Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Meda Vinay vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.25150 OF 2024
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with the following prayer:
―... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in not permitting the Petitioner to join in MBBS COURSE under B-category in spite of allotting the seat by the 3rd Respondent on 03.11.2024 vide provisional allotment letter with an instruction to join by 3 pm on 04.11.2024 in spite of completing the entire admission process including paying the fees of rupees 14,95,000 /- on 04.11.2024 (today) and submitting a letter dated 04.11.2024 from Respondent No.5 said college confirming that the list of original documents are available in their college since the Petitioner had admitted in their college for the First Year of B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to allow the Petitioner to Join as all the complete formalities have been completed and the original documents have already submitted with Respondent No.5 and the same shall be handed over immediately upon admission by collecting the same from the Respondent No 5 and consequently permit the Petitioner to join and complete all the formalities with an exception to submit the original documents from Respondent No.5 within a weeks time 2 and/or pass such other order or further orders as it deems fit and proper in the interest of justice..‖.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
3. On 05.11.2024, by considering the facts and circumstances submitted by learned counsel on both sides, this Court passed the following interim order:
―Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents 2, 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner before this Court is in very peculiar circumstances.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had completed the NEET examination and had participated in the counselling process. That earlier, he was allotted a seat in B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course in Veterinary College and Research Institute, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu State. That subsequently, he became eligible to participate in the mop-up round and stray seat counselling and in accordance with his merit in the NEET examination, he was allotted a ‗B category' seat with Maharaja Institute of Medical Sciences, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram District and he was instructed to report and complete the admission by 3.00 p.m. on 04.11.2024 and the allotment was made to him on 03.11.2024 i.e., he is required to travel more than 450 Kms. in less than 24 hours to complete his admission process. That the petitioner travelled from Guntur to Vizianagaram, where the medical college is situated and deposited the fee totalling about 3 Rs.15 lakhs within the stipulated time i.e., 3.00 p.m. on 04.11.2024. The problem arose thereafter i.e., the production of the originals of the testimonials and mark sheets. The petitioner produced the letter issued by the Veterinary College and Research Institute, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu run under the aegis of Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University where he was earlier allotted a seat in B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree course. The letter issued by the college clearly records the documents that have been handed over to it by the petitioner at the time of his admission. The documents are as follows:
. The documents are as follows:
―1. Secondary Education Pass Certificate
2. Intermediate Pass Certificate Cum Memorandum of Marks
3. NEET - Admit Card
4. NEET - Score Card
5. Transfer Certificate
6. Study and Conduct Certificate
7. Migration Certificate
8. Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate.‖
4. The College further has categorically stated that it has no objection for the petitioner seeking admission into MBBS course through mop-up round or stray seat counselling round. The non- production of the above original documents has become the bone of contention or ground for the 4th respondent to report before the 3rd respondent that the admission is not completed.
5. We have perused the provisional allotment order. It is interesting to note that the order is contingent to final orders to be passed in W.P.Nos.32975, 33162 & 35090 of 2022. Be that as it may, even assuming that the candidate is required to produce the testimonials at the time of admission, it would or it should be made 4 applicable to the students, who are getting admitted after the initial rounds of regular counselling.
6. In the instant case on hand, the mop-up round or stray round counselling is carried out after multiple rounds of regular counselling. The very description or nomenclature i.e., stray round, is indicative of the fact that the counselling is more in the nature of roulette game where luck and chance play a bigger role for a candidate who is not successful in the earlier three rounds of regular counselling. The passage of time also throws up the possibility of the candidate getting admitted elsewhere, which is the development in the case on hand.
7. That apart, the admission process has to be appreciated in the background of the undisputed fact that the admissions under NEET are an All India affair, where students may get allotted to any college across the country in the regular rounds of counselling. An illustration could be that a student of Andhra Pradesh may get allotted a seat in Punjab or Assam during the regular round of counselling and later during the stray round or mop-up round as it is popularly called the student may be successful in getting a seat in his home State or home town of Andhra Pradesh.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner has been allotted a B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree seat in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, which in the opinion of this Court, it would be around 1500 Kms. one way, which would convert to about 3000 Kms. both ways. It could be humanly impossible for a person to criss-cross 3000 Kms. in less than 24 hours and that too when no airports are operating in both the stations. It is an undisputed fact that neither Vizianagaram nor 5 Tirunelveli have any airports much less catering to any air services between the two cities.
9. In that view, if the 4th respondent is allowed to prevent the petitioner from completing the admission process for not producing the originals of the testimonials within a limited period of time of less than 24 hours, it would, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, amount to gross injustice. It is not that the petitioner has secured a backdoor entry. He has been considered for the allotment of the seat on the strength of the merit secured by him in the open competition. In this regard, the non-production of the ―originals‖ of the testimonials at the time of admission on 04.11.2024 cannot be attributed to any failure on the part of the petitioner.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, has been pleased to observe and held in Para 9, 10, 11 and 12 as under:
"9. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. The short but an important question of law posed for consideration of this Court is what relief a meritorious candidate is entitled to when it is found that a meritorious candidate is denied an admission arbitrarily and illegally by the authorities concerned and the fault is not attributable to the candidate at all and the candidate has pursued his/her legal rights expeditiously and without delay--whether in such a situation awarding compensation only can be said to be just and an adequate relief? The issue which arises for consideration is whether having fulfilled the aforesaid prerequisites, the Court can grant relief and order admission even after the cut-off date for admission i.e. 30th September is over and whether the Court can grant admission beyond the intake either in the same year or in the next academic year?
9.1. In the case of Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] the following 1 (2020) 17 SCC 465 6 questions were posed for consideration before the Court : (SCC p. 394, para 4) ―(a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admission to such courses?
(b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic year is a date which admits any exception?
(c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations?
(d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the court before passing orders which may be more equitable, but still in strict compliance with the framework of regulations and judgments of this Court governing the subject?‖ 9.2. After considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the subject in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] this Court answered the aforesaid questions as under : (SCC pp. 404-405, para 38) ―38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us in the opening part of this judgment.
38.1. Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur.
38.2. Question (b) : 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding of second counselling by 15th September of the relevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] ). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] and this judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction. (underlining by this Court) 38.3. Questions (c) & (d) : Wherever the court finds that action of the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials. The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Where the admissions given by the authorities concerned are found by the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact that such students have put in a year or so into the academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the course.‖ 9.3. This Court also cautioned the courts for giving interim orders where admissions are matter of dispute before the court. This Court observed as under : (Asha case [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] , SCC p. 405, para 39) ―39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have made to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] that the courts should avoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter of dispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates are permitted to continue with the courses, they should normally be not permitted to take further examinations of the professional courses. The students who pursue the courses under the orders of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts of competent jurisdiction.‖ 9.4. However, subsequently in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] a contrary view is taken by this Court, contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] . This Court has held that in such a situation grant of compensation is the only relief which can be granted and which a candidate is entitled to.
10. In view of the contradictory views and decisions in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 8 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] and in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] the question which has been referred to the larger Bench is where a student, a meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her is denied admission illegally and arbitrarily and who has pursued her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be denied admission as a relief, because of cut-off date of 30th September is over and in such a situation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation only? Another question which is required to be considered is what relief can be granted by the Court in such a situation?
10.1. The observations and the ultimate conclusion by this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] and in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] are required to be referred to and considered.
10.2. After considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] ultimately concluded in para 38 as under : (Asha case [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] , SCC pp. 404-405) ―38. Now, we shall proceed to answer the questions posed by us in the opening part of this judgment.
38.1. Question (a) : The rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges admits no exception. It is an absolute rule and all stakeholders and authorities concerned are required to follow this rule strictly and without demur.
38.2. Question (b) : 30th September is undoubtedly the last date by which the admitted students should report to their respective colleges without fail. In the normal course, the admissions must close by holding of second counselling by 15th September of the relevant academic year (in terms of the decision of this Court in Priya Gupta [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] ). Thereafter, only in very rare and exceptional cases of unequivocal discrimination or arbitrariness or pressing emergency, admission may be permissible but such power may preferably be exercised by the courts. Further, it will be in the rarest of rare cases and where the ends of justice would be subverted or the process of law would stand frustrated that the courts would exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction of admitting candidates to the courses after the deadline of 30th September of the current academic year. This, however, can only be done if the conditions stated by this Court in Priya Gupta [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 9 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] and this judgment are found to be unexceptionally satisfied and the reasons therefor are recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction.
