P.V Asha, J.:— Two students who got admission for the M.D.S (Master of Dental Surgery) Course in the Azeezia College of Dental Sciences and Research, Meeyannoor, Kollam, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘college’), which is a Private Self Financing College, have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the order Ext.P19 passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’), declining approval to their admission. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, they challenged Exts.P22 and P23 orders of the Kerala University of Health Sciences also by which it rejected their registration as MDS students.
2. The petitioners have passed B.D.S degree from the University of Kerala and registered their names with the Dental Council of Kerala. Exts.P3 and P4 rank cards show that they are ranked 1177 and 1355 respectively in the COMEDK PGET, 2015, an Entrance Examination conducted by the Consortium of Medical, Engineering and Dental Colleges of Karnataka, with more than 50% scores for Dental course.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, based on their applications, they got admission to the M.D.S courses in Orthodontics and Periodontics respectively in the Azeezia College in the management quota on 6.6.2005 and 9.6.2005 They remitted the requisite fees and refundable deposit and started attending classes from 17.06.2015 onwards.
4. While so, the Committee issued Ext.P18 letter dated 12.08.2015 to the Principal of the College, informing the defects and shortcoming found on its preliminary scrutiny of the list of candidates admitted to the M.D.S course in the College. The remarks against the name of the petitioners were: “Admissions withheld due to lack of eligibility criteria, COMEDK is not acceptable qualifying examination as there are qualified students in the State and Central M.D.S list. Prior approval not obtained and reason to admit the COMEDK candidates is not stated.” The College was called upon to attend the final hearing scheduled on 4.9.2015 with all connected records. Thereafter on 4.9.2015, the Committee passed Ext.P19 order declining approval to the admissions granted to the petitioners.
5. By Ext.P19 order dated 4.9.2015, the Committee approved the admissions granted against three seats out of the six granted in the management quota. In the case of the petitioners, the Committee found that they were not qualified either in the All India PG Dental Entrance Examination or in the Kerala Entrance Examination 2015 or in any of the PG Dental Entrance Tests conducted by the ASC. The Committee further found that the College did not inform the Committee that there were no candidates available from the State or Central Exam rank lists; they did not seek prior permission either at the stage of the admission of the petitioners or at any time when steps were taken to admit the petitioners with COMEDK entrance test qualification. It was further found that even the consortium had not accepted the COMEDK as a national level examination and hence the admission granted to the petitioners cannot be supported in terms of the agreement also. The Committee stated that it had approved the prospectus of All Kerala Self Financing Dental College Management Consortium (AKSDCMC), of which the Azeezia College is a member, on condition that the member Colleges shall obtain prior permission at each stage of admission. But the College admitted the petitioners without observing the condition of getting prior permission. The petitioners have approached this Court at this stage.
6. According to the petitioners, they were granted admission at a time when there were no students available from among those qualified in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Government of Kerala or the All India Entrance Examination. It is also their case that the management had granted admission to the petitioners only after being convinced of the fact that there were no qualified hands available for admission to the course when no candidates came forward even after giving advertisements several times.
7. A statement was filed by the 2nd respondent with the following contentions. The Management Consortium of 10 Private Self Financing Colleges in the State including the Azeezia College had entrusted the Committee to conduct Entrance Examination for admission of students under the management quota in the member colleges. The committee conducted an entrance test on 15.02.2015, in which only 22 students secured the minimum qualifying marks of 50%. Due to dearth of candidates, a second Entrance Examination was held, in which only 9 candidates were qualified. Thus there were only 31 qualified students available for about 60 seats in 10 Private Self Financing Colleges. In the Azeezia College 18 seats were available for M.D.S course, 50% of which has to be filled up in Government quota and the remaining 50% in the management quota. Out of the 50% quota for management, 15% has to be set apart for NRI. As on 6.6.2015, there were only 5 students admitted under the Government quota and 5 under the management quota. As several seats remained vacant for want of qualified candidates, the College had requested the Director of Medical Education to fill up the vacant seats in the management quota by candidates allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination. Ext.R2(A) is copy of the letter dated 4.6.2015 addressed to the Commissioner for Entrance Examination surrendering 4 seats to Government agreeing for admission from the merit list with Government fee. Ext.R2(B) is copy of the letter dated 6.6.2015 by which a list of 7 vacancies of M.D.S course was forwarded to the Director of Medical Education, saying that, out of the 18 seats available for M.D.S in the college, admission could be made only against 10 seats. It is further stated that, the petitioners had submitted applications for admission under the management quota on 6.6.2015 and 09.06.2015 respectively; 5 students were admitted thereafter on 10.06.2015 and thus 18 students were admitted by 10.06.2015 and their names were uploaded in the website of the University for provisional registration, before the date of closure of admission on 10.06.2015 It is further stated that in Annexure-R1(a)/R2(C) list forwarded to the Committee, the details of 14 students were furnished since certain admissions were cancelled. The 2 respondent further stated that the College had advertised the availability of seats in the M.D.S courses in National Dailies and other media. In view of the shortage of candidates qualified in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Committee, the College had also expressed their desire to surrender the seats under the management quota to the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, as per Ext.R2(A) and (B) letters sent on 4.6.2015 and 6.6.2015 Subsequent to the letter Ext.R2(A), 4 students had submitted applications under the management quota and they were granted admission on 6.6.2015; Ext.R2(B) letter was furnished on 6.6.2015 forwarding the list of the 7 vacant seats, in reply to the letter received from the Director of Medical Education. According to the 2 respondent, there was an absolute dearth of qualified candidates for admission to the M.D.S courses in Kerala. Even though there were total number of 15 colleges including 5 Government colleges and 10 private self financing colleges, the number of candidates qualified in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner was only 97 as against 112 merit seats. It was in those circumstances that, the candidates like the petitioners were granted admission. The 2 respondent also points out that the Committee had approved the admission granted to students who got qualified in COMEDK in Pushpagiri College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvalla, which is also a Self Financing College, as evident from Ext.P20
8. The Committee has filed a statement, according to which, the admission granted to the petitioners cannot be approved, since they have not got qualified themselves either in the entrance test held by the Commissioner or in any of the All India Entrance Examinations or the entrance test held by the Committee; Test conducted by COMEDK is not an All India Entrance Examination or national eligibility test recognised by the Committee. Regarding the approval granted by the Committee in Ext.P20, it is stated that the said admissions were granted with prior approval of the Committee. On receipt of information about the non-availability of candidates from the Kerala Christian College Management Federation (KCPCMF), the Committee issued a notice Ext.R1(5) announcing the availability of vacancies in the said college. At the same time, the 2 respondent did not inform the Committee about non availability of the candidates for admission and they did not take any steps to get approval from the Committee before making advertisement or before admitting the students. It is pointed out that, they did not even mention anything regarding the advertisement Ext.P13 in their letters addressed to the Committee earlier. Apart from that it was stated that, in the event of such an intimation, the Committee had to publish a notice by itself, as explained in Ext.P20 and as evident from Ext.R1(5). It is stated that the Committee is taking as much efforts to see that students are not exploited and there is no collection of capitation fee by the Self Financing Colleges.
9. The Director of Medical Education has also filed a statement. It is stated that as per G.O(Rt) No. 1700/2015.H&Edn dated 5.6.2015, the Government had accepted the request of the Principal of the College surrendering vacant seats subject to the condition that the surrendered seats will not be compensated in the succeeding years and the Commissioner for Entrance Examination was directed to allot students from the rank list to the 4 surrendered seats as per rules and orders in force regarding reservation. Despite, the management has filled all the seats by itself. According to the D.M.E, none of the provisions in the prospectus for admission to P.G Dental Course, 2015 or any Government Orders permit Private Self Financing Colleges to admit students who have appeared in the entrance test conducted by other States or institutions. Accordingly, the Director of Medical Education justified the action of the Admission Supervisory Committee in not approving the admission granted to the petitioners.
