Judgment :- V.Dhanapalan,J. 1. Heard Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthumni Doraisami, for vacate injunction petitioners in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 and respondents 16 and 18 in the Writ Petition; Mr.Isaac Mohanlal for vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012 and respondent 17 in the Writ Petition; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran for first respondent/writ petitioner; Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General for Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, for respondent 2; Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent 4; Mr.S.Yashwant, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent 5; Mr.Haha Mohideen Gisthi for respondent 7 and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for impleaded respondent. 2. Indian Dental Association, represented by its Honorary State Secretary of Tamil Nadu Branch, has filed the Pro bono Publico, praying for a mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure and conduct admission of students to the Post Graduation Courses strictly as per the laws and regulations based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent and consequently direct the first and second respondents to monitor and supervise the admission process to ensure proper, transparent and merit based admission. Along with the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner has also filed a miscellaneous petition for interim injunction restraining the respondents from conducting admission to the Post Graduation Courses, except based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent. 3. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition on 27.04.2012, granted interim injunction and the same is in force till date. The 16th and 18th respondents have filed M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 to suspend the interim order of injunction. Similarly, the 17th respondent has also filed M.P.No.6 of 2012 to vacate the interim order of injunction. 4. Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for the vacate injunction petitioners in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012, mainly assailed the interim order of injunction on the following grounds : 4.1. Firstly, the vacate injunction petitioner is a minority self-financing institution, recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and not getting any grant from the State or Central Governments. 4. Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for the vacate injunction petitioners in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012, mainly assailed the interim order of injunction on the following grounds : 4.1. Firstly, the vacate injunction petitioner is a minority self-financing institution, recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and not getting any grant from the State or Central Governments. Therefore, as per the Supreme Court decision in para 132 of P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) SCC 537 , the policy of reservation cannot be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution and the minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including the students of non-minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost. Therefore, the above right conferred upon by the Apex Court cannot be curtailed by an association by filing a Public Interest Litigation. 4.2. Secondly, the Dental Council of India has framed Regulations viz., Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations,2007. In Section 1 of the said Regulations, a provision is made regarding selection of Post Graduate Students, which prescribes that "provided further that in non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall be filled by the competent authority and the remaining fifty percent by the management institution on the basis of merit." In view of the above, the Vice-Chancellor of Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University has issued an order on 22.03.2012, which, inter alia, provided that "The Governing Council in its meeting held on 23.02.2012 has resolved that all the private Medical/Dental Colleges who have conducted PG Degree Courses which are affiliated with our University to be informed that the University will register 50% candidates in merit as management quota as per MCI and DCI norms. The remaining 50% to be included in the Seat Matrix for Selection Committee to be filled up in the single window system. Therefore, he has requested that the above should be followed without any deviation." These above orders cannot curtail the rights of the minority institutions. The remaining 50% to be included in the Seat Matrix for Selection Committee to be filled up in the single window system. Therefore, he has requested that the above should be followed without any deviation." These above orders cannot curtail the rights of the minority institutions. However, the petitioner reserves the right of challenging the regulation and he has already filed a writ petition to that effect vide W.P.No.12855 of 2012. 4.3. Thirdly, the Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.65, Health and Family Welfare (MCA-1) Department, dated 23.02.2012, in prescribing the apportionment of seats is also not acceptable to the petitioner institution, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case. During the academic year 2006-2007, Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.15755 and 15756 of 2006 were filed with an identical prayer in the above case. After hearing all the parties, the Writ Petitions were dismissed and the principle laid down by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court are squarely applicable to the present case. 4.4. Lastly, the Tamil Nadu Private Dental Colleges Association, in which the petitioner is one of the members, is conducting entrance examination as per the norms approved by the Committee every year for admitting the students for the Post Graduate Courses under the supervision and control of the Committee appointed to oversee the admissions headed by a retired Judge of the Hon'ble High Court viz., Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Abdul Hadi. In such a situation, it is not proper to restrain the vacate injunction petitioners from proceeding with the admission process and the interim order of injunction granted has virtually prevented the petitioners from proceeding further when as per the schedule of admission process and as per the Supreme Court ruling in Mridul Dhar's case, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65 , they have to complete the process of advertisement by 07.05.2012 and completion of admission by 30.05.2012. As such, the interim order of injunction has to be vacated. 5. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012, in addition to the above grounds, has assailed the order of injunction on the points that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the writ petitioner is canvassing the private cause in the guise of PIL with ulterior motives. 5. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012, in addition to the above grounds, has assailed the order of injunction on the points that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the writ petitioner is canvassing the private cause in the guise of PIL with ulterior motives. During the present academic year, for the State Government quota of 50%, merit list would be drawn based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Higher Secondary Examinations and, if it is so, the approach of the writ petitioner in restraining the vacate injunction petitioner from proceeding with the admission to the Post Graduate Courses as per the schedule prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be appreciated and, in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the order of injunction cannot be allowed to continue and, hence, the same is to be vacated. He would cite the decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (4) SCALE 135 . 