Advocate moves contempt plea against deemed varsities, Centac

Says colleges did not comply with the court’s interim order

The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed four medical colleges affiliated to deemed universities in Puducherry and the Convener of Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC) to file their reply by July 3 on a contempt plea moved against them in connection with post-graduate medical admission.

The issue pertains to a public interest litigation petition moved by advocate V.B.R. Menon alleging that the deemed universities in Puducherry were refusing to accept students admitted through common counselling in the State quota, and were demanding Rs. 40 lakh to Rs. 50 lakh fees as against Rs. 5.5 lakh fixed by the statutory fee committee for self-financing colleges.

Admitting the plea, the First Bench headed by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee passed an interim order on June 16, directing the universities to admit candidates provisionally selected for admission to PG medical courses through common counselling by taking Rs. 10 lakh as fee for the time being.

Now, alleging that the universities had failed to obey the interim order of the court, the petitioner had moved the present petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the management of the colleges concerned.

When the plea came up for hearing, Mr. Menon said: “In compliance with the interim order 27 students have deposited the prescribed provisional fee of Rs. 10 lakh with the Centac, well before the prescribed time limit and thereafter they had approached the respective colleges to attend the classes from June 20. However, the colleges did not admit students by stating that there were no vacancies available with them in the respective branches.”

Seats for low scores

Relying on the list of admitted students notified by Centac on May 31, the petitioner said: “The actual lists of students admitted by the respective colleges shall show that the colleges had admitted students with lower NEET scores as well as those who have not undergone common counselling in places of students who had been issued provisional admissions by Centac.

“Hence, the seats which were allotted to the students as per Centac list, based on merit and common counselling on various dates, have been illegally diverted by colleges to less meritorious students in gross violation of the statutory provisions.”

Alleging that the Convenor of Centac had acted in collusion with the colleges in denying rightful admission to the deserving poor and bright students, the petitioner wanted the court to punish them for wilful disobedience of court order and for causing mental agony and losses to the affected students.