IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT University of Rajasthan Jaipur Vs. Dr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat & Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.868/1999) D. B. Civil Special Appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,1949 against the judgment dated 16-12-1998 of learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2470/1998. Date of Judgment: July 21, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. A. K. Sharma, for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for respondents No.1&2. BY THE COURT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated December 16, 1998 of the learned Single Judge whereby the order annexure-4 issued by the appellant was quashed qua the respondents No.1&2 and a direction was issued in favour of respondents No.1&2 to admit them in the session in question as per their merits. 3. During the course of arguments, our attention has been drawn towards the subsequent events in the matter. It is contended that charge sheet was filed on April 7, 2008 by the Anti Corruption Bureau Jaipur against the respondents No.1&2 under sections 7, 8, 13(1) (D) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 468, 471, 477A and 201 read with Section 21 of the IPC. It is further canvassed that in the order dated December 16, 1998 the learned Single Judge granted relief to the respondents No.1&2 observing as under:- “However, it is admitted that case has not been put up before the court nor the petitioners are accused in the FIR registered nor they have been associated in any investigation whereby they might have been accused of any such accusation nor the University has given them any notice before cancelling the result vide Annexure-4.” 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1&2 raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the instant appeal. It is urged that joint appeal against the impugned order of learned Single Judge was filed by the State of Rajasthan, the Convener, P.G. Admission Board and Principal and University of Rajasthan in the year 1999 therefore, the instant appeal which was also preferred in the same year against the said order was not maintainable. We have been taken through the material on record to show that in appeal No.867/1999 per-emptory order was passed by the Division Bench on September 16, 2003 directing the appellants that in case the amended cause title was not filed on or before September 30, 2003 the appeal automatically would stand dismissed. Pursuant to the order, the Registry on October 13, 2003 dismissed the appeal No.867/1999 preferred by State of Rajasthan, Convener P.G. Admission Board and University of Rajasthan. Having scanned the record, we notice that in appeal No.867/1999 name of University of Rajasthan had already been deleted on October 21, 2002 from the title and a note to this effect was made on the memo of appeal. It also appears that learned counsel for the respondents No.1&2 raised preliminary objection in the instant appeal which was rejected on October 21, 2002 thus:- “In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.867/1999 filed by the State, the University of Rajasthan is appellant No.3 from the cause title of the said appeal, the name of the University of Rajasthan has been permitted to be deleted from the array of respondent- appellant in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.867/99, because, the University of Rajasthan has filed this substantive DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.868/99. In this view of the matter, the objection of there being two appeals, does not survive.” 5. Since the preliminary objection raised before us has already been rejected, it cannot be reagitated and we dismiss the same. 6. In view of the charge sheet filed against the respondents No.1&2 we are of the opinion that matter requires reconsideration by the learned Single Judge. 7. For these reasons, we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of charge sheet under sections 7, 8, 13(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 468, 471, 477A and 201 read with Section 21 of the IPC filed against respondents No.1&2. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on August 11, 2008. Since the matter is very old, we request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. Till the writ petition is decided the parties shall maintain status quo in the matter. We however make it clear that direction to maintain status quo shall not affect either the trial of the criminal case pending in the trial court nor provide any right to the parties. 8. The appeal stands allowed as indicated above. No costs. (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/