1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3414/2009 Abhishek s/o Kishor Taori Vs. Central Counselling Board All India Engineering Entrance Examination and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. Date of Reserving the order : 29.8. 2009. Date of Pronouncing the order : 31.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the decision of respondent no.1 holding the petitioner to be ineligible for Round Nos.5 and 6 in terms of communication dated 8.8.2009 and further direction against respondent no.1 to conduct Round nos. 5 and 6 and further rounds by taking into account the claims of all the candidates, who had opted for upward improvement of institutes after provisional admissions in Round no.1. The petitioner passed XIIth standard examination held in February 2009 and he appeared in All India Engineering Entrance Examination 2009 (AIEEE-2009) conducted by respondent no.1 and he was placed at No.18516 in open category. 2 The admissions in National Institutes are centralized through respondent no.1 and the Rules have been framed by the Central Government. In Round No.1, the allotments of Institutes are made and the candidates have to report at the nearest admission centre and pay fees of Rs.25,000/- and secure provisional admission. He has to submit option for either up-gradation of institute of better choice or up-gradation of branch of better choice and wait for second, third and fourth rounds. A candidate has to report at the institute so allotted and confirm the admission. The petitioner was allotted Dr. M.G.R. Institute, Chennai in first round. He secured provisional admission on 4.7.2009 by paying fees of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner also submitted option of up-gradation of institute of better choice. In second, third and fourth round there was no up-gradation. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter fifth and sixth rounds have been held in which students who have secured less marks than the petitioner have been admitted and by communication dated 8.8.2009 the petitioner was declared not eligible for Round no.5. According to the petitioner, the admission of the students in fifth and sixth rounds is patently illegal and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission by holding fresh rounds. On behalf of the respondents, reply has been filed. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not report at Dr. M.G. R. Institute, Chennai till 24.7.2009 and as 3 such admission stood automatically cancelled. It is further case of the respondents that since there were vacant seats even after fourth round, fifth round and sixth round available to respondent no.2 Institute have been allotted. According to the respondents, letter dated 22.7.2009 was available on net to all the registered students whose claim for admission was considered in first to fourth rounds for the admission at the end of fourth round. Since the petitioner did not report at Dr. M.G.R. Institute nor submitted his willingness about his better choice in the subsequent rounds, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. We have considered rival submissions and perused record. Rule 4 of the Rules governing admissions to AIEEE-2009 read thus:- “4.REPORTING AT THE ALLOTTED INSTITUTE All the candidates who took provisional admission during first, second and third rounds of seat allotment shall report physically at their allotted Institute during 16th and 24th July 2009. If a candidate fails to report physically at their allotted Institute latest by July 24, 2009, his/her provisional admission shall automatically stand cancelled without any prior notice.” 4 Indisputably, in the present case, the petitioner did not report at Dr. M.G. R. Institute Chennai by 24 th July, 2009 and as such in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules his provisional admission stood cancelled without any notice. It is pertinent to note that there is no challenge thrown to Rule 4 of the Rules by the petitioner. On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Moreover, in terms of the letter available on net, all the registered students whose claim for admission was considered in first round had to submit his/her willingness at the allotted institutes about his higher preferred choice in the subsequent round. This was not done by the petitioner. This being the position the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to be considered in Round nos. 5 and 6 is without any substance. Moreover, as stated by the respondents, vacant seats available at respondent no. 2 Institute have already been allotted in fifth and sixth rounds. Thus, having regard to all these factors, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petition. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the present petition. Hence, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.