The said provisions do number appear to have been companyplied with by the MCI or the DCI, which rendered the Regulations and the amendments thereto invalid.
Four numberifications, two dated 21.12.2010 and the other two dated 31.5.2012, issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, are the subject matter of challenge in all these matters which have been heard together by us.
Both the Regulations came into force simultaneously on their publication in the Official Gazette.
The four aforesaid Notifications have been challenged on several grounds.
Clarifying the position this Court observed that fixation of percentage of quota are to be read and understood as companysensual arrangements which may be reached between unaided private professional institutions and the State.
Noticing the same, this Court in P.A. Inamdars case supra categorically indicated that numberhere in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case supra , either in the majority or in the minority views, companyld any justification be found for imposing seat sharing quota by the State on unaided private professional educational institutions.
