Madras High Court
Puducherry Institute Of Medical ... vs The Government Of Puducherry on 3 June, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:1246
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019, W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
& W.M.P. Nos. 10592, 10593, 10751, 10752, 15990 & 14658 of 2018
W.A.No. 1568 of 2019:
Puducherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
rep. by its Chairman Dr.K. Jacob,
Kalapet, Puducherry – 605 014. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Government of Puducherry,
rep. by the Under Secretary to Government
(Health),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. Central Admissions Committee (CENTAC),
rep. by Chairman/Convener,
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Puducherry 605 014. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act as against
the order dated 11.04.2019 in W.P. No. 8555 of 2019.
1\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
For Appellant :: Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondents :: Mr.T.P. Manoharan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V. Vasanthakumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
W.P. No. 8669 of 2018:
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
rep. by its Chairman Dr.K. Jacob,
Kalapet, Puducherry – 605 014. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Puducherry,
rep. by the Under Secretary to Government,
(Health),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Medical Council of India,
rep. by its Joint Secretary,
Pocket -14, Sector – 8,
Dwarka, Phase I,
New Delhi 110077.
3. Central Admissions Committee (CENTAC),
rep. by Chairman/Convener,
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Puducherry 605 014.
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1 st
respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 10, Chief Secretariat (Health) Puducherry
2\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
dated 04.04.2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner :: Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondents :: Mr.T.P. Manoharan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V. Vasanthakumar
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R3
Ms.Akshara for
Mrs. Shubaranjani Ananth for R2
W.P. No. 8894 of 2018:
Sri Venkateswara Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre,
rep. by its Chairman,
B. Ramachandhiran,
No.13-A, Pondy Villupuram Main Road,
Ariyru, Pondicherry – 605 102. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union Territory of Puducherry,
rep. by its Under Secretary to Government,
Health Department,
Office of the Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry – 605 001.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare
Services,
Government of Puducherry.
3. The Convenor,
Centralized Admission Committee
(CENTAC),
PEC Campus, ECR Road,
Pillaichavadi,
3\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
Puducherry 605 104.
4. Medical Council of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Pocket – 14, Sector – 8,
Dwarka Phase 1,
New Delhi 110077. ..Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of a Writ of Declaration declaring G.O.Ms.No.10 dated
04.04.2018 issued by the 1st respondent as unconstitutional and violative
of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 15(5),
19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
For Petitioner :: Mr.T.V. Lakshmanan
For Respondents :: Mr.T.P. Manoharan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V. Vasanthakumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
Ms. Akshara for
Mrs. Shubaranjani Ananth for R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
A common order is passed in the Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions,
since the issue arising for determination is one and the same.
2. W.A.No.1568 of 2018 and W.P.No.8669 of 2018 have been
4\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
filed by the Puducherry Institute of Medical Sciences (in short, either
appellant or PIMS). The Government of Puducherry, represented by the
Under Secretary to Government (Health) is arrayed as R1 in both the
Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition and the Central Admissions
Committee (CENTAC) is arrayed as R2 in the Writ Appeal and R3 in
W.P.No.8669 of 2018. The Medical Council of India (MCI) is arrayed as
R2 only in the Writ Petition and not in the Writ Appeal.
3. W.P.No.8894 of 2018 is at the instance of Sri Venkateswara
Medical College Hospital and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as
petitioner). The Union Territory of Puducherry, represented by the Under
Secretary to Government (Health) is arrayed as R1, the Director,
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services is arrayed as R2 and
CENTAC and MCI are arrayed as R3 and R4 respectively.
4. The prayer before the Writ Court by PIMS was for a Writ of
Certiorari calling for the records of the Government of Puducherry dated
07.03.2019 and quash of the same. The impugned order was the seat matrix
stipulating the college-wise minority quota seats for admission to students
in Post Graduate (PG) Medical Courses for academic year 2019-20. The
5\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
Writ Petition had come to be dismissed by order dated 11.04.2019.
5. The question that was crystallized for determination by the learned
Judge was whether PIMS, being a Christian Minority Institution is bound to
admit 50% of the total intake of Christian students only from Puducherry or
from other States also.
