High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/14490/1996dismissed

Paramjit Kaur Saini v. State Of Punjab And Others

2017-05-05Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.05.06 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.14490 of 1996 [ 1 ] ******

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.14490 of 1996 Date of decision:05.05.2017 Paramjit Kaur Saini

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is listed before this Court by the Registry as it has been found that service upon respondent no.11 has not been effected for want of correct address. It is found that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to admit her under the Sports category in the MBBS/BDS course in the government college(s).

On 08.11.1996, the following order was passed by this Court:- "Admitted.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was graded `B' in the sports category by the Director of Sports, Punjab, and she had also two other achievements and if those two had been taken into consideration she would have been admitted in preference to respondent No.12 and also that one seat each is lying vacant in B.D.S. And B.A.M.S. in sports category, we are of the view that request to give provisional admission to the petitioner is just and proper. Accordingly, the petitioner

CWP No.14490 of 1996 [ 2 ] ****** shall be admitted provisionally to the B.D.S. course subject to the result of this writ petition.

Issue order Dasti."

From the aforesaid order, it transpires that the petitioner has been given provisional admission in the B.D.S. Course while admitting the writ petition. The Court has taken a judicial notice of the fact that almost 20 years have passed since the petition was admitted and as the B.D.S. course is only of 5 years, therefore, the petitioner might have completed the course long back. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, instead of passing any order in respect of the service of respondent no.11, it would be just and expedient to take up the main case on board for adjudication as the prayer made in the main petition has become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition is taken up on board and is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. May 05, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No