The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the categorization of Ayurved Colleges as 'Medical College' and their entitlement to the benefit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra).

1.This petition by the Association of Dhanvantari Graduate and Post Graduate Ayurved Colleges Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, raises a question as to whether the Ayurved Colleges running in the State of Madhya Pradesh and which are members of petitioner society fall in the category of “Medical College” as referred to by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Modern Dental College & Research Centre Vs. State of M.P. [ (2009) 7 SCC 751], for the purpose of allotment of seat and fixing of quota for admission i.e. management and Government quota.

2. For deciding the controversy certain factual background is to be indicated. The M.P.Nigi Vyavsaik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 2007' for short) came into force in August 2007 by which certain rules and regulations were framed for the purpose of admission to Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under section 2(b) of this Adhiniyam of 2007, it is clearly indicated that the Adhiniyam shall apply to all Private Unaided Professional Education Institutions affiliated to the University established either by the Central Act or the Act of State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. In this Adhiniyam various procedures are laid down for admission of students to various professional courses conducted by the Private Unaided Professional Education Institutions, but in the said institute there was no provision for sharing of the seats, by fixing of the quota to be filled up either by the Management of the Institute, instead it contemplates for admission to all the seats by the Government, therefore, a dispute arose for admission and the management of the institute wanted a quota for themselves. In fact, the private unaided institute wanted certain seats to be filled by Management a quota fixed for them. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra). The Supreme Court considered the same and passed an order which is filed as Annexure P-2. In para 13 of the said judgment initially the Supreme Court applied the principle of reading down of statute and thereafter in para 16 issued the following directions :

“16. We, therefore, direct that the admissions in the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI seats which can be filled up by the private institutions as per para 131 of Inamdar's case [(2005) 6 SCC 537], and allotting half of the 85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and postgraduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive examination by the State Government, and the remaining half of the Association of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. Both the State Government as well as the Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance examination for this purpose. As regards “the NRI seats”, they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules, in the manner they were done earlier.”

Thereafter in para 17 it was clarified that the arrangement as indicated in para 16 shall be only applicable only for the academic session 2009-2010.

4. It is not in dispute that this arrangement has been extended from time to time and documents available on record shows that this has continued till the academic session 2013-2014. When the private unaided Ayurvedic colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh also demanded for giving them quota for admission in the medical colleges in accordance to para 16 of the judgment of Modern Dental College (supra), the State Government rejected this vide Annexure P-9 on 8.8.2003 by holding that this is not permissible, as the Ayurvedic institutes are not Medical College, so this writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

5. However, after hearing all the concerned and after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in