6. In dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Judge followed the
ratio of the judgment of the nine Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in
P.A. Inamdar and Others V. State of Maharashtra and Others 1,
particularly paragraphs 133 to 135 onwards, wherein mention has also
been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation and Others V. State of Karnataka and Others 2.
7. The Writ Court holds that though the minority institutions are
free to admit students of its own religion, the Institute cannot admit
students from neighbouring States, wherein the same religion may not be
a minority. The operative portion of the impugned order, at paragraphs
18 to 20 are as follows:
18. It has been categorically held that though the
minority institute is free to admit the students of its own
1 (2005) 6 SCC 537
2 (2002) 8 SCC 481
6\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
religion, the institute cannot admit the students from
neighbouring states, wherein, the same religion may not be
a minority. It cannot be generally stated that the Christians
are minorities throughout the length and breadth of the
country and that the petitioner should be permitted to admit
the students from across the country.
19. The analogy would be if the petitioner admits
students from across the country giving preference to
Christian students as long as they fulfill the minimum
eligibility criteria fixed by the MCI, it would take away the
rights of the better qualified students from general quota,
whereas, when the petitioner institution is permitted only to
those minority students within the Union Territory of
Puducherry and the balance seats have to be given back to
the All- India quota, whereupon, the meritorious students
from all categories can be considered.
20. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically
stated that it should not spill out to other states, the
notification of the first respondent cannot be said to be
violative of any law or it is illegal.
8. As far as the Writ Petitioner is concerned, it is a linguistic
minority, intending to serve Telugu speaking candidates. The prayer in
the Writ Petition was for a declaration to the effect that G.O.Ms.No.10
dated 04.04.2018 issued by the Government of Puducherry was
unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner
guaranteed under Articles 15(5), 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution of
India.
7\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
9. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.04.2018 reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
Abstract
Health Secretariat – Conversion of unfilled Minority quota seats
(Linguistic and Religious) in Post Graduate Medical courses in Private
Self-Financing Medical Colleges to Management Quota seats and tilled
by students of Union Territory of Puducherry – Orders – Issued.
......................................................................................................................
CHIEF SECRETARIAT (HEALTH)
G.O.Ms.No.10 Puducherry, dated: 04.04.2018
Read: F.No.27209/H5/Health/2016-17/PF-Vol. IV of Health
Secretariat, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
&&&&&
ORDER:
WHEREAS, clause 9A (3) of “Post Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment) Regulations 2017”, lays down that, the counseling for
admission to Diploma and MD/MS in all Medical Institutions in a
State/Union Territory, including, Medical Educational Institutions
established by the State Government, University established by an Act of
State/Union Territory Legislature, Municipal Bodies, Trust, Society,
Company or Minority Institutions, shall be conducted by the State/Union
Territory Government.
2. AND WIIEREAS, CENTAC has been designated for conduct of
counseling for admission of students in Post Gruduate Medical courses
in the three Private Self-Financing Medical Colleges functioning in the
Union Territory of Puducherry of which the two Private Self-Financing
Medical Colleges viz. (i) The Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry, (Religious Minority (Christian)) and ii) Sri Venkateshwara
Medical College Hospital & Rescarch Centre, Puducherry Linguistic
Minority (Telugu) are minority institutions.
3. AND WHEREAS, the Minority status was conferred to
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry vide Letter
No.1240/H4/Health/99, dated 04-03-2002 and Sri Venkateshwaraa
8\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
Medical College Hospital & Research Centre vide Letter
No.3672/HS/2007/Health, dated 09-05-2015. These letters of the
Government of Puducherry were issued on the basis of requests from
these institutions, insisting providing of 50% of the seats in their
institutions to their minority students.
4. AND WHEREAS, Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital
& Research Centre has executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Government of Puducherry to this effect.
5. AND WHBREAS, the Hoñ'ble High Court of Madras in its interim
Order, dated 25.07.2017, in Writ Petition No. 17467 of 2017 has
ordered that the Minority Status of the Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Science, Puducherry shall continue, till the disposal of the Writ Petition.
6. AND WHEREAS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide
Judgment in TMA Pai case has ordered that the Minority status of
eductional institution is to be determined by treating the State in which
the Institute is located as a unit.
7. AND WHEREAS, the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences,
Puducherry (Religious Minority (Christian)) has to fill up 50% of the
total intake i.e, 25 seats out of total intake of 50 seats in various Post
Graduate Medical Courses with the students of Religious Minority
(Christian) of Union Territory of Puducherry, Likewise, Sri
Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital & Research Institute,
Puducherry (Linguistic Minority (Telugu)) has to fill up 50% of the total
intake i.e. 19 seats out of total intake of 38 seats in various Post
Graduate Medical Courses with the students of Linguistic Minority
(Telugu) of Union Territory of Puducherry.
8. AND WHEREAS, the Puducherry students had access to 162 Post
Graduate seats under Government quota during the year 2017-18,
including the scats in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research
Institute, Puducherry, three Self-Financing Medical Colleges and the 4
Deemed University Medical Colleges in Puducherry.
9. AND WHEREAS, the number of seats available to Puducherry
students under Goverment Quota in Private Self-Financing Medical
9\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
Colleges and Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute has
been reduced to 84 due to change in Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations authorising counseling for Post Graduate seats in Deemed
Universities by the Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of
India, New Delhi. This has substantially reduced the access of NEET
qualified Puducherty students to Post Graduate seats which were
hitherto available to them.
10. NOW THEREFORE, it is ordered that:
The Minority (Religious/Linguistic) quota seats in Post Graduate
Medical courses remaining vacant in Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Science, Puducherry, (Religious Minority (Christian)) and Sri
Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital & Research Centre,
Puducherry (Linguistic Minority (Telugu)), after two rounds of
counseling shall be filled up as open merit management quota seats
during mop-up counseling based on NEET-PG 2018 rank from among
the Puducherry domicile candidates and the fee structure for these seats
will be that for Management Quota seats.
11. Any seats remaining vacant thereafter shall be filled up as
management quota seats from the All India merit list.
12. This order will come into force with immediate effect.
//BY ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR//
Sd/-
(V. JEEVA)
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HEALTH)
10. The impugned Government Order for the first time proceeds to
insist upon admission of 50% of the students from the linguistic minority
(Telugu) and religious minority (Christian) only from the Union Territory
10\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
of Puducherry. G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.04.2018 is specific to both PIMS
and the Writ Petitioner,
11. There is yet another aspect to the matter. The impugned
Government Order relates to academic year 2017-18 onwards. An order of
interim stay has been obtained by the Writ Petitioners on 12.04.2018 and
hence admissions for those years have been concluded as per the procedure
followed for the previous years. With the dismissal of the writ petitions, the
Appellant/Petitioner are bound by the dictates of the impugned Government
Order and admissions are being granted in terms thereof.
12. The question for determination before us is as to whether, for the
purpose of admissions for PG medical courses in a minority unaided
institution, it is only that State where the educational institution is located
that is to be considered as the unit for priority of admissions (either
religious or linguistic), or whether admissions are to be effected taking the
Country as a unit.
13. To put it otherwise, the question is as to whether a particular State
or Union Territory can impose a condition according priority to those
candidates domiciled in its own State or Union Territory in the
prospectus/seat matrix/information brochure for PG medical admissions.
11\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
14. This question is no longer res integra. In Dr. Pradeep Jain and
Others V. Union of India 3, three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court
considered the admission to Under Graduate (UG) medical courses and
PG medical courses. While they held that reservation of seats on the
basis of domicile in the case of UG medical courses (MBBS/BDS) would
be valid, having regard to the socio-economic disparities and inequities,
such a domiciliary condition is impermissible in the case of admission to
PG medical courses.
15. Even in the case of UG medical courses, the Court indicated
that such domiciliary reservation is only as an interim measure and
admission on All-India basis should be the ultimate goal. The operative
portion of the judgment is as follows:
The Medical Education Review Committee has also
expressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-
graduate courses in any institution should be open to
candidates on an all-India basis and there should be no
restriction regarding domicile in the Stale/Union Territory
in which the institution is located”. So also in the policy
statement filed by the learned Attorney-General, the
Government of India has categorically expressed the view
that:
3 (1984) 3 SCC 654
12\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
So far as admission to the institutions of
post-graduate colleges and special
professional colleges is concerned, it
should be entirely on the basis of all-India
merit subject to constitutional reservations
in favour of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions
to post-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are
concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide
for any reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard
to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and
institutional continuity in education which has its own
importance and value, we would direct that though
residence requirement within the State shall not be a-
ground for reservation in admissions to postgraduate
courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present
circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS
course from a medical college or university, may be given
preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the
same medical college or university but such reservation on
the basis of institutional preference should not in any event
exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats
available for admission to the post-graduate course. This
outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to
revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in
the same manner as directed by us in the case of admissions
to the MBBS course, But, even in regard to admissions to the
post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super
specialities such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are
concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the
basis of institutional preference and admissions should be
granted purely on merit on all-India basis.
