Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. Singhdev, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2, appearing on advance notice states that once the respondent has reduced the renewal of 150 seats from 150 to 100, the answer is obvious that the respondent does not consider the petitioner fit for fresh intake of more than 100 seats. Hence, the question of fresh intake of 100 more seats is a non-starter. Additionally, the academic year 2025-26 is also over.

9. For the said reasons, on the basis of the statement of Mr. Singhdev, learned standing counsel, it is clear that the appellate Committee cannot sit over the judgment of the High Court, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the appeal is impliedly rejected.

10. Even though there is substance in the submission of Mr. Singhdev, learned standing counsel, I am of the view that once the appeal is rejected, the petitioner will have a substantial right to challenge the same before this Court. The said right cannot be curtailed.