VIJENDER JAIN, ACJ. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31. 1. 2006. The appellants had also filed a review application against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17. 2. 2006. Both the said orders are impugned in the present appeal. The case of the appellants as set out in the appeal is that they had applied for B. Ed. course through a common entrance test conducted by respondent no. 1-University and they were duly admitted on 8. 9. 2005 against the management quota. The appellants state that they also started attending the classes regularly after getting admission into B. Ed. course. All of a sudden their admission was cancelled by respondents without disclosing them any reason. They further state that appellant no. 1 holds a rank of 5090 and appellant no. 2 holds a rank of 1819 in the common entrance test. It is only after filing of the writ petition by the appellants, the respondents in their respective counter affidavits gave the reason of cancellation of their admission stating that they have the permission to fill the management seats treating them to be synonymous with the minority quota. ( 2 ) BEFORE we examine the arguments as advanced by the appellants on its merits we have been told by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the B. Ed. course for which the appellants were seeking admission was one year course for the academic year 2005-06 which has already come to an end. We also find from the impugned order of the learned Single Judge that the appellants themselves lost about two months time in seeking instructions and, therefore, there was a delay in passing the judgment which was rendered on 31. 1. 2006. ( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge has also observed that appellant no. 1 already accepted refund of their fees in October, 2005 itself. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the appellants when the academic session already ended on 6. 6. 2006. Even otherwise the appellant no. 2 has not filed any Vakalatnama in favour of the learned counsel who has been authorised to appear only on behalf of appellant no. 1. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the appellants when the academic session already ended on 6. 6. 2006. Even otherwise the appellant no. 2 has not filed any Vakalatnama in favour of the learned counsel who has been authorised to appear only on behalf of appellant no. 1. Be that as it may, we do not deal with the legal issues raised in this appeal. ( 4 ) THE present appeal has become infructuous and, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed. However, it will be open to the appellants to have recourse to other proceedings as are available to them under law. With these directions, appeal is dismissed.