CG Dental College & Research Institute v. Shri Subir Mukherjee

HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH. C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J

1. Writ Petition (Cl No.1356 of 2012 Petitioners : Dr Aditi Jain and others ^ VERSUS Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and Others. Writ Petition under Articles 226of the Constitytion pf India Appearance : Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents - 1and 2. Smt Fouzia Mirza, Assistant SolicitorGeneral for respondents -3 and 5. Shri Sourabh Dangi, counsel for respondent- 4.

2. Contempt Case (C) No.358 of 2011 Petitioner CG Dental College & Research Institute Respondent Shri Subir Mukherjee VERSUS

3. ContemDtCase(ClNo.412of2012 Petitioner CG Dental College & Research Institute VERSUS Respondents Shri Subir Mukherjee and another Contempt Petitions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act Appearance : ShriSourabh Dangi, counselfor the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel for the respondents. /" ^ ORDER (20m Novem^er^2012) >th The main question involved in this writ petition is, whether the State of 1. Chhattisgarh (the State) is entitled to nominate students for admission in the Masterof DentalScience (the MDS) course in Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (the Institute). THE FACTS

2. The Youth Foundation of India (the Society) is a registered society It has established the Institute for dental under the Society Registration Act. medical education inthe year 2002. -'

3. The Dental Council of India (the DCI)does not grant permission to run a dental medical college unless a hospital is attached to it. The Institute does not have a hospital and could not be granted approval by the DCI to run a hospital. '< \. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate the approval of the DCI, the State 4. attached the district hospital, Rajnandgaon (the District-Hospital) forever, with the Institute by the letter dated 01.06.2001. The attachmentwas free ofcost. The Institute was granted approval as well as permission by the DCI to 5. run Bachelor of Dental Science (the BDS) course from the academic session 2002-03.

6. The Institute was also granted permission by the DCI to run the MDS course from the academic session 2009-10 with different intake ofstudents in different years. In the academic session 2009-10, there were three dentat colleges, 7. which were offering the MDS degree. At present.there are four dental They (referred to as theConsortium) colleges offering the MDS degree. conduct their own entrance examination for admission of students in the colleges in the MDS course. •/

8. In the State, thereare government dental colleges as also. The State government also conducts an examination for selecting the students to be admitted in the state as well as in the private dental colleges.

9. In the a9ademic session 2009-10, the State as well as the Consortium separately conducted entrance examination for the MDS course. Out of the list of the MDS entrance examination conducted by the State, nominated one student for admission in the MDS course in the Institute. The MDSseats in the Institute were also filled by the meritlist of the entrance <i* examination conducted by the Consortium.

10. Thelnstitute challenged thenomination of the student to thecollege by means of a Writ Petition, namely WP (C) No.2724 of 2010. on 23.02.2011in thesame termsas in thecase of PAInamdar and others Vs It was allowed State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 (the Inamdar case). \

11. In the academic Session 2010-11, initially the DCI had sanctioned only fourseats, however, approval for two more seats was awaited. After the approval was received fromthe DCI, the college admitted two more students out ofthe merit list prepared in the entrance examination conducted by the Consortium.

12. The admission of the aforesaid two students was cancelled by the State on 14.06.2011. They filed Writ Petition (C) No.3460 of 2011. The Institutealso filed WritPetition (C) No.3458of2011 against the cancellation.

13. The aforesaid two writ petitions were consolidated and were allowed on 08.05.2012. The cancellation order passed by the State Government was set aside.

14. In the academic session 2011-12, the number ofthe MDS seats in the Institute was increased to17. The Consortium conducted the entrance examination and the State also conductedits own entrance examination. Out of the merit list prepared by the State, five students were sent to the Institute for admission in the MDS course. The Institute also admitted 17 students, out ofthe merit list ofentrance examination conducted by the Consortium. 3 :/ /

15. The DCI wrote a letterto the Instituteonl 1.07.2012 with a copyto the Director of Medical Education of the Stat&-(tl'ie DME) that: • The college was, granted permission for 17 seats only; • It has wrongly admitted five extra students; and • The admission 6f extra students should be cancelled.

