ORDER

1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, SELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE AFFECTED CANDIDATE, DR. M. DEEPA, HAVE FILED THREE SEPARATE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE DISPUTE IS IN RESPECT OF ADMISSION TO MDS (ORTHODONTICS) COURSE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DR. DEEPA HAD HIGHER RANKING THAN THAT OF DR. PRAVINA. THE HIGH COURT, ON APPRECIATION OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NEITHER DR; PRAVINA NOR DR. DEEPA WAS AT FAULT AND, IN THIS VIEW, DIRECTED CREATION OF A SUPERNUMERARY SEAT FOR ACCOMMODATING DR. DEEPA IN THE COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-2005.

4. THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE COURT SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ISSUING DIRECTION FOR CREATION OF ADDITIONAL OR SUPERNUMERARY SEATS AS IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT CREATION OF SEATS IS GOVERNED BY STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THIS VIEW, DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CREATION OF A SUPERNUMERARY SEAT, IS SET ASIDE.

5. THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS ABOUT ACCOMMODATING DR. DEEPA IN THE COURSE ABOVE-REFERRED. HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THAT IN THE ACADEMIC