1 MGJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LD) no. 1249 of 2010 Hemlata Madhukar Tadawalkar ..Petitioner vs 1 Union of India and another ..Respondents Mr.V.M.Thorat i/b Mr.P.V.Thorat for petitioner Mr.D.A. Athavale with Mr.D.A.Dubay and Mr. N.R.Prajapati for respondents. Writ Petition (Ld) No. 1265 of 2010 Dr.Anuj Paras Surana ..Petitioner vs. 1 Union of India and another ..Respondents Mr.V.M.Thorat i/b Mr.P.V.Thorat for petitioner Mr.D.A. Athavale with Mr.D.A.Dubay and Mr. N.R.Prajapati for respondents. Writ Petition (Ld) No. 1269 of 2010 Petitioner vs. 1 Union of India and another ..Respondents Mr.V.M.Thorat i/b Mr.P.V.Thorat for petitioner Mr.D.A. Athavale with Mr.D.A.Dubay and Mr. N.R.Prajapati for respondents. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, ACTING C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 18th June 20100 P.C. 1 These three petitions have been filed by the petitioners who had appeared for PGM-CET examination conducted by the respondents for the Academic Year 2010-2011 on 20th January 2010. The petitioners were 2 successful. The only grievance of the petitioners was that the first merit list was published on 21st April, 2010. Thereafter second merit list came to be published on 20th March, 2010 but the petitioners did not figure in both these merit lists. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the order dated 13th May, 2010 passed by the Supreme Court the respondents were directed to hold third round of admissions (extended second round of admission) and that such extended round of admissions was to commence from 2nd June, 2010 to 12th June, 2010 but as the petitioners did not remain present for the second round of admissions held on 11th May 2010 because of the faulty procedure adopted by the respondents, the petitioners are deprived for being considered for admission which, according to the respondents, was only meant for candidates who could not get admission in the second round of admission though they attended counselling . It is the case of the petitioners that they would have got admission against the P.G. Seats meant for the subjects of their choice and institutions specified by them in the petition. The petitioners had moved the Court in vacation and considering the cases put forth by the petitioners this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the counselling scheduled at New Delhi between 2nd June, 2010 to 12th June, 2010. It was further made clear that the participation by the petitioners as directed above shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court on the next date of hearing. 2 We are now informed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents that the second extended round of counselling which was held between 2nd June 2010 and 12th June, 2010 , the 3 petitioners have got admission to PG course but that is subject to further orders to be passed by this Court as per this order passed in vacation on 2nd June, 2010. 3 It is contended by the Counsel for the parties that now the petitioners have got the admission in the P.G. Seats for which they attended extended round of counselling, nothing survive in these petitions. 4 Considering that the petitioners have now got admission to P.G. Seats and there is no grievance about their eligibility so far as against the seats secured by them in the second extended round we dispose of these petitions with a direction to the respondents to confirm the admissions of the petitioners against the seats secured by them in the second round of extended counselling. 5 In view of the fact that the petitioners have got admissions, nothing survives in these petitions and the petitions stand disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.