willing to conduct supplementary examinations to accommodate the students of the first respondent Institute, based on a specific request made in that regard since the examinations, written by the students of the first respondent Institute under the Pondicherry University, cannot be said to be valid as it is not in accordance with the established principles of law. 18. Ms. A.V. Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University, had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in law, since the writ petitioners have no locus standi to seek the affiliation from the second respondent University. The request for affiliation made by the first respondent Institute for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007 had been rejected by the second respondent University by its proceedings, dated 15. 2007. The first respondent Institute was neither interested nor inclined to pursue its application for affiliation for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007. The request for affiliation made by the first respondent Institute for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007 had been rejected by the second respondent University by its proceedings, dated 15. 2007. The first respondent Institute was neither interested nor inclined to pursue its application for affiliation for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007. In fact, the first respondent Institute had prevented the second respondent University from conducting an inspection of the Institute, on 110. 2006. Thereafter, on 22. 2007, the first respondent Institute had requested the second respondent University for inspection of the Institute for the purpose of granting of affiliation. Since the request by the first respondent Institute was belated, the said request could not be processed further. 19. It was further submitted that the admission of the students made by the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007 is by itself illegal as it was done without obtaining the necessary affiliation. However, the second respondent University had permitted the students to write the examinations of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course, held in the month of June, 2007, based on the order passed by this Court, on 25. 2007, in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.18654 of 2007. Later, the said writ petition had been dismissed by this Court by an order, dated 7. 2007. 20. It was further submitted that the first respondent Institute had not taken any legal recourse for its affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007. It is only the Parents’ Association which had approached this Court for a direction based on which the students had taken the written examination conducted by the Pondicherry University. The practical examinations could not be conducted, since the first respondent Institute did not co-operate with the second respondent University in that regard. In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioners cannot be sustained. Further, by a notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, in Notification No.9-47/2005-U.3, dated 6. 2007, the first respondent Institute has been brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University. 21. Mr. In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioners cannot be sustained. Further, by a notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, in Notification No.9-47/2005-U.3, dated 6. 2007, the first respondent Institute has been brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University. 21. Mr. T. Murugesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third and sixth respondents, had submitted that the first respondent Institute was established, after having obtained the necessary permission from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, with an annual intake of 150 students for the academic year 2006-2007. The Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) had been requested to sponsor 75 students to the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007. The Committee had also sponsored 75 students under the Government quota. The Government of Puducherry had provided Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the students sponsored by the Centralized Admission Committee, under the Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Financial Assistance Scheme. 22. It was also submitted that the Public Relation Officer of the first respondent Institute had executed an undertaking stating that they would seek affiliation from the Pondicherry University and that they would clarify the admission policy for the proposed Medical Institute and that they would also allocate 50% of the seats in the proposed Medical Institute for the students of Puducherry as sponsored by the Government of Puducherry. As per the said conditions, the first respondent Institute had allotted 50% of the seats for the Government Quota for the academic year 2006-2007. 23. It was also submitted that as per the notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, dated 6. 2007, the students already enrolled with the first respondent Institute, for the academic year 2006-2007, were entitled to continue their course only under the Pondicherry University. 24. Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 124 had submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, as it has no merits and it is a gross abuse of the process of law. 25. He had further submitted that even those students of the first respondent Institute, who were not in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents Association, had been coerced to write the examinations, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 25. 25. He had further submitted that even those students of the first respondent Institute, who were not in support of the writ petition in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents Association, had been coerced to write the examinations, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 25. 2007, even though they were not sufficiently prepared. Many of the students had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appearing in the examinations. 26. It was also submitted that the Pondicherry University was not the proper University under which the students could write the examinations, after the first respondent Institute had been notified to be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondent Deemed University. As such the petitioners have no right to demand that the second respondent University should conduct the examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007. 27. It was also submitted that a large number of students had already taken the written examinations under the ninth respondent Deemed University, pursuant to the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent. By an order, dated 15. 2007, the second respondent University had declined to grant affiliation to the first respondent Institute, based on the resolution of the Academic Council of the University. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 28. Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, had submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner only on a mere apprehension that the ninth respondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grant the Medical Degrees for the students of the first respondent Institute, who were admitted to the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007. 29. In paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent, it is stated that as regards the examination of students already enrolled with the first respondent Institute for the academic year 2006-2007, the said Institute may approach the second respondent University from which consent for affiliation was obtained prior to admitting the students. In the alternative, the ninth respondent Deemed University may hold the 1st year examination for the already enrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India are followed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no objection. In the alternative, the ninth respondent Deemed University may hold the 1st year examination for the already enrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India are followed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no objection. Paragraph 8 of the notification stipulates that the declaration is subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No.6 of the endorsement of the notification. In clause (e) of Serial No.6 of the endorsement of the said notification, it has been stated that the ninth respondent Deemed University shall award degrees in respect of the courses run by the first respondent Institute only to those students who are admitted/enrolled with the said Institute subsequent to the date of the notification. 30. The learned counsel had also submitted that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are ill-founded as it is clear that on a conjoint reading of the various paragraphs contained in the notification as well as the clauses of the endorsement of the notification the only meaning that could emerge is that the first respondent Institute would be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondent Deemed University, which would be empowered to conduct the examinations for the M.B.B.S. Students of the first respondent University, who had been admitted during the academic 2006-2007, and also to grant them the Medical Degrees on their successful completion of the course. It was further submitted that there are no legal or other impediments for the ninth respondent Deemed University to grant the Medical Degrees to all the eligible candidates who had completed their medical course. 31. Based on the submissions made by Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be justified in entertaining the apprehension that the ninth respondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grant the Medical Degrees to the eligible candidates who would be successfully completing their Medical Course in the first respondent Institute. If the petitioners require any further clarification, it is open to them to approach the concerned authorities with their specific requests. Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient reason to quash the second part of paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent. If the petitioners require any further clarification, it is open to them to approach the concerned authorities with their specific requests. Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient reason to quash the second part of paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent. Further, there cannot be a direction issued to the first respondent Institute to pursue the application for affiliation with the second respondent University in view of the submission made by the petitioners that the first respondent Institute is not interested in pursuing such a claim. It is also seen, from the records available before this Court, that the request made by the first respondent Institute for affiliation to the second respondent University has been rejected by the second respondent University by its proceedings, dated 15. 2007. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the said rejection had not been challenged by the first respondent Institute in accordance with the procedures established by law. Further, by a notification, dated 6. 2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institute has been declared to be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondent University. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reasons or cause to direct the first respondent Institute to pursue its request for affiliation to the second respondent University. Nor would it be appropriate for this Court to direct the third and sixth respondents to reallocate the petitioners to the other Institutions affiliated to the second respondent University, at this stage. Further, Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents had made it clear that the ninth respondent Deemed University is willing to conduct the necessary examinations for the benefit of the students of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the first respondent Institute for the academic year 2006-2007. 32. In such circumstances, this Court is not sufficiently persuaded by the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 are also dismissed.