Bhawna Garg v. University of Delhi & Anr

Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. w TTIE ItrIGI{ COUITT' OF'DEI,HX A'['NX'W DELIIN wP(q Nos. 429412011, 429;912011, 7 103120x t & 4290/2011 % WP(C) No. 429412011. CM NOs. 1681.?/20L1, 16404/201,1 Reserved on: i 3.1 0.201 I Pronounced on: 23.12.2011 . ". PETITTONEITS Dr. Aman l-Iingorani, Ms. Swati Surnbly, Advocates for Petitioners Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. fbr Applicant in (lM No.1681212011 Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, SL. Adv. with Mr. Sidclharth }Jarnbha, Adv. for applicant irr CM 16404/2011 Mr. P.S. Patwalia. Sr. Adv. as Amicus Curiac I NOOPUR. CIIAWX.A & ORS. Through: VERSUS UNXVER.SITYOFDELIil&ORS. .".RI'SI'ONDI'NTS Through: Mr. Mohindel J.S. Rupal, Adv. tbr Respondent No.l/Llniversitl, of Dclhi Mr. A.S. Chanclhiok, n SG with Mr.Neeraj Clhar"rdhari, CGSC, Mr.Akshay Chandra. Mr.I(halid Arshad, Ms. Manjr-rsha Wadhwa-Mr.Riteslr 1(umar, Mr. Sr-unit Goyal, Mr.Piyush Sanghi. Advs. for UOI Mr. Anil Shrivastar/&, Mr. l{itr-rraj Biswas. Ach's. fbr Statc of 1'ripura/lntcrvcner Mr. Adward llehlo, Mr. C.ld. I(ennedy, Mr. Amit l(umar Singh, l/P(C) NOl 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7t 0i/20 | t & 4290/201 I Puge i of39 +4 -+44 ,"r \P Mr. nishim Vashim, Advs. State of Nagaland/Interyeuer Mr. Nobin Singh, Adv. for State of Manipur/Intervener Mr. Atul Waclera, Mr. A.I(. Saini, Advs. for Intewener WF(C) No. 42901201.1 MS. PARIKIIA R,A.MPA[, & OR.S. Through: ... PETITIONER.S Mr. Shanker Raju, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Amicus Curiae VEITSUS GGSIPU & OTIIER.S ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Adv. for R-l Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr.Akshay Chandra, Mr.I(halid Arshad, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Mr.Ititesh l(utnar, Mr. Sumit Goyal, Mr.Piyush Sanghi, Advs. for UOI WP(C) No. 429912011, CM 16403/2011 NOOPUR CHAW]LA & OR.S. Through: l/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 1, 4299/201 I, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I ... PETITIONETTS Dr. Aman Hingorani, Ms. Swati Sumbly, Advocates for Petitioners Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sidclharth Barnbha, Adv. for applicant in CM 16403120II Page 2 of39 \s VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DEN.I{I & ORS. Through: WP(O No. 7L03/2011 BItrAWNA GARG LVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/201 I . .. R.ESPONDENTS Mr. Mohinder J.S. Itupal, Adv. for Respondent No. i/University of Delhi Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr.Akshay Chandra, Mr.I{ralid Arshad, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Mr.Ritesh I(umar, Mr. Surnit Goyal, Mr.Piyush Sanghi, Advs. for UOI Mr. Adward Behlo, Mr. C.M. Kennedy, Mr. Arnit I(urnar Singh, Mr. nishim Vashim, Advs. for State of Nagal and/Intewener Mr. Nobin Singh, Adv. for State of Maniput/Intervener Mr. Atul Waclera, Mr. A.I(. Saini, Advs, for Interuener ... I'ETITIONEIT Through: Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Goel, Ms. Sweta l(ald<ad, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Vanshdeep and Ms. Chinmayee, Advocates. VERSUS Mr. P.S. Patwalia. Sr. Adv. Amicus Curiae Page 3 oJ 39 \il UNIVERSITY OF'DE]LI{I & OR.S. Through: . ". RESPONDENTS Mr. Mohinder.T.S. Rupal, Adv. for Respondent No.1/University of Delhi Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr.Akshay Chandra, Mr.I(halid Arshad, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Mr.Ritesh Kutnar, Mr. Surnit Goyal, Mr.Piyush Sanghi, Advs. fbr UOI Mr. Adward Behlo, Mr. C.M. I(ennedy, Mr. Amit I(umar Singh, Mr. nishirr Vashim, Advs. for State of Nagal and/Intervener Mr. Nobin Singh, Adv. for State of Manipur/Intervenbr Mr. Atul Waclera, Mr. A.I(. Saini, Advs. for Intervener CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CI{IEF' JUSTICE HON' BLE MR. .IUSTICE SIDDIIAR.TTI IVIR.IDIJX, A.K. SIKR[. ACTING CI{XtrF JTISTXCE

¶1The petitioners in all these petitions have identical grievance. They are not huppy with the quota allotted to the Government of India for admission in certain rnedical colleges, and particularly the manuer in which nominees of Governrnent of India are giveu admission in these rnedical colleges without appearing in the admission test conducted by the University, viz. Delhi Universify Medical - Dental Entrance Test, l/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 l, 71 03/201 I & 4290n01 I Page 4 of39 \F 2011 (DUMET). WP(C) 429212011 was treated as the lead case and, therefore, taking note of facts frorn this writ would scrve our purpose.

¶2The bulletin of infounation for the session 2011 of the faculty of Medical Sciences of the Respondent University states that the Itespondent university will conduct MBBS course in three medical colleges i.e. Lady Hardinge Medical College (the ttespondent college), Maulana Azad Medical college (MAMC) and the lJniversity College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) the admissions to which arc to be based on merit as per the Delhi University Medical - Dental Entrance Test 2011( DUMET 2011).

