Order 1. Admission to Medical Colleges every year, has become a catastrophe and more the Courts attempt to lay down a law, more the confusion. If children who get admission to Medical Courses in this melee are blessed, those who do not even participate in this race, appear to be more blessed. 2. The batch of cases on hand amply demonstrates the confusion into which the Courts have plunged the process of admission to Medical Courses. 3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions passed out of Higher Secondary Course in May, 2014 in flying colours with high marks. All of them aspired to get admission to the Government Medical Colleges, as the fee structure in Government Medical Colleges is very affordable. But unfortunately, the petitioners did not have adequate marks to get allotted in the first, second or third phase of Counselling, to Government Medical Colleges. Some of them were allotted to Self-Financing Medical Colleges, but they were not financially sound as to accept such allotment, in view of the fact that even the fee fixed by the Fee Committee was beyond the reach of some of the writ petitioners. 4. When the petitioners had resigned themselves to fate, an order passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.469 of 2014 on 18.09.2014, came as a Silver Lining. By the said order passed in a writ petition filed by Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private Limited, the Supreme Court permitted all institutions whose recognition was not renewed for the current year, to admit students, sponsored by the State Government from out of the merit lists maintained by them. 5. It appears that the Selection Committee of the State of Tamil Nadu sponsored a list of 150 students to one Self-financing Medical College by name Tagore Medical College and a list of 150 students to another Self-financing Medical College by name Chennai Medical College and Research Centre, at Trichy. When those two Self-financing Medical Colleges released the list of candidates admitted by them on 30.09.2014, the petitioners found that students who had secured lesser marks had gained admission. When those two Self-financing Medical Colleges released the list of candidates admitted by them on 30.09.2014, the petitioners found that students who had secured lesser marks had gained admission. Therefore, complaining of a foul play on the part of the State Government and/or the two Self-financing Medical Colleges and alleging violation of the orders of the Supreme Court, dated 18.09.2014, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions seeking the issue of writs of mandamus to direct the respondents to admit them in any one of these two Self-financing Medical Colleges under the Government Quota for the Academic Year 2014-15. 6. I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel, Messers.N.Manoharan, R.Karthikeyan, S.Pushpakaran, T.J.Kulasekar and V.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State and the Selection Committee, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chennai Medical College and Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for Tagore Medical College. 7. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to take note of the factual background leading to the filing of these cases. (a) In Mridul Dhar (Minor) Vs Union of India [2005 (5) SCC 65] , the Supreme Court laid down a schedule (a) for the conduct of examinations; (b) for the conduct of first, second and third rounds of Counselling; and (c) for the admission of students. The last date for admission of students was fixed as 30th September of every year. (b) In Priya Gupta Vs State of Chattisgarh [ 2012 (7) SCC 433 ], the Supreme Court again indicated a time schedule for admission of students. The last in this series of cases was Lipika Gupta v. Union of India [W.P.(Civil) No.737 of 2013). In the said case the Supreme Court fixed a time schedule on 14.03.2014 for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the Academic session 2014-15. (c) When Lipika Gupta again came up for hearing on 11.04.2014, the Supreme Court indicated that if any of the authorities of the State or Union of India do not comply with the time schedule, they will suffer the risk of contempt as also the risk of the Court not altering the time schedule for any round of counselling. (c) When Lipika Gupta again came up for hearing on 11.04.2014, the Supreme Court indicated that if any of the authorities of the State or Union of India do not comply with the time schedule, they will suffer the risk of contempt as also the risk of the Court not altering the time schedule for any round of counselling. (d) Again when the Lipika Gupta was listed on 09.05.2014, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India filed a comprehensive affidavit containing a time schedule for the Academic year 2014-15. The time schedule is as follows:- Schedule for Admission Seats filled up by the State Govt./Institutions Seats filled up by the Central Government through all India Entrance Examination. Conduct of Examination Month of May Month of May Declaration of Result of qualifying examination/entrance examination By 5th June By 5th June 1st Round of counselling/admission To be over by 25th June 1st July to 11th July Last date for joining the allotted college and course By 03rd July By 21st July 2nd Round of counselling/admission To be over by 27th July 01st to 4th August Last date for joining for the candidates allotted seats in 2nd Round of counselling By 2nd August 16th August 3rd Round of counselling 06th to 10th September 17th to 26th August Last date for joining for the candidates allotted seats in 3rd round of counselling By 17th September 5th September Commencement of academic session 1st September 1st September Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason 30th September Not applicable (e) On 19.05.2014, the Supreme Court passed an order in Lipika Gupta, approving the above time schedule. Not stopping with the approval of the time schedule, the Supreme Court also recorded the following in its order dated 19.05.2014:- "Having heard Mr.Luthra for the Union of India, Mr.Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for M.C.I. and Mr.Puneet Jain and others for respondents, we approve the said schedule and direct that all the authorities shall follow the said schedule for the academic year 2014-15 without any deviation, and we make it clear that any deviation by any agency will tantamount to contempt of this Court." (f) However, trouble erupted again in June/July, 2014, with the Medical of India refusing to renew the recognition of some of the existing Colleges. In Tamil Nadu alone, 5 Colleges by name (1) Madha Medical College, (2) Tagore Medical College, (3) Muthukumaran Medical College, (4) Vinayaka Mission Medical College and (5) Chennai Medical College, were refused renewal. Out of these 5 colleges, four colleges came up with writ petitions before me and I dismissed all of them, on the ground that I cannot violate the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court and become a party to making the High Court guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court. The 5th College went before the Madurai Bench of this Court and they also met with the same fate. (g) However, a Division Bench of this Court reversed the aforesaid decision and directed the Central Government to have a look at the matter in terms of Section 10-A(4) of the Act. Consequently, the Central Government got into a predicament as to whether they should reconsider the matter in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench, thereby committing contempt of the order of the Supreme Court in Lipika Gupta, or whether they should refuse to reconsider the matter in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court, thereby committing a contempt of the order of the Division Bench. (h) Fortunately for them, the Central Government was saved of the embarrassment of choosing between a contempt of the Supreme Court and a contempt of the High Court, when an unrecognized institution by name Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private Limited approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by filing W.P.(Civil)No.469 of 2014. Several Self-financing Institutions joined the chorus before the Supreme Court, either by filing writ petitions under Article 32 or by filing Special Leave Petitions against orders of various High Courts. (i) On 18.09.2014, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court took up all these writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions and expressed a desire to reconsider the directions given in Priya Gupta. Thereafter, the Supreme Court proceeded to issue a direction permitting all Medical Colleges to admit students from the merit lists prepared by the States. This direction was issued "Notwithstanding any direction given in the case of Priya Gupta". The Supreme Court further directed the writ petitions to be listed for further orders on 01.10.2014 and directed the parties to file the list of students getting admission in pursuance of the said order, on 01.10.2014. This direction was issued "Notwithstanding any direction given in the case of Priya Gupta". The Supreme Court further directed the writ petitions to be listed for further orders on 01.10.2014 and directed the parties to file the list of students getting admission in pursuance of the said order, on 01.10.2014. (j) However, several Interlocutory Applications were filed immediately seeking various clarifications and hence the matters were taken up by the Supreme Court on 25.09.2014. Further directions were issued on the said date, clarifying that both the State Quota as well as the Management Quota shall be filled up only through the merit list furnished by the State. (k) It appears that out of the 5 Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, which came up before this Court for the current academic year, only two colleges namely Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College chose to avail the benefit of the order of the Supreme Court. Hence, the State Government appears to have forwarded a list of candidates to these Colleges. But while doing so, the Selection Committee of the State Government appears to have goofed up things. (l) Instead of sending a list of candidates strictly according to merits, the Selection Committee appears to have sent a list, leaving out more meritorious candidates like the writ petitioners herein. The State Government appears to have followed Clause 35(b) of the Prospectus for 201415 which stipulates that if a candidate opted out of Government Quota in Self-financing Colleges, even when seats are available in Self-financing Colleges, he cannot claim it in the subsequent phase of Counselling. Therefore, the Selection Committee, while sending a list of candidates to these two colleges, omitted the names of those who had, in the three rounds of Counselling held earlier, not accepted allotment to Self-financing Colleges, under the Government Quota earlier. The result is that students who had secured lesser cut off marks than the petitioners herein, have gained admission to these 2 colleges. Hence the petitioners are before this court. 