-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9347 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9347 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9347 OF 2007 Ms. Vaishali Sonku Mahala .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. The Director, M.S.C.E.R.T. & others .. Respondents. --- Smt. Aarti P. Bhide for the Petitioner. Mr.V.A. Sonpal, AGP for the Respondents 1,2 & 5. Mr.H.V.Kode for the Respondents 3 and 4. --- CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the admission given by the respondent No.1 to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the D.Ed. course. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is common ground that the prospectus were issued and admissions were to be given as per the merit list submitted by the authority of the Union Territory. A copy of the merit list sent by the Union Territory is -: 2 :- at Exh.‘B’ to the petition. If one goes by that merit list, it appears that the petitioner’s name is in the priority list and she is at serial No.4 ; whereas the respondent Nos.3 & 4 do not have any priority. Therefore, it does prima facie appear that the petitioner was wrongly denied the admission. In our opinion, if the admissions were to be given as per the merit list sent by the Union Territory then the respondent No.1 should have gone strictly according to that list. It appears that the admissions were given in October, 2007. Considerable time has also passed. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been persuing the course for about last 5 to 6 months. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion following order would meet the ends of justice. 4. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 5th of May, 2008. The respondent No.1 thereafter shall consider the entitlement of the petitioner for admission before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and if the respondent No.1 finds that as per the rule, the petitioner is entitled to admission, he shall be given admission. Thereafter, the Director will consider the question of displacing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 or one of them. The Director at that time shall also take into consideration -: 3 :- whether it is possible to continue both the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 considering that they have put in about six months in the course. If the Director finds that it is possible to retain respondent Nos. 3 and 4, after giving admission to the petitioner, the Director may do so. . Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order issued by the Registry. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) .....