¶3As per clause 2.1.3 of the Bulletin noninations are made by the Government of India (the Respondent Government) to fill seats under the category of "Norninees of Government of India (NGOI)" and the candidates who wish to be considered under this category need not appear in the DUMET but are advised to correspond directly with the specified authorities. As per clause 2.1.6 of the Bulletin the NGOI seats for the MBBS course are 30 out of 150 in the Respondent College.

¶4The petitioner in this petition is a female general category candidate who has cleared the DUMET -2011 with the rank of 250. She was aspiring to get admission to MBBS course in Delhi University on the tltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 1, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 5 of39 \I'l basis of aforesaid rank. There are a total of 234 getleral category MBBS seats in the University. However, out of these, 30 are earmarked for quota meant for norninees of Government of India (NGOI) in the Lady Harding Medical College. Her case is that had there been no such quota, she would have got admission in that college on the basis of her ranking. The procedure and lnanner in which the NGOI quota seats are filled is also questioned.

¶5Accordingly, in the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking, inter alia, a direction quashing the said Bulletin as illegal and unconstitutional, to the extent it provides for filling of 30 seats out of 150 seats in the Respondent College by the Governtnent of India Nominees CNGOI); a writ of mandamus directing that the 30 MBBS seats earmarked for NGOI candidates in the Respondent College for the acadetnic session 2OII-20I2 be filled fi'om general category candidates; a direction to consider the adrnission of the petitioner to the MBBS course at the Respondent College against such General category Seats.

¶6Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Mohit Goel. Ms.Sweta Kakkad and Dr. Aman Flingorani argtted the case for the petitioners. They articulated their point of view in the form of fbllowing subrnissions: lttP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 6 of39 \x I 'Ihe selection of the candidates to the MBBS course must be based only on rnerit and it cannot be leit to the arbitrary and unanalyzed discretion of any administrative body. Such horizontal special reservation or separate channel of entry can be provided only ou basis of merit which can be assessed by the performance of the candiclates in the entrance exam. The Government of India (GoI) cannot choose any candidates according to its whirns and fancies. The GOI has to nominate candidates only in accordance with rank secured in the Entrance exam. To support its contention the Petitioner has relied on Narayan Shornta v. Ponleaj I(umar Lekhar,. AIR 2000 SC 72: "24. The following principles emerge liom the above rulings:

(a) A provision for reservation mlrst be within reasonable limits.

(b) There can be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia for the plrrpose of Articles 15(1), 15(4) and29(2).

(c) There can be reservation for persons belonging to areas which are socially and educationallv backward.

(d) A rural area is not a class by itself and cannot be considered to be socially and educationally backward merely because it is a rural area. IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 l, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 7 of39 .fl

(e) Admission to post-graduate courses should be strictly based on merit. (0 The merits of the candidates seeking admission to higher educational courses shall bejudged by uniform standard and for that purpose holding an entrance examination is the best method.

(g) There shall be no dilution of stanclards in higher educational courses and in particular', post-graduate courses.

¶30We shall now advert to rule 5(i) which exempts the candidates re'ferued to in Sub-rules (i), (ii), (iii) and

(iv) of Rule 4 fi'om appearing in the entrance exarnination. We are not concerned with Sub-rule (i) of Rule 4 as stated already. With rcference to the candidates referred to in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4, there is no justification for exempting them fi'orn appearing in the entrance examination. As has been repeatedly held by this Court, the selection of candidates for Post-graduate courses should be based only on rnerit and it cannot be left to the arbitrary discretion of any administrative body. Though we have upheld reseration of 4 seats under NEC quotet, we are of the opinion that such reseration can be provided only on the basis of merit which can be assessed by the performance of the candidates in the entrance examination. The NEC cannot choose any candidate according to its whirns and fancies. The NEC has to recommend candidates only in accorclance with the rank secured in the entrance examination." H/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 1, 7 I 03201 I & 4290/201 I Page I of39

¶7The counsel for the petitioners have also takeir sustenance fiom the judgnrent of the Supreme Court in State of Madhys Fraclesh v. Gopal T-Tirthani, AIR 2003 SC 2952 for proving their coutention that even if there are two channels of entty, there has to be a common entrancc test and the candidates rnust secure miuimum qualifying marks so as to become eligible for reservation. In the said case, it rvas held as under: "24. The eligibility test, called the entratlce test or the pre-PG test, is conducted with dual pulposes. Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and intelligence quo.tient of a candidate whether he would be able to prosecute post-graduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital significance at the counselling when it comes to allotting the successfui candidates to different disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are considered to be lnore creamy and are more coveted than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go by. If at all there can be departure, that has to be minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the field of medical ' education, which for the present are available as a body in the Medical Council of India'"

¶8It is further submitted by the petitioners' counsel that the GOI has itself taken the stand in its counter affidavit that thc selection of students \VP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 1, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 9 of39 against the central pool seats is made by the beneficiary agencies either on the basis of entrance exams or academic rnerit.

¶9The second pillar on which the learned counsel for thb petitioners want their case to be built is that the exemption granted to the NGOI category of candidates is unconstitutional and illegal and is liable to be struck down. As the DUMET-2011 has alrcady been conducted on

22.05.2011, 30 seats earmarked for NGOI categorl' of candidates in the Itespondent College must be filled with General category candidates, including the petitioners.

