JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Does the common verdict dated 08.09.2016 passed by this Court in W.P(C)Nos.30047, 30148 and 30227 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016 [upholding the order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) stipulating that the Entrance examination conducted by any non Governmental agencies for admission to MBA courses; except KMAT(Kerala) (conducted by the Universities in Kerala under the supervision of the ASC), CAT (Common Attitude Test) (conducted by the Indian Institute of Management) and CMAT (conducted by the AICTE) shall be accepted after May 2016 for such admission]; making it clear that the MAT score (conducted by All India Management Association) shall not be accepted after May, 2016 and does the subsequent verdict dated 11.01.2017 in W.P (C)38033 of 2016 in similar lines, also holding that NRI candidates cannot be taken as a different class to have any exemption from clearing such common test (after considering whether there was any need to re-consider the former verdict), require any 'further re-consideration' as sought for by the petitioners, is the question involved in these matters. 2. Heard Mr. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.18629 of 2015, 37623 & 37876 of 2016, Mr. Jacob P.Alex, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/students in W.P(C)Nos. 4581 & 4584 of 2017, the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC and the learned Standing Counsel of the Universities concerned. 3. W.P(C)No.18629 of 2015 has been filed by the Association of Self Financing Management Institutes in Kerala. W.P(C)No.37623 and 37876 of 2016 have been preferred by two different Self Financing Management Institutions, mainly contending that by the time the order under challenge was issued by the ASC, by virtue of the course and procedure being followed for years, the admission for MBA-2016-2017 had already been finalized in their Institutions. The challenge is raised against the orders passed by the Committee, referring to the alleged in-competency/authority of the Committee to have passed the order, which power was solely vested upon the University, particularly the Academic Council. The other two writ petitions have been filed by the students of the Self Financing Institutions, who contend that they were given admission to MBA in the year July 2016 and that they had cleared the MAT (conducted by the All India Management Association-AIMA) in September 2016. The other two writ petitions have been filed by the students of the Self Financing Institutions, who contend that they were given admission to MBA in the year July 2016 and that they had cleared the MAT (conducted by the All India Management Association-AIMA) in September 2016. It is also pointed out that it was not for the ASC to have stipulated a cut off date for clearing the examination and further that no power or authority was vested with the Committee to have stipulated that the MAT will not be considered as a qualifying test after May, 2016. Similar grounds and contentions, (as taken by the petitioners in the former group) have been raised and sought to be relied on by the petitioners/students as well. It is contended that the decisions rendered by this Court (Exts.P9. P10, P11 and P12 judgments in W.P(C)Nos.4581 and 4587 OF 2017) earlier do not cover all the issues as raised in these writ petitions and hence the matter requires re-consideration. 4. The matter was heard elaborately on different dates including on 04.07.2017, 29.08.2017 and lastly on 18.09.2017. 5. The petitioner Association in W.P.(C)18629 of 2015 approached this Court (allegedly representing as many as 58 colleges stated as Members of the said Association, affiliated to various Universities in Kerala), projecting the grievance to the effect that, by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court at different points of time, it was for the Managements/Institutions to have conducted an entrance test of their own; more so when the tests like CAT, XAT conducted for admission to the IIMS, Xavier's Institutes etc were being attended only by lesser number of students and that the position in Kerala was entirely different. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that in order to get good students locally, the petitioner Association used to conduct common Entrance test by themselves and each college was conducting a Group Discussion as well as part of selection process, which method is stated as widely accepted. It is stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that in order to get good students locally, the petitioner Association used to conduct common Entrance test by themselves and each college was conducting a Group Discussion as well as part of selection process, which method is stated as widely accepted. It was thereafter, that Act 19 of 2006 was brought into force and the grievance is more with regard to the power exercised by the ASC constituted under Section 4 of the said Act, which power is only to supervise and guide the entire process of admission in a Self Financing Professional