1 2025:CGHC:27098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1988 of 2021 1 - Sachin Toppo S/o Sushil Toppo Aged About 23 Years Student Of B. A. M. S. (Ayush), Chhattisgarh Ayurved Medical College, Manki Rajnandgaon R/o Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences And Ayush University Of Chhattisgarh Through The Vice Chancellor, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Registrar Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences And Ayush University Of Chhattisgarh New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Ayurved Medical College, Manki Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents And WPC No. 2147 of 2021 1 - Aarti Bara D/o Prasnath Bara, Aged About 23 Years Student Of B.A.M.S. (Ayush), Chhattisgarh, Ayurved Medical College, Manki Rajnandgaon R/o Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences And Ayush University Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Vice Chancellor, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 3 - The Registrar Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences And Ayush University Of Chhattisgarh, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Registrar, Chhattisgarh Ayurved Medical College, Manki Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Amit Bakshi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already participated in the examination and they clear it and thus, these petitions have become infructuous. 2. Mr. Amit Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would support the contention made by Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have already appeared in the examination, therefore, these petitions are dismissed being rendered infructuous. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach this Court if new cause of action arises. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge v atti