1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2008 (Arjun Lalit Kumar Rawal .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 13TH AUGUST, 2008 Heard Shri Anand Parchure, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. B.H. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Shri Atul Khadse, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is seeking admission in first year of MBBS course for academic session 2008-2009 from D-3 (Defence Category). It is submitted that the petitioner appeared for MH CET examination and has secured 120 marks in the said examination. It is contended that total number of seats for D-3 category were three. Out of those seats, one seat was reserved for women. It is stated that as per merit list, one Anand Vickey has secured 179 marks and, therefore, was given admission in open category at GMC, Nagpur. It is submitted that one Aindrila Mishra secured 122 marks and she being a 2 woman candidate should have accommodated against one seat out of three seats, which was reserved for woman candidate. If the respondent No.1 would have done that, in that case, the petitioner who has secured 120 marks, could have got the seat at VNGMC, Yavatmal. However, it is contended that since the respondent No.1 allotted seat at VNGMC, Yavatmal to Aindrila Mishra and since the other seat which was reserved for woman category, the petitioner lost his claim for admission. Smt. B.H. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the respondent No.1 has strictly followed the procedure applicable in this regard. It is contended that there were three seats reserved for D-3 category, out of which, two were open and one was reserved for women category. It is further contended that as per the merit list, Mr. Vickey who was at serial No.1 and Miss Aindrial Mishra at serial No.2, both were given the seats. The third seat which was reserved for women category, hence petitioner was not eligible, being male candidate, same was given to the next woman candidate in the merit list i.e. the respondent No.3. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, which are not in dispute, we are of the view that the procedure followed by the respondent No.1 in granting 3 admission to the candidates, is just and proper and is sustained in law. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.