IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2006 Neera Kumari ... Petitioner V/s. Indian Institute of Technology ... Respondent Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore P. Jain with Ms. Sapna Mordekar i/b. Bhaishankar Kanga & Girdharlal for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 02nd May, 2006 : 02nd May, 2006 : 02nd May, 2006 P.C. . The petitioner had joined the respondent in terms of rules in force. Petitioner has completed five courses. The respondent permitted the petitioner to appear even beyond said period on the petitioner giving undertaking. The petitioner though gave her undertaking, however, could not complete the course. When the matter last came up on the board, in view of mark sheet produced on behalf of petitioner, we had adjourned the matter for today. Shri Chintamani Prabhakar Jogalekar has filed affidavit. In the said affidavit, it has been pointed out that in the examinations which were conducted in November, 2005 infact she was not allowed to appear. However, she appeared for the exam purely at her request to the instructor. Therefore, that has not been recognized ( 2 ) by the institution. It is pointed out that petitioner also had not completed the course within the maximum allowed period of six years. 2. Considering the above, in our opinion this would not be a fit case for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition stands disposed of. [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]