Dmt 1 wp8606-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8606 OF 2011 Sharmila Laxman Dake. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Mr. Sameer N. Patil, AGP for Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 21 October 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner was admitted in July 2000 to the Revised General Nursing and Midwifery Course at Sassoon Dmt 2 wp8606-11 General Hospital, Pune. The Petitioner completed the Course in July 2002. The Petitioner thereafter completed the B.Sc. Nursing Course and was appointed as a Staff Nurse at the J.J. Hospital on 15 August 2006. The Petitioner continues to be in service. The Petitioner applied for admission to the M.Sc. Nursing Course in the Institute of Nursing Education. A provisional merit list was displayed on 23 September 2011 in which the Petitioner was shown at Serial No. 5. The final merit list was displayed on 29 September 2011 where the name of the Petitioner was deleted. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 30 September 2011 and instituted these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings in which it has been stated that as per the rules of admission to the M.Sc. Nursing Course, the Petitioner was eligible for admission. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been in continuous service as a Staff Nurse at the J.J. Hospital from 15 August 2006. A certificate of experience dated Dmt 3 wp8606-11 16 September 2011 is annexed to the Petition. The ground for denial of admission however is that under the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules 1985 more particularly Rule 80 (2), study leave can be granted to a government servant for a training course only after a minimum of five years service. In the ’ present case, it is stated that the Petitioner has not completed five years of service on the date of the filing of the admission form. 3. We find merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on the date on which the admission form was submitted the Petitioner had completed five years of service. The Schedule for admissions shows that distribution of admission forms was to take place from 14 September 2011. The Petitioner did fill in her admission form on that date. The Rules for Admission stipulate that the candidate for admission must have completed five years on 31 July 2011. However, as a matter of fact, the admission process was initiated with the distribution of admission forms on 3 September 2011. The Dmt 4 wp8606-11 affidavit in reply also proceeds on the basis that the completion of five years would be related to the date on which admission form was filled. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner had five years service as on that date having regard to the certificate of experience which is annexed at Exhibit D to the Petition. In that view of the matter, the ground “ ” on which the admission has been denied is patently fallacious. The provisional list also shows that the Petitioner had a gap between first and second year. This ground however has not been pressed in the affidavit in reply and correctly so since that is not a requirement of eligibility. The Petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 5 of the provisional merit list. We are of the view that the ends of justice would require a direction that the case of the petitioner for admission should be considered strictly on the basis of her position in the merit list and the Petitioner would not be denied admission on the ground that she had not completed five years service. As we have noted earlier, the Petitioner had, as a matter of fact, fulfilled that condition. The case of the Petitioner for admission shall Dmt 5 wp8606-11 accordingly be processed in terms of the aforesaid directions strictly in order of merit. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that there are two existing vacancies. In the event that no candidate in the merit list higher than the Petitioner is available then admission should be granted to the Petitioner. 4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)