(1) wp2398-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2011 Abhijit Ramesh Shinde PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Ramchandra S. Patil, advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. A.R. Nikam, advocate for respondent No. 3. .... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 24th MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER M.T. JOSHI, J.): 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 2. The petitioner has filed present petition in person. Thereupon, Mr. R.S. Patil, advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to help the petitioner. (2) wp2398-11 3. The petitioner is appearing for the 12th standard examination. His case in short is as under : When the examination for the paper of `Hindi' subject was scheduled to be held on 26th February, 2011, he was unable to appear for the same due to his illness from 25th February, 2011 to 27th February, 2011. Thereafter, on 18th March, 2011, he submitted an application to respondent No. 3 that he may be allowed to appear to the another optional subject/language i.e. `Sanskrit'. On 23rd March, 2011, he visited the Examination Centre for the purpose of attending examination of `Sanskrit' paper. At that time, he was, however, returned by the concerned Authority at the Centre, stating that he cannot be allowed to appear for `Sanskrit' paper. In the circumstances, the petitioner has, by the present petition, prayed that the respondent authorities may be directed to re-conduct his examination for the second/optional subject/language i.e. either `Sanskrit' or `Hindi' by issuing appropriate writ. 4. The petitioner relied on Appendix-"B", (3) wp2398-11 issued by the Board, which shows that if a wrong subject is shown in the admission card, then the candidate may be permitted to appear for the correct subject by filling in the said Appendix-"B" (which is an Undertaking by a student) at the Examination Centre. Further, for some special reasons, the subject from Science faculty can be changed to the Arts and Commerce faculties. 5. In the present case, however, the examinations are already over. The petitioner does not claim that in the admission card, wrong subject is shown or that the entire faculty and subjects are changed. Moreover, the examination, according to the petitioner himself, is over and, therefore, he seeks a special re-conduct of the examination, which cannot be granted. The copy of Secondary School Certificate, annexed to the writ petition (page 11) does not show that the petitioner had taken `Sanskrit' as second/optional subject in 10th standard. There is nothing on record to show that in the 12th standard also, he has studied said subject of `Sanskrit' and is prepared for the (4) wp2398-11 examination of that subject. Thus, we do not find any special reason in the present case so as to direct the respondents for re-conduct of the petitioner' examination of the subject either of `Sanskrit' or `Hindi'. 6. In the result, the petition is summarily dismissed. Before parting with this order, however, we record our appreciation for the pains undertaken by Mr. R.S. Patil, advocate, the Amicus Curiae in conducting the present proceedings on behalf of the petitioner. As Mr. R.S. Patil, advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae, he be paid remuneration as permissible and in accordance with the fees payable under the Legal Aid Scheme and as per Legal Services Authorities Act and Rules. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp2398-11