45wp563.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.563 of 2010 (Karan Hemant Asrani and Ors. vs. The Mah. University of Health Sciences and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 04/05/2010. Heard Mr. A. A. Naik, Adv. for petitioners, Mr.S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.S.Manohar, Adv. for respondent no.2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have secured admission in B.D.S. Part I course in respondent no.2/College for the academic Session 2009-10 on the basis of their marks obtained in 12th Std. examination. The short question which falls for our consideration is whether admission to B.D.S. College given to the petitioners on the basis of marks obtained at 12th Std., without appearing in the Common Entrance Test conducted either by the State or by Private Institution is valid. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, it is nodoubt true that, in the normal course, the admissions to the professional course in the State of Maharashtra are made on the basis of inter- se merits of the students those who appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted either by the State or by the Institutions. 45wp563.10.odt 2 . It is contended that similar situation/question arose before the Rajasthan High Court. However, though the Rajasthan High Court, on the basis of decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka {2003 (3) SCC 697} as well as P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra {2005(6) SCC 537} held that the seats are required to be filled in on the basis of Common Entrance Test conducted by either State or the Educational Institutions; however, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition against the said decisions and the Supreme Court vide order dt. 18.9.2009 issued notices and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in the meantime. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, since the Apex Court has directed to maintain status-quo, which, in fact would mean that grant of admission to the professional colleges given on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in their 12th Std. examination without appearing in the Common Entrance Test conducted either by the State or Educational Institution at this stage cannot be said to be invalid till such time the matter is heard by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination provisionally, which may be made subject to either result of the petition or decision of the Apex Court. Mr.S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has submitted that the law declared by the Supreme Court on this subject is loud and clear and which shows that the only procedure to grant admission to the students in the professional college is through Common Entrance Test conducted by the concerned State or by Educational Institutions. It is 45wp563.10.odt 3 . submitted that, in the instant case, the petitioners appeared in the Common Entrance Test; however, they could not secure merit as required and therefore, were not given admission to the professional colleges. It is further contended that the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is also based on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (cited supra) as well as decision in P.A.Inamdar's case (cited supra) and it is specifically held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Director, Gitanjali Medical College vs. State and Others, Special Appeal No.257 of 2009 and Others (the date of Judgment is 3.9.2009) that the student/candidate can be given admission in the professional colleges only on the basis of their inter-se merit secured in the Common Entrance Test conducted either by State or by the Educational Institutions. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that, in such a situation, permitting the students to appear even provisionally will not be in the larger interest of students those who have appeared in the Common Entrance Test for the concerned year and given admission on the basis thereof. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the decision of the Rajasthan High Court as well as the observations made by the Apex Court in the Islamic Academy of Education (cited supra) as well as P.A.Inamdar's case, which are re-produced in the decision of the Rajasthan High Court. In view of law declared by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in the said cases, the legal situation which emerges is that the valid procedure to grant admission by the Institution to the professional colleges can be only on the basis of merit secured by the Candidates in the Common Entrance Test held either by 45wp563.10.odt 4 . the State or by the Educational Institutions. The law declared by the Apex Court on the subject was considered by the Rajasthan High Court and has reiterated the same law in unequivocal terms. It is nodoubt true that, against the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dt. 3.9.2009 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The order of status-quo, in our view, would not affect validity of the law declared by the Apex Court vide Article 141 in case of Islamic Academy of Education (cited supra) as well as P.A.Inamdar's case, which clearly prohibits grant of admission in the professional colleges except via Common Entrance Test conducted either by the State or by the Educational Institutions. If that is so, we are of the view that the request made by the petitioners to permit them to appear provisionally in the examination cannot be granted. Similarly, the petitioners appeared in the Common Entrance Test, however, they did not get admission on the basis thereof. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is disposed of. Certified Copy is expedited. JUDGE JUDGE jais