DR RIYA MARIAM RAJU v. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL

(BY SRI AJOY KU MAR PATJL & SHEELA ANISH, ADVS) AND I.

3. 1 CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL. ENGINEERING AND DENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA (COMEDK), NO.132, 2ND FLOOR. 1 1TI MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY j7TH CROSS, KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGES ASSOCIATION NO.132, 2ND FLOOR, 17TFI CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALUBU 560 055. REP]. TTSENTED BY SECRETARY 1 ITII MAIN, RAJTV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH T BLOCK. JAYANAGAR, BANGAL.ORE• 560 641. .REPRE.SE.NTED BY ITS REGISTRAR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRASE\’TT) FO SEPJ’EP HZCE TO GOVERNMEAT. HEALTH & FIlMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION). MS BUILDINGS. DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

5. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MR.NAIK. SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHE’fTY, ADVOCATE FOR Ri & 2: SRI SGPANDIT FOR R3: SRI N.RVISHWANATH, AGA FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Ri AND R2 TO CONDUCT THE COUNSELING AND SEAT SELECTION PROCESS FOR PG SEATS IN COMEDK CONSTITUENT COLLEGES AFRESH BY PERMIYFING THE PETITIONER AND SIMILARLY PLACED STUDENTS AN OPPORTUNI’TY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNSELING. WP46168i617j2Q2 B ETWEE N I. DR JAIN PINAL MAHENDRA AGED 24 YEARS D/O MR MAFIENDRA JAIN R/AT 50L SHANBHOG HOUSE. JAMBLI NAKA ., THANE WEST, DR BABAR PRASI [ANT DADASAHEB AGED 25 YEARS S ,r’O MR DADASAHE B CHANDRODAYA HSG SOCIETY FLAT NO.23, KALAMBOLI. SECTOR- 1E, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. DR SAIKAR SAUJANYA SUHAS AGED 25 YEARS S/O MR SIJHAS SAIKAR CHANDRODAYA HSG SOCIETY FLAT NO23, KALAMBOLI. SECTOR- 1E, NAVI MUMBAJ. MAHARASHTRA. DR VTDYA TIWARI AGED 24 YEARS D/O MRD KTIWARI MARUTI CLASSIC APARTMENT SHALIVAHANA NAGAR, DILSUKH NAGARA HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH, (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) PETITIONERS

4. AND CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL. ENGINEERING AND DEN TAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA (COMED-KJ, NO132, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM. BENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.

2.. KARNATARA PRIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEG ES ASSOCIATION C L32 2 1TFH CROSS. MALLESWARAM. HENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TDLQOP 1

5. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES. 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION), MS BUILDINGS, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MRNAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHEYIY, ADVOCATE FOR Ri & 2: SRI SGPANDIT FOR R3: SRI NBVISHWANATH, AGA FOR R4 & R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Ri AND R2 TO CONDUCT THE COUNSELING AND SEAT SELECTION PROCESS FOR PG SEATS IN COMEfl-K CONSTITUENT COLLEGES AFRESH BY PERMUTING THE PETITIONERS AND SIMILARLY PLACED STUDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNSELING. 6172-16174 2012 BETWEEN

1. DR TALESRA JUHI MOOLCHAND D/O MR MOOLCHAND TALESRA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS NO20l, PNYODAYA COMPLEX AHILYA BAI CHOWK, AGRA ROAD KALYAN, MAHARASHTRA, DRSHARADAUDUPA D/O MR SRIDHARA B 5, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.141, I FLOOR, SRI KRISHNA 5PF1 \\1E5T MAIN, ITI LAYOUT, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE 560 085. DR SONAL CHOPRA D/O M VIJAY KUMAR CHOPRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS JAGADAMBA BHAWAN, HOUSE NO.108 HAMIRPUR 177 001. HIMACHAL PRADESH. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

3. AND CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL, ENGINEERING AND DENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA (COMEDJ(), NO.132. 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECREIARY

2. KARNATAKA PHIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGES ASSOICIATION NO.132, 2r1D FL(.OR, I 1TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, MALLESWARPM, BENGALURU 560 055. REPRESENTED BY SECRETALY 3 pJIV GANDHI UNIVE RSiTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR. - 10

