ORDER : The petitioner, aggrieved by the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 18.09.2014, in and by which the petitioner college was directed to surrender 18 seats by adjusting 6 seats each year from its Management Quota in favour of the Government in respect of three academic years viz., 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, had filed this writ petition. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, briefly narrated, are as follows: 2.1. The Principal of the petitioner College, in support of the writ petition, would aver among other things that it is established, owned and being administered by RVS Educational Trust, Sulur, Coimbatore District and started functioning from the year 2007. The petitioner College is offering 5 ½ years degree course in Bachelor of Siddha Medicine & Surgery (BSMS) and the petitioner institution is also a self-financing unaided institution. The petitioner would further state that the said college has been functioning with the permission of the Central Government and is also affiliated to the fourth respondent University and it is having all necessary infrastructure facilities and amenities to conduct degree course of 5 ½ years duration with the permitted admission capacity of 30 students each year. 2.2. In the year 2012, renewal of permission was denied by the Central Government to the petitioner institution by citing certain deficiencies and it was put to challenge by filing W.P.No.23661 of 2012 and it was allowed on 29.10.2012 and thereafter, the Central Government, vide proceedings dated 06.11.2012, gave permission for the academic year 2012-2013 and the said order also indicated that permission was accorded without prejudice to the right of the Central Government to prefer appeal against the order made in W.P.No.23661 of 2012 and also extended the closing date for admission for the academic year from 31.10.2012 and 15.11.2012. The petitioner would further state that the seat matrix is at the rate of 65% of seats for the Government (20 seats) and 35% of seats for the management (10 seats) and the seats falling under Government Quota would be filled up by the second respondent through Single Window System and thus out of total intake of 30 seats, the Government is entitled to 20 candidates through Single Window and the college is entitled to admit 10 candidates under Management Quota. 2.3. 2.3. According to the petitioner, the second respondent did not allot any candidate for the academic year 2012-2013 on account of uncertainty prevailed over with regard to non-grant of permission by the Central Government and it had admitted 10 seats under Management Quota and since no candidates have been filled up under Government Quota by the second respondent till the closing date, it admitted 18 candidates as against the Government Quota of 20 seats. However, the rate fixed by the Government alone has been collected. Thus, for the academic year 2012-2013, the Management filled up 28 seats comprising of Management Quota of 10 seats and 18 seats under Government Quota and the remaining 2 seats out of 30 seats could not be filled up on account of non-availability of candidates. It is also averred by the petitioner that the first respondent ratified the admission of students in the petitioner institution, vide letter/communication in No.28053/IMI-2/2013-1 Health dated 31.07.2013. However, the first respondent/Government instructed the second respondent to obtain undertaking from the students admitted against the lapsed seats to the effect that in case of any legal issues against such admissions, neither the first respondent nor the fourth respondent would be held responsible. The second respondent in-turn requested the colleges to adhere to the instructions given in the Government Letter, vide letter Ref.No.8151/P&DII/2013 dated 01.08.2013 and the petitioner College also sent a letter dated 03.10.2013 requesting for registration of 28 candidates admitted in the said academic year. 2.4. The fourth respondent sent an intimation/communication dated 03.10.2013 to the petitioner college stating that the University Registration Sub Committee had recommended for the registration of 28 candidates admitted in the academic year 2012-2013 and called upon the petitioner college to give an undertaking that it would adjust the number of admissions made in the said year by adjusting the same in the succeeding years by reducing 10 seats from the Management Quota in 2013-2014 and 8 seats in 2014-2015 and also made it clear that only on giving such undertaking, the on-line registration of the candidates would be made. Though the petitioner college expressed its resentment with regard to the communication of the fourth respondent dated 03.10.2013, vide letter dated 09.12.2013, requesting not to insist upon such an adjustment, the fourth respondent, vide letter dated 20.01.2014 insisted that unless the undertaking was given, the candidates would not be permitted to take the examinations in February 2014 and the petitioner college was forced to give the said undertaking on 18.01.2014 and the fourth respondent University permitted 28 seats to take the examinations in February 2014. 