Heard. By the instant petition. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the. ’order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure PM passed by respondent No.2/University and have also prayed for direction to respbndents No. 2 & 3 to declare their result for 3'” §emester examination of Bachelor of Engineering courses of changed Branches. ~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP (c1 No. 1882109 Petitioner 1. Shivdutt Shukla, S/o. Shridutt Shukla aged about 20 years, R/o Behind HB Colony, Shukla Flour Mi", Balco, Korba (CG) . 2. Khusboo Agrawal. D/o Shri Govind Prasad Agrawal, Aged about 19 years, C/o Ramji Halwai, Ramsagarpara. Raipur (CG) . Versus Resgondents 1. Siate of Chhattisgarh, Department of Technical Education, Through its Secretary, DKS Bhavan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, 492001. 2.. . ' Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through its Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector- 8, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vice Chancellor, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, 4. Chhattisgarh. Raipur Institute of Technology, Through its Principal, Chhatauna, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. All India Council for Technical Education, Indira Gandhi $ports Complex, lndraprasth Estate, New Delhi. 5.3 : Hon’ble Shri Dhirengra Misha, J. 12.11.2009: Mr. Manindra Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dadariya and Mr. Harsh Vardhan, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3/University. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal with Mr. Ankit Singhal, leamed counsel College/respondent No.4. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned Assistant Solicitor General of AICTE/respondent No.5. Anand 2 & for the India for _..&~ Briefly stated, the dispute involved in ts petition is that the petitioners were admitted in respondent No. 4/College onithe basis of Common Entrance Examination. While the petitioners were pursuing their studies in the 3'“ Semester in their allotted Branches, counseling was held by respondent No.4/College for change of Branch and ascordingly. the petitioners were permitted to change their respective Branches. Respondent No.2/University initially issued admission cards to the petitioners for appearing in the examination of 3rd Semester of changed Branch. However, considering the fact that the change of Branch was permitted by the College without permission of the University, the impugned order of Annexure Pl1 was passed and their change of Branch effected by the College was temporarily rejected. n these circumstances, the instant petition was tiled. The sum and substance of the dispute in this petition is that the College could not have admitted students over and above its intake capacity in any particular Branch. However, by allowing change of Branch, the College has admitted the students in excess to its intake capacity in various Branches. As per directions of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.5/AICTE in WP(c)No. 952/09 stating therein that seats available under lateral entry in 3“! Semester are to be tilled up by the classes of students, for which it is meant as per notification and the same cannot be filled in by change of Branch from General Category. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/AICTE, on instructions, submits that in case, the College concerned submits its proposal with respect to the petitioners herein for permission to pursue their studies in the changed Branches, the same may be considered as per AICTE regulations, keeping in view the overall interest of the students, who have been permitted to appear in 3’“ Semester examination of their changed Brach. However. she submits that liberty may be reserved to AICTE to proceed against the erring College in accordance with AICTE regulations. Mr. Y.S. Thakur. learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 & 3/University, submits that the University would abide by any decision that is ultimately taken by the AICTE with respect to change of Branch of the petitioners. However, he prays for liberty to proceed against the erring College in accordance with rules and regulations of the University. Mr. Saniay K. Agrawal with Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/College, submits that the College shall forward its proposal {with regard to its’permission for change of Branch of the petitioners to AICTE for its approval. He further submits that liberty be r t Eg. hi i 2 a. ~3a reserved to respondent No.4/COHege to take appropriate lega! remedy, in case any adverse action is initiated by the University or AICTE. Mr. Manindra Shrivastava. learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Dadariya and Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. submits that the instant petition may be disposed of in view of submissions made by teamed counsel for the respondents. However, liberty‘be reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court. in case any fresh cause of action accrues to the petitioners, for filing appropriate proceeding available under the law. (I ln view of above submissions of learned counsel for the parties. the instant petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) Respondent No.4/College shall submits its proposal alongwith copy of this order with regard to its permission for change of Branch of the petitioners to respondent No.5iAlCTE latest by Monday 16‘“ Novemberl 2009 for‘its approval. (ii) On receipt of such proposal from respondent No.4/College, the same shall be considered by respondent No.5/AICTE as per AICTE regulations keeping in View the overall interests of the students. who have been permitted to pursue their studies in 3'“ Semester of their changed Branch and have been also permitted to appear in the examination of 3’“ Semester. The decision shall be taken on or before 19th November, 2009 as examination of 4th Semester is to commence in the fourth week of November, 2009. lt is made clear that concessions given by the respondent No.5/AICTE, respondent No.2/University and respondent No.4r’College is without prejudice to their right to take appropriate action under the law, rules and reguiations against the erring institutions. and also without any prejudice to the right of the under the law. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to'tile fresh petition, if cause Certified copy by tomorrow i.e. 13.1 1 .ZOQW Dhireedra Mishra Judge respondent No.4/Coliege to pursue its legal remedies available of action still survives. \‘