3. WP 5698-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 2011 Miss. Binal Manoj Naik Since Minor through her Father Shri. Manoj @ Manojkumar Ishverlal Naik .. Petitioner Vs Union of Territory of Daman & Diu & Ors .. Respondents Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Petitioner Mr. Girish Kulkarni a/w Swati Deshmukh & Hrishikesh Amembal i/b Shri Shailya S. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 Mrs. Teja Katdare for Respondent No. 3 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & GIRISH GODBOLE, J. DATE : 1 AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who has recently passed Higher Secondary Certificate (Science stream) Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education has challenged the final merit list dated 7 June 2011 published by Selection Committee of respondent no. 2 – The Directorate of Technical Education, Union Territory of Daman and Diu, in so far as name of respondent no. 3 is included in the list at Sr. No. 1. 1 3. WP 5698-11.doc 2. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that the name of respondent no. 3 is shown at Sr. No. 1 in CBSE-PCB- COMMON Merit List for Medical Courses and the name of present petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 2. It is further stated that in view of the number of seats available in CBSE-PCB-COMMON quota, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner as the petitioner will also secure admission to the Medical course on the strength of his merit. It is further stated that as far as the merit list for admission to Engineering courses is concerned, in the said list also, respondent no. 3 is shown at Sr No. 1 and the Petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 3 and that adequate number of seats are available and therefore the petitioner will also be able to secure admission to Engineering Courses. 3. In view of aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and go into the merits of challenge to the eligibility of respondent no. 3. The petition is accordingly disposed of. [ CHIEF JUSTICE ] [ GIRISH GODBOLE, J ] 2 3. WP 5698-11.doc 3