1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2010 Shaikh Farheen Bano D/o Shaikh Afzal Age 17 years, Occu. Student, Under Guardian of Shaikh Afzal S/o Shaikh Budhan, Age 39 year, Occu. Business & Agril. R/o Plot No. 32, Mujeeb Colony, Katkat Gate, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Director of Medical Education & Research Mumbai. 2) The Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Panchaki road, Aurangabad. 3) The Principal, Dr. Maulana Azad College, Roza Bagh, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Shaikh Ashpak Taher Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents. ... 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 19th April, 2010. JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the state. 2. The petitioner vide the present petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks directions against respondent Nos.1 & 2 to accept the application of petitioner for MH-CET-2010 (Health Science courses) examination which would be held on 06/05/2010, with further prayer that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be directed to issue Hall Ticket in favour of the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was desirous of appearing in the entrance test of Health Science Course, and as such the petitioner brought a brochure of Medical Education for the purpose of submission of the 3 application form. The last date for submissions of the application form with the respondent No. 3 was 25/03/2010. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not well from 23/03/2010 to 27/03/2010 and could not submit the application form, on or before the stipulated date. The petitioner on 28/03/2010 requested the respondent No. 3 to accept her application form narrating medical reasons, but the application form was not accepted. The petitioner filed an application to the respondent No.3 for consideration of her application. The respondent No. 3 on 01/04/2010 issued letter to the competent authority to consider the said application. But the application form has not been accepted by the competent authority, and as such, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel, for the petitioner strenuously contended that, the petitioner is a student, because of her ill health, the petitioner was prevented from submitting the application form for the MH-CET-2010 before the due date, the learned counsel also relied on the 4 medical certificate produced on record. According to him, being a student a liberal approach may be taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the petitioner is meritorious student having secured good marks in her earlier examinations. The Petitioner would loose one year, if examination form is not accepted. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.G.P., we have gone through the relevant Rules and the documents. The Rules nowhere stipulate that the authorities would be entitled to accept the form, after the due date, there is also no provision of acceptance of form after the due date by paying late fees. When the Rules do not contemplate acceptance of application form after the due date, then in such circumstances, it would be wholly improper on our part to direct the respondents to accept such form after the due date. More over, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner shows that, she was not bed ridden, nor she was admitted as indoor patient. 5 If petitioner was so interested, the petitioner could not have taken efforts for submitting the application form. The petitioner herself was not diligent. In view of aforesaid premise, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed summarily. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] SDM* WP3034.10(J)