¶10Third pillar of their edifice is that it is legally irnpermissible to have 20o/o horizontal special reservation (30 out of 150 seats)/ separate channel of entry for NGOI candidates in the Respondent College. Such high percentage is violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the Apex Court's judgnrent in Anil Ifumnr Gupta, v. State of UP, (1995) 5 SCC 173 whercin it was held: "In this connection, we must reiterate what this Court has said in Indra Sawlurey. While holding that what may be called "horizontal reseration" can be provided under Clause (1) of Article i6, the majority judgrnent administered the following caution in para '744; "(B)ut at the same time, one thing is clear. It is in vety exceptional situation - and not for all and sundry ' reasons - that any further reservations of whatever kind, should be provided under Clause (1)' In such IVP(C) NOs 4294/201I, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/201 I Puge I0 of39 51/ cases, the State has to satisfy, if called upon, that making such a provision was necessaly (in public interest) to redress the specific situation. The very presence of Clause (4) should act as a damper upoll the propensity to create further classes deserving special treatment. The reason for saying so is very sirnple. If reservations are made both urder Clause (4) as well as under (1), the vacancies available for fi'ee competition as well as reserved categories would be conespondingly whittled down and that is not a reasonable thing to do". Though the said observations were made with reference to Clauses (1) and (a) of Ar.ticle 16, the same apply with equal force to Clauses

(1) and (a) of Article 15 as well. In this case, the reservation of fifteen percent of seats for special categories was on very high side. As pointed out above, two categories out of them rcpresenting six percent out of fifteen percent are really reservations under Article 15(4), wrongly treated as reservations under Article 15(1). Even otherwise, the special reservation would be nine percent. The respoudents would be well advised to keep in rnind the adrnonition administered by this Courl and ensure that the special reservations (horizontal reservations) are kept at the minimum." Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the l-Ion'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shajul George v. Stste of Gujarat,

(1997) 2 GLR 1250 wherein it was held that it is not open to reserve any seat for the Central Government save Ibr reservation provided under Article 15 of the Constitution. As regards the special needs of the states rVlG) NOs. 4294/2011,4299/2011, 7t03/201I & 4290/20t I Page I I of39 -\>/ /union territories where no medical education is available, the Flon'ble high Court referred to the .scherne of the respondent Governtnent approved by the Supreme Court rL Dr. Dinesh l(urnor & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College Allnhabad & Ors., 1986 (3) SCC 727, in tertns of which not less than l5o/o of the total number of seats in each medical college or institution without taking into account any reseration policy are to be filled in on the basis of All India Entlauce Exarnination. The Supreme Court had considered new formula as fair and just which brought about real equality of opportunify in aclmission in MBIIS/BDS course without placing students of one state in an advantageolls position over others. After consideration, the Gujarat l{igh Court stluck down the reseration of MBBS seats for stuclents to be nominated bv the Central Government as illesal. In the said case. it was held as under: "Then came a leading case of Dr. Dineshkumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehm Medical College, Allahabad and Ors., [1986] 3 SCR 345 (Dineshkumar II). In Dineshkumar (II), pursuant to the direction given by the Court earlier, a scheme subrnitted by the Mcdical Council of India and circulated amongst various State Governments and Deans of Medical Faculty arid others was considered at length. The schelne was rnodified and redrafted and was subrnitted by the Government of India to the Court for acceptance, which was considered by the Supreme Court. After taking into account objections of various State tlP(C) NOl 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7 I 03/201 I & 4290/20 I I Page 12 of39 I Governments and particularly States of Tamil Nadu and l(arnataka regarding the quota for All India Entrance Examination in the light of reseryation policy, the Apex Court directed that in accordance with the suggestions made in the scheme by the Government of India, not less than 15% o'f the total number of seats in each Medical College or Institution without taking into account any reselation policy shall be filled in on the basis of All [ndia Entrance Exarnination. Their Lordships observed that the new formula was fair and just and would bting about the real equality of opportunity in admissions in the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course without placing the students in one State in an advantageous or disadvantageous position as compared to the students in anbther State. The'Court also rioted that it rnight affect reservation policy adopted by a particular State (iovernment. If percentage of the reservation is high, as in thc State of Tarnil lt{adu or State of I(arnataka, mrmber of seats available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Exarnination would be relatively less than what would be in a State where the percentage of resenrations is low. There would thus be total inequality in the matter of rnaking available seats for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examfuiation, but the Couft stated that. "it would be open to a State Govemment to reduce the number of seats available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination by increasing the nurnber of reserved categories or by increasing the percentage of reservations." The Court, therefore, directed that all Medical Colleges or Institutions run by Union of India or State Government or a Municipal or other local authority to make reservation of I5Yo of the total number of seats for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses lltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 1, 7 I 03201 I & 4290/201 I Page 13 of39 ,i*_ i -A -Z I available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination.

¶15It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan (supra), in the matter of adtnission to students in professional colleges, merit and merit alone must be considered to be the sole criterion. It is also submitted that in the light of the Supreme Court decisions, the legal position regarding reservation is well-settled. At the initial stage, 1502 scats of the tota^ seats at all rnedical colleges should be reserved and earmarked for All India Entrance Examination. From the remaining seats, reservation can be nade by State Govemments in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution. It was submitted that in the light of a Larger Bench decision in lndra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., AIR1993SC477 , such reservation is permissible upto 50%. It is, however, not open to the respondents to give effbct to the reservation policy on the basis of total number of seats. It is clearly violative of the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kutnar (supra) as well as in Unni IGishnan (supra). To that extent, the action of the respondents requires to be interfered with by this Court.