5. BANGALORE 560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION), MS BUILDINGS, DR B P AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 009. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.R.NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHEYFY. ADVOCATE FOR Ri & 2: SRI S.G.PANDIT FOR R3: SRi N.B.VISHWANATH. AGA FOR R4 & R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF ThE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Ri & 2 TO CONDUCT THE COUNSELING AND SEAT SELECTION PROCESS FOR PG SEATS IN COMED-K CONSTITUENT COLLEGES AFRESH BY PERMUTING Ti-I I PETITIONERS AND SIMILARLY PLACED STUDENTS AN OPPORTIJNITYTO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNSELING AND ETC. ThESE WET PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Ii ORDER As the questions of law and facts involved are similar in all these petitions. they are dubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioners are all the applicants for admission to Postgraduate Dental Courses, Their rankings in the entrance test are as follows: SL N ‘ ‘ 1 ‘ 4 0 WRIT PETITION I NUMBER WRIT PETITION Nos. 15917- 159 19/2012 WRIT PETITION No.15921/2012 WRIT PETITION No,15922/2012 WRIT PETITION Nos,16.168- , WP Nos,16172- ____ . NAME OF THE PETITIONER

2. Dr. Saurabh Shekhar 3. Dr. Diwakaran 1. Dr. Rinku Shanklesha

1. l)r,Amrita Chakrhortv

1. Dr. Pinal Jam 2. Dr. Prashanth Da(sahib 3Dr6n’anOyhas .

1. Dr. Juhi Moolehandi 2. D 3DSa1Ch daU u. a RANK NUMBER 102 484 117 37 101 42 122 58 4 62 19 12

3. All the petitioners have appeared for conrisellirig: before the first respondent on I 905. 2012. Their grievance is that despite their high ranking. they are not given admission on the ground that: (a) They have not obtained the demand draft (D.D’ for short) from the nationalized banks. (b) They have not produced the counterfoils. (c) They have produced the counterfoils, which do not bear the seal, (d) They have produced the counierfoils, which do not hear the signature.

4. Sri Ajoy Kurnar Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W,P.Nos, 1591 7 1591 9,’20 12 submits that all the three ctitioners have obtained the .D,s from the nationalized bani The copies of the D,D,s are at .Annexures H, K and M He submits that counterfOils were produced before respondent No. 1. On the resuonclent No. I obl’ectind to the counterloils flC C ontainrnO the si natures of — IlizlrL r he -13- concerned officer, petitioners Immediately approached the concerned bank branches, obtained the signatures on the counterfoils and produced the required counterfoils. He submits that the D.D.s were purchased on 15.05.2012, 17.5.2012 and

14.05.20 12. He submits that as per the first respondent’s notification, dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure D) the petitioners have purchased the D.D.s from the tiatlonalized banks. The relevant clause reads as follows: Demand Drqft drawn only from the Nationalized Banks in favour of “COMEDIC” payable at Bangalore along with the original Bank counterfoil.”

5. He submits that the Insistence for the bank chailsn Is only by a revised notification, dated

15.05.20 12. He submits that even In the revised notification, there Is no specification that the counterfoil has to be ified. He read out Clause 10(xll) of the Notification (Annexure-E). which Is as follows: ASH -14- in favour of (xiQ Demand Draft drawn only from the Natlonalised Banks ‘COMEDIC’ payable at Bangalore along with the Bank Challan in original duly signed by the bank authority with seal for the annual tuition fee specified along with the Bank Challan issued by the bank (without the original bank challan the Demand Draft will not be accepted).” 3S (‘€t

6. The learned cousnel submits that the insistence the above extracted clause Is for the production of the original bank chziflnn, which condition Is Incapable of being compiled with, because the original bank challans are retained by the banks only.

7. Smt.Sheela Anish, the learned counsel for the petitioner In W.P.No. 1592 1/2012 submits that there is absolutely nothing wanting on the part of the petitioner. She submits that a D.D. from the nationalised bank and the counterfoil ified containing the seal and signatures were presented to the first respondent. She brings to my notice their copies, which are produced as A&H 15 Arinexures F and 0 respectively to the petition. As the first respondent took exception to the production of the DD. purchased from the Bank of Maharashtra on the grounds that it is not a nationahsed bank and that the Bank address is shown as Shivajinagar, Pune on the counterfoil arid the D.D. being issued on the Bombay Branch he petitioner immediately contacted her hankers, who have E-mailed stating that the Banks Head Office is in Pune and that the DD. is drawn on its Service Branch. She submits that it was received at i23O pm. and that she immediately submitted to the first respondent.

