VENKATESWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE Vs. CONVENER, CENTRALIZED ADMISSION COMMITTEE (CENTAC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in its proceedings being impugned Information Bureau for 2018-19 (Common Admission Prospectus to Under Graduate Professional Courses in the Union Territory of Puducherry) Volume-III, page 6, Sl.No.6, and quash the same as invalid, arbitrary, ultra-vires the powers of the first respondent, unconstitutional and violative of Proviso to Article 15(5), 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner-College that it is an unaided recognized Telugu linguistic minority Medical College in the Union Territory of Puducherry. In the impugned Information Brochure in Volume-III, page 6, Sl.No.6, dealing with the admission for Under Graduate Professional Courses, the number of seats available in the Government quota was shown as 55 in the petitioner-College. This information is wrong, as it cannot impose seat sharing in a compulsory manner. The reservation is not applicable in the case of minority institutions. The petitioner being a minority professional institution, the respondents cannot demand any seats under the Government quota. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Apex Court in the decisions reported in (T.M.A.Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481) and (P.A.Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537), held that the seat sharing cannot be compulsory, but it can only be adopted in a concessional method, even for the non-minority colleges. The condition of seat sharing imposed as a part of recognition of minority status, as compulsory, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The first respondent is not empowered to regulate the admission procedure and on the other hand, only the third respondent can lay down the standards under Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act. The first respondent has no authority to demand seats from the petitioner-College. Hence, the impugned Brochure to the extent of Sl.No.6 in page 6, Volume III, is invalid, unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra-vires the powers of the first respondent and violative of proviso to Article 15(5), 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not out of compulsion that there is seat sharing and that there is a Memorandum of Agreement dated 16.04.2015 between the parties and thereafter, the approval letter, dated 09.06.2015 is issued. The contention that there was a compulsion with regard to the seat sharing, may not be correct. It is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court reported in (T.M.A.Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481), more particularly, paragraph 68, is not applicable to the facts of this case and it is distinguishable on the facts of this case, more particularly, when there is a consensus between the parties. It is useful to extract paragraph 68 of the T.M.A.Pai Foundation case as follows: