SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI. with S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Rajju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3768 of 1995. D/d. 9.2.2000

Banaras Hindu University - Appellants

Versus

Mahendra Kumar Gupta - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 136 - Education - Admission - Respondents filed writ petition for seeking direction for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course - Single Judge directed the university to give admission to the respondents in the next session, if admission in current course was not possible - Appeal by University, dismissed by Division Bench - University preferred special leave petition - Respondent No. 3, during pendency of SLP, withdrew from litigation as he had, by then, completed his studies in Agricultural Science, as he could not join M.B.B.S. Course - Other respondents also did not join - Despite service, they are not present - Only one respondent sent a written statement by post seeking direction to the University to grant him admission in Post Graduate Medical Clinical Course - Matter being of academic interest, is left open, without any expression of opinion on the interpretation placed by the High Court - Appeal dismissed as infructuous.

[Paras 2 to 5]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - The writ petition filed by the respondents seeking a direction for admission to the M.B.B.S. course was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the University's appeal against that order failed before the Division Bench. A direction had been given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants to grant admission to the eligible students in M.B.B.S. course in the next academic session in case it was not possible to do so in the current session. The University has filed this appeal by special leave.

2. It appeals that on behalf of the University it was stated before the Bench of this Court hat admission had not still been granted to the respondents pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge and the dismissal of appeal by the Division Bench. This Court on 8th August, 1994, while issuing notice in the special leave petition directed maintenance of status quo. Leave was granted on 24th March, 1995.

3. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 has completed his studies in agricultural science because he could not joint the M.B.B.S. course on account of the stay order granted by this Court and that respondent No. 3 has no more interest in this litigation.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, other respondents also did not joint the M.B.B.S. course. Respondents through served, are not present before us. A written statement has been sent by post by respondent No. 6 and the prayer made in that written statement is to the effect that the 'appellant be directed to admit the said respondent in Post-graduate Medical Clinical Course.' That prayer is beyond the subject-matter of the writ petition and cannot be granted by us.

5. In view of the subsequent developments, as a result of the stay order granted by this Court, learned Counsel for the parties agree that in this appeal what now remains only is of an academic interest. We are not inclined to undertake the exercise. Without expressing any opinion on the interpretation placed by the High Court on the requirement of attendance by the Academic Council and leaving that question open, we dismiss this appeal as infructuous. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.