Judgment : The subject-matter in both the writ petitions is the same. Hence, they are disposed of together. The 1st petitioner in W.P.No.17192 of 2012 is an Educational Society; the 2nd petitioner therein is an Institute of Dental Sciences, established by the 1st petitioner at Nizamabad (for short ‘the College’) and the 3rd petitioner is the Vice President of the Society. The petitioners in W.P.No.17223 of 2012 are 43 students, who were admitted into the first year of the course, in the academic year 2009-2010. The 2nd petitioner was established as a minority institution to conduct five years BDS course. Its approved strength is 100 for each academic year. It is affiliated to Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, the 2nd respondent (for short ‘the University’), and approved by the Dental Council of India, the 1st respondent herein. In the year 2009, the college enjoyed the minority status and the admissions into the college are under two categories. A-category comprising of 60 seats and B-category 40 seats. After issuing an advertisement, the petitioner admitted the candidates. The list was submitted for approval to the Government of A.P., Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, the 3rd respondent, as required under the relevant rules. Through communication, dated 16.06.2010, the 3rd respondent informed the college that 43 among 100 students admitted by the petitioner are not eligible, since they did not obtain minimum of 50% marks in the common entrance test conducted in the year 2009, and in that view of the matter, their admissions cannot be approved. By the time, the said communication was received, the instructions in the first year of the course were over and examinations were about to be held. The affected students filed W.P.No.13944 of 2010, challenging the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, refusing the approval. On the basis of the interim order passed therein, the students appeared in the first year examination. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 30.04.2011. Though they filed W.A.No.345 of 2011, they have withdrawn the same, since correspondence was in progress between the university and the Government. On the basis of the interim order passed therein, the students appeared in the first year examination. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 30.04.2011. Though they filed W.A.No.345 of 2011, they have withdrawn the same, since correspondence was in progress between the university and the Government. The university addressed a letter, dated 10.11.2011, to the Government, with a request to accord approval for the admission of the 43 students, mentioned above, by stating certain reasons, such as, that the college is the only Minority Dental College in the State, and that the students have already appeared in the first and second year examinations. The 3rd respondent issued letter, dated 25.11.2011, acceding to the request of the university. The university accordingly addressed a letter, dated 13.12.2011, to the 1st respondent i.e. Dental Council of India, apprising it of the decision taken by the Government, in condoning the lapses or deficiencies in the admission of 43 candidates. On a consideration of the same, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 25.05.2012, directing that the admission of 43 candidates, petitioners in W.P.No.17223 of 2012, cannot be treated as legal and that all of them be discharged from the institution. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the said proceedings. The petitioners contend that there was some uncertainty as to the qualifications prescribed into first year BDS course in the year 2009 and admissions were effected, as per the understanding of the college. It is pleaded that when identical situation arose in respect of Paninia Mahavidyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences, the university regularised the admissions by collecting penalty, and same treatment was not accorded to the petitioners. It is also their case that once the university and State Government have condoned the lapses, by taking into account the special circumstances, there was no basis for the 1st respondent in directing cancellation of the admissions, in the midst of the course. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P,Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri D. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. The admission into professional courses, and in particular the medical, dental and engineering courses is becoming more and more complicated with each passing year. Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P,Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri D. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. The admission into professional courses, and in particular the medical, dental and engineering courses is becoming more and more complicated with each passing year. The factors, such as the location of the institutions, uniformity in admission criteria, the privileges conferred upon the minority institutions reservations of different categories, one running into the other, have contributed the complexity. Added to that, the allocation of seats to be filled purely on merit, on the one hand, and at the discretion of the management, on the other hand, and frequent changes in the proportion of such categories, have enabled certain managements, to flout the norms of admissions. In the year 2009, the college enjoyed the minority status. For all practical purposes, it has the freedom to admit the candidates without any intervention by the university or the convenor. The only obligation placed upon it was that the norms of admission must be followed. The petitioner felt that it is only in respect of candidates to be admitted in category – A, that the students must secure 50% marks in the qualifying as well as in the entrance examination. It has totally ignored the condition as to the minimum of 50% marks in the entrance examination for admission against category – B seats. The rules prescribed by the Dental Council of India did not permit this. The college, no doubt, submitted the list of admitted candidates to the Government for approval within time. However, by the time, the Government verified the list and found that admissions were made contrary to the relevant rules, the students have completed the first year course. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court, they appeared in the examination and have completed the second year course also. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and writ appeal was pending. The university, which is supposed to enforce the rules of admission, has chosen to address a letter to the Government seeking almost exemption, in favour of the petitioners, that too, after W.P.No.27318 of 2010 filed by them was dismissed. The 3rd respondent, in turn, acceded to the request of the university and permitted the latter to regularise the admission. The university, which is supposed to enforce the rules of admission, has chosen to address a letter to the Government seeking almost exemption, in favour of the petitioners, that too, after W.P.No.27318 of 2010 filed by them was dismissed. The 3rd respondent, in turn, acceded to the request of the university and permitted the latter to regularise the admission. It is on account of this flip-flop by the university and the Government, that the uncertainty is prevailing, gullible students are exploited and managements of private institutions are enriching themselves. This Court expresses its displeasure over the steps taken by the university in addressing letter dated 10.11.2011 to the Government and to the manner in which the latter passed orders on 25.11.2011. Even if there existed any justification for showing generosity or mercy, they ought to have taken the 1st respondent into confidence. All the three authorities were working in different directions and the present situation is brought into existence. Through the impugned order, the 4th respondent has only enforced the rules of admission. The institution or its management cannot plead ignorance about the norms of admission. If they entertained any doubt, they ought to have sought clarification from the university. The fact that the university and the Government have exonerated the defect in the admission, does not make the admissions legal. The proceedings impugned in the writ petitions cannot be found fault with. The petitioners in W.P.No.17223 of 2012 certainly are the affected persons. It is difficult to imagine, or infer the money, which they may have spent, either to get admission, or to pursue the course for the past three years. The cancellation of the admission at this stage, would result in colossal loss of human resources. Even while upholding the view taken by the 1st respondent, a way can be found out, following the foot steps of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Mridul Dhar v Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65 , the Supreme Court was dealing with the admissions made into MBBS and BDS courses, contrary to the norms stipulated by the Medical Council of India. A finding was recorded to the effect that the admissions were contrary to law. However, to salvage the situation, it evolved a mechanism, wherein the management was permitted to surrender the equal number of seats, in its management quota in the future academic years. A finding was recorded to the effect that the admissions were contrary to law. However, to salvage the situation, it evolved a mechanism, wherein the management was permitted to surrender the equal number of seats, in its management quota in the future academic years. The relevant observation reads: “If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous academic year.” Though the college herein was enjoyed the minority status in the year 2009, it is said to have surrendered it and now it is on par with any other college. According to the existing rules of admission, it is entitled to fill certain percentage of seats under management quota. On behalf of the management, submission is made to the effect that it is prepared to surrender 43 seats from out of its management quota for three years in future. The proposal appears to be reasonable, since it would be difficult, if not, impossible, particularly when the seats under management quota for the institution for each year are less than 40. The surrender of one-third seats in each year, spread over three academic years, would not only bring about compliance with the law, but also would enable the institution to function. An important factor, which needs to be taken into account, is that in the State of A.P., the professional colleges are running mostly with the amounts paid by the students admitted against management quota, since the Government, which has undertaken to reimburse the fee of most of the candidates, has delayed the payments and has crippled the functioning of the institutions. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, upholding the impugned order, but directing that the admission of 43 candidates mentioned therein shall be treated as regular, in case the institution i.e. the petitioner in W.P.No.17192 of 2012, files an undertaking before all the respondents to the effect that it would surrender to the convenor 1/3rd of the number of seats, found to have been filled contrary to the rules of admission, each, for three years commencing with the current academic year from its management quota. The University shall take immediate steps to ensure that the seats so surrendered are not available to be filled by the college under its discretionary quota. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.