16. In pursuance of the letter of the DCI, the DME wrote a letter dated 18.07.2012 to the Institute asking it to cancel admission of the five extra students. 17, The Institute cancelled admissrdn of thefiyestudents sent bythe State Government and refunded their fees deposited by them. These five students filed the present writ petition.

18. During the pendency of the writ petition,one Dr Vidhi Rathod (petitioner-3) has left the college and has also en-cashed the cheque. She is no longer intereslpd in prosecuting this petition.

19. only on behalf of The counsel for the petitioner states that this writ petition be treated four petitioners, namely, Dr Aditi Jain, Dr Shailja Hanumanta, Dr Amit Nasha and Dr Ankur Jain (namely, petitioner-1, 2, 4, and 5) (referred to as the Students).

20. After the students were nominated to the Institute, it filed two civil contempt applications, namely, Contempt Case (C) 358 of 2011 arid 412 of 2012 for wilful disobedienceof the orders dated 23.02.2011 and 08.05.2012 in WP(C) 2724of2010 and WP (C) 3458 of 2011.

21. The contempt applications were also tagged along with the writ petition with the consent of the counsel for the parties. They are being decided together. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

22. We have heard Shri Jitendra Pali for the Students; Shri Sourabh Dangi forthe Institute; Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General (the AAG) forthe State Government and its officials; and Ms. Fouzia Mirza forthe DCI.

23. (i) The following points arise for determination in this case: Whether the Institute is a privafelTninority institute; Whether the Instituteis an aided professional college; (ii) (iii) Whether the Government is entitled to nominate students in an unaided professional colleges; (iv) Whether the government course in the Institute; can nominate students for the MDS Are the petitioners entitled to any relief; and (v) (vi) What orders should be passed in the'contempt cases. 1st POINT : MINORITY STATUS - NOT DECIDED

24. According to the Petitioners, the Society is of Jainees and the Institute is a minority institution.

25. Initially, the Institute was given the minoritystatus certificate by the State Government on 02.07.2005 for a period of one year. Similar certificates for one yearweregranted on 31.03.2006 and 22.10.2008.

26. After the end of the period of the last minority status certificate, the Institute againapplied for grant offresh certificate on 10.01.2009. However, it was informed by letter dated 14.10.2009 that the final decision will be taken after inspection. This inspection has been carried out, however, no final decision has been taken.

27. The counsel for the Iristitute submits that: • In the earlier two judgemehts dated 23.02.2011 and 08.05.2012, passed i,n W.P.(C).No.2724 of 201 O and 3460 of 201 1 it was held that the Institute was a minoritystatus college Institute; and • This point should be decided in its favour.

28. On the earlier occasions, there was certificate of the State Government and as such this question was not disputed. However, this time, there is neither any such certificate nor is pending consideration hefore the State. In view ofthe same, no reliance canbe placed isaccepted. The matter onthe earlier decisions. _—-— 5 \^J/ '|...''^N^ ,.^^"' "^ "'^ '-^ •^sA. '^!£S'^.'• % s .^ ,;x' •^

29. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for consideration before the State, we see no justification to decide the question relating to the minority It may be decided by the State Government on its status of the Institute. merits without being influenced by any observations made in this judgement or in the earlierjudgements mentioned in the preceding paragraph number 27 of this judgement. 2nd POINT: INSTITUTE IS UNAIDED

30. The counsel forthe Students as well as the AAG submit that: • The Institute could not have got recognition by the DCI unless it had a hospital attached to it; • The Institute is utilising the facility of the District-Hospital and is not paying a single penny to the State exchequer; • This facility itself is an aid to the Institute; and • It cannot be said that it is an unaided Institute.

31. The counsel for the Institute submits that: • It does not receive single penny in terms of money from the State. There is no grant in aid; • The State has started a new scheme of establishing district wise societies in the name of Jeewan Deep society; • The basic purpose of these societies is to improve and help the day- the district-hospitals situate in different to-day administration of districts; • Thereis a Jeewan Deep society in district Rajnandgaon (referred to as Its purpose is to improve and help the day-to-day the JD-Society). administration ofthe District-Hospital attached to the Institute; • The Institute is not only giving substantial amount to the JD-Society for the facility of affiliation ofthe District-Hospital, but is also providing the services of three doctors to the District-Hospital free of cost. The expenses ofthese dentists are borne by the Institute. • The Jeewan Deep societies are alter face of the State and payment to them is payment to the State; In these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the Institute is an • aided college. 6 District-Hospital Adequately Compensated

32. The Institute does not receive single penny or grant in aid in terms of It is is attached to thelnstitute. cash. Nonetheless, the District-Hospital, facility to the Institute; without this facility, itcould not have been granted approvat by the DCI. The attachment of the District-Hospitalis an aid to the Institute. Itcannot be said that, this facility cannot be treated as aid to the Institute. But, the question is, whether the Institute is paying anything in lieu ofit. -<\ • . •

33. The State Government had attached the District-Hospital by letter dated 01.06.2001. It is mentioned in the letter that theattachment is without any cost.

34. Nevertheless, a meeting ofthe JD-Society was heldon 14.02.2005 in which it was depided that the Institute should pay a sum of ?1,00,000/- per yearto the JD-Societywith an increase of?10,000/-every year.

35. There is no dispute that the Institute has been paying the aforesaid amount to the JD-Society and for this year, it has paid ?1,70,000/- to the JD- Society.

36. Apart from the cash payment, is also not disputed that the JD-Society had initially requested the Institute to post one dentist at the District Hospital and thereafter wrote a letter in the year 2007 to post two dentistsin the morning session and two dentists in theevening session in the District Hospital.

37. The Institute has deputed three dentists from December, 2008 in the District-Hospital, forwhich jtispaying them salary of ?4,92,000/-perannum. This is being borne by the Institute.

38. The Institute is not only providing services of three Dentists to the District-Hospital but it is paying a sum of ?1,00,000/- per year to the Society with an increase of ?10,000/- every year and for this year it has paid ?1,70,000/- to the JD-Society. 7 /

39. The Institute is not paying the aforesaid amount out of charity, but is is attached to it: The money paying for the reason that the District-Hospital which is being paid to the JD-Society as welt as to the three dentists is inlieu of the attachment of the District Hospital to the Institute. In case, the District- Hospital was not attached, then there was no occasion forthe Institute to pay this amount. But is payment tothe JD-Society, a payment to the State? Payment is to the State

40. The JD-Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has separate identity than the State. However, is established and sponsored by the Health and Family Welfare Departmentof the State. It is the Statethat has formed jtfor better management of its district hospitals. It is immaterial whether theState manages the hospifal itself or forrcis societies to manage it. \

41. The bye-lawsof the societies are also on the record. tts objects and constitution of the executive are annexed as Appendix-1 and II to this judgement: • Theobjects clarify that is for improvement and better management ofthe district hospitals; • The Constitution of the executive of the societies indicates that its executiveconsist of government officer or someone holding a government post.

42. It is irrelevant that the money does not go to the State exchequer first and then is transferred to the JD-Society for the management of the District- Hospital. Here, the money-service is directiy to the JD-Society. However, the fact remains that it is paid for the District-Hospital that is attached with the Institute and utilised for the benefit of the District-Hospital. The payment to the JD-Society is payment to the State.

43. In our opinion, the Institute is adequately compensating the District- Hospital the facility of its attachment to the Institute. In these circumstances, it cannot besaid that the Institute is an aided college. The institute is an unaided professionalcollege. A- 8 3rd & 4th POINT: STATE CANNOT NOMINATE STUDENTS

44. The question of education in our country is a complex issue and has been engaging the attention of the Supreme Court and has been decided in the followingcases: ' (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 645 (the Unni-Krishnan TMA Pai Foundation and OthersVs. State of Karnataka and Others, case); (2002) 8 SCC 481 (the Pai case); Islamic Academy of Education another Vs. State Karnataka and Others (2003)6 SCC 697 (The tslamic-Academy case); and Thelnamdar case, which isthe last inthis chain. •^-

45. In the Inamdar case, the Supreme Court consideredthe preceding three cases and framed four questions to be answered. The first question was as follows: '(1) To what extent can the State regulate admissions made by unaided (minority or non-minority) educational institutions? Can the State enforce its policy of reservation and/or appropriate to itself any quota in admissions to such institutions?'

46. The Court answered (see below for relevant paragraph of the court's the aforesaid question in favour of unaided educational institutions. decision) The relevant part of observations of the Supreme Court in the Inamdar case is as follows: '124. So far as appropriation of quota by the State and enforcement of its resetvation policy is concerned, we do not see much of a difference insUtutions. We find between non-minority and minority unaided educational great force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the States have no power to insist on seat-sharing in unaided private professional educational mstitutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State.

130. ......We cannotapprove ofthescheme evolved in the Islamic Academy case to the extent it allows the States to fix quota for seat-sharing 01 .•uo.liniBSU! suoseonps psp.ieun A)UOUJIU-UOU jo Atyouiiu e ui aieis 9V»Aq peieydojdde eq Q) )no pe/UBO sq ueo suoissiiupe. ;o eSeiuaajsd jo B}onb <ue jou 3fs\s 341 ^q psoJO}us sq uea uo]}BAjssaj ^o Aoi|od 34} jsyiiau IB^) s.i uonsenb isji; SL|} 0} jsMsue jno 'te l. jsiunoo sunj pue WB\ PSJJOO 3i|i UMOP fs\ }ou ssop 'uoiuido •ssuo63ieo 3SEO AUJ9PE3V 0]UE|S| Sq} Ul lUSiusBpnf sq} jo ijed )B4i -uou pue <)uoujiu qioq ^o suoRntBsui |euo!)Bonps aieAyd pspieun St|t ui 4363 p spasu |BOO| p siseq sq; uo ssieis 34} pue )U3LU96eueiu 341 uss/vqsq •8SB3 IBd 84) 0} pejspisuoo jno u! ^UOUILU 'steis ,<:,uo!iepunoj led ui umop pie) ME| eq)p wBii ui pauieisns sq ueo 'suoiintiisui yons ui uoissiiupe 0} ps|l!ius s}uspnis 94} uioj^ejsqt ssooyo 01 pue suojintiisui p uoiieioosse jo S}BIS S41 Aq issi soueflua ue Buipfoq A[UOS|ndiuoo jo^ Aiuapeov OIIUB|S| j8i)i8qM jo sjnpsopjd uoissjiupe umo jisq) ssiASp ot eejj SJB suosn^sui spBLU yoipsjip 84) leuoiieonpa (AIUOUILU-UOU pue AtuouiLu) pspieun je^eiiAA (z), jBpuieu|8i)} ui ynoo sujejdns SMI Aq psLueji uoffsanb puooss sqj. : SMO||OJ SB SBM SSBO •gt' •eini!lsu| syi Aq pssnpj sq IOUUBO Aeiit uayiii Aq pieq upiieuiLuexs souejius eqt p siseq 941 uo }uapn}S Aue sateuiiuou sfe\s 3UA SSBOU| :sini!}su| ei)i o) siqeoiidde si py 800Z s^l :siseq sii uo UOSBUJIUEXS aouBj}ua Guipnpuoo si pue pv 800Z SMI 941 pspeus seq eieis SMI • • • 'PV (UBJBIJSJIN B»)||n49 LUEAV UBUJEAIUIA e» pue (pv 800Z S4t) 900Z i)seA8Jd) eyisueg ueqs^iqg ^I^BSABAA !f!N ilJBBsifteqqo 841^0 suoisiAOjd aq} •gt? leqi 80i}ou jno o} iqBnojq QVV 841 pue siuapnig 94} joj |asunoo eqi :}e4ll!iuqns eiqB3i|ddv »ON- »ay800Z 941 •s69||00|euo!ssa}ojd-pap!eun ue ui e}onb Auexy jo iuspn}s Aue S}BU!UJOU •/^ 'sseo jepujeu| aq} ^o MSIA u| 0} i^Bu ou seq 8iB)g sqi }B4i je9|o si 11 gqt p jnoAe; ui psxy sq ueo sOeiuSorad-JO e)onb ou }e4i p|8q seq }jnoo 941 •sieis

50. The Supreme Court the Supreme Court decision) answered (see below for relevant part of the aforesaid question by explaining that the professional colleges imparting similar education can devise their own entrance test that is fair, transparent and non exploitative. It coutd be taken over by the State if the entrance test conducted by the professional colleges fails the three criteria namely of being fair, transparent, and non-exploitative,

51. In the present case, initially there were three private colleges and at present there are four colleges. Ttey (the Consortium) jointly conduct entranceexamination. There is nothing to show that examination conducted by them is unfair or not transparent or exploitative.