10. All Kerala Self Financing Dental College Management Consortium had decided to introduce a separate selection procedure for admission to M.D.S Courses 2015-16 in the management quota, in terms of the directions of the Apex Court. Accordingly, they had furnished a prospectus, relevant portions of which have been produced as Ext.P6 As per Clause 9 of Ext.P6 prospectus, the selection for admission is to be made on the basis of the inter se merit from the merit list prepared based on the marks obtained in the written test for the Entrance Examination. In the absence of sufficient number of candidates in the rank list prepared by the Consortium, candidates from the rank list of Commissioner for Entrance Examination were to be considered in the order of merit. Clause 10 provides for the duration of test, its scheme, standard, conduct of examination, issuance of admit cards, etc. Clause 12 provides that the Controller of Examinations will prepare and publish the rank list of candidates who qualify in the examinations and forward it to the member colleges for selection of students on the basis of merit alone. In the year 2014-15, the Consortium entrusted the conduct of Entrance Examination to the Committee. In the examination conducted on 15.02.2015, there were only 54 applicants out of which only 22 students got qualified securing 50% or more marks. In the subsequent test conducted on 17.05.2015, out of the 26 candidates appeared, only 9 candidates got qualified.
11. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners have produced Ext.P8 agreement entered into between the Self Financing Private Dental Colleges including the 2 respondent college with the State Government on 17.04.2015, by which they agreed that 50% of the seats for the P.G Dental Courses would be filled up from the list prepared by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, while the remaining 50% were to be filled by the management on inter se merit from the rank list of entrance test for M.D.S Courses published by their Consortium. The agreement also contained a further provision that in the event of non availability of sufficient number of qualified candidates in the Entrance Examination conducted by them and the State Entrance Examinations, the management can admit students on the basis of any P.G Dental Entrance Examinations, 2015, conducted at the national level. Clause 5 reads as follows:
“5. 50% of the total seats shall be Management quota seats to be filled by the Educational Agency on the basis of inter se merit in the rank list of the Entrance Test for MDS Courses published by Kerala State Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examination, 2015. In the event of sufficient number of qualified candidates under Kerala State Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examination, 2015 who have applied for Management quota seats in the institutions concerned are not available, the Managements can admit students on the basis of any PG Dental Entrance Examinations, 2015 conducted at the National level. Out of the 50%, the Managements are entitled to fill up 15% of total seats by the eligible students who are children/dependants of Non-resident Indians, as per the conditions stipulated in GO(MS) No. 34/2013.H&FWD dated 5.2.2013 and further orders in this regard if any, issued by Government from time to time. All the students under NRI Quota are exempted from qualifying in any Entrance Test and can be admitted based on their academic eligibility as stipulated by the University.”
12. According to the petitioners, the COMEDK Entrance Examination is a national level examination and therefore the students who are qualified therein, are eligible for admissions, when there are no candidates from other rank lists. According to them, the time for admission was extended till 10.06.2015 as per order dt.24.3.2015 in W.P(c) No. 76 of 2015 of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The admissions of the petitioners were done within the prescribed time limit and were liable to be approved.
13. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University K.U.H.S
14. The question to be examined is whether the admissions granted to the petitioners, who passed the entrance test conducted by the Consortium of Medical Engineering and Dental colleges of the State of Karnataka, are liable to be approved. As per clause 5 of the prospectus Ext.P6, the candidates have to qualify in the entrance test held by the All Kerala Self-financing Dental College Management Consortium (AKSDMC) securing a minimum of 50% marks, as per the norms laid down by the Dental Council of India. Clause 9 provides that in the absence of sufficient number of qualified hands in that list, the seats shall be filled up by candidates from the rank list of Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The petitioners did not qualify in either of these tests. As per Clause 5 of the agreement Ext.P8 entered into between the Government of Kerala and AKSDMC, the management seats, except the 15% allocated to NRIs, are to be filled from the rank list of entrance test for M.D.S course published by Kerala State Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examinations, 2015. In the event of non-availability of qualified hands in that rank list, the management can admit students on the basis of any PG dental Entrance Examinations 2015 conducted at the national level. The petitioners claim that COMEDK is a national level test and therefore their admissions were liable to be approved, since admissions were granted to them at a time when there was no qualified hand available in the other ranked lists. There is no provision seen in any of the documents, ie. either in the prospectus or in the agreement, that pass in an entrance examination conducted in another State by a group of colleges in that State will make eligible any student for admission to M.D.S course. What the prospectus provides is that even in the absence of a candidate who qualified in the entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination or All India P.G Dental Entrance Examination or the one conducted by the 2 respondent, only those candidates who got qualified in a P.G Dental Entrance Examination, 2015 conducted at national level alone can be admitted. COMEDK conducted by the Karnataka Self Financing Colleges cannot be treated as an Entrance Examination conducted at national level.