13\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
16. This view has been reiterated by three Hon’ble Judges of the
Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Dr. Tanvi Behl V.
Shrey Goel and Others4. The question crystallized was as to ‘whether
residence-based reservations in Post Graduate (PG) medical courses by
a State is constitutionally valid’ as follows:
1. As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based
reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within
the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is
impermissible?
2. (a) If answer to the first question is in the negative and if
domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG
Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent
and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based
reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within
the State Quota seats?
(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in
admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible,
considering that all the admissions are to be based on the
merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the
modality of providing such domicile/residence- based
reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one
Medical College?
3. If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if
domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG
Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State
Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180
14\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
preference seats, are to be filled up?
17. After noting various judgments on point, i.e, The State V.
Narayandas Mangilal Dayame4, Dr.Pradeep Jain (supra), Jagadish
Saran V. Union of India5 and Saurabh Chaudri V. Union of India6, the
Supreme Court had this to say at paragraphs 31 to 33.
31. We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all
residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and
residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose
our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right
to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in
India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in
educational institutions across India. The benefit of
‘reservation’ in educational institutions including medical
colleges to those who reside in a particular State can be
given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses, for which we
have assigned reasons in the preceding paragraphs. But
considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG
Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis
of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This has been explained with
pronounced clarity both in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep
Jain. If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an
invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who
are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they
belong to a different State in the Union! This would be a
violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the
Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before
the law.
4 AIR 1958 Bombay 68 (FB)
5 (1980) 2 SCC 768
6 (2003) 11 SCC 146
15\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
32. The law laid down in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain
has been followed by this Court in a number of decisions
including the Constitution Bench decision in Saurabh
Chaudri. We may also refer here judgments such as Magan
Mehrotra and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2003)
11 SCC 186, Nikhil Himthani vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others (2013) 10 SCC 237, Vishal Goyal and Others v. State
of Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456 and Neil
Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) and Others v. Union of
India and Others (2022) 4 SCC 1, which have all followed
Pradeep Jain. Thus, residence-based reservations are not
permissible in PG medical courses.
33. Having made the above determination that residence-
based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses,
the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of
institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the
basis of merit in the All- India examination. Thus, out of 64
seats which were to be filled by the State in its quota 32 could
have been filled on the basis of institutional preference, and
these are valid. But the other 32 seats earmarked as U.T.
Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of
residence, and we uphold the findings of the High Court on
this crucial aspect.
18. More so, in the present cases, both institutions hold minority
status and do not depend on any aid for their functioning. In such
circumstances, the question of placing a domiciliary restriction on their
intake of students for PG medical courses does not arise and is clearly
contrary to the ratio of the judgments set out above.
16\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
19. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, the Writ Appeals and the
Writ Petitions are allowed. Impugned order dated 11.04.2019 passed in
W.P.No.8555 of 2019 and impugned G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.04.2018 are
set aside. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
03.06.2025
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
sl
To
1. The Under Secretary to Government
(Health),
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. Central Admissions Committee (CENTAC),
rep. by Chairman/Convener,
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Puducherry 605 014.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare
Services,
Government of Puducherry.
4. Medical Council of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Pocket – 14, Sector – 8,
17\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
Dwarka Phase 1,
New Delhi 110077.
18\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
& W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
AND
C. KUMARAPPAN,J.
sl
W.A. No. 1568 of 2019,
W.P. Nos. 8669 & 8894 of 2018
& W.M.P. Nos. 10592, 10593,
10751, 10752, 15990 & 14658 of 2018
03.06.2025
19\19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 08:19:39 pm )