52. In fact, the entranceexamination conducted by the Consortium is accepted by the State. The State has not norriinated student for every seat; it has nominated only a few seats; the majority of the seats are filledup from the merit of the students from the entrance examination conducted by the Consortium.

53. In the Inamdar case, the Supreme Court after analysing the constitution scheme as well as fundamental right and on the basis of the P§i The relevant part of the observations of the Supreme Court is as follows: '137. ...There may be a single institution imparting a particular type ofeducation which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. All Institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the above said triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holdinga in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and common entrance preventing maladministration. The Admission procedure so adopted by a private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to safisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can 'There may be a single institution be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure.' imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the test of being fair, transparent and non- exploitative. All institutions imparting same or similar professional educatton can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the above said triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and preventing maladministration. The Admission procedure so adopted by a private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure.' 11 case has laid down the law. It cannot be'violated. In case the 2008 Act law is made applicable to the Institute, it will- become unconstitutional. The 2008 Act is not applicable for admission in the Institute for the MDS Course.

54. The State can hold entrance examination only if the entrance examination held bythe Consortium is held to be unfair or non-transparent or exploitative. There is nothing to show that it does not satisfy thecriteria laid down by the Supreme Court. •"^t

55. In view of above, sending of five students by theState to the Institute was not proper. justified in cancelling their admission. If there were excess of students, then the Institute was 5th POINT: STUDENTS MAY BE ADJUSTED

56. The students have been studying in the Institute in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court. There was no fault on their part. They appeared in the examination conducted by the State and have passed the It was their misfortune that they came to be allocated to the Institute, same. where we have held thatthe State was not entitled to nominate the students. The future of these students should not be put into dark.

57. Considering all aspects, the State and the Institute may consider adjusting them. In this connection, it will also be proper that: • The State mayadjust these four students over any vacancy in any other college, where theMDS courseis going on; and • The DCI may also consider adding of four more seats in the Institute or, one more seat each in four Dental Colleges in the State that offer the MDS course and thereafterthe students may be adjusted therein. 6th POINT : CONTEMPT CASES - DROPPED

