ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is no more res-integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Anuradha (Miss) & Ors. Vs. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14669/2023; alongwith other connected petitions on 05.10.2023. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

8. This Court observes that the petitioners possess Post Graduation Degree in their respective subjects from the SHUATS, which is recognized by the ICAR. The petitioners have filled in the application form for Ph.D. Degree Entrance Examination-2023 from the State Agriculture Universities as per the General Guidelines for the Ph.D. Entrance for the Session 2023. The petitioners appeared in the examination in question and qualified as per the score, whereafter the petitioners were allotted the respondent-College(s); the petitioners have also duly completed all the admission formalities and procedures. The respondent-College(s) issued office orders, whereby the petitioners were directed to report for completion of the course work at the College of Agriculture, Bikaner.

9. Thereafter, the Dean, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Sri Ganganagar after receiving the direction from the JET Coordinator, Ph.D Entrance Examination-2023 cancelled the admission of the petitioners vide the impugned communication(s).

10. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abha George & Ors. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & Anr (W.P. (C) 12263/2021 & CM Appl.38369/2021, decided on 02.02.2022), as hereunder:

“Analysis

13. In the undisputed factual situation narrated above, the question which arises for consideration is whether the admission of a candidate, even if he/she is erroneously admitted, is liable to be cancelled in the absence of any wrongdoing or default on the part of the candidate. This question has been considered in several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court. Three judgments of the Supreme Court, and one of this Court, are particularly instructive for adjudication of the present dispute.

14. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University (1986) Suppl. SCC 740, the Supreme Court was concerned with a question of cancellation of admissions in engineering courses in Karnataka University. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioners were permitted to continue their studies in the college. The petitions were, however, ultimately dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court also came to the conclusion that the candidates were ineligible for admission. However, on the question of whether the students, having been admitted, should be permitted to continue their studies, the Court held in their favour for the following reasons:-

“8. We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie