(1) wp7839-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7839 OF 2011 Monali d/o Dilip Nagargoje, Age : 18 years, Occu. Education, R/o Police Head Quarter, House No.126, Mill Corner, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Medical Education & Research, St. George's Hospital Compound, Near CST Railway Station, Mumbai 3. The Dean, Nair Dental College, Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 4. Sinhgad Dental College & Hospital, Wadgaon Budruk, Pune, through its Dean RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr. Sandeep Patil, advocate for Respondent No. 3. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, advocate for Respondent No. 4. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2011 (2) wp7839-11 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petition arises out of certain peculiar facts. The petitioner who has passed her H.S.C. Examination, was seeking an admission to B.D.S. course in the Centralized Admission Process conducted by Respondent No. 2. In the Admission Process, the petitioner was initially selected for admission to B.D.S. Course in MIDSR Dental College, Latur in the second round of admissions held on 29th July, 2011. The petitioner immediately joined the said College at Latur. In the third round of admission, held on 13th September, 2011, she was given a choice of the Respondent No. 4 College. Accordingly, she was admitted in the said College on 20th September, 2011. 3. It is not in dispute that as per the brochure, issued by Respondent No. 2, the cut-off date of admission was 30th September, 2011. The Respondent No. 2 had notified the last round of admissions on 30th September, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. The candidates were supposed to join their respective (3) wp7839-11 colleges by 30th September, 2011 upto 11.30 p.m. In the said round, names of about 36 candidates were notified for admission. The petitioner's name was notified for Respondent No. 3 College. It is the contention of the petitioner that she received a telephonic call from the office of Respondent No. 2 at around 6.30 p.m. regarding her selection in the Respondent No. 3 college. Since the office of Respondent No. 4 College had already closed, the petitioner applied for cancellation of her admission and return of original papers on 1st October, 2011 and after cancelling her admission, applied to the Respondent No. 3 College for admission. However, Respondent No. 3 refused to admit the petitioner as the cut-off date for admission was already over. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that as per the brochure, no student can be admitted after the cut-off date i.e. 30th September, 2011. The learned counsel relies on (4) wp7839-11 the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of "Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v. Union of India and others", reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 666, in support of the proposition that if a student does not take admission prior to cut-off date, the seat can go vacant, but a candidate should not be admitted after the time-schedule as prescribed is over. 5. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, submits that after the petitioner's selection in Respondent No. 3 College, she has cancelled her admission and in her place, some other candidate has already been admitted. 6. Un-disputedly, the petitioner is a meritorious student. On account of her merits, she has been admitted in Respondent No. 3 College, which is also undisputedly a better college than Respondent No. 4 College. In order to avail of a better opportunity, the petitioner has cancelled her admission in Respondent No. 4 College. However, it appears that on account of genuine difficulties, the petitioner could not present herself before the Respondent No. 3 College on 30th September, 2011 (5) wp7839-11 prior to 11.30 p.m. and according to her, had gone to Respondent No. 3 College on 1st October, 2011. 7. No doubt that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 on the judgement of the Apex Court in case of "Mridul Dhar" (supra), is well placed. Undisputedly, in the said case, the Apex Court has held that time-schedule for completion of admission process has to be strictly adhered. However, the observations of the Apex Court in that judgement were with respect to the allegations that the time-schedule was not strictly adhered to by the State Colleges and Institutions in order to see to it that more number of seats were reverted to the State quota. Such is not the case here. One seat with the Respondent No. 3 College which was earmarked by Respondent No. 2 for the petitioner is available. It is also not that as if the petitioner will have to face difficulty in completing the course inasmuch as she is undergoing her studies right from 29th July, 2011. 8. In that view of the matter and considering (6) wp7839-11 the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. We find that if the petition is not allowed, apart from the petitioner's valuable career, who is undisputedly a meritorious student, being jeopardised, one seat would lie vacant in Respondent No. 3 College. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. However, we make it clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule is made absolute accordingly. 10. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar, be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, at their request. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp7839-11