College and never to take away the power of the Managements in this regard. It is in the said circumstance, that Ext.P2 order/directive issued by the Committee on 11.05.2015, (Clause (II) of which specifically excluded any test to be conducted by the Association of Managements from the purview of reckonable entrance Examinations), came to be challenged by the petitioner Association; seeking at least to postpone implementation of Ext.P2 to the next year as sought for in Ext.P3 representation, which came to be rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 21.05.2015. It is contended that the reason for rejection of such test proposed to be conducted by the petitioner as lacking National character, is irrelevant in so far as no law states that the test should be of 'National character'; adding that what is expected is only to see that the selection process is conducted in a fair, transparent and non-exploitative manner. At that time, common MAT (conducted by the All India Management Association) was being reckoned as one of the five tests acceptable and the ASC had mentioned that one more test of MAT was scheduled to be conducted on 01.09.2015 and therefore the students could appear for the Test, which according to the petitioner Association was irrelevant and that the power to conduct the test should be given to the petitioner Association, as pointed out in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the writ petition. It was subsequently, that Ext.P5 order dated 19.06.2015 came to be issued by the ASC, after discussions with the representatives of the various Universities and on the basis of the unanimous decision, it was decided to conduct a test called KMAT (Kerala) as the basis for selection. It was subsequently, that Ext.P5 order dated 19.06.2015 came to be issued by the ASC, after discussions with the representatives of the various Universities and on the basis of the unanimous decision, it was decided to conduct a test called KMAT (Kerala) as the basis for selection. It was further held that admission of any candidate other than from the list of CAT, MAT, CMAT and the proposed KMAT would be rejected and it will not be sent for registration by the Universities concerned, which made the petitioner to cause the writ petition to be amended, also challenging Exts.P4 and P5. 6. A detailed statement has been filed on behalf of the Committee pointing out the circumstance under which the orders under challenge came to be passed by the Committee. The necessity to satisfy the 'Triple Test', to have the admissions effected in a fair, transparent and non-exploitative manner as laid down by the Apex Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ]; the authority of the Committee to intervene at every stage in view of the powers conferred upon the Committee as discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Private Medical College Management Association vs. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges [ 2013 (3)KLT 316 ]; the authority of the Committee to conduct a fresh examination in appropriate cases with reference to the powers discussed by the Apex Court in paragraph 59 of the T.M.A.Pai's case [cited supra] recognising the common entrance test by the Governmental agencies alone in the case of professional colleges; the authority of the State to take over the admissions in a private institution, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, as dealt with by the Apex Court in paragraph 137 of the decision in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2005)6 SCC 537 ]; and also as to the malpractices occurred at the hands of the Consortium of the Managements on the earlier occasion leading to the test conducted by the ASC, as upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in 2013(3)KLT 316 [cited supra], have been dealt with in detail. Reference has also been made to the verdict passed by the Apex Court in SLP 19473 of 2014 (against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.16775 of 2014 of this Court) directing the Committee to conduct entrance examination for the Management, while rejecting the claim of the Management to conduct the entrance examination by themselves. The fact that the Committee had noticed the alarming and shocking trends in the procedure adopted by the petitioner Association and the like colleges while admitting students for the MBA Programme - even to those who had failed in the examination and those who had obtained negative marks, has been specifically adverted to in the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said statement. It is further pointed out that petitioner concedes in the writ petition, that apart from the test used to be conducted by the Petitioner Association, individual Group Discussions are being made by the Member Colleges as part of the selection process. The lack of transparency in admissions is highlighted. It is further pointed out that there were as many as 92 Institutions imparting MBA course in the State and the petitioner was stated as representing only some of the Institutions. 7. It is to be noted that the petitioner Association, though has claimed as the representative of as many as 58 colleges, particulars of the Member Colleges have not been given, nor has the petitioner satisfied any court fee in respect of the member colleges, if at all they claimed to have any relief in respect of their Institutions. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that in view of the subsequent developments, which form the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petitions posted along with this writ petition, the issue involved in this writ petition [W.P(C)No.18629 of 2015 has turned to be rather academic and that no specific relief is pressed for, but for the reliefs as sought for in the other writ petitions. As such, interference is not warranted in this writ petition (W.P(C)No.18629 of 2015). As such, interference is not warranted in this writ petition (W.P(C)No.18629 of 2015). In the other cases filed by both the Institutions and the students respectively, the main contention is that, it is not for the ASC to have stipulated that the common entrance test conducted by non-Governmental agencies would not be reckoned as a valid entrance test for admission to MBA (except CAT, CMAT and KMAT (Kerala); that MAT conducted by All India Management Association would not be reckoned as a qualifying test after May, 2016 and further that this question was not specifically considered or answered by this Court in any of the earlier round of litigations. 8. The above submission is sought to be rebutted by the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC and also by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, with reference to the materials on record. A statement has been filed by the respondent Committee producing some documents as Annexure R1 and R2 in W.P.(C)37623 of 2016, followed by a memo dated 05.12.2016 of the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC, producing a copy of the proceedings dated 26.11.2016 of the Mahatma Gandhi University recognising only KMAT, CAT and CMAT as the eligible entrance examinations for MBA admission from 2017-18 onwards. A further memo dated 10.07.2017 has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC producing some additional documents as Documents Nos.1 to 5. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the ASC, the issue mooted in the writ petition (i.e.W.P.(C)No.37623 of 2016) is squarely covered against the petitioner as per different verdicts passed by this Court on earlier occasions, which cannot be sought to be re-agitated again and again. Almost similar contention is raised by the petitioner Institution in W.P.(C)No.37876 of 2016, which is sought to be answered by the respondents in similar terms, especially as pointed out by the respondent University by filing a counter affidavit dated 19.06.2017, also producing a copy of the proceedings of the University dated 26.11.2016 as Ext. Almost similar contention is raised by the petitioner Institution in W.P.(C)No.37876 of 2016, which is sought to be answered by the respondents in similar terms, especially as pointed out by the respondent University by filing a counter affidavit dated 19.06.2017, also producing a copy of the proceedings of the University dated 26.11.2016 as Ext. R2 (a), clearly pointing out that the Board of Studies in Management (PG) had recommended that, for maintaining academic standard of MBA programme from 2017-18 academic year onwards, the eligibility entrance examination for MBA admissions will be based on KMAT, CAT and CMAT only, by amending the existing regulation of MBA and that the Vice Chancellor, exercising the powers of the academic Council under Section 10(17) of Chapter 3 of the MG University Act, 1985 has approved the recommendations. Similar assertions have been made by parties on both the sides in the other two cases filed by students as well, as put forth by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the direction sought for in Ext.P6 judgment dated 09.08.2016 (produced in W.P(C) 37623 and 37876 of 2016) was only to allow the petitioner to consider the 'September 2016 MAT Score' for admission to the MBA courses for the academic year 2016-17 and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the ASC to postpone the commencement of MBA classes for the academic year 2016-17, until the process of admission was completed as above. The grievance of the petitioners therein was that even after the admission process undertaken for admission to MBA courses for 2016-17 as above, on the basis of CAT/CMAT/KMAT (Kerala), the Management Institutions in Kerala were not getting the required number of students. Since it was insisted by the ASC, as per the proceedings dated 11.05.2015, that for admission to MBA in the Self Financing Institutions for the year 2015-16, the students should have a positive score in any one of the tests such as CAT (by IIM), MAT (by AIMA) CMAT (by AICTE), the Association of Self Financing Management Institutions in Kerala were virtually prevented from conducting 'ASMIK MAT', which made them to file a representation dated 18.05.2015 before the Committee requesting to postpone the implementation of the direction given on 11.05.2015 to the next academic year i.e. 2016-17. This however came to be turned down as per the proceedings dated 21.05.2015 of the Committee, referring to the course and events, [including that the first KMAT (Kerala) entrance test was conducted by the Kannur University on 03.04.2016 under the supervision of the Committee, the re-scheduling of the date for admission with commencement of the academic session as 01.08.2016 (as applicable only for the year 2016-17) and also the subsequent proceedings of the Committee- directing the Kannur University to conduct a second KMAT (Kerala) in view of the adverse circumstances pointed out, the direction given to conduct two KMAT examinations every year thereafter on the 1st Sunday of April and 1st Sunday of November under the supervision of the Committee and such other aspects] and it was accordingly held that the prayer to postpone implementation of the non-reckoning of MAT after May, 2016 could not be acceded to. The case of the petitioners therein, that, even after the second KMAT (Kerala), almost 50% of the seats were lying vacant in several Managements Institutions as students were awaiting the result of the Degree Examination was considered and this Court held that it could not be a valid ground either to postpone the closing date for admission to MBA course for the academic year 2016-17 or to consider the 'September 2016 MAT score' for admission. It was accordingly, that the relief was declined and the writ petitions were dismissed. This being the position, it is contended that the observation made by the Bench in the subsequent judgment dated 08.09.2016 in W.P(C) Nos. 30047 and connected cases (Ext.P7 in W.P(C) 37623 and 37876 of 2016) that the validity of the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Committee doing away with the entrance test conducted by all non-Governmental agencies, except CAT, CMAT, KMAT(Kerala) and that the MAT conducted by the All India Management Association shall not be a valid test after May, 2016, was covered by the judgment passed in W.P.(C) 25866 of 2016 filed by the Management Association (paragraph 6 of Ext.P7) was factually not correct and hence requires re-consideration. 10. Prima facie, it may appear that there is some force in the said submission. 10. Prima facie, it may appear that there is some force in the said submission. But on deeper analysis, we find that the issue was specifically adverted to by the Bench and after detailed hearing, it was observed in paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 judgment that the petitioners therein could not point out any vitiating circumstances in the decision of the second respondent Committee that MAT score in the test conducted by the All India Management Association (AIMA) shall not be accepted for admission to MBA Programme for the academic year 2016-17 onwards. The Bench also noted that the said decision was taken by the Committee based on 'expert body decision' (consisting of the experts representing different Universities) which could not lightly be interfered with as a matter of course, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely for the reason that some additional grounds ( if it be so) have been raised by the petitioners herein, it cannot attain the colour and characteristic of a virgin field, where further deliberation is warranted by this Court. 11. That apart, it is to be noted that exactly similar grievance, as now projected from the part of the petitioners, was raised by some other parties as well, in W.P.(C) 38033 of 2016. The said writ petition was filed by the students pursuing the MBA courses in the respondent College under the NRI quota. The challenge was mainly against the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the ASC (Ext.P8 therein and Ext.P2 in W.P(C)Nos.37623 and 37876 of 2016). It has been pointed out by the ASC that Ext.P2 order dated 07.06.2016 and P3 order dated 07.10.2016 of the ASC were virtually the recapitulation of the earlier orders/proceedings passed by the Committee. The challenge was mainly against the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the ASC (Ext.P8 therein and Ext.P2 in W.P(C)Nos.37623 and 37876 of 2016). It has been pointed out by the ASC that Ext.P2 order dated 07.06.2016 and P3 order dated 07.10.2016 of the ASC were virtually the recapitulation of the earlier orders/proceedings passed by the Committee. The point mooted for consideration, as taken note of by the Bench and contained in the opening paragraph of the Judgment dated 11.01.2017 in W.P. (C) 38033 of 2016 is as given below: “The petitioners also challenge Ext.P8 order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the ASC, stipulating that no entrance examination conducted by non-governmental agencies shall be accepted for admission to MBA course except KMAT (Kerala) (conducted by the Universities in Kerala, under the supervision of the ASC), CAT (conducted by the Indian Institute of Management) and CMAT (conducted by the AICTE) and that MAT Score (conducted by All India Management Association) shall not be accepted for MBA admission after May, 2016. The petitioners seek for a declaration that they are entitled to continue the study. ” The factual position was almost similar as in the cases involved herein. Admittedly, the petitioners therein obtained admission in the NRI quota in the month of July 2016 and their admissions were stated as initially approved by the University. It is stated that the petitioners/students had participated in the First Semester MBA Examination as well and the results were declared, also adding that in the meanwhile, they had participated in the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted by the All India Management Association (AIMA) in September 2016 and had cleared the said admission test. In response to the application submitted by the Institutions seeking for approval of the admissions of the petitioners students, it was granted only in respect of 31' students and the candidature of 10' students including the petitioners therein was rejected, holding that they were not qualified. This made the students to challenge the proceedings including the order of the Committee passed on 07.06.2016 [holding that no Entrance Examinations conducted by the Non-Governmental agencies except KMAT, CAT and CMAT shall be accepted for admission to MBA Course and further that MAT score in the examinations conducted by AIMA shall not be accepted after May, 2016]. 12. This made the students to challenge the proceedings including the order of the Committee passed on 07.06.2016 [holding that no Entrance Examinations conducted by the Non-Governmental agencies except KMAT, CAT and CMAT shall be accepted for admission to MBA Course and further that MAT score in the examinations conducted by AIMA shall not be accepted after May, 2016]. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners/students in W.P (C)No.4581 of 2017 and 4584 of 2017 himself had argued the matter on behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid case (i.e. W.P. (C) 38033 of 2016) as well. The arguments advanced have been specifically taken note of in paragraph 5' of the judgment, firstly that the Committee was not having any power, jurisdiction or competence to have issue Ext.P8/P12 therein (dated 07.06.2016 and 04.11.2016 respectively); secondly that the petitioners/students were admitted under the NRI Quota, who hence stood only on a different footing and no test was necessary in this case, as per the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 14708 of 2012 and also as to the unreasonable restriction not to reckon MAT score after May, 2016 despite it being a test in the national level. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the Govt. of India Circular/Resolution dated 17.06.2004 (Ext.P13 therein) issued by the Dept. of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Humans Resources Development, Govt. of India, streamlining the admissions to MBA and such other courses, reckoning 'MAT' as one of the five National level Entrance tests for admission to MBA. It was also specifically asserted by the learned counsel that whether the common entrance test-MAT conducted by the All India Management Association would stand excluded, was not specifically considered by this court in the earlier judgment (Exts.P9 to P11 therein - Ext.P6 to P8 in W.P(C) 37876 and 37623 of 2016) and hence the matter required a fresh look (paragraph 5 of the judgment). 13. 13. The version of the Committee, as putforth by the learned Standing Counsel, was taken note of by the Bench in paragraph 6' onwards, particularly as to the power of the Committee to intervene at every stage by virtue of the power conferred under Act 19 of 2006 [The Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006] and the verdict passed by this Court in 2013 (3) KLT 316 [Kerala Private Medical College Management Association vs. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges) to ensure that the merit was never compromised and thus to satisfy the 'Triple Tests' stipulated by the Apex Court, was adverted to. It was noted that the petitioners were the students, who obtained admission in July 2016 without satisfying any eligibility test, as noted in paragraph 7, which is the situation in W.P(C) Nos.4581 and 4584 of 2017. It was also clearly observed that the MAT Score of 'September 2016' could never be sought to be relied on to justify the admissions given in July 2016, as involved in W.P(C) 4581 and 4584 of 2017. 14. The scheme of Act 19 of 2006 is to the effect that no admission could be registered as valid without the approval of the Committee. Rule 5 of Ext.P2 Regulations therein (in W.P(C) Nos.4581 and 4584 of 2017) issued by the University in respect of MBA 2016, stipulates that notwithstanding anything that are stated in the Rules and Regulations, admission policy and procedure shall be decided from time to time by following the guidelines issued by the Govt. of Kerala and the Govt. of India. The absence of challenge in respect of any of the statutory provisions from the part of the petitioners was adverted to in paragraph 7. The sequence of events leading to various orders/proceedings issued by the Committee were then taken note of in the subsequent paragraphs. of Kerala and the Govt. of India. The absence of challenge in respect of any of the statutory provisions from the part of the petitioners was adverted to in paragraph 7. The sequence of events leading to various orders/proceedings issued by the Committee were then taken note of in the subsequent paragraphs. The specific observation made by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, as given in paragraph 8' of the common judgment in W.P.(C) 30047 of 2016 and connected cases (Ext.P7 in 37623 and 37876 of 2016), to the effect that the petitioners therein had not pointed out any vitiating circumstance in the decision of the second respondent Committee that MAT score in the test conducted by AIMA shall not be accepted for admission to the MBA programme for the academic year 2016-17 onwards and further that the decision of the Committee which was an 'expert body' could not lightly be interfered with, as a matter of course, was referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in W.P.(C)No. 38033 of 2016. The question whether the petitioners/students who got admission in the NRI quota required a different treatment than the rest, by virtue of their alleged difference in status, (without satisfying the requirement of clearance in the common entrance test) was considered in paragraph 12 onwards in the aforesaid judgment. Similarly, the contention raised by the petitioners as to the factum of 'several seats lying vacant' and that no prejudice will be caused to anybody else if their admissions were approved, were also taken note of by this Court. It was thereafter, that a finding was rendered, that if the version of the petitioners that no 'merit rating' was required to be done in the case of NRI candidates was to be accepted, it would be totally alien to the scheme of professional education and the mandate given by the Apex Court, as per the rulings rendered at different points of time, holding that there shall be no compromise with merit. Reliance was sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [ (2012) 4 SCC 707 ] as well. 15. Reliance was sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [ (2012) 4 SCC 707 ] as well. 15. In paragraph 16 of the judgment in W.P(C)No.38033 of 2016, the Bench dealt with the scope of the verdict passed by another Bench of this Court in W.P(C)14708 of 2012. The relevant paragraphs of the verdict wherein the observation made by the Apex Court in T.M.A Pai's case (cited supra) and Inamdar's case (cited supra) were also reproduced and it was after meticulous analysis of the facts and figures and relevant provisions of law, it was held in paragraph 16, that the said verdict passed in W.P(C)14708 of 2012 was given only in the given context and in respect of the particular year leaving the fate/course to be decided, as per the verdict to be pronounced by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, where the matter was pending. It was also observed that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had passed the final verdict as reported in AIR 2016 SC 2601 (5 member Bench) (cited supra), the relevant portion of which as contained in paragraphs 60 and 61 were extracted. Further reference was made to the law declared by the Apex Court with regard to the applicability of NEET(National Entrance Eligibility Test) for getting admissions in the Medical field and it was accordingly held that the judgment in W.P(C) 14708 of 2012 would not come to the rescue of the petitioners therein in any manner. 16. The contentions that 'several seats were lying vacant' in several Institutions and that admission given to the petitioners in the NRI segment will not prejudice anybody else, were dealt with again in paragraph 19. Making a reference to the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Halder and others [ (2011)4 SCC 606 = AIR 2011 SC 1429 ] that merit cannot be an instance of casualty, paragraph 10 of the verdict passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision was extracted and it was accordingly concluded that the MAT (conducted by All India Management Association) shall not be reckoned as an approved eligibility test after May, 2016. The concluding portion as contained in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “20. The crux of the discussion made above is that the challenge raised against Ext.P8 order dated 07.06.2016 stipulating that 'MAT' (conducted by All India Management Association) shall not be reckoned as an approved eligibility test after May, 2016, making it clear that the tests conducted by non-governmental agencies will not be reckoned, is not assailable. Similarly, the challenge raised against Ext.P12 order passed on 04.11.2016, whereby approval has been rejected in respect of the petitioners herein (stated as under the NRI quota), also fails. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ” 17. It is borne out by the records, particularly the proceedings of the MG University dated 26.11.2016, produced as Ext.R2(a) along with the counter affidavit dated 19.06.2017 filed by the University in W.P.(C)No.37876 of 2016 that the Board of Studies in Management (PG), as per the proceedings held on 04.11.2016, had considered and recommended that, for maintaining academic standard of MBA programme from 2017-18 academic year onwards, the eligibility entrance examinations for MBA admissions will be based on KMAT, CAT and CMAT only, by amending the existing Regulations of MBA and that the Vice Chancellor, in exercise of the powers of the Academic Council under Section 10(17) of Chapter III of M.G. University Act, 1985 had approved the said recommendations. As such, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the proceedings seeking to have MAT continued as an eligibility test to be reckoned for the purpose of MBA is not liable to be accepted. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the point mooted by the petitioners in the instant cases, that the issue raised herein forms a virgin point to be considered and dealt with by this Court and that the earlier verdicts rendered by this Court require reconsideration, is devoid of any merit. The point stands answered against the petitioners. 18. Coming to individual cases; in W.P(C) 37623 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Institutions, there is a specific averment that by virtue of the course and practice followed by them, by the time Ext.P2 order dated 07.06.2016 was issued by the Committee, they had already completed the admission for the year 2016-17. The point stands answered against the petitioners. 18. Coming to individual cases; in W.P(C) 37623 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Institutions, there is a specific averment that by virtue of the course and practice followed by them, by the time Ext.P2 order dated 07.06.2016 was issued by the Committee, they had already completed the admission for the year 2016-17. As pointed out already, a memo dated 10.07.2017 has been filed on behalf of the Committee producing as many as 5 different documents. Document No.3 is the approval order dated 23.11.2016 issued to the petitioner Institutions, which shows the details of the students approved. On going through the said document, it is seen that the sanctioned strength for MBA course for the year 2016-17 was 120 and the total admissions effected was 119. It is also stated by the Committee that as per the approval order dated 23.11.2016, the authorities of the petitioner Institutions had produced the list of admitted candidates with supporting documents, further pointing out that two candidates by name Anupama Kizhekethil Gopinath and Rinto Jose produced the required documents except for the qualifying eligibility certificate and hence their requisite qualification could not be ascertained, by virtue of which their approval of admission was withheld. The Committee, as per document No.3 as aforesaid, has granted approval of admissions of all the remaining 117 candidates except the above two and the Registrar of the MG University was directed to register the admissions of all 117 candidates as above. As per document No.3 (details of the list of candidates approved), it is seen that all those candidates have cleared the MAT either in May 2016 or before and never beyond May 2016. In the case of the student by name Rinto Jose, at Sl.No.93, clearance was in CMAT and it is stated that additional approval order was issued on 16.12.2016. The position in respect of Sivasankari M.R. at Sl.No.105, who participated in the CMAT, is not given therein, but no dispute is raised by the Committee in respect of the eligibility of the said student. In the above circumstance, the admissions effected by the petitioner Institution, in respect of the students approved by the Committee, as per Document No.3/proceedings dated 23.11.2016 and the subsequent proceedings referred to as above, being well within the purview of the order under challenge, no interference is warranted in respect of such admissions. In the above circumstance, the admissions effected by the petitioner Institution, in respect of the students approved by the Committee, as per Document No.3/proceedings dated 23.11.2016 and the subsequent proceedings referred to as above, being well within the purview of the order under challenge, no interference is warranted in respect of such admissions. With the above observations, the challenge raised against Ext.P2/P3 orders passed by the Committee stand repelled and the writ petition is disposed of. 19. In W.P(C)37876 of 2016, there is a specific case for the petitioner Institution (as raised by the petitioner Institution in W.P(C) 37623 of 2016) that, by virtue of the practice and procedure being pursued by them, by the time the ASC had issued Ext.P2/P3 orders, the admissions for MBA had already been finalised. The particulars of approval sought for or given are not brought on record. However, the factual assertion made by the petitioner is not controverted by the Committee or by the University by filing any affidavit or statement. As it stands so, we reasonably presume that, the students who have been admitted, based on the eligibility test, was not after May, 2016 and as such their admissions are liable to be sustained. It is ordered accordingly. 20. In W.P.(C)No.4584 of 2017, the petitioners/students have conceded in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioners 4 to 8 herein were also parties to the earlier writ petition (W.P(C)No.30227 of 2016), which however came to be dismissed as per Ext.P11 common judgment dated 08.09.2016 (along with W.P(C)No.30148 and 30227 of 2016). The version of the petitioners is that the nature of reliefs sought for and the challenge made in the present writ petition is different from the former. For the reasons already discussed, we find it difficult to accept the said version. The issue stands already considered and decided by this Court as per Ext.P11 common judgment in W.P (C)Nos.30047, 30148 and 30227 of 2016, which is same as Ext.P7 in W.P(C) 37876 of 2016 and 37623 of 2016, and also as per the subsequent judgment dated 11.1.2017 in W.P.(C) No.38033 of 2016. It is more relevant to note that the petitioners in W.P(C)No.4581 and 4584 of 2017 are students, who admittedly got admission for MBA courses in the 4th respondent college in July 2016. Admittedly, they cleared the test conducted by the All India Management Association (MAT) only in September, 2016. It is more relevant to note that the petitioners in W.P(C)No.4581 and 4584 of 2017 are students, who admittedly got admission for MBA courses in the 4th respondent college in July 2016. Admittedly, they cleared the test conducted by the All India Management Association (MAT) only in September, 2016. Apart from the fact that the said test was not liable to be reckoned as a valid eligibility test for admission to MBA as per the orders passed by the ASC, which has been upheld by this Court, it also remains a fact that such clearance, [even if it be a valid test] in September 2016, could not have been a basis for getting admission to the MBA Course in July 2016. Similar circumstance was prevailing in WP.(C)38033 of 2016, which was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 11.01.2017. We find that there is absolutely no merit in these two writ petitions. 21. It was asserted by the petitioners/students in W.P(C) No.4581 and 4584 of 2017 that the issue considered in the earlier round of litigation; particularly in W.P(C).30227 of 2016 (where petitioners 4 to 8 in W.P(C)No.4584 of 2017 were some of the petitioners) was entirely different and that the scope of the order passed by the ASC on 07.06.2016 or the authority of the respondent Committee to have passed such an order was never under challenge. This Court called for the “Judges' papers” to ascertain the position which revealed the first prayer in the following terms: '(i) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 order in so far as it stipulates that other than KMAT, CAT and CMAT, no entrance examination shall be accepted for admission to MBA course and that MAT score shall not be accepted for MBA admission after May 2016” The grounds raised in support thereof were grounds 'A' 'D' and 'I', which are also reproduced below: “A. The stipulation in Ext.P1 other than KMAT, CAT and CMAT no entrance examination shall be accepted for admission to MBA Course and that MAT score shall not be accepted for MBA admission after May 2016 is plainly unreasonable and irrational and hence liable to be interdicted.” “D. It is submitted that there is no logic or reason in recognizing* [*presumably 'not recognising' -the word 'not' appears to be inadvertently omitted, as evident from the next sentence] results of the MAT entrance test conducted by AIMA when the same has been recognized in hundreds of B-schools across the country and by the 2nd respondent itself till May, 2016. By adopting a stand in Ext.P1 that MAT score shall not be accepted for MBA admission after May, 2016, the 2nd respondent is jeopardizing all prospects of the petitioners.” “I. The impugned direction in Ext.P1 is ultra vires to the Act XIX of 2006 and against the spirit of the enactment.” 22. Similarly, in W.P(C)No.38033 of 2016 (wherein judgment was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017), the challenge was mainly against Ext.P8 order issued by the Committee, which is the same as impugned in these writ petitions and also in the earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P(C)No.30227 of 2016 (wherein it was Ext.P1). Prayer No.4 in W.P.(C)38033 OF 2016 is reproduced below: “(iv). Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 and quash the same, to the extent it affects petitioners.” From the above, it is quite evident that the challenge was more or less similar in nature. 23. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in W.P(C) Nos.4581 & 4584 of 2017 and they are dismissed. W.P(C) No.18629 of 2015 stands dismissed as not pressed. 23. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in W.P(C) Nos.4581 & 4584 of 2017 and they are dismissed. W.P(C) No.18629 of 2015 stands dismissed as not pressed. W.P (C) Nos.37623 and 37876 of 2016 are disposed of, sustaining the admissions to the extent, as mentioned above.