Point of Law: What is evident from the list of students sent on 7.8.2018 by the College and the second which is annexed by the University in its affidavit-in-reply which is dated 4.8.2018 is that the Management Quota of 15 had not been acceded by the College.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Both these petitions are filed by student who has sought admission to the B.Ed Course under the Management Quota. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018 was granted admission in the subject of science in the Open category of the Management Quota, whereas, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16406 of 2018 was granted admission in the category of the Management Quota belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category.

2. Pending the petitions, initially, this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.16406 and 16404 of 2018 passed separate orders on 22.10.2018 (Coram: Ms.S.G. Gokani – J.) which read as under:

“1. The present petitioner seeks intervention of this Court, since, the order has been passed on 17.10.2018 by the University- respondent No1 not approving her admission in the First Year of the B.Ed. Course with respondent No4. She has, on completion of her B.Sc. Studies, been given admission in the B.Ed. course. She has been given admission in the Management Quota, pursuant to an advertisement published by respondent No3. She belongs to Schedule Tribe category and she is desirous of pursuing her studies of B.Ed. with Mathematics and Science subjects.

2. It is averred in the petition that the examination is commencing from 26th October, 2018 for the First Semester of B.Ed. course and she has is orally intimated that in wake of the subsequent developments, she may not be given the permission to appear in the examination.

3. This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Ms. Vyas, for the petitioner, who has urged that no reason is given by the University- Respondent No1 while making the impugned communication to the petitioner denying admission. She further, has urged that even if, there is any objection with regard to the Management Quota, then also she fulfills the criteria.

4. Let an urgent NOTICE be issued, keeping in mind the ensuing examination, making the same returnable on 24TH OCTOBER, 2018.

5. Since, learned Advocate, Mr. Vin, appears for Respondent No1-University, he shall be served an advance copy.

Direct service is permitted, TODAY.”

3. On 25.10.2018, a common order was passed by this Court (Coram: S.H. Vora-J.) which reads as under:

“Learned advocate for respondent seeks time to file reply.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Upon hearing learned advocates at bar and considering the facts of the case, it appears that there is a clear vacancy under Management Quota with respect to Science subject and such vacancy fell on account of surrender of seat of one Ms. Prachi Kamleshbhai Talati. It is a matter of fact that respondent – College accepted fees of 15 students under Management Quota (including present petitioners).

In light of this position, present petitions deserve consideration and therefore, pending hearing of the present petitions relief in terms of para-8(B) is granted but on condition that the admission and appearance of the petitioners in the examination shall remain subject to further order that may be passed by this Court after considering the pleadings to be filed by the respondents in the present proceedings. S.O. to 14.12.2018.”

4. Since both these petitions arise out of a common controversy i.e. the order dated 17.10.2018 by which the respondent No.1 – University did not approve their admission to the B.Ed Course, learned counsels Ms.Mamta Vyas for the petitioners, Mr.C.J. Vin for the respondent No.1 – University and Mr.B.S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Chirag Patel for the respondent No.4 confined their arguments and facts on facts of Special Civil Application No.16404 of 2018.

5. The facts in brief are as under:

Prayer in both the petitions were common i.e. to set aside an order of 17.10.2018 passed by the respondent University by which the admission of the petitioners was not approved by the Centralized Admission Committee and accordingly the respondent No.4 College was directed to see that the petitioners discontinued their