HIGH CGURT 6f: CHHATTSSGARH AT EILA$?UR UiViSiGN EENCH €O@Mz HQN’BLE SHRI JkGDiSH BH.&’\LLA, Ag. CJ. & HGN’BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. rit Petition (C) No.5§85 o? 200%? k y &~rv¢%~v W d I V Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india Present : Shri TK Tiwari, counsei for the petitioner. $hri Yashwant Singh, Government Advocate for the State. GEM. GRQEFt reassed on 17*“ October, 2007) The foiiowing orai order of the Court wee passed by Hon”bie Jagdish Ehaiia, Ag. 6d. The petitioner has approached this Court when, according to him, he was not aiiowed to participate in the counseiiing for acimiesion x in iviBBS course by respondent No.1. We have been informed by the r Petitioner Sawesh Chcubey. aged about 20 years, son sf Shri Onkar Nath Coubey, resident of — 3-541, Street - 3, Smriti Nagar Bhilai, Dist! Durg {CG} Versus §espondenis 1. Central Beard of Secondary Education A1! md§a / Pm=mad§cal 1 Pre-Dentai Entrance Exammation Unii, Through — its Controiier {An Autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Human Resources Deveiopment) Government of india, 2 Community Centre. Preet Vihar, Dei’ni, 119092 2. The Secretary. Department of Human Resouroes and Deveiopment, Government of india, New Deihi. 3. The Principai. Government Dentai Coiiege, Raipur (CG) @ iearned Government Advocate that on 30m 8eptember aH the admissions have been ci0$e§ in the tight of the Jwgment of Hon’bie Apex Court in the matter of Mridui Dhar (Minoai and another Vs. Umbra of indie and others — [2065) 2 SCC‘ - 65. According to the petitioner, he has been given admission in BDS course. Thereafter, petitioner wanted to appear in the counseiiing for MBBS course, was asked to leave his EDS course and then appear in the counseiiing. Petitioner refused to ieave the BD$ course and hence. was not permitted to appear in the counseiiing for MBB$ course. However, petitioner was marked absent in the counseiiing, though he was not permitted. The petitioner instructed his counsel to prepare the writ petition and affidavit of the same was done on 09.09.2001 however, the petition was fried on 18.03200? On 24.09.2907, the defautt was made good. Thereafter, on 05.10.2GG7 when the matter was taken up by this Bench. the case was adjourned on the request of Shri Anii Tripathi, counsei for the petitioner and it was ordered to be listed on 15.10.2007. We cannot understand why urgency was not shown on behalf of the petitioner before 30.09.2001 The writ petition was ready on 09.09.2007, fried on 18.09.2007, detects were removed on 24.09.2007, and even on 05.10200? adjournment was sought as referred to hereinabove. Learned counsei for the petitioner has reiied upon para 24 of the iudgment in the matter of indien Barth Vs. A33 Marine Products Pvt. \ \ Ltd.- 2506 AIR SCW 27'56, which reads as under : “2d. Qne word before parting. Many a time. after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either reiax the appiication of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the iaw in View of the peculiar facts or in View of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. Whiie doing So, normally it is not stated that such direction / order is \ \ \ @S in exerciSe of power under Articie 142. it is not uncommon to find that courts have fouowed not the law deciared, but the exemption / :eEaxation made while mouleiing the re!ief in exercise of power under Aiiicie 142. When the High Courts repeatediy foilow a direction issued under Articie 142, by treating it as the iaw deciared by this Court, incongruousiy the exemption l reiaxation granted under Articie 142 becames the iew, though at variance with the law declared by this Court. The courts shouid, therefore. be carefui to ascertain and follow the ratio decideedi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Art.'i42. One solution to aveid sueh a situation is for this Court te clarify that a particular directian or pertion of the order is in exercise of power under Article 142. Be that as it may.” We are oi the opinion that the iaw laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is binding upon this Court. However, learned counsei for the petitioner could not expiain how the aforesaid iaw is applicabie in this case in light of the law laid down by Hon‘bie Apex Court in the case oi Wiridul Dhar (supra) wherein specific time scheduie has been fixed along with directions so that admission process shail come to an end by a specific date. Further we find that para 14 of the said judgment is cwstai ciear with regard to period of academic session and closure of admission after 30"“ September each year. For the purpose of admission, this Court follows the verdict in the case of Mridui Ditar {supra}. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in this matter. The Writ petition is dismissed. Sdl- Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Jagdish Bhalla i Ag. Chief Justice subbu