1. CWP No.16945 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.16945 of 2010 (O&M) Dr. Rupinder Bansal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents 2. COCP No.1661 of 2010 (O&M) Dr. Rupinder Bansal ....Petitioner VERSUS Sh.Surinder Singh Gill and another ....Respondents 3. CWP No.11104 of 2008 (O&M) Dr. Rupinder Bansal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Decided on : 05-05-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Sagar, Addl. AG, Punjab with Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent no.3 MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of three petitions bearing CWP no. 1. CWP No.16945 of 2010 (O&M) 2 16945 of 2010, COCP no. 1661 of 2010 and CWP no. 11104 of 2008. The petitioner has filed the petition no. 16945 of 2010 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the registration for the MDS course for the session 2007-08. The petitioner applied for MDS course 2007 as he was eligible. Two candidates were selected; the petitioner as also respondent no.5 who was higher in merit than the petitioner. The said respondent no.5 could not avail of the seat for some reasons and the course was thus offered to the petitioner. Subsequently, a complaint was made by the respondent no.5 against the petitioner to the University alleging irregularity in the admission process. Vide orders dated 6.12.2007 the admission of the petitioner was invalidated by the University which was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP no. 11104 of 2008. The respondent no.5 also filed CWP no. 19072 of 2007 challenging the selection of the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 24.1.2008 with liberty to challenge the notification and this resulted in filing of another CWP no. 1266 of 2008 in which notice of motion was issued but no interim directions were given. Eventually this writ petition was also got dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 19.1.2010. It is pertinent to state here that in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner bearing no.11104 of 2008 interim directions were given by this Court on 2.7.2008 staying the impact of the order dated 6.12.2007 vide which the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled by the University. The cumulative effect of the entire process is that petitioner has since concluded the course and the challenge of the respondent no.5 to 1. CWP No.16945 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the admission of the petitioner stands extinguished. His grievance is thus that the respondents are not offering him the necessary registration for the MDS course. The contempt petition bearing no.1661 of 2010 has also been filed separately alleging violation of the orders of this Court dated 2.7.2008. In the reply submitted by the University to the contempt petition it has been stated in para no.5 that since no suitable directions have been issued for registration of the petitioner, the same has not been done and that the University has no objection if such directions are given by the Court. In the writ petition a similar response by the University has been reiterated. In view of this, when the University has no objection to the grant of the registration to the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the only challenge to the admission of the petitioner mounted by respondent no.5 stands extinguished, I am of the considered opinion that there is no impediment in the way of the petitioner to be granted the necessary registration by the University, moreso, when under the interim orders of this Court, he has already completed course successfully. Consequently, the writ petition no. 16945 of 2010 stands allowed. The respondent University is directed to grant the necessary registration to the petitioner and for not taking an appropriate decision even after respondent no.5 had withdrawn the petition and failing to note that there is no interim direction in the way of the petitioner and moreso, even college had brought this to the notice of the University, I am of the considered opinion that the University deserves to be burdened with costs which are assessed as Rs.10,000/- and the same shall be paid to the petitioner. 1. CWP No.16945 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Before parting with the judgment it is to be noticed with concern that competent authorities are expected to take the decision after evaluating the facts and their impact on the prayer which has been made before them and it should not be left to the Court to decide the matters which are in the domain of the competent authorities enabled and authorized to take such decisions. Such futile exercise only results in sheer wastage of the time of the Court. In view of the above, no separate orders are required to be passed in CWP no. 11104 of 2008 and rule in COCP no.1661 of 2010 stands discharged. May 5, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge