ASN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.785 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1335 OF 2011 Consortium of Management Education(Come) .. Applicants. Vs. Directorate of Technical Education(M.S.) ..Respondents. Mr. L.M.Acharya for Applicants. Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. Friday,1st April, 2011 PC : Heard the learned counsel for applicants and the learned counsel for AICTE. 2 This is an application for modification of our interim order dated 24th February, 2011 in Writ Petition No.1335 of 2011. 3 All that, we have done by the said interim order is:- (i) we have called upon the parties to act in consonance with the principles laid down by Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (2005) 6 SCC 537 particularly, the principles laid down in Paragraphs 136 to 138 thereof, that is, to require all the private unaided institutions in the State running PGDBM Course to conduct common admission process through single window system by holding common ASN 2 group discussions and personal interviews so that the students aspiring to seek admission in such courses are not required to run from pillar to post in order to appear in group discussions and personal interviews which would otherwise be conducted by 50 colleges or more in the State of Maharashtra . Paragraph 21 of our judgment also bears this out. (ii) We have recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner- Association in paragraph 24 of the judgment, in contradistinction to directions given to petitioners in W. P. No.1334 of 2011 in paragraph 27(1) of judgment requiring the petitioners to publish its norms. 4 We cannot now be expected to sit in appeal over our interim directions, given after hearing all the parties before us, which are based on the principles laid down by a Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. 5 As indicated in Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the subsequent decision of a Superior Court does not furnish a ground for review. 6 For the reasons aforesaid, the application is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.