1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5634 OF 2009 Deep s/o Vilas Lahamge .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary to Agricultural Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 & ors. .. Respondents Shri S.T.Shelke, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri S.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 7th October 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition by the petitioner – student praying for issuance of a writ for declaring that the spot admission process conducted by respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal and without any legal sanctity and also prays for quashing and setting aside the admission of the respondent No.3 in B.Sc.(Agri) course which has commenced from July 2009 onwards and to grant admission to the petitioner. 2 2. We need not advert to the other factual aspects of the case as suffice it to say that the petitioner who had appeared for the entrance test and accordingly had submitted his form for admission could not secure admission in the first four rounds conducted by the respondents. The process of admission was clearly displayed not only in the brochure but on the website. The fourth round ended on 4.8.2009. The note appended to the prospectus reads thus : “ All the vacancies created by various reasons after Fourth round of admission will be filled in upto 14/08/2009 by the concerned Colleges from the Final Merit list published by MKCL Pune.” A circular accordingly came to be issued on 3.8.2009 in respect of commencement of the spot admission from 10th August 2009 onwards. All this material was displayed on the website and was easily available for any diligent student desirous of seeking admission. It appears that as a gesture on the part of the respondents, the respondents had sent a SMS (Short Messaging Service) to the petitioner informing him to check the college wise and category wise vacancies on website and report to the desired college for spot admission round on 11.8.2009 at 10.00 a.m. The 3 aforesaid message was received by the petitioner at 14:35:45 seconds from MKCL on 10.8.2009. According to the petitioner, since he was not keeping good health and was admitted in the hospital on account of diarrhea, the petitioner informed his father and thereafter on the next day proceeded for Pune and reached the College at Pune at 10.00 a.m. on 11.8.2009. The petitiioner, for the reasons which are not disclosed harboured impression that it would be sufficient to attend any of the College of university and accordingly, reported at Pune College but he was informed that there was no vacancy at Pune College and that he should proceed to Kolhapur College. The petitioner could not report at the Kolhapur College during the office hours and consequently, the third respondent was granted admission even though she was lower in merit. On next day, i.e. on 12th August 2009, the petitioner submitted various representations but those representations were not considered. Shri S.T.Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the MKCL ought not to have sent SMS but ought to have displayed this information in the local newspaper as sending of SMS is not contemplated in the rules. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 very candidly submitted that displaying the information in a local newspaper was also not contemplated. According to us, MKCL on its part has taken care of at least sending SMS to the candidates so as to enable the candidate to report to the college for spot 4 admission. Since the petitioner was desirous of seeking admission, it was obligatory on his part to keep watch on the website too. However, by virtue of said SMS, the petitioner ought to have proceeded to that College. The petitioner instead of proceeding to the College at Kolhapur whiled away time at Pune College where he was informed that there was no vacancy. The petitioner was not at all been diligent though the respondents had informed him to report to College at Kolhapur and seek his admission there. The petitioner cannot, therefore, turn round and question the same. Even otherwise, the spot admission process is as per the prospectus and we do not find any arbitrariness in the conduct of the spot admission. Shri Shelke contends that the spot admission was to be completed upto 18.8.2009 but the respondents have commenced and completed the spot admission process on 11.8.2009. The aforesaid submission is without any basis as the information in respect of the spot admissions which were to be completed upto 18.8.2009 and the commencement date i.e. 10th August 2009 was displayed by publishing a Circular dated 3.8.2009 on the website. On the website, the vacancies and the names of the colleges were displayed. Had the petitioner been a little diligent, the petitioner would have immediately rushed to the said College for seeking admission. Lastly, it was urged before us by Shri Shelke that six vacancies are available and the petitioner may be 5 accommodated in any of the vacancies available. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 pointed out that none of the vacancies pertain to NT (d) category and, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he be accommodated on the said vacant seat. As pointed out by us above, the petitioner was not diligent and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim admission. 3. After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/5634.2009wp)