The legal principle established is that students admitted on paid seats must continue in the same category, as they did not raise any issue regarding the fee structure in the Supreme Court.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition all the petitioners who have been adjusted in and are taking education in the State Medical Colleges in U. P. , have prayed for a direction to quash the orders dated 8. 1. 2003 and 16. 1. 2003 passed by the State Government by which they have been required to pay the fees as per their selection on paid seats, at the rate of Rs. 1,26,500/- per year as against rs. 14950/- paid by the students, who are admitted through competition.

( 2 ) ALL the petitioners were admitted to the Medical College, Azamgarh, established by All India children Care and Educational Development Society. The College was de-recognition by the central Government. The petitioners filed writ petitions and lost before this Court. The matter thereafter went up to Supreme Court. In Special Leave to Appeal (CC) 2478-99 of 1999 filed by union of India v. All India Children Care Development Society and Anr. , an interim order was passed directing the Society to admit only upto 50 students. A writ petition No. 8 of 2001 was filed by Ashish Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. with the averments that they have appeared and cleared the first professional examination held in the year 2000. When they joined the second professional, the teachers were not available for taking the practical classes. In civil Appeal No. 3237 of 1999 directions were issued by the Supreme Court that if the college does not come up to the standards fixed under the 1999 Regulations, the Supreme Court will consider the closure of the college and pass appropriate orders with regard to absorption of the students in other college of Uttar Pradesh. The Medical Council of India and the concerned directorate of Medical Education were required, on an application, to initiate necessary steps to accommodate these students who had passed the first professional examination in State Medical colleges. Taking into account the recommendations, the Supreme Court passed the following orders on 19. 12. 2002:

"in these circumstances, we direct on the special fuels of the case; (1) The MCI and the Directorate General of Medical Education of U. P. to work out a solution in such a manner that all the students be accommodated in respect of whom directions have been given in these -matters in respective colleges in the second professional examination. (2) The seats that have to be provided to these students shall be allocated in different colleges after finding out the total infrastructure available in each of the college which shall be adjusted over the time by reducing the intake in the next years so that the overall strength of the college does not get enhanced and the infrastructure is available to the students within the intake allocated to the college. For example if the intake of the college is 50 in the first year, all of them may not necessarily get through to the second year and so on. With resultant vacancies as long as the admissions are within the total intake of such college though in some year/class intake is slightly less or more the MCI shall deem that its regularisation have been fulfilled. (3) The MCI and the Directorate General of Medical Education of U. P. shall comply with this process and make a report to this Court on 14. 1. 2003. List the matter on 14. 1. 2003. The Director general Medical Education and Training U. P. shall be present in person on that date. New Delhi ( S. Rajendra Babu )December 19, 2002. ( P. Venkatarama Reddi)"

( 3 ) IN pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court, the petitioners were adjusted in the State medical College. Directions were issued on 8. 1. 2003 for charging the same fees as they were paying to the college from where they were transferred and that these adjustment shall not be treated as precedent. A Contempt petition was filed in Supreme Court in writ petition No. 8 of 1991 in which notices were issued. The contemnors were discharged on 14. 2. 2003. The petitioner did not raise any issue with regard to p