58. The Institute had filed two Civil Contempt Cases, namely Contempt Case (C) No.358 of 201 1 and Contempt Case (C) No.412 of 2012 for violation ofthe orders passed bythis Court on 23.02.2011 in Writ Petition (C) No.2724 of 2010 and order dated 08.05.2012 in Writ Petition (C) No.3458 of 2011. 12 £1 •'t. WZ 10 QQW pue 01.0Z P frz^z (3) dM PUB 1.1-OZ'ZO'SZ pa}ep s}ueiu9Bpnf OM} JSIIJBS sq} ui jo }usui86pnf sii)) ui apeiu suoffeAjesqo -sieis sqi Aue Buisq tnoqiiM S}USLUUO pappsp sq Aeiu i| psousnuui Aq 'Zl.OZ'90'80 9jopq Buipusd si S}n}i}su| 8L|yo sn)B}S A}UOUIUJ Bu!pje69j uoiissnb sqi :SMO||O^ SB 8je suoisnpuoo jno SNOISmONOO (e) •gg sqt qfiM leiidsoH-ioyisia 341 ijoeue-ap }ou ABUJ S}B}S si|l "100 3W ujcl4 uo!}iu6oosj s}i asoo| ||IM (i ssi/vueqto einissui 'sssisqiJSAON •ss68||oo ayewidt jeiiLUjS jeij^o jo sin)!)su| 84} jo^esjnoo saw S4t "! uoissiuipe 'eseo w} uoiieuiiuexs souejiue 94} pjo^ 0} 11 0} usdo sq ||IM )j USL|I jepiuBui ei|t ui UMOp pie| euetuo eqi PUB}S}OU seop uiniiJosuoQ si^ Aq piei) uoiieuiuiBxe aoueflua 34} }BI|I Luniyosuoo 941 o\ y()iunijoddo jsye Aiinbus jsdojd e Buipioq jsye uoisnpuoo si)i o) SOLUOO sws 84) ti ;s}uepnis GUIIBUIIUOU p lujo^ ui }i )snfpe A|ped pue eoiAjes /Aauoiu e>|ei A|yed OS|B ueo Aeqi :}i Aq u9>|E) sisi}U9p 94} l! P S801AJSS JO lUSRO 31)1 jo }unoiue 04} xy-sj o} uiaq) o\ uedo sAeM|e '9}n}!}su| sqi 0} ps}uej6 ^IIOBJ eq} jo.t psiesusdujoo A|9}enbspB Buisq iou si }i leyi uoiuido sqi ^0 si Atsioos-ar sqi jo sieis SMt sseo ui -leqi psyueio si )| • • • -zg -|euy •S)B}S 941 -io A}si3os-ar 941 Aq pajapisuoooj jo psisnfpeej }ou si BuipuysiLi} 'ing •|e}!dso|-|-p!4S!Q aq} 0} isiiuap sq ueo }| }0 S931AJSS sjayo pue A}spo9-Qr aq} Q} Asuoiu sAed }! se 9Ba||oo pepieun si 8in}!}su| sq} (eqi pisq SAei) SM 'iuiod '1-9 puooes eqi Guipioep 9|!4AA NOiivoidiyvno v }duj0}uoo sqi 'sinipsui sqi'jo^ |ssunoo sq} p }usuJ9te}s 941 .(o MSIA u| •peddojp 8je ssseo -09 ssejd o) qsim }QU ssop etn)!(su| aL|} leqi S8}B}S S)n)!}su| 9t|i jo^ issunoo iiqejnog uqg 'uoiijisd IUM sqi ui Aepoi'psssed luauueSpnf SL|} jo MSIA U| •6S •S8SB3 }dUJ8}U03 841 'iBuea u^ (b) (c) (d) The State is not entitled to*^tQminate students in an unaided professional coltege; The Institute is utilising the services of the District-Hospital, but providing services of three dentists to the District-Hospital and is paying to the JD-Society that looks after the District-Hospital. This is in lieu of the attachment of the District-Hospital to it. It cannot be said that the Institute is an aided professional college; It is open to the State Government or the JD-Society to: • Re-adjust the services of the dentists to be taken from the Institute or fix the amount of contribution for maintenance of the District- Hospital in lieu of the attachment of the District-Hospital to the Institute. • Partly take services and take the amount in lieu of attachment of the District-Hospital and partly get nominate students in the Institute; (e) It will also open to the State to: • Continue to hold entrance examination for its colleges and forthe aided colleges. • Hold entrance examination for the MDS course for the Institute, if the entrance examination held by the Consortium is held to be unfair or non-transparent or exploitative in an enquiry after opportunity to the Consortium; (f) There was no fault of the students (namely, DrAditi Jain, Dr Shailja Hanumanta, DrAmitNashaand DrAnkurJain). They have studied in the Institute in pursuance ofthe interim order granted by this Court. In order to do justice to them, we recommend that: • The State mayadjust them over any vacancy in any other college in the MDS course. • The DCI mayalso consider adding four more seats in the Institute or one seateach in the four Dental Colleges in the State offering the MDS course in this year toadjust these four students. • The Institute as well as the State Government will take necessary steps to make formal request to the DCI; (g) The contempt cases are dropped as the Institute does not wish to press them. 14 ^ (g) The contempt cases are dropped as the Institute does not wish to pressthem. .

64. In view of our conclusions, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and the civil contempt cases are dropped. Sd/- Chief Justice s<v- SunaK"marsmha Judge „. 15 Appendix-1 Theobjects ofJeewan Deep Society are as follows : 2 'HPtRl ^ ^^^T : ^RrTSJT T?cT •^TOTEFfr 1 2 3 '<[WTT/3f<W^1ld RlR?cyi ^qrsrf ^t 4j,uiciTCti TT -gEqrc ?RqT i Sf'Wdld T^T \d4d^T '^rqTSff ufrr*ii<nt;i'<i6i<siTii l ^PTT yl^P'lct?) ?CT ^CTITTIT cF? •iSq^fST ~s^ cpT ^1<T tRET^ ^an -^[RSZT ^ 'H^^T ^t ^T ull'l'tnchdl XpT ^R OTEFf ^^TT ^T'OTc^ET ^cnsff c^l- ul|'l<t)|^ 4 l ' 5 •CTtnf 'Tft'uit cpr ^fflfoT ^ ^ET '{^l^i '3p^\ ~^f\ Tf 3)^||^-| ^STT ch^oy pi4g'i ^r 1[r4sRTTIr 1?? u1'1t1|6||<;"| ^7t y4da? 4''<I'1I ^ EFRTf^T SRqpira ^t aicl^chdlSTf ^ f^ RPl-1 q^f WT?UT, v^ TTET ITf^R ^PT ^TRT^ ^ ^ll^^yff f5^5tt ^ STg^T ^?cR vi44l^l T?cT TfcfEpT ^plR-cld q^TT I fi|R>^l q^TT, RiR'^1 ^ ff ? 'M'c]c;-l^d c||d|c|^u| crarT 3iyi|^ig1i ,^? !r ^ fsT^g 31^11'H'll^ch chl4c||^l t^ 3Tg?RTT ^^IT 1 •OT?f^iT 3T?qOT5r ¥rER, dqch';"!')', ^T^T snf^ ^T WTRIT WTT •yPiR^i^ 'sf^n ?rsn' srra^ra^TTg^TR f^Rar? ?? ^?T ^^T 1 7 ^T^Oi ^ f?p3ft ^^IT, RR)rH<frl' ^ cn^riiRql' W8TT3.JT c& f^ g^RTUT T?? cb|4^11cll STTzJtl^RT q^H, t^/'f?tnfM '^TWTSft ^ :3]?BT ^IT TCT STTERq-ERTI^HR cti4-qiR^' ^ ^ft ^;? ^s^ ^ f^ ^TRPT ^ pl^^ll' ?& 3TTEIR TR ^'Rtil q? fSlf^oHchl'/'cb'^TllR^' q?t ft^f^r c^ 3IT^p|c^cti<<u| -^TTgJT "^ WI^IT 'W^ •g^.TZFT •qTTSTr T^S( 6 | TTg^T ^t oTERefT Tpr 8 3il4>[^4cb T^T ^CTT ^EIT ^ 'SfiW 9 10 | 'g^RT f^f ^t ?PT ^TcFT ^TIT rian' Sliq^cfai^'dlt 24 ^ ''ETEITcFT cr >«9'«Sliq •<lPl'4l' ^ f^l ^SrR 4lfccb vft^FT c;c|li4)' Slrf^ ^ aTcReTT ^frW WU ^luff ^ TTRupff ^ 5?^ ^ f^ £<4?llctl q?T •?TcT-<:nn ^PlN/^a^ara ^PTT, ^uld ^t oSFRSTT ^^IT, c^fff 'H'TllRlri ?t^ ^ ffs T ?|5^1T 1 aRffcTM qf^l^ ^ SI^pfcT -Ml^cbd ^S, ^t qrf¥IT •^TE®-cr ^RW ^T gR^llcTl snf^ ^ q?^T, 1$FrfuT ^ 'd1T^4Ich'<ul q?^TT, ^T RlR'^ct?)^ smf^re ^T clsllRch ^T ^ RPl><f)ch^u| WWT ^t '??a'-^3TcT 1?? TREpT ^t si?R«n' 4R^*ti(rcl4l' ^ ^RT q?CT(T 1 'cff^ 'gqrT ~^n '5^FT 'eqcRsn ZF^IT 'QSW ^T 11 WaTT'ql^R ^ ^q^RT WPI^ sraWT ^f^iT 1 ^ \1 1 ^ <fcb&bue 11-11" Ihcy |+ U^Jk>|i\ ^ \^>tt> ^y Jtfr b?l h.lSK jn^ ILUbln^ ^ Jysl^. IZBiJ^ |hop* h"lft ^ uyjhty IMS t-P.|]& Uay^. lcbW.P' |b^h.M< cbh MH-PlUxfchfSNIe il}^J^J£ ^ JS^1A^^U£ Ij-^cb l-h'b-lh.iy ^S^fcSlo l^l^ls l^l^^jrlcb (t>yib~B^ P.Kfcy (b I^IUM>le fc>?) ] 1 ]^C|3 ^& ^l

