1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5377 of 2010. Miss.Vaishali Krishnasingh Thakur ..vs.. Rashtrasant Tudkoji Maharaj University and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.B.K.Pal Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for the respondents. C ORAM : V. C. DAGA AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 18th November, 2010. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on Rule 10 of the Ordinance No.6 of 2010 to counter the claim set-up by the petitioner, which reads as under - “10. The facility of provisional admission will be restricted to one preceding qualifying examination (yearly pattern course) and two preceding qualifying semester examination (semester pattern course). In the even the candidate has additional backlog of earlier 2 year or semesters then such a candidate would not be eligible for provisional admission in any event.” In view of the Rule 10 reproduced above, the petitioner has no case. No writ directing the University to commit breach of above rule can be issued. The reliance placed in the case of Ganesh R.Baheti ..vs.. University of Pune and anr. reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J.140 is also misplaced. The said decision has no application in the facts of the present case. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 3