1 WP 3589/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3589 OF 2010 Sagar Namdev Thakar .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.V. Pai for the petitioner. Ms. Deepa Chawan with Ms. Reshmarani J. Nathani and Ms. R.V. Masurekar i/b Little & Co. for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. When this petition was filed, the relief sought was for directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the second year D. Ed. Examinations scheduled to be held on 10th, 20th and 28th April 2010. The petitioner has also raised the issue of validity of Rule 11(2) of the Rules governing admission to the D. Ed. Course. By way of an amendment, the ground in support of challenge to the validity of Rule 11(2) has been elaborately set out. However, in Writ Petition No. 6427 of 2004, the validity of the said Rule has been upheld by a Division Bench 2 WP 3589/10 of this Court and the same issue was again affirmed in the subsequent order dated 29th October 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 6693 and 6694 of 2004. The relevant rule reads thus: “If a candidate fails in few papers then he may give examination of only those subjects again. Such an opportunity will be restricted to two immediately consecutive examinations. However, such a candidate will not get advantage of securing first and second class. If he wants to avail the benefits of a class then he must give entire examinations of all the subjects once again.” 3. If the validity Rule 11(2) has already been upheld by this Court, the challenge raised in this petition and the consequent relief prayed for cannot be gone into at this point of time and we do not see any compelling reason to deviate from the doctrine of stare decisis. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)