8. Smt, Sheela Anish submits that the respondent No. I has not issued any endorsement, She submits that I he media. ha.s extensively covered *hat transpired in the coimselluc centre. She brings to my notice the Armnexures K, KI and 1(2 containing the. said news items. 0 — r t t c 0 0z4 I 3 t 0 0 % Ct - 3 % t i 0 0 0 t - ) I 0 0 0 c O 0 o 0 0 0 — i i i 0 t - 0 0 0 r 0 0 o 0 0 t ( . c c 17

10. As far as the DD. on the Bank of Maharashtra is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in the first instance the petitioner has not even given the DD. purchased through the Bank of Maharashtra, In the first instance, the petitioner gave a DD. from a nonnationa1ised bank. He brings to my notice the E mail sent by the petitioner’s brothe who accompanied her to the counseling centre, which reads as follows: “Sir, I have secured 37111 rank in Comed K exam for dentaL I have dd of a non natiortalised bank due to which I was not permitted entry for the counseling on 1 9’ May 2012. I am extremely sorry for my mistake. I have come from Kalyan (MaharashtraL Please guide me so that I could do the needful and don’t loose my admission. I assure f given some time I will submit the dd from a nationalized bank bEfore the end of today’s counseling session. Regards Rinku Shanklesha” 18

11. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that as the petitioner was indulged in falsehood, she is not entitled to any equitable relief,

12. Smt.Sheela Anish, in the course of her rejoinder, submits that only one DD. was given and that is the one issued by the Bank of Maharashtra, The petitioner became panicky on being told by the first respondent’s authorities that the Bank of Maharashtra is not a nationalised bank and that is why she had to give a letter, as sought by the first respondent. She submits that the D,D. from the Bank of Maharashtra AnnexureF) was purchased on 15O52Oi2. Because of the stress and strain of undergoing the counseling, the petitioner may have submitted such a letter, so submits the learned counsel.

13. Sri Pjoy Kumar Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W,P,No. 15922/2012 submfts that the petitioner had purchased five D. D s, as she did not have FLU -19- the PAN (Permanent Account Number) of the Income Tax Department. She purchased the three D.D.s on Vljaya Bank and one D.D. on Canara Bank. Bpth these Banks are nationalized. Each D.D. is for a sum below ?50,000/-. The fifth D.D. for a sum of 49,OOO/- was purchased from the Karnataka Bank Ltd., which Is not a nationalized bank. It Is only on the ground of one D.D. being drawn on a non-nationalized bank that petitioner’s candidature Is rejected. Otherwise, all the five D.D.s are accompanied by the counterfolls containing the seals and signatures.

14. SrI Nalk, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submIts that one D.D. (Annexure-F3) Is not purchased by the petifioner. It Is purchased by one Rahi 1 Ahmed. Smt.Sheela Anish, the petitioner’s learned counsel quickly joins the issue with Sri N and submits that the said RahLl Ahmed is the local guardian of the petitioner. ftRI{ -20-

16. In W.P.Nos.16168-16171/2012. Sri Ajoy Kumar Paul submits that the petitioners have produced the D.D.s drawn on nationalized banks only. However. as the bankers did not affix the seal and the signature, the counterfoils submitted are disbeileved by the respondent No.1.

17. In W.P.Nos.16172-16174/2012 the petitioners have not purchased the D.D.s Issued by the nationalized banks. Sri Paul submits that It Is only because the petitioners did not know which are the nationalized banks and which are not the nationalized banks. In their anxiety to collect the commission towards the Issuance of the D.D.s, the bankers at times represent they are the nationalized banks only. He submits that the petitioners, on being told that a D.D;s Issued by the non-nationalized banks are not accepted, petitioners immediately purchased the D.D.s from the nationalized banks. 1)1311. Their attempt to submit the same to the first respondent have not lead them a nvwherc.

