- (1.) NONE is present on behalf of petitioner, though the name of Mr. Rakesh Matoria, has been shown in the cause list.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submits that the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2011 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in DBSAW No.220/2012- Coordinator, PTET & Anr. Vs. Dharampal vide the order dated 10.04.2012 following a detailed judgment of Division Bench in another DBSAW No.73/2012- Coordinator PTET, 2011 Vs. Urmila & Ors., decided on 09.04.2012. He, therefore, submitted that the present contempt petition filed by the petitioner for the alleged breach of order/directions of the learned Single Judge, deserves to be dismissed. 2. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition No. 11889/2011 of the petitioner had directed on 21.12.2011, as under: - "In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for admission to the B.Ed. Course against the seats directed to be kept vacant for the petitioners by this court by way of interim order or against the other vacant seats available in the various colleges, keeping in view their merits and preferences of the colleges, opted by them. The entire exercise for grant of admission to the petitioners shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. No order as to costs." The Division Bench of this Court while allowing the respondent's appeal (SAW No.220/2012-Coordinator, PTET & Anr. Vs. Dharampal) has held as under: - "Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed in Coordinator PTET 2011 and Ors. Vs. Urmila and Ors. (supra). The reasonings and conclusions arrived at in the said decision shall equally apply for disposal of this appeal. A copy of the order passed in the aforesaid matter be kept in the file of this case and it be treated as part of this order. No cost."
(3.) WHILE allowing the respondent's appeal preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court, followed the judgment rendered in DBSAW No.73/2012- Coordinator, PTET 2011 Vs. Urmila & Ors., wherein it has been held as under: - "In our opinion, the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant has a force and hence deserves acceptance. In our considered view, when admittedly the one year academic session began in November 2011 and it is upto November 2012 and when the impugned directions are not yet implemented till April 2012, due to stay granted to by this Court in this appeal, then it would not be in the interest of Institution or Students to allow them to now join such academic session in mid session. Indeed this is what is held by the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh's Case (see 2002 (7) SCC 258 Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh) wherein it is clearly observed that Court should refrain from giving directions to give admission to any student in mid-term session, which does not serve anybody's purpose. This is what the Supreme Court held in Madhu Singh's case: "There is no scope for admitting students midstream, as that would be against the very spirit of statute governing medical education. Even if seats are un-filled, that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions." We are thus not inclined to examine the issue as to whether Writ Court was justified in accepting the case of the writ petition for issuing such directions on its merits because in our considered opinion, the direction to hold the second counselling in mid session itself was uncalled for being in contravention of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Madhu Singh's Case supra. In the light of foregoing discussion, which alone is sufficient, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and in consequence; the writ petition out of which this appeal arises is dismissed.";