38.3. Questions (c) & (d) : Wherever the court finds that action of the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgments of this Court and violative of rules, regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the court shall award compensation to such students as well as direct initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers/officials. The court shall also ensure that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are initiated against the erring authorities irrespective of their stature and empowerment. Where the admissions given by the authorities concerned are found by the courts to be legally unsustainable and where there is no reason to permit the students to continue with the course, the mere fact that such students have put in a year or so into the academic course is not by itself a ground to permit them to continue with the course.‖ 10.3. Thereafter in para 39 this Court observed and directed as under : (Asha case [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] , SCC p. 405) ―39. With all humility, we reiterate the request that we have made to all the High Courts in Priya Gupta case [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] that the Courts should avoid giving interim orders where admissions are the matter of dispute before the Court. Even in case where the candidates are permitted to continue with the courses, they should normally be not permitted to take further examinations of the professional courses. The students who pursue the courses under the orders of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it weigh with the courts of competent jurisdiction.‖ 10.4. However, in the subsequent decision in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 :
6 SCEC 745] after considering the decision of this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] ultimately in para 33, it is observed [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 :
6 SCEC 745] and held as under : (Jasmine Kaur case [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] , SCC p. 539) ―33.1. The schedule relating to admissions to the professional colleges should be strictly and scrupulously adhered to and shall 10 not be deviated under any circumstance either by the courts or the Board and midstream admission should not be permitted.
33.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate i.e. the candidate has pursued his or her legal right expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault only on the part of the authorities or there is an apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right to equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and the relief of admission can be directed within the time schedule prescribed, it would be completely just and fair to provide exceptional reliefs to the candidate under such circumstance alone.
33.3. If a candidate is not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and the court may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset the loss caused, if any.
33.4. When a candidate does not exercise or pursue his/her rights or legal remedies against his/her non-selection expeditiously and promptly, then the courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate in the form of securing an admission.
33.5. If the candidate takes a calculated risk/chance by subjecting himself/herself to the selection process and after knowing his/her non-selection, he/she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process of selection was unfair.
33.6. If it is found that the candidate acquiesces or waives his/her right to claim relief before the court promptly, then in such cases, the legal maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights, will be highly appropriate.
33.7. No relief can be granted even though the prospectus is declared illegal or invalid if the same is not challenged promptly.
Once the candidate is aware that he/she does not fulfil the criteria of the prospectus he/she cannot be heard to state that, he/she chose to challenge the same only after preferring the application and after the same is refused on the ground of eligibility.
33.8. There cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year i.e. carry-forward of seats cannot be permitted how much ever meritorious a candidate is and deserved admission. In such circumstances, the 11 courts cannot grant any relief to the candidate but it is up to the candidate to reapply in the next academic year.
33.9. There cannot be at any point of time a direction given either by the court or the Board to increase the number of seats which is exclusively in the realm of the Medical Council of India.
33.10. Each of these abovementioned principles should be applied based on the unique and distinguishable facts and circumstances of each case and no two cases can be held to be identical.‖
11. However, it is required to be noted that in the case before this Court in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] it was specifically found by this Court that there was a delay on the part of the candidate. It was specifically found that the conduct of the candidate in having fixed her own time-limit in making the challenge, namely, after three months of the issuance of the prospectus and thereafter in filing the letters patent appeal which process resulted in the Division Bench in deciding [Jasmine Kaur v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 478] , [Jasmine Kaur v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 21933] the appeal only in the month of April 2014 by which time the substantial part of the academic year has been crossed, disentitles the candidate any relief and the case would not fall in any extraordinary circumstances.
12. However, the question is with respect to a student, a meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her has been denied admission illegally and who has pursued his/her legal rights expeditiously without delay is entitled to any relief of admission more particularly in the courses like MBBS the relief of compensation as held by this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] ? The aforesaid question is required to be considered only to the cases where (i) no fault is attributable to the candidate; (ii) the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously and without delay; (iii) where there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of rules and regulations; and (iv) candidate is found to be more meritorious than the last candidate who has been given admission.
12.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the question is with respect to a student/candidate seeking admission in the medical course more particularly in MBBS course. For a student/candidate seeking admission in professional courses more particularly the medical course each year is very important and precious. Similarly, getting admission in medical course itself is very important in the life of a candidate/student and even a 12 dream of man. In light of the above, the question for consideration is whether compensation for a meritorious candidate, who has been denied the admission illegally and arbitrarily having approached the court in time can be said to be just and equitable relief?
12.2. The right to equal and fair treatment is a component of Article 14 of the Constitution. As held by this Court in Asha [Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 : 4 SCEC 611] that a transparent and fair procedure is the duty of every legal authority connected with admissions. In such cases, denial of fair treatment to the candidate would not only violate his/her right under Article 14 but would seriously jeopardise his/her right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A natural corollary of declaring that an administrative act more particularly the denial of admission illegally and for no fault of a candidate/student violates principles of Article 14 is that the citizen injured must be put back to his/her original position. In that sense, the primary relief is restitutionary. As observed hereinabove, for a meritorious student seeking admission in medical course is very important in the life of student/candidate and denial of admission to a meritorious candidate though for no fault of his/her violates his/her fundamental rights. Compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutionary remedies. In case of medical admissions, even the restitutionary remedy of providing a seat in the subsequent year would lead to loss of one full academic year to a meritorious candidate, which cannot be compensated in real terms. Thus compensation for loss of year could be provided, but denial of admissions to a meritorious candidate cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Thus denial of admission in medical course to a meritorious candidate for no fault of his/her and though he/she has approached the Court in time and despite the same not granting any just and equitable relief, would be denial of justice. Therefore, the question is what relief the Court can grant by which right to equal and fair treatment to a candidate is protected and at the same time neither there is injustice to other candidate/student and even compromising with the quality education. Therefore, a balance is required to be struck. However, at the same time it can safely be said that the view taken by this Court in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] that the only relief which can be granted to such a candidate would be the compensation only is not good law and cannot be accepted. Even granting a relief to such a candidate/student in the next academic year and to accommodate him/her in the next year and in the sanctioned intake may even affect the right of some other candidate/student seeking admission in the next academic year and that too for no fault of his/her. Therefore we are of the view that in the exceptional and in the rarest of rare 13 cases and in case where all the conditions stipulated in para 33.3 in Jasmine Kaur [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521 : 6 SCEC 745] are satisfied, the Court can grant exceptional relief to the candidate of granting admission even after the cut-off date is over.‖
11. From a reading of the above, it could be deduced that the Hon'ble Apex Court has deemed it equitable to condone any delay in given circumstance i.e., where the reason for the delay cannot be attributed to the candidate or where the authorities are to be partially responsible.
12. In the instant case on hand, the fact that the testimonials have been verified by a recognized University and admission granted is not in dispute. The fact that the testimonials have not been released by the corresponding college is also not in dispute.
13. In that view, we are of the prima facie opinion that the 4 th respondent could have granted at least 48 to 72 hours time to the petitioner to enable him to travel to a far off place to secure the originals and produce them before the 4th respondent.
14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the present seat has been allotted in another stray round counselling at about 11.00 p.m. yesterday and the candidate has been given time till 5.00 p.m. today to seek admission as against the very same seat which was allotted to the petitioner and in respect of which the petitioner has already deposited a tuition fee and completed the remaining part of the admission process except the production of ―originals‖ of the testimonials.
15. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would attempt to place reliance on Para 9 of the instructions pertaining to Stray Vacancy Round. Para 9 reads as under:
14―9. Candidates who are allotted seat against Stray Vacancy Round of counselling have to report to the allotted college COMPULSORILY with all original certificates, provisional allotment order, and copy of final application and pay the tuition fee, college fee such candidate cannot resign the seat allotted.‖
16. Prima facie, Para 9 nowhere stipulates completion of the admission process within 24 hours. That apart, none of the other paragraphs in the instructions also does not appear to fix the time limit.
17. Be that as it may, we are not for a moment suggesting that the admission procedure can be left open ended rather the admission process has to be completed by the last date fixed under the calendar relating to admission to MBBS courses. Hence, the insistence to complete the admission process in less than 24 hours does not appeal to prudence, we do not want to read between the lines nor do we want to attribute motives. Be that as it may, the Courts are duty bound to protect legally acquired rights. It can be gainfully argued that the allotment of the seat, though provisionally, vests a right in the petitioner to assert the allotment in his favour.
18. It is not the case of the 4th respondent that not even copies of the testimonials have not been furnished to them. It is not that the verification and authentication of the originals of testimonials is done on the same day. It is a process which requires time and it is carried out later date. The only action completed on the date of admission is only receipt of the original of the testimonials. Neither verification nor authentication is carried out on the same date, which exercise is admittedly carried out at much later date. Hence, a short window of opportunity to the petitioner would not have created prejudice or loss or injury to any of the parties. In that view, an attempt to cancel or prevent the petitioner from 15 completing the admission process prima facie appears to be vitiated by illegalities and would definitely cause irreparable injury.
19. That apart, the subsequent re-allotment must also consequentially fail. In that view, the following order:
―Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall not cancel the admission of the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall permit the petitioner to attend the classes and the academic course.
List the matter on 06.11.2024.‖
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, particularly the University, submits that pursuant to the interim order, the order cancelling the allotment of seat to the petitioner has been revoked and the order allotting it to a third party has also been cancelled and the admission process in respect of the petitioner has been completed by the College and the same would be taken further by the University and the process would be completed.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024. There shall be no order as to costs.16
7. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ G.NARENDAR, J __________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 07.11.2024 PSA 17 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.25150 OF 2024 07.11.2024 PSA