¶16It !vas, no doubt, contended by the respondents that Unni Iftishnan (supra) declared lar.v in respect of giving admission to professional course rLrn by individuals and/or private colleges and not by Goverrrment colleges. It cannot be gainsaid that Unni Klishnan (supra) applies to private professional colleges. In our opinion, however, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is well founded ll/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 l, 4299/201 1, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 14 ofj9 5L (* that if a private college has to follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court for giving admissions to a professional course, it is inconceivable that a college run by the Union of Inclia gr by State Governments or by other authority which can be said to be "State" within the rneaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, rvould not be bound by such directions. The point, as submitted by the petitioners, is no longer res integra." 1 1. Another pillar on which the petitioners construct their case is that today there exist rnedical Colleges in virtually every State / Union Tenitory in India, except perhaps the inaccessible tribal areas. Reservation for such category of candidates, if auy, are to be treated to be under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and not under Article 15(1). Support for this submission is sought f}om the judgrnent in the case of Anil lfumor Guptu (supra) and parlicularly the follor,ving discussion therein: "19. In this corurection, we must reitcrate what this Courl has said in Indra Sawhney. While holding that what may be called "horizontal reservatiott" can be provided under Clause (1) of Article 16, the majority judgment administered the following caution in para 744; "(B)ut at the salne time, one thing is clear. It is in vely exceptional situation - and not for all and sundry reasons - that any further reservations of whatever kind, should be provided under Clause (1). In sucl-r cases, the State has to satisfy, if called upon, that IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 l, 7 I 03/201 I & 4290/201 l Page I5 of39 i rlaking such a provision was necessary (in public interest) to redress the specific situation. The very presence of Clause (4) should act as a damper Llpon the propensity to create fuilher classes deserving special treatment. The reason for saying so is very sirnple. If reservations are made both under Clause (4) as well as under (1), the vacancies available for free competition as well as reselved categories would be correspondingly whittled down and that is not a reasonable thing to do". Though the said observations were made with reference to Clauses (1) and (a) of Afticle 16, the same apply with equal force to Clauses

(1) and (4) of Article 15 as well. In this case, the resenration of fifteen percent of seats for special categories was on very high side. As pointed out above, two categories out of them representing six percent out of fifteen percent are really reservations under Article 15(4), wrongly treated as reservations under Article 15(1). Even otherwise, the special reservation would be nine percent. The respondents would be well advised to keep in mind the adrnonition adrninistered by this Court and ensure lhat the special reser-vations (horizontal reservations) are kept at the minimurn."

¶12One of the arguments of the petitioners is that the classification of the other categories of candidates for NGOI seats in the Respondent College such as Tibetan Refugees and National Bravery award winners have no valid justification and has no rational lelation with the area of Medical Education itself. Therefore. the Bulletin should be struck down for wrong inclusion of categories of candidates. tttP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/201 I Page I6 ofj9 #

¶13So as to answer the question regarding deternrination of nerit, the petitioners have relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. A. fnantdar & Ors v. State of Maharaslfira & Ors.. AIR 2005 SC 3226 wlrerein a specific question was fi'amed to this effect tn paru 27 . It was held as follows: "138. It needs to be specifically statcd that having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote rnerit, achieve excellence anc curb mal-practices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure. Such a procedure, to a laige extent, can secure grant of merit based admissions on a transparent basis. Till regulations are fi'amed, the admission committees can oversee admissions so as to ensure that rnerit is not the casualtv." The petitioner has also relied on the judgrnent of the Apex Court in

¶74the case of T.M.A. Pui Fowndation v. Stute of lhrnutaka, (2002) s SCC 48T. "58. For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to judge the rnerit o1'the applicant who seeks adrnission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to-become a competent professional,' it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but rtore influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require WP(C) NOl 4294/201 1, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/201 I Page I7 af39 that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking adrnission. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in Yiew the other observations made in this judgrnent in the context of admissions to unaided institutions.

¶59Merit is usually determined, for adrnission to professional and higher education colleges, by either . the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a cornmon entrance test conducted by the institution, or in . the case of professional colleges, by government agencies. "

¶15It is submitted by the petitioner that if comrnon entrance test is prescribed by a private institution than it is inconceivable that in the case of a college established and mn by the Govemmettt, any adrnission can be rnade otherwise than on rnerit or any quota can be reserved for any person, family or trust, which' may have assisted monetarily in establishing the college. Reliance has been placed on Stste of Gujarat and Ors. v. Meglfii Peth R.aj Shah Charitable Trust and Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 552. "In the scheme evolved in the said judgrnent, it is expressly directed that all students adrnitted to a private professional college shall be selected exclusively on the basis of merit, both in the category of merit (fi'ee) seats as well as payment seats. In the case of such private professional colleges, an exception was made to the extent of 5Yo of the seats IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 1, 4299/201 1, 710i/201 I & 4290/201 I Page I8 of39 w for accommodating the N.R.Is/foreign students in view'of the orders and policy of the Governtnent of India to encourage such students. It has also bcen directed expressly that "there shall be no quota reserued for the management or for any family, caste or community, which may have established such college". If this is the position in the case of professional colleges established and administered by private bodies, it is inconceivable that in the case of a college established and run by the government, any admissions can be made other"wise than on tnerit or any quota can be reseled for any person, family or Trust, which may have assibted uronetarily in establishing the college. The government is not preclucled from accepting donations from charitable-rninded individuals or organisations but it cannot cerlainly enter into an arrangement or a venture of the kind concernecl herein. In this case, the payment was more in the nature of a deal whereunder Sri M.P. Shah obtained in return an enduring benefit till the college lasts. It was not even a case, where t[re government unilaterally offered sornething out of gratitude for such "donation" - not that we are saying that such a thing would be legal. Now, where an individual or an organisation which establishes and runs a medical college (recognised by State or affiliated to a university) is not entitled, according to Unnikrishnan, to adrnit students on its owtl, or in its discretion, it is inconceivable that a person or a body which has assisted in setting up of a government uredical college would be permitted to have a quota of its owir to which it can nominate students of its own choice. There is no room for such an arrangernent in law. We are, therefore. tit the opinion that the reason given by the Government of Gujarat in its commr-urication dated |ltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 l, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page I9 of 39 b\ fII Iune 22,1993 for terminating the said arrangemeut is a perfectly relevant, legitimate and valicl reason. It was bound to do so in law and it has clone so. No exception can be taken to the said actiolt."

¶16It is subrnitted by the Petitioners that even whcn quota is fixed for a particular category then also it is necessary to uudertake the entrance examination as on the basis of the merit in that examinatiou the candidates for the quota category is to be selected. Reliance has been placed uporl Narayan Sharma v. Fanlcaj lfu. Lelcha4 AIR 2000 SC 72 wherein it was held as under:

¶30We shall now advert to rule 5(i) which exempts the candidates refered to in Sub-rules (i), (ii), (iii) and

(iv) of Rule 4 fi'om appearing in the entrance examination. We are not concerned with Sub-rule (i) of Rule 4 as stated already. With reference to the candidates refened to in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4, there is no justification for exempting them frorn appearing in the entrance examination. As has been repeatedly held by this Court, the selection of candidates for Post-graduate courses should be based only on merit and it cannot be left to the arbitrary discretion of any adrninistrative body. Though we have upheld reservation of 4 seats under NEC quota, we are 6f the opinion that such reseruation can be provided only on the basis of rnerit which can be assessed by the performance of the candidates in the entrance examination. The NEC cannot choose auy candidate according to its whims and fancies. The NEC has to IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 1,4299/201 l,7103/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 20 of39 t/ recolnmend candidates only in accorclancc with the rank secured in the entrance examination. Hence, the provision in Rule 5(i) exempting the candidates referred to in Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 from appearing in the entrance examination has been rightly struck down by the High Coufi and we uphold the salne.

¶17The Respondent Governments stand is that it is open to the central Govemment to reserve any seat whatsoever even for defence /parliamentary forces, who have sacrificed their lives or have been permanently disabled in war / terrorism or for the bilateral commitments of the Government. For this very purpose, reliancc has been placed on the Apex Court judgrnent af l(umari Chitra Gltose v. Union of India,

(196e) 2 SCC 228. The petitioners have countered the reliance placed by the respondents by contending that in the abovementioned case also, the special category candidates were not exempted from taking the entrance exam.

¶18The petitioner herein has also brought o the notice of this court a decision rendered by a Learned Single Judge of this court in Manisltu Yaclav V. (Jniversitlt sf Delhi, W.P. (C) No. 563012008 wherein it was observed that the decision rendered by The Apex corut regarding right of llP(C) NOs. 4294/201 1, 4299/201 I, 7I Bn01 I & 4290/201 I Page 2l of39 \ rl 'the Governrnent to reserye seats by nomination in institution set up by it in l(umari Chitra Ghose (supra) was nearly 40 years ago and since then, with overail developrnent of the country, a sea change has taken place with the opening of State funded and private rnedical and other institutions throughout the country. It was directed that a review of this policy should be undertaken.

¶19One of the respondents defence is that at the tirne of taking the exaln for entrance, the petitioners were aware of the NGOI quola mentioned in the Bulletin.

¶20It is contented by the respondents that all over India, there are 41569 seats for rnedical candidates and only 260 seats have been allotted under the central pool scheme whiclr was formulated in 1949. It is further submitted that this particular quota has never increased. Relying on the Apex Court judgment of Unni lfuislrnan, J.P. & Ors. etc. v. Stute of Arttlltra Fradeslt, (Igg3) I SCC 645. "111. On the first question, the Bench held, on a consideration of Articles 2I,38,39(a) and (f), 41 and 45 of the constitution:

(a) the fiamers of the Constitution macle it obligatory for the State to provide education for citizens"; H/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 1, 4299/201 I, 7I 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 22 of39 \u \)

(b) the objectives set forlh in the prcamble to the Constitution cannot be achieved unless education is provided to the citizens of this country;

(c) the prearnble also assures dignity of the individual. Without education, dignity of the individual cannot be assured:

(d) Parts III and IV of the Constitution are supplernentary to each other. Unless the 'right to education' rnentioned in Article 41 is made a reality, '- the fundamental rights in part III will remain beyond the reach of the illiterate majority;

(e) Article 21 has been interpreted b), this Court to include the right to live with hurnan clignity and all that goes along with it. "The "right to education' flows directly fi'om right to life." In other \r,ords, 'right to education' is concornitant to the fundamental rights enshrined in part II the Constitution. The State is under a constitutional mandate to provide. educational Institutions at all levels for the benefit of citizens." The benefit of education cannot be confined to richer classes. '---

(f) Capitation fee is nothing but a consideration for admission. The concept of "teaching shops" is alien to our Constitutional scheme. Education in India has never been a commoditv for sale.

