When the matter is called out, no one appears for the respondent No.1.
2. The Controller of Examination [CEO] filed affidavit in reply dated 24.09.2012 on behalf of respondent No.1-university. Further, respondent No.2-college through its Principal has filed detailed affidavit placing on record the list of eligible students along with their enrollment forms, requisite fee submitted by the students, which in turn accepted by the competent officer of the university. The deponent of the affidavit has also produced rules for B.Ed. admission for the academic year 2010- 11 and current academic year 2012-13. Clause [iii] of the said rules empowers unaided institutions should fill up their 20% management quota or quota approved by the Admission SCA/8134/2012 2/2 ORDER Control Committee from eligible candidates through the general merit list prepared by the Admission Control Committee. In support of the above, no reply is rendered by the respondent - university.
3. Having heard learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent - college, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Court Act, I hereby direct the respondent No.1 university to issue necessary hall tickets to the petitioners in the ensuing B.Ed. examination.
Post the matter on 1st November, 2012.
Direct service to serve respondent No.1 through fax, is permitted .
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv