SCA/18238/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18238 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ARPITA GUNVANTRAI JOSHI - Petitioner(s) Versus JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COURSES & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR UTPAL M PANCHAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 02/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for the appropriate directions to quash and set SCA/18238/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT aside the merit list produced at Annexure-A and the admissions made thereof and it is also prayed to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with the rules to offer admission to the petitioner on the basis of the merit-cum-preference. 2. Upon hearing Mr.Panchal for the petitioner and Mr. Shukla for the State Authorities, it appears that the controversy is related to the academic year of 2006-2007 for the admission from Diploma to Degree. No interim relief was granted in the present petition. As a result thereof, the admissions are completed and the students who have been granted admission as per the list prepared by the authority are prosecuting the studies. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in disturbing the admission already granted and to upset the position that as has already lived the life. Therefore, it can be said that the petition has become infructuous by afflux of time. 3. Mr.Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner had not opted for admission at a place where she was offered admission, but this Court may direct the respondent authority to prepare the merit list keeping in view the Rules for the next academic year of 2008-2009 with a view to avoid further complications in the matter and the same would SCA/18238/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT be in the larger interest of the students. 4. In my view, such question cannot be decided on hypothesis. If the petitioner applies for admission in the next academic year and her name is not properly shown in the merit list, the matter may stand at different footing and the same in any case would be a fresh cause of action. Therefore, no prayer for issuing direction for the next academic year can be entertained on the hypothesis that the authority shall not prepare the list in accordance with law and again the question may be required to be considered. 5. The petition has become infructuous. It is clarified that if the petitioner applies for admission in the next academic year and is aggrieved by any of the action of the authority, the petitioner shall be at the liberty to ventilate the grievance and the disposal of the present petition shall not operate as a bar to the present petitioner in ventilating such grievance/s. Subject to the aforesaid observations, Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy