LAWS(SC)-2013-1-114

DEVASMITA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On January 16, 2013
Devasmita Chakraborty Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. These appeals arc directed against the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2012, passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT No. 653 of 2012 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the Appellants' prayer to pass interim orders regarding the acceptance of their Registration Forms. The writ Petitioners, who arc the Appellants herein, are students who were admitted in the MBBS Course in the Medical College established by the Indian Centre for Advancement of Research and Education under the name and style of ICARE. pursuant to the affiliation granted by the West Bengal University of Health Sciences on 18th August, 2010. It appears that the Essentiality Certificate, which had been granted, was subsequently withdrawn on 16th November, 2011, as also the order dated 28th November, 2011. passed by the University withdrawing its consent to affiliation. On 9th December, 2011, the Medical Council of India also withdrew its letter of permission. Consequently, the Appellants, who had been admitted to the MBBS Course, were not allowed to register their names for appearing for the examination for the Academic Session 2011-2012.

(2.) The Appellants' prayer for interim relief had been rejected, both in the writ petition as also in the appeal. The present appeals were filed by the students and, in the pending special leave petitions, an interim order was passed on 25th May, 2012, to the following effect:

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the Appellants were allowed to participate in the First Year Examination, but their results have been withheld in terms of the above order. I.A. Nos. 11-12 of 2012 were, thereafter, filed in the special leave petitions, inter alia, for a direction upon the concerned Respondents to declare the results of the Appellants for the First Year MBBS Examination, which was conducted by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and the results have been kept in a sealed cover, pursuant to the directions of this Court.