{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5365 OF 2009 Sourabh Rajkumar Malu PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5366 OF 2009 Madhav Shivaji Gaikwad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Ram S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioners Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] RESERVED ON : 31st August 2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 7th September 2009 ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. As facts of these writ petitions are identical and common question of law is involved in these petitions, both these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged Government Resolution dated 02.07.2009 and prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to give admissions to the petitioners directly to second year diploma course in civil engineering in Government Polytechnic College, Nanded, as per rules laid down in the brochure of 2009-10. {2} 3. It appears that both the petitioners have passed one year ITI Course in Architect Assistant and got 72.86 and 78.89% marks. Respondent No.2 has issued information Brochure for admissions in Government, Government aided and non aided polytechnic colleges, for the academic year year 2009-10. As per Rule 22 of the said brochure 10% seats of the sanctioned intake are available for direct admissions to second year Diploma Course in Polytechnic Engineering. According to the petitioners, the required educational qualification, for applying from 10% quota, is that the candidate must have passed ITI with 60% marks or HSC technical / vocational with minimum 60% aggregate marks. According to the petitioners, they have submitted their respective admission forms on 17.07.2009 and 14.07.2009 for direct admission in second year diploma course in polytechnic engineering for the academic year 2009-10. It is contended that after scrutinizing the documents, respondent No.4 published a merit list on 24.07.2009. The petitioners stood at serial No.6 and 3 respectively. Both the petitioners were called for admission on 28.07.2009. It appears that both the petitioners were present in the Government Polytechnic College, Nanded. It is contended that during the course interview, respondent No.3 orally informed them that as per GR dated 02.07.2009, which is impugned in the present petitions, the students who have completed two year ITI course are only eligible for admission to direct second year in polytechnic civil engineering. It is alleged that the respondents have completed 1st and 2nd round of admissions on 28.07.2009 and 30.07.2009. Both the petitioners were present on the said dates, however, respondents refused to give admissions to them directly in second year though they stood in the merit list. Therefore, they have filed present petitions challenging the {3} Government Resolution dated 02.07.2009. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Our attention is drawn to Rule 22 from the information brochure published for admission of the year 2009-10, which reads as follows : “22. Direct admission to the Second Year of Post SSC full time Diploma Courses 10% seats of the sanctioned intake are available as over and above the sanctioned intake in all the polytechnics / institutes in state for direct admission to the second year of Post SCC full time Diploma Courses. The required educational qualification for the additional seats in either HSC (Technical / vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45 % marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates) or ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 60% marks. One seat each of the additional intake will be filled by the candidates acquiring either ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 60 % marks. Remaining of the additional intake seats for direct admission to the second year will be filled in by the candidates acquiring HSC (Technical / vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates). Eligibility of the students for specific branches of diploma programmes shall be as per MSBTE guidelines. Any vacant seats available in second year / third semester of post SSC diploma programme may be filled by the students acquiring either HSC (Technical / Vocational) of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education with minimum 50% marks in aggregate (45% marks in aggregate in case of Backward Class category candidates) or ITI with minimum 60% marks or HSC (MCVC) with minimum 50% marks at the end of admission process. {4} Candidate seeking admission against these seats shall apply directly to Principal of the concerned Institute. Separate admission round strictly as per inter-se-merit shall be conducted for admission for these seats and all seats are GENERAL seats.” 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have submitted their admission forms relying on the rule 22, which is silent in respect of condition of duration of ITI course. Hence, condition which is put in GR dated 02.07.2009, that the candidates who have completed two years’ ITI course would only be eligible for direct admission to the second year, is bad in law. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners came to know about the Government Resolution dated 20.07.2009 only when their admission forms came to be refused. Therefore, it is contended that the said resolution is bad in law and hence be quashed and set aside. It is urged to allow the petitions, as prayed for. 7. Per contra, learned AGP drawn our attention to the brochure / rules for admission to direct second year of the post SSC diploma course in Engineering and Technology in Government, Government aided and un-aided polytechnics for the academic year 2007-08. Rule 1.3 (a) of the said rules read as follows : “1.3 Eligibility : To be eligible for admission to Direct Second year of Diploma course in Engg. And Technocracy the candidate should have - (a) passed S.S.C + ITI Course (of minimum 01 year) with minimum 60% marks.” 8. Learned AGP has contended that on bare perusal of this Rule it will be clear that the candidate should hold SSC + ITI course of {5} minimum one year. He has contended that Rule 22 from the information Brochure published for the academic year 2009-10, is silent in respect of duration of the ITI course. He has further contended that whenever there is intention to enroll candidates with one year ITI course, then it is specifically mentioned in the said brochure, however from the brochure published for admission in the academic year 2009-10, this duration criteria is removed. In the premise, the stand taken by the petitioners that the petitioners hold one year ITI course and hence are eligible for admission as per Rule 22, would not stand. It is alternate submission of the learned AGP that the reserved quota for these candidates is 10% and the candidates who were at serial No.1 and 2 in the merit list only covered by this quot and hence are given admission. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the ruling reported in 1995 Supp (1) SSC in the matter of “Gurdeep Singh V/s State of J & K and others”. It is observed in the said judgment that once admission process begins then the rules for admissions shall not be modified, changed or altered. If the rule for admissions are modified, altered or changed after the admission process is commenced then such modification, changes or alteration of rules are bad in law and in such circumstances the entire admission process has to be declared as against the provisions of law. 10. Considering the rival submissions, it is clear that the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2009 is first in time i.e. before the petitioners have submitted their admission forms on 17.07.2009 and 14.07.2009. On this undisputed fact, it cannot be said that the said Government Resolution was passed or Rules for admission were modified {6} after the process for admission commenced and hence, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. Secondly, as the admission process has commenced on the basis of GR dated 02.07.2009, then the said GR would prevail. Considering the Rules of admission for the previous academic year and the rules of admissions for current academic year it is clear that whenever exceptions are make i.e. Rule 1.3 (a), then they are specifically stated in respect of eligibility of the candidates. As this criteria is removed from the subsequent rules for admission of the academic year 2009-10, it cannot be said that the candidates were misguided by rules provided for admission. In the light of that, therefore, we do not find any merit in the petitions, though we have sympathy with the petitioners, and hence both the petitions stand summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5365-09