:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1557 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1557 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1557 OF 2008 Ms. Pooja Sudam Patil ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. U. P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. M. D. Naik, AGP for the Respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. R. Rodriques for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Petitioner has approached this court for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with reference to the admission process conducted by the respondent No. 2 for 30% All India quota from the respondent No.2 Institute. Petitioner seeks further directions that the respondent No.2 shall accept the application form of the present petitioner herein for Bachelor of Technology Course conducted by the respondent No.2 for Academic year 2008-2009. :2: 2. As per the Rules published by the Government of Maharashtra for 30% seats, the last date for making the application was 13.6.2008 and this date was published by the Government of Maharashtra and respondent No.2 on 24.4.2008 itself. Admittedly, this date has never been changed by the Respondents. 3. The petitioner is a candidate trying to seek admission in 30% seats reserved for All India quota for which examinations was conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. All India Engineering / Architecture Entrance Examination, 2008 ("AIEEE 2008") was conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education. In order to give admissions on the basis of the said examination in the affiliated colleges , the Central Counselling Board has been constituted under Rule 13(2). The said Central Counselling Board conducts the Central Counselling for giving admissions at the affiliated colleges to the candidates who are found qualified under Rule No. 12 of AIEEE 2008 Rules. In Rule No. 12 it has been provided that the candidates scoring above certain cut off percentage / marks (being different for General and SC/ST/PH category candidates) will be called for counselling and that such cut off marks :3: shall be determined at the time of declaration of AIEEE results. Cut off percentage of marks for OBC shall be determined as and when orders are issued for the same. 4. These Rules further provide that All India Rank and marks shall also be released on the website and that the results of AIEEE 2008 are likely to be declared on or before 7th June 2008 and further that the score card will be dispatched to the candidate from 12.06.2008 to 28.06.2008 under Certificate of Posting (rest Rule is not relevant). 5. Therefore, there are conditions in respect of counselling to be carried out by Central Counselling Board under Rule 13, and those students who have been selected will be given admissions in Educational Institutions which are participating institution in AIEEE 2008. 6. The Respondent institution is not a participating institution in AIEEE 2008 and therefore these Rules are directly not applicable to the respondent institution. Respondent institution is governed under the Rules which are known as Government of Maharashtra Rules for admission to the :4: First Year of 4 Year Degree Course in Engineering / Technology in all the autonomous institutions. The date 13.6.2008 has been declared on 24.4.2008 under the Maharashtra Rules. It appears that even though there are AIEEE 2008 non participating institutions in the State of Maharashtra still the State of Maharashtra has provided 30% seats for the candidates who have appeared at AIEEE 2008 examination and it has been provided that the candidates who are eligible for Central Counselling aforesaid will be entitled to apply. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the petitioner and the candidates like her were to get mark sheet under Rule 12 till 28.6.2008, the Authorities under the Maharashtra Rule should have fixed the last date for submission of applications after that date. This submission has no merit. Basically the result of AIEEE 2008 were to be declared on or before 7.6.2008 as per the Rules of AIEEE 2008 and in fact have been declared on 3.6.2008. The petitioner herself has downloaded score card on 5.6.2008 and her rank for B.E/B. Tech has been shown as 36855 (All India Rank). The only thing whether she is eligible for Central Counselling or not is not reflected in the score :5: card downloaded on 5.6.2008. The claim of the petitioner appears to be that she had down loaded the score card again on 18.6.2008 as stated in the petition and in that score card it is stated that she is eligible for Central Counselling. Therefore Mr. Warunjikar contends that she has applied on 19.6.2008 and her application was not accepted the same having been made after the last date i.e. 13.6.2008 and therefore she has approached this Court by the present petition. 8. It is required to be stated that case of the respondents is that when the results of AIEEE 2008 were declared they noticed that in the score card of many of the candidates, it was not stated whether the said candidate is eligible for Central Counselling or not and therefore realising that several candidates would be adversely affected by the said Condition which is incorporated in the prospectus of the Government of Maharashtra, they decided to relax the said condition in favour of the students. In order to make it known to the students they published notice dated 17.6.2008 in The Times of India and have put up the said notice also on website of the respondent. It appears that taking cognizance of the said notice, atleast 461 students :6: have made applications to the respondents, and the provisional merit list was also prepared by the respondents, which is at page 165, Exhibit G to the petition. We notice that the said merit list is as per the All India Ranks. All India Rank of the petitioner was known to the petitioner on 5.6.2008 when she down loaded her score card and therefore for the petitioner there was no obstacle to make an application on or before 13.6.2008 which was the last date. However, for the reasons known to the petitioner, the petitioner did not apply. 9. The grievance of the petitioner that the Rule cannot be modified by the respondent No.2, according to us, is without any merits. No doubt, Rule adversely affecting the petitioner cannot be modified but the relaxation of any condition of the admissions in favour of the petitioner can always be granted and in that regard the petitioner cannot make any grievance. 10. Therefore what we find is that there is no merit in the petition. The petition deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. We find that the petition is filed by a student and therefore we refrain ourselves from imposing any cost on the :7: petitioner. (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)