CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. S SRIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 10292 of 2005 dated 29-04-200 5.

(2.) THE first respondent herein has filed the above writ petition No. 10292 of 2005 on 22-03-200 5 praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first appellant herein to fill up the vacant seat of M. D. S. Course in the second respondent/dental college for the academic year ending with 28-04-200 5.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the appellants relied on the below mentioned decisions to say that midstream admission and telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year is not permissible:- i) (Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and others) (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 258 wherein in para-23 it was held thus:- "23. THEre is, however a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. In conclusion (i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; (ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions; (iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year; (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission; (v) different modalities of admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counselling and the like have to be completed within the specified time; (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed; (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI. " ii) (Rajiv Kapoor and others vs. State of Haryana and others) (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 115 wherein in para-16 it was held thus:- "16. THE dispute relates to the academic session of the year 1997 and we are in 2000. To utilise the seats meant for the next academic year by accommodating those candidates of 1997 vintage would amount to deprivation of the legitimate rights of those who would be in the fray of contest for selection, on the basis of their inter se merit for the session of 2000, taking into account the performance of the candidates of 1997 in that year. THE suggestion to create additional seats, apart from the objections from the State, cannot also be acceded to for the purpose of admitting only the appellants inasmuch as any additional seats even if allowed to be created during a particular year must be filled up only on the basis of the standard and merit performance of the candidates participating in the contest for the said year. That apart, some of the appellants appear to have got admitted into diploma courses, having not been selected for degree courses and there is no scope for adjusting the period of study put in by them while pursuing diploma course, as one spent for PG degree course. THEre is also a positive prohibition for a candidate pursuing PG diploma course in a particular discipline to claim to do PG degree course in a different discipline. " iii) (Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another vs. Union of India and others) (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65 wherein it was held in para-32 thus:- "32. Having regard to the professional courses, it deserves to be emphasised that all concerned including Governments, State and central both, MCI/dci colleges new or old students, Boards, Universities, examining authorities etc,. are required to strictly adhere to the time schedule whatever provided for; there should not be midstream admissions; admissions should not be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota of anyone, whether State of management. THE carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic year to next academic year is also not permissible. "