{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5758 OF 2009 Shri Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kharwandi, Tq-Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar Yamunabai Kurhe B.Ed. College, Wadala Bahiroba Tq-Newasa Dist-Ahmednagar, Trhough its Secretary, Gorakshnath Vishwanath Kurhe Age-38 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Kharwandi, Tq-Newasa Dist-Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Vice Chancellor, Pune University, Pune 3. The Director of Higher Education Central Building, Pune RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent / State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 8th October 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that no objection certificate be deemed to be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the proposal of the petitioner has not been decided within four months. The petitioner, vide prayer clause “C” has also prayed that the respondents No.3 and 4 be directed to allot students from CET to the petitioner institution for B.Ed. course for academic year 2009-10 in view of the recognition order issued by the NCTE. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, states that the students are alloted to the petitioner and hence the relief as prayed for in terms of prayer clause “C” to the petition does not survive and accordingly he states that the petitioner does not want to press the said relief at prayer clause “C” to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed so far as prayer clause “C” to the petition is concerned. 3. Considering that a very limited relief is sought for by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to hear this petition finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copies of judgments rendered by the Division Bench in Writ {3} petition No.5033/2009, Writ Petition No.5262/2009 and writ petition No.5283/2009. Both of us are parties to the said judgments. The said judgments are rendered based on the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, at its Principal Seat in group of Writ Petition No.5884/2009 along with others. It was informed to us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the challenge and issue involved in the said judgment and challenge and issue involved in the present petition are identical and same. In the premise, we do not feel it appropriate to deal with the factual aspects of the present petition however on the basis of the statements made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the copies of the judgments placed on record, the petition ought to be allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” to the petition. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B” to the petition with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5758-09