JUDGMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral) - These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise common questions of fact and law. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In such of the Writ Petitions which have been filed and not formally admitted, we grant Rule. The respondents waive service. We have been informed that the State Government has filed a comprehensive affidavit in a Writ Petition on the Original Side being Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 1947 of 2018. That sets out the stand common to all the matters and, therefore, that is adopted in the other petitions by the contesting respondents.

3. As is usual in this Court and in the academic sessions, despite warning signals, reminders as also admonishment from the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the state of affairs with regard to admissions to undergraduate courses in medicines have not improved in the State of Maharashtra. In this regard, we can usefully refer to the anguish expressed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while delivering its judgment in the case of Saurabh Choudri & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. That decision is reported in (2003) 11 SCC 146 . The lead judgment is delivered by the then Hon''ble Chief Justice of India V.N. Khare, J. and there are concurring opinions rendered by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Dr. A.R. Laxmanan. In the concurring judgments it has been pointed out as to how the issues crop up year after year and there is confusion and chaos all over. In paragraph 94 of this judgment, the Court observed as under :

"94. For admissions to undergraduate programmes, there are several different eligibility norms among the different categories of institutions and among the various States. Some are based on twelfth standard marks or grades only, some are based on the entrance examination only and some are determined by a combination of these with different weightages. There is an endless number of justifications for each of the above, confusing the students from different parts of the country."

4. Before paragraph 94 of the judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under :

"While concurring with the conclusion arrived at by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice, I would like to add the following few lines for streamlining the policies and processes for admission to medical courses and other professional courses. The issues and options are discussed below :

Every year during the admission season several lakhs of students undergo immense suffering and harassment in seeking admission to professional courses caused by uncertain policies, ambiguous procedures and inadequate information. The miseries of students and parents are escalating year after year due to boundless expansion in the number of professional institutions and their intake capacity, emergence of a large variety of newer disciplines and mobility of students seeking admissions beyond the boundaries of States. The students who are about to complete their high school education go through a period of acute anxiety caused by the uncertain situation about their chances for further education. The number of qualified students wanting to go for higher studies has been swelling, largely motivated by hopes of better economic security and partly by a desire to attain greater upward social mobility. Then begins their trauma due to many prevailing unfair practices in admissions and devious ways of fee collections exploiting the anxiety of students and uncertainty of procedures. Most of the efforts to deal with these problems are ad hoc in nature often decided under judicial orders. Different State and Central authorities take many different actions often leading to severe inconsistencies. There is substantial scope for streamlining the admission process, even within the regulatory powers of the authorities, provided these issues are not dealt with on an emergency basis during the admission season but done in a coordinated and comprehensive m