1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7671 OF 2009 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s | orders orders | ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the additional affidavit tendered across the Bar. 2. The challenge in this petition is essentially to the condition accruing in Rule 56.1 which stipulates that the applicants shall pass first professional 2 examination in five attempts or within 3­1/2 years from the date of admission, whichever is earlier. It is admitted position that the petitioners have already exhausted five attempts. The fact that the proposal is pending before the respondent No.2 for relaxation of the said restriction does not take the mater any further. Even the argument of the petitioners that Academic Council in relation to examination for M.B.B.S. has relaxed the said condition by issuing Ordinance, is of no avail to the petitioners. The petitioners are pursuing professional course of B.A.M.S., which is independent of the said course and Academic Council for B.A.M.S. course is the Central Council of Indian Medicine which admittedly has not taken policy decision to relax the condition provided in Rule 56.1. So long as that Rule operates, the request of the petitioners to allow them to submit applications and appear in the 3 ensuing examination cannot be countenanced. Significantly, the validity of the said Rule 56 is not assailed before us. Taking any view of the matter, no interference is warranted. The petition is dismissed. 3. Even though the relief claimed by the petitioners permitting them to appear in the examination will have to be rejected, we hope and trust that the respondent No.2 to take expeditious decision one way or other, on the pending proposal dated 09­06­2008 No. M.U.H.S./XC/8151/2008 for relaxation of limitation regarding number of attempts provided in Rule 56. Needless to observe that if the respondent No. 2 were to act upon the said proposal and relax the condition so as to give benefit to the students similarly placed as that of the petitioners herein, the petitioners may be free to avail of that opportunity. 4 4. The petition is disposed of on the above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) sut/MAR10/wp7671.09