INDIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthumni Doraisami, for vacate injunction petitioners in M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 and respondents 16 and 18 in the Writ Petition; Mr.Isaac Mohanlal for vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012 and respondent 17 in the Writ Petition; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran for first respondent/writ petitioner; Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General for Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, for respondent 2; Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Additional Government Pleader for respondent 4; Mr.S.Yashwant, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent 5; Mr.Haha Mohideen Gisthi for respondent 7 and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for impleaded respondent.

(2.) INDIAN Dental Association, represented by its Honorary State Secretary of Tamil Nadu Branch, has filed the Pro bono Publico, praying for a mandamus, directing the respondents to ensure and conduct admission of students to the Post Graduation Courses strictly as per the laws and regulations based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent and consequently direct the first and second respondents to monitor and supervise the admission process to ensure proper, transparent and merit based admission. Along with the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner has also filed a miscellaneous petition for interim injunction restraining the respondents from conducting admission to the Post Graduation Courses, except based on the merit based rank list published by the second respondent.

(3.) MR.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the vacate injunction petitioner in M.P.No.6 of 2012, in addition to the above grounds, has assailed the order of injunction on the points that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the writ petitioner is canvassing the private cause in the guise of PIL with ulterior motives. During the present academic year, for the State Government quota of 50%, merit list would be drawn based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Higher Secondary Examinations and, if it is so, the approach of the writ petitioner in restraining the vacate injunction petitioner from proceeding with the admission to the Post Graduate Courses as per the schedule prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be appreciated and, in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the order of injunction cannot be allowed to continue and, hence, the same is to be vacated. He would cite the decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (4) SCALE 135.