Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs Preeti Sangwan & Ors on 9 October, 2009
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Daya Chaudhary
L.P.A. No. 970 of 2009 (O&M) (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 970 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 09.10.2009
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. ..........Appellants
Versus
Preeti Sangwan & Ors. ..........Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
ORDER
1. The appellants are aggrieved by interim order passed by learned Single Judge allowing admission provisionally to students who qualified in fresh examination conducted under the earlier interim order.
2. Respondent No.1 filed writ petition alleging irregularities in conduct of entrance test for admission to the MBBS course. Vide order dated 15.7.2009, a Committee was directed to be constituted to look into the said allegations. Accordingly, the said committee gave its report. After considering the report, interim order dated 18.8.2009 was passed, inter-alia, directing that candidates who were selected will continue provisionally and a fresh examination be held. Accordingly, fresh examination was held and candidates who passed in the fresh examination L.P.A. No. 970 of 2009 (O&M) (2) also were allowed to continue and interim orders were passed for provisional admission. The matter is now fixed for 29.10.2009.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the interim order to the effect of cancelling of the admission of the appellants, who had qualified the earlier examination but could not participate in the second examination for want of clear information, was not justified.
5. The interim order being subject to further hearing by learned Single Judge and admissions having been made provisionally, there is no ground to interfere. All contentions sought to be raised in the appeal can be raised before learned Single Judge.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
October 09, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No