The judgment established the principle that the management is only obligated to surrender seats if it had granted admission in its management quota in excess of the prescribed quota, and that the circumstances under which the seats were filled and the collection of fees from the candidates are crucial in determining whether the management had taken undue advantage.

Heard both sides.

2. The Honourable Supreme Court in its preamble to the judgment rendered in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra in A.I.R. 2005 SC page 3226 has stated “Education used to be charity or philanthropy in good old times. Gradually it became an occupation. Some of the Judicial dicta go on to hold it as an industry. Whether, to receive education, is a fundamental right or not has been debated for quite some time. But it is settled that establishing and administering of an educational institution for imparting knowledge to the students is an occupation, protected by Article 19(1)(g) and additionally by Article 26(a) even if there is no element of profit generation. As of now, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professional and a mission in life for some altruists.

3. It is not known whether the petitioner institution has considered the education as a means of livelihood or a mission in life.

4. But from the affidavit it is seen that the petitioner institution is administered by the trust known as “Padanilam Welfare Trust” and the trust owned and administered several other educational institution viz., one Nursing college, one Dental sciences Institute and Physiotherapy college, in addition to the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution was established in the year 2006. and the admission capacity is 100 students per annum. The petitioner institution is an unaided minority educational institution and though it claims to have the right to fill all the 100 students itself, by reason of entering into an agreement with the State Government, the seats were apportioned between the petitioner and the State Government and each is entitled to 50% of the seats. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to fill 50% seats which is known as management quota and the State is entitled to fill 50% which is known as Government quota.

5. For the year 2008-2009 the State Government through the selection committee sent a list of 50 candidates towards its quota to the petitioner and also informed that the last date of joining was 20.07.2008.

6. According to the petitioner as on 17.08.2008, as per the last Status Report the vacancy position was intimated as 11 and thereafter, the selection committee allotted another 18 candidates on 26.09.2008 and notified the joining date as 29.09.2008 and thereafter, a further list of 14 candidates was sent on 29.09.2008 with the joining date on 30.09.2009. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that all the candidates selected by the management under their quota have joined in the college and so far as the Government quota is concerned only 43 candidates joined against the Government quota of 50 seats. It is admitted that the cut off date was 30th September and no one can admit any candidate thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner having waited till the last moment and realising that the candidate sponsored by the Government have not turned up, filled up those seven seats by giving admission to seven candidates from the Tamil Nadu Private Professional Colleges Association -Health sciences , Merit List, known as T.P.P.A.-H.S Merit List, according to their ranks. It is further stated that though seven candidates were admitted, the petitioner collected only the fee fixed for the Government quota candidates from those 7 candidates and according to the petitioner but for the filling up of those seven seats by the management those seats would have lapsed and no body would have been benefited. It is further stated the University viz., the 6th respondent herein, also accepted the filling up of those seven candidates by the management.

.7. While so, the 2nd respondent Medical Counsel of India addressed a letter to the 3rd and 4th respondent on 06.02.2009 informing that the petitioner has admitted 57 students under the management quota for the academic year 2008-09 and therefore, they have exceeded the quota allotted to them by seven