6. Conversely, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, would contend that Post Graduate Courses pertaining to dental surgery are available with the respondent educational institutions and they are governed by University Grants Commission Act, Dentists Act, Dental Council of India Regulations and the Notifications issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development as well as DCI Notifications and Circulars. In order to achieve the process of admission in a fair and transparent manner as per the norms set out by the State and Central Governments and the Dental Council of India from time to time and keeping pace with the the present norms and regulations governing the admission process for the present academic year, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 23.02.2012, so also Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University circular/order, dated 23.02.2012, with reference to the notification issued by Dental Council of India in reference No.159, dated 20.11.2007 onwards and for the previous academic sessions also, the same procedure was followed by them, by carving out a percentage of reservation for a non-minority unaided institution with an apportionment ratio of 65:35 between Government and Management of unaided non-minority and 50:50 between Government and Minority Medical/Dental institutions. Therefore, it is not incumbent on the part of the respondent institutions either minority or non-minority to fill up all the vacancies without proper publicity and the procedure prescribed by the competent authorities. Hence, the interim injunction granted in a larger public interest has to be continued, otherwise, much prejudice would be caused to the public at large, thereby depriving of their chances to pursue their higher studies despite the factum of their eligibility/rank on merits. 6.1. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent institutions shall abide by the laws in effect and the admission to all the seats in MDS courses should be solely based on merits, which has to be determined only by way of competitive test or common admission test. Also, the admission in respect of MDS courses in Government quota is conducted vide a common entrance test, which is widely published and transparently conducted by MGR Medical University on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu, in consonance with the notification of the Dental Council of India. Every year, several prospective students, aspiring for Post Graduation, appear for common entrance test and even in the present academic year, over 1000 students are expected to appear for the examination and a rank list would be published and admissions to the said courses are expected to be conducted, based on the published rank list and as per the apportionment of seats as per the Government Orders. 6.2. The learned Senior Counsel, by drawing our attention to the ruling of the SupremeCourt in para 155 of P.A.Inamdar's case, would contend, that, after a legislation has come into effect, namely, Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations,2007, the vacate injunction petitioners cannot claim any right based on the said judgment and when there is a clear vision made out by the Apex Court that when a legislation has come into play, there cannot be any claim by the vacate injunction petitioners based on the said decision in para 132, as it would clarify the position on the right of the minorities and non-minorities only. His last submission would be that since the law occupied the field, now, the it is not possible for the vacate injunction petitioners to claim absolute right over the entire claim and they can only go by the laws in force. His last submission would be that since the law occupied the field, now, the it is not possible for the vacate injunction petitioners to claim absolute right over the entire claim and they can only go by the laws in force. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 , and P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) SCC 537 . 7. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent, would submit that though there have been regulations and orders, the same have have never been followed by the private colleges, particularly in the post graduate courses in self-financing dental colleges against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments and they are all doing admission in a profiteering manner. He would further contend that the regulation mandates that candidates must secure minimum 50% of marks in the entrance examination whereas the respondent institutions have admitted the candidates, who secured less than 50% of marks. Therefore, in the interest of justice, he prayed for continuance of interim order. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. This matter is listed today for hearing at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties and, during the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012, has produced a copy of the order of the Supreme Court, dated 09.05.2012, wherein the Apex Court has requested the Vacation Bench of this High Court to deal with the application if made by the parties for modification/vacating the interim order, dated 27.04.2012, and, hence, it is the bounden duty of this Court to follow the same and dispose of the applications only. 10. In the light of the urgency expressed by the parties and the schedule of admission to be completed by 31.05.2012 for the present academic session, it is necessary to pass the following order. 11. This Court, by an order dated 27.04.2012, granted interim injunction, restraining the respondents from conducting admission to Post Graduation Courses, except based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University. 11. This Court, by an order dated 27.04.2012, granted interim injunction, restraining the respondents from conducting admission to Post Graduation Courses, except based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent viz., Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University. As such, the vacate injunction petitioners/respondent institutions, by virtue of the said interim order of injunction,could not proceed with the admission process as per the schedule commencing from 07.05.2012 to 31.05.2012 by making advertisement, issuance of application forms, submissions thereon, issue of Hall Tickets, common entrance test, publication of results, date of counseling, completion of admissions etc., as any violation of the said order would have serious repercussions. Various legal issues raised and the apportionment of seats are the matters for consideration on merits in the main Writ Petition. The only concern of the vacate injunction petitioners is, that, in view of the interim order of injunction, they are prevented from proceeding with the admission process. Considering the Vacate injunction petitioners' above grievance insofar as the conduct of the examination and the selection of candidates to their 50% share of admission as per the Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007, in order to subserve the ends of justice, we feel it appropriate to modify the interim order dated 27.04.2012 to the following effect: (1) The vacate injunction petitioners/respondent institutions shall proceed with the admission process as per the existing laws viz., Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007, G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 23.02.2012, the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Circular/Order, dated 22.03.2012 insofar as their share of the seats only for the present MDS course for the academic year 2012-2013. (2) As regardsthe apportionment, the vacate injunction petitioners shall follow the ratio as prescribed as per all the above mentioned Laws/Regulations in force. (3) This order is subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. (4) In view of the urgency involved in this case and also the fact that the learned counsel requested for early disposal of the Writ Petition, we request the learned Writ Court to take up the Writ Petition in the last week of June 2012 and dispose of the same in accordance with law, by giving top priority. (5) M.Ps. are disposed of accordingly.