15. The next question to be looked into is whether the Admission Supervisory Committee was correct in declining approval to the admissions. The Committee found that the College had not sought any prior permission for admitting the petitioners to the course. They did not also intimate the Committee about the non-availability of qualified hands, either before or after they sought to advertise the non-availability of qualified hands. When the approval of prospectus itself was subject to the condition that the member colleges of the Consortium were to obtain prior permission at every stage of admission, the action of the management in admitting the petitioners who got qualified only in the entrance test held by the Consortium of Professional Colleges of Karnataka State, that too without obtaining prior permission from the Committee, was not proper.
16. 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 (hereinafter referred to as the (‘Act’) was enacted, in order to ensure equity and excellence in the professional education. It is the duty of the Committee to see that the admissions to these colleges are made in a fair, transparent and non-exploitative manner strictly in terms of merit and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Committee has got every authority to supervise the conduct of the examinations and to see that admissions are made strictly in accordance with merit, in order to ensure excellence in the professional education.
17. Section 4(6) of the Act provides as follows:
“The Admission Supervisory Committee shall supervise and guide the entire process of admission of students to the unaided professional colleges or institutions with a view to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit based and non exploitative under the provisions of this Act.”
18. It is in exercise of its power to guide the process of admission that the Committee directed the member Colleges to obtain prior permission at all stages of admission, while approving the prospectus, so as to enable it to render effective supervision over each and every step taken for filling up each of the seats, in order to see that merit is not sacrificed. It is duty bound to ensure transparency and fairness in the process of admission and the same is not tainted with exploitative measures.
19. The fact that permission was not sought for admitting the petitioners who qualified in COMEDK and that no intimation was given to the Committee about the non-availability of candidates from the rank list of the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, of the All India PG entrance examination and the rank list prepared by the Committee for the consortium, are practically admitted. The very contention raised by the College as well as the petitioners that prior permission was not necessary, evidences their admission that they did not seek prior permission. Similarly the claim of the College that they advertised the vacancies in newspapers before admitting the petitioners, if at all correct, lacks transparency and bonafides in as much as they did not care to undertake this process with intimation to the Committee.
20. Sub section 7 of Section 4 of the Act provides that the Admission Supervisory Committee may declare admission made in respect of any or all seats in a particular college or institution to be de hors merit and therefore invalid and communicate the same to the concerned University. In this case, the Committee found that there was no prior approval obtained by the College for admitting the petitioners. The College was bound to convince the Committee about the non-availability of candidates who got qualified in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination or under the All India P.G Dental Entrance Examination or in the test conducted by the Committee itself for the consortium. In such an event, the Committee itself would have taken steps to ensure the correctness of such claim and would have notified the vacancies. It is only when the Committee scrutinised the list of candidates admitted in the college that, it found that admissions were granted to the petitioners who qualified in COMEDK, contrary to its directions.
