1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5031 OF 2009 Dr.Pradip Babanrao Jopale ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b.M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1 Mrs.Chandana Salgaonkar-Radia, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr.K.Y.Mandlik, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, Advocate, for respondent No.4 CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . The subject matter of the above Writ Petition is the seat in the MD (Paediatric) in respondent No.4  College for the current Academic session. The said College is a member of respondent No.2  the Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2  Association came out with the provisional list of the seats 2 available for post graduation in various Colleges. In so far as respondent No.4  College is concerned, the seat of MD (Paediatrics) with which we are concerned in the present Writ Petition was provisionally earmarked for Other Backward Class candidate. The said provisional list was finalised and on such finalisation the said seat i.e. MD (Paediatrics) came to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. As per the Programme for admissions announced by respondent No.2, it entailed two rounds of admission i.e. the first and the second. It is undisputed position that the students, who were alloted seats in the 2nd round were to report to the College till 28th May, 2009. It would also be relevant at this stage to quote Rule 15.10 of the Rules which govern admissions. The said Rule reads thus :- Any seat remaining vacant after the Second round of admission will be filled-in by the respective Colleges by inviting applications from the Eligible candidates by giving advertisement in news papers. 3 2. Pursuant to the admission process, in the second round of the said admission process thereof one Ms.Anisha Valavi was granted admission to the said seat of MD (Paediatrics) which is meant for the Scheduled Tribe. The said Ms.Anisha Valavi admission, as a consequence of which on the application of Rule 15.10 the said seat reverted to the Management to be filled by it by inviting applications from the eligible candidates by giving an advertisement in the News Papers. Accordingly, the Management advertised the said seat. Pursuant to which respondent No.5 herein, who belongs to Open Category was admitted as per the merit of the applicants. It would also be significant to note that the cut off date for admission fixed by respondent No.2 was 31st May, 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the admission of the respondent No.5 on the ground that on the application of Rule 15.10, the candidate next on merit i.e.the petitioner herein 4 should have been admitted. According to the learned counsel even if the seat reverts to Management, and the management is permitted to fill up the seat by publishing an advertisement in the News Papers then the management can fill the said seats by inviting applications from only the eligible candidates belonging to the same category i.e. Scheduled Tribe and therefore, opening the seat for all is not permissible. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4 submitted that the interpretation of the petitioner of the said Rule 15.10 is not a correct interpretation, as once the seat reverts back to the management, the management is obliged to offer the seat to all the eligible candidates and not confronted to only the Scheduled Tribe candidates. The learned counsel further submitted that accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner would amount to this Court legislating and reading something in the 5 Rule which is not there. 5. We have considered the rival contentions, as also considered Rule 15.10. It would be pertinent to note that insofar as admission to Post Graduation is concerned, which is conducted by respondent No.2 the rounds are restricted to only two rounds and after the second round, if the seat remains vacant then Rule 15.10 comes into play. The said Rule as reproduced herein above postulates that if the seat remains vacant after the second round it reverts back to the Management to be filled in by it amongst eligible candidates by inviting applications. The Rules as reproduced in the advertisement spell out the eligibility criteria. In our view, an eligible candidate would be one, who is eligible under the said Rules and not restricted to the Scheduled Tribe candidates. Since the said seat reverts back to the Management on account of it being vacant restricted meaning to the said word eligible in the said Rule, in our 6 view cannot be given. In our view, accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the word eligible in the said Rule should be read as meaning the eligible candidates from the Scheduled Tribe would amount to reading something in the Rule which does not exist and thereby legislating which is impermissible. The Rule should be construed as it is. The action of the Management in inviting the applications from all the eligible candidates, in our view, therefore cannot be faulted as also the admission of the respondent No.5, who has been admitted on merits from the eligible applicants, who applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the management. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances we do not find any merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. ) 7