IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7853 OF 2010 Jagdish s/o Shriram Tekale, age 19 years, occ. Education, r/o Shamsadan Tekale Niwas, Manjarsumba Road Patoda, Tq. Patoda, District Beed ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2 The Registrar, The Maharashtra Health University, Nashik, District Nashik, 3 The Competent Authority, Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges in Maharashtra, Shreeji House, 75 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 ...RESPONDENTS. ----- Shri R.S.Deshmukh h/f Shri R.D.Sanap, advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Shri K.D.Bade Patil, advocate for respondent no.2 Shri V.D.Salunke, advocate for respondent no.3 ----- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 1st September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. (2) 2 By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that respondent no.3 be directed to decide the representation dated 8.7.2010 accepted on 17.8.2010 by respondent no.3 for allowing addition in the preference form made by the petitioner for admission to M.B.B.S. course as per merit of the petitioner. 3 It is the contention of the petitioner that he has completed his H.S.C. examination from Aurangabad Board of Education and has secured 81.33 per cent marks in the said examination. It is also the contention of the petitioner that since he desires to take admission for M.B.B.S. course, he appeared for CET examination conducted by respondent no.3 and scored 165 marks out of 200. It is also the case of the petitioner that the first round of admission had already been over on 18.7.2010 and second round has also been completed on 12.8.2010. 4 However, it is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of filling up of the form, petitioner has given preferences of only five colleges in preference form; whereas actually he was required to give preferences of 11 colleges. Hence, due to non- disclosure of 11 colleges in the preference form, the petitioner was under the apprehension that the petitioner would not get admission for M.B.B.S. course. In the said context, the petitioner submits that the said mistake occurred due to lack of knowledge and inadvertence and same is not intentional. (3) 5 Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that after getting the knowledge of the said fact, the petitioner made representation to respondent no.3 and requested to allow the petitioner to submit another preference form mentioning 11 colleges therein. The petitioner also states that initially respondent no.3 refused to accept the said representation, but ultimately on 17.8.2010 the said representation came to be accepted by respondent no.3. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that till today neither the said representation has been decided, nor any action has been taken thereon, nor any communication has been made by respondent no.3 in that respect to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not allowed to take admission for M.B.B.S. examination, he would lose an important year of his life. 6 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7 Shri V.D.Salunke, learned counsel for respondent no.3 invited our attention to information brochure, which is produced at Exh. 'B' (page 13) and more particularly, instructions for filling up the preference form, and submitted that the said instructions are explicitly clear and it is submitted that in view of the said instructions, more particularly clause 11 thereof, it is the fault of the petitioner to give preference of only 5 colleges in the preference form, which is produced at page 33, and therefore, learned counsel submitted that there is no substance in the representation submitted by the petitioner herein and consequently same cannot be (4) considered. 8 In view of the above referred instructions for filling up the preference form, more particularly, clause 11 thereof in the information brochure, produced at Exh. 'B', it is apparent that the preference form filled up by the petitioner, which is produced on page 33, has been filled up incorrectly for the reasons best known to the petitioner, and therefore, there is no substance in the present petition and same is devoid of any merits. 9 In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to interfere in the matter, and hence, present petition deserves to be rejected. 10 In the result, present petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ R.S.MOHITE, J.] dbm/wp7853.10