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