1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1775 OF 2010 Nilima Eknath Khairnar ...Petitioner Versus K.B.H.S.S. Institute of Pharmacy & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.P.B.Shah for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, G.P. for State/Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that although the Petitioner has secured more than first class in aggregate in the examination of Diploma in Pharmacy conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, has been denied admission to the Second Year Degree Course. The basis on which the Authorities have denied continuation of direct admission to Second Year Degree Course is on the ground that the Petitioner does not possess necessary educational qualification. In other words, the Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for such admission. 2 The relevant eligibility clause can be found in the brochure Exhibit E. Clause 2.1 thereof provides for educational qualification, which requires that the candidate should have passed in First Class/First Class with condonation, post H.S.C. Diploma Course in Pharmacy (as per ER-91 Regulation of PCI) from an Institution Approved by AICTE and of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education (MSBTE). Admittedly, the Petitioner made first attempt in the Final Year Diploma in Pharmacy Course in the examination conducted in Summer 2008. In that examination, the Petitioner failed in two subjects, although secured aggregate 644 marks out of 1000 marks. Resultantly, the Board declared the Petitioner as failed. The Petitioner made second attempt for the Final Year Diploma in Pharmacy Course in Winter 2008 only for the two subjects in which he had failed in his first attempt. In the second attempt, the Petitioner passed the said two subjects and the aggregate marks of all the subjects passed in the first attempt and the two subjects in the second attempt are 681 out of 1000 marks. Nevertheless, the Board has notified the Petitioner as having assigned “Pass Class” only and not as having secured First Class. Going by the eligibility clause which will have to be read along with Regulation 15, it is more than clear that to treat the candidate having secured First Class, the candidate must secure 60% marks or above in aggregate in all subjects in a 3 “single attempt” at the Diploma in Pharmacy (Part-I) or Diploma in Pharmacy (Part-II) examinations. Admittedly, the Petitioner does not possess 60% marks in all the subjects in a single attempt but has secured 681 marks out of 1000 in aggregate in two times. Thus understood, the Petitioner was ineligible in terms of the educational qualification provided for direct admission to Second Year Degree Course. 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to order passed by this Court dated 30th September 2008 in Writ Petition No.6058/2008. In that case, the Court rejected the argument of the State that the Petitioner was ineligible, as he had not passed the Diploma in first attempt. In the present case, the argument of the Respondents is not that the Petitioner has not passed the Diploma examination in the first attempt. But it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not secured 60% marks in aggregate in all subjects in “single attempt” at the Diploma Course, which is the requirement under Regulation 15 r/w the eligibility Clause at Page 17 Exhibit E. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner would then argue that the Petitioner was granted admission to direct Second Year Degree Course by the Competent Authority after due verification of all the documents. The 4 Petitioner has already spent six months in pursuing the said course, for which reason also, the Petitioner should be allowed to continue the said course. Although we may express full sympathy with the Petitioner, the fact remains that the Petitioner is not eligible for getting admission to direct Second Year Degree Course. The fact that the Competent Authority overlooked the mandatory eligibility Clause and granted admission to the Petitioner, does not take the matter any further. Obviously, the Authorities are bound by the regulations which require that 60% marks or above in aggregate in all subjects should have been secured in the single attempt at the Diploma in Pharmacy examination. That qualification is lacking in the present case. Accordingly, we find no merits in this Petition. Dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)