ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:— "…. for direction to the Respondent University to issue Registration Number in the name of petitioner for appearing in M.D. Community Medicine Course for the Session 2010-2013 from Katihar Medical College, Katihar." 2. It would be noted that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 470 of 2013, wherein the following additional prayer was made:— ".. for direction to the Respondent University (Respondent No.-2 & 3) to issue Registration Number to the petitioner and punish respondent 2 and 3 for publication of examination programme of M.D. Community Medicine Course for the Session 2010-13 against the direction of this Hon'ble Court by order dt. 10.5.2013." 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has basically concentrated on the aspect that when the admission of the petitioner was made in Katihar Medical College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') pursuant to direction of this Court by the order dated 31.08.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 2010, the subsequent decision of the Management of the College to treat the petitioner to have been admitted on the 4th seat in the Post Graduate Course in the Community Medicine discipline is contrary to the spirit of the order of this Court. 4. Mr. Singh, in this regard, has submitted that since the admission of the petitioner was made in the Post Graduate course on the Government quota, she cannot be treated to be the additional student in the subject of Community Medicine specially when out of three seats allocating for the Post Graduate course in the subject of Community Medicine, two of them were earmarked for the Government quota and only one was meant for the Management quota. In this regard, he has also explained that the admission of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 for the Post Graduate course in the subject of Community Medicine was itself in clear violation of the norms laid down by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCI') and as such they could not have been given precedents over the petitioner in the matter of registration taken by the B.N. Mandal University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) and consequently, permission for appearing in the Post Graduate Examination. 5. 5. This Court, when the matter was taken up initially on 30.04.2013, had granted time to University to file its counter affidavit. The University, in the counter affidavit, had taken the following stands:– "4. That the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide its letter dated 25.01.2007 granted conditional permission for starting P.G./Diploma course at Katihar Medical College, Katihar in the subject M.D. (Community Medicine) with only 03 (three) seats alongwith other subject. 5. That the college management admitted 04(four) students in the M.D.( Community Medicine) namely (i) Sohail Ahmad, s/o Sri Md. Quddus, 2. Md. Intekhab Alam Chand S/o Sri Md. Anzar Alam and 3. Mukesh Nandan, S/o Sri Binod Prasad Sharma, admitted vide College receipt Nos. 26692, 26693 and 26694 all dated 31.05.2010 respectively and 4. the petitioner- Dr. Seema Kumari, D/o Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha was admitted later on vide receipt No. 28413 dated 24.07.2010. The College management in course of recommending the above admitted students for Registration in the University did not disclose/mention the quota-either college management or Govt. quota under which they have been admitted. Accordingly, the students named at Serial No. 01 to 03 were registered in the University and Registration Slip were issued, being admitted prior to the petitioner and taking into account the total intake of 03 (three) seats. 6. That it is humbly submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that instead of admitting only 03(three) students as per number of students fixed for admission in M.D.( Community Medicine) by the Govt. of India vide the said letter dated 25.01.2007, 04 (four) students were admitted by surpassing the maximum limited number of seats. Against total sanctioned seats only- 03(three); 04(four) students were admitted which was/is in violation of the above said Central Govt. letter dated 25.01.2007. In the circumstances, the answering University is facing great difficulty in registering all the 04(four) said students against the intake seats 03. To clarify the circumstances, the Principal, Katihar Medical College, Katihar has been requested vide letter No. 1487/13 dated 30.04.2013. On receipt of clarification from the College, considering the matter, the genuinely admitted 03(three) student out of 04(four) will be established for Registration. Till the above circumstances is considered and resolved in accordance with law, it would not be proper to issue Registration Slip as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. On receipt of clarification from the College, considering the matter, the genuinely admitted 03(three) student out of 04(four) will be established for Registration. Till the above circumstances is considered and resolved in accordance with law, it would not be proper to issue Registration Slip as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. That in the abovementioned circumstances the answering Universities not register the petitioner for the abovementioned case. 6. In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the respondent-University, it had allowed impleadment of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and had also passed an interim order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:– "Having regard to the counter affidavit filed today by the University, this Court would stay the operation of the order passed by the University granting registration to Sohail Ahmad, Md. Intekhab Alam and Mukesh Nandan. In other words, no one will be allowed to appear in the University Examination till further orders of this Court." 