Dismissed
Ravish Rathee v. State of Haryana and Others
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/12473/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12473 of 2004 Date of decision: 24.03.2014
Ravish Rathee
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the admission of private respondents being lower in merit and directing the respondents to give admission in MBBS and BDS courses on the basis of merit to all dependents of Ex-servicemen.
The petitioner was provisionally allowed to participate in the counseling which was to be held on 28.08.2004 by the respondentUniversity. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard with CWP No. 13907 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction granting the petitioners admission in the subsequent admission process in the year 2006-07.
A perusal of the written statement filed by respondent no. 1 would go on to show that the petitioner got his attendance marked on 28.08.1994 in the counseling but left the counseling without appearing in the counseling process. The case of the petitioner thus, could not be considered for admission in the MBBS course. Similar is the written statement on behalf of respondents no. 5 to 7.
Counsel for the petitioner has no fresh instructions as to whether the petitioner has taken admission in the said course or subsequently has taken admission elsewhere.
The present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to revive the petition in case the lis still subsists.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
24.03.2014
Gupta Shivanishivani 2014.04.01 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Ravish Rathee
State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court