2.5. It is stated by the petitioner that during the academic year 2013-2014, the fourth respondent sent the impugned communication dated 18.09.2014 stating inter alia that the University Affiliation Sub-Committee had instructed the college to surrender 18 seats (lapsed seat admissions made in the previous year) and the same would be adjusted in favour of the Government Quota as under: Academic year 2014-2015 : 6 seats Academic year 2015-2016 : 6 seats Academic year 2016-2017 : 6 seats The petitioner, challenging the legality of the said communication dated 18.09.2014, has came forward to file this writ petition. 3. Mr. P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would contend that admittedly, the Central Government had accorded permission to start the institution and the fourth respondent University has also accorded affiliation and also granted extension of time for admission for the academic year 2012-2013 from 31.10.2012 to 15.11.2012 and since the second respondent did not sponsor candidates under Management Quota, it had filled up 18 seats as against the Government Quota of 20 seats and even then 2 seats got lapsed and would further contend that so far as the undertaking given by the petitioner as to the adjustment of seats, it was forced to give on 18.01.2014 on account of the fact that the date of examination was fast approaching and if the petitioner institution did not consent, then the students may not be allowed to sit for the examinations and therefore, left with no other option, it gave its consent under compulsion and hence, it cannot be put against them. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communication/letter of the first respondent dated 31.07.2013 and would submit that the action of the management of self-financing colleges for admitting candidates in the Government quota, had been ratified and that in future, the Government Quota lapsed seats should be filled up only with the prior permission of the Government and thereby, the action of the petitioner college in admitting students under Government Quota had been ratified and therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner College to adjust the seats in future academic year is per se unsustainable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that insofar as admission of students in medical colleges in the sanctioned capacity, the fourth respondent has no role to play, as it is for the Government to pull up the institution in case of any lapse and also placed reliance upon the decision in Medical Council of India, New Delhi v. The Chairman, Sree Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences, Kanyakumari District and Others [ 2011 (1) CTC 41 ]. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a Single Bench of this Court in the decision in Dr.T.Arutselvam and Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai-9 and Others [ 2012 (2) CTC 772 ] has also highlighted the significance of indigenous systems of medicine practiced and would further add that admittedly, the petitioner College possess all infrastructure facilities and amenities and being a self-financing unaided institution, it cannot be compelled to adjust seats in the future academic year and prays for quashment of the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. 4. Per contra, Mr. Hari Hara Arun Soma Sankar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and would contend that ratification issued by the first respondent dated 31.07.2013 will not hold good for the reason that the Government had not sponsored any candidate to the petitioner college and prior to the expiry of the extended period of time prescribed by the Central Government on 16.01.2012, the petitioner institution has admitted 18 seats under Government Quota and taking into consideration the welfare and interest of those students, a solution has been arrived in the form of impugned communication and it cannot be faulted with. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that even in respect of academic year 2014-2015, the petitioner institution adopted similar modus operandi by filling up 6 seats under Government Quota and thereby violated the voluntary undertaking filed on 18.01.2014 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit reiterating their earlier stand and would further state that for the academic year 2015-2016, the third respondent has forwarded 28 candidates as against 20 seats under Government Quota and though it was brought to the knowledge, the third respondent, took a decision not to review it's stand and therefore, insistence on the part of the respondents to keep lapsed seats vacant despite non-sponsoring of quota would definitely cause hardship to the petitioner institution and in the process, students who are willing to undertake indigenous form of medicine, are also deprived of the same and prays for allowing of the writ petition. 6. The fourth respondent filed a reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and took a stand that the Government has fixed the deadline for admitting candidate under Government Quota as 15.11.2012, by an order dated 06.11.2012 and even prior to the expiry of the same, the petitioner institution had admitted 18 seats under Government Quota and therefore, the ratification letter/communication sent by the first respondent dated 31.07.2013 has no application to the case of the petitioner. 7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 8. 7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 8. The petitioner made a challenge to the communication dated 11.07.2012 sent by the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy)[AYUSH], New Delhi by filing W.P.No.23661 of 2012 and it was allowed on 29.10.2012 with a direction directing the first respondent to grant permission forthwith to the petitioner college to conduct BHMS course with an intake of 30 students. The above said department, in compliance of the said order, has issued a proceedings dated 06.11.2012 stating that in view of the extraordinary circumstances arisen out of the order of this Court dated 29.10.2012, the cut off date for admission to the college is extended with due approval of the competent authority up to 15.11.2012 for the current academic session i.e., 2012-13 only and the said one time extension of cut off date cannot be cited as a precedent by any other college in any other way. Copy of the said order was also marked to the respondents 1 & 4. 9. The first respondent sent a communication dated 31.07.2013 to the second respondent informing that as a special case, the Government permitted the petitioner to fill up the seats since the seats fall vacant due to non-joining of candidates sponsored by the selection committee and such a action is ratified and also informed that in future, the Government Quota lapsed seats if any should be filled up only with the prior permission of the Government. The fourth respondent has sent a communication dated 3.10.2013 stating that necessary undertaking with regard to adjustment of seats by reducing 10 seats from the Management quota from the academic year 2013-2014 and 8 seats from the academic year 2014-2015, shall be sent to the University immediately for opening the Online registration for submitting the students details of First Professional BSMS degree course for the academic year 2012-13. The petitioner, in response to the said communication, has sent a reply dated 09.12.2013 stating that since the Selection Committee did not allot any seats to them for the academic year 2012-13, based on the Court Order, it filled 28 seats and collected the fees and forwarded the list to the second respondent vide letter dated 30.10.2012 and also informed the third respondent about the admission of students in the Management quota and therefore, prayed for necessary permission to open Online registration for First Professional BSMS degree course for the academic year 2012-13 without insisting for reduction of 18 seats in two instalments of 10+8 seats in two Academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively and also undertaking that such kind of mistakes will not occur in future. 10. The petitioner institution subsequently sent a communication dated 18.01.2014 to the fourth respondent undertaking to reduce 18 Government lapsed seats admitted by them in 2012-13, in subsequent academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16, if the reply received from the Government is in negative. The fourth respondent sent a letter dated 20.01.2014 to the petitioner calling upon them to submit the undertaking with regard to adjustment of seats for the purpose of considering the registration of candidates admitted in the I year BSMS degree course for the academic year 2012-2013. The fourth respondent once again sent a letter dated 18.09.2014 to the petitioner institution inviting their attention to Resolution No.30 passed at the 229th Meeting of the Governing Council held on 24.07.2014 approving the recommendations of the Affiliation Sub-Committee meeting as to the adjustment of seats and requested the petitioner institution to furnish the following details: (1). Compliance Report on the rectification of the said deficiencies completely. (2). The prescribed fee has to be remitted by your institution for issuing Continuance of Provisional Affiliation orders for 2014-15 as per the Demand Note enclosed. (3) Individual copy of the Central Council of Indian Medicine for seat matrix for the academic year 2014-15 and copy of the AYUSH approval for the a.y. 2009-10 to 2014-15. So as to enable the University to inform the Seat Matrix to Indian Medicine & Homeopathy and issue of the Continuance of Provisional Affiliation order to your institution for conducting BSMS Degree course for the academic year 2014-2015 and remit the University Administrative Expenses Fee. Inspection Fee and Continuance of Provisional affiliation Fee as per Demand Note.” 11. So as to enable the University to inform the Seat Matrix to Indian Medicine & Homeopathy and issue of the Continuance of Provisional Affiliation order to your institution for conducting BSMS Degree course for the academic year 2014-2015 and remit the University Administrative Expenses Fee. Inspection Fee and Continuance of Provisional affiliation Fee as per Demand Note.” 11. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the undertaking given by them as to the adjustments of seats was under compulsion and since the second respondent did not sponsor any candidate under Government quota for the academic year 2012-13, it had filed up seats under Government quota also by accommodating the candidates and such act is also in consonance with the communication of the first respondent dated 31.07.2013. 