The petitioners are students and are admitted in B.Ed. Course by respondent No.2-College, which is affiliated to respondent No.1-University and having intake capacity of 100 students.
Upon issuance of notice on 18th June 2012, on the returnable date, i.e. on 27th June 2012, none represented on behalf of respondent No.1-University, but, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-College made a request for time to file affidavit-in-reply, which is placed on record, whereby, it is made clear that no student was left out in the list of respondent No.1-University who were seeking admission in respondent No.2-College and, therefore, the petitioners, 20 in number, were accommodated and given admission by following procedure against the intake capacity of 100 students, since, earlier, 80 admissions were already granted.
In spite of service, none appears for respondent No.1-University.
Rule returnable on 5th July 2012.
Direct service is permitted.
If none appears for respondent No.1-University on the next date of hearing, appropriate order in accordance with law will be passed.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top