1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4133 of 2007 Anand Bhawan Ghule Vs. Mah. University of Health Sciences & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR JJ. Dated: 17 th September, 2008. The petitioner who admittedly took 6 attempts in passing Part I B. A. M. S. has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. After considering the rival contentions as raised we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in view of the specific Rule which is reproduced as under : “(v) Candidate who fails to pass the First Professional 2 examination in three opportunities shall not be allowed to continue their studies. However, in case of personal illness of a serious nature of a candidate and in unavoidable conditions/circumstances the Vice-Chancellor of University may permit on more opportunity for passing the first professional course.” Reply filed by respondent No.1 who is contesting University answering submissions against the petitioner that CCIM is supporting the submissions as raised. These additional submissions are as under: “Additional Submissions: The respondent No.3 CCIM has filed Counter Affidavit in which it has taken a contradictory stand to Rule 8(i) & (v) of Regulations issued by CCIM at Annexure No.R-1 and to their own stand taken in WP 8327/2005 before Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. The Rule 8.1(v) clearly provides that “Candidates who fail to pass the First professional exam in 3 (now 5) opportunities shall not be allowed to continue their studies”. In para 3 of the Judgment dt. 18-4-2007 passed by Aurangabad Bench it is observed by the Hon'ble Division Bench that counsel appearing for University and CCIM have unanimously submitted that 7th attempt is not permissible in case of Petr. As CCIM is not permitting relaxation in such cases. Copy of judgment dated 18-4-2007 passed by Aurangabad Bench dismissing WP 8327/2005 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.R-2. Thus stand of resp. No.3, CCIM, that there is no restriction to Pter. Of number of chances to clear remaining papers of 1st BAMS cannot be accepted as it is contrary to Rule 8(v) of CCIM Regulations as well as contrary to their own stand taken in WP 8327/2005 Before Aurangabad Bench of Bombay 3 High Court.” We are also of the view that in view of clear Rules it is not possible to grant any concession to the petitioner as it concerns the education standard. Respondent University who is competent authority to look after the facet of education cannot be compelled to relax such conditions which in either way cannot be said to be unjust or contrary to any Rule. According to us the Rule speaks for itself. There is no question of any interference and or any clarification on any point of view. A Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 8327 of 2005 after considering the said Rule and submissions of concerned respondents observed in para 6 as under: “We, therefore, find no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This court would not entertain the prayer of the petitioner to allow the petitioner to appear for the seventh attempt to which she is not entitled to. The petition therefore fails and accordingly rejected.” In the facts and circumstances of the case we see that there is no case made out by the petitioner for any relief. Learned counsel 4 appearing for the petitioner pointed out Notification No. 32/03 dated 10.12.2003 and 07.05.2004 issued by respondent No.1 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nasik, whereby the limit of permissible attempt has been relaxed. As we are not concerned with the said Rules as Rules in question in no way gives such relaxation, this Court cannot compel such authorities to relax the conditions. However it is a policy decision and they are free to take appropriate decision. The petition is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE svk