1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1167 OF 2009 Sandhya D/o Sudnyan Kamble .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & others .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, Counsel for Petitioner Mr. S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 & 2. [ CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. ] DATE : 14 th JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent 2 no. 3 to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination of the remaining subject namely English for D.Ed. course as per the syllabus of the year 1993. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this Petition may briefly be stated thus : After completing her Higher Secondary education, the petitioner sought admission to D.Ed. course for the academic year 2001 – 2002. The petitioner had appeared in the examination and had passed her first year D.Ed. but could not successfully complete the second year D.Ed. course as the petitioner had failed in English. The petitioner had again submitted an application for second year D.Ed. Examination but on account of illness could not attend the examination. The petitioner thereafter again submitted her examination form for the English subject which was conducted in October 2004 but since the petitioner was still not physically fit, she did not appear for the said examination. Thus, the petitioner despite opportunities being available to her, could not complete her second year D.Ed. Examination. The petitioner, therefore, now in the light of the 2004 syllabus which has been introduced for the academic year 2005 – 2006 claims an opportunity of appearing for the D.Ed. Examination. It is also stated that as per the Government Resolution dated 3/2/2007, an 3 opportunity has been provided to those candidates who had been debarred on account of use of unfair means in the D.Ed. Examination. Since the petitioner has not been debarred on account of use of unfair means, the petitioner can not appear under this Government Resolution. 3. The petitioner has already availed number of chances which are permissible to be availed of under the Rules. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had availed the said chances, the petitioner can not be permitted to appear for the D.Ed. Examination again. We have heard Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner with whose assistance we have perused various documents annexed to the petition. We did not find any error in the decision of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner for appearing in the D.Ed. Examination. In the light of that, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ R.K.DESHPANDE ] [ P.V. HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP1167.09 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13