AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. In all the three writ applications, the decision dated 06.06.2018 communicated by Directorate of Medical Education (DME), State of Chhattisgarh to the respective Dental Colleges directing them to cancel the admissions granted to the petitioners in the respective Post Graduate Courses are subject matter of challenge in the three writ applications. The colleges in question are Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Centre, Anjora, Durg, where admission granted to two persons namely, Sailendra Sharma and Moumita Khatua has been ordered to be cancelled which has been assailed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1649 of 2018 and the communication addressed to Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Kurud Road, Bhilai, where admission of two students namely, Aanchal Pradhan and Payal Ramesh Borkar are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition(C) No.1650 of 2018. The third Writ Petition of Rajlaxmi Ashok Agrawal and others relates to New Horizon Dental College and Research Institute, Mungeli Road, Sakri, Bilaspur, where admission of three namely, Rajlaxmi Ashok Agrawal, Sanghamitra Ghosh and Shefali Kadam also stands cancelled.

2. From a perusal of Annexure P/1 which is common in all the three writ applications dated 06.06.2018, it is evident that the reason for such cancellation stated therein is that these medical colleges for the session 2018 in the after mop-up round granted admissions to these students on the last day of admission ie 31.05.2018 after 4.30 pm on the left over seats without any counselling having been held. Since these admissions were not done on the basis of allotment made by the DME, therefore, they were ordered to be cancelled.

3. In the three writ applications, since a common question and a common decision are matter of challenge before this Court, all the three writ applications have been listed together, heard finally and are required to be disposed of together.

4. The stand of counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respective private Dental Colleges is common. In fact, they support each other in their factual as well as legal stand taken before this Court. In the sense that, according to them, the admission which has been granted to the petitioners was strictly in terms of the requirement of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the rules which have been notified by the Chhattisgarh Government in their notification dated 19.04.2017. It is their refrain that since it was the last day of admission and it was a case of after mop-up round, the candidates according to merit who appeared before the respective colleges were considered and granted admission. They have the requisite merit position in NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) and there is no violation committed by them by ignoring the claim of any more meritorious persons than the petitioners who had been granted admissions by the respective colleges. In fact, they take a further stand that no person has come forward either before the colleges or have gone before any authority making a grievance that their right for consideration for admission into the courses in question was ignored or their claim for admission, based on the merit position, was sidelined in favour of the petitioners, before the writ Court.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in a case arising out of state of Chhattisgarh which was Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Chhattisgarh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2017) 8 SCC 638, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-62 of its order clearly held that :

"62. the order dated 09.05.2017 does not relate to admission into postgraduate courses and is confined to admission in undergraduate courses as noted above."

6. Taking clue from such an observation, argument is advanced on behalf of petitioners that the requirement of the State Government to recommend 10 names against each vacancy for the left over vacancies or seats which are being