18. Sri M,RNaik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits petitioners have made the misleading averments. The COMED-K has nothing against any of the petitioners. When the other candidates could readily produce the D.D,s from the nationalized banks and also challans containing the signatures. it is not known why the petitioners should experience any difficulty. He submits that at earliest point of time, the first respondent issued the notification insisting for the production of the [).D,s the nationalized banks and the countertbiis ccm.taining the seal and signature. He a iso brings to my notice that subclause (xii) is a part of the Clause 10 of the said notification. which prescribes the essentia.i r rnrs for P ounscini ruu Du Uk 22 documents prescribed by sub-clause (xii) are produced. the applicants cannot be entertained fOr counselling. If the petitioners have not read the instructions properly. the respondent No, 1 cannot be held responsible. The situation is of the petitioners own making. Having brought upon themselves such a situation, they are not justified in demanding that they should have been permitted to take part in the first round of counselling. The learned Senior Counsel submits that if a candidate for the examination does not read the question paper properly and answers wrongly, the candidate alone is responsible for the consequences.

19. He also brings to rny notice Clause 15 which contains No Latercomer Pohcv which reads as follows: “15. Candidate who fails to report in time at the vemte of counseiinq as per their date and time C ihe schedule will be con sdered as a latecomer. and he/she shall not be allowed to parttctpate ii the counsellinp under antj circumstances and the C (_LSC Lf , - rr-i ,, d rnsj - delayed / on any health! social grounds etc. will not be entertained.

20. Based stipulations extracted hereinabove, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioners cannot be permitted to produce the requisite documents belatedly. 1-le also brings to my notice the relevant portion of Clause 2, which does not leave anybody in doubt as to what the applicants for admission are obliged to do. It reads as follows: 1 2. The Annual tuition fee amount Jbr the first tjear, Jr dffèrent courses should be paid by the candidates in the form of a Demand Draft drawn only from Nationalized Banks in favoL ir qf COMEDK, payable at Bangalore along with the Bank C hailan. in original duly signed by the bank authority with seal at the time o.f Centralised.. Counseling. The candidates should come prepared, with the Demand Dizft be’fore entering the cowiselin hail & also registering themselves fir selecting a seat, failing which they will not he alloi.ved to participate/enter the counseling hail. Cash or cheque. will not be accepted under any I) -24-

21. He submits that the petitioners, who have acted In violation of the instructions and who have complied with the requirements are not entitled to any relief In these petitions. At the most, In the second round of counseling. the petitioners could be given the preferential counseling. The seats available In the different specialties and different colleges can be made G”awt over to them dependlngtheIr preference coupled with their ranking.

22. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Ajoy Kumar Path submits that the respondent No.1 has not stated anywhere, which are the nationalized banks. He submits there Is no helpline In the first respondent’s counseling centre, which fact Is however denied by Sri Naik. Sri Path submits that only three to four seats are surrendered and that too not in the speciality and the colleges for which the petitioning students have indicated their preference. ASK I -25-

23. SrI Path further submits that In the second round of counseling the petitioning students can take part and that the respondent No.1 Is not doing any favour to the petitioner by saying that they can take part In the second round of counseling.

24. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The first question that falls for my consideration Is whether the first respondent Is justified In rejecting the candidature of some of the petitioners on account of their failure to purchase and produce the D.D.s from the natlonailsed banks. None of the notifications Issued by the respondent No.1 contain any list or enumeration of the natlonalised banks. The possibifity of the petitioners going to some big branches and forming an Impression that they are the branches of the nationalised banks cannot be ruled out. Yesterday. a question was put to the learned advocates appearing for the parties as to AWN. 26 whether Karur Vysva Bank is a nationahsed hank? None of them was iii a position to answer the question. Such being the puzzlement amongst the learned lawyers. the petitioning doctors cannot he found to be at fault for not knowing which are the natona1ised banks and which are not the nationalised banks. The doctors or other professionals are the experts but only in their chosen fields,

25. Yet another circumstance, which cannot be lost sight of is that admittedly there was no requirement of producing the I),D,s from the nationalised banks in the previous years. Such a requirement is introduced for the first time. The respondent No, I may have done it with the best of Intentions, But, then the possibilltv of some petitioners appearing for the counseling last. year and their following th.e same proeedu.re while appearind for the c..ounse.1ir this veai’ a.iso cannot, be ruled out, Lnder these circumstances, there is an imperative need to soften the rigors of transition, 4 -27-

26. The changed requirement does not appear to have been notified at the earliest. The revised notification Is Issued on 15.5.2012. The D.D.s were all purchased around 15.5.2012.

