1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7558 OF 2009 Dhananjay s/o Pralhadrao Solanke, R/o-Malwata, Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School & Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Director, Maharashtra State Education Research and Training Council, Pune-30, 3) The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune-1, 4) The Principal, D. Education College, Tamsa Road, Hadgaon, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.C.V. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri.A.R. Nikam Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner after passing S.S.C. examination, claims to have joined D.Ed. Course of two years in Respondent No.4 Institution. He joined the First Year Course started in the academic year 2001-2002 and claimed to have passed the same Course on 15th May, 2003. In the Second Year of the D.Ed. Course the Petitioner appeared but failed in one subject. 3. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner suffered paralytic attack, therefore he could not appear in the remaining successive two examinations, which were held by the Authorities concerned. The Petitioner thereafter, in the year 2009 asked for permission to appear in the examination in the remaining 3 subject, which was denied, therefore the Petitioner approached this Court. 4. Shri. Nikam, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 placed reliance on the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.3. It is contended in the reply that the Petitioner was admitted for the D.Ed. Course in the academic year 2001-2002. The Petitioner appeared for the Ist year D.Ed. Course examination held in the month of October/November, 2002. The result of the said examination was declared somewhere in the month of February, 2003, but the Petitioner could not succeed in the said examination and he was declared failed in some subjects. Thereafter the Petitioner appeared for the said subjects of Ist year D.Ed. in the examination held in the month of April/May 2003 and he succeeded in the said subjects and declared pass in the Ist year D.Ed. examination by the Respondent. The Petitioner was admitted for IInd year D.Ed. course for the academic year 2003-2004. It is contended by the 4 deponent that the Petitioner was admitted for IInd year D.Ed. Course in the academic year 2003-2004 and accordingly he appeared for the IInd year D.Ed. Course examination held in the month of October/November 2004. The result of the examination was declared somewhere in the month of February, 2005. The Petitioner was declared failed in one subject i.e. History, Civics and Administration. The examination for the repeater candidate was held in the month of April/May 2005, the petitioner again appeared by availing his second chance. Though deponent had made this statement, learned counsel for both the sides states that the Petitioner did not appear and avail of second and third chance available in the month of April/May 2005 and September/October 2005. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner suffered paralytic attack after the third chance was over. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was 5 appearing earlier in the old Course, which is abandoned now and therefore the examination cannot be re-conducted for the old Course for the benefit of the Petitioner. 6. We find substance in the contentions of the Respondent. We do not find any good ground for Petitioner for not appearing in two successive examinations in the subject which he failed. The Petitioner's plea that he suffered paralytic attack and therefore he could not appear in the examination, is also not convincing one. However, the counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner is entitled to appear for fresh course right from the beginning, in case the admission authority admit the Petitioner for the said course. The Petitioner has not made out any case for interference in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV10/wp7558.09