gopi 1 wp-1285-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.348 OF 2011 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.349 OF 2011 Vrushali Shashank Joshi ..Petitioner Vs. Indian Institute ofr Technology, Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.P. Joshi for the petitioner in Writ Petition & for the Applicant in N.M.349 of 2011 and for respondent in N.M. No.348 of 2011. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Ms. Meera Patel with Ms. U.S. Patel i/b. Bhaishanker Kanga & Girdharlal for Respondent No.1-IIT and for applicant in N.M. No.348 of 2011. Dhananjay Athavale and N.R. Prajapati for respondent No.2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. 18 July 2011 PC: While admitting this petition on 4 July 2011 we had briefly noted the rival submissions and by ad-interim order we had also directed respondent No.1-I.I.T., that in case any vacancy arises in M.Tech., in Aerospace Engineering, the same shall not be filled in until further orders. Accordingly, I.I.T., Mumbai has filed Notice of Motion No.348 of 2011 pointing out that 23 vacancies have arisen in Aerospace Engineering on account of reshuffling and that the I.I.T. may be permitted to fill in those vacancies. Respondent No.1 also explained the gopi 2 wp-1285-11.sxw case on merits of the controversy which is the subject matter of this petition. It is pointed out that initially in the year 1975 the I.I.T., had decided to permit candidates completing sections A, B and C of the two professional societies namely Institution of Engineers (India) and the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers to apply for the Post-graduate Programmes in the I.I.T., subject to certain conditions including the following:- “(4) A minimum of at least 2 years’ professional experience preferably in teaching or research institution or an R/D organisation after the completion of sections A and B is recommended as the minimum period of experience, as this may adequately compensate for the lack of laboratory practice.” Thereafter the case of Aeronautical Society of India was considered in 1979 and 1982 and at that time also it was decided to impose same condition. That is why the Senate had recommended the following recommendation on 31 March 1982:- “3.1.1 Recommendation about professional qualifications for admission to the M.Tech. Programme. It was decided that a candidate with the following professional qualifications also be admitted to the M.Tech. Programme in addition to the professional qualification already approved by the Senate. 1. Associate Membership Examination (New Scheme) of the Aeronautical Society of India (A.M.Ae.S.I.) 2. Associate Membership Examination of the Indian Institute of Metals (A.M.I.I.M.) 3. The present requirement of passing of Section C for the candidates who have passed A.M.I.E. or A.I.I.C. be deleted, since it is not now the requirement for A.M.I.E. but requirement for M.I.E. only. gopi 3 wp-1285-11.sxw 4. The candidate must have two years professional Engineering Experience. 5. The candidate must secure minimum 60 percent of marks in each of Sections A and B”. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Counsel for the I.I.T., that Rule 7.1 is the general Rule and Rule 7.2 is the specific Rule which applies to candidates who have passed the Associate Membership Examination conducted by the recognised professional bodies like Aeronautical Society of India. It is, therefore, submitted that Rule 7.2 specifically provides that the candidates must have a minimum of two years professional experience after passing the final examination of qualifying degree. Accordingly, the petitioner who obtained qualification from the Aeronautical Society of India with more than 60% marks is also required to have minimum of two years professional experience after passing the examination conducted by the Aeronautical Society of India. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have such experience as the petitioner passed the examination conducted by the Aeronautical Society of India only recently in January, 2011. 3. In view of the above, it is clear that the I.I.T., has committed no error in taking the view that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the M.Tech., course as the petitioner does not possess two years practical experience. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed. 4. At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner may be ineligible under Rule 7.2, Rule 5.7 provides that when candidates are sponsored by employers, the two years’ of gopi 4 wp-1285-11.sxw relevant professional experience after obtaining First Class in qualifying degree is waived, if a candidate has a valid GATE score in IIT. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does have a valid GATE score and, therefore, if the petitioner is able to secure employment and is sponsored by her employer, the petitioner will be eligible for admission to M.Tech. course in Aeronautical Engineering under Rule 5.7. In view of the above, while permitting the I.I.T., to fill in the vacancies in M. Tech., programme in Aeronautical Engineering, only 22 such vacancies shall be filled in at this stage and one seat shall be kept vacant for a period of 15 days from today so that in case the petitioner secures any employment and the employer is sponsoring the petitioner’s candidature for M.Tech. in Aeronautical Engineering, the petitioner’s case can be considered under Rule 5.7. However, such candidates are not eligible for award of Teaching/Research Assistantship. 5. Subject to the above directions, the petition is disposed of. 6. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Notices of Motion are also disposed of in the above terms and directions. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.