{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6419 OF 2009 Malik Mohd.Shoeb s/o Malik Mohd. Khizar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.G.R.Syed, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondents / State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 1st October 2009 ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Government resolution dated 02.07.2009 and also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to give admission to the petitioner to the second year Diploma in Engineering, directly as per the rules laid down in the information brochure 2009-10. 2. It appears that the petitioner has passed one year ITI Course in Architecture Assistant and has secured more than 60 % marks. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has issued information brochure for admission to Government, Government Aided, Non aided polytechnic colleges for the academic year 2009-10. As per Rule 22 of the said brochure, 10 % seats of the sanctioned intake are {2} available for direct admissions to second year Diploma Course in Polytechnic Engineering. According to the petitioner, the required educational qualification, for applying from 10% quota, is that the candidate must have passed ITI with 60% marks or HSC technical / vocational with minimum 60% aggregate marks. According to the petitioner, he has submitted his admission form for direct admission in second year diploma course in polytechnic engineering for the academic year 2009-10. It is contended that after scrutinizing the documents, respondents No. 3 to 6 published merit lists. The petitioner stood at serial No.17th, 5th and 14th respectively. The petitioner was called for admission. It appears that the petitioner was present in the respondent colleges. It is contended that during the course interview, respondents orally informed him that as per GR dated 02.07.2009, which is impugned in the present petition, the students who have completed two year ITI course are only eligible for admission to direct second year in polytechnic civil engineering. It is alleged that the respondents have completed 1st and 2nd round of admissions. The petitioner was present on the said dates, however, respondents refused to give admissions to him directly in second year though he stood in the merit list. Therefore, he has filed present petitions challenging the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2009. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Our attention is drawn to Rule 22 from the information brochure published for admission of the year 2009-10, which reads as follows : {3} “22. Direct admission to the Second Year of Post SSC full time Diploma Courses 10% seats of the sanctioned intake are available as over and above the sanctioned intake in all the polytechnics / institutes in state for direct admission to the second year of Post SCC full time Diploma Courses. The required educational qualification for the additional seats in either HSC (Technical / vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45 % marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates) or ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 60% marks. One seat each of the additional intake will be filled by the candidates acquiring either ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 60 % marks. Remaining of the additional intake seats for direct admission to the second year will be filled in by the candidates acquiring HSC (Technical / vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates). Eligibility of the students for specific branches of diploma programmes shall be as per MSBTE guidelines. Any vacant seats available in second year / third semester of post SSC diploma programme may be filled by the students acquiring either HSC (Technical / Vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates) or ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 50% marks at the end of admission process. Candidate seeking admission against these seats shall apply directly to Principal of the concerned Institute. Separate admission round strictly as per inter-se-merit shall be conducted for admission for these seats and all seats are GENERAL seats.” 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted his admission forms relying on the rule 22, which is silent in respect of condition of duration of ITI course. Hence, {4} condition which is put in GR dated 02.07.2009, that the candidates who have completed two years’ ITI course would only be eligible for direct admission to the second year, is bad in law. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the Government Resolution dated 20.07.2009 only when his admission form came to be refused. Therefore, it is contended that the said resolution is bad in law and hence be quashed and set aside. It is urged to allow the petitions, as prayed for. 7. Per contra, learned AGP drawn our attention to the brochure / rules for admission to direct second year of the post SSC diploma course in Engineering and Technology in Government, Government aided and un-aided polytechnics for the academic year 2007-08. Rule 1.3 (a) of the said rules read as follows : “1.3 Eligibility : To be eligible for admission to Direct Second year of Diploma course in Engg. And Technocracy the candidate should have - (a) passed S.S.C + ITI Course (of minimum 01 year) with minimum 60% marks.” 8. Learned AGP has contended that on bare perusal of this Rule it will be clear that the candidate should hold SSC + ITI course of minimum one year. He has contended that Rule 22 from the information Brochure published for the academic year 2009-10, is silent in respect of duration of the ITI course. He has further contended that whenever there is intention to enroll candidates with one year ITI course, then it is specifically mentioned in the said brochure, however from the brochure published for admission in the academic year 2009-10, this duration criteria is removed. In the premise, the stand taken by the petitioner {5} that the petitioner holds one year ITI course and hence is eligible for admission as per Rule 22, would not stand. It is alternate submission of the learned AGP that the reserved quota for these candidates is 10% and the candidates who were ahead of the petitioner merit list only covered by this quota and hence are given admission. 9. In our earlier order passed in writ petition No.5365/2009, on 01.09.2009, we have concluded that it is clear that the government resolution dated 02.07.2009 is first in time before the petitioner has submitted his admission form, which fact is not disputed, and hence it cannot be said that the government resolution was passed or rules for admission are modified subsequent to the process of admission was commenced. In the premise, so far as admission process is concerned, the government resolution will prevail. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for considering his representation does not survive. In the result, this writ petition, which is sans merits, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/6419-09