WP/453/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2011 BAHUJAN SAMAJ PRABODHAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA KOTUL V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS ... Shri R.D.Bhalerao, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri V.D.Godbharale, AGP respondents 1,3,5 and 6 and Shri S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. Dated : March 8, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, who is present in the Court, does not press prayer clauses (B) and (D) in the petition and addressed the Court for the relief in terms of prayer (C) in the petition. The prayer (C) reads thus : "(C) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director, Maharashtra State Council of Education Research and Training, Pune be directed to consider the representation / request application dt.18.12.2010 filed by petitioner before them in accordance to law as well as in itsp roper perspectives, as early as possible and within the stipulated period of time (Exhibit -E)." 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is an unaided minority institute, WP/453/2011 2 which is authorised to admit students of their own and need not depend upon the Centralized Admission Process. Keeping this in view, we have perused the representation dated 18.12.2010. In the representation, the petitioner has made a grievance that they are not getting sufficient number of students for D.Ed. course. They have also made a reference to 291 institutions, which, according to the petitioner, are unauthorised. They have stated that the Government allot students to these institutions and that seems to be one of the reasons why the petitioner - institute do not get sufficient number of students for the D.Ed. course run by them. 4. We find absolutely no merit in the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. 291 institutions, which are referred to in their representation dated 18.12.2010, are not before the Court. It would not be possible for us to assume that those institutions are unauthorised. In view thereof, we asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner are prepared to add them as party respondents in the present writ petition. On instructions from his client, he replied in negative. Moreover there is no such prayer in the writ petition. Therefore, it is not possible for us to examine whether 291 institutions, which are referred to in the representation are bogus / unauthorised and whether the Government allot the students to them through the Centralized Admission Process. That apart, as observed earlier, the petitioner being unaided minority institute, they need not depend upon the Centralized Admission Process. 5. The Government has considered the representation dated WP/453/2011 3 18.12.2010 and vide letter dated 13.1.2011, informed the petitioner institute that the minimum marks prescribed for admission to D.Ed. course can not be relaxed since it is based on the norms laid down by National Council for Teacher Education. They have also stated that there is an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by 291 institutions, perhaps the same institutions to which reference is made in the representation dated 18.10.2010, whereby the Government is directed to allot students in the Centralized Admission Process to those institutions. 6. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) J. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) ... akl