Tanvi Jain v. Nalsar University Of Law

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.NO.14902 OF 2009

O R D E R

The case of the petitioner is that she appeared for Common Law Admission Test 2009 with Admit Card No.PA01U12196 and secured score of 151, and rank of 466. Vide letter 17.06.2009, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that she was allotted seat in 2nd respondent - Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow and vide letter dated 19.06.2009, she accepted, and paid admission fee of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent - University. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the second list of candidates, she was allotted to the 3rd respondent - University, and though she sough the 1st respondent, to consider her case for allotment to the 2nd respondent as per her rank, the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

On 28.07.2009, this court while admitting the writ petition passed the following interim order:

" It appears the petitioner was initially allotted a seat in the 2nd respondent University to pursue B.A., LL.B. Course and, accepting the same, she sent a letter of acceptance and paid Rs.10,000/- as required, but thereafter, she was shifted from 2nd respondent University to 3rd respondent University, admittedly, without any notice to hear. Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that though the petitioner was initially allotted a seat in the 2nd respondent University, in view of the sliding system, she was shifted to the 3rd respondent University, in accordance with her preference shown in the application form.

When the petitioner has submitted letter of acceptance and paid Rs.10,000/- as required for admission into 2nd respondent University, I am of he opinion that she should not have been shifted from 2nd respondent University to 3rd respondent University, without any notice, in the guise of sliding system.

In the circumstances, there shall be interim direction to respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to joint at 2nd respondent University and pursue B.A., LL.B. course commencing from the academic year 2009-10, pending further orders." No counter affidavit is filed.

Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel submitted that he is no more the Standing Counsel of the 1st respondent - University.

The duration of the course i.e., B.A., LL.B., is five years and by virtue of the interim orders, the petitioner was directed to be continued in the 2nd respondent - University from the academic year 2009-10. Respondents 1 and 2, did not choose to file any vacate petition, or counter affidavit, and thus allowed the interim order to work out, and the petitioner, in all probability, might have completed the course.

In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 28.07.2009. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

---------------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J DATE:19-06-2019 AVS