Sadan Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

W.P.(C) 4173/2024

Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, learned Counsel for Respondent 3 makes a statement on instructions that the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s request for extension of four semesters was based on UGC Regulations 2009 and that, on a reconsideration, the University is now convinced that the petitioner’s case would have to be considered as per the UGC Regulations 2016. She submits that the university is willing to grant the petitioner the extension as is available under the UGC Regulations 2016.

In that view of the matter, Mr. Utkarsh Singh on instructions does not seek to continue to press this petition any further. The statement of Ms. Rautray is recorded. The university shall remain bound by it. Needless to say, the university would adopt a proactive stand and grant the petitioner extension to which the petitioner is entitled as per the UGC Regulations 2016 without compelling the petitioner to knock on the doors of this court once again.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Till the decision is taken on the petitioner’s representation, he would not be dispossessed from the hostel, which is presently in his occupation.

The application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.