1 wp3486.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3486 OF 2011 Vd. Sarika Indal Rathod & ors. .. Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents. Mrs. P. U. Badadare i/b. Rashmi Gangwani, advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. R.V. Govilkar, advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH GODBOLE, J 1 August 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioners were granted admission to the first year Post Graduate course in Ayurved in colleges affiliated to the respondent No. 2 Maharashtra University of Health Science. The petitioners were not being permitted to appear in the examination which was held in May-June 2011 for the first year on the ground that the petitioners were granted admission in the said course in November- December, 2010 beyond cut off date i.e. 31 October 2010 fixed by the respondent No. 6 Central Council of Indian Medicine “AYUSH” New Delhi and respondent No. 2 Maharashtra University of Health Science of Nashik. 2 wp3486.11 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that many of the petitioners were admitted on 3 November 2010 i.e. just 3 days after the cut off date and some students are admitted in December 2010. It is submitted that since the delay in the admission process was on account of the time taken by the respondent authorities and no delay was attributable to the petitioners, the petitioners ought not be punished for such delay on the part of the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that this Court by interim order dated 27 May 2011 had directed the respondent University to permit the petitioners to appear at the first year examination and therefore also the petitioners’ results should be declared and they should be permitted to prosecute further studies on the basis of such results. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent University and learned GP have opposed the petition and have submitted that the petitioners cannot be said to have studied for one year in the first year course on the strength of admission secured in the month of November and December 2010 by which time the first term of the first year course was already over. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 6 Central Council of Indian Medicine “AYUSH” has fixed cut off date as 31 October 2010 and the 3 wp3486.11 respondent No. 2 University and Directorate of Ayurved had no authority to extend such cut off date. 4. Respondent No. 6 Central Council of Indian Medicine “AYUSH” which is shown to have been served by private service is not represented before us. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find considerable substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondent University and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Directorate of Ayurved states that cut off date of 31 October 2010 having been stipulated by the respondent No. 6, the petitioners could not have been granted admission to the first year post graduation degree course in the month of November or December 2010. In fact, the proposal of the Director of Ayurved to extend cut off date from 31 October 2010 till 30 November 2010 was subsequently turned down by the University and even then the Director of Ayurved extended the cut off date initially up 30 November 2010 and thereafter again up till 31 December 2010. The learned Government Pleader states that the Director of Ayurved have no such authority. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the petitioners’ grievance against the decision of the respondent 4 wp3486.11 University not to permit the petitioners to appear in the first year examination held in June 2011 but we do record the statement made by the learned counsel for the University on the basis of communication dated 18 March 2011 to the Dean/Principal/Director from the Controller of Examinations indicating that the petitioners will be eligible to appear for the first year examination to be held in November-December 2011. 7. Subject to recording the above statement on the basis of the above letter dated 18 March 2011 of the Controller of Examination, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, we dismiss the petition. 8. In so far as the petitioners’ prayer for direction against the respondent University for permitting them to appear in the examination held in May-June 2011, in view of this decision, it is obvious that the results of the examination in which the petitioners appeared pursuant to the interim order dated 27/5/2011 of this Court shall not be declared. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH GODBOLE, J