Interim direction to furnish a report was upheld as causing no prejudice without granting positive relief.

The first respondent, an aspirant for a medical course, applied for admission under the Eminent Sports Persons quota, which comprised 15 seats—13 for MBBS and 2 for BDS.

The parties agreed that Form-2 had to be submitted in accordance with the applicable prospectus.

The State authorities contended that the Form-2 submitted by the respondent was not accompanied by the relevant certificate and, consequently, no marks were awarded to her, resulting in denial of an MBBS seat under the sports quota.

The respondent disputed this and maintained that the Form-2 submitted by her was sufficient but had not been considered.

The respondent instituted W.P. No. 32349 of 2026.

In the writ proceedings, the Single Judge directed the appellants to furnish a report.

The State preferred the present writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, challenging the interim order dated 3 September 2026.

The State also contended that all 15 sports-quota seats had already been filled and that the selected candidates had joined the courses.

1. Whether the Form-2 submitted by the respondent complied with the requirements of the prospectus and entitled her to consideration and award of marks under the Eminent Sports Persons quota?

2. Whether the writ proceedings or the interim direction to furnish a report were maintainable or prejudicial, considering the State’s contention that all 15 seats had been filled and the selected candidates had joined the courses?

3. Whether the interim order passed by the Single Judge warranted interference in the intra-court appeal?

The Court applied the procedural appellate jurisdiction under Clause XV of the Letters Patent governing intra-court appeals against orders of a Single Judge.

It also applied the requirements of the admission prospectus concerning submission and verification of Form-2 for the Eminent Sports Persons quota.

The Court proceeded on the principle that disputed factual questions—such as whether the Form-2 was accompanied by the requisite certificate and whether it was sufficient for awarding marks—should be determined on merits by the writ court rather than conclusively decided in an appeal against an interlocutory direction.

It further applied the principle that an interim direction requiring the filing of a report, without granting positive or final relief, would not ordinarily cause prejudice warranting appellate interference.

The Court found that the parties’ competing positions regarding the sufficiency of the respondent’s Form-2 and the accompanying certificate raised disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by the Single Judge on merits.

The State’s contention that the seats had already been filled and that the selected candidates had joined was also treated as an issue yet to be examined in the writ proceedings.

Since the impugned order merely directed the appellants to furnish a report and did not positively direct the grant of admission or disturb any selection, the Court held that the interim order caused no prejudice to the appellants.

Accordingly, appellate interference was unwarranted, although the appellants were granted one week to comply with the reporting direction so that the writ court could consider the matter on merits.

The appellants were granted one week from 16 September 2026 to submit the report directed by the writ court.

The disputed questions concerning compliance with Form-2 requirements, award of marks, availability of seats, and the respondent’s entitlement to admission were left open for determination by the writ court on merits.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.