wp10918.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10918 OF 2010 Vasim Ahmed S/o Mohd. Gouse, R/o-Wangi Road, Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, [Health Department], 2) Director, Maharashtra Council Agril. Education & Research, 132/B, Bhamburda, Bhosalenagar, Pune- 411 007. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.S.R. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. wp10918.10 2 PER COURT [PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] : 1. The Petitioner vide present Writ Petition, seeks directions against the Respondent No.2 to admit the Petitioner in M.Sc. Agri. Animal Husbandry/Agricultural Economics Course. 2. Shri. Mustafa, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner could not get admission in three rounds, thereafter the spot admissions were conducted from 23rd September, 2010 to 26th September 2010, in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner being resident of Parbhani, decided to attend the spot admission at Parbhani and Latur. Unfortunately, the students who were present at Parbhani and Latur, were possessing more marks than the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner could not get admission. At the same time, the spot admission had taken place at Nagpur and two seats are vacant at Nagpur. The learned counsel for the Petitioner wp10918.10 3 contends that the Petitioner can be accommodated in the said seats at Nagpur. Even otherwise the said seats would remain vacant. 3. Shri. Deshpande, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the Petitioner was required to be present at the time of spot admission at Nagpur and if the whole programme is seen; the moment the spot admissions are over, the classes have started on 27th September, 2010. According to the learned counsel, more than 55% Course is already over and even the Petitioner would not be in a position to complete the requisite attendance. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we have gone through the programme of the admission. As far as spot admission is concerned, the student who was present at the time of said process, was given admission. As the Petitioner was not present wp10918.10 4 at Nagpur, he cannot claim any right to get admission in the said spot admission process nor he can complain that the others who were given admissions, were having less marks. Taking into account the fact that two seats are vacant at Nagpur, we would have considered the prayer of the Petitioner, had the Course not been completed to the extent of 55%. But as it is mandatory for the students to attend requisite number of classes, it is not possible to direct the Respondent No.2 to admit the Petitioner in the said Course. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to the costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp10918.10