Ishan Talukdar vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

N.K. Patil, J.—Though these matters are posted in the orders'' list, they are taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

In the instant petitions, the petitioners have questioned the correctness of the impugned communication-cum-order dated 10.06.2014 vide Annexure-J issued by the 1st respondent-University. Further, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioners to pursue their studies in the course of BDS with the 2nd respondent-College and approve their admissions.

It is the case of the petitioners that, they have got all qualification for being admitted to the BDS course in the 2nd respondent-College for the academic year 2013-2014. After verification of their eligibility certificates, they have been admitted in the 2nd respondent-College and thereafter the 2nd respondent-College has forwarded all papers for approval of their admissions. Instead of approving their admissions, the 1st respondent-University, has issued impugned communication dated 10.06.2014 bearing Ref. No. AC2/Adm/mis-43/2013-14 vide Annexure-J not approving the admission of these students. Being dissatisfied with the impugned communication vide Annexure-J as referred above, the petitioners have presented these petitions, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties.

Learned counsel Sri N.K. Ramesh, appearing for the 1st respondent-University, during the course of his submission on instructions, fairly submits that, the 1st respondent has approved the admission of petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and announced their results. Therefore, the prayer sought in the writ petitions so far as the said petitions does not survive for consideration and hence, the petitions stand dismissed as having become infructuous.

Replying to the said submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submits that, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent may be placed on record and the petitions may be disposed of insofar as petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are concerned as having become infructuous. Further, insofar as petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are concerned, he submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the said writ petitioners may be disposed of following the order of this Court in the identical matter passed in WP Nos. 28445-489 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014 (Sri Venkateshwara Dental College & Hospital & others v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & another).

In reply, Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-University submits that, following the order passed by this Court in WP Nos. 28445-489 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014, the writ petitions filed by writ petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 may be disposed of issuing appropriate directions to the 1st respondent as issued in the said writ petitions.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are dismissed as having become infructuous and the writ petitions filed by the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 stand disposed of with the following directions:

"(i) The impugned Annexure-J dated 10.06.2014 issued by the 1st respondent-University is hereby directed to be treated as Show-causes notices.

(ii) The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and the 2nd respondent herein are directed to submit their detailed consolidated reply to the show-cause notice vide Annexure-J dated 10.06.2014, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) 1st respondent-University is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and also the 2nd respondent or its authorized representative, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week from the date of appearance of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and the 2nd respondent or its authorized representative.

(iv) Further, if the 2nd respondent satisfies the eligibility of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7, the 1st respondent-University is directed to approve their admission and announce the results of the said petitioners if they are found otherwise eligible."

In view of disposal of main matter on merit, the relief sought in IA No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration and hence, IA No. 1/2014 stands disposed of as having become infructuous.