1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1546 OF 2009 Dr.Layeeq-ur-Rehman S/o. Mazhar Ali Khan, Age 43 years, Occupation-Doctor, R/o.36, Professors’ Colony, Himayat Bagh, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Raj Educational and Charitable Trust, Through, President Mr.Abdul Hussain 2. Dr.Murtuza Fida Ali, Chairman, Stepping Stones High School, 3. Mrs.Insiya Hussain, Managing Director, Stepping Stones High School, 4. Mrs.Naseem Rahim, Executive Director, Stepping Stones High School, 5. Mr.Kunwar Deepak Singh, Principal, Stepping Stones High School All C/o.Stepping Stones High School, Gut No.48/8, Harsul-Jalgaon Road, Savangi, Aurangabad. 6. The Union of India, (Deleted) 2 Through Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Kazi, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.S.D.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 5. Respondent no.6 is deleted as per order dated 04/05/2009. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 27/07/2009 PER COURT : 1. Shri.S.S.Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks oral leave to amend the petit ion for joining the Raj Educational and Charitable Trust, Aurangabad as a respondent to the petition. We grant leave. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Shri.Joshi accepts notice on behalf of the newly added Trust. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard for admission. 2. The two daughters of the petitioner had appeared for a written examination on 18/01/2009, and thereafter for an interview for admission to pre-primary i.e. 1st standard. The petitioner who was desirous of admitting his two daughters in the said school waited for a considerable long time and thereafter approached the Management only to learn that the admission was denied to his daughters on account of their performance in the written examination. The 3 petitioner therefore has filed the present petition. Shri.Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the pattern of the written examination, which was set for such tender aged students was beyond the capacity of the students as the students were called upon to write an essay. It is also urged before us that no merit list was displayed and consequently the petitioner was unable to discern the number of marks obtained by his daughters and their relative standard in the merits. It appears that this Court has issued notice and called upon the respondents to produce the relevant record. The relevant record has been produced before us. 3. Shri.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents has urged before us that 120 students were to be admitted for the pre-primary 1st standard class. There were about 215 applicants. In the light of the applicants being more than the number of seats available, a written examination was conducted. The pattern of the written examination as has been pointed out to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the essay writing is misnomer as the candidates were not called upon to right an essay. What they were called upon to do, is to complete the sentence in which certain words were missing. In respect of non displaying the merit list, it is urged by Shri.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner that no provision mandates that a merit list be declared. However, all the relevant files have been made available for our perusal. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents, we have perused some of the answer sheets of the students, who had appeared for the said written examination. The list 4 of students displaying the total marks obtained by them is also available for our perusal. The first file contains list of students from Sr.No.1 to 60. The second file contains list of students from Sr.No.61 to 120. The third file contains list of students from Sr.No.121 to 160 and the 4th file contains list of students from Sr.No.161 to 215. We have perused the answer sheets and have cross checked the marks obtained by some of the candidates. We do not find any irregularity in the conduct of the aforesaid examination. We therefore do not find that interference is warranted in this petition. Unfortunate, it may seem that the daughters of the petitioner have not been granted admission, but this is on account of their relative merit. In the circumstances, therefore we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp1546-09