srk 1 wp-5919-02.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5919 OF 2002 Naresh Surajaram Mestri ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2002 Snehal Sanjiv Deshpande ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 2002 Gauri Vijaykumar Doijad ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.5917 OF 2002 Nikhil Arvind Nandgaonkar ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents srk 2 wp-5919-02.sxw Ms. Pooja Thorat for the petitioners. Mr. R.P. Behere, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for respondent No.3. Mr. R.S. Nerlekar respondent No.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J. Friday, December 10, 2010 P.C. The petitioners in these petitions were admitted to the 1st year of the Bachelor of Architecture course conducted by respondent-college/s affiliated to Shivaji University at Kolhapur. After the petitioners were admitted to the college, an objection was raised by the Director of Technical Education to the effect that the petitioners were not eligible for admission to First Year B. Arch course because although they had passed 12th standard examination with minimum 50% marks in aggregate and had also passed the said examination with Mathematics and English, they had not obtained 50% marks in individual subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. 2. The petitioners contended that the petitioners were eligible as per the norms laid down by the Council of Architecture and, therefore, the Director of Technical Education or All India Council of Technical Education had no jurisdiction to prescribe different norms. 3. By interim relief, the respondents-authorities were directed to permit the petitioners to pursue their studies on account of the disputes raised by the Director of Technical Education and AICTE. The petitioners' results at the final year of B. Arch. examinations were declared and by the interim orders, the respondent-university has been directed to declare the results of the petitioners' examination at the final year B. Arch. examinations. srk 3 wp-5919-02.sxw 4. The learned counsel for the parties state that during pendency of these petitions, this Court has already held in another group of petitions that the norms prescribed by the Council of Architecture will prevail over the norms prescribed by the AICTE. 5. In view of the above decision of this Court, it is obvious that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the decision of the respondent-university to cancel the admissions granted to the petitioners for F.Y. B. Arch. course on the basis of the objections raised by the Director of Technical Education/ AICTE is quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.