Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Anoop Ji Choudhary, Ms. June Choudhary, Madhya Pradesh Shukla, Ms. Ekta Choudhary
For the Respondent : Ms. Janhavi Pandit

ORDER (ORAL) SUJOY PAUL, J. : – Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. This common order will dispose of W.P. Nos. 2661/2022, 2733/2022, 4231/2022 and 4543/2022. In these batch of petitions, the petitioner have called in question the legality, validity and the propriety of the order dated 20-1-2022 whereby under the order of Health Commissioner, the respondents decided to cancel the allotment of seats pursuant to second counselling for the singular reason that in the allotment of second round of counselling for ‘certain reasons’ reservation roster has not been followed.

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the petitioners submitted applications for four years graduation course of nursing for the year 2020-2021. After becoming successful, they were permitted to participate in the second round of counselling. In the second counselling, they were duly selected. Institutions were allotted to them. In turn, they took admission in the concerned Institution and started attending their classes.

3. It is common ground that the impugned order of cancellation of second counseling dated 20-1-2022 Annexure P-4 came as a bolt from blue whereby the second counselling and consequently admission of petitioners were cancelled.

4. Shri Anoop G. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate submits that this Court passed a detailed bi-parte order on 11-2-2022 and considered all the relevant facets of the matter and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 20-1-2022 (Annexure P/4) with further direction to permit the petitioners to continue in the relevant course and attend their classes.

5. Shri Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate submits that the reasons mentioned in the interim order passed by this Court still holds the field but in the interest of justice it is necessary to elaborate the same. To elaborate, learned senior counsel submits that the four years’ course is followed by a job to be given to the petitioners. Thus, all the petitioners have a right to livelihood which is recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Mareddy Seetharathnam vs. Siruvuri Venkatarama Raju and others , (2011) 5 SCC 576 has considered this aspect in sufficient details. This right of livelihood is taken away by passing the impugned order without following the principles of natural justice. The impugned order entails civil consequences and could not have been passed without following the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

6. In absence of following the principles of natural justice, the impugned order suffers with unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Reliance is placed on Cantonment Board, Dinapore and others vs. Taramanidevi 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 501, Union of India and others vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another , (2001) 2 SCC 386 , Om Kumar vs. Union of India , (2001) 8 SCC 491 and Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. vs. Ram Bahagat , (2002) 6 SCC 552 . Reference is made to Delhi Development Authority and another vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS flats and others , (2008) 2 SCC 672 by contending that principles of natural justice, reasonableness and fairness is heart and soul of decision making process and if process flouts the said salutary principles, it hits Article 14 of the Constitution.

7. The next reliance is placed on Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and ot