1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.626/2011 ( Poonam Ramesh Rewatkar ..Vs.. Director of Technical Education & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.M. Sudame, Adv. for petitioner. Smt. B.H. Dangre, Addl.G.P. for State. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.P. BHANGALE JJ. DATE : 1 4. 2.2 011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.G.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of Clause 2.4 of the Schedule for MHT-CET 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has applied for admission to 1st year B.E. Course for the academic session 2010 – 2011. The said Clause of the Schedule requires a candidate to secure minimum 50 % marks in subjects English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (General Category Candidate) whereas 45 % marks if the candidate belongs to Backward Class Category. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner 2 belongs to the Backward Class Category and did not secure 45 % marks and therefore, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the action of the respondent is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the instant case there is no dispute that pursuant to the MHT-CET 2010 Schedule, the petitioner applied for admission to 1st year B.E. Course for the academic session 2010 – 2011. The petitioner was well aware about Clause 2.4 in the said Schedule and in spite of that applied for the admission. Since the petitioner failed to secure the requisite percentage of marks i.e. 45 %, the petitioner has the grievance in respect of Clause 2.4 of the Schedule. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is impermissible for the petitioner to take a chance and since he is not selected, to question the procedure of selection. In these circumstances, we do not propose to show any indulgence in the matter. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.