(g) "'We hold that every citizen has a "right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State rnay discharge its obligation through state-owned for lltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201L 7103/2011 & 4290/201 I Page 23 ofj9 ) state-recognized educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfill its obligation under the Coirstitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether state-owned or state-recognised - in recognition of their "r'ight to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutious, is a patent denial of citizen's right to education under the Constitution." 2I. It is contended by the respondents that the deadline for the admission i.e 30tl' September,20Il has already expired. So the prayer regarding admission of the petitioners in this academic year cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed on Mridul Dhur v. Urilon of India,

(2005) 2 SCC 65, wherein it is observed as under: "12. Reference may also be made to notification dated . 25th February,2004 issued by the Medical Council of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') with the approval of the Central Government, making the "Graduate Medical Education (Amendrnent) Regulations, 2004, laying down the time schedule for completion for adrnission process for-first MBBS course. It is on same lines as the aforequoted time schedule. Tirne schedule (Appendix-E) to the regulation reads as under: ''APPENDIX-E lltP(C) NOs. 4294/2011,4299/201I, 7103/201I & 4290n011 Page 24 of39 \)" )O TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE AI)MISSION PROCESS FOR FIRST MBBS COURSE Schedr,rle for Adrnissiori Seats filled up by Central Seats filled up by Govt. tlirough All India The State Govt./ Entrance Exarnination lnstittttions t)r conduct of Entrance Month of May Month of May Examination Declaration of Result of Qualifying Exarn./ By 5tl' June By 15u' June Entrance Exam. lst round of counseling/ To be over bv 30tr,June T: O" over by 25th adnrission: ' Jtlly Lastdateforjoiningthe Within l5th days from allotted College And the date of allotntent of 3l't JLrly Course: seats 2nd round ofcounseling for To be over by Bth allotment of seats froni August Within 15 days Waiting List : Last date for from the date of I t-joining ror candidates a*ot,nent ;T* jrJi y,1,:;.:rh Aug'st allotted Seats in 2nd round vacant after 22nd August of counseling from the will be surrendered Back Waiting List to the States/College Commencemet)t of academic session : lvP(C) NOs. 4294/2011, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/2011 lt'o[August Pagc 25 oJ'39 Last date up to which students can be adrnitted Against vacancies arisit'tg due to any reason : 30tl'September"

¶22To counter this particular argument of the respondent Government, the petitioners have relied on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Saclanand Misra v. Forest Resesrch Irtstitute and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC

¶419"5. Inasmuch as we are clearly of the opinion that adrnission to the appellant could not have been denied, the petition should have been allowed by the High Court and therefore this appeal deserves to be allowed. As the writ petition was filed by the appellant ,prornptly and there has been no delay on his part, he cannot be made to suffer on account of the time lost in litigation.'

¶23It is the case of the petitioners that they cannot be penalized as the petition was filed on 4.7.2011 and they approached the Court on time. The petitioners have also relied on this court's judgment of Dltruv Singhal V. Guru Gobincl Singh Indraprostha University Artd. Ors., W P.(C) No. 6641/2010 wherein learned Single Judge of this court has taken the view that if delay is on the part of the University, then the interest of the candidates is to be protected. IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 1, 4299/201 I, 7I 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 26 of39 \s

¶24It is coltended by the respondents that the Prospectus rnentioning the DUMET-2011 is only limited for candidates fiorn Delhi. Therefore, there is no force in the subrnission of the petitioners that in order to become eligible for seats in the college of Delhi, the nominees have to clear the DUMET-Z}LI.

¶25It is pertinent to mention that the Ministry of I-Iealth and Welfare has approved the implernentation of National Eligibility-curn-Entrance Test Q.trEET) for all UG and PG rnedical courses in the country, pursuant to tlre directions of the Supreme Court in sintran Jain v. Urtion of India, [W.P.(C) No. 380 of 20091 and is preparing to introduce SET from the next academic year.

¶26It is contended by the learned courisel for the respondent - Medical Council of India that pre existing inequalities can be remedied by reasonable classification. Reliance has been placecl on various decision of tlre Hon'ble Supreme Courl. In Miss Rita l(utnsr v. Uttion of India, ft 97 3) I SCC 454, it has been held thus: "5. It is true that the petitioners are repatriates like some of the respondents but there is a difference between the two categories as the petitioners had come to India earlier while the respondents had imrnigrated much later. The former were lnore re-settled than the latter and since the ob.lect of the rule ,ltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/20 I I, 7l 03/201 I & 4290/201 l Page 27 oJ'39 fr ,/\ creating reservations of Seats was rehlbilitatiol aud re-settlement it cannot be said that the classification so made adrninistratively had no reasonable nexus to the object in view. The respondent candidates were also repatriates though, it is true, they received a lesser ' percentage of aggregate marks than the petitioners. If both the categories had been placcd in similar circumstances it would have been possible to urge that there has been discrirnination. But since the petitioners and their families have been better setlled aud rehabilitated than the respondents a1d their farnilies it was open to the Selection Committee to decide administratively how best the purpose of rehabilitation of repatriates could be sewed. .In our view, therefore, the discrirnination is not invalid and the petitions must fail." In Miss Nishi Maghw and Ors v. Stute of J&I(, (1980) 4 SCC 95, the Apex Court has held thus:

¶10The classifications based on areas adjoining actual line of control and bad pockets are also challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution' These are really backward areas and the residents of these areas are indisputably socially and educationally backward. Reservations made for candidates fi'om such backward classes cannot be said to offend Alticle 14-In fact in Parimoo's case the reservation made for residents of bad pockets which were identified in the report of the Wazir Committee, was accepted iN valid. We therefore hold that the challenge to these two categories is not justified. tltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 t, 4299/201 1, 7l 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 28 of39 $ f In (Jnion of Intlia swl Anr. v. Alolc l{unmr, (2010) 5 SCC 349, rt has been stated thus: "65. This Court in the case of Confederation of Ex-Service Man Associations and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 699 was concerned with providing of Medicare /Medical aid to ex-servicetnen and the scheme fiarned by the Governurent to provide ex-defence personnel rledical services provided they paid "one-time contribution", was held not to be arbitrary and based on the practice followed earlier. In such circutnstances. this Court held as tlnder: In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it'to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that goocl adrninistration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in the absence of a provision of lar,v, it should adhere to such practice rn'ithout depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised." 27: The Respondent MCI has also raised the defense that in any case that the 30 Sept deadline has passed and from next year an All India exaniination is going to be conducted.

¶28First aspect which has to be addressed is as to r,vhether it is permissible to eannark some of the seats to be fillect up by NGOI. There are 500 seats in MBBS course in three Delhi colleges.. Out of these 500 IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7103/201 I & 4290/20 t I Page 29 ofj9 \_ 1\ seats, 36 seats under: fall under NGOI Break-up of these seats is as

¶29As noted above, the case set up by the petitioners is that it is legally impermissible to have horizontal special reservaticln / separate channel for entry of NGOI candidate, particularly in Lady Harding Medical College where 30 out of 150 seats, i.e.20% seats are given under NGOI quota. Relying upon the judgrnent of the Supreme Court in Anil l(ur)n, Gupta (supra), it is argued that such horizontal reselvation is t4/p(c) Nos. orrrrri, ,, 42gg/201 I, 7 t 03/201 I & 4290/20t I Page 30 ofj9 quota. a-Seats to be filled in by Govt. of India Nominees Seats to be filled in on the basis I Seats to of DUMET I be filled MBBS Course Name of Medical College General Lady Harding MedicalCollege (Controlled and funded bv CentralGovt. Maulana Azad MedicalCollege (Run by University College of Medical Sciences (Under 11/ irnpermissible. Reliance is also placed on the judgnent of Gujarat I{igh Court in Sltajul George (supra) wherein it was held that it r,vas not open to reserve any seat for the Central Govemment save for reservation provided under Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, on the other hand, have contended that all over India, there ate 41569 seats for medical candidates and only 260 seats havc been ailotted under the Central, Pool Scherne. It was argued that the scheure was folmulated in the year 1949; particuiar quota has never increasecl and the scheme has been approved by the Supreme Court in l(umari Chitru Ghoslt (supra).

¶30It cannot be disputed that this very question has been decided by the Apex Court in l{umari Chitra Ghosh (supra) and the Coufi had approved the same. A perusal of that Constitutional Bench judgrnent would show that two issues were raised, namely, (i) whether the provision for reservation of seats was unconstitutional; and (ii) whether the nominations to the r,'eseled seats had been made contrary to the rules. Precise argument of the petitioners in the said case was also predicated on Articles 14, 15 and 29(2) of the Constitution of India. The argument was repelled by the Supreme Court in the following words: "8. As laid down in Shri Ram Iiishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors., (1959) 1 SCR 279 Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid . reasonable classificatiou. In order to pass the test of tl/P(C) NOl 4294/201 I, 4299/20 I I, 71 03/201 I & 4290/20 I I Page 3l of39 1) I perrnissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together frorn others left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The first group of persons for whom seats have been reserved are the sons and daughters of residents of Union territories other than Delhi. These areas are well known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh thcy do not have any Medical College of their own. It was necessary that persons desirous of receiving rneclical education from these areas should be provided some facility for doing so. As regards the sons and daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad it is equally r,vell known that due to exigencies of their service these persons are faced with lot of difficulties in the matter of education. Apart from the problems of language, it is not easy or always possible to get adrnission into institutions imparting rnedical education in foreign countries. The cultural, Colombo Plan and Thailand scholars are given admission in medical institutions in this country by reason of reciprocal affangements of educational and cultural nature. Regarding Jammu & I(ashmir scholars it must be rernembered that the problems relating to them are of a peculiar nature and there do not exist adequate arrangements for rnedical education in the State itself for its residents. The classification in allthese cases is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes them frorn the gro,rp to which the appellants belong.

¶9It is the Central Government which bears financial burden of running the medical college. l{P(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 1, 7103/201 I & 4290/201I Page 32 of39 the It is '1\,,\ for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. The Government cannot be denied the right, to decide frorn what sources the adrnission will be rnade. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere rn'ith the rnanner and method of rnaking the classification. XXX XXX XXX I

¶12The other questiola which was canvassed before the High Court and wliich has been pressed before us relates to the merits o[ the nominations made to the I resered seats. It seems to us that the appellants do not have any right to challenge the nominations rnade by the Central Government. They do not compete for the reserved seats and have no locus standi in the matter of nomination to such seats. The assurnption that if nominations to reserved seats are not in accordance with the rules all such seats as have not been properly filled up would be tluorvn open to the general pool is wholly unfounded. The Central Government is under no obligation to release those seats to the general pool. It may in the larger interest of giving rnaximurn benefit to candidates belonging to the non-reserved seats release them but it cannot be compelled to do so IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 7l 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 33 of39 ,3 at the instance of students who have applied for admission frorn out of the categories for whom seats have not been reserved. In our opinion the High Coutl was in eror in going into the question and holding that out of the nine seats filled by nomination two had been filled contrary to the adrnission rules and these would be converted into the general pool. Since no appeal has been filed against that part of the order we refrain frorn making any further observations in the matter."

¶31In fact, counsels for the petitioners conceded that the issue was covered by the aforesaid judgrnent. However, they tried to get over this judgrnent by arguing that it was rendered way back in the year 1969 and due to changed circumstances over a period of time, the reasoning/rationale contained therein had lost its sanctity/validity. On this ground, it was subrnitted that this judgment should not be followed. No doubt, this judgrnent was rendered more than 40 years ago wherein the Apex Court had upheld the right oithe Government to reserrre seats to be filled in by it by nomination in the institutions set up by it. Accepting the justification offered by the Government that tnany States and Union Territories do not have rnedical institutions of their own, particularly in North-Eastern States. It is also a fact that there has been overall economic development in the countrry, a sea change has taken place with the opening of the State funded and private rnedical and other institutions H/P(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 71 0i/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 34 of39 1\ It e t I throughout the country. Many colleges have been set up in Norlh-Eastern region as well. 'Ihis rnay all justify giving a re-lool< by the Goverrunent at the extent of nomination seats that need to be reserved for being filled up by its nominees. When this very scheme is approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it is not within the province of this Court to declare that such judgment has become irrelevant. No doubt, in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Anr., (2004) I I SCC 26, Supreme Court has held that a judgment rendered long ago under particular circumstances may lose its effect due to changed circumstances, but this declaration has to come ftorn the Supreme Court only which had renclered the earlier judgment. As far as this Court is concerned, in view of the mandate provided by Atticle 141 of tlre Constitution of India, it is bound by the ratio of l(umari Cltitra Gltosh (supra). We thus can only say that the Central Government should re-examine the rnatter. This becomes more important because of the reason that the NGOI seats are not even evenly clistributed among the three colleges. Out of 36 such seats, 30 are allocated to Lady I{arding Medical College constitutingz}% as against that Maulana Azad Medical College. In Maulana Azad Medical College, there are only 6 such seats earmarked out of 200. In University College of Medical Sciences, not a IYP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 35 of39 a tS T1 I single seat is reserved under the NGOI quota. No cloubt, Lady l{arding Medical College is fully controlled and funded by the Central Government which is not the position in respect of other two colleges, however, the Govemment should keep in mind that it has to provide reservation for SC/ST/OBC category of candidates. 'fhere are additionally 15% seats are given to be filled in by Director General of Health Services. To top it, when 30 seats are given to NGOI, the net result is'that out of 150 seats,95 seats come under reservation in one form or the other and bnly 55 seats are left in general category which may constitute about 35%. This results in imbalance cllla general category candidates. Examples are galore that even whcn general category candidates perform so well, they miss out and are not able to get admission because of the reservations.

¶32Another aspect which needs'to be highlighted at this stage is that Central Government has itself stated that out of 41569 seats for rnedical candidates, only 260 'seats have been allotted uncler the Central Pool Scheme. What is significant is that out of 260 seats, 36 seats are only in Dethi andthattoo intwo colleges and out of these 36 seats,30 seats are earmarked in one college, i.e., Lady Harding Medical College. This calls for some ralionalization in the policy. It is expected that these aspects H/P(C) NOs. 4294/2011, 4299n01 l, 7103/2011 & 4290/2011 Page j6 oJ'j9 :tl + I would be looked into by the respondents and a decision taken thereon within three months.

¶33Next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the procedure adopted by the Central Govemment in nominating these candidates is appropriate. As noted above, learned counsel for the petitioners had strenuously argued that even if the NGOI scheme is valid, such nominees can get admission only on the basis of Common Entrance Test and their merit in the aforesaid test. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments which the petitioners have cited, this argument of the petitioners has substantial force. Since nominations have already been made in this year and such students have already taken admission and are undergoing the course, it may. not be appropriate to disturb their admission in this year. We rnay also place on record that the respondent - Medical Council of India has itsell-realized this legal position and a statement was made at the Bar otr behalf of Medical Council of India that frorn next year, an All India Cotnmon Entrance Examination is going to be conducted and even the nominations by the Governrnent of India will be made on the basis of suoh examination. The Medical Council of India had no choice but to rnake this statement which lltP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/201 I, 71 03/20 I I & 4290/201 t Page 37 of39 1q is in consonance with the directions of the Supreme court in simran Jain (supra).

¶34No doubt, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing the writ petitions in Jure, 201I, however, fact remains that these writ petitions could not be decided by 3Otr' septernber,20lI. In Mridul Dltar (supra), the Supreme Court had formally fixed 30tr'September,2011 as, the last date up to which students can be adrnitted against vacancies arising due to any reason. No doubt, iu some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court thereafter, this date has been relaxcd in particular cases but those are the directions given by the Suprerne Court in exercise of its power under Article I42 of the Constitution. Otiterwise, it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again that deadline of 30tL Septembe42011 should be strictly adhered to.

¶35To sum up, since it may not be feasible at this distance of time to undo the adrnission granted to the norninees of the Government of lndia and it may also not be possible to accomrnodate the petitioners now as the deadline of 30tr' Septernber,20Il has gone by and havilg regard to the fact that the problem is taken care of fiom next year when Medical Council of India is going to conduct All India Cotnmon Ilntrance Examilation, we may not be in a position to give relief to the petitioners IVP(C) NOs. 4294/201 I, 4299/20 I I, 71 03/201 I & 4290/201 I Page 38 of39 .\ -l € in these writ petitions for this year. We rnay place on record that in so far as petitioner in WP(C) No.4292/2010 is concerned, she was successful in getting adrnission in the second counselling. For this reason, this writ peiition.was disposed of ou 13tl' Septernber,20lI. Flor,vever, at the same time, counsel for the parties were permitted to refer io the pleadings of this writ petition while arguing other writ petitions. We accordingly dispose of'these writ petitions in the aforesaid ter:ms. CTIIEF' .T{JSTICE )-/-4 srDDxlAltTII M[{IDUL, J. DECEMBER23,2O7l pk IIPG) NOl 4294/201 I, 4299/20 I I, 7l 03/201 1 & 4290/20 I I Page 39 of39