- (1.) THE matter has come up for orders on second stay application filed on behalf of respondents nos. 2 and 4, but at the request of the parties, the arguments were heard and the special appeal is being disposed off finally.
(2.) THE writ petitioners/respondents no. 1 to 4 filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12972/2011 before Single Bench with the following prayers:- "(i)By an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the petitioners are eligible and entitled for admission in Postgraduate (M.D./M.S.) of Ayurveda pursuant to their selection in JPGEE 2011. (ii)By further appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioners for counseling for admission to PG Course as mentioned in Para prayer (i) and for admission in PG (M.D./M.S.) of Ayurveda may kindly be declared to be illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to give admission to the petitioners in PG (M.D./M.S.) of Ayurveda 2011 with all consequential benefits i.e. with effect from the date other candidates are given admission in the above course. (iii)Any other order which this Hon'ble Court considers expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners. (iv)THE cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners. There is no dispute between the parties that admission in P.G. (M.D./M.S.) of Ayurveda, 2011 are required to be given by National Institute of Ayurveda and the present appellant National Institute of Ayurveda was impleaded as respondent no.2 in the writ petition and no notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent no.2 National Institute of Ayurveda of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per their prospectus, the In-service candidates are required to submit certificate from employer for three years. He also submitted that the writ petitioners cannot be said to be In-service candidates. He also submitted that appellant was necessary party and was impleaded as respondent no.2, but without any notice to them, the writ petition has been decided. He, therefore, submitted that either it may be clarified that order of Single Bench is not binding on appellant or case be considered on merits or it may be remanded to Single Bench for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Since, the appellant National Institute of Ayurveda was necessary, interested and affected party and it was not given an opportunity to defend the writ petition, therefore, we have two options; first, is to decide the special appeal on merits; and second, is to remit the matter to Single Bench to decide the writ petition afresh, after affording an opportunity of filing reply and of hearing to present appellant. Since, reply to writ petition on behalf of respondent no. 2 (present appellant) is not available therefore, we opt the second option and remit the matter to Single Bench to decide the writ petition afresh.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the special appeal is allowed. The impugned order of Single Bench is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Single Bench for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits, after hearing all the parties. The appellant/respondent no.2 National Institute of Ayurveda is directed to file reply to the writ petition before the Single Bench by 23rd April, 2012. Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the Single Bench on 25th April, 2012. It will be open for the writ petitioners to make request for interim order in the facts and circumstances of the case and subsequent development took place in the matter. Consequent upon the disposal of the special appeal, the stay application no. 13489/2011 and the second stay application no. 4017/2012 also stand disposed off. ;