1 W.P.No.10051/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10051 OF 2010. Prashant S/o Vishwas Muley and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.P.Golewar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.V.Wagh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt.Solicitor General for the Respondent No.6. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 02.02.2011. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.10051/10 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioners state that they were students of Mahesh Ayurvedic College, Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed, of B.A.M.S. course which is of four years' duration. By an order dated 25.9.2010, issued by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, New Delhi, it was decided not to grant permission to Mahesh Ayurved Medical College and Hospital, Ashti, Beed, to admit students for B.A.M.S. course for the academic year 2010-2011. 4. The petitioners contend that they were students of first year in the academic year 2008-2009. They had appeared in the first year examination but they failed. The Respondent - University allowed the petitioners to appear again for the said examinations. The results were withheld due to order passed by the 3 W.P.No.10051/10 Central Government. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case of two students, namely, Ransing Dipali Popatrao, Pathade Priyanka Sominath, the University had transferred these students to another recognised College. Copies of the said communications are placed on record along with the copy of the order passed by the Central Government. We have heard submissions of learned counsels for Petitioners, University and Union of India and the Respondent Management. 6. The learned counsel for the Management and the University stated that the order passed by the Central Government has been implemented. The College is not functioning. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the University submits that unless the Court orders, the result of the petitioners would not be declared and in case this Court orders, the University would contemplate to accommodate the petitioners in other Colleges, wherever the seats 4 W.P.No.10051/10 are lying vacant. 8. In the order passed by the Central Government, we do not notice that any further instructions are given to accommodate the students of the said College who were admitted in accordance with the admission Rules. The counsel for the University submits that University laws do not have any such provision to remedy the present situation. 9. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we pass following order : (a) The Respondent - University is directed to declare results of the petitioners in case the petitioners have appeared in the first year examination held in June 2010. (b) In case the petitioners are declared passed then the University shall take necessary steps to accommodate the petitioners in other Colleges wherever the vacancies are available. 5 W.P.No.10051/10 10. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp10051.10