1 wp785.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.785 OF 2011 KJ Akshay Suryabhan Udar & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. Pune University & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr. Chetan Patil for the petitioners. Mr.Girish Kulkarni @ Swati Deshmukh i/by Mrs.M.G.Kulkarni for respondent nos.1 to 3. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 24/3/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 Considering the averments made in paragraph no.5 of the petition, we are in agreement with the submission made by the Counsel for the respondent-university that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief claimed in this petition. Besides, we find 2 wp785.11.sxw force in the submission canvassed on behalf of the university that the Circular (Exh.B) which has been pressed in to service was issued in the peculiar facts to accomodate students only during the academic year 2006-2007. 3 Counsel for the petitioners however, relies on covering note of the Circular which mentions that “decision referred in the circular will come into force from the academic year 2006-2007”. He further contends that it was obligatory on the part of the university to enforce the said circular even for subsequent academic years. We find no merits in this submission essentially in view of the clear stand taken by the university in paragraph-5 of the reply affidavit. Petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that even one student in the subsequent academic years 2007-2008 onwards has been given benefit of the Circular No.311 of 2006. 4 In the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners will have to be merely stated to be rejected. We also agree with the 3 wp785.11.sxw Counsel for the respondents that purpose of issuing circular is to provide for scheme of equivalence of 1st and 2nd year B.Pharmacy (old sylabus) and not to introduce scheme of ATKT as is sought to be contended by the petitioners. Counsel for the university has placed reliance on paragraph-7 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448. 5 Taking any view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)