FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9452 OF 2011 "Shrikant Namdeo Suryawanshi Vs. The M.S. Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 8TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent finally. 2] Facts in the present case are identical with the facts in W.P. No. 6307 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2009. However, Shri Sonwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court in the latest case of “ Mahatma Gandhi University & another vs. Gis Jose and others” reported in 2008(6) Supreme 469, has held that in so far as irregular admissions are concerned, the same cannot be regularized. 3] The view taken by the Division Bench of this court is taken, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Shri Krishnan Vs. Kurukshetra University”, reported in FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9452 OF 2011 "Shrikant Namdeo Suryawanshi Vs. The M.S. Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 AIR 1976 SC 376. The said view has been taken by 3 Honourable Judges of the Apex Court, whereas, the judgment which is relied upon by the respondents, is delivered by 2 Honourable Judges of the Apex Court. It is a settled principles of law that in case of two conflicting judgments of the Apex Court, this court would be bound to follow that is taken by the larger Bench. Apart from that, it does not appear that the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Shri Krishnan Vs. Kurushetra University”(supra) was brought to the notice of the Bench, which delivered the judgment in the matter of “Mahatma Gandhi University” (cited supra). 4] In view of the law, laid down by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of “Shri Krishnan Vs. Kurukshetra University” relying on which W.P. No. 6307/2009 is allowed, the present petition also deserves to be allowed. 5] Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-