- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4119/2009 Zamiruddin s/o Saifuddin Farooqui & another. ...Petitioners.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for petitioners. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 03.08.2009 PER COURT: 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by - 2 - which the petitioners pray for directing the respondent no.4 to accept the admission forms of the petitioners and the petitioners be permitted to appear for entrance examination scheduled to be held on 28.6.2009. 3] Undisputedly, the petitioners, in response to a notice displayed in local newspaper for admission to M.Pharm. course attempted to submit their admission forms for the entrance examination on 18.6.2009 at about 4-45 p.m. The application forms of the petitioners were not accepted as the forms were not accompanied by the original certificates / documents. According to the petitioners, the petitioners made a representation to the Joint Director of Technical Education, but though the Joint Director had assured the petitioners that he would look into their complaints, their complaints were not addressed to. The petitioners, therefore, accordingly have filed the present petition. 4] The principal challenge in the petition on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no rule directing that the original certificates / documents should be made available at the time of submission of the forms. It is also urged before us that in respect of some other candidates, their forms had been accepted subject to production of certain documents. 5] On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and have also tendered before us a copy of the brochure. Our attention has been invited to a note appended to Rule 4 (h) of the said brochure. The aforesaid note relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition reads as under: “During filling the application form at ARC, candidate must produce all required original documents for verification and in support of substantiating the claims made therein. If a candidate is unable to produce original certificates at the ARC on account of admission - 3 - already secured to some other institution, he / she shall produce a certificate from the head of the institution where he / she has already taken admission indicating that “he / she has been admitted to a particular course in that institution on a particular date and hence original certificates have been retained in that institute (as per annexure IV)”. The candidate shall produce the attested copies of the certificates only attested by the head of the concerned institution.” 6] In the light of the aforesaid requirement that the original documents should be made available at the time of submission of the form, the contention of the petitioners, that there is no provision in the brochure or the rules requiring the production of the original documents, is unsustainable. 7] Next, it is urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the forms of some other candidates had been accepted giving a go-bye to the aforesaid rule or the requirement. The said persons, whose forms have been accepted, are not the respondents before us nor is this petition filed challenging the acceptance of their forms. In any event, irregularity committed in respect of some can not be allowed to perpetuate and no right in respect of commission of an irregularity flows in favour of the petitioners. We are, therefore, not impressed with the aforesaid submission. 8] A last ditch effort was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to urge before us that in the event of seats going unfilled, the respondents be directed to consider the petitioners for admission to M.Pharm. course. Since the petitioners had not appeared for the common entrance test, the petitioners can not be said to be eligible to be considered. - 4 - 9] In the light of that, therefore, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c38092