M.Manisundar32.E.Suganya v. The DeanSri lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences

31.M.Manisundar32.E.Suganya Vs.1. The DeanSri lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences,OsuduAgaram VillageVillianur CommuneUdapakkam PostPondicherry-605 5022. The Registrar Pondicherry University Pondicherry.3. The Convenor Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) Pondicherry4. Union of India rep by Secretary to Government of India Health & Family Welfare Dept., New Delhi5. Secretary to Government Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 6. Secretary to Government Health Department Union Territory of Pondicherry Pondicherry7. University Grants Commissions rep. By its Secretary Bahadursha Zafar Marg8. The Secretary Medical Council of India New Delhi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. The Registrar Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research 173, Agaram Road Selayur, Chennai10.J.Brindha11.Afea Sultana12.J.Mamatha13.S.Subina14.E.K.Nedhina15.E.Venmathi16.M.Shilpa17.Jasima Shahabudeen18.L.Renu Priya19.S.Karthika Priya20.R.Aruna Raja Sheela21.R.Vinolia22.V.Ayieswurya23.S.Deepika24.S.Mohana Priya25.M.Manimegalai26.M.Padmini27.E.Shanthi28.S.L.Vishala Saladi29.Naveya Gadiraju30.Pratyusha Sunkara31.E.Revathy32.V.Rajasulochana33.G.Sushma Rao34.Anka Joseph35.M.Anjana36.Aparna37.A.Saranya38.S.CH.Sherley39.H.Nishad Amrin40.A.Suneetha41.S.Aparna42.R.Kanaga Valli43.P.Lisiya44.S.V.Ambika45.M.R.Madhumitha46.I.Nivedita Priyadarshini47.Nibedita Jana48.Pinto Avennetie49.Mamta50.Satabdi Kalya Mukherjee51.D.Harika52.R.Deepthi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

53.G.Harshita54.P.Vasavi55.S.Vasavi56.Venkata Padma Malladi57.Navya Cheruku58.S.S.Abilash59.Jebinth Brayan60.S.Dinesh Kumar61.Sombir62.Prithwish Ghorai63.Chinmoy Dey64.P.L.G.K.Kanth Pavan Kumar65.M.Yugandhar66.Pratyush Kumar67.A.Revanth68.M.Muni Sankar Reddy69.D.Sodhan Kumar70.C.Siva Hemanth71.T.L.V.Raghavendra Rayalu72.G.D.Shiva Kumar73.D.Anush74.G.Harshavardhan75.P.V.R.K.Anjaneya Guptha76.Vanasi Aakash Kanaiyalal77.Anshul Nishant78.M.Praveen Kumar79.Jewal Jerome80.Ashutosh Tiwari81.R.Arun Gowtham82.S.Karthikeyan83.Madan Mohan Dash84.R.Ram Prasath85.V.M.Saravana Vasan86.N.Mathiyazhagan87.B.Balasubramanian88.S.N.Abinesh89.Himanshu Kayata90.S.M.H.Waseem91.A.Mohamme Thoyub92.S.Gauthaman93.K.Veeran94.E.K.Niyas95.Arjun Prakash96.M.P.Abdul Haleem97.G.NagarajanR10 to R97 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 19.11.2007 inM.P.No.4 of 2007 in W.P.No.26729 of 2007) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

98.A.Vinod Kumar99.Akashdeep A.A.100.Anand Raja R.101.Anbukarasi R.102.Aritha T103.Aswini. S.104.Chakradhar Balaji N.105.Deepak B.106.Giridharan A.V.107.Gunavathy G108.Jayashalini J109.Kajalakshmy M110.Kanishka Devi T.R.111.Karthikeyan S.112.Kirthiha G.113.Nithish Mukunthan M114.Padma Priyavarthani D.115.Priyadarshini P.116.Rajgiv G.K.117.Selvarani C.118.Shiva Shankaran P.119.Snigdha Sathyanath120.Suganya E121.Sumitha P122.Valentina Y123.Vidyasri S124.Vyshnavhy TR.98 to R.124 impleaded as per order of this Courtdated 14.12.2007 in M.P.No.5 of 2007in W.P.No.26729 of 2007)... RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records 5th respondent in No.F.9-47/2005.U3 Ministry of Human ResourcesDevelopment, dated 4 June 2007, and to quash second part of para 7 of theNotification as illegal and consequently directing the first respondent topursue the application for affiliation with the second respondent,Pondicherry University in so far as the petitioner of 2006-2007 batchalone are concerned till their completion of their course ending withconvocation or in the alternative directing the 3 & 6th respondent toreallocate the petitioners to other Institutions affiliated to secondrespondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners: Mr.Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Govindaraj For respondents:Mr.N.R.Chandran Senior Advocate for M/s.Satish Parasaran, for R1 and R9 Ms.A.V.Bharathi, for R2 Mr.S.Udayakumar Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for R4 and R5 Mr.T.Murugesan Government Pleader for Puducherry for R3 and R6 Mr.P.R.Gopinathan for R7 Mr.R.Singaravelan for R8 Mr.V.Raghavachari for R10 to R124O R D E RHeard Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, the learned senior counsel forMr.M.Govindaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,Mr.N.R.Chandran, the learned Senior counsel for M/s.Satish Parasaran, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents,Ms.A.V.Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondentUniversity, Mr.S.Udayakumar, the learned Senior Central GovernmentStanding counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents,Mr.T.Murugesan, the learned Government Pleader for Puducherry, appearingfor the third and sixth respondents, Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, the learnedcounsel appearing for the seventh respondent, Mr.R.Singaravelan, thelearned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent and Mr.V.Raghavachari,the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 124. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition, are as follows:2. The first respondent Institute was established in the year 2005.It was informed that the first respondent had obtained permission from the4th respondent for running a medical college with an annual intake of 150students from the academic session 2006-2007, vide proceedingsNo.U12021/249/2005-ME (P-II), dated 5.6.2006. The sixth respondent hadissued proceedings No.27206/H5/2006/Health, dated 13.7.2006, addressed tothe third respondent with the direction to sponsor 75 students foradmission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute. Theselected students were provisionally admitted to the first respondentInstitute subject to the affiliation from the Pondicherry University. Allthe 75 students sponsored by the third respondent had joined the firstrespondent Institute by 11.09.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. In spite of the fact that the petitioners had the requiredattendance for the first year M.B.B.S. Course, they were not issued thehall tickets by the second respondent university for taking theexaminations. However, similarly placed persons like the petitioners, whohad joined the other medical colleges in Pondicherry, were permitted towrite the examinations by issuing of hall tickets and the examination timetable. By an order, dated 23.5.2007, passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of2007, in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents' Association of thefirst respondent college, the petitioners had been permitted to write theexaminations, held between 4.6.2007 and 12.06.2007, at the PondicherryUniversity. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have written thetheory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, inthe counter affidavit, dated 11.6.2007, filed by the first respondent inthe said writ petition, it was stated that the first respondent Institutehad been brought under the ambit of the 9th respondent Institute, namely,Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, which is saidto be a Deemed University, under Section 3 of the University GrantsCommission Act, 1956. 4. As regards the examinations in respect of the students admittedfor the academic year 2006-2007, the first respondent was to approach thePondicherry University from which the consent of affiliation was obtainedor the 9th respondent Deemed University may hold the first yearexaminations subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the MedicalCouncil of India and with the 'no objection' order from the Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare. Therefore, the petitioners were under theimpression that the first respondent Institute would approach thePondicherry University for affiliation. However, the first respondentInstitute had refused to apply for the necessary permission to undergo thepractical examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University, the secondrespondent herein. By the Notification NO.F.9-47/2005-U.3, dated 4.6.2007,the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the fifthrespondent, had declared the first respondent Institute as a constituentcollege of the 9th respondent Deemed University. 5. Paragraph-5 of the notification allowed the first respondentInstitute as an off-campus centre of the 9th respondent University for thepurpose of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, subject to theconditions prescribed in the said notification. Paragraph-7 of thenotification had stated that as regards the examination of studentsalready enrolled with SLNIMS for the academic year 2006-07, the SLNIMSmay approach the university from which consent for affiliation wasobtained by them prior to admitting these students, or the BIHER may hold1st year examination for the already enrolled students subject to thecondition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council ofIndia are followed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has noobjection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In paragraph-8 of the notification, it was stated that thedeclaration was subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No.6of the endorsement annexed to the said notification. In clause (e) ofserial No.6 of the endorsement, it is stated that BIHER shall awarddegrees in respect of the courses run by SLNIMS only to those students whoare admitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of thenotification. 7. While so, the petitioners had approached the first respondentInstitute to conduct the practical examinations, since the petitioners hadalready written the theory examinations conducted by the PondicherryUniversity. However, the first respondent Institute had refused to takesteps to obtain the permission needed for the petitioners to take thepractical examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University and it hadalso compelled the students, by threats and coercion, to sign aregistration form for the undergraduate course under the 9th respondentUniversity. The petitioners have been threatened with dire consequences ifthe matter was pursued further. Even though the students were made tobelieve that the affiliation had been accorded to the first respondentInstitute from the year 2006, it has been done only from the academic year2007-2008. It is only due to the deliberate non-co-operation of the firstrespondent Institute, the second respondent University could not grant thenecessary affiliation. 