{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5333 OF 2009 Mamta Yadavrao mahajan Khandesh Kanya Smita Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya Waghli Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Maharashtra State Educational Research & Training Council, Pune, Through its Director 2. The Deputy Director of Education Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Principal Khandesh Kanya Smita Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Waghli Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.P.B.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 2nd September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 29.06.2009 issued by respondent No.3 canceling admission of the petitioner for D.Ed. First year course. The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 30.03.2009 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to continue the admission of the petitioner for first year D.Ed. and allow her to appear for the examination, which would commence in August / September 2009. 3. It appears that the petitioner had passed her 10th and 12th standard examinations from the institutes situated in Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter the petitioner, on account of her marriage, shifted to the State of Maharashtra and accordingly claims that the domicile certificate has been issued to her by the competent authority on 07.02.2009. The petitioner applied for admission to the D.Ed. course and came to be admitted to the first year D.Ed. course conducted by the third respondent. After the petitioner was granted admission in respondent No.3 institute, the petitioner began to regularly attend the classes and completed her terms for {3} the academic year 2008-09. By the impugned order, the admission of the petitioner came to be canceled. The institute, respondent No.3, submitted a detailed representation to the respondents pointing out as to how the petitioner is eligible. We are informed that the aforesaid representation is pending consideration. 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in replies pointing out that by virtue of Rules 6.1 and 8.2, the petitioner is ineligible to be granted admission to first year D.Ed. course. However, since the representation is pending and as request is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.3 that directions be issued to the respondents for deciding the representation, we are inclined to allow this petition to the extent indicated above. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the said representation within a period of four weeks from today. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the examination is scheduled to commence from 8th September 2009. Since the petitioner has completed her terms and there is no other objection for permitting the petitioner to appear for the examination, the petitioner be permitted to appear for the examination subject to the decision of the respondents in respect of the representation of the respondent management. It is also urged before us that in the even the representation is decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner stands to loose one full {4} academic year and, therefore, would be prejudiced. We see considerable merit in the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to appear for the examination, if the petitioner is eligible in respect of attendance etc. on certain conditions. We direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination and further direct that the result of the petitioner be declared subject to the decision arrived at by the respondents in respect of the representation, which is pending consideration. The petitioner shall not claim any equities in law in the even the representation is decided against the petitioner. We direct that in the event the respondents hold that the petitioner is eligible to be granted admission to the first year D.Ed. then the respondents shall declare the result of the petitioner and permit her to prosecute second year D.Ed. course, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5333-09