SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No.2423 OF 2005. (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1848 of 2005). WITH Civil Appeal No.2424 of 2005. (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.4780 of 2005) and Civil Appeal No.2425 of 2005. (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5658 of 2005). D/d. 4.4.2005.

Dental Council of India - Appellant

Versus

Pravina & Ors - Respondent

Education - Admission - Direction by court for creation of additional or supernumerary seat - Propriety of - Dispute was in respect of admission to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) course - Admittedly 'D' had a higher ranking than 'P' - High Court held that neither 'D' nor 'P' were at fault and thus directed creation of supernumerary seat for accommodating 'D' - Held - Supreme Court has repeatedly held that court should retrain from issuing direction for creation of additional or supernumerary seats as it is to be borne in mind that creation of seats is governed by statutory provisions - Direction of High Court to this effect set aside - However vide an earlier order it was directed that one seat in said course shall not be filled for relevant Academic year - Thus 'D' directed to be accommodated in the said course under peculiar facts of the case in order to do substantial justice between the parties.

[Paras 3 and 4]

ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. The Dental Council of India, Selection Committee and the affected candidate, Dr. M. Deepa, have filed three separate appeals challenging the impugned judgement and order of the High Court. The dispute is in respect of admission to M.D.S. (Orthodontics) course. It is not in dispute that Dr. Deepa had higher ranking than that of Dr. Pravina. The High Court, on appreciation of the peculiar facts of the case, came to the conclusion that neither Dr. Pravina nor Dr. Deepa were at fault and, in this view, directed creation of a supernumerary seat for accommodating Dr. Deepa in the course for the Academic Year 2004-2005.

3. This Court has repeatedly held that the court should refrain from issuing direction for creation of additional or supernumerary seats as it is to be borne in mind that creation of seats is governed by statutory provisions. In this view, direction of the High Court, insofar as it relates to the creation of a supernumerary seat, is set aside.

4. The question still remains about accommodating Dr. Deepa in the course, above-referred. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we direct that in the Academic Year 2005-2006, Dr. Deepa shall be accommodated in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) in Ragas Dental College. We may note that by order dated 14th March, 2005, it was directed that one seat in M.D.S. (Orthodontics) shall not be filled for the Academic Year 2005-2006. The admission granted to Dr. Deepa in the aforesaid college would be out of the Government quota. The learned counsel appearing for the College has no objection in this regard. We are also of the view that, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, it is the only proper course in order to do substantial justice between the parties without it being treated as a precedent.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the civil appeals are allowed and the direction given in the impugned judgement for creation of a supernumerary seat is set aside but Dr. Deepa would be granted admission in the above terms.

No costs.

.