Modern Dental College & Res.Cen. & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

CENTRE AND OTHERS ...Appellants

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...Respondents

O R D E R

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This order would dispose of I.A. Nos.51-52 of 2011 in

Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009.

2. The appellants, Modern Dental College and Research

Centre and others in I.A. Nos.51-52 of 2011 have filed these

applications for modification of the scheme contained in the

order dated 27.5.2009. It is prayed that the appellants be

permitted to fill the Non-Resident Indian (for short NRI)

seats at their discretion and in case sufficient students are

not available, the appellants should be at liberty to admit

other students within the NRI quota as per the discretion of

the management, subject to maintaining inter se merit,

amongst the students admitted against the said quota as

has been permitted in the past.

3. The main question which has been articulated by the

learned counsel for the parties is regarding the method and

procedure for filling the unfilled NRI seats in medical and

dental colleges. The appellants in these appeals are private

un-aided medical and dental colleges or associations of

such colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

4. The appellants had challenged the constitutional

validity of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan

Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk ka Nirdharan)

Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The

Writ Petitions challenging this Act are pending adjudication

before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

5. This court in the case of the appellants decided by this

court and reported in Modern Dental and Research

Central and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and

Others (2009) 7 SCC 751 held that "Both the State

2

Government as well as the Association of Private Medical

and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance

examination for this purpose. As regards "the NRI seats",

they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules in

the manner they were done earlier."

6. The Court made arrangement for the academic year

2009-10. The same arrangement was continued for the

next academic year 2010-2011. The Bench consisting of

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr.

Justice T.S. Thakur in R.D. Gardi Medical College and

Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2010)

10 SCC 225 observed in para 28 as under:-

"A plain reading of the above leaves no

manner of doubt that unfilled NRI seats

had to be transferred to the general pool

to be filled up on the basis of the merit of

the candidates in the State level common

entrance test conducted by Madhya

Pradesh Vyavasyik Pariksha Mandal or

by any other agency authorized by the

State Government for that purpose. The

unfilled seats in the NRI quota were,

therefore, to be treated as a part of the

general pool and once that was done the

share of the college in terms of the order

passed by this Court would be 50% out of

the said seats. The High Court has, in

that view, rightly held that while the

management was justified in filling up 5

3

unfilled seats in NRI quota, the remaining

5 could not have been filled up otherwise

than on the basis of the entrance test

referred to in Rule 8."

7. Thereafter, on 27.1.2011 the same arrangement was

continued for the academic year 2011-12. The order of this

Court dated 27.1.2011 reads as under:-

"The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in

Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009 etc. shall be

applicable for the academic year 2011-

12."

8. The said order was passed after hearing the learned

counsel for the parties. No application for modification of

this order was filed immediately after the said order was

passed. The present applications have come up for

adjudication before us at a time when the admission

process is likely to be concluded within a few days only.

Any interference at this stage would create insurmountable

problems and difficulties for all concerned.

9. This Court has already ordered that the same

arrangement shall be continued for the academic year 2011-

12.

4

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length. In our considered view, no interference is called for

as far as academic year 2011-12 is concerned.

11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it

appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the Writ

Petitions filed by the appellants and others challenging the

aforementioned Act as expeditiously as possible so that the

controversy involved in the petition is concluded by a

reasoned judgment. The High Court is requested to decide

the case as expeditiously as possible and, in any event,

within two months from the date of the communication of

this order.

12. This court has deliberately refrained from giving any

observations and findings on arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties because Writ Petitions are

pending in the High Court. We request the High Court to

decide the Writ Petitions without being influenced by any

observations made by this Court.

5 13. I.A. Nos. 51 and 52 are accordingly disposed of and

I.A. Nos. 53 and 54 are permitted to be withdrawn. In the

facts and circumstances of this case we direct the parties to

bear their own costs.

..................................J.

(Dalveer Bhandari)

.................................J.

(Deepak Verma)

New Delhi;

September 23, 2011

6