171. ei. Zl. 81 Mbt^ - Iflky [*KJIh Jzay^ cb^ '^hhF' S h^bKk U h.1bh hl n / hltby t?(M^ y^UaSL bbJ^/'IP'lcb'Tt fr £ 5 I. yyy" ^ fci? ^^^ bhl^ln I^JJSJ^ M.bi^ - lA&tt.-^hM^/lStiSte ^. Uh.lb.h kirf/UhlfcihMfk t>bJlsM> J5123K - >>lb[Q|».3U Ubyujlft/Mbl^lK.au \^\W. ^. J£^ yiK» |j.»^&J ltd£/S±^h^lW-tbhJhiin bbj». M.lit). - ^y^jje i^<yi2J M-bl^ - ^ikK/iM*t5]ift 1^'yy s>R>m*y h4.j3^ ct, |4.» InMblB. J^ J^t (b^cybj <h>\ <t> \h^». ^ln tri^JA. - M.tiP. lOlbt-lb b?. (b^lnlkl^ Uiyittl^ IMS IkU. Itlky ^byih. >?aMM <t>^P (b hy«3|^lff '|Mcbfe]lft ^ j^ ^M.t3M> InMhlll^. h.^lky'&lft PS-nh D^yh^l?.-l>-lR'(Mcb^lft fr^lkyT.le tA&B- triLy^. - iz^^. - tA&^.— hKby h(?.lrt-t?^-ll^.'l£'l(fe'6. -fe •I* •& ftholhft — JBlZSle - iriky]n^y*|p'iMcbhi]ifthy»ikyTlie ^ S " Z h|j»lkyT>lft I. Uh.lbh bhl-ln M,[n|^ ^lcb^lft ' ^| VM^ 6 9 / 9 9 kilUh*B> Pyiy/b^lM. fe.^ fra^lb* cbyiii1tll»/S-nls»l»l<by bbJU- h-^K. M-faft - iysysie j^iuuye s^ ^f>» ^yi^j M.>»]^ i±y3 ki^y^is j^ ^ b^j^,- l^t>». - M.bK. - • W.bM> - M-bB. - J5j23Ul£ - fijsaie - Jh.y^lnll+l^/^iyib^lti yy^h IMS Itttt. InMhll^ 8 ^i<y§pizayKi ^i i^'yy tss& z 9 l-Plh]?l* •li.'Q. '(l&h. 1-SS-nk P^sy h^l^ Iflky y'SJII-? h^.lM. <b\V> '\hh Itlky Injky cb^ '|fch ^PIhJT.Itb S ^Plh{? 'M)Rllft |(bPjlhM^^ klfy-Mf^ Uhl&h IPtnj ^l*(sj(ft t-^lh(?ltb hS?R NMpcb '" -: htailM<ybj S Z i. IPInJ ?,|».£|t^y ^l^ ^ |-E>^ j?l<t> l^y.l-^ lt> ^UJ4JK. hl^t^b^ - u^ii" (* B^ji» i^jy^ ^nyicb]?iib : pjy^ unyi<bj?icb / '.SMOIIOfSB SlAfQIOOS dQQQ UBMQQf j.0 SQhtfnOQXQ j.0 UO!)n)!}SUOQ S(U ll-xipusddy 61 (t>l^>cybj IUIb^lb/1^^ ^b^h.b.). ^lkti <t> IhAI^ l"ocyi2J (l3|^^>h hl^lhA cfci?i 9 6 lae-n^ ulay vrw\> •lf-n '^.h.hg' 'U&h.hF' Iflky Inj^y 03^ / 9 JlMS bbJU, M>bK. - t^^V^ - lkM> M.b^. - h-i-b^ - InMblK,)