Dr. Devesh Maurya and Another vs Principal, M.L.N. Medical College

D.S. Sinha, J.—By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Dr. Devesh Maurya and Dr. V.P. Singh urge that this Court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 20th November 1990 (Annexure 3 to the petition) which, in substance, is an admission-list of the candidate selected for post-graduate studies upon a competition entrance examination held in the year 1990. The Petitioners also pray for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent, namely, Principal, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad to cancel the aforesaid order dated 28th November, 1990 containing the admission-list and to prepare a fresh list in pursuance of the government order dated 9th October, 1990.

It cannot be gain said that if the order dated 28th November 1990 containing the list of the students admitted to the post-graduate Medical course of 1990 at M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, is quashed or cancelled the selected candidates, who have already been admitted to the course and are, in disputable, pursuing their study since December, 1990, will have to be thrown out and knocked of the Medical College. The presence of this students before this Court is, therefore, a must before any order of the kind prayed by the Petitioners can be passed. The said students, who have already been admitted and whose names figure in the impugned order, have not been impleaded in the petition. This infirmity was pointed out to Sri Shiv Prakash Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners; but the learned Counsel chose to argue out the case, notwithstanding the infirmity of the absence of the persons likely to be affected in case the relief prayed for by the Petitioners is granted to them. He categorically indicated that Petitioners would not implead the students whose names figure in the impugned order dated 28th November 1990 and who would, eventually, be affected in case the court chose to strike down the said order.

It is settled law that no order affecting a person can be passed in his absence and without giving him opportunity of defending himself.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs the court finds itself unable to grout the relief prayed for in the absence of the students named in the impugned order. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.