1. Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition and Writ Petitions — Challenge to policy regarding entrance examination failure under Article 32. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1596
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
S. Hymavathi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
National Testing Agency & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(s).14546 of 2022
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Important Points
Dismissal of petitions and applications with liberty to approach the High Court, and refusal to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution based on the issue raised.
Subject
Civil Law - Constitutional Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Dismissal of Petitions - Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition and Applications - Dismissal of Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and petitions with liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 687/2022 had failed twice in the JEE (Advanced) and raised an issue of policy.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Leave Petition, petitions, and applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was not entertained and dismissed.
Issues: Withdrawal of petitions, dismissal of petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, and failure in JEE (Advanced) raising an issue of policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the withdrawal of the petitions and applications with liberty to approach the High Court. The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was not entertained due to the issue raised. The petitioner's failure in the JEE (Advanced) did not warrant the court's intervention.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition, petitions, and applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was not entertained and dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumanth Nookala, Advocate, Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, Mohd Asad Khan, Advocate, Mr Anupam Chaudhary, Advocate, Ms Yogyta Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Mr Ujjaval Sinha, Advocate, Mr Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Satwik Parikh, Advocate, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Rishad Murtaza, Advocate, Mr. Sajal Singhai, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sonal Jain, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate, Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate, Ms. Kajal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivasta, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, (applicants) Mr. R.C. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ilin Saraswat, Advocate, Ms. Rohini Wagh, Advocate, Mr. Ananya Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Ilma Saifi, Advocate, For Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sumanth Nookala, Advocate, Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, Mohd Asad Khan, Advocate, Mr Anupam Chaudhary, Advocate, Ms Yogyta Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Mr Ujjaval Sinha, Advocate, Mr Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Satwik Parikh, Advocate, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Rishad Murtaza, Advocate, Mr. Sajal Singhai, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sonal Jain, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate, Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Advocate, Ms. Kajal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivasta, Advocate, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, (applicants) Mr. R.C. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ilin Saraswat, Advocate, Ms. Rohini Wagh, Advocate, Mr. Ananya Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Ilma Saifi, Advocate, For Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Request for withdrawal to pursue alternative remedies — Challenge to policy regarding entrance examination failure. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that petitions raising issues of policy regarding entrance examination failures are not entertainable under Article 32. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Petitions raising issues of policy are not entertainable under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 2 )
5. Special Leave Petition, Writ Petitions, and applications dismissed as withdrawn or dismissed on merits. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Can a petitioner withdraw a petition with liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226?
Yes, the court may permit the withdrawal of petitions and applications with liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 )
7. Are petitions raising issues of policy entertainable under Article 32 of the Constitution?
No, the court is not inclined to entertain petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution when the matter raises an issue of policy. (Para 1 , 2 )
ORDER
SLP (C) No(s).14546/2022
1. Mr C U Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks the permission of the Court to withdraw the Special Leave Petition in order to move the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge.
2. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P.(C) No. 661/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 669/2022
1. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seek the permission of the Court to withdraw the petitions with liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
IA Nos 122566. 122567. 122568. 122928. 122930. 122931. 122937. 122942 and 122947 of 2022
1. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants seek the permission of the Court to withdraw the applications with liberty to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
W.P.(C) No. 687/2022
1. The petitioner has admittedly appeared and failed twice in the JEE (Advanced). The petition raises an issue of policy.
2. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
