ASN 1 WP-5338.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5338 OF 2011 Miss. Rutuja Ramesh Jambhale. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R.B. Jagtap along with Mr. P. D. Pise and D.R.More and Ms.Archana P. Pise for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Behere, Addl. G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. 15 July 2011 PC: In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for relief to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for first year MBBS course under reserved category status as OBC. 2 Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. 3 Rule 6.3 of the MHT-CET 2011 Information Brochure reads as under :- “6.3-The candidates desirous of claiming the constitutional and/or specified reservations must have claimed the same in the original application form of MHT-CET 2011, failing which the claim will not be ASN 2 WP-5338.sxw entertained subsequently. A candidate belonging to backward class from Maharashtra state only, is eligible for claiming seat under reserved category (refer Annexure-B)” . 4 Admittedly, the petitioner did not disclose in her original application form of MHT-CET 2011 that she belongs to an OBC category. In fact, the petitioner did not even obtain any Caste Certificate till 4 July 2011. It is only when the petitioner went to submit the Preference Form on 5 July 2011, she produced the Caste Certificate dated 4 July 2011. Hence, the respondent authority did not accept the petitioner’s claim as belonging to OBC category on the basis of the aforesaid Rule 6.3. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eligibility of candidate is to be determined considering the last date of submission of Preference Form. The cut off date for submission of Preference Form was 12 July 2011. The petitioner has submitted that since she was not permitted to submit the Preference Form along with the Caste Certificate and therefore the petitioner has to submit the Preference Form as general candidate on 12 July 2011 which was the cut off date. Reliance is therefore placed on Rule 4.12 which reads as under:- “4.12 Cut off date for the eligibility : The eligibility of the candidate shall be determined and/or decided for all purposes including for applicability of all these ASN 3 WP-5338.sxw Rules and Regulations by considering the last date of submission of Preference Form as the cut off date. It is made abundantly clear that if a candidate is found ineligible as on the last date of submission of preference form, in terms of these Rules and Regulations, and if such an ineligible candidate acquires the requisite eligibility after the aforesaid cut off date (i. e. The last date of submission of preference form), such subsequent acquisition of eligibility will not make an ineligible candidate eligible for any purpose whatsoever, much less for the purpose of admission”. 6 Mr. Behere, learned Additional Government Pleader has opposed the petition and submitted that though the eligibility of the candidate has to be determined for all purposes including for applicability of all the Rules and Regulations by considering the last date of submission of Preference Form as the cut off date; in the present matter Rule 6.3 is applicable, which prohibits the authorities from entertaining claim of constitutional and/or specified reservation which is not claimed in the original application form of MHT-CET 2011. It is submitted that there may be many other candidates who may not have claimed the constitutional or specified reservation in the original application form and they could have subsequently obtained the caste certificate. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner or her father or any other family member had obtained any Caste Certificate which was validated by Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, even if the petitioner’s form is to be accepted, and if the petitioner secures admission to health science course, the ASN 4 WP-5338.sxw petitioner will have to be permitted to thereafter prosecute her studies without obtaining Caste Validity certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. As against this, there would be many eligible OBC candidates who would have duly procured caste certificates and submitted original application form of MHT-CET 2011 claiming the status of OBC candidate and one of them would be denied admission to Health Sciences course while allowing the petitioner to secure admission to one such course on the basis of OBC Caste Certificate without having any validity certificate from the caste scrutiny committee. It is also further submitted by Mr. Behere that it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner hails from family having no educational background or parents who may not be in a position to advise their wards to obtain such caste certificate. The petitioner’s father who has affirmed the affidavit in support of the petition is Dr. Ramesh Sakharam Jambhale, aged 45 years. It is submitted that the petitioner hails from very well educated family and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court may not give any direction requiring the authorities to make departure from Rule 6.3 which is in mandatory terms and specifically enjoins the authorities not to accept the claim of caste which is not made in the original form of MHT-CET-2011. 7 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is clear that the petitioner did not claim any constitutional right in the original application form of MHT-CET-2011 and for the first time the petitioner obtained the caste certificate on 4 July 2011 after declaration of the ASN 5 WP-5338.sxw result of MHT-CET examination on 16 June 2011 when the mark sheet was issued in her favour indicating that she is in the merit list at Sr. No. 1484 with total 162 out of the total marks of the MHT-CET. This is not a fit case to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction. 8 This Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.