8. By a notification published in the tamil newspaper "Dhinamalar" itwas learnt that, by a notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the CentralGovernment, the first respondent Institute was affiliated to BharathUniversity as its constituent college, from the academic year 2006-2007.However, it was noticed that the notification issued in the tamil dailywas contrary to the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the CentralGovernment. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been requestingthat they may be allowed to pursue their medical course in the firstrespondent Institute, under the Pondicherry University or in any otherinstitution affiliated to the Pondicherry University. At the time when thepetitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute, for themedical course commencing with the academic year 2006-2007, the firstrespondent Institute had been affiliated to the Pondicherry University.Since the petitioners had been admitted against the seats surrendered tothe Government, as per an agreement, the allocation was done only on thebasis that the first respondent Institute will continue to be affiliatedto the Pondicherry University. Thus, it is not open to the firstrespondent to direct the students to continue their medical course underthe 9th respondent deemed University. 9. The learned Senior counsel Mr.Yashod Vardhan, appearing on behalfof the petitioners, had submitted that there is a contradiction betweenwhat has been stated in Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the notification, dated4.6.2007, issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Governmentof India and Clause (e) of Serial No.6 of the endorsement annexed to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notification. Therefore, there is a serious apprehension that the 9threspondent University would not be in a position to award the medicaldegrees to the petitioners as Clause (e) of Serial.No.6 of the endorsementstates that the 9th respondent University shall award degrees in respect ofthe courses, run by SLNIMS only to those students who areadmitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of the notification.Since the petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute forthe academic year 2006-2007, prior to the date of the notification, the 9threspondent deemed University would not be in a position to award themedical degrees to the petitioners at the end of their medical course. 10. It has been further submitted that by an order of this Court,dated 23.5.2007, made in M.P.No.1 of 2007, in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, thepetitioners were permitted to write the theory examinations of their firstyear medical course under the Pondicherry University and the petitionersare having a legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to takethe practical examinations also under the Pondicherry University. It isonly due to the non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute noaffiliation had been granted by the Pondicherry University. Thepetitioners cannot be made to suffer due to the default committed by thefirst respondent Institute. It has also been submitted that thepetitioners may not get the continued sponsorship of the Government ofPuducherry if they are not continuing their medical course under thePondicherry University. 11. Mr.N.R.Chandran, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalfof the first and ninth respondents had submitted that the petitionersconstitute only a small group of students out of the 150 students, whowere admitted during the academic year 2006-2007 for undergoing the 1styear M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute which has nowbecome a constituent of the ninth respondent Deemed University. Thereliefs sought for by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and it is anabuse of the process of Court. 12. The learned counsel had further submitted that the firstrespondent College had started functioning from the academic year 2006-2007 with the approval of the Central Government, on the recommendationsmade by the Medical Council of India, with an annual intake of 150students. Since a proposal to bring Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute ofMedical Sciences under the ambit of Bharath Institute of Higher Educationand Research, the ninth respondent herein, was pending consideration withthe University Grants Commission and the Central Government, the firstrespondent Institute did not effectively pursue the proposal for the grantof provisional affiliation, for the year 2006-2007, from the PondicherryUniversity which had originally granted the consent for affiliation. Asthe cut-off date for admission for the academic year 2006-2007 was toexpire on 30.9.2006, the first respondent, after obtaining orders fromthis Court, had admitted 75 students under the Management category and 75students from the Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) at the specialrequest of the Puducherry Government. Thereafter, regular classes for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1st year M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic year 2006-2007, had startedfrom 1.10.2006. 