Antony Dominic, J.

1."The learned Judges of the High Court, if we may say so with respect in a well-considered opinion expressed their anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities administering medical admission in the State to the need to prevent occasions for repetitive grievances from the student community and had occasions to observe:

'Shakespeare in Othello has written "Chaos is come again". This Court has witnessed chaos almost annually when time for admission to MBBS/BDS courses case....'."

These observations of the Apex Court in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board v. Chandan Mishra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 77) were quoted in the judgment in Fathimma Haneena P. v. State of Kerala and Others (2008 (3) KHC 544), where this Court expressed its anguish about the entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent for admission to its member colleges. Again in 2010, in the judgment in Noorbina Banu v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 581), it was repeated. Still, the insensitivity of the authorities and grievances from the student community continues and the facts stated hereafter would show that there has not been any improvement.

2. In P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005 (6) SCC 537), the Apex Court held thus:-

"136... . There is nothing wrong in an entrance test being held for one group of institutions imparting same or similar education. Such institutions situated in one State or in more than one State may join together and hold a common entrance test or the State may itself or through an agency arrange for holding of such test. Out of such common merit list the successful candidates can be identified and chosen for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting the common entrance test ("CET" for short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and expertise in the matter. ... All institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the above said triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit based admissions and preventing maladministration. The admission procedure so adopted by a private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated herein above, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. The second question is answered accordingly."

3. The 3rd respondent is an association of 11 Private Self Financing Medical College Managements. The Entrance Examination conducted by the Association in 2008, was set aside by this Court in Fathimma Haneena's case (supra), where, in paragraph 19(b) among various directions, it was directed thus:-

"I also direct that subject to any future change in law, for coming years, the following requirements shall be strictly complied with by unaided Medical Colleges, who opt to conduct their own entrance test for selection of students . for admission.

(a) xxx

(b). At every stage of the admission process, viz, issue of notification inviting applications, preparation of prospectus, issue of application forms, setting of question papers, deciding the method of valuation. publication of list of applicants, conduct of written test, preparation of rank list, counselling etc, approval from the Admission Supervisory Committee appointed under S.4 of Act 19 of 2006 shall be mandatorily obtained, failure of doing which also would render such selection invalid.

(emphasis supplied)

Again in 2010, entrance examination conducted by the Association and the consequential admissions were held illegal in the judgment in Noorbina Banu's case, and it was inter alia found thus: -

"An Effective supervision would be there only if the 5th respondent obtained prior approval for the prospectus as also the notification inviting