VBC 1 wp8048.11-30.9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8048 OF 2011 Ms.Priyanka D.Bamane. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.Ulhas G.Kerkar with Mr.Victor K.Fernandes for the Petitioner. Mr.R.P.Behere, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. September 30, 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner belongs to NT-1 category. The Petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State Government, MHT-CET 2011 for the M.B.B.S. Degree Course. During the course of the last Academic Year, the Petitioner had initially sought admission to a private Medical College. She was denied admission by the Ahmednagar Medical College in preference to a less meritorious candidate. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 9 June 2011 held that the Petitioner had been wrongly deprived of the seat. However, since admissions had already been completed, the Court awarded VBC 2 wp8048.11-30.9 exemplary costs in the amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is presently pursing the B.D.S. Course. 2. In the present round of admissions, the Petitioner secured 91 marks out of 200 in the Common Entrance Test. The Petitioner ranks 20,462 in the State wise merit list. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the authorities have not abided by Clause 2.4 of the Brochure relating to admissions to the Health Science Courses. Clause 2.4 reads as follows: “2.4 Reserved Category Candidates - “Ear- Marking”: Reserve category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of merit in an open category seat will have the option of taking admission either against his/her respective category seat or on an open category seat. If he/she opts for the reserved category he/she will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as reserve category candidate. One seat in the college where he/she was eligible for admission against open seat shall be earmarked for a candidate belonging to the respective reserved category. Such earmarked seat will be made available immediately to the successive reserve category candidate from the same category merit during the counselling.” 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that students belonging to NT-1 category, though they are meritorious enough to obtain VBC 3 wp8048.11-30.9 admission in the open category are being wrongly treated as candidates admitted against the reserved category thereby resulting in a loss of a seat to other candidates in the reserved category concerned. 4. This Petition has been instituted on 29 September 2011 and was taken up for admission on an urgent basis today. 30 September 2011 is the cut off date beyond which no admission can be granted. Having regard to the paucity of time, we have permitted the Learned Additional G.P. to file a statement signed by Dr.A.S.Vyas, Officer on Special Duty in the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (the Second Respondent). The statement which has been handed over to the Court shows the last candidate admitted in NT-1 category which is tabulated hereinbelow: Region Last Admitted Candidate Merit No. Marks Rest of Maharashtra 4893 137 Marathwada 4231 141 Vidarbha 5263 135 VBC 4 wp8048.11-30.9 In the Open Category, the last candidate admitted for the rest of Maharashtra is at a merit list position of 944 and for Marathwada and Vidarbha respectively of 978 and 1501. As regards the grievance of the Petitioner, it has been pointed out to the Court that as a matter of fact on 10 July 2011, preference forms for NT-1 students were required to be filled in. Thereafter, the State wise list was notified and printed on 19 July 2011. Dr.Vyas has, on the basis of the list, demonstrated to the Court that there is no basis in the grievance of the Petitioner. For instance, it has been shown that at Sr.No.30 of the list is a candidate belonging to NT-1 Category who has been given a seat against the open merit seat. Consequently, one seat for the reserved category was earmarked. Against the name of the candidate, there is an endorsement “EMD” which is an abbreviation for “Ear-Marking Donor”. 5. We are not inclined to entertain this petition which has been filed on the eve of the closure of the entire admissions’ process. The list upon which the Petitioner placed reliance was notified on 19 July 2011. The Competent Authority notified a drop out seat round on 29 September 2011 for any vacant seat in VBC 5 wp8048.11-30.9 the M.B.B.S. or B.D.S. Course in Government and Corporation run Medical Colleges and for the Dental Colleges. The selection list has to be declared before 30 September 2011 by 3 p.m. and the last date for joining Colleges is 30 September 2011 upto 11.30 p.m. Even if we would have found any substance in the petition, it would not be possible to grant any relief, since this would amount to virtually undoing the entire process of admission at this late stage. Counsel urged before the Court that this Court should keep one seat vacant to be filled in subsequently if the grievance of the Petitioner is found to have substance. Having regard to the fact that today is the cut off date beyond which no further admission could be granted, we are not inclined to entertain this request. 6. For the above reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The Petition is accordingly rejected. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A. A. Sayed, J.) VBC 6 wp8048.11-30.9