Judgment:
ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent to issue Hall tickets to 16 students admitted in the second petitioner institution as per Annexure-D and to permit them to appear for the examinations for the first year D.Ed course commencing from 17.11.2008 and also to declare their results.
2. First petitioner is the society which has started second petitioner institution to impart education and training in D.Ed course. It is the case of the petitioners that they made admissions for the academic year 2007-08 for the first year D.Ed course of 16 students. According to the petitioners, as the students admitted to the first year D.Ed course for the year 2007-08 were not permitted to take up the examination, they filed this writ petition and obtained an interim order. Based on the interim order granted on 14.11.2008, 16 students admitted have been permitted to take the examination. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, except asserting that the petitioners made admission for the academic year 2007-08, no other particulars have been furnished as to when the admissions were made and when the list was submitted to the competent authority for approval and why the competent authority did not approve the admissions.
3. After service of notice, respondents 1 to 3 have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections. In paragaph-3 of the statement of objections, it is stated that the calendar of events for D.Ed. course for the academic year 2007-08 was published by the authorities and as per the same, the last date for admission under the management quota was fixed as 14.12.2007 and the list of students was required to be submitted to the competent authority for approval on or before 31.12.2007 and the competent authority had to approve the said list on or before 10.01.2008 and the D.Ed. course had to commence on 21.11.2007. It is further contended that all the institutions in the State were required to function in accordance with the calendar of events issued by the competent authority. Copy of the calendar of events is produced along with the statement of objections at Annexure-R1. It is further contended in the statement of objections that in the instant case, second petitioner institution forwarded the list of 16 students for approval only on 19.11.2008, that is to say, after the commencement of examination on 17.11.2008. The case of the respondent is that if the petitioner institution intended to admit students for D.Ed course for the academic year 2007-08 and had in fact made any admissions in this regard, nothing prevented them to submit the list of students as per the calendar of events.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings, what emerges is that the last date for admission for D.Ed course for the academic year 2007-08 so fixed is 14.12.2007. Classes were required to commence on 21.11.2007. The last date for approval of admission was 10th January 2008. Examinations were to commence on 17.11.2008 and only two days prior to the commencement of the examination the petitioner institution has filed this writ petition on 14.11.2008 and has obtained an interim order on the same day. The students have been permitted to take the examination subject to the result of the writ petition. The list of students admitted was sent to the competent authority on 19.11.2008. It thus transpires that the list of admitted students is submitted after obtaining the interim order. The interim order was obtained without disclosing this fact. As already adverted to hereinabove nothing is stated in the writ petition as to when admission was made and why the list was not sent to the competent authority as per the calendar of events and why the same was not approved. In these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner institution has made admissions defying the calendar of events published and has forwarded the list of students admitted taking the support of the ex-parte interim order obtained.
5. Petitioner institution has indulged in this illegal act of making admissions so as to circumvent the cut-of-dates prescribed by the authorities to ensure proper training of the students who are undergoing the D.Ed course. Such institutions do not deserve any kind of sympathy or concession. On the other hand, they have to be dealt with sternly. The authorities have to take necessary action against the petitioner institution after holding proper enquiry so that it proves as an eye-opener for other similar institutions that may venture upon such illegal acts.
The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.