Aided minority institutions must continue admissions when course-closure rejection remains unstayed.

Mazhuarul Uloom College, a minority aided institution, sought permission to close admissions to its B.Sc. (Mathematics) and B.A. (Corporate Economics) courses.

The competent authorities rejected the application, and the College challenged that rejection in W.P. No. 32855 of 2026. The rejection order was not stayed.

Meanwhile, seven minor students approached the High Court in W.P. No. 35278 of 2026 seeking admission to the two courses.

Since the academic year had commenced, the learned Single Judge directed the College and the authorities to process the students’ admissions, clarifying that any withdrawal of the courses would operate only from the next academic year and that the admissions would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions.

The College filed the present intra-court appeal against that interim order.

Whether the College could refuse admission to the two courses when its application for closure had been rejected and the rejection order had not been stayed.

Whether the learned Single Judge’s interim direction to process the students’ admissions, subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions, warranted interference in appeal.

Whether the College’s status as a minority institution justified interference with the interim admission direction at the interlocutory stage.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative or regulatory order remains operative and binding unless stayed or set aside by a competent court; therefore, an institution whose application to discontinue or close courses has been rejected must continue to offer admissions in those courses.

The Court also applied the settled principle that interim relief may be granted to preserve the existing academic and legal position, particularly where the academic year has commenced, provided that such relief is made subject to the final adjudication of the pending proceedings.

The Court further recognised that the College’s minority status did not, at the interim stage, override its obligations as a Government-aided institution or justify non-compliance with the operative rejection order.

The Court held that the College’s challenge to the rejection of its course-closure application did not suspend the effect of that decision because no stay had been granted in W.P. No. 32855 of 2026.

Consequently, the College remained bound to admit students to the two courses.

The students’ request for admission was therefore consistent with the operative legal position.

Given that the academic year had already commenced, the Single Judge’s direction to process admissions preserved the students’ academic opportunity while also protecting the College by making the admissions subject to the final result of both writ petitions.

The fact that the College was a minority institution and claimed autonomy in managing its courses did not justify appellate interference, particularly because it was a Government-aided institution and its application for closure had been rejected.

The Court affirmed that the admissions would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions and that any withdrawal of the courses could take effect only from the next academic year.

The appellants were permitted to seek expeditious disposal of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge.

No order was made as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.