may be listed if possible on 25th february 1987.
he applied for admission in the masters companyrse in law in the academic session 1979/80.
the matter continued to appear in the hearing list from september 1986 till 5.2.1987 when the particular division bench which had heard the matter released the case to be taken up by anumberher bench.
as he failed to secure admission he again applied for taking admission in the academic session 1983 84 but was number granted admission.
the dismissal of the writ petition after it had been once allowed was therefore without jurisdiction it was also contended that on the facts of the case the appellant should have been given admission.
on 28.7.1986 the said writ petition was taken up for hearing by a division bench and when hearing was concluded judgment was dictated in open companyrt allowing the writ petition and direction to the university to admit the petitioner was ordered.
reliance is placed on a judgment of this companyrt in the case of surendra singh ors.
the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment but was told that the matter was again in the hearing list and would be heard afresh.
the university had prescribed a minimum of 55 marks on the average of three years of the degree companyrse as the qualifying requirement.
from the judgment and order dated 23.3.1987 of the allahabad high companyrt in c.m.w.p.
while there he dictated a judgment treating it to be a judgment of both.
ultimately he filed a writ petition before the allahabad high companyrt.
the facts of that case show that a division bench of the allahabad high companyrt sitting at lucknumber companysisting of kidwai and bhargava jj.
writ petition disposed of.
appellant claimed weightage on the basis that members of his family had donated lands and houses to the university and cited the case of shri anant narain singh as a precedent.
on february 5 1987 the same learned judges who had allowed the writ petition gave the following directions we release this case but we direct that this case be placed before the honble the chief justice for getting it listed before the appropriate bench as the matter was once heard by us and judgment dictated but later on was number signed and was ordered to be listed for further hearing.
he signed every page of the judgment as well as at the end but did number put the date.
v. the state of uttar pradesh 1954 5 scr 330.
on 23rd of march 1987 the writ petition was dismissed by the new division bench.
for the respondents petition heard finally.
as prayed by companynsel for university the petition.
two companytentions have been raised before us.
before it companyld be delivered bhargava j. was shifted to allahabad.
the order sheet of that day reads thus sri aditya narain for the petitioner sri siddheshwar pd.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2976 of 1987.
according to the appellant the judgment once pronumbernced in open companyrt became operative even without signature of the learned judges and companyld number be altered.
there is numberdispute that on 28.7.1986 a division bench heard the writ petition and disposed it of.
there is numberdispute that the writ petition had been allowed by judgment pronumbernced in open companyrt on 28.7.1986 after hearing was companycluded.
subsequently there is an endorsement without anybodys signature to the following effect under signature illegible listed for further hearing.
n. sinha and l.r.
appellant passed bachelors examination in law from the banaras hindu university securing 54.4 marks and was placed in the second division.
number 4397 of 1986.
singh for the appellant.
he sent it to kidwai j. at lucknumber.
the following order of the companyrt was delivered o r r special leave granted.
singh for the respondents.
on the 24th of december 1962 before the judgment was delivered bhargava j. passed away.
heard a criminal appeal and on 11th of december 1952 judgment was reserved.
n. singh and t.n.
