- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4166/2009 Smt.Shubhangi Pundlikrao Rathod. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.U. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent – State. Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & R.K. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE: 06.07.2009 PER COURT: This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - 2 - “(B) To quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 16.3.2009 (Exhibit K) and direct the respondent no.2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to appear for examination of First Year Postal D.Ed. Course which is going to be conducted in May, 2009 and same attempt be considered as valid by issuing the appropriate writ, orders, or directions as the case may be; (C) To direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to give all the details about qualification, gradation passing in examination and of disqualification, or about the valid attempts in Information Brochure which is mandatory on the part of respondents by issuing the appropriate writ, orders or directions as the case may be; (D) To direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to appear for First Year Postal D.Ed. Examination going to be conducted in May, 2009, as she has already completed the training course pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition by way of interim relief.” It appears that the petitioner had obtained admission for postal D.Ed. For the academic year 2004-05. The petitioner, however, for reasons which are not germane for the decision of this petition, could not complete her postal D.Ed. The petitioner thereafter on 3.3.2009 submitted an application for admission to postal D.Ed. Course, which was to be conducted in May, 2009. The respondents, by their communication dated 16.3.2009, informed the petitioner that since the petitioner had availed 1 + 4 i.e. 5 attempts for passing First Year D.Ed. Postal course, the petitioner was ineligible to be granted admission for the forthcoming examination scheduled to be held in April / May, - 3 - 2009. The aforesaid communication is the subject matter of the present petition. The principal point, which is urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the rules, which were brought into existence subsequently could not have been made retrospectively applicable to the admission of the petitioner, which was of the year 2004-05. According to us, the aforesaid submission of the petitioner is only misconceived. The aforesaid rules dealing with the number of attempts have not been made retrospectively applicable at all. The time when the petitioner submitted her application for admission to postal D.Ed. Course, at that point of time, the petitioner was rendered ineligible by the rules existing and governing the admission to postal D.Ed. Course. Since the petitioner had already availed 1 + 4 chances, the petitioner has been rendered ineligible. There is no retrospectivity being applied to the aforesaid admission. The petitioner can not as of right claim that any subsequent amendment to the rules would not be applicable to the petitioner. In the light of that, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.K. Deshpande,J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c670914