AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Seeking exception to an order dated 21.11.2016 passed
by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5486 of 2016 this appeal
has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The learned Writ Court has directed the Vice
Chancellor of the University to pass a speaking order with regard to
the status of the appellant and his enrolment as a pre-Ph.D candidate
after taking note of the UGC Regulation of 2009 and challenging this
order granting liberty to the Vice Chancellor to pass the order, the
writ appeal has been filed.
However, now from the appellant''s own showing, as
is evident from the supplementary affidavit filed, the Vice Chancellor
has gone into the issue in question and by a detailed order passed, as
is contained in Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application, has
rejected the case of the appellant for various reasons, as are indicated
therein.
Once the Vice Chancellor of the University on
06.02.2017 vide Annexure-1 has considered the claim and taken a
decision and the order passed in the writ petition on 21.11.2006
stands complied with, this writ appeal has been rendered infructuous
and the appellant is now required to challenge the order Annexure-A
passed by the Vice Chancellor on 06.02.2017.
Learned counsel argued that earlier also when the
appellant had approached this Court, the matter was remanded back
to the Vice Chancellor and again when the appellant approached this
Court instead of deciding the issue, the matter was again remanded
back to the Vice Chancellor, which was not proper and, therefore, this
aspect of the matter should be looked into.
We are of the considered view that once the learned
Writ Court taking note of the issue involved, directed the Vice
Chancellor to look into the matter and the Vice Chancellor, after
having taken note of the same, has passed a detailed order, we see no
reason to make any indulgence now into the order passed by the Writ
Court which already stood complied with by the Vice Chancellor.
Merely because the learned Writ Court thought it appropriate to
remand the matter back to the Vice Chancellor in exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we
see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter as canvassed by
the counsel for the appellant. In case the appellant has any grievance
with regard to the manner in which the order has been passed by the
Vice Chancellor, appellant is at liberty to challenge the order passed
by the Vice Chancellor afresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty to the appellant, we dispose
of the Letters Patent Appeal.