MAYANK NANIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 4 is said to have not been served for want of fresh particulars. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said respondent remains only a proforma party. Having regard to the submissions made, while dispensing with the service on the respondent No. 4, we have heard the matter on merits.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 03.01.2014 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 12545/2013, which in our view, remains just and proper, particularly in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) THE respondent -University appeared before the Court and moved an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the submissions that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.: : 2005 (2) SCC 65, no admission to the MBBS Course could be granted after 30th September of the relevant year. It was also pointed out by the contesting respondents that the admission was denied to the petitioners for their failure to produce original documents in the counseling as required.