8. The Government had failed to take note of one important fact namely that the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee even for students admitted under the Government Quota in the Self-financing Institutions, was nearly Rs.3,00,000/-and more per year. But the fee charged by the Government Medical Colleges is only Rs.12,000/-per year. Hence the petitioners are before this court. 8. The Government had failed to take note of one important fact namely that the fee fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee even for students admitted under the Government Quota in the Self-financing Institutions, was nearly Rs.3,00,000/-and more per year. But the fee charged by the Government Medical Colleges is only Rs.12,000/-per year. Today, by virtue of the orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014, issued by the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust Case, the students admitted to these two Self-financing Colleges are obliged to pay only Rs.12,000/-per year. Therefore, the refusal of these students to accept the allotment even under the Government Quota to the Self-financing Institutions, during the first three phases of Counselling, cannot be put against them, while sending a list in pursuance of the orders passed in Hind Charitable Trust case. What happened at the time of the three phases of Counselling, was not a refusal, but only the expression of inability to join the Self-financing Institutions even under the Government Quota. 9. The petitioners in these writ petitions could not accept allotment to Self-financing Institutions in the first three rounds of Counselling held earlier, solely due to their inability to pay so much of fees. Therefore, the Selection Committee ought not to have omitted the names of the petitioners from the merit list. A gross injustice has been done to the petitioners herein by sponsoring the names of less meritorious candidates, on the ground that they had refused allotment earlier. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in their grievance. 10. But the method of redressal of the grievances of the petitioners poses the greatest threat and risk. Today, I cannot cancel the merit list already forwarded to these two Self-financing Colleges and direct the Selection Committee to furnish a fresh list since this will result in the students who have already been admitted, losing their seats. The students who are already admitted, are not before me. Therefore, behind their back, I cannot set aside the list sent by the Selection Committee. 11. Another method of redressing the grievance of the petitioners is to direct the Selection Committee to forward a fresh list to fill up the remaining seats. The students who are already admitted, are not before me. Therefore, behind their back, I cannot set aside the list sent by the Selection Committee. 11. Another method of redressing the grievance of the petitioners is to direct the Selection Committee to forward a fresh list to fill up the remaining seats. It is reported by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chennai Medical College Hospital and Research Centre that out of the list of 150 candidates sent by the Selection Committee of the State, only 120 candidates joined. Subsequently two candidates left. Therefore, as on date there are 32 vacancies in that College. Similarly, there appears to be 52 vacancies in Tagore Medical College. 12. But Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College are not willing to take any risk by admitting any students as on date. These Colleges have filed affidavits of undertaking before the Supreme Court and there is an imminent danger of these Colleges forfeiting their deposit and inviting penal consequences, if they violate any of the directions of the Supreme Court. In its order dated 18.09.2014, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in no case any admission shall be made after 30.09.2014. Chennai Medical College and Tagore Medical College do not wish to violate this mandate and invite the wrath of the Supreme Court. In fact, out of goodwill, Mr.V.T.Gopalan learned Senior Counsel for one of these Colleges suggested that any sympathy shown by me to the writ petitioners, may eventually put me in a precarious position seeking sympathy. 13. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners relied upon at least two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, where the Division Benches directed either the grant of recognition/affiliation to the Colleges or the grant of admissions to students beyond the cut-off date. Interestingly, in all these cases, the Division Benches made it clear that the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court was not inviolable or inflexible. The Special Leave Petitions filed against these judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that no disastrous consequences would flow, even if I issue a mandamus in violation of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court, especially in the interest of justice. 14. I have carefully considered the above submissions. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that no disastrous consequences would flow, even if I issue a mandamus in violation of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court, especially in the interest of justice. 14. I have carefully considered the above submissions. It is true that in Mridul Dhar [(2005) 5 SCC 65], Priya Gupta [ (2012) 7 SCC 433 ] and Lipika Gupta, the Supreme Court repeatedly fixed time schedules. In a decision rendered on 10-6-2011 in LPA No.544 of 2011 in Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society vs. Medical Council, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed, by way of an interim order, a breach of the time schedule fixed in Mridul Dhar. The Medical Council of India challenged the said interim order before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16233 of 2011. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by order dated 17.6.2011, upholding the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Similarly, in a decision dated 7-8-2013 in W.A.No.1638 of 2013 in The Board of Governors vs. Tagore Medical College, a Division Bench of this Court held that when a decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, the Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions though the cut-off date has gone. So holding, the Division Bench issued directions in favour of the self-financing medical institution, holding that the time schedule issued both in Mridul Dhar and in Priya Gupta, would not be a bar for the grant of relief, even beyond the cut-off date. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order in SLP (C) No.25812 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.8.2013. Yet another Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 14-8-2013 in W.A.No.1600 of 2013 in Madha Medical College vs. Union of India, granted relief in favour of the College, even after the expiry of the time schedule fixed in Mridul Dhar and Priya Gupta, by approving the decision of the earlier Division Bench dated 07.8.2013. Interestingly, the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order in SLP (C) No.28011 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 04.10.2013, thereby granting a seal of approval to the breach of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court itself. Interestingly, the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order in SLP (C) No.28011 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 04.10.2013, thereby granting a seal of approval to the breach of the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court itself. Again, the decision of the Supreme court in Royal Medical Trust vs. Union of India [2013 (12) Scale 145], allowed a breach of the time schedule. 15. Therefore, it appears that the Supreme Court repeatedly fixed time schedules and repeatedly warned statutory authorities not to violate the time schedule, without the fear of being hauled up for contempt. But, quite a few orders passed by various Courts beyond the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court, were also upheld by the Supreme Court. 16. Therefore, what follows, is that no one knows what the law is and where we stand. Our education in law, appears to be inadequate to understand the law of education. All that I can do now, is to quote a passage from an article titled "The Writing of Judgments" authored by RT. Hon. Lord Macmillan, which reads as follows:- "Lord Dunedin, one of the greatest Judges of our day and generation, had a predilection for deducing from the particular case before him the general principle of law which he conceived to be involved and formulating it in general terms. In the leading case of Sorrell v. Smith there is a characteristic passage in the opening paragraph of his judgment. The case raised the most far-reaching problems in the law of conspiracy at common law. The Judges in the court of Appeal, said Lord Dunedin, "had embodied in their judgments an appeal for guidance so touching, as to recall the prayer of Ajaz .......... Reverse our judgment as it pleases you, but at least say something clear to help in the future." The quotation is from the Iliad, xvii, 647 Darkness had shrouded the field of battle between the Greeks and the Trojans and Ajax invoked Zeus to clear the sky so that if he and his comrades must die they might do so in the light. As Zeus responded to the supplication of Ajax, so Lord Dunedin responded to that of the Court of Appeal without, however, claiming divine inspiration." 17. As Zeus responded to the supplication of Ajax, so Lord Dunedin responded to that of the Court of Appeal without, however, claiming divine inspiration." 17. As recently as on 01.9.2014, the Supreme Court considered in Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur [2014 (10) Scale 1], the effect of the time schedule fixed by Courts. After taking note of various earlier decisions, a two member Bench of the Supreme Court deduced in paragraph 30 of the report, the principles that could be culled out, as follows: "(1) The schedule relating to admissions to the professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted. (2) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e., the candidate has pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone. (3) If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the Institutions/Authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and the Court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any. (4) When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously and promptly, then the Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in the form of securing an admission. (5) If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by subjecting himself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/her non-selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of selection was unfair. (5) If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by subjecting himself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/her non-selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of selection was unfair. (6) If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her right to claim relief before the Court promptly, then in such cases, the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate. (7) No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly. Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility. (8) There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e., carry forward of seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a candidate is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the Courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidate to re-apply next academic year. (9) There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either by the Court or the Board to increase the number of seats which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India. (10) Each of these above mentioned principles should be applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical." 18. Therefore, it appears that if cases of the writ petitioners herein fall under the second category indicated in paragraph 30 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration, the petitioners may be entitled to relief, provided the relief of admission can be granted within the time schedule. The time schedule is now gone. But, there is a small hitch. The right of the petitioners herein actually flow out of the order of the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust dated 18.9.2014. All the writ petitioners pitch their claim only on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust. The time schedule is now gone. But, there is a small hitch. The right of the petitioners herein actually flow out of the order of the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust dated 18.9.2014. All the writ petitioners pitch their claim only on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hind Charitable Trust. The decision in Hind Charitable Trust came, with the proclaimed object of having more doctors to meet the growing needs of the Society. This object will now stand defeated, if about 84 seats go vacant, despite the orders of the Supreme Court. 19. But, as I have pointed out earlier, the grant of the relief of admission to the petitioners, poses a greater challenge. There are actually three alternatives before me. They are : (i) I can set aside the entire merit list sent by the Selection Committee to these two colleges and direct the Selection Committee to send a fresh list of 150 candidates each. That will result in utter chaos and confusion, as about 118 candidates have joined the Chennai Medical College and started undergoing the course for the past more than a month. Similarly, about 98 students or so have joined the Tagore Medical College and started undergoing the course. They are not parties to these writ petitions. Therefore, their admissions cannot be set aside. Hence, the first option is ruled out. (ii) The second option is to direct the Selection Committee to send a fresh list of only 84 candidates (32 for Chennai Medical College and 52 for Tagore Medical College). While sending such a list, I do not know what principles the State Government can follow. I am clear that the principle followed by them so far is not correct. They have sent a list excluding the names of candidates, who had earlier refused to take allotment in self financing colleges under the Government quota. But, that cannot be put against them, since the fee structure was very high. But, to the extent that they are wrong, I am very clear. But, what principle they should adopt if a fresh list is to be sent, is not clear. I do not know whether they must take out the merit list of candidates, who have not so far been allotted to any college. But, to the extent that they are wrong, I am very clear. But, what principle they should adopt if a fresh list is to be sent, is not clear. I do not know whether they must take out the merit list of candidates, who have not so far been allotted to any college. If they do so, less meritorious candidates, who have not got allotted to any college earlier, will benefit, due to the fortuitous circumstances created by Hind Charitable Trust. Candidates, who are more meritorious than them will be studying in self financing colleges paying about Rs.3 lakhs per year. Therefore, the option of directing the Government to send a second list, without the Supreme Court or at least this Court laying down the principle to be followed, is not a correct option. and (iii) The last option available to me is simply to direct the respondents at least to admit the writ petitioners herein, so that about 84 seats in two colleges do not go waste. I do not know if this option will open the Pandora's box, inviting more writ petitions from candidates, who have secured more marks than the present writ petitioners, but who dare not filed any writ petition. In all these eight writ petitions, there are totally 28 writ petitioners. Once I grant relief to these writ petitioners, the students, who have not so far approached this Court, may lawfully approach this Court, opening the flood gates. Though their cases can be thrown out on the basis of the principle pointed out by the Supreme Court in paragraph 30(6) on the basis of the legal maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit, I do not know how the cut off date can be overcome. 20. Therefore, it is clear that I do not have the best of alternatives. A least detrimental alternative available to me is to direct the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for redressal. 21. Therefore, all these writ petitions are dismissed. Either the petitioners or these two colleges or the Selection Committee may approach the Supreme Court and seek redressal in the pending matter, namely Hind Charitable Trust case. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.