( 1 ) wp1217.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2011 Sangita d/o. Shrikant Fulzalke .. Petitioner Versus The Divisional Secondary & Higher .. Respondent Secondary Board, Latur Division, Latur Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATED : 18.02.2011 ORDER [PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with a prayer to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner’s H.S.C. examinations form for the ensuing examinations to be held in February/March, 2011 and to permit the petitioner to appear for the said examinations. 2. Shri Rodge, learned Counsel for the petitioner ( 2 ) wp1217.11 submitted that the petitioner initially had appeared for the 12th standard examinations in the month of March, 2010. The petitioner had secured 45% marks. Thereafter, with a view to improve her percentage of marks, the petitioner again appeared for 12th standard examinations in October, 2010. But, as she was not well during the said period, the petitioner could not get good marks. Thereafter, again with a view to improve her performance, the petitioner approached the respondent and requested them to accept her examination form for the 12th standard examinations to be held in February/March 2011. As the respondent has refused, the petitioner had no other alternative than to file the present writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the future career of the petitioner is based on the marks obtained in the 12th standard examinations. According to the learned Counsel, there is no impediment to allow the petitioner to appear for February/March, 2011 examinations. As the petitioner was not well during the period when she had appeared for October, 2010 examinations, the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to improve her performance. ( 3 ) wp1217.11 3. Per contra, Shri Sonwalkar, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that earlier there was no provision to appear for the same examinations again after having passed the same, but the Board had come out with a new scheme i.e. “Class Improvement Scheme”, which is approved by the Government on 28th May, 2008. As per the said scheme, student is entitled to appear for the same examinations again to improve his/her performance, but that facility is available only once. As the petitioner has already appeared for the second time, the petitioner now does not have right to appear for the same examinations for the third time. 4. We have perused the said “Class Improvement Scheme”. The factual matrix is not disputed. The petitioner had initially appeared for the 12th standard examinations in March, 2010 and had passed securing 45% marks. Thereafter, with a view to improve her performance, she had again appeared in October, 2010 examinations and now the petitioner wants to appear for the same examinations for the third time in March, 2011. The said “Class Improvement Scheme” gives an ( 4 ) wp1217.11 opportunity to the student to improve his/her performance only once and that too in immediate succeeding examination. The petitioner has already availed said opportunity. When neither scheme nor rule permits the petitioner to appear for third time, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right. When the rules do not permit, in that circumstances, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to appear for the third time. 5. In light of the above, we do not feel it appropriate to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition, as such, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] snk/2011/FEB11/wp1217.11