7. Subsequently, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Management of the College, wherein, apart from other facts, it was stated as follows:– "4. That respondent no. 5 medical college is an unaided private minority institution and has been established and is being administered under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India by the member of Muslim Minority Community. The college is imparting medical education up to the level of PG courses. The Govt. of India, National Commission for Minority Education Institution, after being satisfied that Katihar Medical College is a Minority Educational Institution within the meaning of Section 2(g) of National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act, 2004 has declared the said institution to be a minority institution covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India by a notification dated 27.11.2008. 5. That the respondent no. 5 college is affiliated to B.N.Mandal University, Madhepura and recognized by the Central Govt. up to PG standard in the field of medical education. 6. That it is a matter of record that students were admitted on the said seats in PG course during the session 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the basis of merit determined through combined entrance test conducted by the independent selection committee of Bihar Private Medical College Association, maintaining fairness and transparency in the selection process specially since no candidate was sent by the Govt. of Bihar. 7. That the MCI promulgated PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000 on 07.10.2000 wherein under Regulation 9, it has been provided that in non-Governmental institutions 50% of the total seats shall be filled by the competent authority and the remaining 50% by the management of the institution on the basis of merit. The said regulation was challenged before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. Biju Poulose Vrs. The State of Karnataka and ors. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by a judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed in WP No. 41058-41101/2003 (Dr. Biju Poulose Vs. State of Karnataka) held that the said PG regulation pertaining to Regulation 9 which stipulate a 50% limit on the management seats and 50% to be filled by the competent authorities, ceases to be effective in so far as it was not in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation. 8. That the aforesaid judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Biju Poulose, was challenged by MCI before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting leave, directed that the consensual agreement entered into between the State of Karnataka Private Medical and Dental College Association in the State shall be given effect to for admission for the academic year 2007-08. However, no stay of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court was granted." 8. Mr. Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in view of the stand taken by the University and the Management of the College treating blame on each other, had made a request for impleadment of MCI, as the issue relating to admission, teaching and also allowing the students, who appeared in the examination for the P.G. course, was to be regulated by the MCI. This Court, having allowed such prayer by an order dated 17.07.2013, had passed an interim order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:– Counsel for the Medical Council of India must obtain instruction and file his limited counter affidavit that if the authority of the Katihar Medical Council are not allowing the nominees of the Government to be registered against the sanctioned seat, what action it proposes to take against the Katihar Medical College. It is also recorded that the counsel for the University has submitted before this Court that the Post Graduation Examination in the subject of Community Medicine and Diploma in Clinical Pathology will not be held till disposal of this writ application." 9. Let it be noted that on 24.07.2013, the University had filed its supplementary counter affidavit wherein it had reported compliance of the interim order of this Court dated 10.05.2013, wherein it was stated as follows:– "3. That it is humbly submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the abovementioned case as well as CWJC No. 9571/13 Dr. Vinita Singh Vs. The State and others, the petitioners and others of the concerned subject have not been allowed to appear in the examination and the same has also been informed to the Principal, Katihar Medical College, Katihar vide letter no. 1851 dt. 18.07.13 as well as for taking appropriate action in the matter. 4. That the answering respondents humble submits that in the abovementioned manner the order passed by this Hon'ble Court has already been complied with." 10. Thereafter the respondent no. 5 had also filed its supplementary counter affidavit wherein a plea was taken that the college in question is unaided private minority college, having the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and is only affiliated to B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura for its being recognized by the MCI and the Central Government for undertaking the teaching up to P.G. standard in the field of medical education. 11. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it was further stated that in the light of judgment of the Apex Court, the College has admitted all those students to P.G. course whosoever has been allotted by the State of Bihar and had approached the College with requisite bank draft and bank guarantee till 31.05.2011. 12. In this regard, the specific case of the College was that since the petitioner did not report for her being admitted in the P.G. course till the last date i.e. 31.05.2010, the admission of the petitioner was not taken as per the regulation of the MCI and in this regard, reliance was also made to the time schedule for completion of admission process in various medical and dental colleges laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar Vs. Union of India reported in 2005(2) SCC page 65 with special emphasis at paragraph 32 of the judgment. 13. The College, in fact, had also referred to the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC, which, according to the Management of the College, had also laid down that there was no scope for admitting the students in given stream and even the seats, which had remain unfilled, could not be a ground for making mid-session admission. 14. The College, in its supplementary counter affidavit, having thus given the aforementioned background, had sought to shift the blame on the Government of Bihar for delayed communication for her admission in the Government quota in the P.G. course of Community Medicine as also an ex-parte interim order dated 16.07.2010 was passed in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 2010. 15. According to the Management of the College, the petitioner had approached for her admission only on 22.07.2010 and at that point of time when all the seats were filled up by the College Management adhering to the time schedule prescribed by the regulation of the MCI. 16. The further case of the College in the supplementary counter affidavit is that the respondent no. 5 had also informed the petitioner by its letter dated 22.07.2010 that though her admission was being taken in compliance of the interim order of this Court dated 16.07.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 2010, but then her admission would remain subject to the outcome of the writ application and the approval of the MCI and the petitioner thereafter was admitted only on 24.07.2010. 17. An emphasis has also been given to the stand taken by the respondent no. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 2010 that it was already made known to this Court that even if the petitioner had been given admission belatedly contrary to the time schedule fixed by the MCI, she may not be allowed to appear in the University examination on account of her being in excess of the approved seats in the Community Medicine and even if she was allowed to appear in the examination, the degree awarded to her could be derecognized by the MCI and the Central Government. 18. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 18. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, it has also been stated that the order of this Court dated 31.08.2010, directing for continuing admission, was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the MCI and in fact, the MCI had also filed an appeal, being LPA No. 727 of 2011 against the order dated 31.08.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 10554 of 2010 and a Division Bench of this Court had given liberty to the MCI to file a review application but such review application, being Civil Review No. 436 of 2011, was disposed of on 27.06.2012 holding the review application to be not maintainable in accordance with the Patna High Court Rules and giving only opportunity for filing fresh application in accordance with law. The MCI did not file any further application for the reasons best known to it. 19. What is very significant to be noted here that the respondent no. 5, representing the Management of the College, had also gone to justify admission of respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 by taking its plea in para Nos. 30, 31 and 32, which reads as follows:– "30. That it is admitted position that there are three approved seats in Community Medicine seats which were already filled up by the management adhering to the timing schedule till 31.05.2010 out of the candidates selected on merits by the Association of Private Medical Colleges after holding combined entrance examination. Since the respondent no. 4 did make allotment of the writ petitioner till the last date of closing of admission in PG course under State quota, the answering respondent filled all the approved seats in Community Medicine on the legitimate presumption that due to non-allotment by the State Govt. these seats have become available for filling by them. 31. That the respondent no. 5 college being unaided private minority institution cannot afford to keep any approved seats lying vacant on the event if the State does not make allotment of students under their quota till the last date of the timing schedule prescribed in this regard. 32. That it is also respectfully submitted that there is no any provision in Indian Medical Council Act nor in Regulation of the MCI that even if the State Government does not make allotment of the student under their quota such seats meant for State quota must be kept unfilled. 32. That it is also respectfully submitted that there is no any provision in Indian Medical Council Act nor in Regulation of the MCI that even if the State Government does not make allotment of the student under their quota such seats meant for State quota must be kept unfilled. If it happens then under that situation every private institution in this country shall be closed because imparting education in medical science requires huge financial investment in terms of infrastructural facilities including equipments and faculties and if an unaided private minority institution is compelled to keep the unfilled seats lying vacant due to non-allotment of students by the State, in that case such college shall not survive and ultimately right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and to the minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution shall become meaningless and redundant." 20. To top it all, the respondent no. 5 had also tried to seek help of the matter which was said to be pending before the MCI and in this regard, it was stated as follows:– "36. That here it is also pertinent to mention that the MCI with the prior approval of the Central Govt. has framed the regulation for identification of students admitted in excess of admission capacity of Medical Colleges Regulation 1997 which empowers the MCI to decide all matter relating to admission of students in excess of admission capacity. Clause 8 of the said regulation clearly provides that the students lower down in the list shall be treated to be admitted against the increase seat in excess of admission capacity. Undoubtedly, the petitioner having been admitted latter is at the last of admitted students and therefore, the students already admitted by the management earlier shall not come in lower down in the list of admitted students as the list will be in accordance with the date of admission. 37. Undoubtedly, the petitioner having been admitted latter is at the last of admitted students and therefore, the students already admitted by the management earlier shall not come in lower down in the list of admitted students as the list will be in accordance with the date of admission. 37. That apart from the above, the MCI at this stage of the matter when all the four students admitted in Community Medicine have already completed their courses and syllabi, and has not decided the matter during these 3 years despite being requested by the answering respondent vide their letter dated 02.08.2010 now cannot declare the students admitted by the college management adhering to the timing schedule to be admitted in excess of the approved seats in MD (Community Medicine) rather the silence of the MCI and their inaction during these three years impliedly tantamount their approval of all the four seats in session 2010-11. 38. That with regard to writ petitioner after admitting her in compliance with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.05.2010 her form and fee for registration has already been forwarded by the deponent to the respondent university authority and thereafter her representation being forwarded and recommended for registration. 39. That since the MCI has utterly failed to exercise its statutory jurisdiction in deciding the matter of excess admission during the last three years despite being requested by the answering respondent vide Annexure A/13 to this counter affidavit which has allowed all the four students including to petitioner to complete their courses and syllabi of MD (Community Medicine). Now at this state they cannot raise any objection of excess admission nor it could be justified and proper to refuse registration of these four students including the petitioner or not allowing them to appear at the university examination." 21. Thus the whole efforts of the respondent no. 5 and the Management of the College was not only to justify the admission of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the PG course of Community Medicine, but also that all the four students including the petitioner were entitled to be registered by the University for their appearing in the PG examination, as would be evident from the stand of the University at paragraph 40 of the supplementary counter affidavit which reads as follows:– "40. 6, 7 and 8 in the PG course of Community Medicine, but also that all the four students including the petitioner were entitled to be registered by the University for their appearing in the PG examination, as would be evident from the stand of the University at paragraph 40 of the supplementary counter affidavit which reads as follows:– "40. That in view of the fact that all the four candidates including the petitioner admitted during 2010 have already completed their courses and the MCI has maintained silence during these three years despite the directions sought by the college authority vide letter dated 02.08.2010 all these four students admitted in MD (Community Medicine) in 2010-11 are entitled to be registered by the University." 22. On the other hand, the MCI had filed its counter affidavit on 12.09.2013 taking an absolutely different and infact a contrary stand assailing the admission of Respondent no. 6 to 8 and for the sake of clarity and convenience paragraph nos. 9, 16, 21, 32, 33, 40 and 41 of counter affidavit of MCI are quoted hereinbelow:– "9. That in sheer violation of the statutory mandate and the dictum of this Hon'ble Court as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court, the Katihar Medical College itself assumed the powers and functions of legislature and Courts of law and admitted 100% students from management quota. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is one of the students who had been allotted a seat in the State quota of the Katihar Medical College. 16. That it is most respectful submission of the answering respondent- MCI that despite being dismissal of its application of stay, the respondent no. 5 College is openly flouting the law and has no regard towards the law of the land whether it be a statutory provisions or the direction of this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. That it is most respectful and humble submission of the answering respondent that Regulation 9 of the P.G. Regulation was known to the Management of the Private Medical College. It was also known to them that they could not have admitted students beyond 50% of admission capacity. The management of Private Medical College have acted illegally in admitting the students in excess of 50% quota. 32. It was also known to them that they could not have admitted students beyond 50% of admission capacity. The management of Private Medical College have acted illegally in admitting the students in excess of 50% quota. 32. It is the most respectful and humble submission of the answering respondent that in light of the facts and circumstances and the submission made above it is evident that the respondent no. 5 College was not entitled to make 3 admissions in MD (Community Medicine) Course management quota and as per the roster system for allotment of discipline-wise seats to the 50% quota designated for State Government two (2) seats had to be filled from State Quota one of which is filled by the present petitioner. 33. That therefore, two of the three private Respondents who were admitted by the respondent no. 5 College in the management quota could not have been admitted by respondent no. 5 College- Katihar Medical College. 40. That in light of the above discussion it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner ought to have been registered by the University and granted permission to sit in the final examination to be conducted by the University for M.D. (Community Medicine) Course for the petitioner and students of her batch. It is further submitted that while doing so the University ought to have registered only one candidate who were admitted by the management in the said course. 41. That in most respectful submission of the answering respondent-MCI is that in view of the express statutory provisions and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court it would be the equitable solution that a direction be passed to the University to de-register two of the three candidates admitted by the respondent no. 5 College in the M.D. (Community Medicine) Course under the management quota and that two students from management quota who were least meritorious at the time of his/her admission in the respondent no. 5 College shall have to be de-registered by the University and shall not be allowed to sit in the examination as his/her degree cannot be treated as a recognized medical qualification under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956." (underlining for emphasis) 23. Let it be noted that the respondent nos. 5 College shall have to be de-registered by the University and shall not be allowed to sit in the examination as his/her degree cannot be treated as a recognized medical qualification under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956." (underlining for emphasis) 23. Let it be noted that the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 have also filed their counter affidavit wherein they have claimed to have been admitted on basis of the result of the competitive examination conducted by the College. They have also stated that having been admitted in the College on 31.05.2010, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were given registration number by the University by two separate orders on 29.08.2012 whereas respondent no. 8 was given such registration number on 13.09.2012. A plea was also taken that the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 could not get information from the Brochure of Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test, 2010 that 50% seats of the three seats, in the subject of Community Medicine in the College, were reserved for State quota. They have also taken a stand in their counter affidavit that MCI was the only competent authority to decide the issue as with regard to excess admission taken in a medical college inasmuch as the MCI has also the power to extend the capacity of seats in the medical college but the MCI did not decide the issue and now had taken a plea of cancelling the admission of 02 students of the management quota contrary to its own earlier practice wherein no objection was raised by the MCI in the earlier academic session when the College had admitted the students in P.G. course beyond the management quota. 24. In view of aforesaid stand of Respondent no. 5 to 8 in their counter affidavit an additional counter affidavit was filed by the MCI- the respondent no. 9 on 30.9.2013 wherein apart from other facts it was also stated as follows:– "7. That it is submitted that the admitted students in excess of admission capacity will certainly dilute the standards of medical education and therefore, the action has provided in law including recommendation for cancellation of recognition under Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and/or direction to stop the admission in college, can be taken by the competent authority. 8. 