21. In the statement of the 1st respondent, it is pointed out that, even when the college forwarded the list of candidates, they did not choose to make any mention that they made admissions from a list of another State. They did not also intimate the Committee that they made any advertisement as claimed in the statement filed by them in the Writ Petition, announcing the availability of seats for the M.D.S in various disciplines. In the event of such an intimation being given, the Committee itself would have issued a notice publishing the availability of seats in the college, as done in the case of colleges under the Kerala Christian Professional College Management Federation, who had also entered into a seat sharing agreement with the Govt. In this case it is seen from Ext.P17 order dated 5.6.2015 of the Government that the College had by its letter dated 4.6.2015 surrendered 4 seats of M.D.S course in the management quota to the Government agreeing to admit students from Government merit list with Government fees. This order further shows that the Government accepted the surrender on condition that the surrendered seats would not be compensated in the succeeding years. It is thereafter that the petitioners were admitted apparently against the seats already surrendered to the Government, that too without seeking permission from the Committee. As per the list uploaded as on 10.6.2015 - the date of closure of admissions, the College has filled up all the 18 seats. In the statement of the 2 respondent it is stated that 3 candidates including the petitioners and other 5 candidates submitted applications for admission after the letter was sent surrendering the seats and hence admissions were made to all those seats. It is also stated that, one such admission was cancelled since he was found ineligible. But evidently the college has carried out this process without adopting a transparent procedure without intimation to the Committee and therefore, apparently without any bonafides. It is, in these circumstances, that the Committee has declined approval.
22. The petitioners have raised a contention that the committee has approved admissions granted by the Pushpagiri College of Dental Sciences to the candidates qualified in COMEDK. Therefore the next question to be determined is whether such approval will enable grant of approval to the admission granted to the petitioners by the 2 respondent. The statement filed by the Committee explains the procedure adopted in the case of admissions covered by Ext.P20 Ext.P20 itself makes it clear that those admissions were granted with prior permission, and the counselling on each occasion was made under the supervision and guidance of the Committee. The transparency in the procedure adopted under the supervision of the Committee is evident from Ext.P20 itself. It is seen that the Director of Kerala Christian Professional Colleges Management Federation, of which Pushpagiri College is a member, had requested the Committee to conduct a final spot counselling on 8.6.2015, against the seats which remained vacant after the counselling held on 1.6.2015 The preference was to admit applicants qualified in Kerala Government PG Dental entrance examination and in case such applicants were not available, to admit applicants from the rank list of AIPGDEE and in the absence of such candidates, to admit applicants qualified in the entrance test of other State Governments/Universities. On receipt of the letter from the Director, the Committee directed the College/KCPCMF on 1.6.2015 itself to give wide publicity in leading dailies so as to give timely and adequate information to the aspirants of PG Dental courses and directed them to furnish the details to publish the same in the website of the Committee also. Accordingly, the details were furnished; wide publicity was given and the committee had also published the availability of seats by way of Ext.R1(5) notice. It was thereafter, on being satisfied as to the non-availability of candidates despite the steps taken by the College as directed by the Committee, that approval was granted in Ext.P20
23. Thus approval by Ext.P20 was in a case where prior approval was granted at every stage leading to the admission of those students. But in this case, there is no prior approval. The fact that the petitioners got qualified in COMEDK was made known to the Committee only when the list of candidates was forwarded. The Committee is duty bound to check profiteering, charging of capitation fee in the process of admission while ensuring excellence and equity in professional education for which there should be transparency in the entire process where merit is not sacrificed.
24. The extent to which State can regulate the admissions made by unaided educational institutions and the question whether such institutions are free to devise their own admission procedure or whether the directions made in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697] for compulsorily holding an entrance test by the State or association of institutions and to choose therefrom the students entitled to admission in such institutions, can be sustained in the light of the law laid down in T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], were considered by 7 member Bench of the Apex Court in P.A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537]. Observing that, paras 58 and 59 of the judgment in Pai Foundation permit regulations to be framed for admission in professional institutions by the State agency to ensure admission on merit, it was held that, admissions in Private unaided institutions can be regulated to ensure that the same is done on the basis of merit in a fair and transparent manner in the interest of the student community. After discussing the history, case law on the point and various aspects including the nature of right of the minorities, in para 144 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that, the two Committees for monitoring admission procedure and determining fee structure in the judgment of Islamic Academy are permissible as regulatory measures aimed at protecting the interest of the student community as a whole as also the minorities themselves, in maintaining required standards of professional education on non-exploitative terms in their institutions. Legal provisions made by the State Legislatures or the scheme evolved by the Court for monitoring admission procedure and fee fixation were held to be only reasonable restrictions in the interest of minority institutions permissible under Article 30(1) and in the interest of general public under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that, the Apex Court did not accept the suggestion of the colleges to have checks after the institutions adopted their own admission procedure, taking note of experience of the educational authorities of various States. It was held that, the admission procedure and fixation of fees should be regulated and controlled at the initial stage in order to keep away the evil of unfair practice of granting admission on available seats guided by the paying capacity of the candidates.
25. In Fathima Haneena v. State of Kerala [2008 (3) KLJ 224], a learned Single Judge of this court, considered the legality of the procedure adopted by the professional Colleges in the matter of admission in violation of the conditions stipulated by the Medical Council of India, the Supreme Court of India and Act 19 of 2006. A student approached this Court challenging the entrance test scheduled to be held by the Self Financing Colleges beyond the schedule of time prescribed by the Apex Court and the admission was notified to be made on the basis of marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination and marks obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the Association of Self Financing Colleges, on the ground that the same was against the schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India. as approved by Supreme Court of India in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [(2005) 2 SCC 65] and the scheduled test did not satisfy the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative as held in Inamdar's case (supra). This Court found that there was violation of the time schedule which is impermissible. Regarding the entrance test, this Court after referring to the observations of the apex court in Inamdar's case (supra) and the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act 19 of 2006, which was upheld in Lisie Medical & Educations Institutions v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 409], held that the provisions contained in sub-sections (6) and (7) of S. 4 of the Act especially in subsections 6 and 7 thereof and in the light of the judgment of the division bench in Lisie Medical Education (supra), the entire process of admission has to be mandatorily supervised by the Admission Supervisory Committee, for ensuring that the same is fair, transparent and non-exploitative. From the beginning of the admission process, at every stage, the college ought to have got approval of the Admission Supervisory Committee in respect of the same. The said decision was followed in Noorbina Banu v. State Of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 581] where also challenge was against the conduct of entrance test. The question whether the colleges should obtain prior approval of the Committee at every stage of admission was considered elaborately by another learned Single Judge of this court in Amina Nahna v. State Of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 753]. After discussing the case law on the point including the decisions of the Apex Court in Pai Foundation case, Islamic Academy of Education (supra) and Inamdar's case (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lisie Medical Education (supra) and also the judgments of Fathima Haneena & of Noorbina Banu (supra), this Court reminded the Committee of the statutory duties enjoined on it in order to achieve the purpose for which the Act 19 of 2006 is enacted and to see that the triple test of fairness, transparency and merit based is satisfied in the matter of admissions to the professional colleges. In para 42 it held that, at every stage of the admission process, the Association should have obtained prior approval of the Committee and that the absence of prior approval, as held by this Court in Anna Haseena's case (supra) and Noorbina's case (supra), will invalidate the selection process. The ratio of the above judgments was approved and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court while upholding the cancellation of the entrance test held by the association and explaining the powers and duties of the Committee in regulating admissions, conduct of Entrance Examination and to oversee the procedure of admission as explained by this Court, in the judgment in Kerala Private Medical College Management Association v. Admission Supervisory Committee For Professional Colleges [2013 (3) KLT 316].
26. In this case, admittedly there is no approval obtained from the Committee before granting admission to the petitioners, which proves the violation of the conditions stipulated by the Committee in exercise of its power to ensure that admissions are made adopting a fair, transparent and merit based procedure and to see that the same is non exploitative without giving room for profiteering or extraction of capitation fee with the ultimate goal of achieving excellence in post graduate professional education. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee or the University. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition.
27. Hence the writ petition fails and we dismiss the same.
Comments