NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NOS.51-52 AND 53-54 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4060 OF 2009
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE AND OTHERS ...Appellants
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...Respondents
O R D E R
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. This order would dispose of I.A. Nos.51-52 of 2011 in
Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009.
2. The appellants, Modern Dental College and Research
Centre and others in I.A. Nos.51-52 of 2011 have filed these
applications for modification of the scheme contained in the
order dated 27.5.2009. It is prayed that the appellants be
permitted to fill the Non-Resident Indian (for short NRI)
seats at their discretion and in case sufficient students are
not available, the appellants should be at liberty to admit
other students within the NRI quota as per the discretion of
the management, subject to maintaining inter se merit,
amongst the students admitted against the said quota as
has been permitted in the past.
3. The main question which has been articulated by the
learned counsel for the parties is regarding the method and
procedure for filling the unfilled NRI seats in medical and
dental colleges. The appellants in these appeals are private
un-aided medical and dental colleges or associations of
such colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. The appellants had challenged the constitutional
validity of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan
Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk ka Nirdharan)
Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The
Writ Petitions challenging this Act are pending adjudication
before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
5. This court in the case of the appellants decided by this
court and reported in Modern Dental and Research
Central and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others (2009) 7 SCC 751 held that "Both the State
2
Government as well as the Association of Private Medical
and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance
examination for this purpose. As regards "the NRI seats",
they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules in
the manner they were done earlier."
6. The Court made arrangement for the academic year
2009-10. The same arrangement was continued for the
next academic year 2010-2011. The Bench consisting of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice T.S. Thakur in R.D. Gardi Medical College and
Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2010)
10 SCC 225 observed in para 28 as under:-
"A plain reading of the above leaves no
manner of doubt that unfilled NRI seats
had to be transferred to the general pool
to be filled up on the basis of the merit of
the candidates in the State level common
entrance test conducted by Madhya
Pradesh Vyavasyik Pariksha Mandal or
by any other agency authorized by the
State Government for that purpose. The
unfilled seats in the NRI quota were,
therefore, to be treated as a part of the
general pool and once that was done the
share of the college in terms of the order
passed by this Court would be 50% out of
the said seats. The High Court has, in
that view, rightly held that while the
management was justified in filling up 5
3
unfilled seats in NRI quota, the remaining
5 could not have been filled up otherwise
than on the basis of the entrance test
referred to in Rule 8."
7. Thereafter, on 27.1.2011 the same arrangement was
continued for the academic year 2011-12. The order of this
Court dated 27.1.2011 reads as under:-
"The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in
Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009 etc. shall be
applicable for the academic year 2011-
12."
8. The said order was passed after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties. No application for modification of
this order was filed immediately after the said order was
passed. The present applications have come up for
adjudication before us at a time when the admission
process is likely to be concluded within a few days only.
Any interference at this stage would create insurmountable
problems and difficulties for all concerned.
9. This Court has already ordered that the same
arrangement shall be continued for the academic year 2011-
12.
4
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length. In our considered view, no interference is called for
as far as academic year 2011-12 is concerned.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it
appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the Writ
Petitions filed by the appellants and others challenging the
aforementioned Act as expeditiously as possible so that the
controversy involved in the petition is concluded by a
reasoned judgment. The High Court is requested to decide
the case as expeditiously as possible and, in any event,
within two months from the date of the communication of
this order.
12. This court has deliberately refrained from giving any
observations and findings on arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties because Writ Petitions are
pending in the High Court. We request the High Court to
decide the Writ Petitions without being influenced by any
observations made by this Court.
5
13. I.A. Nos. 51 and 52 are accordingly disposed of and
I.A. Nos. 53 and 54 are permitted to be withdrawn. In the
facts and circumstances of this case we direct the parties to
bear their own costs.
..................................J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
.................................J.
(Deepak Verma)
New Delhi;
September 23, 2011
6
