1. Appeal against High Court directions for admission to a medical course following a writ petition. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 325
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., Doraiswamy Raju, S.R.Babu, JJ.
Banaras Hindu University And Another
Versus
Mahendra Kumar Gupta
Case No. : 3768 of 1995
Date of Decision : 2/9/00
Important Points
A legal dispute becomes infructuous and may be dismissed without a decision on the merits if the relief sought is no longer viable or the matter has become purely academic due to changed circumstances.
Subject
Education Law - Academic Admissions
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Admission to professional course - Infructuous proceedings - Where a stay order granted by the court prevents students from joining a course, and subsequently, the students pursue other studies or lose interest, the litigation becomes of purely academic interest - Court not inclined to decide on the interpretation of attendance requirements when the relief sought is no longer viable. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking admission to a medical course. The Single Judge allowed the petition, and the Division Bench dismissed the subsequent appeal. A stay was granted by the apex court. Due to the stay, one respondent completed studies in another field, and others did not join the course. One respondent sought admission to a post-graduate course, which was beyond the scope of the original petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter had become purely academic due to the passage of time and the actions of the respondents following the stay order.
Issues: Whether the appeal should be decided on merits regarding the interpretation of attendance requirements when the underlying relief for admission is no longer sought or possible.
Ratio Decidendi: When the subject matter of a litigation becomes purely academic and the parties no longer seek the original relief, the court may dismiss the appeal as infructuous without expressing an opinion on the legal interpretations involved.
Result: Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking admission to a medical course. The Single Judge allowed the petition, and the Division Bench dismissed the subsequent appeal. A stay was granted by the apex court. Due to the stay, one respondent completed studies in another field, and others did not join the course. One respondent sought admission to a post-graduate course, which was beyond the scope of the original petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the matter had become purely academic due to the passage of time and the actions of the respondents following the stay order.
Issues: Whether the appeal should be decided on merits regarding the interpretation of attendance requirements when the underlying relief for admission is no longer sought or possible.
Ratio Decidendi: When the subject matter of a litigation becomes purely academic and the parties no longer seek the original relief, the court may dismiss the appeal as infructuous without expressing an opinion on the legal interpretations involved.
Result: Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. University challenged the High Court's admission directions; respondents' interest in the litigation lapsed due to stay orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. The dispute became purely academic as respondents no longer sought the original relief and new requests exceeded the petition's scope. (Para 4 )
4. An appeal is dismissed as infructuous when the subject matter becomes purely academic and the original relief is no longer sought. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed as infructuous; question regarding attendance requirements by the Academic Council left open. (Para 4 )
6. When is a legal appeal dismissed as infructuous?
An appeal is dismissed as infructuous when the subject matter of the litigation becomes purely academic and the parties are no longer interested in the original relief sought. (Para 4 )
7. Can a court grant a prayer that is beyond the subject matter of the original writ petition?
No, a prayer that is beyond the subject matter of the original writ petition cannot be granted by the court. (Para 4 )
(1) THE writ petition filed by the Respondents seeking a direction for admission to the M.B.B.S. course was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the Universitys appeal against that order failed before the Division Bench. A direction had been given by the learned Single Judge to the Appellants to grant admission to the eligible students in M.B.B.S course in the next academic session in case it was not possible to do so in the current session. The University has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2) IT appears that on behalf of the University it was stated before the Bench of this Court that admission had not still been granted to the Respondents pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge and the dismissal of appeal by the Division Bench. This Court on 8th August, 1994, while issuing notice in the special leave petition directed maintenance of status quo. Leave was granted on 24th March 1995.
(3) MR. Ranjit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 submits that Respondent No.3 has completed his studies in agricultural science because he could not join the M.B.B.S. course on account of the stay order granted by this Court and that Respondent No.3 has no more interest in this litigation.
(4) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, other Respondents also did not join the M.B.B.S. course. Respondents though served, are not present before us. A written statement has been sent by post by Respondent No.6 and the prayer made in that written statement is to the effect that the Appellant be directed to admit the said Respondent in Post-graduate Medical Clinical Course. That prayer is beyond the subject matter of the writ petition and cannot be granted by us. ments, as a result of the stay order granted by this Court, learned counsel for the parties agree that in this appeal what now remains only is of an academic interest. We are not inclined to undertake that exercise. Without expressing any opinion on the interpretation placed by the High Court on the requirement of attendance by the Academic Council and leaving that question open, we dismiss this appeal as infractuous. No costs.
