1. - The matter came for consideration upon the application submitted by the respondent-State under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking 2 vacation of the interim order passed by this court dated 16.4.2010.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioners aggrieved against the communications dated 26.3.2010(Annex. 18 and 19), order dated 1.4.2010 (Annex.20), communication dated 3.4.2010 (Annex.21) and notice dated 6.4.2010 (Annex.24) have preferred this writ petition and to challenge above communications/order/notice also challenged the part of the Dental Council of India revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007, which provides for filling up of 50% of seats of MDS Course in non- Governmental institutions by the State Government or by the competent authority.

4. Petitioner No.1 is an Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan having 12 members. The petitioners no.2 and 3 are members of the petitioner No. 1 Association and are running the private Dental Colleges and Hospitals which are affiliated to the Rajasthan University of Health Science, Jaipur (respondent no.2). According to the petitioners, the Private Medical and Dental Colleges formed the Association in the name of respondent no.1-federation 3 for regulating the admission to graduate and post- graduate course so that the admissions may be made on the basis of transparent and fair criteria by way of holding the own entrance test and federation has been allotting the seats to the students to the petitioners no.2 and 3 for MDS Course from 2006 onwards till this controversy cropped up, as on 28.7.2009, the State Government informed the petitioners and other colleges that in view of the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India, 50% seats in MDS Course are to be filled up from out of entrance test conducted by the State Government or conducted by the competent authority under the Regulations, 2007. According to the petitioners, on receipt of notice of the State Government dated 28.7.2009, the federation sent reply (Annex.11) to the State Government conveying that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537 , the State has no power to insist on seats sharing in unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing the quota of seats between the management of the institution and the State. Hon'ble Apex Court in above decision 4 disapproved the scheme evolved in judgment deliverd in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (2003) 6 SCC 697) wherein it was held that the State can fix quota for seats sharing between the management of unaided professional educational institutions and the States on the basis of local needs of each State of both minority and non-minority categories.Therefore, when the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case(supra) did not approve the case evolved in Islamic Academy of Education, to allow the State to fix quota for seats sharing between the management and State, the direction of the State Government for seats sharing is not tenable. The petitioners' further contention is that not only the larger Bench decision of P.A. Inamdar's case holds the field and restricts the State Government from claiming share in seats allotment in private unaided professional educational institutions but above view was based on 11 Judges Bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka & ors. ((2002) 8 SCC 481) . The above judgments and specifically in the case of P.A.Inamdar's case(supra), it has been held that 5 minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim an unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non- exploitative and the same principle applies to non- minority unaided institutions. There may be single institut