13. The learned counsel had further submitted that by a notification,dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondentInstitute was brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent DeemedUniversity, with effect from the date of the notification. However, takingnote of the admission of the students without affiliation for 2006-2007,the Central Government had directed that the first respondent may approachthe Pondicherry University, from which the consent of the affiliation wasobtained, for affiliation or the ninth respondent Deemed University mayhold the 1st year examination for the students admitted during the year2006-2007, subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the MedicalCouncil of India. While so, the Pondicherry University had announced thatthe 1st year examinations for its affiliated Collages would commence from4.6.2007. At that stage, an unrecognised Association called the SriLakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences Parents' Association hadfiled a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, prayingfor a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent Institute toexpedite the process of affiliation with the Pondicherry University and todirect the said University to complete the process of affiliation within astipulated period. The petitioners had also prayed for permission to writethe examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course conducted by thePondicherry University to be held between 4.6.2007 and 12.6.2007. By anorder, dated 23.5.2007, made in M.P.No.1 of 2007, this Court had permittedthe students to write the examinations with the direction to withhold thepublication of the results. 14. It was further submitted that the Pondicherry University had noauthority to hold the examinations for the students of an Institutionwhich had not been affiliated by it and such examinations would have nolegal consequence in the light of the law declared by the various Courtsof law, including the Supreme Court. Even before the commencement of theexamination, the Pondicherry University had rejected the request foraffiliation from the first respondent Institute by its communication,dated 15.5.2007. 89 students out of 150 students who had joined theCourse, as well as the Government of Pondicherry, had contended that thesaid writ petition was without merits and unsustainable in law. The writpetition in W.P.No.18654 of 2007, was dismissed by an order of this Court,dated 2.7.2007. 15. It was further submitted that since the Pondicherry Universityhad rejected the request for affiliation made by the first respondentInstitute and also for the reason that the first respondent Institute hadbecome a part of the ninth respondent Deemed University, the reliefssought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, it is not opento the petitioners to seek the reliefs based either on the principle ofEstoppel or on the principle of Legitimate Expectation as their claims arecontrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. However, the learned counsel had submitted that the ninthrespondent Deemed University is willing to conduct both the theory as wellas the practical examinations for the petitioners as well as the otherstudents of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007, inspite of the fact that they had already written the examinations conductedby Pondicherry University, based on the orders passed by this Court inM.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.18654 of 2007. 17. It was further submitted that the ninth respondent DeemedUniversity is also willing to conduct supplementary examinations toaccommodate the students of the first respondent Institute, based on aspecific request made in that regard since the examinations, written bythe students of the first respondent Institute under the PondicherryUniversity, cannot be said to be valid as it is not in accordance with theestablished principles of law. 18. Ms.A.V.Bharathi, the learned counsel appearing for the secondrespondent University, had submitted that the writ petition is notmaintainable in law, since the writ petitioners have no locus standi toseek the affiliation from the second respondent University. The requestfor affiliation made by the first respondent Institute for the M.B.B.S.Course for the academic year 2006-2007 had been rejected by the secondrespondent University by its proceedings, dated 15.5.2007. The firstrespondent Institute was neither interested nor inclined to pursue itsapplication for affiliation for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year2006-2007. In fact, the first respondent Institute had prevented thesecond respondent University from conducting an inspection of theInstitute, on 17.10.2006. Thereafter, on 23.2.2007, the first respondentInstitute had requested the second respondent University for inspection ofthe Institute for the purpose of granting of affiliation. Since therequest by the first respondent Institute was belated, the said requestcould not be processed further. 19. It was further submitted that the admission of the students madeby the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for theacademic year 2006-2007 is by itself illegal as it was done withoutobtaining the necessary affiliation. However, the second respondentUniversity had permitted the students to write the examinations of the 1styear M.B.B.S. Course, held in the month of June, 2007, based on the orderpassed by this Court, on 23.5.2007, in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.18654 of2007. Later, the said writ petition had been dismissed by this Court by anorder, dated 2.7.2007. 20. It was further submitted that the first respondent Institute hadnot taken any legal recourse for its affiliation for the academic year2006-2007. It is only the Parents' Association which had approached thisCourt for a direction based on which the students had taken the writtenexamination conducted by the Pondicherry University. The practicalexaminations could not be conducted, since the first respondent Institute https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ did not co-operate with the second respondent University in that regard.In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioners cannot besustained. Further, by a notification issued by the Ministry of HumanResource Development, Government of India, in Notification No.9-47/2005-U.3, dated 4.6.2007, the first respondent Institute has been brought underthe ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University. 21. Mr.T.Murugesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thethird and sixth respondents, had submitted that the first respondentInstitute was established, after having obtained the necessary permissionfrom the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, withan annual intake of 150 students for the academic year 2006-2007. TheCentralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) had been requested to sponsor 75students to the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Courseof the academic year 2006-2007. The Committee had also sponsored 75students under the Government quota. The Government of Puducherry hadprovided Rs.1,50,000/- to each of the students sponsored by theCentralized Admission Committee, under the Perunthalaivar KamarajFinancial Assistance Scheme. 22. It was also submitted that the Public Relation Officer of thefirst respondent Institute had executed an undertaking stating that theywould seek affiliation from the Pondicherry University and that they wouldclarify the admission policy for the proposed Medical Institute and thatthey would also allocate 50% of the seats in the proposed MedicalInstitute for the students of Puducherry as sponsored by the Government ofPuducherry. As per the said conditions, the first respondent Institute hadallotted 50% of the seats for the Government Quota for the academic year2006-2007. 23. It was also submitted that as per the notification of theMinistry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, dated4.6.2007, the students already enrolled with the first respondentInstitute, for the academic year 2006-2007, were entitled to continuetheir course only under the Pondicherry University. 24. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents 10 to 124 had submitted that the writ petition filed by thepetitioners is not maintainable, as it has no merits and it is a grossabuse of the process of law. 25. He had further submitted that even those students of the firstrespondent Institute, who were not in support of the writ petition inW.P.No.18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents' Association, had been coercedto write the examinations, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on23.5.2007, even though they were not sufficiently prepared. Many of thestudents had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appearing in theexaminations. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

26. It was also submitted that the Pondicherry University was not theproper University under which the students could write the examinations,after the first respondent Institute had been notified to be an off-campuscentre of the ninth respondent Deemed University. As such the petitionershave no right to demand that the second respondent University shouldconduct the examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academicyear 2006-2007.27. It was also submitted that a large number of students had alreadytaken the written examinations under the ninth respondent DeemedUniversity, pursuant to the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by thefifth respondent. By an order, dated 15.5.2007, the second respondentUniversity had declined to grant affiliation to the first respondentInstitute, based on the resolution of the Academic Council of theUniversity. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed. 28. Mr.S.Udayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth andfifth respondents, had submitted that the present writ petition has beenfiled by the writ petitioner only on a mere apprehension that the ninthrespondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grant theMedical Degrees for the students of the first respondent Institute, whowere admitted to the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007. 