1 WP.6576.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6576 OF 2011 Master Rahul Ashok Kekan, Minor, Through father, Mr. Ashok Lahanu Kekan ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Sale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.K. Shinde, Spl. Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 for State CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 13th September 2011. P.C. 1. The Petitioner has secured admission to the first year M.B.B.S degree course in Grant Medical College, Mumbai claiming reservation for NT(3)/NT(D). Respondent No.3 has secured admission to the first year M.B.B.S in the first round in Seth G.S. Medical College, Mumbai for a seat reserved for NT(3). 2. The challenge is levelled only on the ground that Respondent No.3 initially mentioned her caste NT (2) in her application for admission and subsequently she was treated as NT(3). The Petitioner has placed reliance on Rules 6.3 in support of the contention that the authority acted illegally in granting admission to him. Rule 6.3 runs thus: “6.3 The candidates desirous of claiming the constitutional and/or specified reservations must have claimed the same in the original application form of MHT-CET 2011, failing which 2 WP.6576.2011.sxw the claim will not be entertained subsequently. A candidate belonging to backward class from Maharashtra State only, is eligible for claiming seat under reserved category. (Refer Annexure-B).” 3. In our view the Petitioner’s contention is misconceived. All that Rule 6.3 contemplates is that in order to claim constitutional and/or specified reservation the candidate must claim the same in the original application form, failing which the claim will not be entertained subsequently. The Respondent No.3 did mention in her application that she was claiming reservation. However merely because there was an error in mentioning her reserved category as NT (2) instead of NT (3), and there is no dispute found with the fact that Respondent No.3 belongs to NT (3) category, we do not find any reason to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and discretion in interfering with the admissions as per rules. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.