1 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4634/2006 Ms. Praful Bala & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit,for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Toshniwal for Mr.N.M.Lodha A.A.G., for the respondent. .... This writ petition was filed by the two petitioners on 07.08.2006 essentially stating the grievance in the manner that they applied for and took the examination of RPMT/RPVT- 2006 wherein, from out of the seat reserved for ST category, 45% reservation was provided for the candidates belonging to the tribal area and they were the bona fide candidates belonging to the tribal area; that the respondents Nos. 6 to 11 also applied in the same tribal area category but, according to the petitioners, the said respondents Nos. 6 to 11 were not the bona fide residents of tribal area and were wrongly issued the certificates on incorrect information supplied and were wrongly considered against the merit of the candidates belonging to tribal area and thereby, the petitioners were deprived of their right to get admission. In this writ petition, show cause notices were ordered to be issued on 24.08.2006 and the petition remained pending for long with some of the private respondents having not been 2 served. When the matter was listed for orders before the Court on 28.08.2008, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 referred to the interim reply as filed on 14.09.2006 stating, inter alia, that in the counseling held on 08.09.2006, both the petitioners were found eligible and were given admission respectively in Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur and Government Medical College, Kota; that enquiry was made in relation to some of the candidates and, when the given information was found incorrect, their admissions were cancelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought a copy of the said reply that was ordered to be given and having regard to the circumstances, while dispensing with the service of the other respondents, the matter was ordered to be placed for admission. Today, though the fact that the petitioners have since been accorded admission is not disputed but then, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners with reference to prayer clause (v) in the writ petition and the facts as stated in the reply that when the information as given by some of the candidates was definitely found incorrect, appropriate action ought to be taken against the authorities who issued the false certificates. The arguments so made are responded with the submissions that the issue of taking action against the authorities concerned entails entirely different an enquiry and for that aspect the 3 petitioners ought to approach the relevant authorities but cannot in this petition legitimately ask for issuance of any writ in that regard. The fundamental of the grievance of the petitioners, of themselves having been deprived of admission because of false claim made by other persons as residents of the tribal area, having been redressed; and the petitioners having been accorded admission, the submissions as sought to be made now on their behalf, of issuance of directions for taking action against the authorities who issued the certificates are difficult to be countenanced. The respondents have pointed out that the requisite enquiry was made and when the information given by some of the candidates about their entitlement on the seats reserved for trial area persons was found incorrect, their admissions were cancelled. The reply submissions are essentially pointing out the satisfaction of the authorities dealing with such admission process that the information given by some of the candidates was not correct. So far the subject-matter of this writ petition is concerned, the respondents seem to have acted in accordance with law and the petitioners have been given admission after canceling some of the questioned admissions. So far this writ petition is concerned, no cause of action appears surviving. 4 As to whether the authority had issued any “false” certificate is a question calling for an entirely different enquiry and the present writ petition does not appear to be fit a case to take up or even to issue directions for taking up such an enquiry. This petition is rendered infructuous and is required to be dismissed as such. However, before parting with this order, it is noticed that two petitioners have filed this one as a joint writ petition. In relation to admission to a particular course, even if the petitioners were having similar cause of action, they were not having the same cause of action. However, for the petition having been entertained and for having been rendered infructuous, the same is required to be dismissed but then, the petitioners ought to make payment of court fee as required for individual’s writ petition. Hence, the petitioners are required to supply requisite court fees to make up the deficiency. The requisite court fees stamps to make up the deficiency be supplied by the petitioners before a certified copy of this order is issued to them. With the requirements aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni