Tripura High Court
Sri Swapnanil Chaudhuri vs The State Of Tripura on 16 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 425
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page - 1 of 21
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(C) No.778/2020
Sri Swapnanil Chaudhuri, S/o. Dr. Soumen Chaudhuri, R/o. N. S.
Extension Road, Near MBB Club, P.O-Agartala College, P.S-East
Agartala, Dist: West Tripura, Pin-799004.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Tripura, P.O-
Kunjaban, P.S-New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.
2. The Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Tripura, P.O-
Agartala, P.S-West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
3. Sri Akash Debnath, S/o. Unknown.
4. Sri Subhrajit Nath, S/o. Unknown.
5. Prince, S/o. Unknown.
6. Sri Abhik Paul, S/o. Unknown.
7. Sri Anirban Paul, S/o. Unknown.
8. Sri Jayanta Debnath, S/o. Unknown.
9. Smt. Sweta Bhowmik, D/o. Unknown.
10. Smt. Riya Datta, S/o. Unknown.
11. Sri Sayandeep Chakraborty, S/o. Unknown.
12. Sri Birat Debnath, S/o. Unknown.
13. Sri Sagar Paul, S/o. Unknown.
14. Sri Diptish Datta, S/o. Unknown.
15. Smt. Sudeshna Nandi, D/o. Unknown.
16. Sri Chainik Karmakar, S/o. Unknown.
17. Sri Debayan Karmakar, S/o. Unknown.
18. Smt. Swarnali Modak, D/o. Unknown.
Page - 2 of 21
19. Sri Abnhilash Bhattacharjee, S/o. Unknown.
20. Sri Tusher Takbir, S/o. Unknown.
21. Sri Akashdeep De, S/o. Unknown.
22. Smt. Somanka Banik, S/o. Unknown.
23. Sri Joy Chakraborty, S/o. Unknown.
24. Sri Subhranil Bhaunik, S/o. Unknown.
25. Sri Tanmoy Chakraborty, S/o. Unknown.
26. Sri Abir Lal Das, S/o. Unknown.
27. Sri Arindam Debnath, S/o. Unknown.
The Respondents No.3 - 27 may be served through the Respondent No.2.
............... Respondent(s).
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate.
Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattachrjee, Govt. Adv.
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
Judgment & Order : 16th December, 2020.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral)
(Akil Kureshi, CJ)
Petitioner has questioned the allotment of 3(three) seats in MBBS course in Regional Institute of Medical Science, Imphal (RIMS) to OBC candidates and further questioned the decision of the Government to Page - 3 of 21 reserve 10(ten) seats in the same course in Agartala Government Medical College for students belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of the society. According to the petitioner, reservation of the medical seats in favour of both these category of students is impermissible and opposed to rules, regulations and constitutional provisions.
[2] Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner passed his Higher Secondary examination (10+2) in science stream in the month of March, 2020. He is domicile of the State of Tripura. He appeared in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test conducted for the purpose of admission in Medical and Para Medical courses on 13.09.2020 as an unreserved category candidate. He secured 536 out of a total of 720 marks. His all India rank was 58732 and the State rank was 54.
[3] On 19th October, 2020, Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Tripura issued an educational notification announcing the 1st round of counselling for medical and para-medical courses in the RIMS (Imphal), Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala, Tripura Medical College, Hapania, Tripura, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Kolkata and other institutes where the State quota seats were available. This notification also contained an annexure in which the eligibility criteria Page - 4 of 21 for appearing in the counselling in the said courses was prescribed. The notification also contained detail guidelines for online counselling. Relevant clauses in the said set of guidelines which was part of Annexure- D to the said notification read as under:
"3.(i) State Quota Seats-Reservation as per State Reservation Policy.
(ii) For the seats allocated by the Central Government (if any) to the State as State quota Seats, reservation policy will be adopted as per directives of the Govt. of India.
(iii) A.I.Q seats if reverted to State Quota seats reservation policy will be adopted as per State reservation policy.
After verifying the roster by the Nodal Departments concerned Officers of the State quota seats, the reservation of the seats for the SC, ST, WESM(Wards of Ex-Servicemen), EWS (Economy Weaker Section) & PwD (Persons with Disability) candidates will be clearly mentioned in respect of each Institution/College."
[4] The Director of Medical Education issued another educational notification dated 05.11.2020 in which the detail of schedule of counselling was announced. In this notification it was noted as under:
"Online Registration with Registration Fees are invited from the aspirant NEET UG 2020 Test successful Candidates willing to participate in the 1st Round of Tripura State NEET UG 2020 Counselling for admission to MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS, BASLP Courses in institutions inside and outside the state for eligible State domicile candidates for State Quota seats and for 20 numbers of MBBS seats at Tripura Medical College for NEET UG 2020 successful All India Candidates other than Tripura State domiciled."
[5] This notification also contained the break-up of total available seats in medical and para-medical courses against State Quota Domicile Page - 5 of 21 Seats and All India Rank other than Tripura Domicile seats. Relevant portion of this break-up reads as under:
A) Total Seats for MBBS:
Name of Medical College Total Number
of MBBS seat
Regional Institute of Medical Science, Imphal 13
Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala. 96
Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching 80
Hospital, Hapania, Agartala.
All India Other than Tripura State Domicile 20
candidates in Tripura Medical College & Dr.
BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, Agartala
[6] On 7th November, 2020 the Director of Medical Education
published yet another break-up of medical and para-medical seats to be filled up through the said exercise by the State Government. This document was described as Seat Matrix of 1st round of Tripura State NEET UG 2020. Relevant portion of this document reads as under:
A) Seat Matrix for MBBS:
Name of Medical College Total UR EWS OBC ST SC
Regional Institute of Medical Science, 13 4 -- 3 4 2
Imphal
Agartala Government Medical College, 96 39 10** -- 29 16
Agartala. WESM WESM
(UR)-1 (ST)-1
Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM 80* 42 -- -- 25 13
Teaching Hospital, Hapania, Agartala.
All India Other than Tripura State 20 11 -- 5 1 3
Domicile candidates in Tripura Medical
College & Dr. BRAM Teaching
Hospital, Hapania, Agartala
Page - 6 of 21
[7] The petitioner on the strength of his State ranking applied for
MBBS course in the State quota. However, as per his ranking and the number of seats available to unreserved category candidates, he reckoned that he may not secure admission in the institute of his choice. The petitioner would point out that of the total number of medical seats to be filled up by the State Government machinery through the said exercise, 85% are earmarked for State quota remaining 15% are all India quota seats. According to the petitioner as per the Seat Matrix published by the Government all 13 seats at RIMS, Imphal, in addition to 96 in AGMC, Agartala and 80 seats in TMC and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital form State quota seats whereas a total of 20 seats in TMC and DR. BRAM Teaching Hospital are for all India quota. The petitioner would further point out that as per the Seat Matrix published on 7 th November, 2020 for admission to State quota seats reservation policy of the State Government would be followed and for all India quota seats the Government of India reservation policy would be followed. Accordingly, seats are already reserved for SC and ST candidates in State quota seats to the extent of 31% and 17% respectively. Thereafter, there is no further scope for providing any further reservation in the State quota seats since in the State of Tripura no reservation is prescribed either for OBC candidates or Economically Weaker Section students. This is where the petitioner's grievances lie.
Page - 7 of 21 [8] The Government has appeared and filed reply in which the stand taken is that the reservation in favour of OBC candidates in RIMS, Imphal is done pursuant to a letter dated 18 th September, 2020 written by the said institute to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tripura providing that 27% reservation quota of OBC students must be provided while nominating students for admission at the said institution. This letter further narrates that "Further, you are requested to directly approach Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), Government of India if you have state specific issues in the implementation of 27% reservation quota for OBC students."
[9] With respect to the reservation in favour of EWS students the stand of the Government is as under:
"Now in context to EWS seats, MCI vide letter No. MCI (34) (41) (Gen) 2020-Med/122172 dated 21-9-2020 granted 25 nos.
of additional seats at AGMC in pursuance of 103rd Amendment to the Constitution of India as stated to implement EWS Quota as implemented from academic session 2019-20. The increase of 10% EWS Quota should be on the seats that stand recognized at the time of sending proposal as on 18.04.19 i.e. on 100 recognized seats with the then existing 100 recognized sets of AGMC maintaining the overall ratio of Constitutional reservation intact. Out of a total of 100 recognized MBBS seats at AGMC, 15 seats are for All India Quota and 10 seats are for North Eastern state Quota. To cover 10% EWS seats over the State Quota seats, MCI thus allotted 25 additional MBBS seats in AGMC for the academic session 2019-20 & 2020-21 after the calculation of 10% EWS Page - 8 of 21 Reservation & keeping simultaneously the ST, SC State reservation share undisturbed."
****** ****** ****** ******* ****** "I say that in TMC there are 100 seats for MBBS out of which 80(eighty) seats are for state quota and 20 seats are for all India other than State domicile. Since it is not a Government Institute, the seat matrixes of the available seats are prepared by the TMC authority. For State quota seats of TMC (80 nos) State reservation policy is followed and central reservation policy is followed for 20(twenty) number of MBBS seats for all India other then State Domicile candidates, the roster (seat Matrix) of which is done by TMC Authority."
[10] This petition was filed after completion of 1st round of counselling but before the 2nd round of counselling commenced. In the meantime, the State Government had already admitted 3(three) students in OBC quota at RIMS, Imphal and also admitted 10 students in EWS quota in the AGMC, Agartala. The petitioner has joined as many as 25(twenty five) respondents alleging that these respondents students are admitted in OBC or EWS quota seats whose admissions the petitioner has challenged. At the outset, leaned counsel for the petitioner clarified that respondents No. 5 and 7 to 17 do not follow in either of the these two categories he therefore, does not challenge their admissions. They are therefore, ordered to be deleted. The amendment shall be carried out today itself.
Page - 9 of 21 [11] The remaining students have filed a common reply. Their stand is that the reservation of three seats in RIMS, Imphal was in tune with the Government policy of prescribing reservation of 27% in favour of OBC students. With respect to the reservation in favour of EWS students, they point out that the additional seats were provided by the Medical Council of India which have been utilised for such purpose. Besides, the said reservation being legal and valid, in any case the petitioner who admittedly does not belong to the economically weaker section, cannot claim admission in that quota.
[12] By an order dated 04.12.2020 we had granted following interim relief:
"Under the circumstances, by way of ad interim relief, it is provided that the State authorities may continue the second counselling process, however, no admissions in reserved quota for SEBC(by whatever name called) or EWS students will be granted without the leave of the /Court."
[13] In such background learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arijit Bhaumik submitted that the prescription of reservation in favour of OBC as well as EWS students is not backed by any authority of law. According to him in the current academic year the Union of India has not provided any additional seats for the State quota. In the past, all throughout 13 seats in RIMS, Imphal were treated as the State quota seats and to Page - 10 of 21 which the reservation as prescribed by the State Government was applied. Merely because RIMS, Imphal has raised the demand of reservation in favour of OBC candidates, the State action cannot be justified. He submitted that in the State of Tripura no communities are declared as OBC communities. Even otherwise after providing reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates as per the State Government policy if further reservation is provided in favour of OBC candidates, the total reservation would far exceed the maximum 50%, a ceiling which is provided by the Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney and others Vrs. Union of India and others; reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
[14] Counsel further submitted that by virtue of Constitutional 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, it may be open for the State to provide for reservation in favour of Economically Weaker Section candidates in education institutes or Government service, nevertheless, the said amendment is enabling in nature. Unless and until a valid law is framed providing such reservation, the same cannot be done. Counsel submitted that even if such reservation can be provided by executive instructions, the same must be preceeded by full deliberations. A conscious decision by the Government must be manifested. At any rate such reservation cannot be provided through exchange of communications between Government Page - 11 of 21 departments. His endeavour was to persuade us to hold that before implementing the EWS reservation the Government of Tripura had not undertaken any formal consideration.
[15] On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, Sri D. Bhattacharjee opposed the petition contending that both the reservations were validly provided. Particularly with respect to EWS candidates, he submitted that there was full deliberation by the State Government. MCI agreed to release additional seats only for this purpose. In any case, these seats are reserved in favour of EWS candidates does not eat into the general unreserved seats. The petitioner at any rate is not qualified for admission in this quota.
[16] Learned counsel Sri P. Roy Barman also opposed the petition contending that 13 seats in RIMS, Imphal have been provided by the Central Government. Central Government reservation policy should therefore, be applied and therefore, rightly applied. So far as EWS candidates are concerned, he submitted that the additional intake capacity has been created with the permission of MCI for the specific purpose of admitting students belonging to EWS category.
[17] From the education notification dated 19th October, 2020 and the guidelines annexed to the said notification it can be gathered that as per Page - 12 of 21 the Government policy 3(three) situations would arise. (i) In case of State quota seats, reservation as per the State reservation policy would be applied. (ii) Seats allocated by the Central Government to the State as State quota seats, reservation policy as per the directives of the Government of India would apply. (iii) All India quota seats if reverted to State quota seats, reservation policy as per the State reservation would be applied. [18] With this background we may first address the question of OBC reservation in RIMS, Imphal. We may recall, there are in all 13 seats in the said institute which the State Government fills up year after year. It appears an undisputed position that previously no reservation in favour of OBC candidates was prescribed. This year appears to be the first attempt at filling up 27% of the seats through reservation in favour of OBC. Interestingly in addition to reserving three seats out of 13 for OBC candidates, the government had also reserved 4 seats for Scheduled Caste and 2 for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is undisputed that the reservation of 4 and 2 seats of ST and SC candidates which is worked out on the basis of 31 and 17 percent respectively, is as per the State Government policy. That being the position, what emerges from the record is that in case of RIMS, Imphal the Government has provided a double reservation; as per State as well as Central policy which in any case would be wholly impermissible. If the Government was of the opinion that 13 RIMS, Page - 13 of 21 Imphal medical seats were though State quota seats, were provided by the Central Government, the reservation percentage for ST and SC candidates as prescribed by the State Government could not have been applied. On the other hand, if the State Government treats these 13 seats as State quota seats, reservation in favour of OBC as per Central Government policy was impermissible.
In fact, in the Educational Notification dated 05.11.2020, the Government had specified only 20 seats in Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital as all India seats. All other seats, including 13 seats in RIMS, Imphal were shown as State quota seats. [19] One may look at the issue from slightly different angle. The reservation in favour of SC, ST and OBC candidates in Government employment as well as educational institutions is governed by the State or the Union of India policy depending on the nature of the institution or the employment. Union of India would follow its all India policy, taking into account pan India factors and by providing reservation in proper proportion in favour of the said three reserved categories. When it comes to an individual State, the entire population demography would be vastly different. Certain States may have sizeable population of Scheduled Tribes. Some States may have negligible Scheduled Tribe population but higher Scheduled Caste population and so on. Reservation in favour of Scheduled Page - 14 of 21 Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be worked out on the basis of the respective populations vis-a-vis the total population of the State. Likewise in terms of the enabling provision contained in Article 16 of the Constitution various States after carrying out detailed exercise of earmarking those communities which have since long suffered and hence have remained socially and educationally backward, provided appropriate percentage of reservation in favour of OBC candidates. At any rate, the hybrid application of reservation policy of State and the Central Government is bound to create multiple complications and is even otherwise wholly impermissible. For example in the present case, the State of Tripura does not have any reservation in favour of OBC candidates. The State has therefore, provided much larger reservation in favour of ST and SC candidates combined total of which comes to 48% as compare to all India reservation in favour of the said communities and in which 27% reservation is earmarked for OBC candidates. Essentially the reservation has to fit within 50% ceiling as provided by the Constitution Bench judgment in case of Indra Sawhney[1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]. [20] The State Government in his affidavit has not asserted that these 13 seats at RIMS, Imphal have been provided the Central Government for State quota, perhaps because any such stand would immediately expose the State decision to reserve a combined of 47% seats Page - 15 of 21 for ST and SC candidates of the State to great venerability. Be that as it may, the State has also not opposed the suggestion that in the past these seats were treated as State seats and reservation policy of the State Government was applied and not that of the Central Government. For the present year therefore, we proceed on that basis. In that view of the matter, reserving three seats in favour of OBC candidates in RIMS, Imphal was not permissible. The respondents No.3, 4 and 6 who secured admission on the said reservation therefore must vacate the seats. [21] The question of reservation in favour or EWS candidates however, stands on a vastly different footing. We have reproduced the affidavit and reply filed by the Government, from which it can be gathered that additional 25 seats were sanctioned by MCI for the academic session 2019-20 to provide for 10% reservation in favour of EWS students. These additional 25 seats thus do not encroach on existing seats for unreserved or other reserved category candidates. In fact, the origination of this reservation is the letter written by the Government of India on 21 st June, 2019 to the Additional Secretary, Medical Education department of all States and Union Territories contents of which read as under:
"Madam/Sir, I am directed to refer to the Provisions of the Constitution Amendment (One Hundred and Third Amendment) act, 2019 dated 12.01.2019 for implementation of reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWSs) in admission to educational institutions for the academic year 2019-20 and BoG-MCI's letter No. MCI-34(41)/(EWS)/2019- Page - 16 of 21 Med./122349 dated 04/06 June, 2019 seeking applications from the Medical Colleges/Institutions for increase of MBBS seats to implement EWS quota and to say that BoG-MCI after considering the applications, vide letter No.MCI- 34(41)(EWS)/2019-Med./125319-20 dated 20.6.2019 submitted a proposal to the Ministry containing the names of Medical Colleges with permitted MBBS seats under EWS quota for 2019-20.
2. After carefully considering the matter, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has accepted the proposal of the BoG-MCI and hereby directs the Counselling Authorities (States/UTs/AIQ) for filling up the MBBS seats under EWS quota as per rules in forthcoming academic year 2019-20. A copy of the list showing details of Medical Colleges and permitted MBBS seats is enclosed herewith."
Learned Government advocate placed on record a copy of letter dated 10th September, 2020 written by the Director of Medical Education to MCI in which pursuant to the said suggestion of the Government of India, the MCI was requested to sanction additional 25 seats for accommodating 10% students in EWS quota, contents of which read as under:
"Sir, Agartala Govt. Medical College (AGMC) is recognized for 100 MBBS seats as for Academic Session 2019, twenty five (25) number of additional MBBS seats were allotted (to be implemented for 2 years academic session 2019-20 and 2020-21) for accommodating 10% seats for EWS and maintaining overall ration of Reservation (General:ST:SC-52:31:17) of the State at AGMC which was having 100 seats (75 State Quota, 15 AIQ, 10 NEC seats) to make a total of 125 seats. In this context would you please let us know
(i) Whether this year also i.e. academic session 2020-21 we will receive twenty five (25) number of additional seats or not.
(ii) As per discussion with you over Video Conferencing on 3/9/2020 held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of India on our query you had informed that Inspection will be held for 100 seats and not for 125 seats. In that regard could you also Page - 17 of 21 kindly inform us whether these additional 25 seats will also be given recognition for the benefit of the students.
Would you be kind enough to let us know in this regard at an early date for necessary seat matrix preparation for the forth coming Undergraduate (MBBS) State Counselling for the Academic session of 2020-21"
[22] Pursuant to such request the MCI had granted additional intake capacity in the State medical colleges. It further appears that on 10.09.2020 the State Government once again approached the MCI for extension of the intake capacity for the current academic year. In response to the said letter the MCI conveyed to the Director of Medical Education under letter dated 21.09.2020 that:
"This is with reference to your letter No. F.5(6)-DME/NEET UG/2020/4646-47,dated 10.09.2020.
