ORDER These special leave petitions arise out of different judgments of the High Court of Bombay but the issue arising out of all the cases is common. 2. All the writ petitions from out of which the instant special leave petitions arise were dismissed by the High Court. 3. The petitioners before the High Court are the students who appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Association of Management of Unaided Medical and Dental colleges, Maharashtra. The said entrance examination is conducted for the purpose of selecting the eligible candidates for admission into various courses such as MBBS, BDS, etc. 4. Common Entrance Examination was conducted in view of the obligation imposed under law which was spelt out by this Court in two judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others 2002(8) SCC 481 and Priya Gupta v. State of Chattisgarh and others 2012(7) SCC 433 . 5. None of the petitioners could secure admission at the said examination in a course of their choice. Though some of the petitioners secured admissions into certain other courses conducted by one of the colleges which is a member of the above Association. Some of the petitioners it appears, secured admissions in a subsequent year but not in the college of their choice. 6. It is in the background of the above-mentioned situation, the petitioners made complaints to the State of Maharashtra on various counts. One of the counts was admissions were given without following the merit as indicated in the Common Entrance Examination. On the basis of such complaint, the State of Maharashtra by its proceedings dated 29th November, 2012 appointed three Committees to inquire into various aspects of the complaints received by State of Maharashtra. Apart from that, another Committee called 'Pravesh Niyantran Samiti' headed by the former Judge of the Bombay High Court which owes its existence to the directions given by this Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and Others 2003(6) SCC 697 , also independently monitored the admission process (for the Academic Year 2012-2013) into the various private educational institutions which are members of the first respondent Association and submitted a report dated 11th January, 2013. The Committee categorically recorded as follows:- "...Samiti therefore confirms the findings of Enquiry Committee that the reservation rules were not followed by this College. The Committee categorically recorded as follows:- "...Samiti therefore confirms the findings of Enquiry Committee that the reservation rules were not followed by this College. The admission process was thus not fair, transparent & merit based and reservation rules having not followed in the right perspective. Samiti therefore disapproves all the admissions i.e. 07 done by the College/Institute after the last "Common Admission Process" (CAP) round of MHT-CET-2012 for the Academic Year 2012-13. Samiti recommends to Government of Maharashtra to direct the said College/Institute to cancel the admissions after last CAP round of MHT-CET-2012. Considering the number of resultant vacancies, Samiti decides to suggest Government of Maharashtra to consider moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi for permissions to fill in the resultant vacancies, extension of cut-off date and also praying there in that all admissions even after CAP rounds be brought under "Common Admission Process" only." 7. The said report was forwarded to the State of Maharashtra. Inspite of the said report, the State of Maharashtra does not appear to have taken any action in the matter. 8. It may be stated that the writ petitions of the petitioners were dismissed in limine. The special leave petitions were filed in the year 2013 and inspite of the pendency of these SLPs for over a year approximately, the State of Maharashtra never thought it fit to file any affidavit explaining its stand in the matter. 9. In the light of the above-mentioned fact situation, it is established that the grievance of the petitioners herein is fully justified. 10. The petitioners in their writ petitions sought two reliefs in the alternative. The first relief was that cancellation of the admissions granted by respondent no. 2 to 23 Colleges and grant admission to the petitioners to the respective medical colleges or in the alternative cancel the admissions only of those candidates who are less meritorious than the petitioners but were admitted by various colleges who are members of the respondent Association and consequently direct the petitioners be admitted. 11. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions principally on two grounds; one is that none of the candidates who are already admitted by various colleges and who are alleged to be less meritorious than the petitioners are made parties to the proceedings and, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners could not be granted. 11. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions principally on two grounds; one is that none of the candidates who are already admitted by various colleges and who are alleged to be less meritorious than the petitioners are made parties to the proceedings and, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners could not be granted. Secondly, that the admissions pertained to the Academic Year 2012-2013 and the cut-off date for the admission for such Academic Year was 30th September, 2012 by virtue of an earlier judgment of this Court reported in Priya Gupta v. State of Chattisgarh and others 2012(7) SCC 433 . Therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioners beyond 30th September 2012. 12. It is an unfortunate situation where directions given by this Court (Constitution Bench) with a view to ensure compliance with the mandates of the Constitution in the matter of admissions to various courses run by unaided private educational institutions is allowed to remain only a paper declaration. The directions of this Court mandating the constitution of the committee to monitor the whole process to ensure that these educational institutions do not flout the constitution mandate and the legal obligations are not adhered to. 13. The Committee constituted pursuant to the above-mentioned judgment to monitor, specifically recorded a finding that the admission process adopted by the members of the respondent association is faulty as less meritorious students have been admitted into the Colleges in preference to the more meritorious students. 14. The State of Maharashtra though constituted the above-mentioned Committee, did not choose to act upon the report by the Committee. 15. In the circumstances, though the relief such as the one sought by the petitioners cannot be granted at this stage in view of the long lapse of time but we are of the opinion that the petitioners are certainly entitled to public law damages. State of Maharashtra is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to each one of these petitioners towards public law damages and such payment should be made within a period of four weeks from today. State of Maharashtra is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to each one of these petitioners towards public law damages and such payment should be made within a period of four weeks from today. We also deem it appropriate to direct the State of Maharashtra to indentify the officers who are responsible for the inaction on the report of the Monitoring Committee dated 11th January, 2013 and take appropriate action against those officers including the recovery of the amount (to be paid pursuant to this order, by the State) from those officers. 16. The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.