ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. These interlocutory applications have been filed by the applicants (1) Ritesh Kumar, (2) Ausaf Khalil, (3) Pratyush Kumar, (4) Anurudh Kumar (all applicants In LA. No. 1886 of 2005); (5) Chitranjan (applicant in LA. No. 1891 of 2005); (6) Dhyan Kumar Horo (applicant in LA. No. 2317 of 2005); (7) Md. Azharuddin (applicant in LA. No. 2238 of 2005). 2. At the time of hearing of the said interlocutory applications, one Santosh Ram also prayed for intervention claiming himself similarly situated with the applicants of the said interlocutory application. 3. The claim of the said persons is that they are the regular students of first year of B.Sc. (Engineering) of the Cambridge Institute of Technology of the Session 2003-2007 and they were admitted in the management quota/free seats as permitted to the said institute. The names of the said students were also registered by the Ranchi University and Registration Numbers were also allotted to them. They have given their respective Registration Numbers in their applications. According to them, they have completed their courses and have passed their Terminal Examination and have also deposited Examination Fee of Ranchi University and filled up the Examination Form. They are the regular students of First Year Engineering of the said Session 2003-2007, but Admit Cards have not been issued to them though after an order passed in the instant writ application. Examination Fee and Forms have been accepted by the University of the other students of the In stitute. According to them, they are equally entitled to appear in the First Year Examination of the Session 2003-2007 and that of the similar treatment which has been given to the other students. 4. In reply to the writ application, the University had taken a stand wherein it has been stated that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) granted extension of approval to the petitioner-institute for the period 2003-2004 for maximum seats of 184 and accordingly Registration Numbers have been allowed only to 184 students. Over and above the said maximum 184 students, the University cannot accept any form of any additional students and cannot allow them to appear in Examination. Over and above the said maximum 184 students, the University cannot accept any form of any additional students and cannot allow them to appear in Examination. It has been stated that 10 non-collegiate students including the persons named hereinabove claim that they have been admitted in 2002-2003, but the same has not been found correct by the University and if the excess number of students have been admitted. by the petitioner- institute, they cannot be allowed by the University to appear in the examination. 5. By order dated 8.7.2005 passed in the instant writ application, this Court observed, in view of the submissions made by the parties, that the University in accordance with its stand can accept the Examination Forms of and Fee of the Students of the petitioner institute, intending to appear in the First Year Examination of the B.Sc. (Engineering) of the University and in case of any objection regarding the claim of any individual candidate, shall assign reason after affording the candidate and the petitioner-institute proper opportunity to explain. Accordingly, some students appeared before the University authority and they were given hearing and it was found that the said student are of 2003-2007 batch and they were given Registration Number, but they were beyond the said maximum number of 184 candidates, approved by the AICTE. 6. In reply to the interlocutory applications, the petitioner-institute has stated that though the intervenors were admitted in the petitioner-institute for the Session 2002-2006, yet the said students were allowed to take re-admission in the next Session 2003-2007. In that circumstances, the said students will be excess to the prescribed number, but according to the provisions made by the All India Council of Technical Education in its regulation regarding excess admission, the same may be adjusted by reducing the annual intake of the institute during the next Academic Year. It has been stated that in view of the said provision, the petitioner-institute shall reduce its intake in number of students in the next session, Le., 2004-2008 and in that way the said persons- intervenor applicants can be allowed to appear in the First Year Examination of B.Sc. (Engineering) of 2003-2007 session. 7. It has been stated that in view of the said provision, the petitioner-institute shall reduce its intake in number of students in the next session, Le., 2004-2008 and in that way the said persons- intervenor applicants can be allowed to appear in the First Year Examination of B.Sc. (Engineering) of 2003-2007 session. 7. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the specific stand of the petitioner-institute, the intervenors/persons who are the students and specifically named hereinabove, in my view, should be given the same treatment as those of the other candidates who are being allowed to appear in the First Year Examination of B.Sc. (Engineering) of 2003-2007 session. The interlocutory applications are accordingly, disposed of with said observation/ direction. LA. No. 2318 of 2005 : 1. In this application, the applicants who are the students of the petitioner-institute have prayed for a direction to the University for holding Examination of B.Sc. (Engineering) First Year which is being deferred by the University without any rhyme or reason though earlier the schedules for examination were published. 2. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submitted that the University has already published a Schedule and was ready to hold Examination of the B.Sc. (Engineering) First Year 2003-2004 Session, but it is the institute and the students of the institute who raised their grievances and for redressal of the same, the Examination was deferred and now since the controversies have been resolved, there will be no delay provided no further list is furnished by the institute to the University showing some other students as the students of Session 2003-2007. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- institute has submitted that the institute has already submitted, a list and except the processing of the leftover forms and fee of the intervenors and the persons named hereinabove, no further list is to be submitted by the institute. 4. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel, this interlocutory application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner-institute shall process the names of the leftover students whose names have been given in the order passed dated 6.09.2005 in LA. Nos. 4. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel, this interlocutory application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner-institute shall process the names of the leftover students whose names have been given in the order passed dated 6.09.2005 in LA. Nos. 1886 of 2005, 1891 of 2005, 2317 of 2005 and 2238 of 2005 within a period of three weeks and thereafter on receipt of the appropriate Forms and Fees etc., the University shall publish the Schedule of Examination preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said Forms, Fees and other relevant documents from the institute. This interlocutory applications is, accordingly, disposed of. WP (C) No. 3663 of 2005 : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the earlier directions and the orders passed in different interlocutory applications (LA. Nos. 1886 of 2005, 1891 of 2005, 2317 of 2005, 2238 of 2005 and LA. No. 2318 of 2005) filed in this writ application, no more cause is left to be agitated by the institute and as such the petitioner does not want to proceed with this application any further. 2. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further proceeding is required in this case. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.