29. In paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by thefifth re spondent, it is stated that as regards the examination ofstudents already enrolled with the first respondent Institute for theacademic year 2006-2007, the said Institute may approach the secondrespondent University from which consent for affiliation was obtainedprior to admitting the students. In the alternative, the ninth respondentDeemed University may hold the 1st year examination for the alreadyenrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations andguidelines of the Medical Council of India are followed and the Ministryof Health and Family Welfare has no objection. Paragraph 8 of thenotification stipulates that the declaration is subject to furtherconditions as mentioned in Serial No.6 of the endorsement of thenotification. In clause (e) of Serial No.6 of the endorsement of the saidnotification, it has been stated that the ninth respondent DeemedUniversity shall award degrees in respect of the courses run by the firstrespondent Institute only to those students who are admitted/enrolled withthe said Institute subsequent to the date of the notification. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. The learned counsel had also submitted that the apprehensionsexpressed by the petitioners are ill-founded as it is clear that on aconjoint reading of the various paragraphs contained in the notificationas well as the clauses of the endorsement of the notification the onlymeaning that could emerge is that the first respondent Institute would bean off-campus centre of the ninth respondent Deemed University, whichwould be empowered to conduct the examinations for the M.B.B.S. Studentsof the first respondent University, who had been admitted during theacademic 2006-2007, and also to grant them the Medical Degrees on theirsuccessful completion of the course. It was further submitted that thereare no legal or other impediments for the ninth respondent DeemedUniversity to grant the Medical Degrees to all the eligible candidates whohad completed their medical course. 31. Based on the submissions made by Mr.S.Udayakumar, the learnedcounsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, it is clear thatthe petitioners cannot be justified in entertaining the apprehension thatthe ninth respondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grantthe Medical Degrees to the eligible candidates who would be successfullycompleting their Medical Course in the first respondent Institute. If thepetitioners require any further clarification, it is open to them toapproach the concerned authorities with their specific requests.Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient reason to quash the secondpart of paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by thefifth respondent. Further, there cannot be a direction issued to the firstrespondent Institute to pursue the application for affiliation with thesecond respondent University in view of the submission made by thepetitioners that the first respondent Institute is not interested inpursuing such a claim. It is also seen, from the records available beforethis Court, that the request made by the first respondent Institute foraffiliation to the second respondent University has been rejected by thesecond respondent University by its proceedings, dated 15.5.2007. It hasalso been brought to the notice of this Court that the said rejection hadnot been challenged by the first respondent Institute in accordance withthe procedures established by law. Further, by a notification, dated4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institutehas been declared to be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondentUniversity. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reasons or cause todirect the first respondent Institute to pursue its request foraffiliation to the second respondent University. Nor would it beappropriate for this Court to direct the third and sixth respondents toreallocate the petitioners to the other Institutions affiliated to thesecond respondent University, at this stage. Further, Mr.N.R.Chandran, thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents hadmade it clear that the ninth respondent Deemed University is willing toconduct the necessary examinations for the benefit of the students of the1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the first respondent Institute for theacademic year 2006-2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. In such circumstances, this Court is not sufficiently persuadedby the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners to grant thereliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petitionstands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of2007 are also dismissed.csh/lan Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Registrar Pondicherry University Pondicherry.2. The Convenor Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) Pondicherry3. The Secretary to Government of India Union of India Health & Family Welfare Dept., New Delhi4. Secretary to Government Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhavan New Delhi 5. Secretary to Government Health Department Union Territory of Pondicherry Pondicherry6. The Secretary University Grants Commissions Bahadursha Zafar Marg New Delhi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The Secretary Medical Council of India New Delhi+1 cc to Mr.Satish Parasaran, Advocate Sr.No.1192.+1 cc to Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate Sr.No.1061.+1 cc to Mr.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC, Sr.No.1226+1 cc to Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate Sr.No.1064.+1 cc to Mr.V.Raghavan, Advocate Sr.No.1050.+1 cc to The Senior Government Pleader cum Senior PP.Pondicherry Sr.No.1109.RS(CO)DCP/11.1W.P. No.26729 of 2007