MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners herein have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent No. 2-the Convener/coordinator, Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges in Rajasthan, who had published a prospectus for Rajasthan Medical Common Admission Test for the academic year 2005-06 for filing-up the seats of private Medical and dental Colleges incorporating a provision as follows:- " 50% of the total seats are reserved for candidates of Rajasthan domicile and 50% of the seats are reserved for the candidates out of Rajasthan. "
(2.) THIS provision gave a cause to the petitioners to file this writ petition alleging that the respondent Federation although is following its prospectus and has reserved 50% of the seats for the candidates of Rajasthan, remaining 50% of the seats which were to be reserved for the candidates out of Rajasthan, as per the prospectus, has not been allotted to them by the Federation while granting admission to the selected candidates who have found place on the merit list. A show cause notice on the same was issued to the respondents, in response to which, the counsel for the Federation Mr. Vijay Choudhary, submitted that this clause was incorporated in the prospectus in view of the letter issued by the Government of Rajasthan through the Medical and Health (Gr. 1) Department contained in Annex. R/1 which had issued instructions to private Medical and Dental Colleges by letter dated 23. 4. 2005 incorporating Clause (11) only to the extent that 50% seats shall be filled up by the candidates having domicile in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, while printing the prospectus, a provision to the aforesaid effect was incorporated which has been quoted hereinbefore. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. M. Rafiq representing the State invited the attention of this Court to the letter dated 23. 4. 2005 wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14. 8. 2003 in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka [ (2003) 6 SCC 697] the Supreme Court had issued certain directions in regard to filing up of the seats in private Medical and Dental Colleges in pursuance of which, the letter was issued to the educational institutions. Rely in on this letter, it was stated by the Additional Advocate General Mr. M. Rafiq that it has merely been stated therein that 50% of the seats in these colleges can be filled up by the candidates hailing from the State of Rajasthan and this was fully in consonance with the judgment and order of the Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Judges, at para 70 (b), had laid down that for unaided non-minority professional colleges, certain percentage of seats can be reserved for admission by the management out of those students who have passed the common test held by itself or by the State/university and for applying to the college/university for admission, while rest of the seats may be filled up on the basis of counseling by the State agency. Relying on this provision, it was submitted that it was in view of this provision, it was submitted that it was in view of this provision that the State Government had issued the letter dated 23. 4. 2005 merely providing reservation of 50% of seats for State of Rajasthan and according to his statement, rest of the seats were to be filled up from the common merit list and not merely from the candidates outside the State of Rajasthan. The counsel for the Federation, on the other hand, interpreted this provision incorporated in the letter of the Department of Medical & Health dated 23. 4. 2005 on the basis of its logical inference as it was obvious that once 50% seats were to be reserved for the State of Rajasthan, the balance has to be filled up from outside the State of Rajasthan. But this argument of the counsel for the Federation is clearly contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (supra), as according to the ratio of this judgment, all the seats had to be filled up as per the merit list prepared after holding the common admission test and merely a certain percentage of seats could be reserved by the State as per its discretion as given out in the judgment referred to hereinbefore. Thus, the fall out of the entire judgment which emerges, indicates that admissions had to be granted to the students as per the common merit list and all the seats had to be filled up strictly as per the common merit list prepared after the common admission test except a certain percentage.
(3.) THE State, in the process, appears to have made a convenient interpretation of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in my opinion as `certain percentage' certainly cannot be construed as cent per cent of the entire seats available and, therefore, if 50% reservation was made for the candidates of Rajasthan, the balance also cannot be allotted to candidates hailing from Rajasthan but it has to be allotted strictly as per the merit position of the candidates on the merit list from all over India including Rajasthan. However, it also cannot be interpreteted so as to infer that balance 50% seats had to be allotted to candidates outside Rajasthan since that would be clearly contrary to the judgment and order of the Supreme Court. But the difficulty arises as none of the candidates had challenged the clause printed in the prospectus which laid down that 50% seats are reserved for the candidates of the State of Rajasthan and 50% seats are reserved for the candidates out of Rajasthan, as a result of which, some student outside State of Rajasthan, although are not in the merit list after declaration of the results of the common admission test, nurtured the hope that a seat may be available to them if 50% of the seats are filled by the candidates from the State of Rajasthan, meaning thereby that if there are students who are higher on the merit list as per the common merit list but they might be hailing from the State of Rajasthan, then those seats will have to be slipped to be allotted to the students outside the State of Rajasthan. This unnecessary controversy has arisen on account of misinterpretation of the letter of the State Government as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Federation which before publishing the prospectus, ought to have examined the judgment and order of the Supreme Court carefully and could have discussed the matter with the State Government authorities. That having not been done, an unnecessary dispute has emerged due to which the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Ultimately, the fact remains that the directions issued by the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, given out in the case of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (supra) has to prevail over the entire controversy and the direction given out therein has to prevail. In view of the categorical direction in the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it has to be directed that all admissions in the private Medical and Dental Colleges will have to be allotted strictly as per the merit list prepared on the basis of common admission test held by the Federation. In the process, if any seat out of 50% seats is allotted to any of the candidate merely on the ground of domicile, whether from the State of Rajasthan or outside the State of Rajasthan, the same will have to be scrapped and cancelled and all the seats will have to be allotted and shall be allotted as per the common merit list for 50% of the seats, which has been prepared by the Federation. Thus, no admission in any manner whatsoever shall be allowed on the basis of reservation granted on the ground of domicile for 50% of the seats. In view of this, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition giving direction to the respondent to grant any reservation either to the petitioners or to any other applicant including those who are not parties herein against 50% seats on the basis of domicile as already stated hereinbefore as that is the clear and categorical ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Islamic Education Society vs. State of Karnataka (supra ). ;