8. That it is humbly submitted that if this Hon'ble Court also comes to the conclusion that the college has acted in defiance of statutory provisions and flouted all norms consistently and over period of time, may also direct the authority to take immediate steps to debar the college from admitting the students in future or may impose such other penalty as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate. 9. That it is submitted that in recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed concern in the recent judgment delivered on 6th September, 2013 in writ petition No. 585 of 2013 titled as Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly Vs. Medical Council of India & Another and observed as under" "24. We may notice with concern the unprecedented growth of the Technical and Medical Institutions in this country which has resulted in widespread prevalence of various unethical practices. Collection of large amount by way of capitation fee running into Crores of rupees for MBBS and Post-Graduate seats, exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially poor students away from those institutions. Pressure, it is also seen, is being extended by various institutions, for the additional intake of students, not always for the benefit of the student community and thereby serve the community, but for their own betterment." It prima facie appears that the Medical College is in hurry to fill the seats on its own and without waiting for the meritorious students recommended by the State Govt. and the said urgency is not on account of seats going abegging but appears that it is in violation of merit and MCI Regulation. A copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 6th September, 2013 in writ petition(C) No. 585 of 2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/3. 10. That it is most respectfully submitted that the action could not be initiated earlier on account of the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Court but the matter will be placed before the appropriate authority i.e. Board of Governors within a period of 15 days of its reconstitution." (underlining for emphasis) 25. With these clear stand of the MCI when it became absolutely clear that the admission of Respondent no. 6 to 8 taken by the Management of the College, as sought to be projected by the respondent no. With these clear stand of the MCI when it became absolutely clear that the admission of Respondent no. 6 to 8 taken by the Management of the College, as sought to be projected by the respondent no. 5 in his counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, was contrary to the norms laid down by the MCI and the MCI was to in the process of taking action against the Management of the College. Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5, on his own in course of hearing of the case on 23.10.2013, had sought time for reconsidering the decision of the college with regard to registration of the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 which was also recorded in the order of this Court dated 23.10.2013 in the following words:– "After the matter has been heard at length, Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra, learned counsel for the Katihar Medical College has submitted that the college authorities would be reconsidering their decision with regard to sending the names for registration in the M.D. course of Community Medicine for 2010-13 Session by placing the name of the petitioner at the top against the seat of the State Government quota and taking away the name at least one of the three candidates who have been admitted by the private management in excess of quota. Learned counsel for the University is directed to produce the entire records relating to registration sent by the college on which the decision has been taken for registration of three candidates in M.D. course of Community Medicine for2010-13 Session. Put up this case on Friday i.e. 25.10.2013 at 10:30 A.M. under the heading “Admission-I” as first case along with the records of CWJC No. 10554 of 2010 disposed of on 31.08.2010." 26. Pursuant to the aforesaid earlier order dated 23.10.2013 Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra learned counsel for principal of the Katihar Medical College, Katihar has produced letter no. 1272 dated 23.10.2013 which reads as follows:– “To The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura Sub: Registration of students admitted in MD Community Medicine course session 2010-13. Sir, It is to inform you that this college has three approved seats by Medical Council of India in MD Community Medicine course. 1272 dated 23.10.2013 which reads as follows:– “To The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura Sub: Registration of students admitted in MD Community Medicine course session 2010-13. Sir, It is to inform you that this college has three approved seats by Medical Council of India in MD Community Medicine course. We had admitted three candidates till 31st May 2010 due to non allotment of candidates by BCECEB, Patna under State quota within the last date of admission prescribed by Medical Council of India. Thereafter, Dr. Seema Kumari was admitted in MD Community Medicine course on 24.07.2010 under State Govt. quota in compliance with order dated 16.07.2010 passed by Hon’ble High Court Patna in CWJC No. 10554 of 2010. Hence, one candidate became excess to approved intake capacity. Documents for registration of all the above four candidates were forwarded to you for granting registration. However, registration of Dr. Seema Kumari is still pending for which she has filed CWJC No. 8656 of 2013 in Hon’ble Patna High Court and the same is pending adjudication. As there is one excess admission in MD Community Medicine course, it is requested that registration of Dr. Sohail Ahmad, who was lowest in merit, be cancelled and Dr. Seema Kumari may kindly be granted registration against one of the three approved seats. We have to place this letter before the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8656 of 2013 as directed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.10.2013. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- B.Mukherjee 23.10.2013 Principal 27. Learned counsel for the University, who has also produced today the records of registration, has submitted that in view of the aforementioned letter of the College dated 23.10.2013, the University is going to pass necessary orders for registration of the petitioner. 28. In the light of the aforesaid subsequent development wherein both the authorities of the University and the College have themselves decided to give registration to the petitioner, she automatically gets her relief as prayed for in this writ application. 29. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that this Court however may fix a firm time limit for issuance of registration of the petitioner by the University so that she could appear in the examination. 30. 29. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that this Court however may fix a firm time limit for issuance of registration of the petitioner by the University so that she could appear in the examination. 30. This Court, in view of the categorical stand of the College and the University, as noted above, would find no difficulty in issuing such direction to both, the authorities of the University and the College to ensure that the registration of the petitioner is issued as early as possible but in no case beyond a period of 15 days from today. 31. This Court however also must note the submission of Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8, who has now become apprehensive that on account of the aforementioned decision taken by the Management of the College and the University to give registration to the petitioner, the career of the respondent no. 6 may be jeopardized. 32. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the respondent no. 6 is aggrieved by any action of the University and the College, he will always be at liberty to approach the MCI, which has framed the regulation for deciding the dispute arising out of admission taken on excess seat, which has also been fully explained in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed by both, the MCI and the respondent no. 5. 33. It also goes without saying that if the respondent no. 6 is aggrieved by any decision of the MCI, he may also move appropriate court of law but then the petitioner cannot be involved in this dispute for a simple reason that her admission was taken against the Government quota of 50% of prescribed seats in the College and therefore she could not have been edged out either on account of admission or registration of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. In fact, who amongst the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. In fact, who amongst the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 can be treated to have been validly admitted and thus eligible for appearing in the University examination after being given registration is a matter of dispute, which has to be decided by the MCI specially when it has already come on record that the Management of the College in the subject of Community Medicine was limited to only one seat and yet the College had taken admission of three students, namely, respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. 34. As a matter of fact, the admission of the respondent nos. 6,7 and 8 has now also become a subject matter of the proceeding imitated by the MCI, as would appear from a copy of letter no. 40183-187 dated 24.10.2013 issued by the MCI by way of show cause notice to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Katihar Medical College and the Dean, Katihar Medical College asking them to file their show cause reply on a number of grounds out of which, ground nos. 4 and 5 are specifically in relation to admission of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8. 35. This Court, however, must hasten to add that such show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 to the College on the following subject :– "Show cause Notice under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for recommending withdrawal of recognition of MBBS and PG qualifications awarded by Katihar Medical College to the Central Government u/s 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and for revocation of permission granted to Katihar Medical College for starting/increase of post-graduate courses that are not included in the First Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 under Section 9A(1) and (2) of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013", is well within the power and jurisdiction of the MCI and, therefore, the MCI would be required to pass its own independent order, of course, after considering the show cause reply, if any, filed by the Management of the College. 36. For the time being, this Court would not like to say anything more in this regard, save and except, that things were quite disturbing when this writ application was filed, but now when the respondent no. 36. For the time being, this Court would not like to say anything more in this regard, save and except, that things were quite disturbing when this writ application was filed, but now when the respondent no. 5 and the management of college contrary to the stand taken in their counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have sought to retrace their steps probably on account of tough and threatening stand taken by the MCI in its counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit followed by the aforesaid show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 issued to College it becomes necessary for the MCI to ensure that its aforesaid show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 to the college produced before this Court on the issue of derecognisation of the college does not remain a mere lip service but is taken to its logical conclusion so that there is no recurrence of the unfortunate experience as meted out to the petitioner, a nominee of the State Government against the seats yearmarked for admission in the Post Graduate course, Katihar Medical College in the government quota. 37. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is disposed of. ?