IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.165 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.4.2010 Dr.Ibadat Preet Kaur ..Appellant versus State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate with Mr.Mehtab Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.4 ……… MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) 1. This LPA arose from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2009, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The dispute arose in respect of the admission against a seat arising from the LPA No.165 of 2010 second counseling in the discipline of Conservative Dentistry in MDS course. Respondent No.7 was selected against that seat. The appellant herein challenged the admission granted to respondent No.7 on the ground that the seat in question is meant for institutional preference and that respondent No.7 was not an institutional preference candidate as she had passed her BDS degree from Christian Medical College, whereas she had passed from the University. Therefore, in view of Clause 5 of Rule 30, she was entitled to get admission. The learned Single Judge rejected her claim. 2. In the ground of Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant made an averment that respondent No.7 has since relinquished the seat and joined job under Central Government. Taking note of that ground, notice of motion was issued on 8.2.2010 by passing the following order:- It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that there were only two claimants for the seat of ‘conservative surgery’ in MDS course sought by the appellant. As per appellant, the selected candidate respondent No.7 has since resigned and joined a job under the Central Government. Issue notice of motion to the respondents returnable by 3.3.2010.” 3. On 15.3.2010, counsel for the respondent-College as well as University were directed to seek instructions in the matter particularly, in respect of shifting of the appellant to the desired seat in view of parallel nature of the curriculum averred by the appellant. Today, Mr.Gupta, appearing for the University as well as Mr.Khosla, appearing for respondent No.1, submit that curriculum already pursued by the appellant in Oral Surgery is by and large the same. 4. Since the seat is lying vacant and in view of the statements made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 4, we direct respondent No.4 –University to adjust the appellant herein against the seat vacated by respondent No.7, as the curriculum already pursued by the appellant in Oral 2 LPA No.165 of 2010 Surgery is by and large the same. In view of this direction, no further grievance of the appellant survives and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 5. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of Special Secretary of the Bench. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 08.04.2010 (JASBIR SINGH) gk JUDGE 3