ASN 1 WP-8876.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8876 OF 2010 Mr. Khan Farooque Ahmed Munir Ahmed. ..Petitioner. Vs. Guardian College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.A.Mirza along with Riyaz Ahemd for the Petitioner. Mr. Dhanraj K.S.Rathore for Respondent aNo.1. Mr. S.B.Shetye for Respondent No.2. Mr.V.D.Patil, Government Pleader for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2010. PC : The petitioner herein secured admission to the first year B.D.S. course in respondent No.1-College. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had applied only in open category and that the words “OBC” were subsequently inserted into the application form by respondent No.1-College in order to make the petitioner eligible for the first year B.D.S. Course. 2 One of the eligibility criteria for the admission is that the student must secure 50% marks at the time of college examination, if the student is taking admission in open category and; for other categories the requisite percentage was 40%. The petitioner had obtained 49% marks and he was therefore, not eligible for admission in open category. It appears that the petitioner was granted admission in OBC category by ASN 2 WP-8876.sxw respondent No.1 College. There is some controversy between the petitioner-student and respondent No.1-College under which particular category the petitioner has taken admission. We are not required to go into the merits of the controversy. If the petitioner is to be treated as a candidate in the open category, the petitioner ought to have obtained atleast 50% marks in the college examination which the petitioner has admittedly not secured. On the other hand, if the petitioner is to be treated as a candidate belonging to the OBC category, the petitioner ought to have produced a caste certificate before the College and the University. The petitioner has not done so. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned action taken by respondent No.2-Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik in not declaring the petitioner’s result of the first year B.D.S. course examination which was held in 2009-10. The petition is therefore, dismissed. 2 It is however, clarified that if the petitioner takes out any proceeding for recovery/refund of the fees paid by the petitioner to the college, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner. CHIEF JUSTICE S. J. KATHAWALLA , J.