27. The Court also notices with concern the chance element created by the situation. Admittedly. all the petitioners are high scorers starting from 1 to 600 in the ranking list. The first session for the candidates from 1 to 150 took place from 8 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. on

19.5.20 12. The second session for the candidates from 151 to 600 took place from 9.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. The candidates from 600 onwards were called upon to appear from 11 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. On becoming alert as to what was demanded from the applicants In the first and second sessions, the students In the third session are stated to have swung Into action by surrendering the D.D.s to the non-nationalised banks and getting the D.D.s from the nationalised banks. ASH I - 28 - the petitioners were to get the lower ranks, that Is, from 600 onwards. they would not have landed up In these problems. They would have availed of two hours’ time to comply with the requirement. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners cannot be penalised for being toppers by being struck in a sItuation where they had no time to show the strict compliance with the requirement The opportunities to show the full compliance have got to be extended to all the participants In the counseling on an uniform basis.

28. I am not In a position to accept the defence being put on behalf of the first respondent that one petitioner had given a letter that in the first Instance she purchased the D.D from a non-nationalised bank. Because the first respondent Is In no pésitlon to furnish the number of D.D. and specify the name of the non nationalised bank, which has Issued it. Further, the D.D. from the Bank of Maharashtra was purchased on ABJL -29-

15.5.2012. There would be no need for the petitioner to purchase two D.D.s each for a sum of ?2,57.000/- In favour of COMED-K. Buying a D.D. for 2,57,000/-. Itself would be surmountingly difficult for a party. It Is wholly improbable that she would buy two D.D.s.

29. She may have given some letter not knowing whether a particular bank Is a natlonalised bank or not The letter may have been given In a state of panic and perplexity. Such a letter cannot be held against her. The stress and strain In preparing for the entrance examination and the befuddlement of undergoing the counseling may have rattled them. The counseling from the petitioners’ angle Involves heavy stakes. It could be a question not only of their career, but also of their life Itself. Therefore, they would have given whatever letter the functionaries of COMED-K might have asked for. tIER -30-

30. The second question that for my consideration is whether the candidature of some of the petitioners could have been rejected on account of their failure to produce the counter-foil containing the seal and signature. If the banks have not obliged them by the affixture of seal and signature on the counter-foil, the students cannot be blamed for the same. If the purchase of the D.D.s is through e-banklng, Is doubtful whether the receipt generated would contain the seal and signature.

31. For all the aforesaid reasons, the first respondent’s refusal to admit the petitioners to the PG Dental Courses on the ground of the non-production of the D.D.s from the nationalised bank and the counter foil not containing the seal and/or signature is unsupportable and unsustainable.

32. The system owes a duty to honour the preferences of the meritorious candidates. The Apex ASH. -31- Court has said In any number of cases that admissions are to be merit-based. The turnIng down of the petitioners’ candidature on minor technicalities does not withstand the reasoned scrutiny. Consequently, the selection process becomes unupholdable. These petitions can not be rejected on the ground that the selected candidates are not made parties. What is challenged is not the selection of any candidate as such. The challenge raised is to the selection process. This process Is not completed; it is underway.

33. In the result, these petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondent No.1 to re-do the whole selection process for admission to PG Dental Courses afresh. All the candidates, who have obtained the qualifying marks in the entrance test are to be put on fresh notice. The respondent No.1 Is directed to accept the petitioners’ D.D.s, if they are genuine. The petitioners’ candidature shall Ran not be rejected - 32- merely because they have not obtained the D.D.s from the nationalised banks and/or because they have not produced the counter-foils and/or the counter-foils do not bear the seal and signature. Needless to observe that It Is open to the first respondent or the concerned Coflege to examine the eligibility of the petitioners In all other respects.

34. It may be desirable that In future, respondent No.1 specIfies/enumerates the banks from which the D.D.s are to be purchased. It Is also desirable that the applicants for admission be directed to produce the D.D.s and other documents one or two days prior to the date of counseling. If there are any deficiencies, the applicant-students are to be given an opportunity to remove the same. These observations are made for making jem still better. 33

35. These petitions are accordingly allowed, No order as to costs, Sd! JUDGE Cm! MD