12. In the considered opinion of the Court, the act of the petitioner in filling up the 18 seats falling under Government Quota, cannot be sustained for the following reasons: The Central Government, while complying with the order dated 29.10.2012 made in W.P.No.23661 of 2012, extended the cut off date for admission till 15.11.2012 and also indicated that it enures for the current academic session i.e., 2012-13 only and it cannot be cited as a precedent by any other college in any way. The petitioner mainly harp upon the letter/communication of the first respondent dated 31.07.2013 and it is relevant to extract the same: Kind attention is invited to the letter cited. In this connection, as a special case, the Government permit the Commissioner of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy to consider the seats filled up by management as management quota seats since the seats fall vacant due to non-joining of candidates sponsored by the selection committee. Further, the action of the management of self financing colleges for admitting candidates from the Government quota is hereby ratified. The Management of Self Financing Medical Colleges may be informed that in future the Government Quota lapsed seats (if any) should be filled up only with the prior permission of the Government. If not, such request for ratification will not be entertained. However, an undertaking also should be obtained from such students that in case any legal issue arises against such admission, the Government or the University will not be held responsible. If not, such request for ratification will not be entertained. However, an undertaking also should be obtained from such students that in case any legal issue arises against such admission, the Government or the University will not be held responsible. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that non-joining of sponsored candidates by the Selection Committee and the admission of the candidates under Government quota has been ratified and it was further indicated that in future, the Government quota lapsed seats, if any, should be filled up only with the prior permission of the Government. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner institution did not wait till 15.11.2012 so as to enable the second respondent to sponsor candidates under Government Quota and on its own, it filled up 18 seats under Government quota and the said fact has been admitted by them in the letter dated 09.12.2013 in Ref.No.214/UNIV.01/2013 addressed to the fourth respondent. Suppose, if the petitioner waited till 15.11.2012 and thereafter admitted students under Government Quota, their action would have been justified, but on the contrary, even prior to the said date, it had admitted students and forwarded the list to the second respondent, vide letter No.23/IMH06/2012 dated 30.10.2012. 14. The fourth respondent University, taking note of the same, called upon the petitioner to adjust 18 seats from Management Quota in the future academic years and accordingly it executed a letter of undertaking, though according to him, such undertaking came into being on account of compulsion and coercion. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that fixation of Government quota and Management quota is on account of agreement between the institution and the State Government and the State Government alone is entitled to question them and not the respondent University. The fourth respondent University while granting provisional affiliation in its proceedings dated 10.08.2007 had also indicated that the Trust and its college shall abide by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Madras Act, 1987 and by the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules made thereunder applicable to the Siddha Medical Colleges framed from time to time and also abide by any other conditions which the University considers necessary to impose from time to time. Therefore, the fourth respondent is entitled to insist the petitioner to surrender/adjust the excess admissions made by them in the Government Quota during the academic year 2012-13 in the future academic years and it cannot be faulted with. The fourth respondent did not want to punish the students who have been admitted in excess in the petitioner institution under Management Quota and therefore, thought fit to adjust the seats in the future academic years and accordingly, issued the impugned communication and in the considered opinion of the Court, it had acted fairly. 15. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the letter of the first respondent dated 31.07.2013, to which heavy reliance was placed upon by the petitioner to justify their stand, also indicates that in future, Government Quota seats should be filled up only through prior permission of the Government. The petitioner institution also gave an undertaking to abide by the communication of the fourth respondent for adjusting the seats. However, without surrendering 6 seats to the Government, it had also admitted students under Management quota for the academic session 2014-2015 and as directed by the first respondent in the communication dated 31.07.2013, it has not obtained any prior permission from the Government. Therefore, the said stand taken by the fourth respondent University cannot be faulted with. 16. Taking into consideration of the fact that pending disposal of the writ petition, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court dated 14.10.2015, 6 students were permitted to write the examinations for the academic year 2014-2015, the fourth respondent is directed to take sympathetic consideration and pass orders accordingly. 17. This Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.