It is brought to your kind attention that allocation of seats to implement the EWS quota has been done in pursuance of 103rd Amendment to the Constitution of India by the Central Govt.- Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Accordingly, the provisions relating to renewal of permission for increase of Medical seats are not applicable for seats granted for the purpose of extending reservation under EWS category.
Accordingly, no letter for renewal of permission for the MBBS seats increased under EWS is required to be issued by BoG-MCI. Therefore, the sanctioned intake of Agartala Government Medical College, Agartala after grant of seats under EWS quota is 125 MBBS seats."
[23] For several reasons, the petitioner's challenge to the reservation in favour of EWS candidates must fail. Firstly, Union of India brought to the notice of all State Governments and Union Territories about the constitutional amendment permitting reservation in favour of EWS Page - 18 of 21 candidates in educational institutions. The State Government approached the MCI and was granted additional intake capacity for admission of only such students. This would mean that admitting such students would not encroach on the existing seats in favour of unreserved or any other reserved category candidates. This reservation was in existence even the previous academic year. The petitioner did not challenge the same till the first round of counselling was over. Even otherwise the petitioner's contention that such reservation was provided without due deliberation cannot be accepted. Even the counsel for the petitioner did not argue that when the constitutional amendment refers to a law framed by the State, it must be a legislation framed by the Union Parliament or State Assembly. Such reservation concededly can also be made through a conscious Government decision and issuance of executive instructions. The series of papers and record starting from the approach made by the Union of India to the State Government and Union Territories followed by a formal approach by the State Government to the MCI for sanctioning additional intake capacity and lastly the reminder letter written by the State Government for extending the benefit of additional seats in the present academic year are sufficient evidence that a systematic and a conscious decision was taken by the State Government to provide for such reservation.
Page - 19 of 21 [24] In any case, the petitioner who does not belong to the Economically Weaker Section, cannot hope to secure admission in the said quota even if such reservation were to fail. Since this reservation is provided on additional seats sanctioned for this specific purpose, it has two implications. Firstly, it does not diminish the seats available for unreserved categories candidates or for candidates belong to any other reserved category. Secondly, even if admission granted to the students of such category are to be cancelled, the petitioner at any rate cannot stake his claim for any of these seats.
[25] Before closing, we may record one contention of counsel Sri Roy Barman for rejection. He argued that the petitioner having participated in the admission process, cannot challenge the validity of the reservations. Firstly, the reservation in favour of OBC candidates is being provided for the first time and such reservation was published after the written test in NEET was already conducted. Secondly, the first round of counselling happened on 13.11.2020 whereas the breakup of reserved seats was published by the Government on 07.11.2020. Even while participating the first round of counselling, we are informed that the petitioner had raised an objection. His participation thus was under protest. In any case, we do not think that the formula of one who participates in a selection process, cannot challenge the validity of the selection notification, once having Page - 20 of 21 taken a chance which is in the nature of an estoppel applied by the Courts in case of Government employment, can be applied with such rigidity in case of a student seeking admission in a professional course. [26] Before issuing final directions, one more aspect needs to be clarified. Even though we may cancel the admission of respondents No. 3,4 and 6, the petitioner cannot automatically seek admission on any of these seats. The vacated seats will have to be filled by the State Government on the bass of merits of unreserved category candidates during the second and further round of counselling if any. [27] In the result, the petition is disposed of with following directions:
(i) Admission of respondents No.3, 4 and 6 in RIMS, Imphal against OBC reservation is cancelled.
(ii) These three seats shall be filled up from unreserved category candidates as per their merit and preference during the further counselling processes after giving wide publicity in this respect.
(iii) Admission of respondents No.18 to 27 is not disturbed.
Page - 21 of 21 [28] The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order passed earlier is vacated.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY ),J (AKIL KURESHI ), CJ Dipankar